PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SOURCE CONTROL REMEDY FOR
NEAL'S LANDFILL
near Bloomington, Indiana,
by U.S. EPA,
December 1998
February 1, 1999
TO:
Derrick Kimbrough, Community Involvement Coordinator,
Office of Public Affairs, Region V U.S. EPA (9-19J), 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604
FROM:
Sarah Elizabeth Frey, 2625 South Smith Road, Bloomington,Indiana
47401
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Proposed changes to the source control remedy by U.S. EPAfor
Neal's Landfill constitutes a drastic change to the Consent Decree
(CD) filed in Federal court, Southern District, Indiana, in August
1985, requiring that Superfund Sites of Monroe County and City
of Bloomington (MC/CB) be excavated to background level.
EPAs preferred Alternative 4 of its new plan requires excavation
and removal of "hot spots" greater than 500 ppm PCBs
off-site to an approved landfill. Areas testing below 500 ppm
PCBs would be consolidated and moved towards the center of the
site, reducing the current 18-acres to 10 acres which would be
subsequently capped. Capacitors recovered would be incinerated.
For cost purposes EPA has estimated for alternative 4 at 20,000
cubic yards to be disposed of off-site, although 41,000 acres
around the contour lines of the hot spots will be tested and
if soil is contaminated greater than 500 ppm it too will be removed
off-site.
To even suggest that alternatives 2, 3, and 4, "meet
thecriteria of being protective of public health and the environment"
is outrageous. Number 5 is the only alternative which relates
in any way to the Consent Decree and only to the extent that
the 18 acres of Neal landfill currently estimated at 320,000
cubic yards would be excavated, although limited to industrial
cleanup level standard of 25 ppm on average rather than background
level.
The Consent Decree (CD) was forged behind closed doors in
1984 and what that meant to the public in the years that followed
is essential to understanding what preferred alternative 4 in
the proposed plan means today to the public.Simply that W/CBS
would be getting -an easy way out by incomplete excavation of
Neal's Landfill, the estimate being $16 million for Alternative
4 and $80 million for Alternative 5, with "Public health
and the Environment" continuing at risk---extent unknown---for
a cost-effective, but unacceptable action favoring Westinghouse/CBS
(W/CBS), the Principal Responsible Party (PRP).
Region 5 U.S.EPA, in a 1990 letter to U.S Representative Lee
Hamilton, responding to questions asked Hamilton by the Bloomington
Common Council, noted that EPA must consider many factors in
choosing cleanup technologies: 1) the willingness of a party
to conduct a cleanup; 2) the commercial availability of a technology
for a commercial site; 3) other contaminates, cost, the time
necessary to implement a cleanup, and 4) site specific characteristics.
Westinghouse did not come willingly to assumption of responsibility
for the cleanup of the landfills and dumps it contaminated in
the MC/CB area, despite obvious and clear evidence that Westinghouse
was the PRP, but had to be sued by both the City of Bloomington
and EPA (United States). Westinghouse has been a very recalcitrant
PRP dragging out negotiations to an unconscionable degree.
Nevertheless, EPA showed clearly in provisions of the Consent
Decree its willingness, aided and abetted by the City of Bloomington,
to grant WESTINGHOUSE, the PRP, choices and prerogatives for
the cleanup favorable to the polluter, not the public and its
environment that had been exposed to air, land and water pollution
of PCBs on a large scale since Westinghouse began using PCBs
in capacitors in 1957-58, with over 200 sites identified as contaminated
with PCBs in Monroe County/City ofBloomington (MC/CB) area by
a search committee.
The occupational health effects experienced by Westinghouse
Plant employees and their families were never studied in an epidemiological
sense although many workers were heavily exposed and their families
exposed indirectly by ignorance of the toxicity of PCBs.
Home sites were contaminated from scavenging of capacitors
for copper, and by spreading sewage sludge contaminated with
PCBs discharged into the city's sewer system by Westinghouse,
on gardens, lawns, and fields, without knowledge of its harmful
effects. Others from contamination with PCBs from ambient air
pathways and from direct contact in many instances unknowingly.
The Monroe County Health Department received numerous letters
and phone calls from residents living near the dumps protesting
the burning and other objectionable practices followed at the
dumps.
