Citizens Information Committee
Minutes of Public Meeting
October 15, 1996
Bloomington, Indiana
CIC Members:
Dan Hopkins, USEPA
Iris Kiesling, Bloomington
Resa Ramsey, IDEM
Mike Baker, COPA
Mitch Rice, COPA
Dave Novak USEPA
George Hegeman,
Guests:
Lou Schwitzer
John Foster
Laramie Wilson
David Porter
Evelyn Brophy
Michelle
Sona Chambers
Meeting called to order 7:05 pm
Minutes for last meeting are ratified
Rescheduling of Ombudsman Meeting:
M. List (MB)
Mr. Martin, national EPA ombudsman, and Mr. Balotti, Region V Ombudsman
will not be here due to scheduling problems. The first adgena item is rescheduling
the meeting.
As no dates were forthcoming from the Ombudsmans office, the committee
set the date for the next regular meeting as Dec 5, 1996, in hte City Council
Chambers We will try to schedule Mr. Martin in for that date
Mike Baker (MB)
We know that some documents were sent from back and forth from Region V
to the Ombudsman's Office, can you give us copies of that correspondance
so that we can know what was going on, and be ready for the meeting.
Dan Hopkins (DH)
Yes. The story is thus: The date of the fifteenth was set with Ombudsman,
this meeting was then called off, then on, then back off, to everyone's
chagrin. An issues paper was written by DH and sent to the Ombudsman. I
composed the this paper. This is the only paper that exists, no other letters
were exchanged. This document is available.
Oct 1-2
Ombudsman can not come. Heavy work load, and WT incinerator in E. Liverpool,
Ohio We pushed to have the ombudsman to come, as so much many people were
alerted several days went by,
Oct 4
Still unsuccessful called list, give me one more day on
Monday Oct 7.
Called Michael. No answer from National, let's cancel. Word was out that
he was not coming
Tues. Oct 8
Sanjour called, and Martin is coming. Region V then said lets stay canceled.
MB
This is basically the chronology that we put together.
WINSTON THOMAS
No one from the City was available
Resa Ramsey (RR)
We have just received from Westinghouse the report on the sampling results,
from the Alternative Evaluation Plan done in July. We have not yet been
able to review it.
DH
We have not yet got the final plan, but we can give you an idea of what
is going on. (A map of the WT site is projected.) There were few suprises
Here is the lagoon, the 3 drying beds, the abandoned lagoon, digester tanks,
the interem storage facility, and the west side of Clear Creek (not within
the metes and bounds of the Consent Decree.) There were up to several thousand
ppm found in the lagoon. One of the drying beds is less than 50 ppm, which
would make it classed as hazardous waste in Indiana, so it could be hauled
to a special waste site. The other bed is in the range of several hundred
ppm, and would have to be shipped to a TOSCA approved landfill. The third
drying bed has segregatable areas that could be separated. The digesters
contain sludge, water and biomass. The sludge has the highest concentrations
at several hundred ppm.
The one suprising result was that the material in the interim storage
facility had concentrations in the tens of ppm, quite low. There was a layer
in there that did have higher concentrations, and the speculation was that
it was the fill from Anderson Road.
This test was done mostly with immunoassey tests, about 10% were the
more standard gas chromatograph. Immunoassey kits will not give correct
values below 5.8ppm. Anything below is measured as "below 5.8".
Discreet values given measurable from 5.8 to 117ppm. Everything above 117
whether is 118 or 1000, is registered as "above 117".
West Side of Clear Creek
This map shows areas that are "above 117" within 3 feet of the
surface. The area is heavily vegetatedwith rambles and tall matted weeds.
It is a deposition area, not a scouring area, silt is more likely to be
deposited here than to be eroded. However its proximity close to Clear Creek
is worrisome, and it is open, not fenced. It is bounded on one side by a
ravine. I was there today with an EPA health risk assesor to help deterimine
the proper response to the findings. (Proximity to Clear Creek School is
discussed. It is nearly a mile away.) We did notice the school bus stopping
nearby. I don't know who, or if anyone is using this area. People could
go berry picking there, and it is adjacent to the Rails to Trails path.
