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 | |||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||
Meetings: CIC | |||||||||||||||
Citizens Information CommitteeUnapproved MinutesApril 23, 1998
Michael List: Asked for report for what has happened since the last meeting. Tom Alcamo: He stated he would give framework of where we are at in terms
of all the sites. This all is a draft, nothing has been finalized yet.
But in regards to Neal's Dump, it appears we have an agreement with CBS Jim Cartmell: What's the verification sampling going to be? Tom Alcamo: We haven't got into that, but we're using a ten part per million number with at least an 18 inch soil cover. Most likely, that, because it's a big huge pit, they are going to have to excavate to depth and chase that material. I don't have those details. So in terms of those numbers, that's where we are at. George Hegeman: Is this a filled sink hole? Tom Alcamo: No. The groundwater monitoring is basically fairly clean in that area. There was one time where the White well came up with a hit of PCB's and it was determined to be an anomaly. And it's been clean ever since. But we would continue to do groundwater monitoring for a period of time and then eliminate that if the train was developed, if they did a clean closure. Jim Cartmell: What's the White well. Tom Alcamo: That's the name of the residence there. Jim Cartmell: Are they on city water? Tom Alcamo: No, they are on wells. And they've been tested a number of times. CBS has to do it semi- annually, or twice a year, I think. Michael List: That's the dump that's in Owen County? Tom Alcamo: Yes, it's in Owen County. It's in the middle of a residential area. Mike Baker: Is that's what driving the lower ppm? Tom Alcamo: Yes. It could be, once we get out there and do field stuff, it'll probably be lower than that. There will be verification sampling. I don't know what it's going to be yet. But once we get done with the details of Winston Thomas, that will be a site we'll be working on along with the others. Jim Cartmell: Was there only one well at one time that showed off site migration? Tom Alcamo: Yes. If you want the data for that, I can certainly get you all the data for that and you can see where the wells are. Of course, you can submit FOIA's to me, but I'll give free copies to Mike and he can distribute it. As I told Mike earlier there will be a lot of data submitted and I'll start giving it to Mike and he can put it on the web page. Mike Baker: And we'll make paper copies for people who . . . Larime Wilson: Are you going to put them in the library repositories? Tom Alcamo: Oh yeah, It would probably be best if I put that in all the
repositories and I'll start working on that immediately, in terms of the
history of the sites because things are going to go quickly based upon Jim Cartmell: So if I give you something that shows that there was more off site contamination than one well at one time, would you be able to act on that. Tom Alcamo: Yes. Like I said, I just know off the top of my head. I haven't looked at Neil's dump, I've only been on this project a few months, I have not spent much time there. And in terms of what we are trying to prove to the judge, that we need to cap this site, it's in the middle of a residential area. I just remember we were arguing with CBS about possible hit with PCB's and CBS explained to us that it was an anomaly, when they did the data evaluation. I could be wrong on that. But in terms of a clean up, we are very happy with this. We think this is real good, in terms of getting CBS to do this this summer, hopefully. Bennett's Dump: A complete removal of Bennett's Dump to industrial standards. Which would be 25 parts per million PCB's with 18 inches of soil cover. Based upon verification sampling, similar to Neal's Dump, which we haven't got details yet. Of course there is some areas that could be outside the fenced area of Bennett's dump that we are going to investigate. Either through strict excavation or doing a geophysical study to look for anomalies. But we are well aware of the area within the fenced-in area outside the quarry that could have capacitors from the record so we will be investigating these areas. George Hegeman: Any covenant on that deed? Tom Alamo: Yes, there will probably be some type of covenant. It is in the middle of a quarry. And there will probably be some deed restrictions with that because of the industrial standards we're using. Jim Cartmell: Are you aware they already did an electromagnetic search? Tom Alamo: Yes. But the fence is problematic because they will have to take it down if they're going to do a new one. Because in the area that could have capacitors, it would interfere with that. Jim Cartmell: But when they did it, they supposedly located where it is already. Tom Alcamo: When I went there, there is huge blocks piled on top of the
supposed area. How long those blocks have been there - I talked to CBS
about that. We need the blocks moved to get there. We have the data, the
geophysical study, the sampling data. We are going to be using that. That's
not the only sampling we will be doing. We are not going out there to
investigate that. We are basically going to get in there, remove it, and
do verification sampling. And I want to caveat that we are still looking
at no treatment other than going to an incinerator for Jim Cartmell: Are you aware that there are reports that material was dumped in non contiguous areas. And so far as I know those areas have never been investigated. Tom Alcamo: Yes. There has been areas investigated. There was a couple of fenced in areas that have been investigated that showed clean. Jim CartmellI: I'm not talking about the little ones be the entrance. This is an unfenced area. Tom Alcamo: I will certainly look at it. I don't know what we are going to do yet, but I can tell you we're doing an industrial cleanup. We are well aware of possible capacitors outside of the area. But we will not investigate the entire area and do samples around it. If we have evidence that indicates capacitors were dumped the, outside the fence, we will look at it. But we're not going to put a grid system across the entire quarry. Jim Cartmell: Steve Hacker, who lives there, came and said stuff was dumped here. Tom Alcamo: You give me information, we're more than willing to look at it. Jim Cartmell: Originally the Mule Hole Quarry was part of the Bennett's Quarry. Will that be investigated? Tom Alcamo: No. They may move Stoute's Creek away from the site. I don't
know where that's at in terms of details we haven't's got to there, but
they would actually re-channel Stoute's Creek. Also, starting Monday,
they will be Jim Cartmell: Another concern at Bennetts. Before 37 was built, the route they hauled the waste from Westinghouse was that road that runs by Bennetts. Sometimes they would go to Bennetts and sometimes they went to Lemon Lane. But that big steep hill that goes there, past the Bennetts entrance, that goes across the bypass before the bypass was built. When they hauled liquids, the liquids would spill out onto the road there. And the road would get so much PCBs on it that the following cars' tires would spin. And that's another area that hasn't been tested or investigated. Tom Alcamo: We will certainly look at the information you present . Jim Cartmell: And the road route is slightly different now. Tom Alcamo: When we went out there, in areas that could have buried capacitors or contaminated material there are huge blocks of material that have been placed there by the quarry. It is in the middle of an operating industrial facility. You bring up valid points and we'll certainly look into. But we won't investigate the entire quarry unless we have some type of valid evidence. The area is fenced off, there is metes and bounds within the consent decree that I am required to deal with. Jim Cartmell: May I suggest that you don't use an electromagnetic survey. For one