UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYPUBLIC MEETING ON THE

PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR THEWOODLAWN LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE

Tuesday, June 8, 19937:00 p.m.Perryville High School1696 Perryville RoadPerryville, Maryland

Environmental Protection Agency Representatives:

PETER LUDZIASection Chief

TERRI WHITECommunity Relations Coordinator

DEBRA ROSSIRemedial Project Manager

NANCY CICHOWICZHydrogeologist

DAWN IOVENTosicologist

Maryland Department of the Environment Representatives:

BILL SCHMIDTRegional Manager

ARLENE WEINERDivision Chief

DAVID HEALYSection Head

ELAINE NOLENProject Manager

RON LAMBCommunity Relations

COPYJULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, Eyffi<&($®Q |l4 -0-398-3243

1 MS. WHITE: Good evening. We're going to get started

2 with tonight's meeting? My name is Terri White. I am the EPA

3 Community Relations Coordinator for the Woodlawn site. We are

4 here tonight to present to you the proposed plan for cleaning up

5 the Woodlawn site. There are several representatives here from

6 EPA, as well as the Maryland Department of the Environment. And

7 I'd like you to know which representatives are here.

8 From the EPA we have Mr. Peter Ludzia, who is a section

9 chief; we have Debra Rossi, she is the project manager for the

10 site; Nancy Cichowicz, who is a hydrogeologist; and Dawn loven,

11 who is an EPA toxicologist.

12 From the Maryland Department of the Environment we have

13 Mr. Bill Schmidt, who is a regional manager; Arlene Weiner, whc

14 is a State and Federal Superfund division chief; David Healy, a

15 section chief within the Superfund division; Elaine Nolen, the

16 project manager for the site; and Mr. Ron Lamb, who is a

17 community relations contractor.

18 There is a sign-in sheet at the door, and as you walked

19 in, I hope that all of you signed the sign-in sheet. The

20 purpose of it is to let us get a count of how many people showed

21 up from the public tonight. And also, as we continue to provide

22 information to the community, we are able to do that through a

23 mailing list that we have, and hopefully if you're on that

24 sign-in sheet, we can match that against the mailing list that

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

. . _._flR500Ql*5

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

we have currently. And if you're not on there, we can add you

to that list.

Also, I want you to know that there is a court reporter

here, so everything that will be said tonight will be recorded.

A transcript will be developed, and eventually that transcript

will be made available to the public at the information

repository that is set up for the site.

Before Debra goes into the presentation regarding the

technical aspects of what they're proposing for cleaning up the

site, I'd like to just reaquaint you with the Superfund process

if you're not aware of it, go through that, explain some of the

terms that you'll probably hear tonight so that everything that

Debra will talk about, hopefully it will mean something to you.

If I'm blocking anybody's vision, please let me know.

First of all, there are several processes that are involved in

the Superfund program, starting out with the site discovery,

moving onto the hazard ranking, several stages in terms of NPL

listing, eventual decision making or cleanup remedy, design of

that cleanup, implementation of that cleanup remedy, and

eventually removing the site from the Superfund list.

In the early 1980s, EPA began reviewing the Woodlawn

site for the hazard ranking system, and that's a system whereby

we use various factors and look at various things to determine

how serious a site is determined of being a threat to the

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

•

1 public. In 1984 we determined that the score for the Woodlawn

2 site was above the cut-off point of 28.5; in other words, those

3 sites scoring more than 28.5 will be added to the National

4 Priorities List, otherwise known as the Superfund list.

5 In 1987 we formally decided to add the Woodlawn site to

6 the NPL. And once a site becomes an NPL site, it's determined

7 that it's necessary for long-term remedial action. In 1988 we

8 signed an agreement with the potentially responsible parties,

9 and they agreed to do what we call a remedial investigation.

10 And that's an investigation that is lengthy, and it's necessary

11 to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a site.