Fell Iron & Metal in downtown Bloomington, not far from
the Courthouse, has been an infamous site where hundreds of capacitors
were dumped and PCBs incorporated in the soils. The PCB smell
could be picked up some distance from the site and PCBs were
disseminated broadly outside Fells via runoff and through volatilization
when it rained or in hot, humid weather.
Fell's is one of the sites responsible for contamination of
Clear Creek and data collected in the sediment along the railroad
track east of Fells in 1991 contained 53 ppm, indicating a present
risk. Despite the recent cleanup, the ambient air in the vicinity
of Fell's still reeks of PCB odors, testimony to the fact that
PCB sites should be cleaned up as closely as possible to bedrock
(where contaminated to that point) and background level.
MYSTERY OF THE ROD/EDD
The EPA Record of Decision/ Enforcement Decision Document(ROD/EDD)
for the Consent Decree (CD) should be compulsory reading for
Bloomington citizens. EPA signed the (ROD/EDD) on December 4,
1984, prior to submission of the CD to the publicon December
5, 1984, making a mockery of the public comment period. The ROD/EDD
was not published in the Federal Registerat the time it was signed,
a required practice, and local and state officials did not receive
copies.
INPIRG filed a FOIA request for a copy of the ROD/EDD to Region
V EPA more than a year after filing of the Consent decree in
Court in 1985, but even then it took a couple of months to receive
the ROD/EDD. The reasons given for the secrecy was to expedite
adoption and implementation of the Consent Decree.
NO REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
(RI/FS) NOR AN EIS PREPARED FOR PUBLIC
EPA did reconnaissance surficial investigations of the Superfund
Sites in early 1980s and removed capacitors from the surface
or buried them as in the case of Neal's Landfill, but no study
was submitted to the public of the scope of contamination of
the sites nor of incineration as the Consent Decree remedy. After
reading the Consent Decree, citizens asked EPA immediately for
a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study(RI/FS) since an RI/FS
is required under CERCLA for Superfund/National Priority List
sites. Citizens also requested that Fell Iron and Metal be included
in the Consent Decree as a Superfund site.
At first EPA said they didn't have to do an RI/FS, and when
citizens asked for an EIS under NEPA since the cleanup represented
a major federal action that would impact the quality of the human
environment, it was also denied. When citizens sued, EPA replied
they had done a "functional equivalent", but the functional
equivalent was never presented to the Court and the Court never
required that EPA present the evidence. In fact the Courts gave
the Consent Decree jurisdictional status considered it inviolate,
and the case was not heard on its merit.
Hugh Kaufman, of EPA staff in the Hazardous Waste Management
office, Washington, D.C. testified in an affidavit that he knew
of no other community denied an RI/FS for a Superfund site and
MC/CB had 3 landfills on the National Priority list.
When Dan Hopkins, former EPA Project Manager was asked why
an RI/FS or an EIS was not made, he simply replied that"Westinghouse
didn't want one" and Westinghouse confirmed this when talking
to an EPA Ombudsman.
Region 5 EPA and still higher EPA officials considered getting
the Principal Responsible Party, Westinghouse, to pay for the
cleanup, more important than the public good and the will of
the people. A case of the end not justifying the means at the
expense of the public.
Citizens learned later that prior to negotiation of the Consent
Decree EPA had conducted what they called an RI/FS for Neal's
Landfill, recommending removal of the contaminated soils from
the sites, but did not consider incineration a remedy.
Much later, after citizens contacted an EPA Ombudsman to secure
what EPA considered a "functional equivalent", the
Ombudsman received the documents and concluded that the documents
did not qualify as an RI/FS "functional equivalent."Too
late for any citizen satisfaction.
INCINERATOR PERFORMANCE AS AN EPA FANTASY
Incineration was chosen as the technology for the MC/CBcleanup,
despite public opposition. Westinghouse which was in the incinerator
business at the time was given authority under the Consent Decree
to build its own type of incinerator---the O'Connor Rotary Combustor---and
build it on land provided by the City of Bloomington on South
37 near the Bloomington Sewage Disposal Plant. Topping the deal
was the provision that the City of Bloomington would provide
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) to fuel the hazardous waste incinerator,
and pay tipping fees which would help Westinghouse defray the
cost of building and operating the incinerator.
The entire remedy of the Consent Decree was experimental.