thing, PCBs were salvaged, they were dumped out, separated from any metal. That's already been shown to be true in the sampling of Lemon Lane. Like 23 here is the highest amount of any place. But there is no metal there. The electromagnetic survey said that they couldn't find any metal there. But to read the conclusion for the one that they did at Bennetts says, "distinct areas were found to contain large quantities of buried iron. While the magnetic survey cannot distinguish normal iron from capacitor cases it can clearly indicate concentrations of iron. The magnetic survey overestimates the extent of buried capacitors. This is probably better than under estimating it." Then, after that electromagnetic survey was done, you get the letter from the state board of health..... Tom Alcamo: We are aware of outside of the fence that there could be areas. Okay. In terms of investigating it, we are going to do it. Jim Cartmell: But my suggestion is because of this, that you don't do an electromagnetic survey because you have already found out that it doesn't work. Tom Alcamo: It is my understanding, I have not compared the data, I haven't put it on top. But according to CBS and Dan Hopkins, that some of the data did correlate very well, the geophysical and what we found there. So, you are absolutely correct. I don't think you can depend on that a 100 percent. And that's not what we are going to do. I think we do need to sample outside there. Jim Cartmell: Like here it says, "In addition it would be prudent for the fence to be expanded so that it would enclose areas of known PCBs." This was written in 1983. What is the problem with spending 12 years not getting to it. Tom Alcamo: You are going back into the past. I can tell you what we are going to be doing and you can accept it or not. I'm not going to sit here and argue about the past. Larime Wilson: When you say valid evidence. Does that include testimonies from salvagers? Tom Alcamo: I think I would look at that. I'm not going to guarantee that I'm going to sample that. But I think that it's valid that I look at that data and see if there's something. And then if I think we should put some samples in it. If it's problematic, then probably most likely CBS will not do it, and I'll have to. I'm not unwilling to do it. We've already spent almost 3 hundred thousand dollars at Neil's. I am not guaranteeing you now, but I will certainly listen to you. Jim Cartmell: When you say another electromagnetic investigation. You already know that didn't work over at Bennett's. I'd rather you just didn't do another thing you know doesn't work. Tom Alcamo: We may not. It may not be worthwhile but I can tell you I've had numerous discussions with CBS regarding the area. About two months ago we went to the site, I talked about the blocks getting moved and asking the quarry to move them. But probably they won't want to investigate them, they'll just start digging and then see what they get. Jim Cartmell: So for the non-contiguous areas though. What kind of proposed investigation, or is there one? Tom Alcamo: No, we haven't got to those details yet. Winston Thomas.
The action memo is done, but not signed off. The responsiveness summary
is not done. In terms of public comments, there were a number of good
ones, especially in terms of treatment. Which in a perfect world, we would
like to do. But in terms of what we are Mike Baker: One concern with the Winston Thomas site is in the tertiary lagoon. There has been discussion on how much fill. A lot of us argued that we would much rather see a more stringent clean up level because of the wetland situation. Tom Alcamo: We have had heated discussions over the cover of of the tertiary
lagoon. As you are aware the clean up number is 15 parts per million not
to exceed 25 in any grid. And we've required a foot of soil cover on that.
CBS today has refused to do that. They feel it's not necessary. We've
compromised in terms of that. This is not final yet, Jim Cartmell: You said that the responsiveness summary isn't complete yet, but Appendix F of the EE/CA, which was the summary of conditions at Winston Thomas. The conclusions of the EPA's experts that did that assessment were that there are areas outside the areas that have been contaminated that need to be investigated. Tom Alcamo: There's a couple of areas that we've proposed by the grit chamber. But we've talked in depth with the City and and all the other parties involved. And yes, there are areas like deep under the abandoned lagoons and by the tertiary lagoon that are going to be sampled. In terms of other areas, we went to the city and asked them. There is a couple by the grit chamber that we've proposed some additional sampling. We haven't worked those details yet. From our perspective, people are telling us there is no other areas. Jim Cartmell: Well that wasn't the conclusion to that report. Tom Alcamo: No. I think in terms of context when that report was written, there probably was areas that were not investigated. Jim Cartmell: Has there been any sampling since then? Outside of the designated contaminated areas? Tom Alcamo: We feel that we've talked to the City. We've talked with EarthTec who developed that report. I asked where we may need to sample again. They gave me the proposed points. And we forwarded them to CBS. Jim Cartmell: How about the piping. It mentions the piping. Tom Alcamo: It will have to be cleaned. Jim Cartmell: So that's going to be part of the plan. It's not right now. Tom Alcamo: Yes. Jim Cartmell: How about the culverts? That come off from the property. There's five, seven . . . Tom Alcamo: They're uncontaminated. Jim Cartmell: No one has ever investigated it. John Langley: I've looked at that, we looked at the water over top of boring 95. It was clean. I'm not opposed to taking another sample. We can check it again. Jim Cartmell: On the piping map there are only two of them. But there are
other ones that come out to of Clear Creek that come off the Winston Thomas
property. No one's explained about where they come from or what John Langley: I think we know what's there. But I'll look. Jim Cartmell: I'm still not certain what the purpose of the EE/CA was. Since this is a May 15, 1996 newspaper that followed a parties meeting. It says that chemical, biological, and thermal treatments have been ruled out as not feasible. Tom Alcamo: Well at that time the consent decree said build an incinerator. Things change as of the history of these sites. The EE/CA was there to justify the decision by the agency. We stand by it. Jim Cartmell: I'm trying to figure out what the process was. Tom Alcamo: In terms of EPA making a remedy decision at this site. Jim Cartmell: So it's just an official thing. Tom Alcamo: No. It's valid. It's going to be in the Administrative Record that justifies what we are doing out there. Mitch Rice: I think what Jim is asking is was there an actual process. You are calling it a justification. Was it an actual process or a justification after the fact? Tom Alcamo: There was a process. It was an open book. Jim Cartmell: Well, that was one of the problems. Because I called up Eco-Logic. And they said no one from the EPA, nobody from EarthTec had contact with them. Tom Alcamo: Well, I've got responses in terms of they contacted the Web Page. Eco-Logic did a site demonstration for us at the Bay City, _______________ site. Jim Cartmell: That's correct. But to get a cost estimate, there is a whole lot of variables you need to know. One of which is volume, moisture content, organic content. You can't get a cost estimate unless you know all these variables. Tom Alcamo: Yes I think Eco-logic is a promising technology. But I think
in terms of the situation that we are operating under, consent decree,
and the court order, we feel that to continue to clean up Winston Thomas
this summer, which is a requirement by the judge, then this is our best
approach. Is it a perfect approach, no. Is it the right approach, yes.
