CALL (812) 333-8888 FOR MORE INFORMATION OR E-MAIL info@copa.org
| |||||||||||||||
CALL (812) 333-8888 FOR MORE INFORMATION OR E-MAIL info@copa.org | |||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
Library: Letters: EPA | |||||||||||||||
July 15, 1996 Michael Baker, President Dear Mr. Baker: Thank you for your May 14, 1996 letter, addressed to me. In your letter, you raise concerns about historical site work and current conditions related to the Lemon Lane Landfill. In the first paragraph of your letter, you write that, "After years of debate and discussion of if an RI/FS was ever done for the Bloomington Sites it has been acknowledged by EPA that one was not done." Although, I was not involved with the Bloomington PCB sites prior to 1989, my understanding is that U.S. EPA performed the functional equivalent of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") that supported the incineration remedy required by the 1985 Bloomington/Westinghouse ConsentDecree. I am not aware of any change in U.S. EPA's position that thefunctional equivalent of an RI/FS was done, and that U.S. EPA compliedwith all applicable laws and regulations in effect, at that time. To theextent you that you are relying on recent statements made by Bill Sanjour,it is also my understanding that Mr. Sanjour does not represent U.S. EPA on issues related to the characterization of early investigative work atthe Bloomington sites, the selection of remedy, or the legality of the1985 Consent Decree. As you know, the work leading to the incinerator remedy identified in theConsent Decree, and the Consent Decree itself, predated my involvementwith the Bloomington PCB sites. U.S. EPA has provided COPA with avoluminous amount of data and documentation from U.S. EPA's files, relatedto the Bloomington sites and to the events preceding the approval of theConsent Decree. In addition, I have discussed the issues raised in yourletter during numerous meetings with you and other citizens in theBloomington community, to the extent that I have knowledge about thoseissues. I believe that you have been provided with everything available,at this time, to shed light on these historical issues that apparentlycontinue to linger. It seems unlikely that I will be able to answer someof the lingering concerns, related to an RI/FS and the Consent Decree, toyour satisfaction. Of particular importance to me, is that the fact thatissues related to the 1985 Consent Decree and the incinerator remedy havebeen exhaustively addressed in litigation and ultimately ruled upon by thecourts, which have upheld the legality of the Consent Decree. As U.S. EPA's project manager for the Bloomington PCB sites, I must workwithin the legal framework that exists concerning the sites for which I amresponsible. The legal framework, in this case, includes the ConsentDecree, determinations by the courts, and the statutory and regulatoryframework for conducting Superfund cleanups. The exploration of alternative remedies for the Bloomington area sites(began by the Consent Decree parties in early 1994), has been undertakenwithin the framework of the Consent Decree. From a procedural standpoint, the process of exploring alternativeremedies may lead to U.S. EPA's current process of amending a Record ofDecision "ROD". The investigations being conducted and planned by theConsent Decree parties will be used to assess site conditions and evaluatealternatives to the extent necessary to select a remedy. The work includesutilizing existing data and information, collecting additional data,assessing human health and ecological risk, and analyzing alternatives.The work being undertaken by the parties will address the nature and complexity of the problems associated with the Bloomington area PCB sitesand will consider the appropriate response alternatives. Also, throughoutthe efforts to gather additional data, evaluate risks, and analyze alternatives, the Bloomington community will beprovided with forums and opportunities to learn about the activitiesunderway, to question the activities, and to provide comments andsuggestions. In developing the scope of additional data needs for the Lemon LaneLandfill site, I have used U.S. EPA guidance documents. Chiefly, I haveused the guidance entitled Conducting Remedial Investigations/FeasibilityStudies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites, dated February 1991. I expect that the parties will use this approach for identifying additionaldata needs for Neal's Landfill and Bennett's Dump. For Neal's Dump, amuch smaller site, a more extensive clean-up may be appropriate. Accordingly, for Neal's Dump, the investigative studies may be tailored toaccomplish a more extensive clean-up. At Neal's Dump, which isapproximately one-half acre in size, it may be more practical to removethe PCB contaminated material than to attempt to identify andremove hot-spots. Typically, U.S. EPA's guidance is written in such a wayto give flexibility to its project managers in applying the guidance to aspecific site. If you compare the U.S. EPA's guidance for conductingremedial investigations