Post on 16-Jul-2020
EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.
259531
THOMAS ToALCAMO/R5/USEPA/US
09/25/2006 10:44 AM buDJecttranscripts
add attachmentForwarded by THOMAS ALCAMO/R5/USEPA/US on 09/25/2006 10:44 AM
^ Stuart Hill/R5/USEPA/US To
'*f ip«l 03/29/2006 04:12PMSub'ect Fw: BENNETT'S DUMP--Public meeting 02/14/06
transcripts
here transcripts from Valentine's Day meeting. Official copies to follow, as indicated.-— Forwarded by Stuart HHI/R5/USEPA/US on 03/29/2006 04:08 PM
"Volkmer, Deborah E." To<Deborah. Volkmer @ WestonSolutions, com >
Subiect BENNETT'S DUMP - Public meeting 02/14/06 transcripts03/29/2006 04:00 PM J
«231-38-35 transcripts 021406.PDF»Stuart ----
The attached PDF file provides you with the transcripts prepared by Fisher Reporting, Inc., for the publicmeeting on 14 February 2006 for the Bennett's Dump site in Monroe County, Indiana. The "official"transcripts will be express mailed to you.
Please let me know if you would like other electronic versions of the transcripts (i.e., condensed with fourpages to one or in Word).
Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.
—- Deb
Deborah E. VolkmerProject ManagerWeston Solutions, Inc.1400 Weston Way (Bldg. 4-2)P.O. Box 2653West Chester, PA 19380610-701-5178610-701-7401 --fax
deborari.volkmer@westonsolutions.com 231-38-35 transcripts 021406.PDF
EPA
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14™, 2006
6:30 p. m.
MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
303 E. KIRKWOOD AVENUE
BLOOMINGTON, IN
Christie A. Fisher, NotaryTina Griffith, Notary
F I S H E R R E P O R T I N G , I N C .Serving Bloomington and Surrounding Areas
P.O. Box 214 * Ellettsville, IN 47429Phone: {812} 876-7312
Fax: {812} 876-9186
IN ATTENDANCE
Mr. Thomas Alcamo, EPA Remedial Project ManagerEPA Region 5 (SR-6J)77 W. Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604-3590(800) 621-8431 ext . 67278aJLcamo . thomas@epa . gov
Mr. Stuart HillEPA Community Involvement Coordinator(800) 621-8431 ext. 60689hill . stuart@epa . qov
Mr. Jeff Cahn, EPA Attorney
Dr. Jim Chapman, EPA Ecologist
Mr. Eric Morton, Tetra TechHuman Health Risk Assessor
Mr. Tom BurckIndiana Department of Environmental Management
Ms. Vallery TachtirisDeputy Attorney General, State of Indiana
Mr. John Bassett, Earth Tech
Members of the Bloomington community
**********•
I N D E X
INTRODUCTIONCOMMENTS BY: MR. HILL ,
PRESENTATIONCOMMENTS BY: MR. ALCAMO
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION 28
PUBLIC COMMENTSBY: MR. MIKE BAKER 59BY: JOSEPH HAILER 61BY: KATIE WOLF 63BY: BRUCE BUNDY 65BY: RUDY SAVICH 65
CONCLUSIONCOMMENTS BY: MR. HILL 66
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
INTRODUCTION:
COMMENTS BY: MR. HILL
MR. HILL: Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Stuart Hill. I'm a community involvement
coordinator with the Environmental Protection Agency.
And I hope I'm not the first one or the last one to wish
you a Happy Valentine's Day. We recognize that it is an
important day and we really appreciate you sharing part
of the day with us because it is very important. We're
here this evening as a part of the formal decision-
making process today to learn about the proposed plan
that the EPA has for Bennett's Dump, a dump in your
community. And more importantly we're here to accept
your comments on that proposed plan.
Speaking of comments and that particular plan,
I'm not necessarily pleased, but I'm happy to announce
that the deadline for comments has been extended based
upon requests and so the deadline now will be April the
4th for entering your comments for formal consideration
in the decision-making process. There are a number of
ways that your comments can be offered for
consideration, not the least of which is tonight making
comments before the formal process tonight.
If you'll notice, there were a couple of things
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLSTTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that you passed on the way in; one was a sign-in sheet
that didn't attract much attention. But if you would be
so kind on your way out to sign in the sheet for us, it
would do a number of things; it'll let us know that you
were here, it will help in the event that there is some
clarification concerning the spelling of your name in
the future for the record, and it will also indicate
whether or not you're interested in continuing to
receive mailings from the EPA on the particular
processes in the community. So if you'd consider that,
we'd, we'd certainly appreciate it.
Before I get into tonight's structure of the
meeting I'd like to introduce a number of people that
are here to, to help with the process tonight. First,
Tom Alcamo. Tom is the Project Manager for EPA here in
the Bloomington area. Jeff Cahn is an EPA attorney.
Dr. Jim Chapman is an ecologist with the EPA. Eric
Morton is a human risk assessor with Tetra Tech, a
contractor to the US EPA. Tom Burck is with the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management. Vallery
Tachtiris is with the, is a deputy attorney general with
the State of Indiana. And John Bassett is a hydrologist
with a, a contractor of Earth Tech.
Our structure this evening will be roughly a 30
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
minute presentation of the proposed plan that the EPA
has formulated for Bennett's Dump. Would you please
hold your questions during the presentation because we
will go into a question and answer period following the
presentation. The questions are simply, the period is
just simply designed to offer any clarification or
edification about the presentation and the plan itself.
So we will take questions to address those kind of
issues. So if you'd be so kind as to hold your
questions until the question and answer period.
The remaining part of the time ... and I must
say that we do have a very limited amount of time. We
have to be out of the auditorium by a quarter of 9:00
this evening. So following the presentation, the
question and answer period, we will go into the comment
period, which is the formalized part of the meeting.
There will be no response to any comments. Comments are
taken and, are taken under advisement by the EPA and
will be responded to in the formalization of an
administrative record, which is a public document that
will be available for all to see in a number of ways;
either here at the library or available online or
possible other ways.
When we get to the comment period I'd like for
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**?.0. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
10
11
12
13
14
15
L6
17
L8
19
20
21
22
23
24
you to speak slowly so that Chris Fisher, who is our
court reporter for this evening and will be recording
the meeting verbatim, can get the correct spelling of
your name. If you have an unusual name, please spell
it. And please say who you are before you ask a
question and certainly before you make a comment.
Looks like that covers all of my notes. So with
that, I'll introduce Tom Alcamo, who will present to you
the EPA's recommendation for cleanup of Bennett's Dump.
PRESENTATION
COMMENTS BY: TOM ALCAMO
Thank you, Stuart. One thing to add too is that
if you don't want to comment tonight, you certainly
have, again, until April 4th to submit comments. But
feel free to send comments to us via mail or email.
To give you just a little bit of background on
Bennett's Dump. Bennett's Dump is one of the six sites
associated with Bloomington PCB Consent Decree. Since
the soil and oil Consent Decree basically signed in
1985. We've been at this for many, many years and then
I'm pleased at least, to finally perform a final remedy
for the Bennett's Dump site. The parties in the Consent
Decree, if you've not, if you're not aware are basically
the EPA, State of Indiana, the City of Bloomington,
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
7
Monroe County, and CBS Corporation. CBS Corporation
formerly originally was Westinghouse, then went to CBS
Corporation. Then it went to Viacom and now they're
back to CBS. So if I say Viacom, you'll understand that
is CBS Corporation. Their name changed after the first
of the year.
Bennett's Dump is part of a global settlement
with CBS Corporation. This global settlement will
signed by all the parties when we come in agreement.
This global settlement will address not only technical
issues for all of the six sites in the Consent Decree,
including Bennett's Dump. It also will address natural
resource damages and past costs both for EPA and the
state. So in any case, our goal here is to hopefully
get CBS Corporation to implement these remedies.
Superfund is a pooler pays type of regulation
and that's how we, how we move forward in these
cleanups. But if we do not get goals settled, EPA has a
number of enforcement options at its hand to essentially
try to deal with these things. I'm not going to talk
too much regarding that. The EPA could actually go out
and build this remedy itself and sue CBS for three times
the amount. We could essentially litigate this against
CBS Corp. We could issue unilateral orders and demand
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that they do it. So there's a number of enforcement
options that we have available to us to try to, to try-
to get this site cleaned up with the pooler pays
concept. But if it doesn't ... You know, I'm hoping
that happens. But if it doesn't, we can do things to
try to move these things forward.
To give a little bit of history there is, was a
former Westinghouse capacitor plant actually on the
Curry Pike Road, which you'll probably be hearing some
in the news about that this summer and the fact that
it's going to get demolished. But in any case, there
were capacitors at that, capacitors produced at that
facility and they were deposited in and around
Bloomington and the surrounding area.