If I went to CBS and said treat this material. They would be immediately
in front of Foster and I guarantee you that this cleanup would not happen
for a number of years. And I want to get this done this Mike Baker: I think a lot of us has concerns with those kinds of issues, and maybe we can address them later. But I am concerned about what is happening now. Because it's obvious by reading the transcripts of the court that something is going to happen now. And we can argue the history, and these issues, but the court isn't arguing those issues. And we might come back to those later. But if you could outline what is laid out now. And then if we have time, we can come back to these issues. But I want to make sure we cover what is proposed today by the parties and by the court, and what the time line is. Cause otherwise we have no hope of any meaningful comment before it's a done deal. Jim Cartmell: We didn't finish these others from the last meeting, and he's worried about not finishing this meeting. I suggest that, I mean the response to not finishing the agenda from the last meeting and the meeting before that was to have meetings less often than usual. It's been like 11 weeks since the last meeting. At one time they were monthly. Mike Baker: We jointly decided not to have meetings unless something major was going to happen. Jim Cartmell: The decision on Winston Thomas is not made yet. That's a current thing. That is what I'm addressing. I have questions about the process of what was done to evaluate the decision. Tom Alcamo: In a public meeting you simply submit your comments and they'll get addressed. We can go back to that if you want. Jim Cartmell: We can move on, but he's saying it's not relevant, and it is. Mike Baker: I'm not saying it's not relevant. It's definitely not relevant if the court is not considering it. Tom Alcamo: He's correct. Jim Cartmell: That's what I want to make clear. What the process is that's happened. Michael List: The process has been compressed because of the involvement of the judge. We need to find out what that compressing of the process has been and what is going on. Doesn't make any difference how much all of us know about this and that and what's gone on in the past to the judge. And the judge is pushing this thing along and we better find where this thing is going. Tom Alcamo: Exactly. The judge feels he could issue a judicial order for whatever remedy that he thinks appropriate and we would have to comply. So far he hasn't done that, but believe me he truly believes that. David Porter: And what are you doing about that? Tom Alcamo: We are going through our process. That's why we did an action memo. We do not agree to that, and we will appeal that if it happens. And if we appeal that, everything falls apart. And so far he hasn't done that. We had a meeting with him today and he is very happy with Winston Thomas starting in May. He's happy with the process. Most likely if things go as planned we will be done some time around Thanksgiving. He's happy, he wants Winston Thomas done and so does the city. I think he still wants all the sits done ASAP. And Neal's dump should happen probably this summer too. To finish up with Winston Thomas. Again, that material is going off site to _______ landfill in Michigan. George Hegeman: Is there any further decision on the part of the City to the fate of Winston Thomas site? Maybe John can speak to that. Any new news there? John Langley: No, I think at least to the staff level that we are ready to recommend it to the USB. If the changes are made and the wording is right that we are ready to proceed this summer. Tom Alcamo: That is one of the reasons why the 6 inches soil covered is
happened now instead of a foot because CBS. One of the arguments, and
the judge has been sympathetic to this argument, was that if they are
going to build something on that property, why are you making us put a
foot on. So that's some of the issues that interplay. Mike Baker: Is there any data available yet on what Arthur.... Tom Alcamo: I haven't got their official report yet. As soon as I get it, maybe next week, I'll ship it to you. Mike Baker: Gareth Davies who we hired to do the hydrogeological look
at Bottom Road and Neal's is very familiar with this. And has worked with
this person on various sites throughout the country. It's very effective,
depending on what it is being used to prove. It is very effective in being
able to track the difference between negative and Tom Alcamo: The first day he did a study, CBS faxed it to us to say this is what he's doing. We wanted it as much as you do. One of the things that was presented to us on Tuesday, there was no data really specifically, but it appears that the Illinois Central Spring is one conduit and it breaks off into two away from that. And where it goes from there he hadn't finished that study. That's at Lemon Lane. In addition they did ground penetrating radar there also So that's where we are at with Neil's. Jim Cartmell: Does it identify anything besides conduits? Tom Alcamo: Flowing water. Jim Cartmell: Does it have to flow at a certain rate? Tom Alcamo: It's nice after a storm, but it will pick up a small trickle.
I will get you the work plan from CBS and the data and you can go from
there. My understanding it's been used in a number of places. I think
our concern was if they were going to do it on top of the landfill. And
to use that data to prove to us that it would be safe to consolidate material
on top of Neal's Landfill we felt if a car was there that it might mess
up the anomaly, the metal, or whatever. I think they are going to do it
there. I think we'll see what happens with them doing David Porter: What percent of the material will come out of Neal's? Tom Alcamo: I don't know. We just got the data back. David Porter: Are you hoping to remove 90 percent of the PCB's out of Neal's? Tom Alcamo: Probably not, I don't know. In wet areas, at Neal's landfill we are looking at 50 parts per million. In the one area when you go onto the site there's a streambed that he blocked up, I'm concerned about that and we'll probably require them to remove all material. Areas that were dry we are probably looking at 500 parts per. Michael List: You can't say the percentage until you know what is there. The goal is to remove hot spots. George Hegeman: What is the status of the plan to put material into the site? Tom Alcamo: That is out. We are not even looking at that. Michael List: The farther this process goes with moving all of this stuff, without you deciding even where you are going to put it, does the pressure of that process moving along, does that tend to make it more likely to be put on top of Neal's or someplace else? Tom Alcamo: My gut feeling is that it's better for outside commercial disposal as process goes along. Michael List: That makes me very uneasy, to dig it up without knowing where it's going. I have the opposite feeling, that somehow we're going to get blindsided. We're going to remove all the stuff and then "Just let us move it across town, judge." Tom Alcamo: The judge is well aware of our concern about Neal's Landfill and Bottom Road. We convinced CBS that they won't get anywhere with us on other concepts. Let's concentrate on commercial disposal. George Hegeman: Is it fair to say that it's EPA policy to appeal any adverse decision which would result in there being material dumped at Neal's Landfill? Tom Alcamo: Yes. I think we will not accept anything at Neal's landfill,
it's called a piggyback approach. We have problems at Bottom Road, but
it is not as bad compared to Neal's landfill. We are concerned about building
another landfill in Bloomington. It's not our approach, but it's on the
table. I don't think it's going to happen. But if all Mike Baker: On Neal's, even though some of the clean up levels are still
yet to be determined, and the extent of the clean up is yet to be determined,
is there definitely going to be a change in the water treatment? Since
that is the major pathway to the environment. And it's by anybody's estimation
now, it's so totally inadequate it doesn't Tom Alcamo: From our perspective, EPA, we have concerns in the capture of Neal's landfill. We have now begun our discussions in terms of the water on Tuesday. CBS put a paper towards us, and we did not find it acceptable. Yes, we have concerns regarding the treatment system out there now during low flow. The big problem is storm events. We want to see what happens after this hot spot removal and there is a compliant RCRA cap and erosion controls and the drainage controls have been put into place. So, our concern, we don't want CBS to build a huge plant that can capture 35,000 gallons a minute, and in reality when this remedy is completed, they may only need to capture 10,000 gallons. CBS wants 5 years, we feel strong about 2 years for interim period. The geophysical study is so important to find out what is going on. Larime Wilson: Interim period? Tom Alcamo: In terms of the treatment plant, would capture normal flow
events. During storm events, we would not be capturing. It means that
there will be a number of studies done to verify. Obviously this is after
the construction is completed. So there is source control done. In terms
of an excavation, there is a cap done. Then when we would see what has