Not only burning of HIGHLY CONTAMINATED SOILS in such vast amounts
(estimated by EPA at 650,000 cubic yards) in a rotary incinerator,
and using MSW as fuel for a hazardous waste incinerator, but
also without knowing the identity of other toxic contaminants
in the soils with which PCBs and dioxins and furans were inextricably
mixed.
At the same time a national movement toward recycling,recovery
and reuse of the Nation's solid waste had begun and the Bloomington
public was outraged that the City would commit even a part of
its municipal waste, particularly paper, to such an experiment
when Bloomington citizens were requesting a city sponsored recycling
program.
Even beyond that, the Consent Decree included a provision
that allowed Westinghouse to select an alternative technology
if the preferred remedy of incineration didn't work, provided
the alternative could achieve a level of PCB destruction equal
to or greater than that provided by incineration.
No Westinghouse O'Connor Rotary Combustor had ever been tested,
certified or operated as a Hazardous Waste Incinerator and it
had a reputation for leaking at its seals. The City of Bloomington
had an understanding with Westinghouse that they would build
an experimental pilot facility to test destruction removal efficiency
(DRI) of the proposed incinerator, but the pilot plant never
materialized, nor did the W/CBS idea of using its Panama City,
Florida incinerator as a substitute pilot plant, work out.
A large segment of the MC/CB community opposed incineration
as a hazardous waste/municipal waste technology from first suggestion
of its use as a remedy for the MC/CBSuperfund Sites, on grounds
that IT WAS NOT A PROVEN TECHNOLOGY. Certainly EPA had APPROVED
incineration as a technology, but they had not proven it safe
to use for SOILS heavily contaminated with toxic substances and
fueled by municipal waste, and all incinerators have a record
of MALFUNCTION.
The discussion of hazardous waste incineration and municipal
waste incineration which EPA published in the Federal Register
with their proposed rules for regulation on December20, 1989
and April 27, 1990 revealed that contaminants emitted from the
stack under "normal" operating conditions cannot be
monitored and measured continuously and spot sampling for specific
contaminants under contrived ideal test conditions is scarcely
an answer for estimating quantities of toxic substances released
via the stack.
PICs (products of incomplete combustion), POHCs (principalorganic
hazardous constituents), (PM), particulate matter, and toxic
heavy metals cannot be continuously identified or measured in
the emissions but surrogates are used and EPAdepends on GOOD
COMBUSTION PRACTICES (GCP) for efficient and reliable operation,
with limits on CO emissions, controlled loading of wastes, flue
gas temperature at the inlet to the PM control device, and operator
certification and training requirements to achieve GCP.
The problem with GCP is that incinerators routinely malfunction
and the amount of toxic material emitted at such times can be
substantial. All incinerators have escape valves and may be used
to by-pass the stack when considered necessary.
Controlled loading of an incinerator is also a sometime thing,
particularly when you don't know what's in the waste, and sampling
and analysis techniques for feeding MIXTURES of toxic substances
in soil into the incinerator is severely limited. The public
was assured by an EPA scientist in the Memo submitted to the
Judge with the Consent Decree in 1985 that the incinerator would
be maintained at a temperature of 1200 degrees F. which would
consume PCBs and dioxins and furans, but incineration never works
perfectly and even if it worked at a 99.99% DRE (which it usually
doesn't even in "perfect condition dream tests") incinerators
are known to release unburned(PICS), products of incomplete combustion,
at a rate of 7,000lbs/year or more, including PCBs and dioxins
and furans.
EPA seldom mentions "fugitive emissions" but they
escape from incinerators in quantities equal to or more than
PICs, and" fugitive emissions" from other routes, accidental
releases during excavation, transport, storage, and handling
may be considerable.
CITIZENS OPPOSED TO PCB ASH (COPA)
A general MC/CB consensus against incineration accelerated
when citizens learned that Westinghouse had chosen a site for
an incinerator ash landfill along Bottom Road, and that they
could not only be exposed to highly toxic chemical compounds
emitted from the stack but the better the performance of the
incinerator and its pollution control equipment, the greater
retention of highly toxic substances in the mountainous quantities
of fly and bottom ash that would be moved into their vicinity.
This resulted in a group of Citizens Opposed to PCB Ash being
formed.