We got up 1400 ppm results in one area, and 740 in another area, kind of
high.
Lou Schwitzer:
What is the action level for PCBs in a residential area? 10 ppm?
DH
Well if it's in a residential area, they don't really say if it's above
a certain level, fence it. There is what is called a Principle Threat Level,
which is presumed to be actionable. There is a difference between a concentration
that prompts to action, and a cleanup level, which is less. Ten ppm is a
cleanup level. This area is different, it is not part of the Consent Decree,
it is not fenced. We did not know that this area even existed. Wesitnghouse
has agreed to clean up this area with the Winston-Thomas site next year.
In a residential area, the level is 10ppm, if it had an agricultural use,
it would be less, perhaps 1ppm. At EPA we have to determine if there is
an immenant substantial endangerment.
MB
What is the number that caused you to fence ICC Springs? Should we be looking
at doing something here? At the very least, post a warning sign.
DH
At ICC we found signs that kids had been in the area, it was muddy, but
accessable. Here the weeds make it difficult to get into the area.
MB
You could consider posting the area if the remedy will occur quickly, but
if it is more than a few months, perhaps you should consider fencing.
ML
This area is very thick with just a few trails. If the remedy occurs soon
perhaps just posting signs would ok.
DH
Well there is the factor, that if we just post it, we may actually draw
the curious to the site.
LS
Since this is not a Consent Decree site, can't you just take action? Why
do we have to wait till next year to protect the kids in the neighborhood.
DH
The question is not if the area will be cleaned up, but when.
LS
Well it would be a great good faith effort if this were to be fenced.
George Hegeman (GH)
I would like to recommend that as there is immenant health danger from being
in this area, that it be fenced and signs posted.
Iris Kiesling (IK)
There may be weeds there now, but come winter, it will be more accessbable.
LS
There will be wildlife and perhaps hunters in the area this winter. We should
act on this area now.
David Porter (DP)
How did this stuff get over the creek in the first place?
DH
Well this material was placed here before there was any knowledge of PCB
contamination. As John Langley has pointed out, when you have a treatment
plant, you have a sludge disposal problem.
Mark Stoops (MS)
Have you taken any readings in the ravine?
DH
We took some additional readings, but not in the ravine. We will test this
later. All this area up to the railroad is in the 100 year flood plain,
and a good part of it is also in the 50 and 10 year flood plain, so it is
definately a concern. Now I want to get your opinion on this. Here is where
fence could be put.
GH
Couldn't you just extend the current fence line to the creek, then fence
back to WT?
DH
This is a good idea, I had not thought of this, and I will consider it.
Laramie Wilson (LW)
Have you tested outside of this immediate area?
DH
Much of the history of this area has just come to light. We just found two
areas outside of the fencing, sinkholes that had been leveled with sludge.
Those were investigated too.
DP
Was this sludge trucked out before the PCBs were discovered?
LS
It was trucked all over the county for people to use as free fertilizer.
People spread it on their gardens.
IK
I would like to state for the record that several people suggested fencing
the site, and posting the signs at the very least.
Mitch Rice (MR)
Is it correct that the cleanup will occur according to schedule next spring?
DH
Yes, we are behind on a few of the subtasks, but the major points have been
met.
Lemon Lane Sampling Plan
Dave Novak (DN)
There will be a public meeting concerning the Lemon Lane Sampling plan here
in the City Council Chambers on Tuesday, Oct 29, 1996, at 7:00pm. All the
five parties are involved, and the Westinghouse plan, the EPA version, and
the comments from the City and State.
MR
What is this compilation plan?
DN
The EPA has a plan, Westinghouse does also, and the City and State have
offshoots of these.