After a long and drawn-out negotiation process
and sort of trials and tribulations, CBS implemented a
source control cleanup in 1999 for the Bennett's Dump
site. And so moved then, you know, almost 37,000 tons
of PCB contaminated materials in off-site landfill. We
also, we excavated about, almost 1,800 capacitors
filled with PCB oil ... well, they weren't all filled
with PCB oil, they used to have PCB oil in them. And
those were taken outside and incinerated in an off-site
incinerator pursuant to regulation.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.2
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
1.9
20
21
22
23
2.4
In addition, one of the problems we discovered
in our cleanup of 1999 is, is a lot of the waste was
deposited over buried quarries. And so we discovered
during our excavation residual oil and groundwater
contamination of the buried quarry. And I'll talk more
about that later.
Basically the purpose of this remedy that we're,
or proposed plan we're presenting tonight is to address
contaminated groundwater and sediment at the Bennett's
Dump site. And after, after we, we end up choosing our
final remedy, if things go as planned with the global
settlement, we hope that this remedy can be implemented
sometime this summer. We do have other phases to do
after we choose a remedy. Of course, there needs to be
a pre-design study and design, but in any case we are
hoping that maybe by late, late summer we have a portion
of this remedy implemented.
One of the things in the '99 cleanup, we cleaned
the site for commercial/industrial redevelopment. I'll
show you a map in a little bit regarding the area which
has changed substantially since, since back in the mid-
eighties. But in any case, we cleaned up the site for
industrial redevelopment. 2000 and we did a small
sediment cleanup adjacent to the site. And one of the
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429^*812-876-7312
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
things that occurred after we did our cleanup was that
we had springs on the site that continued to release
PCBs into Stout's Creek. And so it forced us to take a
deep breath and essentially start investigating this and
figure out how to prevent these releases from getting
into Stout's Creek, or at least evaluating them. So
that's how we we're here tonight.
Give you a site, a general site location,
downtown Bloomington is, Bloomington is here and the
site is here. It's basically by the 37/45/46 Bypass,
is here. This is 37. And the site is right there, I
think. This is when they were actually constructing the
Bypass. 37 is down here. But this is the general site
area. Stout's Creek flows right here. Couple of things
I want to point out in here is, is a couple of quarries
that are very important in our proposed remedy. The
Icebox Quarry, which is here, the water-filled quarry.
And the Wedge Quarry complex, which is this water-filled
box here.
I wanted to give you a general idea of what's
happening in that area in the near future. Or, I don't
know about the near future, but in the future. North
Park, basically near the North Park development and
Bennett's Dump 4.s essentially right here. So you can
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11
see all the redevelopment that's going to be taking
place for industrial/commercial. And given the fact
that scenarios we used in, when I talked to you a little
bit on the risk assessment. So in any case, this gives
you a general idea of what's going to be happening in
that area in terms of the large amount of development
that's going to be occurring. Previously it was a
pretty isolated area. Again, Bennett's Dump is like
right there in the star quarry property.
Again, as I said, at Bennett's Dump we did, we
do a major investigation at the site and we have springs
and seeps on site that release PCBs and other hazardous
constituents into Stout's Creek. There's four springs
on site, which flows seasonally. Just a dry period that
this was all shut off. There's two major springs;
Middle and Mound Spring. And water from quarries
surrounding the site was ... as I pointed out there is a
number of them ... and there's also buried quarries
where a large portion of the area was a quarry for
limestone fill. We'll show you map of that here coming
up.
Now, just to give you a general idea of the
springs. Mound Spring, Middle Spring. Stout's Creek is
along in here. Again, Icebox Quarry/ Wedge Quarry
FISHER REPORTING, !NC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
12
complex.
To give you just a general idea of ... we do a
lot of monitoring at the spring systems. Middle Spring
flows about from 0 to 12 gallons a minute. Its average
is around 3 most of the period. And it has a small
increase during a storm events which is somewhat unusual
for the springs in the Bloomington area. And we'll talk
a little bit more about that soon.
PCB content is range from 2.1 to about 17 parts
per billion PCBs. Mound Spring, its, flows a little bit
more than Middle Spring. 1.7 gallons a minute. 20
gallons a minute. It averages about 10. And we do see
some increase during a storm event, but not much. PCB
content isn't quite as high. But we have seen 25 in the
past. North Spring we only had one sample at North
Springs since 1999. That spring is, basically is really
wet weather dependent. And the same with Mid North
Spring, which is, has very little {inaudible}. So two
main springs are Middle and Mound.
Kind of give a summary. Middle Spring flows
less but has higher concentration of PCBs. Mound Spring
flows more and has less concentration. So all these
springs, from all our investigation work, they're not
typical karst type springs, which we see in some of the
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
13
other Bloomington PCB sites. For example, we see
flushing effects during storm events which push PCS out
at high numbers during storm events. We do not see that
with these type of spring systems.
One of the things CBS did is they did an
analysis through historical aerial photography of the
site. I think the earliest one was 1936, I think. And
in any case, you think the site actually started around
1900 was when the quarry actually started on the site.
At the site they basically disposed of PCBs over
some of these buried quarries. Some of the things we,
we looked at in some additional sampling, we did fish
tissue sampling in Stout's Creek. We did water sampling
in Stout's Creek. And downstream we on the site we see
detectable levels adjacent to the site. PCBs farther
down the down the stream we do not see detection. On
sediment samplings of Stout's Creek to show levels of
under one part per million PCBs, which is very low.
Just to give you a general idea of these, these
areas here, here, here are all former ... at least from
the aerial photo, photography ... are buried quarries
that were used by the, either by the Star Quarry or
previous Bennett's Quarry and were filled in. These two
are the most important because this is where the
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214 **ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
14
disposal occurred on site.
So when we noticed, one of the things we noticed
at the site during the investigation was when the spring
is turned off, particularly Mound is turned off, that
the water elevation, in particularly the Wedge Quarry
complex, got to a certain level and basically the spring
shut off. And we kind of scratched our head and
basically formulated a plan to try to test this theory
further. So one of the things was is how does
groundwater flow at the site. I mean, we need to
understand this, to understand how the springs are
flowing.
A large amount of pizometers or monitoring
devices were installed at the site. And in addition, we
did a series of pump down tests of the Wedge Quarry
Complex. And essentially what we were able to do ...
Once Mound Spring was actually flowing, we were able to
decrease the water level in Wedge Quarry to a certain
elevation, 737 elevation, and we shut the spring off.
It doesn't mean actually that ail the water is, or there
isn't still continuing seeps into the creek. What it
dees mean is we can affect groundwater elevation ... If
we affect the groundwater elevation and lower it, we
can definitely reduce the flow. And this occurred both
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
in non-storm events and storm events.
Middle Spring, a little more complicated in
terms of we think that is being affected by the Icebox
Quarry. And also groundwater up grade to the site
affecting the flow of Middle Spring. But it kind of was
a big breakthrough particularly with the Wedge Quarry
Complex, due to the fact is we looked at the
conductivity or how the values in Wedge Quarry was
similar to the values in Mound Spring. So that's how we
kind of linked up the process. So this was kind of a
big breakthrough that we undertook and, and will be kind
of critical to us in a proposed remedy.
So what did we do next? After we started ...
and concurrently we decided to do risk assessments.
Basically human health, air, and ecological risk
assessments at these sites. I'll go into a simplistic
process of risk assessment. I do have a risk assessment
here that if you want to ask some questions more
specifically we'll get into that. But in any case, I'll
give you a general overview of the risk assessments that
we did both human health and ecological receptors.
First, Step 1 is to analyze the PCB concentration or
PCBs in fish, water and sediment in Stout's Creek.
That's basically the body of water where these springs
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214*'ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
16
were polluted. You estimate the exposure. And I'll
talk about that on ... a little bit on the next slide
... but basically how are people being, how are people
and animals being exposed to the contaminants. We
assessed the potential dangers. And this is where ...
It's a little bit tricky. But in terms of how EPA
discusses risk, we look at it in terms of probability.
Essentially we had points of departure basically
... one additional cancer patient in one million. We
like to see anything, we like to see that at a point.
Anything under that in terms of let's say 2 in a million
or five in 100,000, we would find that unacceptable.
Now, if you have a risk range that Superfund would look
at 1 in 10,000 excess cancer risk and 1 in 1,000,000 of
excess cancer risk. We usually look at the point of
departure as 1 in 1,000,000. Okay? But we can go lower
if need be.
As an index as a measure of a non-cancer
affects, we usually like to see an index of less than
one. So after we end up doing a series of calculations
and come up with a, a probability, we determine are
these risks great enough that we need to do something at
the site. One of the things to point out is CBS
Corporation, this risk assessment process has been a
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
17
long, long drawn-out affair. They certainly don't agree
with us on many aspects. They basically do not feel that
there was risk. It doesn't mean they're not going to
employ a remedy. And we'll probably receive substantial
public comments from CBS Corporation in terms of our
risk assessment, saying that they're not really
realistic. So, we're, we feel we can, we followed
Agency policy. We feel that there's, the approach we
took we took to calculate the risk was solid and sound
and therefore, we will deal with that in the public
comment period.
