| |
Citizens Information Committee
Minutes (rev.) of Public Meeting
July 22, 1997
Bloomington, Indiana
Attendees:
Dawn Hewitt Sassafras Audubon
John Langley CBU
Michael List Chair
Sally Hegeman LWV
Sona Chambers Earth Tech
Dan Hopkins US EPA
Derrick Kimbrough US EPA
Resa Ramsey IDEM
Deb Backhus
Larime Wilson
Diane Henshall
Dan Sparks USFS
Evelyn Brody CBU
Clarifications of last month's minutes
Dan Hopkins:
1. I was asked whether the judge reads the comments. I am not sure if he
reads them himself, but I imagine that a clerk at least. We provide a responsiveness
summary that groups the questions and answers them.
2. Re: Contamination left at W-T after cleanup. I am not comfortable with
leaving an inappropriate amount behind.
3. Fish samples for dioxin in Clear Creek still need to be taken.
4. Lemon Lane Berming. Some areas have been covered over to divert water,
while berming has occurred only at the top of the covered dump area.
5. TSCA material from W-T may have to be shipped to the nearest railyard.
Work Plan
Michael List
A work plan for the drying beds and digesters was to be submitted by yesterday
the 21st of July. How do we stand with that?
Dan Hopkins:
The City has gotten their copy, but Resa and I have not yet seen it, but
apparently it is either on the way or delivered.
The Department of Justice offered a public comment period, which has been
extended to the 25th of July. They must receive the comments by the 25th
of July. The best option may be fax. Send a cover sheet to Steven Ellis.
Send it to 202-616-6584. During public comment in regards to amending the
Consent Decree. The DOJ offered, and some citizens responded, to have a
public meeting. It is another opportunity to offer comments. The meeting
is at Broadveiw Elementary School on July 28th at 7:00 pm.
David Porter:
Does this comment period relate just to the sludge beds and digesters?
Dan Hopkins
Yes. Apparently each time we want to amend the Consent Decree, we are required
by RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) to hold these public comment
meetings. The point is that RCRA requires
public comment is this sort of "covenant not to sue" (Consent
Decree) contract, and each time we amend the Consent Decree, we take comment
under RCRA. We may not have a meeting each time we amend, but we will have
a comment period every time we do it. The meeting will be held by the EPA,
and attended by the Department of Justice.
David Porter:
What about comments on the cleanup of the West Side of Clear Creek?
Dan Hopkins:
I just spoke with Mayor Fernandez, and he expressed the desire to have a
public comment period on this soon. We are fairly close to an agreement,
so we would need to have this meeting soon so that input can be considered.
David Porter
Isn't this lifting everything out of Judge Dillon's hands? Could he impose
contempt of court if he wanted to?
Dan Hopkins:
He could not agree with what we are doing.
David Porter:
I think the Judge should impose a $50,000/day fine to any party obstructing
a cleanup.
Michael List:
How do you determine who is doing the obstructing?
David Porter:
Well if a majority of the parties agree that one other is obstructing....
Michael List:
But the Consent Decree says that all five parties must agree.
David Porter:
Well the Consent Decree is pretty much down the drain isn't it?
Michael List:
It still the legal framework under which we are working.
Dan Hopkins:
Yes it is.
Larime Wilson
The DOJ has said that the Consent Decree can not be enforced except to enforce
the incineration remedy. I don't believe that is right, but he said that
is DOJ's position. Did you discuss that in your party principals' meeting?
Dan Hopkins:
We did not discuss that. I think we are all working with consensus as our
goal. Our options are limited. If the process fails then there are not many
options.
Larime Wilson
Is there any reason why the removal clauses can't be enforced, no matter
what the remedy is?
Dan Hopkins:
Well, for W-T yes, but not for the West Side of Clear Creek.
Larime Wilson:
Well I am thinking of our biggest problem, Lemon Lane, and the problems
you may have coming to a consensus there.
Dan Hopkins:
The U.S. reserved the right to act under emergency conditions, and even
to compel action by a responsible party, and we came close to using it when
it look like we had serious leakage at the digesters
last year. This is not to be used often, as it upsets the balance of rights
of the parties to the Consent Decree.
After the meeting on the 28th of July, the comments will not be subject
to a response to comments, but any significant comments would be filed as
part of the motion that would go to the Court, and they would highlighted,
according to Steve Ellis the DOJ attorney assigned to the case. The work
is to begin in late August.
For the rest of site (other than the sludge beds, digesters, and WSCC),
we are trying to come closure about appropriate Health Based Cleanup Goals.
Instead of a formal risk assessment, it's been calculated backwards. We
take 1 times 10 to the minus fifth cancer risk factor, and back calculate
using various exposure scenarios
using our expectation of end use. We have been working with the Company
over the various factors that would lead to a number, and how that number
would be applied, whether it is an average number, or a not to exceed number.
We have been working back and forth, and it is fair to say that coming to
agreement on the factors is stalled.
At our meeting in Chicago on July 15, 1997, the governmental parties were
all in alignment on the cleanup goals, and how they should be applied. We
asked Westinghouse to sign by the end of the month, and are waiting a response.
EPA first recommended that a 15 ppm not to exceed standard be set. After
some discussions were had, we decided we could use the 15ppm as an average
value with 25 ppm as the not to exceed number. The company wanted to go
50 ppm on the not to exceed number, and the governmental bodies would not
accept that.
Michael List:
I remember from the Fell cleanup that two number were worked out after much
discussion. They were 25 ppm for commercial and 10 ppm for residential.
What happened to those standards, and why are they not being applied here?
Dan Hopkins:
Those numbers came from our PCB spill policy. At Winston-Thomas we agreed
that we would use risk analysis as part of the process. The spill policy
is really suited for transformer spills and such. We still refer to it,
but here we are using risk assessment to guide us.