MR
We have not seen these comments, just the two plans (Westinghouse and EPA)
DH
This meeting is to hear your comments, nothing is set in concrete. (A contour
map of Lemon Lane is projected. It shows magnetic anomolies, indicatiing
metal, possibly capacitors.) We do not know if the anmolies are capacitors,
or car bodies. We don't know if capacitors were carrried away or what.
John Foster (JF)
Have you ever talked to the dozer operator who worked there. He will tell
you he pushed those capacitors all over the site.
DH
I have tried to talk to a number of people, but they don't seem to want
to talk to me.
JF
Well, if you want, I can put you in touch.
DH
In the two sinkholes we are interested in sampling because they are geologicly
unstable, and we have identified an area along the southeast corner that
we know had many capacitors on the surface. The third element is the magnetic
anomolies. These could be mirror fragments, car bodies, or capacitors.
Now I will explain the way the EPA investigates landfills. You can throw
a lot of money at landfills, but the best solution is often simple. Very
few people excavate a whole landfill and haul it off somewhere, it is very
complex and difficult, and it makes testing a nightmare. Test results may
not be representative, except for the immediate area tested. So that is
how we designed the FSP, to look for hotspots
What the EPA generally does at Superfund sites is look at where is the
contaminated ground water, what is in it, how can it be treated. Any leachate
that comes out is looked at. The EPA looks at the air, any gases that can
be released from the landfill. Lastly EPA looks at hotspots of material,
where they are located in such way that taking them out will make a differenc.
So that is what we are doing, looking for hotspots. We know where the contaminated
water comes out, at the ICC Spring, and that is a separate issue and we
are trying to resolve it. But what is ahead right now is the Field Sampling
Plan.
The City and the State both had some comments about sampling in in areas
the fill where you don't think there are hot spots. In the case of the southeast
corner of the landfill, near a residential property ( the Griffin property)
the State asked for an additional boring, .and we agreed It is a boring
in the landfill, not on his property. Samples were done there by several
of the parties.
Resa Ramsey (RR)
Our readings were in the thousands of ppm there. It is being looked at as
a separate site, as it is not part of the Consent Decreee
JF
There are kids playing there in that yard.
RR
To my knowledge, his kids are teenagers, and have been told not to play
or dig in the yard, and proper hygene.
JF
Well, they haven't been teen agers for the past 12 years.
LS
Well, if this property is contaminated in the 1000's of ppm PCBs, how long
will we have to wait to get some action to protect people's health?
RR
I am no longer in charge of this aspect of the project. It is in negotiation
with Westinghouse to get it cleaned up as soon as possible. There are notification
letters being prepared to go out.
DH
It is more a matter of course that the State would handle this sort of thing
than the EPA..
MB
Since we are on the topic, let me mention a related action by the EPA. The
Region IV admistrator John Hankison, Jr., release a statement on Oct 3,
1996. In it he announced that the EPA has decided to relocate all the residents
around the Escambia Superfund Site. The decision was based on the best scientific
information available about the community's unique environmental, health,
and safety factors. It was also based on the community's concerns, as well
as the EPA's goal to protect the neighborhood's health, welfare, and well-being.
We have talked about this in the past, but it has disappeared as an issue.
We feel that perhaps Region V could look at Region IV. Why couldn't we do
the same sort of thing here.
DH
Well you have to look at the threats to those individual people. Proximity
to the landfill is not necessarily the determining factor here. In my view
the risk posed by this site is the spring water resurfacing at the IIC Springs.
The landfill is capped, it is contained, there is no contact. I don't see
the threat to the people around the landfill.
MD
There is no contact at the site, but how about the properties around it
Are you saying there is no contact at the contaminated sites around the
landfill?
DH
With the exception of the Griffen property. There were activities there,
the PCBs did not magically appear there. They themselves were involved in
scavenging activities, and their property is contaminated. Their situation
is distinguished from people who live across the street who didn't have
anything to do with capacitors.