So this human health risk assessment, we
evaluated the exposure to PCBs through fish consumption
in Stout's Creek. Basically looked at a recreational
fisherman in Stout's Creek as someone who would go to
Stout's Creek and fish a few times a month and eat that
fish. Stout's Creek is a pretty small creek. The fish
aren't very large. But we still think we want someone
to be able to do that in that creek. Some people may do
that. But someone who goes there and do subsistence
fishing or who essentially eat a majority of their meals
from Stout's Creek, we did not analyze that because we
really didn't feel that was realistic.
We evaluated exposure of also PCBs through
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSV!LLE, IN 47429*^812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
incidental ingestion and skin contact, which we call
dermal contact, with sediment within Stout's Creek. One
of the things that we felt, that the North Park
Development was going to bring children. And there are
children in the area that probably go down stream. They
go to the creek and play. And we think that we need to
evaluate that. We also evaluated the exposure of PCBs
through skin contact or, again, dermal contact, and
ingestion of the water within Stout's Creek. When
they're playing in this creek they may swallow some
water. There's a whole series of scenarios we put forth
in the risk assessment that calculates how often they do
it, et cetera. And we can go into that in the question
and answer, if you like.
So there's basically three, three types of ways
we looked at risks coming from Stout's Creek from a
human health perspective. And what the EPA does is we
do a reasonable maximum exposure scenario and it
represents the highest level of human exposure that
could reasonably occur. This has been a big point of
contention with Viacom because ... or, excuse me ... CBS
that they feel that this is not reasonable.
Locations we evaluated in Stout's Creek at
Hunter Valley Road. This is a mile from the site.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILL£, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 ''
24 i
Acuff Road, three miles from the site, and West Maple
Grove, which is five miles from the site. Also an
analysis was done in terms of the amount of fish in
Stout's Creek. Basically what happens is a field team
goes in there and they shock the entire creek and they
estimate the amount of fish ... types of fish and all
... and they come up with a population estimate. One of
the things we do do in risk assessments for human health
is the majority of people eat fillets. Some people eat
canned fish and eat a whole fish, but the majority of
people still eat a fillet. So when we have whole fish
samples. You can't use that whole fish number, for
example if it's 10 in PCS because it's not, someone is
not going to eat that entire fish. But in any case, we
do a conversion, usually a, we do 25 percent for most
sports fish and a 50 percent for a sucker.
I can give you a summary in regards to Acuff
Road, which basically is the, the fish with the highest
risk. You see from basically a recreational fisherman a
cancer risk of 2.9 in 100,000 people for green sunfish
and sucker fillets. That's again, 2.9 additional cancer
cases per 100,000 people. We would find that is a,
would be within the Superfund risk range, and we would
find that greater than our point of departure, so we
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
20
would view that as unacceptable risk. Cancer risk of
two additional cancer cases in 100,000 people for
dioxin-like PCBs. There's a component of PCBs that act
like dioxin, which is a, is a hazardous compound. And
so again, very similar to the total PCB numbers. Again,
unacceptable risk in our book.
We looked at non-cancer risk in a hazard index
of 1.7 for adults and 4.3 for children. Again,
unacceptable for us. For ingestion, incidental
ingestion, and skin contact with water and sediment, and
again as I told you, we feel that this is a viable
pathway, children go in the creek and play. So in any
case, we look at a chance of risk of less than one in
10,000,000 and a hazard index of well less than one for
incidental ingestion and skin contact with sediment. So
we would view this as being an acceptable risk.
For water, essentially it's one in one million,
which is acceptable. And again, a hazard index much
more than one so we would also view that as acceptable.
And you have to remember too, these values were taken
right adjacent to the site. So as you go farther down
the stream, for example, let's say you went to Acuff
Road. The levels would not be, these are the levels
right adjacent to the site. So if you went to Acuff
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Road, it would be much less than you see here. So the
cancer risk of three in 100,000 is a non-cancer has an
index of 1.6 for basically skin contact with water.
This is a borderline risk but we feel it should be
addressed.
So, in any case, this is adjacent to the site.
This isn't farther downstream because most of the ... As
you go farther downstream most of the samples, I think
all the samples pretty far down the stream were all
nondetectable PCBs.
So, to give a general summary of view of health
aspects of the risk assessment. There's a potential
risk for. both cancer and noncancer risk for both
children and adults from ingestion of fish and
borderline risk with skin contact with water from
Stout's Creek. We have no unacceptable risk with
respect to sediment based upon the sample data.
So we also did an ecological risk assessment.
EPA's mission is protection of public health and
environment. So we do the risk is to ecological
receptors. So it's a similar process to that what you
do in health risk assessment. Basically the ecological
risk assessment looks at whether exposure to PCBs by
mammals and birds feeding on contaminated fish and
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.21
22
23
24
22
crayfish from Stout's Creek is high enough to cause
reproductive problems. That's kind of the goal of the
ecological risk assessment. The receptors we use are
fish eating mammals which are represented by mink and
fish eating birds represented by Kingfisher. We've
never seen any mink at the site, but is a habitat that
could support mink. And mink are sensitive to PCBs.
So, we use that basically as a cover for, it protects
mink and protects most everything else.
In addition, we did see mink actually at one of
the other Bloomington sites. So they're in the area.
The Kingfishers, if you were a bird watcher, you'd
probably see them around.
So, basically just to give you a quick summary
of the ecological risk assessment, same sample locations
as the human health, both are a reasonable maximum
exposure. They also use the central tendency exposure.
And you if want to get into the risk assessments are in
the, in the library in the Administrative Record and you
can, they're pretty technical documents. But in any
case, they're all available for review, if you'd like.
Just give a general ecological risk summary. We
... Based upon our risk assessment mink are potentially
at risk for adverse reproductive affects at Hunter
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
Valley Road and Acuff Road. And the risk appears to be
low at West Maple Grove. So, that's again five miles
down from the site. Acuff Road is three miles down from
the site. Kingfishers, same thing, both at Hunter
Valley and Acuff Road are both potentially at risk. And
again, kingfishers at West Maple Grove, the risk appears
to be low. So again, review from both looking at the
human health risk assessment and the ecological risk
assessment that something needs to be done at the site.
So we came up with ... After we did the risk
assessment, we come up with what our objectives of the
site. We want to try to stop the PCBs from getting in
the creek. That's essentially it. So basically we're
going to reduce the amount of PCB released from
groundwater to Stout's Creek through mass reduction.
And then to do this we basically deal with these two -
you help improve the fish and we don't further
contaminate the site.
So we came up with a series of alternatives to
look at the site and to how to remediate and reduce the
risk. And we came up with these five alternatives. The
no action alternative, which is basically leave the site
as is, do nothing. Just monitor the site. And
Alternative 3 would be a passive quarry drain system,
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876~7312
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
!L9
20
21
22
23
24
24
which I talked about previously in regards to draining
the surrounding water from the quarry and reducing the
flow of, spring flow to the creek. Excavation of buried
quarry pits. Alternative 3, the passive quarry drain.
And then Alternative 5, a passive quarry drain.
Alternative 3. And install an interceptor trench and
treat the water.
Alternatives 1 and 2 were basically, we threw
those two out. They're not protective of public health
and the environment. So we're not further discuss
those. But we need to look at those as a baseline. We
don't view those as being protective.
Alternative 3, basically a passive quarry drain
system. Again, the passage drain would be installed
from the Wedge Quarry Complex directly to Stout's Creek.
Wedge Quarry, is showing no detection of PCBs. Of
course, we'll have to continue to monitor that, but ...
in any case, that would be drained to a certain
elevation to help reduce the spring flow at the site.
Icebox Quarry possibly also would be drained.
And groundwater will be drained using Wedge Quarry
Complex or directly into Stout's Creek. Icebox Quarry
has shown 1 part per billion of PCBs. Low, but
something that we probably would require be treated.
FISHER REPORTING, TNC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
.16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
One of the things we'll have to continue to do
at this site is do multi-media monitoring. That's
including the fish, sediment, water. To look if there's
any whole series of samples that need to be done in the
future to ensure that the remedy is operating as
designed and planned. One of the things is, this isn't
a walk-away remedy. All these Alternatives 3, 4, and 5
are not walk-away remedies; they need monitored for
many, many years. In addition, the EPA every five years
has to reevaluate the remedy to ensure that it still
remains protective of helping the environment.
One of the things we still have to do is develop
the deed restrictions and work with the North Park
people and the property owner to ensure that there's
proper restrictions that are put on that piece of
property, and enforce the restrictions that protect
someone who could go on to that site and build a house.
Again, just a conceptual design, the Wedge
Quarry Complex, you can see we've drained into here and
then drain into Stout's Creek. After we cut this right
through the rock and basically drain that to a certain
elevation.
Alternative 4, excavation of buried quarry pits
on site and the passive quarry drain. Again, we would
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214 **ELLETTSVTLLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
implement that previous alternative that I talked about.