Michael List:
So the spill numbers are guidance?
Dan Hopkins:
No, they are policy. The risk assessment road is also valid, the Agency
follows up with risk assessment.
Resa Ramsey:
The spill policy triggers on events from 1982 onwards.
Sona Chambers:
Could you go back to the policy if this process doesn't come to agreement?
Diane Henshal:
Why are you considering only cancer risks?
Dan Hopkins:
I mis-spoke. We considered both cancer and non-cancer risks for both a construction
worker on the site, and for a maintenance worker, over a 25 year period.
Diane Henshal:
What did you use for your non-cancer endpoints, and for your non-cancer
effective dose?
Dan Hopkins:
I don't have the answer to that. We were using the person with the most
exposure.
Diane Henshal:
What about the dirt the work carries home. Shouldn't we study the most sensitive
persons in the chain (pregnant women and children), not the most exposed.
Dan Hopkins:
That's a good point. It would depend on how much that person takes home,
how people at home are exposed.
Diane Henshal:
On a rainy muddy day you are taking home a lot. I think you should at least
consider it. There are no set standard for risk assessment right now, it
is a field in flux. The best standard to use would be common sense, have
all the risks been considered, are the scenarios realistic, and writing
down all the assumptions made.
Sona Chambers:
The EPA came out with its own PCB exposure model.
Diane Henshal:
That was in 1992. That was before many of the endpoints (for non-cancer
risks) were known.
Dan Hopkins:
Sona suggested that we bring our risk assessor down here for a public meeting,
and I think it would be a good idea.
David Porter:
If you are removing the West Side of Clear Creek, why are you filling the
hole?
Dan Hopkins:
We will remove about 5200 cubic yards of highly contaminated material. We
will leave a 30 foot buffer along the creek. We will then scrape the material
(between the buffer and the highly contaminated material) into the hole
that the highly contaminated came from. We are hoping that the concentrations
scraped into the
hole will in the single digits, and it will be covered with 18 inches of
clean dirt.
This plan helps move us towards getting this done this year. We have given
them a draft administrative order on consent. With Fell's and ABB we gave
them a unilateral order. We think we have the Company's cooperation, and
we feel the plan is protective, so it should go forward. There is no resolution
yet, but we are going back and forth on the terms
Dan Sparks:
I think this is a good remedial plan.
Diane Henshal:
Has anyone studied how much scouring would occur during floods like
1992.
Dan Sparks:
Not much once it is revegitated. The elevation has been stable for some
time now.
David Porter:
Will the material wick up when the ground is saturated?
Dan Hopkins:
At the concentrations we are talking about, this is not likely.
Lemon Lane
Dan Hopkins:
Two perimeter samplings will be taken, one by Westinghouse, and one by EPA.
Westinghouse has submitted their plans, and those are under review. My contractor,
Earth Tech, has put together a sampling plan. Westinghouse has taken the
position that they are responsible for the PCB contamination, and will sample
only for them. They will do the perimeter sampling, and the EPA will sample
for other contaminants, including dioxin, furans and metals.
Michael List:
If you find these other contaminants, will Westinghouse say, we are responsible
only for the PCBs?
Dan Hopkins:
They could. But it would be hard to argue that burning PCBs doesn't create
dioxin and furans, and even harder to argue that it was not in the Inerteen
dumped at the site. EPA has decided not to fight this battle now, but rather
to move forward and do the sampling. We have found that the dioxins are
high in the landfill. It does not mobilize easily, and if that part of the
landfill is kept dry, we could say this is not a problem. We must first
look at the fish downstream to see if there is dioxin uptake.
Michael List:
What level of dioxin escape would it take to say that just keeping the water
out is not enough?
Dan Hopkins:
We will know when we see what is in the fish. We haven't seen it is the
water so far. We will take fish samples sometime in August.
Larime Wilson:
Shouldn't you test for dioxin in the areas that are highly contaminated
with PCBs?
Dan Hopkins:
Yes, now that we know where the PCB contamination is. We tested in the sinks
to see if the dioxin had migrated down, and was close to the conduit.
Larime Wilson:
Can we expect to see someone sample for dioxin in these areas?
Dan Hopkins:
Yes the EPA will do this sampling.
David Porter:
What are you going to do about the Springs? If you had a factory that was
discharging 500 ppm out of a pipe, you would put a cork in it.
Dan Hopkins:
I have come around in my thinking on this. I thought we should use surface
control to see is we could reduce flow, but I am coming to think that we
should work with what we know we have and deal with differential volumetric
flows.
David Porter:
Has anyone calculated the total number of pounds of PCBs escaping from ICC
Springs each year. You know John Foster talked for years about this and
was ignored. The man is owed an apology. And still no one talks about the
number of pounds that come out each year.
Dan Hopkins:
There are some things to focus on, most notably the Springs. If this is
like other cases in the last few years, this process could take a long time.
David Porter:
Which is why I am suggesting the Judge impose a $50,000 a day fine. As long
as it costs less to do nothing, they will do it.
Dan Hopkins:
I will relay that to our attorneys.
Michael List:
How long will the treatment plant have to be there, is there some minimum
number that must be reached?
Dan Hopkins:
There was a plan at the landfill where the plant would shut down after a
very small number was reached, but this never happened.
David Porter:
What about at Neal's, where the water flows around the treatment plant?
I saw a parent and child fishing there last week. It would be really nice
to get our hazardous streams posted no fishing.
Dan Hopkins:
PCB concentrations have been falling in the fish.
Westinghouse Company Split
Westinghouse will retain liability when the split occurs, both companies
will retain liability.
Next Meeting:
Thursday, Sept. 4, 1997
McCloskey Room, 7:00 pm. |
|