MB
The City has come out in support (at least in theory) of relocation. I have
a hard time understanding.
MR
Are you saying that because this person made money from scavenging, that
he does not need to be protected?
DH
The distinction, and this came up in the Griffin court case, that they did
have some involvement in scavenging activities.
ML
Does that make him culpable?
DH
I don't want to touch that one!
MB
I just want to understand. Here we have a case where we know we have people
living on contaminated land. The State is acting alone, but in Region IV,
the EPA is acting to relocate. The City has supported relocation, I don't
know where the County and State stand on this. I don't understand why Region
V can't also support this.
DH
Well you would have to look at just how similar these situations are, and
assess the threat posed.
LS
Well the EPA has an action level at 10ppm, and we have 1400ppm (on residential
property), and nothing happens.
ML
Where does the initiative come from. If you know that an area has a high
level of PCBs what sort of criteria do you use decide if people should be
relocated, fences should be put up, the material should be moved immediately?
Is there a formal procedure, or is it discretionary? If is is discretionary,
who is the person who would initiate action?
DH
I am not familiar with how decisions were made at Region IV. I am not familiar
with the procedures for moving people out of a neighborhood.
ML
But who decides?
DH
What you've got here is a landfill with an impermeable cap,enclosed with
a chainlink fence. Now what's the threat here? (Audiance member: the ICC
Springs) That's exactly right.
ML
But we are talking a non-capped area here, right
RR
The way this got initiated was we were informed by the attorney for the
property owner (Griffin) that they had taken a soil sample from the backyard
and found PCBs. Within a month we went out and took 3-4 samples initially.
I informed the parties, and that initiated two phases of samplings that
Westinghouse conducted on the property. I don't know why it was determined
that the state should take the lead on this. The property is State, it is
not in the Consent Decree. The property is located in the state and it is
not part of the Consent Decree. We have been researching what authority
and responsibilities we have here. As of now we have drafted letters, but
they have not yet been sent out. There have been conference calls among
Westinghouse, the attorney, and IDEM concerning how to proceed with cleanup.
That is a lot of what has been happening.
When I first heard about this I recommended that we move quickly, but
it was decided to wait, but now it looks like we are back on a fast track.
MB
I don't want you to take away any feeling of animosity towards the State,
we are happy to see you involved in this. We just want to know the role
of the EPA in this.
MR
It sounds as if it was dropped in your lap.
RR
Well it is standard policy to designate different areas to different auhorities.
We check to see if we have authority to do it, and if we are restricted
or need help, we come back to the EPA.
GH
So any areas outside of the Consent Decree are handled by the State?
DH
Not necessarily. We took care of Fell Iron and Metal and ABB.
ML
What's the difference here?
DH
Good question, I don't know I don't know how we got involved historically
in that, what agreements were made. It predated both Resa and I. But in
these cases the State will get first shot at it.
MB
As you know we gave you a two page comment on Westinghouse Field Sampling
Plan. The reasons is that historically these major documents have been drafted
by Westinghouse, and then commented on by the other parties, the public
included at some point.
DH
That's true
MB
Well when you look through this document, there is ground lost from the
last meetings assuming that your plan is not going to modify theirs, I'd
like to ask if you could discuss the differences in this plan and what we
discussed at past meetings.
DH
You know we have mentioned this to the Company. There is some history there,
and I don't think it is too productive to get into the history, but I don't
think I or any of the other parties were happy with the first two Chapters.
We protested and wrote letters, and I am sure some other letterw will be
exchanged. Suffice it to say, Westinghouse is redrafting that, and a lot
of the positional aspects of the first two chapters will be redrafted. From
Chapter 3 on it is pretty good.
MB
So they will take out the parts about cleaning only to 500ppm, about not
testing for dioxins or anything other that PCBs, and no testing in areas
that are presumed to be clean, and that the presumptive remedies are to
be used, and include only containment.We have found some documents where
the EPA has taken positions we think you should consider here concerning
presumptive remedies.