Here we would go into former areas. During the
excavation in 1999 we found these buried quarry areas
and we chased a large amount of PCBs in these areas and
basically we came up with a groundwater issue. So we
would try to go back in this alternative to excavate
further areas to see if we could get additional PCBs out
to a 25 parts per million standard. In addition, we, we
estimate there was 3,000 cubic yards of material that
would have to be disposed of. We would take that
material to an off-site landfill. Clean fill would
replace the excavated material and there will be again
multi-media monitoring, and again, deed restrictions.
This kind of gives you the general area of where
basically we excavated in this area and chased a lot of
material essentially became a groundwater issue for us.
We would be looking, probably take these two quarries
that are connected. But in any case, these give us a
general area that the waste was deposited here and went
into like a series of bathtubs. That's kind of how we
look at it in a simplistic perspective.
Alternative 5 would have been also be
implementing Alternative 3, but also add an interceptor
trench with carbon treatment or some other type of
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1.8
1.9
20
21
22
23
24
27
treatment that would deal with the contaminants.
Again implementing Alternative 3, a passive
quarry drain system. This interceptor trench would be
installed to collect any water from Stout's Creek, the
springs at Stout's Creek, and then water would be
treated and then discharged into Stout's Creek. The
discharged material would escape. We estimate the flow
of being 100 gallons a minute. Certainly, that has to
be finalized most likely by first implementing a passive
drain system to finalize what the amount of water would
be, and then designing the system appropriately. Multi-
media monitoring, fish sampling, sediment sampling,
water sampling, and deed restrictions.
And you can see the collection trench would be
all along the east bank of Stout's Creek. That's right
through here and all along in here. The water would
flow, seep into this trench. It'll be collected and
then essentially treated and filtered.
So how do we basically evaluate alternatives.
We, the EPA in our process, we look at nine criteria;
overall protection of human health and the environment.
Is the remedy protective? Compliance with ARARs. It's
applicable or relevant to corporate requirements.
Basically it's in compliance with rules and regulations.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
28
Long-term effectiveness and permits. How, how
long-term are these remedies that we're doing?
Reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume through
treatment. Are we reducing the toxicity of these
constituents. What's the short-term effectiveness. The
short-term effectiveness has to do with the risks
associated with people that live around the site or
construction workers during a construction phase.
Implementability. Is it easy to implement? You
know, is there common technologies out there? Is it
typical. Cost. State acceptance. When a state has
indicated to us that they approve of the proposed plan.
But they make comments that so desire. Of course,
that's why we're here tonight is to listen to your
comments in terms of community acceptance.
I put together a simplistic chart to really show
in terms of the there is no need, partially needs, or
needs. Essentially, it's Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment. We would say Alternative 3
on its own would not be fully protected because I don't
think that we can basically stop the flow from getting
into the creek during storm events. There may need to
be some other method to prevent that. So in terms of
that alone, we don't really view that as being
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
L6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
protective of human health and the environment.
We view the last two as being protective.
Compliance with Rules and Regulations, we think these
three would be, met the rules and regulations.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence. We
again, think Alternative 4 and 5 are both the ones that
would work.
Short-term Effectiveness, we think all of them
would be basically, we can handle that, we can use
engineering controls or some type of engineering
controls to, construction controls to prevent any risk
to construction workers, or local residents as we do the
cleanup.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
through Treatment. Basically the only one that really
meets that is Alternative 5, due to the fact that we're
treating the water. This one we're taking the material
and taking it to the landfill, so there's really no
reduction in the toxicity, or mobility or volume
untreatable.
Implementability, they all can be implemented.
Certainly, Alternative 4 is going to be much more
problematic for us, and we'll need another alternative
just because we're going into a buried quarry system.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
And there are unknowns associated with that. In
addition, a large amount of groundwater that is in those
buried quarries could be problematic for us in terms of
excavation.
Costs affiliated with these two Alternatives are
1.3 million, present worth for Alternative 4, and 1.1
million for Alternative 5.
Sense of Community Assessment. That's why I'm
here tonight. If you want to hear your comments. What
we do is we take your comments, we respond to those
comments and we do something called a responsiveness
summary. It is attached to a decision document we call
a record of decision. In our case a record of decision
amendment. That document will choose our final remedy.
In the past we added to the response a summary to all
the comments.
So EPA's preferred Alternative based on our
analysis, will be Alternative 5. We prefer to ... Our
preferred option would be implementation of a passive
quarry drain and installing an interceptor trench with
carbon treatment. We think it's going to do the
necessary risk reduction. And we think it's going to be
effective in the long run for this site.
Again, if you want further information you can
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.0. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
31
go up to the Indiana Room. There is the administrative
record there. Certainly, the citizens' web page -
www.copa.org. is available at home if you want to go
online. And you can actually probably even request a
copy of the entire administrative record. One of the
things I want to do is thank Mitch Rice for putting a
lot of effort into involving COPA and has really worked
his butt off putting this web page together and helping
us out now with reserving rooms and also doing the work
associated with the, the web page. So I think you,
Mitch.
Here's my address for comments. You're free to
send, any you like. Offer then until basically April 4th.
And here's my email address if you want to send them by
email. I'd prefer written, if possible. Email is, just
for problems with email and things like that sometimes
we think that written would be definitely covered.
Okay. Guess we can go into some questions, if
you'd like.
QUESTION/ANSWER SESSION:
QUESTIONS BY: MR. JOSEPH HAILER
MR. HAILER: A question about the, the
comments themselves and questions. Are they, when you
summarized in the report that you'll make. Will they be
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
32
in detail?
MR. ALCAMO: Yes. Yes. We will ... It depends
how ... We can take comments in conglomeration.
Particularly, it's helpful if you write Comment 1 and
you get specific in your comment. If you give us a long
story and things like that, it becomes much more
difficult for us to decipher out. But if you give us
Comment 1, this. And it's clear and concise, it'll be
written word-for-word. But if you give me a story, that
is essentially going to be problematic for me to try to
interpret that.
MR. HAILER: Okay.
MR. ALCAMO: Okay?
MR. HAILER: You say you don't particularly want
them by email. Does that ...
MR. ALCAMO: Oh, you can, you can email. I'd
prefer, I think it would be better ... whatever you ...
either way ... I think, I, I prefer them by written, but
it's your call.
MR. HAILER: Aren't there still difficulties with
getting written items to the EPA because of ... don't
they go to a central center for detoxification?
MR. ALCAMO: No. Detoxification?
MR. HAILER: Or anthrax or something like that?
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. ALCAMO: Not EPA. No. They go directly into
our slot. They go to our 13th floor file and then we
over them, so there's no anthrax.
MR. HAILER: We did have a local problem with
that. I do have some clarification questions.
MR. ALCAMO: One of the things I want to point
out to you is that I'm not really the expert on it. I'm
certainly going to refer to come of the experts that
help in terms of my technical assistance on this. But
any type of legal question, if there's any.
MR. HAILER: You mentioned something about the
question of fillets versus whole fish. When a person
catches a fish and ... you talk about the fillets. The
intention is not necessarily eat the whole fish,
correctly, but they will make a meal out of it. So what
you possibly, did you address the idea of eating four
ounces or just a fillet.
ERIC MORTON: We looked at, based on the amount
of fish, based on population studies, evolved and
documented fish ingestion rates that could be supported
as sustainable in the creek. And those were, and then we
divided those into the average daily, divide those by
365, we get the average grams per day. So we didn't do
it, sometimes risk assessments are done in terms of
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429* *812-87 6-"?312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
21
22
23
24
34
meals. Twenty meals a year in X amount and go forward.
We took an alternate approach and mathematically the
same way, but it will be an average daily rate. And it's
just based on fillet. And went forward from there.
So it does consume, it's on an average basis, so it
wasn't on a meal specific basis.
MR. HAILER: Okay. So, so it's not the quantity
that you eat, it's just fish?
MR. MORTON: It is the quantity because we're
looking at the fillet, the whole fillet. The number
necessary was converted from the whole to the fillet
and then we assume ...
MR. ALCAMO: One of the things to point out is
that when the population studies were done CBS
Corporation greatly has agreed with us in terms of
canned fish, you know, things of that nature. We had
large amount of arguments associated with that. And we
felt by going forward with our, our risk assessment and,
and Eric and Dr. Neil Clark, who couldn't be here
tonight. We felt we've got something defensible. We
think it's pretty reasonable. Of course, as I said,
they are going to submit substantial public comments
against our risk assessments.
MR. HAILER: You mentioned other hazardous
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
substances along with PCBs. What were they and will the
Alternate 5 take care of them as well?
MR. ALCAMO: Yes. We also think there volatile
organic compounds. It also comes into another argument
chat CBS Corporation and the State feels that they're is
they're not responsible for any other constituents other
than PCS. We disagree with that. We're working through
that issue with them. We certainly will be testing for
those, and there will be discharge criteria based upon
protected laws.
MR. HAILER: In the risk assessments, were those
considered as part of the risk evaluation?
MR. ALCAMO: No. We looked mainly at PCBs
because we knew PCBs would be the big driver of risk.
MR. HAILER: A question also on the Icebox ... in
Icebox Quarry. You mentioned that a concentration of
PCBs at approximately 0.1?