12 Following the remedial investigation, we go on to a

13 process known as the feasibility study. Typically a feasibili

14 study will last four to six months, and it's a study whereby we

15 look at the findings from the remedial investigation, and we

16 determine what cleanup alternatives are available to remediate

17 the site.

18 Following the feasibility study, we will issue what we

19 call a proposed plan. It basically summarizes the alternatives

20 that we have studied under the feasibility study, and it also

21 notes EPA's preferred cleanup alternative.

22 At this point we are here right now in regards to the

23 Woodlawn site. There is a public comment period that we will

24 hold. We're in that public comment period right now which

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTLON. MD 410-398-3243

«r

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

started May 27 and was scheduled to end June 26. However — I'm

sorry, May 26 and was §cheduled to end June 25. However, we

have received two requests to extend that comment period. So in

fact EPA will be extending it for another 30 days.

Once we hold the proposed plan meeting, which is now,

once the public comment period has ended, EPA, based on comments

that we get from the public, will take those comments into

consideration and eventually decide on a final remedy which we

will call a record of decision. That's a document that outlines

the proposal or the cleanup alternative that we are seleqting.

Once EPA has issued its record of decision, we will

begin what we call the remedial design phase. During the

remedial design phase, we will look at ways of implementing the

cleanup remedy. In fact, this consists of looking at

blueprints, coming up with designs and different things that

specifically we need to do in terms of specifications and so on.

Following the remedial design, we will do what we call

remedial action, which is basically construction of that remedy

that we have chosen. And once that's completed, eventually the

site will be removed from the National Priorities List.

This is basically the Superfund process in a nutshell.

Again, right now we're at the proposed plan stage. Debra will

explain to you in her presentation the specifics of those

alternatives that we have looked at, as well as the alternatives

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

- - RR5.QGQU8

1 that EPA, in conjunction with Maryland Department of the

2 Environment, prefers. * ^H

3 . SPECTATOR NO. l: Miss, when does the public comment

4 period end?

5 MS. ROSSI: It was originally scheduled to end June 25,

6 but we've received some requests for an extension and we plan to

7 extend that comment period for an additional 30 days until,

8 well, July 26 is a Sunday, so it will be either the Saturday

9 before or the Monday after.

10 SPECTATOR NO. 2: For what reason was the extension

11 requested?

12 MS. ROSSI: Because parties who are involved in the

13 site or interested in the site would like additional time to

14 review the documents which are contained in the administrative

15 record files. That file which is the basis, contains all the

16 documents upon which EPA will base its selection of remedies is

17 available in the Elkton Public Library and the Perryville

18 Library, also at EPA offices in Philadelphia. There is a large

19 volume of material there, and we feel that in order to

20 adequately review that information, additional time may be

21 required.

22 Okay, what I plan to do tonight is to summarize the

23 information that's contained in the proposed plan which was

24 available when you walked in the auditorium here. That will

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 124-3c .ELKJEQNQ MD 410-398-3243

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

include some site background information for those of you who

are not entirely familiar with the site; also a summary of the

results of the remedial investigation which has been going on

for the past couple of years; and the feasibility study, which

included alternatives, potential alternatives for addressing

contaminated ground water and soils at the site and waste

located at the site.

I'll also highlight EPA's preferred alternative, but

I'll go over each of the alternatives that are included in the

proposed plan and which EPA considered.

This is a map of the site and the site area. The area

outlined in green is the Woodlawn Landfill site. It's located

about a mile north of Routes 275 and 276 in Cecil County. It's

in a rural/residential area. Homes in the area are served by

private domestic wells. There is a stream that runs across the

southern edge of the site and eventually flows into Basin Run

about a mile and a half downstream of the site.

Approximately coinciding with Firetower Road there is a

ground water divide, kind of a high point in the ground water

underneath the site. Ground water flows downhill from the

divide, so as you can see, it follows the blue arrows. Ground

water is flowing, these would be north, to the west, and also

south, southwest, toward the stream across the site.