DH
Well, I think they believe all that now, but it does not have to be part
of the sampling plan
MB
Well you see we have here a document drafted by Westinghouse, which if history
bears out, will be accepted by the parties with some modifications. So now
we have their document again which departs from what the City and State
have supported, we felt at the CIC that we were making some progress. Now
this is shelved for a new direction from Westinghouse, unless we hear differently
from the City, State, and EPA,
It has not been an open process. The City has said it is an open process,
we have not heard from the City. Unless we get the information from you,
how do we know this is not the final plan, or close to it. This is very
different from what we have been talking about.
DH
I respect what you say. We have been working at a breakneck speed to get
these issues resolved, you may not be able to see it, but it is really there.
The Company is going to have its viewpoint. I don't mind that they have
their viewpoint. But when it comes to signing papers, we have to be sure
there is nothing that we can not agree with in such an agreeement. That
was the issue with this sampling plan
MB
In the original plan dioxin would be tested for if 400ppm were found, then
it was 500ppm, not in this last plan of Aug. 29, it is not mentioned at
all. What is the EPA's or the State's position on dioxin testing.?
RR
There are a couple of plans here. The first was the EPA's conceptual fill
sampling plan and the Westinghouse plans dated August 21 and 26, 1996.
MB
As you know recent research has discovered that there is more of a risk
to some of these associated chemicals like dioxin than just cancer risk.
The whole reproductive system is affected by exposure to dioxin
DH
I don't think we have a postion, but I can tell you what we are going to
do. I don't expect them to do dioxin testing. It is not something they agreed
to do in the plan. And I don't think it's very useful to do much of it.
There are some area we will target. For example, if we run into water when
boring in the sinkhole areas, we will test for dioxins. The reason for tesing
here is that this is an avenue to the Springs. There are also areas that
will test low for PCBs, and thus be allowed to be skip the land disposal
restrictions on the contaminated material, dioxing testing might be the
determining factor with where it is disposed. But we need a reason for taking
the tests.
LW
What about for health reasons?
DH
What purpose is served in sampling underneath of an impermeable cap? What
would we do with that sort of information? There is very little sampling
been done outside the landfill site.
LS
What I see here is that EPA is writting the schedule. On the 29th you guys
will sit up there and say, we don't like some of the things in the plan,
but here it is. This is how is has been in the past, and I see it moving
this way now. I think it is time for the EPA to write something and tell
Wesinghouse how it is. Why can't the EPA take the lead, and say that good
site characterization would require 200 borings, now do it. The EPA is responsible
to the public, and Westinghouse is responsible to the bottom line, and they
are trying to make themselves broke so they won't have to pay for this.
DH
Well you paint a picture that is not true. First of all we have a Consent
Decree.
LS
Well in that you say you are going to excavate all the way down to bedrock.
DH
That's right. We are all working together to come up with a solution to
this.
LS
It seems to us that you are caving in to Westinghouse
DH
We are not caving in to Westinghouse, but we are considering their position,
along with all the positions of the Consent Decree parties.
MB
Let me get this clear. There is a Conceptual Sampling Plan, and there are
comments by the parties, and this will be presented to us on Oct 29?
DH
Let me finish. We had identified 25 borings, they were repositioned after
the electromagnetic survey. The plan up to that point was guided by aerial
photography and old sampling data. What the Company did in relation to the
sampling plan was to move a couple of borings to spots where they had reason
to believe there were hotspots. They will not test in areas thought be clean,
the Company would just not do that. The City and the State thought additional
testing was needed, and they identified areas where they wanted additional
sampling. The State had some specific reasons. The City and State got together
and agreed to some addtional spots that should be sampled, and so now there
is testing that the Company is going to do, and testing that the EPA is
going to do.
So there is going to be some sampling for dioxins and there will be sampling
in non-hotspot identified areas. We did this to get past the impass, and
so there will now be 31 borings, not just 25.