The fact that the contaminated soil would not be reduced in
size with incineration and actually increase with use of MSW
as a fuel, and the opinion of a consultant(s) that the site chosen
on Bottom Road was unacceptable for a Hazardous Ash Landfill,
resulted in a public appeal to MC/CB Representativesto the State
Legislature for a study of alternatives to incineration.
A bill was passed by the Assembly requiring a 2-year study
of alternative technologies/remedies by the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management (IDEM). None of the alternatives
studied seemed feasible for the size and scope of the MC/CB Superfund
NPL Sites contaminated soils, nor sufficiently safe in operation
and by-products.
TETRA TECH'S FINAL DATA EVALUATION REPORT FOR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY
STUDY, SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES, NEAL'S LANDFILL SITE,
MONROE COUNTY, INDIANA,NOVEMBER 30, 1998, AND, U.S. EPA'S PROPOSED
PLAN FOR THE SOURCE CONTROL RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT AT NEAL'S
LANDFILL, DECEMBER 1998
Judge Dillin's action is understandable with MC/CB having
a serious problem with PCB contamination dating back to Westinghouse's
continuous dumping of capacitors from 1958 to 1964 in Lemon Lane,
1966-68 in Neal's Landill, Neal's Dump 1969-71, and in Bennett's
Quarries Dumps for an extensive but indeterminate period of time,
accompanied by hazardous waste escaping by various routes into
the local environment for four decades.
It is also understandable that Judge Dillin has recently extended
the deadline for cleanup into the next century, giventhe size,
scope, and cost associated with cleanup of the National Priority
List sites and recalcitrance of the Principal Responsible Party.
The Tetra Tech RI/FS study contracted by U.S. EPA was limited
by the Statement of Work by what it could and could not do, limiting
it as a basis for decision-making:
1) PCBs is the only hazardous waste tested for in the RI/FS.
PCBs may be the principal hazardous waste at Neal's Landfill
in terms of volume with an EPA estimate of 10,000 and as many
as 40,000 capacitors dumped at the site (EPA Fact Sheet). PCBs
may also be the most widely distributed contaminant since Tetra
Tech notes in the RI/FS that" Analytical data obtained by
Tetra Tech and PSARA indicate that PCB contamination extends
throughout the landfill at various concentrations."
Trichloroethylene was also one of the principal toxic substances
dumped by Westinghouse in large quantities, but many other highly
toxic contaminants, some more toxic than PCBs, have been collected
and documented from Neal's landfill, and they should have been
or should be identified and quantified.
PCBs have been spreading both horizontally and verticallya
nd mixing with other organic contaminants and metals and metallic
compounds for decades and BURNING OCCURRED AS PART OF THE DISPOSAL
PROCESS of capacitors as well as for compacting wastes. Dioxins
and Furans have formed when PCBs were burned at low temperatures
and more highly chlorinated PCB congeners occur from biological
processes (microbial degradation) after being buried for some
time in soil. Neal's is considered a Pandora's box.
Charles Anderson whose job it was to scavenge capacitors for
copper and solder for the money it brought, has said that he
and his helpers took care of 200 or so capacitors per week for
nearly three years. EPA says the dump was used by Westinghouse
from 1966-67 but the workers say it was sometime in 1968 when
the State finally closed-down dumping of capacitors. The dumping
of large quantities of clay, PCB-saturated sawdust and contaminated
rags and other toxic wastes from Westinghouse continued till
the dump was supposedly closed in 1972.
According to 2 letters from the Indiana State Board of Health
(ISBH), however, it was still operating as an open uncontrolled
dump on November 10, 1976 when an inspection revealed dumping
of trash and garbage without proper compaction and cover in violation
of the Refuse Disposal Act. The ISBH gave owner of the dump 30
days to cover the dump with 2 feet of fill but it was still not
completed by an inspection of December 28,1976.
Among the materials picked up by Neal's from Westinghouse
in addition to PCBs and Trichloroethylene were xylol, toluol,
paint, zinc hydroxides,, cutting oils, mineral oil, varnish (toluol
thinner), scrap blocks of silicon carbide, polyesterresin-mica,
aluminum foil, paper, cardboard, polypropylene film,rubber, cork
sheet, asbestos board, glass-polyester board, paint filter-paper,
scrap metal (iron and stainless), with quantities varying from
small to large amounts, paper, cardboard, and propylene film
being dumped in large amounts and silicon carbide, polyester-mica,
aluminum foil, and scrap metal in moderate amounts.
