Citizens Information Committee
Minutes of Public Meeting
October 14, 1997
Bloomington, Indiana
Attendees:
Michael List - Chair
Resa Ramsey - IDEM
Mike Baker - COPA
John Langley - CBU
George Hegeman - M.C. Health Dept.
Mitch Rice - COPA
Flynn Picardal - SPEA
Deb Backus
Larime Wilson
Dawn Hewitt - SAS
Dan Sparks - USFWS
Diane Henshel - IU SPEA}
Derrick Kimbrough - US EPA
Dan Hopkins - US EPA
Sona Chambers - Earth Tech
Corrections of Last Minutes
Dan Hopkins:
Covenants in the Consent Decree - There are several in the Decree, and one
of them concerns RCRA. We needed to address the issues of that covenant.
We did not have to make or modify the covenants as implied in the minutes,
we have to be cognizant of those covenants.
Laramie had a question about having a public forum to comment on the
EC/CA. The minutes reflect my saying no, not formally. I'm not sure I really
said that. There will be a public comment period, whether or not there is
going to be a meeting, I don't know. But I imagine if there is a meeting
that is wanted we would have it. It's not that I am trying to avoid having
a meeting.
Mitch Rice:
The point is are you required to have a meeting to take input from the community
and has to be considered as part of the process?
Dan Hopkins:
If we gave an opportunity for a meeting, then we would consider what was
said there, we have done it every time we have had a meeting. We've always
had even like a transcript of the meeting. And I imagine we would do that.
There are alternatives to a transcript, for the meeting on the 23rd to talk
about the EC/CA, which was an informal meeting, Derrick wrote down options
down on the board. If there is some way of facilitating it, so that people's
suggestions were written down.
Mitch Rice:
How is that input considered, and what kind of weight does it carry?
Dan Hopkins:
That is considered, and we would provide a responsiveness study. The weight
of it would depend on what the comment was.
Landfill Leaks
Dan Hopkins:
Lou Schwitzer asserted that I said that all landfills leak. I don't think
I would have ever said that.
David Porter
But isn't it true?
Dan Hopkins:
I think it is very misleading. Lemon Lane could be seen as a landfill that
is leaking, but there are no controls. In TSCA and RCRA landfills have drainage
systems built into them to catch leakage or precipitation or water generated
and returned. They are constructed in cells. They also have monitoring wells
so that if something does escape from the landfill, it can be contained
easier than at Lemon Lane Landfill. That all landfills leak is misleading
I don't know about all landfills, and I don't know who does.
David Porter:
Do you have any reason to believe that over a long period a TSCA landfill
does not leak?
Dan Hopkins:
Who would know, no data exists
David Porter:
You know that the liner is warranted for 30 years.
Mike Baker:
I think the statement that all landfills leak is attributable to a 1990
draft letter from Cincinnati EPA that said all landfills eventually leak.
I don't know if this was an "official" letter, but it is where
the statement comes from. It has been used a lot, and it comes from this
document.
Dan Hopkins:
I think it is easily misunderstood, and misused.
Sona Chambers:
It comes from Hugh Kaufman of the EPA.
David Porter:
If you have a leaking landfill, and you have these drainage systems and
monitoring wells means you can catch and treat and leakage, is that any
different than Lemon Lane?
Dan Hopkins:
There are double controls under it, and it is monitored, and the construction
with cells is different.
Larime Wilson:
Do you have any documents to show that the EPA has moved away from that
position? It has been widely reported in the media, and I have not seen
anything in the media that says EPA has move away from that position.
Dan Hopkins:
My understanding is that Hugh Kauffman made the statement that all landfills
leak, but I don't know that is the EPA's view on the matter.
Even if there is a leak, it is not an uncontrolled environment, like
it is at Lemon Lane.
David Porter:
But what you must eventually compare it to is a vault, a constructed coffin
kept here.
Dan Hopkins:
Well what proof do we have that vaults don't eventually leak?
David Porter:
About the same that we have for TSCA landfills.
Dan Hopkins:
I don't see the point.
EC/CA
Dan Hopkins:
The EC/CA is an EPA document. Whether or not the parties would agree to
implement a particular remedy of the EC/CA is subject to their prerogative,
it is not something we can compel agreement.
Mike Baker:
My comment to Dan was that with every meeting you don't get a good cross
section of the community to come to the meetings. It is such a complex and
time-consuming issue; it is hard to get people involved. The one exception
is through BCAT, and on WFIU/TIU is doing a show on PCBs next week. I would
suggest that the EPA have their meetings in the MCPL and use the facilities
of BCAT to record and broadcast the meetings, perhaps with phone or email
questions and comments.
We try to put meetings in the parts of town that will be most affected.
If necessary, we can have separate meetings in different parts of town.
Winston-Thomas: Health-based Cleanup Goals
Michael List:
At the last meeting you said you hope the parties would come to closure
about the numbers for the HBCG at Winston-Thomas. Has this happened?
Dan Hopkins:
We performed a Health Based Cleanup Goals study, really called a Determination
of Cleanup Criteria. HBCG is sort of a buzzword for this type of study,
as opposed to A risk assessment per se. Using the same equations and criteria,
rather than calculating the risk based on PCB concentration, we calculate
what residual concentration could give you a risk, which was already assumed,
and this is what we did. The issue about the sampling to be done at Winston-Thomas
was resolved today. It was very close to what we originally outlined in
the HBCG. The agreement made today is for the abandoned and tertiary lagoons.