LS
There weren't that many aerial photographers taking pictures of landfills
back then. We have testimony that capacitors were scattered all over that
landfill. You have admitted that you could get within a few feet of a major
cache of capacitors and not know it. You have said that this should be excavated
down to bedrock. Either you have the Consent Decree or you don't. The CD
is a contract. Now the major clause of that contract is no longer in force
and Westinghouse will have to pay rather than be reimbursed for the project.
DH
You seem to think we have some power to tell Westinghouse what to do, and
we don't.
LS
Well, you gave that up yourselves. When Westinghouse's value fell below
a certain amount you could have been escrowed up to $40. million dollars
per site. That could have gone a long way to cleaning up these sites.
ML
If it was appropriate to excavate down to the 1958 level (with a 3 foot
buffer) when it was to be burned in an incinerator, why is it not appropriate
to do that now, and then do whatever you decide with it.
DH
Well that was what was agreed to.
ML
Well it was agreed to because it was thought to be the appropriate thing
to do. I submit that the reason it is no longer appropriate is because it
will cost Westinghouse money instead of making them money. This is not protective
of the health and safety of the community.
DH
I am not saying that the complete excavation of the landfill is appropriate,
now or then, I am only saying that they agreed to it. Now we are in a different
situation. Now what do we need to do? What do we need to do to abate the
threat?
LS
What is the difference between 1984 and 1996. Has something changed in the
site characterization? (I don't think we ever had a site characterization.)
LW
The problem is that the pcbs have no doubt percolated down below the 1957
level and are entering the ICC Spring network, so what is the point of excavating
only to that level.
DH
The Consent Decree doesn't even mention the ICC and Quarry Springs That
was the agreement that visit.
JF
It was to be cleaned to 50ppm, because it was not considered to be an residential
neighborhood.
ML
Are you saying it was to Westinghouse's advantage to excavate more back
then in their scheme, and now it is to their advantage to excavate less?
DH I don't know. I don't know what was in their benefit and what wasn't,
I do know what they agreed to. But the terms are there for anyone to see,
they were to get tipping fees for co-burning municipal solid waste with
what was in the landfill. And they didn't have to sample it.
ML It sounds like you're saying that it was unnecssary to excatvate down
to 1958 levels in order to protect public health.
DH In my view, I do not think it was necessary to do that.
LS
So this was a boondoggle by Westinghouse where they got this community to
fund their research and development costs for a hazardous waste incinerator
that had never been built anywhere in the world?
DH
What I am saying is that a deal was struck that was better than what was
necessary. You can now ask, was it better, but at the time it was believed
to be a good deal, more material was removed, and that was better. But the
question is, is it necessary.
MB
We have had some problems understanding how this whole process works, communication
has not been the best. We feel that Lemon Lane is key to determining how
all the other sites will be handled, not necessarily, but most likely. It
is important that we pay close attention to Lemon Lane. I think it is also
important that if the public is to be giving comments, we should be given
time to understand the material we are to comment on. Will the revised plan
be available before the meeting? What is the meeting on the 29th focused
on? Are there materials we need to see in order to make an informed comment?
MR
Can the parties supply their comments to COPA so that we can publish them
on our website/bbs? (Public can call 333-8888 for hard copies). It feels
as if you are springing this on us, we come in, give our comment, but if
we have no information, our comments are not well informed.
DH
You make a good point. We have submitted about 20 pages of comments, and
90% of them were concerned with the first two chapters, and amalgam of position
paper and sampling plan. It is going to be altered, and a lot of the position
stuff will be taken out of there. You make a good point. I don't know when
you are going to see a plan that is pure sampling plan.
MB
But if we were to have you comments, then we could digest that by the 29th,
and be somewhat up to speed.
DH
Well, you are welcome to that, but that relates to the sampling plan as
written, and it is being revised.