happened. And see what we might need to do in terms of expansion David Porter: Well then why not make your interim period dependent upon the weather? Tom Alcamo: Well that's a valid point. I may take that into consideration. David Porter: Are you going to be testing high flow? Tom Alcamo: They are testing that now, they tested last week. David Porter: But are you finding high concentrations of high flow like we did at Lemon Lane? Tom Alcamo: I don't know, I haven't got the data back. From the storm event they sampled early in the '90's yes, quite high. And then we just did this one. David Porter: And so then by not capturing high flow water that's when we're going to be dumping the most PCB's. Tom Alcamo: It possibly could be I don't know. If that's the case we'll have to expand the system. But the point is in terms of why are we doing this major excavation it's so we can get to the source material. The material that's getting into the springs. And what happens if we excavate this material and the levels go down even during storm events. Its a possibility. Mike Baker: Hopefully that's the goal. Tom Alcamo: Exactly. Jim Cartmell: But given that karst changes over time and we have already seen that the flow of PCB's change over time. What's going to be done to account for that? Tom Alcamo: There will be monitoring. We're not walking away from this. Part of containment remedy is that they're going to have monitoring, if there are problems there are five- year reviews, there are a lot of mechanisms available to take care of this. Jim Cartmell: "It's the consensus of federal EPA, state of Indiana, and city's public health, and hydrologic experts that leaving the material at the sites poses an unacceptable long-term public health hazard because of the high level of PCB contaminated materials will continue to leak PCB's for thousands of years." Tom Alcamo: I haven't even had time to analyze the data. I just sampled it. David Porter: So you are going to verify that you got a lot of it if in fact release decreases? And if the release does not decrease your going to go back and remove everything? Tom Alcamo: I don't know, maybe. But most likely it's going to be an expansion of the water treatment plant to prevent exposure. Mitch Rice: Is this the water treatment plant that is out there now? Is that what we're talking about--that piece of junk? Tom Alcamo: There is a possibility during this initial remediation that they will have to expand that system. I don't know we just started our discussion on water. We are concerned about the flow events as well as not capturing PCB's during low flow events out there now. Jim Cartmell: But the point is Illinois central springs changed after 40 years. That means 40 years from now something else can be completely different and you could have huge amounts come out from somewhere else. Tom Alcamo: Jim there are a number of sites EPA has dealt with in karst topography in terms of landfills. Jim Cartmell: Let me quote the EPA. "Due to the fractured limestone
geology, containment remedies are not feasible at the sites in karst topography.
Due to the nature of these fractures, groundwater does not flow in an
established pattern. There may be major channels at some points in the
underlying systems, but those channels carry only a portion of the groundwater
which flows in the system." Only a portion. "Leaving hazardous
wastes means that certain classes of land disposal facilities aaaare not
capable of assuring longterm containment of these Tom Alcamo: The remedy that will be chosen will protect the public health and the environment. We are dealing with the areas that are getting wet, with exposure pathways and that's what we are doing Jim. Michael List: To me these are both side issues. To me the major issue is how well you characterize what is in there and decide what is a hot spot and what isn't? How are you going to characterize what's in there and decide what's a hot spot and what isn't? What kind of gridding are you using and what type of sampling are you doing? Tom Alcamo: We just put in a hundred borings. Michael List: How far apart are they? Tom Alcamo: A hundred, some fifty. I will give you the data in a couple of weeks. You'll see the map with all the sampling data, and all the results, and all of the locations. Jim Cartmell: But there are samples that vary a hundred thousand times a few feet from each other. Tom Alcamo: Well as the judge said, "Why don't you just cap it?" David Porter: Why don't you just take it all out? Tom Alcamo: We agreed to do that but we also agreed to build an incinerator too. David Porter: Fine build the incinerator if you want to. Tom Alcamo: That's what the judge said, were not going there. David Porter: It's not clear that what you're doing is a whole lot better. Tom Alcamo: I think it is. It's a heck of a lot better. David Porter: If you can't tell me how much is left behind and how much you're getting out , How is it better? Mike Baker: Does it matter how much is there or how much is left if nothing is getting out? David Porter: Mike, do we believe there's nothing getting out? We have two stone quarries on either side of that site, the whole ground shakes. Mike Baker: I'm just saying on Neal's hopefully we'll have a map like this that shows where the contamination is and gives us some idea of concentration and volume. Dr. Clark: I'm Milton Clark, I work with Chicago EPA. You probably don't remember me but I worked with some of the Fell iron removal and some of the risk assessment work. If you could see what happened in the courtroom was that Judge Foster was saying I don't see why you can't just cap all of these. So then we had to go back and defend that position. So we've been having to work under that atmosphere and trying to get as much out of there as we can without having a rather draconian decision imposed upon us because he has said very clearly that "look if you guys don't come to some kind of decision I'm going to make one in x number of days and you guys can go into appeal back in Chicago". So what I would just like to say is that we've been trying to get as much as we can out of Neal's with a judge that so far wasn't a hundred percent supportive of that position. David Porter: Are you afraid you'd lose an appeal? Milton Clark: What we believe very strongly is that if we pull out enough of material out of the wet areas, and we also end up having a phased in water treatment process that if the levels do not drop sufficiently from that water plant that exists now within a two-year time frame, they're going to have to expand that plant and treat that water, if they can't divert the water and find where the PCBs are coming from. And we will fight on that issue. We'll really fight. Tom Alcamo: But to be honest with you for these size of sites EPA across the country has had to deal with that issue. So if it got to appeal in terms of completely removing all this stuff I think we would lose if you look at all the remedies across the country. There are probably a hundred sites across the country like this that have just been capped. In terms of getting a large amount of material removed we just don't do it. You want it all removed and I would like to have it all removed in a perfect world but I'm working under these constraints. Jim Cartmell: In the NCP it says "Longlived, highly toxic wastes are not appropriate for containment." PCBs and other materials in these landfills are longlived highly toxic wastes. David Porter: How long would the water treatment plant run for? Tom Alcamo: Into perpetuity, or until we get clean numbers. Larime Wilson: In two weeks why can't you just write a brief that say we want complete removal to the standards, and if in two weeks he throws it out we've wasted two weeks in the last 20 years. Why can't you just do that? Why are we second guessing the judge why don't you just give it a run? Then if the judge throws it out you can decide if you're going to appeal. George Hegeman: This is the master that was charged by Dillin with seeing that the goals of the consent decree were met expeditiously. Tom Alcamo: I'm not going there tonight. Tom Alcamo: We've told him specifically in our arguments. We haven't briefed it, but we've said all of this stuff should just go away. Then he comes back and says well we should just cap it. So we have argued that. Larime Wilson: In the transcript with Judge Dillin . . . Tom Alcamo: Judge Dillin is out of it. Jim Cartmell: You can talk to Judge Dillin also. The order says he [Foster] is appointed to facilitate and supervise the implementation of the consent decree. If he's failing to do that you can say, "Judge Dillin, the judge is failing facilitate the consent decree. Would you please instruct him to do so." George Hegeman: You have to look at our point of view, we're getting all of this information secondhand. Tom Alcamo: The judge made the ruling for these hearings not to be open to the public I have nothing to say about that. But that's why I am here. I'm trying to give you as much information about what we are talking about. Because he has told us I think only one public comment is required. David Porter: Whether or not you people get signed off and cleared out of this if you don't get the job done it doesn't really help us. If 10 percent of 400 tons is left behind that's a lot. Tom Alcamo: We are not going to choose a remedy that's not protective of public health and the environment. Larime Wilson: That's a mantra. Tom Alcamo: But in terms of us doing a hot spot removal and we cap it and we have water treatment where our people getting exposed? David Porter: I am never going to be able to fish and eat the fish in Richland Creek again. My world has been seriously damaged by that. I don't think it would be safe to irrigate with water out of Richland Creek. Tom Alcamo: We're trying to eliminate the fish advisories.