What was at issue was the sampling method to attain the level the parties
wanted, which was basically 15ppm. The sampling method agreed upon is as
follows:
First the sludge will be dredged out, it is pressed, with the water being
treated and discharged. Once all that is removed, you are left with 2 or
3 feet of clay, and then bedrock.
The sites will be divided into a 50 by 50-foot grid pattern. For the
tertiary lagoon, this creates about 296 separate grids. These grid sections
are then equally divided into 9 equal sections. We will take grab samples
in each of the 9 sections. The grab samples are first homogenized to form
a composite, and then samples are taken from this. Each group of 9 samples
must average below 15ppm, with no one sample exceeding 25ppm. If a section
does register above 25ppm, either the top 3 inches would removed and then
resampled, or Westinghouse would be given an opportunity to demonstrate
where a hotspot would be, but if all the parties don't agree then the default
of removing the top 3 inches would be used. There is most likely a layer
of soft clay under the sludge, but we expect hard clay under that. This
is the area we are talking about sampling.
As we gain information about the process, we can revisit how we will
proceed.
The work may begin on the east side where we have some high numbers.
David Porter:
Has the lagoon ever been drained down?
John Langely:
No, it did go down quite a bit when one of our pumps failed, but the bottom
was covered.
As to the PCBs moving into the clay, our experience with the drying beds
is that the PCBs like to stay attached to the sludge, and don't readily
move into the clay layer.
George Hegeman:
There have been bioavailability studies done that show that the longer the
PCBs are attached to organic compounds, the harder they are to remove. No
one understands why, but it is presumed to be changes in the organic matter.
Mike Baker:
Are you happy with the cleanup you got at Clear Creek?
John Langely:
We got a very good cleanup there. In many cases the grids were taken down
to bedrock. It was encouraging that the trackhoe operator could just sit
in his cab and see the darker sludge as opposed to the red clay.
Dan Hopkins:
About 8660 tons were removed of a projected 6000 tons.
The sampling that was done at the bottom was limited, but it came in
at about 2ppm.
Non-Cancer Endpoints
Dan Hopkins:
I was not able to have our risk assessor come to this meeting, she had a
death in the family. What I have here is an EPA paper concerning studies
on monkeys exposed to Aroclor 1254. The risk assessor has noted that PCBs
have endocrine disrupting capabilities, and she says that at present we
have no agreed upon method to determine risk for non-cancer endpoints.
Vegetation WSCC
John Langley:
We have piled the trees together in case there is contamination. They will
be ground up and stored on site, and it will compost. We will then sample
the compost.
Dan Sparks:
The contamination is not likely in the wood, but it is in the foliage of
the trees.
As the composting occurs, it will concentrate the PCBs.
Vaulting
Dan Hopkins:
Vaulting/Encasement which was brought up a the last meeting, was put into
the EC/CA as an alternative to be reviewed. The Eco-Logic process was also
put on the list to be reviewed.
We will look at all these alternatives in light of whether they are proven
technologies.
Demonstration Projects
Larime Wilson
Can the EPA indemnify a company to come in and do a demonstration, as Eco-Logic
has done at other sites? Who has the authority to let a demonstration project
occur. Must all five parties agree?
John Langley:
This is not clear. It would seem all the parties must agree, but if a particular
party owned a site...
Lipid Bags
Dan Hopkins:
These could be used in the spring water to determine if we have exceeded
our toxicity levels, but I don't see much use for them at Winston-Thomas.
There we have high volume air sampling, where we can get nanogram per cubic
meter readings, which the lipid bags do not get.
Michael List:
I think that the idea of the lipid bags was that they might reassure the
people living near the ICC Springs that they are not getting undo exposure.
Mike Baker:
It would also begin to give us some baseline numbers to work with when we
address the site.
What would be the cost to get data here?
Dan Hopkins:
If we were to use high volume air sampling at the Springs, it would be fairly
extensive. We would have to set up a secured generator, and several sampling
stations to get significant results. Perhaps this is a place where lipid
bags would be useful.
Mike Baker:
We need to do something here, the fence does not stop the contamination.
There is more anxiety do to the new construction occurring in the area.
Dioxin Sampling: Clear Creek
Dan Hopkins:
This has been done, we are waiting for the results.
Mike Baker:
Does the EPA consider the City and its contractors competent to decide technical
issues? I ask because someone from Westinghouse has distributed a letter
to various leaders in the community implying just that. It is part of an
ongoing public relations ploy by Westinghouse.
Dan Hopkins:
I have full confidence in the City and it's contractors.
Larime Wilson:
Does anyone monitor worker safety at the cleanup site?
By the pictures in the paper it would seem they are violating the safety
plan they wrote.
John Langely:
The subcontractor has the responsibility.
Larime Wilson:
Could someone quantify the pounds of PCBs that are left, and how many are
removed?
Mitch Rice:
I have heard that there between 40-60% of all PCBs ever produced are still
out there. If these are released rather than captured, we could be in trouble.
Our most pressing problem is the ongoing releases at ICC Springs, and it
is upsetting that we have no plans or concerns or testing in this area.
Next Meeting
Nov. 25, 1997, 7:00 pm |