MB
If all the comments were given to us - on disk, we can really move quickly
and we post them on the Copa website in an hour or so. We can also copy
them for anyone in the community, just call us at 333-8888. What is the
public to think, here we are taking comments, but the document we are to
comment on is not yet finalized.
MR
What is the format for taking comments? Is there a protocol of some sort
by which our comments will be considered.
DN
Well, at Fell Iron and ABB we had public comment periods as required. It
is not a formal requirement to take public comment in this process. But
this is being done to come to the community to take informal comment. There
is not going to be a court reporter, there is not going to be a transcript
of the meeting, but we are going to explain the plan, and we are going to
take comments verbally, though you can put them in writing.
MB
What weight is there to the comments if it is not required that you consider
them?
DN
We will respond to them, we don't know how yet, there is no responsiveness
requirement like with ABB and Fell's.
MR
But we don't want a response to them, we want them to be considered as part
of the process, not just looked at, but integrated. So what you guys are
saying is that this is not really the place for our comments, that perhaps
we are better off going to the City with our comments.
MB
Do you remember the "New Directions, how we are going to include the
community. Including the community is not having a meeting where the comment
is not recorded, not taken as official, not responded to officially. That's
just lip service.
ML
That strikes me as a lack of good faith to set the date of meeting before
the document is available.
LW
We would like a chance to comment before the plan is finalized, and after
it finalized. A comment on the City's comments to the Sampling Plan. The
City asked to add six sites, and were quoted as saying, this will go a long
way to satisfying our detractors, meaning us the informed public. That is
what the City is interested in this meeting, to satisfy their detractors.
ML
October 29th is entirely inappropriate for this meeting, I suggest that
it be sometime after the plan is available to the public. This makes it
look like let's just let them get up there and say something just to shut
them up.
DH
For what it's worth, I agree with you. This is not my meeting, it was requested
by one of the other parties, with a short turnaround time. The reason was
to make sure that the community got involved early in the process. Not just
a 50 minute presentation and 15 minutes of comments, but a short desription
and really take comment.
The City wanted this meeting and the Mayor was passionate about involving
people and making sure they got their input into this process early.
MR
It does not seem early in the processs to us. If the comments are already
taken and the revision drafted for a meeting this Tuesday, and work begins
in November...
ML
If the public is to be involved, let them be involved in a meaningful way.
MB How do we expect the public to comment on this. How many people have
a copy of the WFSP. I have a borrowed copy from Westinghouse, I could not
get one for myself. How can we read and digest this stuff if we don't even
have access to it?
DH
What would you have us do?
MB
Present the comments and the plan, allow us to read them, then take comment
before the plan is formulated in its final draft., then bring it back to
the public for comment when it is finalized. Is that out of line, Iris?
IK
I just found out about this a few days ago myself, and I haven't read it
yet. I would like to know when the sampling is to take place.
DH
That is good question. To do this we need to be out in the field by mid-November,
and it takes 3 weeks. If it rains we get postponed. We have a rigorous schedule.
MB
If we have a rigorous schedule, could we have the same for getting us access
to your documentation ? Like maybe at the end of the week.
ML
Are you serious that you will consider the pubic comments in the two weeks
just before the sampling occurs That's riduculous. It's just window dressing.
It's impossible to adequately evaluate the comments with all the parties
and comments involved.
DH
Well it depends on what the comments are, it is not impossible.
MR
Well if we have a problem with the general approach, as documented in our
comments, then how do we input them, we are not talking tweeking this or
that, but overall approach.
IK
I wonder to what extent are we giving comment, or is this just an informational
meeting.
MB
What your saying is that we set in motion a plan. Is it wasted time for
us to give these comments? Why should we spend our personal time on this,
if we are not considered. Why not just let us stay at home with our families.
DH
I think this meeting was meant to be informational, and if people make comments
we can adjust to, we will. I didn't set the meeting up, and with all that
is happening, there is a crunch
ML
It doesn't look or act like a community involvement meeting.
DN
This meeting was requested by the Mayor, and so that the community would
have input.