Westinghouse reported in its September 1985
Site Safety Plan of the expected occurrence of Trichloroethylene;
Methylene Chloride; 1,2,trans-dichloroethylene: Toluene; Vinyl
Chloride; Ethyl Benzene; Benzene; and Carbon Tetrachloride at
the Neal Landfill, and the State of Indiana reported to Westinghouse
in 1985 the presence of Polychlorinated DibenzoFurans and Polychlorinated
Dibenzo Dioxins (also reported by EPA) and asked that they be
included in the safety plan.
The Feasibility Study (FS) of Alternate Treatment Technologies
For Six Sites in Bloomington, Indiana, prepared for the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)by PRC Environmental
Management Inc. June 27, 1995, considered PCBs, Dioxins, and
Furans primary contaminants of concern under the Consent Decree
but also listed other contaminants ofconcern (and their concentrations)
for Neal's Landfill for surface water (on-site springs): PCBs;
Trichloroethylene; Aluminum; Arsenic; Boron: Chromium; Cobalt;
Heptachlor; Lead; Sodium; Vanadium; and Zinc.
For Groundwater IDEM lists contaminants of concern: PCBs;
Chloroethane; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Trichloroethylene; and Vinyl
chloride. For Surface Soil: PCBs, Dioxins, and Furans. Ambient
Air: PCBs; Sediment (Conard's Branch); and for Soil Borings,
Dioxins.
The IDEM study gave a range in surface soil concentration
of PCBs of 79,000 to 136,000 ppm. The study also reported high
concentrations of Calcium, Iron, Sodium, Aluminum, and Magnesium,
in that order in leachate.
The Fish & Wildlife Service (F&W), Bloomington Field
Office, in its critique of the Draft Report (November 1993) of
the ISBH entitled "Preliminary Data Evaluation and Pathways
Analyses Report for Consent Decree PCB Sites, Bloomington, Monroe
County and Spencer, Owen County, Indiana, in a letter of January
24, 1994 to Dr. Greg Steele, ISBH, questioned the superficial
nature of the sampling efforts, lack of sampling design to ensure
representativeness; and undocumented quality assurance information,
and noted:
"Unfortunately, it is likely that all of these sitesare
continuing to leak PCBs to nearby groundwater and surface water.",
and, "Probably, the most compelling weakness is the general
lack of dioxin and furan data throughout the sites, especially
where burning was known to occur. (Lemon Lane Landfill, Neal's
Landfill, Bennett's Quarry)."
The F&W letter discussed ambient air pathways, noting
that "After major rainfall events, ambient air in the Stout's
Creek corridor, is noticeably impaired, and would appear to be
a significant risk to residents of nearby homes. Similar ambient
air situations occur after measurable rainfall events in Conard's
Branch (recipient of Neal's landfill effluent/leachaterunoff),
at the Illinois Central Railroad Seeps (ICS)and in the unnamed
tributary to Clear Creek downstream of the ICS, and Clear Creek."
The F&WS also noted that they had collected sediments
in 1991 from Conard's Branch that contained PCBs ranging from
2.85-13.99 ppm, quite significant since bioaccumulation occurs
more rapidly and to much higher levels in aquatic food chains.
The F&WS further stated that site-specific surface water
data can be compared to EPAs PCB ambient water quality criteria
of protection of human health for consumption of aquatic organisms
and drinking water 0.079 ng/l (ppt) (associated with a 1 x 10(6)
cancer risk) and the three major Superfund Sites do not even
come close to meeting this standard:
"WITH THE CURRENT HANDLING OF THE NEAL'S LANDFILL NPDES
PERMIT BEING THE MOST OBVIOUS EXAMPLE OF THIS FAILURE"
The F&WS places major emphasis in data collection on PCBs
as the primary pollutant in terms of primary risks associated
with the Superfund Sites due to quantities and toxicological
properties; from dioxins and furans because of their toxicological
properties; and to volatile organics as a third primary pollutant.