We are sampling the sediment and if it's contaminated they will have to
remove it. We're doing a sediment sampling next week and the same with
the Mitch Rice: But you do understand the argument that we have lived here
with karst topography and we know how water flows and we know what kind
of storms happen here and if you leave large amounts here just by hot
spot removal we know how water levels can change quickly year-to- year?
So we know there's going to be a lot left there in the landfill and I
think what we are objecting to is that we don't see the government having
oversight for 80 or hundred years and the question is will that hurt us?
No, but it will hurt our grandchildren and Michael List: I think what we can do is ask that you Tom, and John express to the judge that people really do not feel comfortable about anything short of complete removal of the material. And if you were arguing that, we would support you completely. That is what we want. Tom Alcamo: He is well aware of your position. We have conveyed that. Larime Wilson: The judge is aware of it, but he is not going to impose a
ruling that the parties do not ask for. And he can get a flood of letters
from citizens. And he may already have. But he will not come in there
and order something that the parties have agreed to less on. So what Mike
is saying is that if you're in there arguing for us and saying that we
want complete removal that's one thing. But what I've heard you saying,
and I heard the mayor say yesterday, and all the parties saying is that
none of the parties are in there arguing for that. Is that Tom Alcamo: As of now that is correct. David Porter: If you spilled jelly on the carpet, then you don't try to clean up as much of the jelly as possible before you smear it with your foot. Tom Alcamo: That position was argued a long time ago and basically it is really based upon the number of sites that CBS has discussed with the judge in terms of what EPA has done at similar sites, and what EPA's policy is. We argued that initially and we got the argument when we first started with the judge "why don't you just cap them?". And we have been demonstrating to him that we don't fill capping is appropriate. Capping may be a component, and it will be a component of Lemon Lane and Neal's Landfill at least in the position we are looking at now. Mike Baker: I would like to move on to Lemon Lane. But I would like to
support what every body has said about Neal's because it is such a large
site and it is very complex. But I think that the public should be aware
of that the reason that there isn't more discussion about a larger excavation
is because the principal government party that's responsible for that
site is the county, and the county has done nothing but sit on their butts
and watch what happens. They have let the city take the lead, and take
the heat, and they have let the state and poor Resa stick her neck out
there and get it chopped off five or six times, and the state could probably
be a little more supportive. But all of us have been lax by not putting
pressure on the people that are responsible Jim Cartmell: I have one more comment. If you excavate stuff it will change the flow of groundwater after the excavation, just be doing the excavation. Tom Alcamo: The Lemon Lane geophysical study was completed this week. We had to issue an access order for Mr. Griffin's property. It appears from right now and like I said I will get some data probably next week, probably the following week we'll get proposals for where CBS will plan to put wells to ground truth the conduits at Lemon Lane. But it appears from Illinois Central Spring there is one conduit, and then it breaks off into two and where that goes he had not finished his study as of Tuesday, So we should know more next week. On the west side of the site it appears that there are a bunch of fingers in the epikarst going into Lemon Lane. In terms of the geophysical investigation that's all we have that I know now. As soon as I get the data and we have looked at I will get it to Mike. They continue to monitor all storm events at Lemon Lane and your where as it has been released you our initial proposal for excavation within Lemon Lane in terms of 50 parts per million is the cleanup number for hot spots. It certainly does not mean within the landfill that there will not be areas greater than 50 ppm, but in terms of the known hotspots we feel very comfortable with this excavation. David Porter: If you use the figures right now what is the annual discharge from Illinois Central? Can you give me a ballpark amount? Is it in the tons, is it in the pounds? Dr. Clark: It's in the pounds range but that's significant. You are down around 3/10ths of a pound during major storm events. We still consider that a lot because that can still contaminate a lot of water and sediment. David Porter: If you consider 3/10ths of a pound a lot and you go off and leave tons un-dealt with doesn't that seem inconsistent? Dr. Clark: We're trying to approach this where we think the PCB's down here are getting wet and moving outward. And what Tom is talking about is this geophysical survey they have done to see where the water is moving through and to see if that water might in fact be potentially intercepted. Larime Wilson: This water study was done last week but we saw this hotspot map before they ever did the sampling in 1996. We saw Dan Hopkins stand up here and say this is where it's going to be and this is where were going to do the sampling. And the sampling didn't really quite support what they thought it would but were going to use it anyway even though the sampling is biased and doesn't even come into these areas of active use. You can't sit here and tell me you're using that geophysical study to rationalize this. That just happened this week. Dr. Clark: No; you are absolutely right. What we keep coming back to is the water treatment. CBS knows they are going to have to deal with this water for a longtime. I think they have incentive to try and find out where this water is moving through the landfill and try to find ways of either diverting that water so they don't have to treat it, that is making sure it does not become contaminated because the long-term capital cost to them to treat it is going to be very high. We want the fight to be on the water plant so that we have a Cadillac water treatment plant out there in two years if those levels do not drop down sufficiently to meet the state criteria and if these fish and sediment levels aren't dropping to acceptable levels. We want to make it very clear to them that there is going to be a major water plant out here unless they find a way of stopping that contamination. Tom Alcamo: I think 10 or 15 years ago there should have been treatment at Illinois Central Spring. I view that travesty I really do, in terms of the discharge. I am trying to get an interim system on as soon as possible, at least during the low flows. CBS does not want to do any excavation. They are doing and because it will give them two years to see what happens during storm events or maybe like all of the data suggested they have some base storm that they have to base our decision on that. I don't know how we're going to have to work that out yet. Michael List: Can the removal be revisited? Based upon the success of it as measured by the discharge? Tom Alcamo: The removal can be revisited based upon the EPA five-year review. Let's say for example that this removal is not successful, that the levels do not go down; Then yes we can go back and I think CBS would probably be interested in doing something to that effect because the capital cost of running their groundwater system is a lot more expensive over a number of