for municipal landfills, I believe that you cansee that the work, underway and planned by the parties, is consistent withthe guidance that U.S. EPA project managers across the country would usefor investigating landfill sites. Actually, some of the work already undertaken by the parties (e.g. storm sampling at the Illinois CentralSpring) is more comprehensive than the investigative activities identifiedin the previously mentioned guidance document. In your letter, you express the concern that contaminants in the springwater at the Illinois Central Spring should be immediately controlled. Iagree that the release of PCB contaminated spring water from the IllinoisCentral Spring needs to be addressed as soon as possible. I have set ameeting of the project managers, for this month, to discuss what stepsneed to be taken to solve that problem. I cannot, at this time, specify adate by which a control system will be implemented. As you are aware, themanagement of storm water will be a significant factor in arriving at anacceptable solution. Although I cannot specify a date for control, I willendeavor to specify the studies or activities that need to be undertaken to determine an appropriate solution and by when those studies andactivities will occur. In your letter, you state that "It took years of citizens complainingabout discharges from Illinois Central for a fence to be erected aroundthe site." This statement does not accurately characterize the eventsleading to the erection of fences in the area of the Illinois CentralSpring. U.S. EPA moved to have security fences installed around theIllinois Central Spring and Swallowhole areas in response to test resultsthat showed elevated levels of PCBs in sediment in and near the stream bedbetween the Illinois Central Spring and the Swallowhole. As you know, theelevated PCB levels had not been detected during earlier sampling efforts.When the elevated levels were found, efforts to site and install thefences were started immediately. Although the installation of over 2,500feet of fencing took longer than my estimate of two to three weeks, anumber of unforseen problems (e.g. legal and physical access problems,unfavorable weather conditions, and very rugged terrain) were encountered.You might refer to my August 8, 1995 letter to you in which I havepreviously provided an account of this matter. Of course, the fence doesnot stop PCB contaminated water from flowing to the Swallowhole andeventually resurfacing at the Quarry Springs. The fences are intended tokeep individuals (particularly children) from coming into direct contactwith high levels of contaminated sediments and stream banks. The PCBcontaminated water will have to be addressed separately, as I described inthe previous paragraph. Also, based on sampling conducted in the QuarrySprings area, the PCB levels found there have been shown to besubstantially lower than the PCB levels found in the Illinois CentralSpring and Swallowhole areas. Also in your letter, you state that "when any of these questions have beenraised you have indicated that constraints of the consent decree orpresent EPA practices at municipal landfills as a defense". I do not knowspecifically what you refer to in your statement. I have, during previousconversations with you, tried to explain the relationship between U.S.EPA's activities in the context of the requirements and agreementsdescribed in the Consent Decree, the statutory and regulatory framework,and U.S. EPA's current policy guidance. I hope that this letter has shedsome light on the issues raised in your letter. Lastly, you ask me to list superfund sites in the United States that arealso municipal landfills, located in sink holes on karst, and contaminatedwith the concentrations of PCBs known to exist in Bloomington. I know ofno sites, besides two of the Bloomington sites, that completely fit thequalifications you identify. During earlier research concerning the typeof remedies implemented at other landfill sites, I became aware of asuperfund site in the southern United States that is located on karst.The remedy for that particular site was capping. However, the site wasnot located over a sinkhole. My recollection is that there are very few(if any) superfund sites that are both located in karst terrain and oversinkholes. I have included, with this letter, the executive summary of the guidancedocument that I have referred to previously. If you would like a copy ofthe entire document, I will assist you in obtaining one. If, uponreviewing this document and comparing the current and planned work for theBloomington sites, you have additional concerns, I will be very happy todiscuss those with you. If I can be of further assistance, please do nothesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Dan Hopkins, |
|||||||||||||||
|
The Cast | The Tragedy
| The
Comedy | The
Ending | News
| Library
| Seating
Plan | Top
|
Home |
CALL (812) 333-8888 FOR MORE INFORMATION OR E-MAIL info@copa.org | |||||||||||||||
The Coaltion Opposed to PCB
Ash in Monroe County, Inc. is a nonprofit organization. | |||||||||||||||