David Porter How many pounds of PCBs are in Lemon Lane 440 tons? And
you have cleaned up a couple hundred pounds. Even if you use a number like
40 tons, your performance level is low. If we don't know, how can we say
we have had a good enough clean up.
LS
Who provides the checks and balances to see if Westinghouse is doing a good
job?
DH
Well, we are doing some of the sampling, you could say the same of the EPA
LS
This the same story as 1985, you take our comment and do what you have already
planned. The story now is what is the least amount of money Westinghouse
could spend?
DH
My view is that we have a problem at the ICC Springs. If we can take out
spots that can make a difference, in a cost effective manner. I don't have
a free range of choices, I must follow the National Contingency Plan and
CERCLA, so one of the things I must do is consider cost effectiveness and
threat to the health and safety of the people.
LS
So why are we not working on the Springs now?
DH
We are working on that now. Westinghouse is working on a remedy to a sinkhole
soutwest of the site and the water in it drain into the ICC Spring. So we
are looking at ways to stop water from entering the system there. We are
also looking at a water budget across the entire catchment area, we are
trying find the contributions from the various sinkholes in the area, and
try to slow the flow into the Spings, thus allowing for a smaller treatment
plant.
LS
I don't see anything in this plan that says what you will do if you do this
hot spot remediation, but then the levels are still high.
DH
What we have not done here is give an over all view of the plan to protect
human health and the environment. The Fill Sampling Plan is a small portion
of the whole, I see the lion'sshare of the problem is at the ICC Springs.
Even if you cleaned out to the bedrock you would still have a problem with
the Springs for the forseeable future, because it would still be in the
Spring System.
MR
But wouldn't it be a whole lot better, wouldn't it be better long term to
get the majority out of there. That way we could have a much smaller treatment
plant.
ML
What is the impediment to cleaning it to bedrock?
DH
It is just not necessary, I can not support that with the requirements I
have.
Audience
How much would cleaning it down to bedrock cost?
MB Less than the cost of the incinerator.
DH
I would support it if this is what was proposed.
ML
Proposed by who? Westinghouse? Don't hold your breath.
DH
I won't.
MR
Are you saying that the City, State, or Westinghouse must propose it?
DH
We could propose it as a good idea, but I would have little confidence that
it would go through
MR
Well we would have more confidence in you if you did say it, if we felt
that somebody at some level were standing up and saying: "This is the
right thing to do.
ML
Why would the City, County, or State not say that this is the best thing
to do.
DH
I don't know. I can't do it, I can not push something that is that extensive
DP
This stuff is going to all come out eventually anyway, and we do not know
every place that it comes out.
ML
If you know that it will be coming out for a long time, and you know that
where it goes in the subterrainian system can change over time, wouldn't
it be better to go after the other end, and remove everything that you know
is there?
DH
We really don't know where it all of it is at, we know where some of it
is at. There is hundreds of tons of other stuff in there.
ML
Well you know that the PCBs are in there, why not just take it all out and
be done with it?
DH
Well as a reasonable person, I want you to consider how reasonable that
is.
LS
It is very reasonable if your health and safety are at stake.
MB
If you apply the cost of $150.00 a ton paid to ship the Fell material, it
is about the same as the cost of the incinerator.
ML
It comes back to fact that it looked good when Westinghouse was going to
make money on the incinerator, and it doesn't look good now that they are
not making money.
LS
We should have $160 million dollars in escrow to make sure this is cleaned
up right, you guys should have gotten that money from Westinghouse toinsure
a thorough cleanup. The military has to clean up its chemical warfare sites,
and they have to be cleaned up to a certain level, and what ever it cost,
it will be done. Now what is different about a civilian site. You have a
standard of 10ppm, and sites that read 1400ppm, but nothing is being done.
ML
New business - Lois Gibbs will be in town in the next week
Next meeting,
Thursday, Dec 5, 1996
7:00pm
City Council Chambers |