years vs. Doing an excavation. We are going to have a monitoring plan for this facility. Mike Baker: If you're going to have a re-opener clause, then there has to be criteria for the re- opener and something in effect to insure that you'll be doing monitoring to see if you'll need to reopen. How likely are you going to get a re-opener? Tom Alcamo: We do have a five-year review. At Winston Thomas we don't, but at NPL sites we do. Mike Baker: You said earlier that the depths listed on this map are not set in stone yet, they may be solidified, but are not set in stone yet. It is there still negotiations on depths or is this it? Tom Alcamo: To be honest this is it. In terms of CBS we would have to re-open negotiations. I don't know the other government agencies opinions yet but certainly it's been promising with the county, it's been promising with the state, it's been promising with the city. Mike Baker: Would there be any interest in testing areas that have not yet been tested? Tom Alcamo: I think for what we have gotten in the agreement here that as we go north of that line we're going to find it and it's going to be excavated. Larime Wilson: There are spots where there are two thousand ppm and a few feet away are clean spots. That shows nothing in terms of characterizing what is in this landfill. And our position in terms of getting it out is if we do not get the source out these monitoring things are already shoddy and in our eyes are not getting any better. So if we don't get the source out and things change over time where this water is falling to their will be no other monitoring on these other wells. Mike Baker: Can I ask you question? You said you're going to come up 50 feet from the top of the line there, are you not going to follow the entire face of the excavation? Tom Alcamo: No; It's proposed right from that straight line across. But nothing along the sides unless we see visibly contaminated material or we see capacitor parts or things of that nature. Jim Cartmell: Right here is sample No. 6 where you have visual evidence of a capacitor and it is not in your line. And one of the things that scares me about this is "ash, ash, ash, ash, ash"--from the boring log. When you burn PCB's guess what you get ash. And this ash has huge amounts of dioxide and dibenzofurans. And on sample 23 you are six feet down before you get something above 50 ppm and then you get 2000 ppm so if you would have done these cute little 50 foot things up here and not gone below 6 feet this would have been a clean area. There was fill put over the top of this as well, so if you just go down 6 feet it's going to test clean when it's not. Tom Alcamo: That will be taken into consideration. Mike Baker: Even though you have not negotiated the depths that you are going to sample these 50 feet grids, that is an important consideration to go back and argue that you should not sample the grids any less than going down where you've hit the heavy 200,000 or 300,000 ppm. Tom Alcamo: That is one of our concerns, in terms of the depths of that area and that area getting wet. No. 1 there is verification sampling, No. 2 in all likelihood this is going to go down to bedrock. Michael List: This map represents depths that have been sampled so far, that does not represent the depths that you are going to be committed to excavate? Tom Alcamo: No. John Langley: There is an initial excavation. After you do that you visuallyl inspect for parts, paper, stains, and you can chase all those. Jim Cartmell: Why isn't sample 6 in the excavation then? You already have visual evidence of contamination. Tom Alcamo: We will go back and check that. John Langley: We should have really good data on that in the field logs because there was a pile of capacitors that was excavated in that approximate location. I am not saying to you that's the only one there ever was. David Porter: I don't understand what you're accomplishing with the excavation. What do you accomplish by getting hot spots out that the water treatment and the cap doesn't? Tom Alcamo: We think it is the source material that is getting out to Illinois Central Spring. If we remove that were hoping there is no more source for Illinois Central Spring. Jim Cartmell: This is the log report when they built the fence at Lemon Lane and the log report says there were capacitors outside of the fence but they put the fence up anyway. Twelve years later the guy that lives right here had his yard tested and they got 3500 ppm. Tom Alcamo: That's Griffin's yard, and that's being handled by the state. And I'm hoping that it happens this summer. Mike Baker: Can I get clear on performance testing. You dig down, whether
it's four free, eight feet ,or 10 feet you get to what ever level you
think you need to excavate and then you do testing. So when you have a
hundred foot grid and you take the number of samples out of that, when
you take those samples how far down do you go to take Tom Alcamo: Probably at the surface most likely. Mike Baker: So if you see no visual, no capacitor parts, no stains but you hit 5000 ppm then you just determine how far you need to go and just keep doing that. And right now there's no provision or argument that at a certain point you have to stop? Tom Alcamo: No. We have verification sampling. Michael List: The objection of CBS is mostly to the actual digging of this material? Is it mostly to the excavation or the removal, transportation and disposal? Tom Alcamo: I think the transportation and disposal. But I don't think
CBS is objecting to this in terms of the southern portion of the site.
They truly feel that this is a problem because it's getting wet. But anyway
mike I think it's a cost issue. The transportation and disposal is probably
in the neighborhood of 100 dollars per ton where the Michael List: It seems totally unreasonable to completely dig all of it up and if it's clean move it to the side and keep on going. So if that seems unreasonable then the next best thing would be to simply grid the entire thing down to what we would consider to be a reasonable grid and sample the entire thing. If you don't do that you can't say stuff isn't someplace you haven't checked. Tom Alcamo: There will be stuff remaining, but is it getting out? That's the issue. Michael List: I think it is preposterous that if you do it the way you want to do it and you take out what you think is probably going to reduce the flow out and then you watch and see what comes out and in two years or five years you see that it hasn't gone out. You expect us to believe that you can gear up and go back in and do this whole thing again in any kind of expeditious fashion? George Hegeman: How many NPL sites on a five-year revisit have been excavated? Tom Alcamo: I do not know. But you look at agency policy across the country it does this all the time. You may think it's preposterous but this is our policy. There are hundreds of remedies across the country that in these type of sites they would just be capped. In terms of a hot spot removal sometimes we do it in sometimes we don't. Jim Cartmell: Would you bring some of these and show us them. Would you bring hundreds of them? Tom Alcamo: Sure. I'll bring you a whole CD-ROM. David Porter: To just say that this is how we do it is not acceptable. This is not a trivial problem, you would not like it if you lived here. You would not like it if you could not eat the fish in Richland Creek. [April 23, 1998 tape two] Jim Cartmell: . . . people who just go out and fishes in Clear Creek or any of these other creeks. Dr. Clark: Well because the shotguns and people steal them and if you ask the DNR and the public health people to go and put them up. Jim Cartmell: But that's the state's responsibility anyway right?