Here is a larger figure of the Woodlawn Landfill site,

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343 - ELKTp£n MD 410-398-3243

1 approximately 38 acres in area. Before 1960 the property was a

2 privately owned sand and gravel quarry. In 1960 the County

3 purchased the property for use as a municipal landfill. And

4 municipal wastes were accepted at the property, as well as some

5 industrial wastes, including polyvinyl chloride sludge that was

6 produced at the Firestone Plastics plant in Perryville. We call

7 that PVC. Polyvinyl chloride is referred to or abbreviated as

8 PVC. And that PVC sludge contained residual vinyl chloride.

9 In 1978 the site was closed to municipal waste and a

10 transfer station opened up in the northeast corner near the

11 intersections of Firetower and Waibel Road. The Transfer

12 Station accepts municipal solid wastes and compacts it and ships

13 the compacted trash off-site to the County's Hog Hill Landfill !

14 Until May of 1990, liquids squeezed from the waste trash

15 compactors were discharged to an on-site septic tank in this

16 area. And after May of 1990, those liquid wastes were rerouted

17 to an on-site holding tank, which is periodically emptied, and

18 those liquids are treated at the Wastewater Treatment Plant in

19 Charlestown, Maryland.

20 Firestone continued to dispose of polyvinyl chloride

21 sludge at the site in designated disposal areas, more or less

22 unlined pits, until early 1981 in accordance with the terms of

23 an industrial waste disposal permit that was issued by the

24 State. The disposal areas are noted here: this is Cell A

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON. MU. fin-398-3243

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

this area represents Cell B, and over here lies Cell C,

approximately one acre'in area.

Firestone was required, under the terms of the

industrial waste disposal permit, to put a cover over the

disposal cells when they were done with waste disposal and to

install monitoring wells around the disposal cells, which they

did. Firestone installed these wells around disposal Cells B/C

and Cell A. The County was also required to install ground

water monitoring wells around the perimeter of the landfill to

monitor potential releases of contaminants into ground water

from the landfill area, general refuse area.

I have here a conceptual model of a landfill site, and

the mechanisms with which contaminants may be released to the

environment. This hatched area represents buried waste. And if

the wastes are not properly covered, precipitation, rainfall can

infiltrate, percolate through those wastes and carry with it

components of the wastes that are soluble in water. This

contaminated water is called leachate. And as the leachate

migrates through the soils, it can contaminate soils. And if

the leachate enters ground water, it can introduce contaminants

to the ground water. As the ground water moves away from the

site, contaminated ground water may enter water supply wells, or

local surface water bodies such as streams and lakes. Leachate

may also emerge from the slopes of the landfill and run over the

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKttffd ®# y0£-398-3243

10

1 surface, down slope, where it may enter surface water bodies.

2 Other release"mechanisms include surface runoff. If

3 soils at the surface of the landfill site are contaminated, they

4 may runoff after a storm event into local surface water bodies.

5 These contaminated soils may become wind borne and be inhaled by

6 people on-site or off-site. Also, as the wastes in the landfill

7 decompose, methane gas is generated, as well as other

8 potentially toxic gases. And these gases can escape from the

9 site vertically and perhaps be inhaled. Or they may also

10 migrate laterally, the methane gas may migrate laterally and

11 enter structures in the vicinity.

12 I hope you can see this, but I'll go over this slide.

13 This is a summary of all the environmental media that were

14 sampled at the site during the remedial investigation. We

15 looked at the levels of contaminants that were present at the

16 site and evaluated whether or not those levels presented a human

17 health risk or an environmental risk, or whether the levels were

18 sufficiently low that they did not present any risk to human

19 health and the environment.

20 I'll start with ground water. There are several

21 monitoring wells on the landfill property and on adjacent

22 properties. Ground water beneath the landfill property was

23 found to be contaminated with chemicals at levels that exceed

24 standards for public drinking water supplies and health-based

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

4

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

standards. Therefore, ground water on-site and immediately

adjacent to the site ii a concern.