F&WS goes beyond this, however, and points out to ISBH
the fact that accurate interpretation of the toxicological properties
of samples of PCBs collected on the Superfund Sites are very
difficult to interpret because specific isomers of PCBs, Dioxins
and Furans and volatile organics are not identified. F&WS
recognizes the analytical difficulties, but believes EPA should
do an estimation of the concentration of these isomers because
of the severity of the situation at Neal's Landfill and other
Superfund Sites.
Did Tetra Tech do any study of specific PCB isomers at Neal's
Landfill? If not, why not?
The F&WS conclusions and recomendations to ISDH are applicable
to the RI/FS study of Tetra Tech:
"implementation of comprehensive Remedial Investigations
at these sites should be done to fill all the existing data gaps,
and to ascertain whatcontaminants have entered the ground water,
surfacewater, sediments, and the food chain, since these sites
were first discovered."
The Tetra Tech study should obviously have included testingfor
dioxins, furans, and some of the commoner volatile organics of
concern. It is necessary to have hard data on the concentration
of the most toxic forms in order to excavate and dispose of the
contaminated soils safely. Tetra Tech detected in the north area
of the landfill from 5-8 feet bgs at boring NL-SB77 a strong
paint solvent odor which persisted a long time after the soil
core was recovered and sampled using a respirator.
Tetra Tech also mentions health and safety concerns related
to combustible gas indicator (CGI) screening on page 8of their
report. CGI screening of samples was rarely performed because
of the need to locate the CGI on the drill rig for health and
safety purposes.
The Report in the early 1980s on the surficial examination
of Bennett's Quarry includes an account of workers being overcome
by toxic fumes and this is probably a hazard to both workers,
and the environment via ambient air pathways.
EPA'S STATEMENT OF WORK AND SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES IGNORES
A BASIC FACT AND EVIDENCE ON WHICH DECISION-MAKING SHOULD BE
BASED--NEAL'S lANDFILL, A GROSSLY-CONTAMINATED SUPERFUND SITE
ON THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST LIES-OVER AN AQUIFER WITH KARST
CHARACTERISTICS WITH WHICH SOURCE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT
Tetra Tech reports the salient facts in its section on SITE
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY (2.2):
"Numerous sinkholes exist in the site area and are believed
to exist beneath the landfill."
"Groundwater flow beneath the Neal's Landfill site is
controlled by limestone bedrock. Bedrock samples collected during
previous investigations indicate that solution cavities are forming
in the limestone at depths up to 25 feet below the groundwater
surface. Based on measurements of outcropping bedrock jointing
is occurring both at the surface and at depth in the bedrock,
resulting in vertical and horizontalc omponents to groundwater
infiltration into the bedrock aquifer. (Powell 1983). A buried
valley stream traverses the southeast corner of the site.",
and, Data from monitoring wells screened in the limestone bedrock
indicate that subterranean passages transport groundwater. Groundwater
elevation and dye-tracing study information indicates that groundwater
flow is northwest. Seeps occurring throughout the landfill area
discharge point for water that has infiltrated through or beneath
the landfill. PCB concentrations have been detected in monitoring
wells and at the seeps which indicate previous or current contact
between source material and water at the site."
Under PROJECT OBJECTIVES (3.0) Tetra Technotes:
"Data from from previous investigations are limited. Previous
data do not address 1) whether municipal andindustrial wastes
at the Neal's Landfill Site are incontact with groundwater; 2)
whether solutioncavities in the epikarst beneath the site are
incontact with groundwater; 3)how groundwater levelsbeneath the
landfill fluctuate over time; and 4) whether leachate exists
at the base of the landfill,and if so, at what elevations relative
to mean sea level. Information about these issues is necessary
to determine the potential for continued off-site migration from
the site even after a final remedial alternative, such as landfill
capping, is implemented."
In accordance with EPAs instruction Tetra Tech attempted to
limit advancement into native material to 3 feet. However because
of the similar nature of the fill and native clay, the drillers
had difficulty differentiating between the fill and native material,
resulting in advancing borings 5-6 feet into native clay material.
The FSP should have allowed Tetra Tech to proceed with further
vertical sampling to whatever depth the need to do so was indicated,
e.g.:
"native material samples collected from the bottom of several
borings contained PCBs at concentrations equal to or exceeding
the removal action criteria. Therefore, the vertical extent of
contamination in these borings is undefined."