Right. Jim Cartmell: Well they posted them once initially right? Dr. Clark: Right, and they all just disappeared. Jim Cartmell: Well the claim is they all just disappeared in a few days, and I just thought man I didn't know fishermen were that organized or that interested in tearing down signs. Dr. Clark: But you know cycling back is our goal and something we talk about internally is that those fish advisories are ultimately eliminated downstream at these sites. That is a working goal when we started talking about the water treatment that may go on for decades or the sediment that's going to have to be pulled out of it if there's been inadequate treatment. That's something that I think we're very sensitive to. David Porter: Yeah, but your performance to date doesn't give anybody confidence that we can believe it's clean when you say that it is. You're not credible. Dr. Clark: Well we'll bring the data. I mean we might have to get beat up with a rod here if we don't put in an adequate water treatment plant and we don't have the fish levels dropping. And then we'll deserve to get beat up frankly. Mike Baker: Tom, how much does a sample cost approximately? Out of curiosity, for them to go in and sample. Even though they're not likely to do it or be asked to do it or forced to do it. If they were to test and we were to calculate what it would actually cost for them to go in and test in a reasonable number of area so at least statistically you could argue that were getting most of it or whatever. How much does it cost to get a sample? Tom Alcamo: The analytical cost is around a hundred dollars a sample for PCBs; boring cost, it all depends, it depends on how many you put in, it depends on lineal feet it could be probably in the neighborhood of five thousand dollars, somewhere in that range. Mike Baker: For boring? Tom Alcamo: No. For a mobilization and a number of borings, maybe 10 borings. Jim Cartmell: There are bioassay tests that are considerably cheaper too. Tom Alcamo: You mean the amino acid tests. You have to be careful with those though because they're not that accurate and they cost around 42 dollars a test. Jim Cartmell: You claim the test that your currently doing is accurate? Tom Alcamo: Well how much do you think an immunoassay costs? Jim Cartmell: About 20 dollars a test. Tom Alcamo: No they cost about 42 dollars a sample and they cost about the dollars using the 8082 methods, EPA's 8082 method. Which is a much better method. And we have a lot of data now not only from former I.S.F. but also from Winston Thomas that has amino acids that really have a nice screen to them but to verify anything. I would not use it. But anyway I can give you for example the drilling at Neal was about 30 thousand dollars, for about 78 holes. 30 thousand dollars drilling 30 thousand dollars, laboratories analytical work and of course then the people to collect them. Our total for the 78 borings was between 250 and 300 thousand dollars. So in terms of it you have data validation which will cost you money and things of that nature so there are a lot of add- ons. I can give you number of drilling companies if you want them. David Porter: What could you do with a trained bloodhound? No, I'm dead serious if you have a bloodhound that's trained to detect to 50 parts per million and you run him across a core and he says here's hot, here's hot, and here's hot. Is this really different from sniffing out a bomb, or tracking a criminal? Tom Alcamo: The problem with that is he may be able to sniff PCB's but there might be other chemicals in there that are masking it. I don't know maybe it would be a good research project. Jim Cartmell: It would be easy to do, I mean they use them for bombs to protect the president. I mean they have really important crucial things that they use dogs for that they have to be able to detect really specific scents. David Porter: You might dismiss this but I'm really quite serious. If you could get a hound trained, you could have a really quick and dirty way of doing a test. Tom Alcamo: I'm going to email you with our office for research and development. Larime Wilson: Well, not to mention biomonitoring. There are plants that can do the same thing for air quality, and in Europe there are major conferences on this stuff. For example there are plants like spiderwort (Tradescantia virginiensis) that their blooms bloom with blue colors but if they are exposed to chemicals or some form of air pollution even in very small quantities during their budding stage they will bloom pink. And you could put them all-around for nothing and as soon as you find one that blooms pink bring in your air monitors and sit them on top of it. Tom Alcamo: Well Winston Thomas, I would rather put the puff samplers out to be honest with you. Michael List: Well it's getting a little late. I think it's
really clear that the public feels that the characterization is inadequate
and that the hot spot removal is to say the least deeply flawed. I think
it's equally clear that your feeling is that under the constraints imposed
upon you by the legal side of the process you are in fact in their Tom Alcamo: That's what I've been putting together now. As quick as I can get the data and release it I'll get it to Mike. Jim Cartmell: I want the existing administrative record for what's already occurred. I want them for all the sites. Mike Baker: Second question, Michael. Michael List: Also at the last meeting the judge had closed the hearing to the public and you said that you would place his written comments regarding that into the public repository. Has that been done? Tom Alcamo: Yes, I've sent all the transcripts. Jim Cartmell: Actually what we asked for was everything that was sent to the judge, what we actually got were the responses but none of the attachments that were sent to the judge. Tom Alcamo: Well I don't think the legal briefs are something that I can release. I'll ask the lawyers. I don't have a problem giving them to you. Jim Cartmell: Well there's more. There are affidavits and things that were attached to the responsiveness summary that was referred to in the responsiveness summary that I would like to see. Tom Alcamo: Well I don't have any of those attachments, I don't have any idea which you're talking about. I'll find out what they are and I'll get them to you. Michael List: Then there's the question of financial liability and fiscal stability of Westinghouse /CBS. Tom Alcoma: Under RCRA there's a certain number of provisions that allows a company to prove their financial worth and they'll be using those as their requirements within the law. And again I don't have the statute, but I'll get the statute and bring you copies of it. That's how companies demonstrate financial ability to pay based upon certain worth, there's a whole list of formulas they use. And I'll bring copies of the RCRA statutes for you. Michael List: Well supposedly D. O. J. was doing a specific investigation into this issue and what was the result of that? Tom Alcamo: CBS is plenty rich. Michael List: That's what D. O. J. determined? Tom Alcamo: Yes. Jim Cartmell: Well that wasn't the question though. Tom Alcamo: Under the RCRA regulations CBS would not have to put forth the performance bond. Jim Cartmell: No, the question was in the consent decree there is a requirement
that if their net worth declined by a certain percentage as reported by
a certain form. It is very specific. The quarterly reports were provided
to the parties and we got a copy of them. The quarterly report that was
specifically referred to in the consent decree said their net worth has
declined by this amount. And so we said, "hey its time to post a
performance bond as it is specifically stated in the consent decree and
required by the consent decree." And then there was this whole thing
that happened and we got back that Justice thought they were rich enough.
It doesn't have anything to do with the requirements of the consent decree.