We also sampled select residential wells during the

remedial investigation, about 20 wells. Vinyl chloride was

found in one well. The level of vinyl chloride was below the

standard for public drinking water supplies. However, a

treatment unit was installed at that residence in 1990. No

vinyl chloride or other contaminants have been found in the

treated ground water.

Manganese was found in another residential well at

levels that exceed health-based levels. Arsenic was found in

two residential wells at levels that exceed health-based levels.

However, these levels are within the range of naturally

occurring background concentrations in Cecil County. That is,

water in Cecil County frequently contains low levels of arsenic.

It's naturally occurring in the rocks. It does enter water.

Cell B/C contains polyvinyl chloride sludge, and that

is also a concern to human health because there is a potential

for contaminants to leach out of the sludge in those cells and

enter ground water if no remedial action is taken.

We sampled the stream that crosses the southern end of

the site and the soils and sediments in that stream. EPA

publishes criteria for protection of surface water bodies in

stream life called federal ambient water quality criteria. The

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

12

l levels of four metals in the stream water were found to exceed

2 federal ambient water quality criteria for protection of stream

3 life, such as fish and our other organisms that live in the

4 stream. The metals were aluminum, copper, silver, and lead,

5 There were no unacceptable levels of contaminants found in the

6 sediments noted here.

7 We also sampled the leachate. As I mentioned, water

8 that's contaminated with components of the waste material may

9 seep out of the site, slopes of the landfill. And there were a

10 few leachate seeps found at the site. These were sampled, and

11 the soils or sediments beneath the leachate were sampled as

12 well. There are no unacceptable levels of contaminants present

13 in the leachate seeps that had surfaced. However, sediments i

14 one area were found to contain levels of cadmium and zinc that

15 exceed standards for protection of wildlife.

16 I mentioned earlier, until 1990, liquids squeezed from

17 trash at the Transfer Station were discharged to an on-site

18 septic tank. That septic tank overflowed on a few occasions, so

19 we sampled soils that may have been contaminated by that surface

20 overflow from the septic tank and found that levels of mercury

21 in the surface soils in the septic system drain field exceeded

22 levels that are protective of wildlife. So there is a concern

2 3 there.

24 We also were concerned that the levels of contaminant

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, EjjKCBO ^ QEBj c«.0-398-3243

.

13

1 in the soils beneath the drain field might pose a risk to ground

2 water. We sampled those, those soils beneath the drain field

3 and-found that the levels of metals and other chemicals in those

4 soils would not result in ground water contamination.

5 We also looked at surface soils on the landfill and

6 found that there were no unacceptable levels of risk for humans

7 or wildlife associated with exposure to those soils.

8 Now we can take a closer look at the human health risk

9 assessment that was conducted during the remedial investigation.

10 When EPA conducts a risk assessment or someone conducts a. risk

11 assessment for EPA, we look at current conditions, potential

12 current exposure, and also exposures that may occur in the

13 future if no remedial action, no cleanup actions are undertaken

14 at the site.

15 EPA evaluates the levels of contaminants that are

16 present in the various media and determines whether or not those

17 levels will result in an unacceptable cancer risk or in any

18 unacceptable potential non-cancer adverse health effects.

19 Non-cancer health effects are represented by a hazard

20 index. A hazard index greater than 1 indicates that there is a

21 potential for adverse health effects for the population that is

22 exposed to the contaminants at the site under the specific

23 exposure conditions that were evaluated in the risk assessment,

24 and I'll talk about that in a minute.

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTO

14

l Also, I'd like to point out that at Superfund sites EP

2 considers that an increased lifetime cancer risk posed by, an

3 increased lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 in 10,000

4 resulting from exposure to site contaminants is unacceptable.

5 So if the risk is, say, 2 in 10,000, that would be an

6 unacceptable level of risk.

7 Let me talk a bit about the exposure scenarios that

8 were considered, potential current exposure scenarios. This is

9 very important. The assumption is that individuals in these

10 scenarios, the assumption is that individuals were consuming

11 water in residential wells that was found to be contaminated.