MR. ALCAMO: Yes. Round in there. It's around
in that range.
MR. HAILER: Okay. What is the, what are dioxin-
like PCBs that you are primarily addressing?
MR. ALCAMO: We did not do dioxin-like PCBs in
animal samples. We did air core analysis.
MR. HAILER: But in your risk assessment you did
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
36
dioxin-like PCBs.
MR. MORTON: Only for the ... The only samples
ran on dioxin-like PCBs was the fish. The sediment and
the water were air quality analysis.
MR. HAILER: Right. So the risk assessment was
done on the basis of dioxin-like PCBs?
MR. MORTON: The fish, we operated numbers based
on air flow analysis and the separate {inaudible} set of
populations for the dioxin-like PCBs. So both those
results are in there. But all the other media are air
flow.
MR. HAILER: Well, the risk assessment conclusion
of the, the dangers, the increased danger were based on
dioxin-like PCBs - in the fish.
MR. MORTON: They're based, yes.
MR. HAILER: Okay. When you do the dioxin-like
PCBs ... you said that they're in fish ... you do a
congener analysis. Right?
MR. MORTON: The samples are analyzed for
congener. Those that are considered dicxin-like are
taken forward. . Not all, not all of the ... not all of
the dioxin congeners are ... not all PCBs congeners act
like dioxin. So those that act like dioxin, and Terry
quoted, in the analysis.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
37
MR. HAILER: But in order to collect the dioxin-
like congeners of the PCBs, you have to do congener
analysis. And you did that on the fish?
MR. MORTON: Correct.
MR. HAILER: Okay. When you did that on the
fish, did a congener analysis, I took a look at Method
8082 for PCB analysis and there is a method for doing
congener analysis in there. And you, apparently it's
important to do congener analysis for risk assessments.
You can't just do it on a general run of PCBs.
MR. ALCAMO: Yes you can. You can. It's not as
accurate.
MR. HAILER: Okay. To be more accurate. One of
the things that showed up in the, the level ... I mean,
the Alternative 5, was that you ... that the State
allowed you to do a 0.3 part per billion discharge
criteria because there was no method to analyze water
for anything lower than that.
MR. ALCAMO: Jeff?
MR. JEFF CAHN: Yeah, I think that's correct.
MR. HAILER: How is it then that you can get the
Icebox Quarry 0.1 part per billion? And also in the, in
the Method 8082, if you do a congener analysis, you can
get levels 300 times lower. Why are you selecting a
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
38
discharge criteria that is far higher than adequately
necessary to protect the environment? As I understand
it, the State criteria is 0.9 ... 0.79 nanograms per
MR. ALCAMO: .79 parts per trillion.
MR. HAILER: Right. And they're letting you do a
much higher level of discharge. The Method 8082 allows
you to get down to five to 25 nanograms per liter; far
closer to what your targets are.
MR. JEFF CAHN: We solicited from the State their
applicable or relative for pre-requirements . The State
has identified State Rule 327, Indiana Administrative
Code 5-2-11 .If. And under State rule, .3 parts per
billion is the discharge criteria that they use for
PCBs. That's the number by proxy that the State is to
try to use measurable and protective.
MR. HAILER: I actually think they call for 0.79.
And what they granted you is a, is a 0.3. 0.79
nanograms per liter.
MR. CAHN: That's something different. That's
the water quality standard. That's not a discharge
criteria .
MR. HAILER: Oh. Okay. There, there's the
problem. So it allows you a discharge rather than
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
39
meeting the water quality requirement. Okay. That
clarifies it.
MR. CAHN: Well, it's not allowing it. It's what
the State has identified as the applicable or nominal
and appropriate requirement by State rule.
MR. HAILER: Okay. Okay. One of the things that
struck me about the Alternative 5, which was the
interceptor trench, it goes between the Bennett's Quarry
and Stout's Creek, and what it's designed to do is to
intercept any groundwater flow into Stout's Creek.
Right? And ...
MR. ALCAMO: Well, we haven't designed it yet.
It's a conceptual design.
MR. HAILER: Okay. One of the things that
strikes me is that then it depends upon the ground, the
flow going from east to west through the interceptor
trench. Right?
MR. ALCAMO: Stout's Creek is the west. It's
going to be ...
MR. HAILER: Stout's Creek runs north, to the
north?
MR. ALCAMO: Right.
MR. HAILER: From south to north?
MR. ALCAMO: Right.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
40
MR. HAILER: And so you're on the east side with
this interceptor trench ...
MR. ALCAMO: Uh huh.
MR. HAILER: And you're collecting water that's
flowing west.
MR. ALCAMO: Uh huh.
MR. HAILER: The groundwater flow gradient in
this area, in the Illinois basin, is to the south. And
so what you're doing is you're basically only getting
water that overflows the bowl structure.
MR. ALCAMO: I don't think, I don't think our
pizometer data actually ... John, do you want to comment
on that? I don't know. But I don't agree with you on
your analysis.
MR. HAILER: Well, you've got intermittent
springs, which suggests that it's only when the, the
bowl fills up that it spills into Stout's Creek. So the
primary groundwater flow is not in the direction of your
trench necessarily. But there's still contaminated
groundwater potentially leaving the site going somewhere
else that this doesn't address.
MR. ALCAMO: No. I don't, I don't know if we'd
agree with that. But certainly it's going to depend
upon where we put the final trench and how long we make
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
41
the trench. And so, based upon all the pizoraeter data
and also all of the, the other data that we've gathered,
we think that it's feasible to put a trench along there
and capture the data.
MR. HAILER: Just the, just a technical
clarification. It really does address groundwater and
not just what leaks out.
MR. ALCAMO: It's going to be deep enough that
you'll have to ... It's not just the springs water that
surface that seep. For example, call them rusty springs
near the bank.
MR. HAILER: Right.
MR. ALCAMO: That basically needs to get captured
too. So it is going to address groundwater also.
MR. HAILER: Okay. And hopefully it'll address
the problem that you've got with your mass balance on
PCBs, which says that there are other sources of PCBs to
Stout's Creek than those springs.
MR. ALCAMO: Exactly. That's why we did this.
To CBS's credit, they did do specific analysis ail along
the creek adjacent to the site. And it's showed that we
had releases. And that's why the trench, we think, will
capture it and deal with it.
MR. HAILER: Good. It's just a, a clarification.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
42
Also, one of the other alternatives, #3 ...
MR. ALCAMO: Three?
MR. HAILER: I'm sorry?
MR. ALCAMO: Number 3, the passive quarry drain?
MR. HAILER: Well, actually I, I misspoke.
Alternative 4 calls for a excavation plus a passive
treatment.
MR. ALCAMO: Passive quarry drain.
MR. HAILER: Quarry drain. So that what you're
doing is you're sending water into a treatment facility?
MR. ALCAMO: No. No. Alternative 3 basically
there is no treatment. Implement Alternative 3 by
reducing the groundwater flow. We'll try to go in those
buried quarries and dig the material out. As I said,
why we didn't chose that alternative, is just the
problematic aspect of when we did the excavation in 1999
we chased material 30, 35 feet in depth. And that's
when we gave up. Because groundwater elevation was so
high and it had PCBs in it. But it's basically
groundwater problem and not a soil problem. So we felt
that by looking at the excavation we may be able to do
some excavation, but it really doesn't appear to be
feasible in, in the, in the long term to be able to get
the stuff in levels that are manageable.
FISHER REPORTING, !NC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
43
MR. HAILER: What about the, the possibility,
though, of inserting wells in those sites themselves to
keep them dry? Extracting the water directly, rather
than waiting for groundwater to move through the site
and be slowly contained.
MR. ALCAMO: We tried doing that and it wasn't
successful. I mean, we did pump test on each site.. We
did some installation of wells and tried pumping that.
Something that was certainly, in the public comments,
we'll certainly take a look at it. But I mean, we did
do some pumping and it was not successful.
Particularly, one of the things we did, we dumped a ton
of dye in one of the monitoring wells and the buried
quarry and we never found it.. It just stayed there.
So ...
QUESTIONS BY: MR. MIKE BAKER, COPA
MR. BAKER: Well, part of your answer to the
excavation issue ... Mike Baker with COPA ... was the
fact that in some of the other sites like Lemon Lane or
Neal's you can only excavate so deep and you just keep
chasing it. And you get to a point to where you're
unable to dig any deeper and it doesn't correct the
problem,
MR. ALCAMO: Right.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
44
MR. BAKER: So basically that's why you're not
looking at Alternative 4 as really doing much good in
trying to excavate.
MR. ALCAMO: Correct
MR. BAKER: That was my main.
MR. ALCAMO: Really, you don't get enough bang
for your buck for dealing with that.
MR. BAKER: And a quick question. In some of
your printed material I thought that the comment period
was March 4:tl?
MR. ALCAMO: We got an extension from Mr. Savage.