What triggers the posting of the performance Tom Alcamo: I think Jim that they did look at. I really do. But I'll find out. That was before my time. But I do think they looked at it and it was determined that they had the financial means. Jim Cartmell: Which wasn't the question. Tom Alcamo: Well they don't need to do it. Justice has made that determination. Jim Cartmell: They don't want to do it. They're not going to do it. Tom Alcamo: They don't want to do it. CBS hates justice. They're S. O. B.'s. Believe me if Justice thought they should provide a performance bond, they would do it. Believe me. David Porter: Well what kind of performance guarantee will there be for them maintaining the water treatment systems into perpetuity? Tom Alcamo: Well there'll have to be some type of assurance just like a financial agreement pursuant to a RCRA response. I'll get a copy of the statute and distribute it or Mike I'll give you a copy of it and let you distribute it. Mike Baker: Well I know that the court has addressed that no matter how many times CBS or Westinghouse changes their names they don't feel that there's anyway, they can escape the liability at least in the court's eyes. Tom Alcamo: Right. The judge thought that even Siemens could be liable because Siemens bought a large portion of Westinghouse's electrical business. Mike Baker: Michael is there more? , So we can get through those. Michael List: Actually that is the last one. But I'm going to bump up another item on the agenda. We've had ungodly problems with dates, times, sites, and agendas of meetings. So before everyone starts milling about and paying absolutely no attention to this we're going to determine when we are next meeting. Ok, Tom, when is the next event that could materially change things that we would need to know about? Tom Alcamo: We have to get back to the judge regarding two dates in May maybe June, so I do not know what they're going to come up with regarding a date. I would like to do it sometime in the week of May 18th maybe. Michael List: Does anyone else have anything to say about when they would like to meet? Then that's fine with me, Wednesday, May 20th. Mike Baker: I just have one question. My question is this. It looks like
there are approximately 30 borings in these two areas that are going to
be potentially excavated. If you did 78 more which would cost approximately
300 thousand dollars you would have completely covered the entire landfill
more adequately then you did the first 30 and that amount of money is
about the same amount of money that was argued at Winston-Thomas for 12
inches of fill. So I'm asking that you will argue, and that we'll make
sure that the county understands that we'll ask them to argue, and the
state to argue that for an additional 300 thousand dollars we can at least
all sleep a little bit better knowing that we have a still imperfect picture
but a statistically greatly improved Michael List: It would be a whole lot more grief for the judge to do deal with again if in five years it turns out that just as much stuff is coming out again as there was before. Jim Cartmell: And that's particularly relative to what I'm about to show, which says that large amounts of material were dumped in other areas of the landfill that have not been tested. Tom Alcamo: You presented that last time, and we already thanked you for the information. Larime Wilson: I have two questions. You said at Neal's dump we had to takeout 10 parts per million because it was in a residential area? And we've got 50 here and it's in the middle of a residential site, are you pulling 50 out of the air or what? Tom Alcamo: It's different in terms of the size of the site and it being a landfill. Larime Wilson: Because it's bigger, you're not going to do it? Tom Alcamo: Because it's a landfill EPA's policy is due to the size this is a reasonable remedy. Mitch Rice, Jim Cartmell, Larime Wilson, David Porter: But it's not a landfill. Dr. Clark: Well Neal's dump and some of the issues of proximity there and people on private wells was a factor in that too. Tom Alcamo: Believe me. The city wants to do that. Larime Wilson: They show a third of it as private property. This is not all city property. It's not even all owned by the city. Pelfree's got this northern portion; his residential property is inside the metes and bounds and Griffin over here is right to the edge. I'm not that familiar with Neal's, but no one could be closer than the guy inside. Tom Alcamo: The guy at Neal's dump parks his truck right beside the fence and Griffin's property is being handled by the state and I'm hoping that cleanup will happen this summer. Larime Wilson: But in terms of naming the 50 ppm or 10 ppm just because it's bigger, or because Westinghouse has to pay more, or because Judge Dillin thinks they have deep pockets but the EPA thinks 50 ppm is all we're going to ask for. Tom Alcamo: It's usually in that type of site; The way lemon Lane is situated. We look at this type of remedy. Larime Wilson: My second question is about re-opener. The mayor told us yesterday that Westinghouse has not agreed to that. Tom Alcamo: No; They haven't. Larime Wilson: So we should make it clear that it's one thing to agree on this based upon re-opener but if we don't have re-opener yet that's a whole different story. Tom Alcamo: Well. The five-year review is obviously one of the re-openers in terms of that. And in regards that something written down in a consent decree amendment or something like that then that's not the case. Jim Cartmell: Mr. Clark said that they're excavating this because stuff was draining down into here and that's why they were going to excavate it. Dr. Clark: That's where the highest concentrations were found down in the southeast corner and there was some thinking that in fact that may have occurred and that was the area that was getting wet. For that reason they wanted to remove all that down there at the lower Southern end. Jim Cartmell: Because, it was draining from somewhere else into that Southern end. Dr. Clark: No, it wasn't specific. I know where you're going with this; But they didn't say specifically it was coming from some place else, "it was just in low lying areas" was some of the language that they had used. Jim Cartmell: This corner of the landfill still puddles when it rains and
half of the puddle is in the landfill and half of it is on the other side.
But getting back to this. This is the site report and EPA was there, everybody
was there. It says the capacitors were dumped in a large pit in the center
of the site. When PCB dumping started at Lemon Dr. Clark: That's the sinkhole too, isn't it? Jim Cartmell: This is the sinkhole; Notice the southwest corner, there's
no hole there, It's all filled in already. If there ever was one there
and the Geophysical survey when they did the seismic stuff it shows a
trough that goes through the bedrock that goes up this way. And then there
was this hole that was on the surface where a lot of the material was
dumped. This depicts the dumping activity at the site in 1958. This is
EPA's Earth Tech aerial photo interpretation map that shows where activity
occurred. And you can see that it's occurring in here and Dr. Clark: Basically, Tom has to make a decision whether or not he opens
up to try to do more negotiations for additional sampling's of the area.
You're making a case that you have to have more and you have made that Jim Cartmell: But you need to take this information to the judge. That's what you have to do. It obviously wasn't utilized when drafting the sampling plan originally so that means you can't just say it, you have to have all this paper with you. You have to say Judge look. It was all dumped right there. Tom Alcamo: Jim you made your point. Larime gave me the documents and I'll take them back and take a look at them, and we'll go from there. Most likely this is a negotiated type of agreement. I'm sorry were under the consent decree you interpreted your way but no one else interprets it that way including a federal magistrate Judge and a federal court judge. Jim Cartmell: This is a current college sociology textbook and chapter 7 deals with crime and deviant behavior and goes into the kind of stuff that corporations get away with, the white-collar crime. It specifically talks about toxic waste dumping and gives examples that are exactly parallel to the Bloomington situation. Tom Alcamo: Jim, I want to cleanup the sites, I want to prevent Clear Creek from having a fish advisory, I want to have the sediment cleaned up, I want a water treatment plant so David can go and fish in Richland Creek and catch a big fish. You know that's our goal. We are not here as some government conspiracy that we're not trying to do our jobs. We're working under the constraints of the consent decree to negotiate an agreement. Michael List: We were supposed to go to only 9:00. We made this agreement years ago. We have seen a lot of information. Tom if you would please go over the maps that Jim has shown because if there's a sinkhole there where most of the stuff was dumped it's ridiculous not to sample it, so would you please look at that and go to bat for us to do additional sampling so you can remove as much of the stuff as possible the first time around. Would you also point out to Westinghouse that it's in their best interest as well if they're going to have to be responsible for taking care of the water that comes out of it contaminated anyway. And with that I think we've all had enough. NOTE: THESE MINUTES ARE MISSING LARGE SEGMENTS FROM THE MEETING.
PARTICULARLY, NUMEROUS COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED LEMON
|
|||||||||||||||
|
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. | |||||||||||||||