Tetra Tech notes no sampling was conducted south or southwest
of borings NL-SB15, NL-SB16, and Nl-SB24 where capacitor paper
was found, therefore, the source of contamination indicated by
historical PCB groundwaterdetections (Earth Tech 1998) is not
fully defined in this area.
The fact-that "In accordance with the FSP, borings werenot
drilled outside landfill boundaries." is in fact, incomprehensible
since it is well known that the boundary of Neal's Landfill was
not accurately defined and analytical datashows that the extent
of PCB contamination is not fully defined in the vicinity of
various borings around the perimeter of the landfill.
Tetra Tech's Report also shows that no consistent trends of
concentration occur with depth, with high concentrations at both
depth (in boring NL-SB52 at 18-21 feet bgs with a concentration
of 1805) as well as near the surface (in boringCBS-SB# a 0-3
feet bgs with a concentration of 1200 ppm) and in boring NL-SB19
at 2-3 feet bgs with a concentration of 15,152ppm). Tetra notes
this VARIABILITY to be expected based on the composition of the
intermixed zones of waste and clay fill and the heterogeneous
nature of the clay fill and native material below the waste and
fill.
The hot spots when plotted in terms of a real extent of contamination
indicate that other areas have gaps between drillpoints that
are excessive based on extent of variability shown in the first
round of sampling
The concept of using hotspot identification criteria 500ppm
for dry areas and 50 ppm for wet areas and leave the rest of
the landfill on site is arbitrary and capricious for the need
exists for removing all of the contaminated material above the
karst system off-site as the Consent Decree found to be applicable,
relevant and appropriate in 1984-85.
Where did the 500 ppm PCBs cutoff for dry areas originate?
What is its significance? The rationale is not stated.
As a Superfund National Priorities List Site, A Remedial Investigation/Feasibiity
Study for Neal's Landfill should conform to Section 300.430 (C)
which states that:
"Site specific data needs, the evaluation of alternatives,
and the documentation of the selected remedy should reflect the
scope and complexity of the site problems being addressed.",
also,
The Program Goal of the Remedy Selection Process (Section300.430)
is to select remedies:
"That are protective of human health and the environment,
that maintain protection over time, and that minimize untreated
waste."
EPA is placing reliance on a RCRA Cap for isolating the great
majority of the 325,000 cubic yards to be left on Neal's Landfill.
This cap will consist of 6 inches of top soil, 2 feet of clean
fill to prevent the clay layer from being affected by frost,
a minimum of 40 millimeters flexible membrane liner, and 2 feet
of compacted clay. The proposed plan also indicates that areas
outside the landfill cap with PCB levels as high as 25ppm PCBs
on average must have a 10" soil cover.
The scope and complexity of the site and its specific data
needs cannot be addressed by leaving most of the 325,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soils on site without adequate sampling.
Levels of PCBs below 500 ppm to ground level in the remainder
of the dump constitute not only significant volumes of PCBs but
probably substantial levels of toxicity even if less than 500ppm.
Whatever is not removed remains a threat to future public health
and the environment as PCBs have been for several decades when
released into surface waters through leachate, and from deep
penetration of the wastes into groundwater and into the karst
aquifer and its drainage system.
How much of the toxic wastes remaining on-site can be prevented
by a RCRA cap from continuous downward leaching into bedrock
and disseminated into the environment through the subterranean
karst system? How much infiltration into the residual 10 acre
landfill will occur from surface seepage, seeps and springs and
sinkhole activity within and without the RCRA cap boundaries
as part of a karst drainage system response to heavy rains?
Karst is always evolving in different ways and directions
and a cap over the top of a landfill over karst could never be
expected to provide protection or isolation of these toxic materials
from the environment for any length of time from anything as
complex and unpredictable as karst hydrology.
Additionally, EPA must address the source of the underground
stream that enters Richland Creek some distance down stream from
Neal's Landfill. John Foster, a Bloomington citizen with considerable
first-hand knowledge of Neal's Landfill, has shown Tom Alcoma
point of entry of this stream as well as information about the
history and nature of the Landfill, itself.