Thirty-day ... We can give a minimum of a 30-day
extension and they gave me a 30-day extension till April
4th. So you have now until April 4th to comment on ...
any future remedies probably sometime in mid-March. You
know, I'm not going to ... I wouldn't quote me on this,
but sometime in March we'll be coming out with a Lemon
Lane landfill proposed plan. And that will be a topic,
a 6:00 o'clock public comment period in that one.
One question too that I wanted to addYess that I
had heard some rumors with about other locations at the
site that were not addressed and, you know ... That's
something that we'll certainly take the information
that's available. That site, we've walked that site and
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
23
21
22
23
24
45
sampled that site . We've looked in the quarries. We
basically, I know there's an issue at Bennett's Dump
with a fence and there was capacitors outside the
original fence line. Back in "93 they did an error
action at the site. We put a fence and then also they
hit capacitors. The fence, you know, to be honest with
you, was a crappy job. We're not going to deny that.
And essentially outside the fence was contamination. We
chased all that in the y99 remediation. We've looked
and walked that site extensively. We see no other
evidence of any other disposal areas at that site.
QUESTIONS BY: MS. DIANE HENSHEL
MS. HENSHEL: Can you give an example of other
times that the trench has been used, not Bloomington
obviously, and especially during, well, in places where
they have periodic flooding and what happens during high
flow, and how effective it is at different high-
flow/low-flow situations?
MR. ALCAMO: It's been implemented elsewhere. I
can't give it to you right now, but I will send you an
email and get the sites. There have been a number of
sites where this type of technology has been used.
MS. HENSHEL: Right. But how, how effective is
it for a high-flow condition especially? You know
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETT3VILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
46
that's a serious concern.
MR. ALCAMO: Well, I think ... I think, Diane,
with a passive quarry drain system, by really reducing
the groundwater flow. And particularly with, with
upgrading groundwater drained from the site I think we
can handle it. One of the things is ... One of the
things we need to do is install a quarry drain system,
wherever we're going to lead it to, first because we
need to figure out what size trench we need, how big a
treatment plant we have to build, what needs to be in
the treatment plant. So there is a predesign study that
needs to be done and that certainly will be looked at.
MS. HENSHEL: My understanding is that at some
sites during high flow there is a problem.
MR. ALCAMO: Please give me some information.
I'll be more than glad to look at it. I, I've talked to
our engineers and, and we think it's feasible.
MS. HENSHEL: I'm just asking effectiveness.
Thanks.
MR. ALCAMO: I appreciate it. Thank you.
QUESTIONS BY: MR. BRUCE BUNDY
MR. BUNDY: And I'm curious about what has been
done out there so far in terms of . . .• I guess there was
some capping done or attempted and then I think
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
47
capacitors were removed. Stained soils?
MR. ALCAMO: Correct.
MR. BUNDY: And was there an investigation to
find, you know, like visible evidence of capacitors in
other quarries, or was it just water testing?
MR. ALCAMO: Well, we ... Actually at that, Star
Quarry drained Icebox Quarry a number of years ago and
we actually looked in there. And Wedge Quarry has no,
Wedge Quarry has no contamination, we really didn't find
any evidence. So we think Icebox Quarry has been
contaminated by groundwater backflowing into the, into
the quarry. But we don't see any evidence of
contamination in there. Adjacent to there was a large
area we excavated called a second satellite area. Which
we had to chase material pretty far away, much greater
than the, than the defined location. So, I think we, we
have looked at some of the quarries, we have looked in
the surrounding area. And we don't see evidence of it.
Certainly at the entrance gate of the site there was
some capacitors and we excavated that area, and cleaned
that area up. So, we're not seeing any evidence , and
as I said, we've walked extensively. So, I, you know,
we have looked in there.
MR. JEFF CAHN: Maybe you could talk about ...
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
46
(inaudible)
MR. ALCAMO: Weil, yeah. The '99 clean up, we
essentially removed about 37,000 tons of material.
That was, a lot of the area was ... like a bedrock. We
removed any visibly stained soils by cleanup criteria.
There were almost 1,800 capacitors. They weren't oil
filled but they were formerly oil filled. So, we did a
pretty extensive cleanup to that back in A99. So I
think we're comfortable that, you know, it's ... we've
handled the, at least the site and general area around
the site in terms of contamination. There was areas
outside the fence line that were definitely
contaminated. We went much farther than the meets and
bounds, or the defined area within the Consent Decree
in the clean up.
Does that answer your question?
MR. BUNDY: Yes.
QUESTIONS BY: MS. JOYCE WILLIAMS, PROPERTY OWNER
MS. WILLIAMS: Live about a mile from the site.
I'm wondering if you could elaborate on deed
restrictions. Particularly limits, geographic limits of
those.
MR. ALCAMO: The deed restrictions are
essentially the, the site boundary where we currently
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSV!LLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
49
have it. We haven't worked those out yet, but I can
say there may be some use restrictions on that piece of
property. We would not ... We obviously are in close
contact with North Park Development. I don't know what
they're going to do in that area. I have no idea. But
it's something we need to keep an eye on and work with.
And we do have a good working relationship with them.
But the deed restrictions will not go farther than the
actual site boundaries. And so ... As I showed you on
an aerial photograph.
Tom, could yo go back to the aerial photograph.
We may have to have some other stuff in this
area, just due to the fact as put do the collection of
groundwater, interceptor trench to passive drain systems
here. It's basically the same area. Hunter Valley Road
is right here.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. ALCAMO: You're welcome.
QUESTIONS BY: MR. RUDY SAVICH, PROTECT OUR WOODS
AND ATTORNEY FOR OLIVIA FRY.
MR. SAVICH: Tom, could you point, go back to
that picture that we just there. I wanted to see if you
could point where the buried quarries are.
MR. ALCAMO: It's better if you look at this one.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
50
These gray, these dark areas, based on an aerial
analysis.
MR. SAVICH: Okay. So the two with the green ...
MR. ALCAMO: That would be our general excavation
area if we were to direct, implement Alternative 4.
MR. SAVICH: Are those within the original 1983
fence?
MR. ALCAMO: I don't think so. That's a good
question. I don't think so.
MR. SAVICH: But that's where you were digging
and it got too wet to keep going?
MR. ALCAMO: Right. In this area.
MR. SAVICH: In 1999?
MR. ALCAMO: Right.
MR. SAVICH: You were still finding material that
was 25 parts per billion...
MR. ALCAMO: Not, not material. We found
groundwater. We did not find capacitors. We were at
30, 35 feet down and then it basically got too difficult
to excavate. So it was essentially groundwater. Wasn't
capacitor parts, wasn't anything like that. It was
essentially groundwater.
MR. SAVICH: Oh, I under the impression it was
filled with rubble?
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**F.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
51
MR. ALCAMO: Rubble.
MR. SAVICH: Is rubble the same thing as
groundwater?
MR. ALCAMO: No. But rubble ... We removed the
rubble. Rubble in terms of ... The problem with these,
there's large, huge boulders in here. There's other
things that have backfilled. And so that's what we
meant by rubble in terms of what we excavated and, it
was actually the groundwater that was contaminating the
soil. It wasn't the soils itself.
MR. SAVICH: Okay. And those areas were at some
point ... and it has active quarries? They, they took
stone out of those?
MR. ALCAMO: I'm assuming. Based on the aerial,
aerial analysis.
MR. SAVICH: So how deep were they when they were
excavated, the quarries, or the mine was taken out of
there.
MR. ALCAMO: I don't know. Do you have any idea?
MR. JOHN BASSETT- EARTH TECH: Based on the time
frame this was done and the location where it is next to
Stout's Creek, those quarries probably weren't real
deep. Probably 20, 25 feet max. It's kind of hard
during that time frame that they would pump a lot of
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
52
water for that kind of stone. So we, we don't
anticipate it being really deep. There were different
quarry walls that were found, channel cut marks were
found in the quarries in both those excavated areas.
The old air filters did a lot of good determining, you
know, depth or anything because this was pre-1939 and
{inaudible}
MR. SAVICH: Okay. So in 1999 you were out there
excavating and you got down so far and it got too wet to
keep going. But you're saying ... I hear you saying ...
that when you got down to 20 feet you would have
anticipated hitting rock bottom, the bottom of the old
quarry? That's as far down as they cut?
MR. ALCAMO: We'did not hit the bottom of that.
At least as far as I can remember. We'll look back at
the actual ... where these pictures are in some of the
past reports and stuff, it's my recollection we were not
at bottom.
MR. SAVICH: And you were 35 feet deep?
MR. ALCAMO: I can't remember off the top ... It
was around 30 feet we were digging down. We were at the
length of the backhoe, which could excavate. It's
somewhere in that range. It could have been estimate 20
or 25, I just don't remember in terms of the (inaudible}
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
53
we had. But it was deep. We had no additional way
safely to continuing to excavate. We were afraid the
machine was going to fall into the hole.
MR. SAVICH: Okay. You're going to, in a couple
of these alternatives, the one you selected, you're
going to try to drain some of the water out of the
quarries that have water in them? Wedge Quarry?
MR. ALCAMO: This one, this one, and possibly
this one, and possibly a, possibly an upgrade in
groundwater and receptor trench. But this is the big,
this system down here.
MR. SAVICH: And that's what you call a passive
drain?
MR. ALCAMO: Passive quarry drain.
MR. SAVICH: Passive quarry drain. Do you think
that passive quarry drain process will result in the
green areas there drying out? Is that going to dry out
those areas so it'll be easier to excavate them?
MR. ALCAMO: It may or may not. It all depends.
MR. SAVICH: And the reason why you're not going
to excavate them is because it's too expensive or
infeasible technically to excavate them, in your
opinion, because they're too wet?
MR. ALCAMO: That's one of the reasons. We think
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-73l2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
in terms of getting bang for your buck in regards to
excavating the area. It wouldn't be worth it. In terms
of also when you drain down the quarry there's no
release, it's staying there. So, essentially like a
series of bathtubs there that the drain. And it's not
moving anywhere. It's not an issue.
MR. SAVICH: Okay. Because you don't think
there's any solid material in those areas ...
(inaudible) ...
MR. ALCAMO: We think it's a groundwater problem.
MR. SAVICH: And the other question I have is,
this interceptor trench, do you have an estimate of how
many feet deep that's going to be?
MR. ALCAMO: We've looked conceptually. And I
can't give you the design but it would like eight feet
maybe or maybe deeper. Maybe less. We need to do some
pre-design studies. But I will tell you there has been
a conceptual design that's been put out there, but
that's not going to be a final design. I can't tell you
exactly how deep it's going to be. It'll be deep enough
to solve the problem.
MR. SAVICH: Okay. And you found PCB-
contaminated water 30 or 35 feet deep in the buried
quarry, the backed up, the filled quarries, but an
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
55
eight-foot interceptor trench is going to catch all the
water that's 35 feet deep?
MR. ALCAMO: We don't think it's being released.
I think it's not moving. I guess, we don't think it's
going to be moving in a way that's going to affect the
stream.
MR. SAVICH: Okay.
MR. ALCAMO: Stuart, we're looking at ... Anymore
questions. I want to make sure we leave plenty of time
for the public comment. We're looking at about an hour
and five minutes.
QUESTIONS BY: MR. JOSEPH HAILER
MR. HAILER: It's a question about those buried
quarries. You indicated that you had dug out on the
order of 35,000 tons of material and disposed of it
elsewhere?
MR. ALCAMO: There were about 36,000 tons in X99.
MR. HAILER: And, and so what went back into
these quarries?
MR. ALCAMO: What went back into these quarries?
What do you mean?
MR. HAILER: What material went back into the
quarries?
MR. ALCAMO: Clean fill.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
56
MR. HAILER: Clean fill. So there's no value in
excavating the quarries because they're filled now with
clean fill.
MR. ALCAMO: The areas that we excavated.
MR. HAILER: Oh. So there are areas that were
not excavated that may be contaminated?
MR. ALCAMO: Certainly contaminated with
groundwater, from groundwater.
MR. HAILER: One of the reports on the cleanup of
Bennett's Quarry mentions that they encountered PCB
liquid in one of the grids. And it was refilled. Why
was that done?
MR. ALCAMO: Well, they encountered a PCB mixture
... I think it was mixed with diesel fuel ... that
settled and it was pumped. And we pumped out and
treated that water and it just kept filling up and
filling up and so that sample was taken as soon as we
found it. A large amount of that was pumped and
treated. So it was filled, basically determined to be a
groundwater problem for us.
MR. HAILER: And what is, what is wrong with
continuing to treat it as a groundwater problem by
pumping out this contaminated water directly at the
sites, as opposed to letting it potentially reach, or
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
preventing it from reaching the creek? Why not extract
it from the sites?
MR. ALCAMO: We tried. That's something that we
could consider, you know. It's not a bad idea. The
problem is, is we tried doing it at some wells that they
installed and it didn't work because we, you know, it's
hard to get the groundwater. So, in any case, I
recommend you submit your comments. It's something
we'll certainly take a look at.
MR. HAILER: Okay.
MR. ALCAMO: Okay?
MR. HAILER: Thank you.
QUESTIONS BY: MR. GREG KLIPP
MR. KLIPP: I've just got two quick questions.
First off, with the stagnant water at the bottom of the
quarries where you said you, you dug to and you figured
out it wasn't flowing anywhere. What tests were done to
ensure that it wasn't flowing anywhere?
MR. ALCAMO: We think it's going actually where
the main sources of the PCB contamination from some of
the spring systems because if you look at it, it's a
series of, like a bathtub. So groundwater elevation
rises and it looks over the top of a quarry and creates
a spring flow.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
58
MR. KLIPP: Okay. And on top of that, continuing
on with Diane's question earlier, about high-flow events
with the interceptor pipe, is there any plans for maybe
like a spillover or something in case like it's, it's
too much flow for the water treatment plant to accept?
MR. ALCAMO: We certainly want to do surface
water diversion to clean surface water around this whole
system. We don't want to treat clean water. I don't
know that we're not in to the point of doing that. It's
something that, you know, we'll consider. But I can say
that we, we knew the surface water was drainage there to
prevent us from treating clean water.
MR. KLIPP: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ALCAMO: We don't want ... It costs money to
treat water. We don't want to treat clean water.
QUESTIONS BY: MR. JOE HAILER:
MR. HAILER: One more. Just a quick one. I, I
don't think that Rudy's question was completely
answered, and it confused me, in fact. When you talk
about an eight-foot trench, you're not talking about the
placement of the trench from the surface down to eight
feet? Or are you talking about just the, the, the depth
of the trench of eight feet, but in the subsurface, down
at the groundwater level, 30 to 35 feet?
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
59
MR. ALCAMO: We don't know yet. I mean, I, I
don't want to take eight feet and say it's going to be
eight feet. There's a conceptual design out there. We
don't know. We need to design it. We certainly think
we're going to capture groundwater flow.
MR. HAILER: Okay. But you do mention eight foot
... eight feet?
MR. ALCAMO: As a conceptual ...
MR. HAILER: Okay.
MR. ALCAMO: That's particularly why I said it.
It's not ... It's to give people a general idea ...
MR. HAILER: Right.
MR. ALCAMO: ... of what the system could be, and
may be fuller because we haven't designed it yet.
MR. HAILER: Okay. The only problem is that it's
unclear what you're, how you're going to approach it, in
terms of how big it was.
MR. ALCAMO: Well, I can't tell you specifically
because we haven't designed it.
MR. HAILER: I understand. Just asking that you
try to make a little bit of extra clarification.
MR. ALCAMO: Well, certainly, there'll be other,
you know, we'll have other meetings where the design
gets put forth and I'll be explaining ...
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
60
MR. MAILER: Certainly. Thank you.
MR. ALCAMO: You're welcome.
QUESTIONS BY: MR. BRUCE BUNDY
MR. BUNDY: If I'm not mistaken, there is an NPDS
permit on the site?
MR. ALCAMO: No.
MR. BUNDY: There's not?
MR. ALCAMO: And actually there would have to be
not actually a permit. For Superfunds you don't have to
get a specific permit. You do something called a
substance of requirements. So you don't have any
administrative procedures. It's right in the Superfund
law, there will be one developed for the treatment
plant.
MR. BUNDY: I thought the State had actually
permitted discharge into Stout's Creek under the storm
water provisions of the NPDS.
MR. ALCAMO: No. Not that I know of.
MR. CAHN: Not this site.
MR. ALCAMO: Not this site.
MR. BUNDY: And do you have any clue as to why
that wasn't done? Because I was actually involved in
the, the, the procedure?
MR. ALCAMO: I have no idea whose ... In terms of
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
61
the unacceptable releases, we would be need to get to
the {inaudible} source. We would be able to get a
permit associated with that or get permit requirements.
But I, I'm not familiar with a storm water permit at the
site. Certainly, it states here ...
MR. BUNDY: And then if that had taken place
there would be, what I saw purported violations and
eventually a permit standard. And I thought it had
taken place.
MR. ALCAMO: My understanding is there has been
no permit associated with storm waters ...
MR. BUNDY: For this site.
MR. ALCAMO: ... for this site. You know, for
this site specifically. Maybe you're thinking of
another site. But I, I just don't know.
MR. BUNDY: Do you mean ... I was assuming it was
this site, but I don't know how expansive ... Are there
other sites in Bennett Quarry neighborhood?
MR. ALCAMO: Not PCB. There is a ... Lemon Lane
landfill is in the area.
MR. BUNDY: Right.
MR. ALCAMO: But I ... You may be thinking of
Neal's in terms of ... That does have an actual permit
for its NPDS facility there. And that's what you may be
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
62
thinking of.
MR. JEFF CAHN: That's not Stout's Creek, is it?
MR. ALCAMO: No. I ... Maybe somewhere else.
I just don't know. Now, of course, North Park
Development is going to have to be getting storm water.
You know, we've talked to them extensively, not only
extensively, but a number of times. And some of the
storm water retention basins, they are probably going to
have to install things of that nature. So, that may be
what you're referring to.