STATE OF INDIANA PROHIBITED SITING OF SOLID
WASTE LANDFILLS IN KARST TOPOGRAPHY
IDEM's 1995 Feasibility Study of Alternative Treatment Technologies
for Six Sites in Bloomington, Indiana mentions onpage 3-6 that:
"one significant potential location-specific ARAR is
Indiana Regulation 329 IAC 2-10-1(D), which prohibits the siting
of a solid waste landfill in an area of karst topography. Much
of the Bloomington area is underlain by karat formations. This
situation precludes on-site disposal of treatment residuals and
untreated materials at the six sites. Regulation 322-101(D) is
considered to be an ARAR for any off-site disposal of treatment
residualsand to any untreated material."
What is the status of Regulation 329 IAC 2-10-l(D)---is it
true that it was repealed or is it still on the books? It is
a regulation that should stand the test of time, for just as
a home should never be built on sand, neither should dumping
of solid wastes (let alone toxic chemicals like PCBs) be allowed
over KARST.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IS TOTAL EXCAVATION OF NEAL'S LANDFILL
TO BACKGROUND LEVEL, BEDROCK WHERE WARRANTED, AND STORAGE OF
WASTE MATERIAL IN LEAKPROOF, EARTHQUAKE-PROOF VAULTS ABOVE GROUND,WITH
THE ESTIMATED 10-40,000 CAPACITORS STORED SEPARATELY IF CONDITION
WARRANTS.
EPA's proposed Alternative 5 calls for total excavation of
the entire landfill to industrial cleanup level of 25 ppm and
placement of a soil cover over the excavated area.
Since the the SA Report indicates high-level concentrations
of PCBS at or near bedrock and notesconcentrations of PCBs have
been detected in monitoring well sand at the seeps, Conard's
Branch and Richland Creek indicating both previous and current
contact between source materials and water at the site, it is
long past time that it be stopped.
What EPA/Westingouse/CBS are now proposing cannot even be
termed halfway measures toward a Neal's cleanup, which will leave
the public and its environment still hostage to 300,000cubic
yards of poorly characterized toxic-contaminated soil, which
Westinghouse/CBS, the PRP, considers a cost-effective cleanup
at $16 million.
EPA and the public have expressed opposition to simply transporting
toxic materials from one site to another site. Transporting Neal's
landfill to a chemical landfill north of Detroit, in full knowledge
that ALL LANDFILLS LEAK, and state of the art engineering is
no guarantee that leakage of that landfill, would be corrected
in a timely manner, is unacceptable.
There is no hiding place down here. Monsanto, the corporation
that brought PCBs into being, and chemists of other corporations
that helped spread PCBs ubiquitously, and government agencies
involved with hazardous wastes, should devote whatever time and
money it takes into disassociation of PCBs into harmless substances.
Until that is accomplished, EPA should consider vaulting on
site as a legitimate alternative, and make an estimate of cost
of containment and isolation of Neal's Landfill above ground
in leakproof, earthquake-proof vaults. Methods forre ducing actual
load to be vaulted should be considered e.g.detoxifying and reduction
of large objects such as appliances and cars dumped in Neal's
Landfill.
There are precedents to isolation by vaulting. EPA considered
it as one of the alternatives at the MGM PCB contaminated Superfund
Site in Cloverdale, California, noting that there are several
benefits to containment in a vault:
"Contaminated soil would be completely isolated from
direct human contact, from clean soil and groundwater; use of
the containment structure would mean the problem is not being
moved to another area but is being controlled where it was created;
and it would eliminate the potential dangers and costs associated
with long distance transportation."
The preferred alternative of citizens of Jacksonville, Arkansas
for disposal of dioxin wastes was vaulting but the remedy forced
on them was incineration. When the incinerator did not perform
to specifications, it was shutdown and the material vaulted.
EPA has permitted storage of PCB wastes from Anderson Landfill
and excavation of PCB contaminated stream sediments, etc., in
a storage facility on the Winston Thomas PCB Site onSouth Walnut
Street in Bloomington for many years. While the construction
of that facility is not sufficient for vaulting of highly toxic
wastes, that is an obvious precedent for containment and isolation.
Your consideration of these comments and requests in decision
making would be appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Sarah Elizabeth Frey
2625 South Smith Road
Bloomington, Indiana 47401
cc: Monroe County Commissioners
John Fernandez, Mayor
Bloomington City Council
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
|