MR. BUNDY: No, what I was referring to was
actually the Bennett's Quarry site and discharges into
Stout's Creek. And ... You know, it's a long time deal.
The State is actively involved in setting standards and
trying to set up a South Quarry monitoring system out
there. So ...
MR. ALCAMO: Yeah, I don't know. I'll have to
have the state look into it.
MR. BUNDY: Okay.
MR. ALCAMO: Thank you. Alright.
MR. HILL: Any additional questions? At this
point we'll move into accepting formal comments. So if
you have a statement, observation, that you would like
to make relative to the proposed plan that's been
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
63
presented this evening, we're ready to do that. Keep in
mind that there will be no response to the comments that
are offered. But they will be a part of the
administrative record and the record of decision.
COMMENTS SESSION:
COMMENTS BY: MR. MIKE BAKER
First issue, we did ... Mitch Rice has made a
set of copies ... I think I've got three sets ... of the
administrative record. It's a huge amount of data, and
if you try downloading it, it's off of our website, it
may take you quite a while because it's absolutely a ton
of data there. So we have made copies. There's two CDs
to a set. Whoever wants these can see me and get a set
of them. Whoever wants another set you can send me an
email, you can get a hold of Mitch. The information on
the PCB copa.org website we'll get you the sets. There
won't be any charge in doing this. It may be an easier
way for somebody to research some of the, the sensitive
of data related to Bennett's Quarry. So I've got those
here.
The second thing is a formal, more of a formal
comment. You know, I have been involved with PCB issues
since 1990 with COPA. I think every year the health
affects that are determined by the scientific and health
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
64
professionals indicate that PCBs'are more problematic
than we ever thought they were. I think the community
may feel that the EPA struggled in the early years, back
in the incinerator years, in actually doing the right
thing. I do believe the EPA is trying to do the right
thing. I believe that there is potential of
contamination that we're not aware of. So if peoplei
have comments concerning that, I'd appreciate if you
submit those to EPA.
During all of these years while PCBs have been
released in the environment, part of the reason it's
taken so long to get to where we are today is because
Westinghouse/Viacom/CBS has demanded more testing, they
demanded more research into looking at the contamination
at all the sites. Not primarily because they wanted to
find out if there's more contamination, but they wanted
to use the data to defend their position, and if they
don't need to do anything else, they don't need to pay
for the Illinois treatment spring. And they've been
trying to defer cost all these years.
I think it's a time now with the new management
at CBS to step forward and do the right thing. Last
year, third quarter they reported over $5.9 billion in
operating income ... or ... the operating income was
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
65
over 1.4 billion. Revenues close to $6 billion. To do
all the proposed remedies that EPA and the other
governmental parties are looking at is a drop in the
bucket financially for CBS. So I hope that the CEO,
Leslie Moonves, takes a look at this and realizes that
by doing the right thing, including long-term monitoring
and additional testing if there's other sites that we
find, it is the right thing to do and it's a lot cheaper
in the long run.
MR. HILL: Thank you. Additional comments?
COMMENTS BY: MR. JOSEPH HAILER
One of the observations that I made, that I see
in many of these documentations is a recount of the
history of the consent decree. And it may be that the
consultants are unaware of the full history, but have
sort of problemized it. One of the impressions that I
get out of reading those histories is that the original
consent decree, worked out amongst the, the gang of
five, was an appropriate solution to the problem, and in
fact, it was the best solution. It did call for total
removal of the material, but with an incinerator. And
that incinerator was a, an unknown technology.
Incinerators of hazardous waste material require
a large quantity of monitoring. The problem, was in the
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
66
community they wanted to couple it with waste disposal.
The, the waste from the community was to be used as the
fuel for the incinerator. And if the community didn't
generate enough waste, we had to pay for that fuel.
This would have interrupted the full recycling program,
where it produced an additional problem in terms of air
emissions of all the contaminants potentially present.
One of the difficulties with that is that the
air contamination also would have been unleashed in a
radial pattern and potentially contaminating our
drinking water. So there were many technical problems
with the incinerator. And blaming it on the community
to objecting to it and then accusing the State of
affording it a good solution. The problem with the State
was ... and I worked on the law that Vi Simpson finally
introduced ... is it required the incinerator to be
truly effective. It had to meet the six nines
(99.9999)criteria of the federal government on the
destruction of the PCBs and not release dicxins, furans,
and other contaminants. In the federal regulations they
use a six nine (99.9999) destruction removal efficiency
within the law required the destruction. And removal
meant that we would have ended up with 600,000 tons of
contaminated waste in a local landfill, in a site that
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
67
was not adequate to handle the contamination. Further,
it would not have produced a, a level of destruction
adequate to protect the environment.
So your consultants have got to let this go.
The reason the incinerator and the original consent
decree was rejected is it was a bad idea. So we are not
responsible for the problem. These solutions that
you're proposing are improvements over that, even though
they do have their own difficulties. Thank you.
COMMENTS BY: MS. KATIE WOLF
My name is Katie Wolf and I'm a lifelong
resident of Monroe County and my family has been here
for generations. We've lived through Westinghouse,
Viacom, CBS, and what other entities that they may be in
the future. My comment is I want to know where the
healthcare studies are. Where is the clinic to address
the problems that have been bestowed upon the people of
this county because of the PCBs in the air and water
and, and in the soil that people grow their vegetables
in. This isn't something that just, you know, is in
people's imaginations. There's been enough decades go
by that we can see the result of, in people's health.
Too many brain tumors, too many people dying. I'd like
to know where those health studies are.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
68
We are, talked about probabilities when we
should be talking about actualities. And I think it's a
shame that we waste money on meetings like this and for
all you professionals - thanks for coming out. But I
think that the money over the course of the decades that
have gone by could have been better spent if there had
been a health clinic set up in this county to address
the problems of the people here. There are children
that have had birth defects. There are kids that have
played in those creeks who have developed skin
sensitivities. And some, even worse case, things where
children's skin basically fell off because of being
exposed to contaminants in the creeks.
I think it's just a real shame that we're still
here all this time from ... I mean, I think the first
time I came out to a meeting that the EPA had was when I
was in high school in the 70s. And I think it's a shame
that we, here we still are, and there's really been
nothing done to address the health, which is really the
bottom line. If everybody's dead, the water is going to
mean absolutely nothing. So, I'm, I'm still waiting for
the healthcare clinic and I'm, I'm still waiting for my
test and for my kids' tests. Thanks.
COMMENTS BY: MR. BRUCE BUNDY
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
69
I hope that the plan provides the quarry with
the improved air monitoring not only for PCB vapors but
also PCBs stuck to particles. Further, I would hope
that monitoring the creek, monitoring the water for PCBs
that are attached to suspended particles as well as
herbal PCBs. And also the testing of water supplies in
the wells. I understand that this is done. The process
needs to be continued also. If well tests come out
positive, then residents should be supplied with an
alternative source of drinking water at CBS' expense.
COMMENTS BY: MR. RUDY SAVICH
I just want to simply say that as a citizen of
this community I want to insist that all the PCB
contaminated materials be removed from the buried quarry
holes that are identified in the summary of the plan.
I'm confused by what's been presented tonight. What I
read in the proposed plan told me that there was solid
material in these quarry holes that was not excavated
during 1999. I'm told today that all the contaminated
solid material was excavated and the only thing left was
water. I see an inconsistency between what I read and
what I was told tonight. All I can say at this point is
that I'm insisting that the PCB contaminated solid
material be removed from Bennett's Dump site.
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214 **ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
70
MR. KILL: Thank you. Additional comments?
CONCLUSION
COMMENTS BY: MR. HILL
Without additional comments then, we will close
the formality of the meeting and close the meeting in
general. I would suggest that if there are other
discussions that you would like to have that a number of
use could remain for a while and, and be available to
entertain you one-on-one. However, we have to be out of
the auditorium in 45 minutes.
So with that, we'll conclude the, the meeting
and the session. And again, we offer our thanks to, to
you for your being here this evening.
Thanks for being here and thank you for your
comments and we appreciate it.
(MEETING CONCLUDED at 8:00 P.M.)
FISHER REPORTING, INC.**P.O. BOX 214**ELLETTSVILLE, IN 47429**812-876-7312
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF MONROESS:
I, Christie A. Fisher, a Court Reporter and Notary
Public for the State of Indiana, do hereby certify:
That the preceding public meeting was held before
me commencing at 6:30 o'clock p. m. on the 14" day of
February 2006 and ending on that date at the MONROE
COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, 303 E. Kirkwood Avenue,
Bloomington, Monroe County, State of Indiana.
I do further certify that the above-mentioned
public meeting was taken down by means of recording and
afterwards reduced to typewriting under my supervision.
I do further certify that 1 am a disinterested
person in this cause of action, that I am not in the
employ or a relative of any parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my notarial seal this / day of
2006.
NOTARY PUBLIC, MONRC-ETCOUNTYSTATE OF INDIANA
My commission expires:
11-10-06
cf/tg