12 If you recall, I mentioned that one residential well had

13 manganese in it; another residential well was found to contain

14 low levels of vinyl chloride; and another two residential wells

15 contained arsenic. Beryllium was also found in samples

16 collected from two residential wells, but that appears to be a

17 result of laboratory contamination. We don't think the

18 beryllium was really present in the ground water at those homes.

19 In any event, when the risk assessment was conducted we

20 assumed that individuals were being exposed to each of those

21 contaminants in each residential well, which is very

22 conservative. In other words, these risk numbers overestimate

23 the risks at the site.

24 Also, we assumed that individuals consumed about

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 4JLO-398-3243LKTON, MD 41(-ft«50Q057

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

glasses of this contaminated water a day, 365 days a year, 30

years. Under that exposure scenario, in other words, a lifetime

of exposure every day, these are the risk numbers that would

result. The hazard index is greater than 1, so there is

potential for human, for non-cancer adverse health effects if

you consume this water every day for 30 years. And the cancer

risk, increased lifetime cancer risk is l to 2 in 10,000 for an

adult. In other words, it exceeds EPA's cut-off. And 1 in

10,000 for a child. That's EPA's cut-off.

Recall that these scenarios assume that individuals are

exposed to contaminants found in each of the residential wells.

And that's not really the case at this site. There was, you

know, as I mentioned, manganese was found in one well, no other

contaminants, vinyl chloride in another.

We also looked at potential exposure conditions that

may occur in the future if no remedial action is undertaken.

It's unlikely but it's still possible that if no remedial action

is taken at this site, someone may in the future install a

public water supply well on the landfill property. It's

unlikely. If that were to occur, and if individuals were to use

that water for drinking, showering, bathing, the increased

lifetime cancer risk would be 58 in 10,000 for an adult, and 40

in 10,000 for a child. EPA acceptable level is 1 in 10,000.

This shows us that we need to take action to cleanup the site to

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON- .MD 4.LQ-398-3243

16

1 prevent these kinds of exposures from occurring in the future.

2 These exposure scenarios also assume that individuals are

3 consuming the ground water every day for 30 years.

4 Let me explain the factors that EPA takes into

5 consideration in selecting a cleanup alternative for a site.

6 There are two threshold criteria. If a cleanup alternative does

7 not meet these criteria, it's not suitable for a Superfund site,

8 the alternative would be rejected at EPA. The criteria are

9 overall protection of human health and the environment. In

10 other words, does the alternative provide a suitable degree of

11 risk reduction at the site? The second threshold criterion is

12 compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate

13 requirements. That means compliance with federal and state

14 environmental regulations.

15 There are five balancing criteria: long-term

16 effectiveness and permanence. We look, in evaluating that

17 criterion we consider the level of risk remaining at the site

18 when we've met our cleanup objectives, and also the long-term

19 maintenance and management requirements for that particular

20 alternative. Another criterion is reduction of toxicity,

21 mobility, or volume through treatment. We considered the volume

22 of materials that are treated or destroyed of hazardous

23 materials, and also the irreversibility of that treatment.

24 We also consider short-term effectiveness, which is t

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKgqNn MD. 410-398-3243

*

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

17

degree of protection that is provided to the community and to

the workers at the site during the implementation phase, while

the-remedy is being constructed and until we achieve the cleanup

goals. We also look at implementabilities. Are there

technologies available to treat the particular waste; are there

materials and services available in the area so that we can

carry out this alternative. And we also consider cost,

including capital cost of construction of the remedy and

operation and maintenance costs over generally a 30-year period.

And there are modifying criteria: State acceptance.

The State of Maryland generally concurs with EPA's preferred

alternative, which I'll discuss in a moment. But they'll

reserve their final concurrence until they've had an opportunity

to review the comments that are submitted to EPA during the

public comment period. And of course we also consider community

acceptance. We'll evaluate community acceptance after we've

received all the comments to be submitted during the comment

period.

This is just a conceptual design of EPA's preferred

alternative. Again, here is the site. Our preferred

alternative calls for excavation of mercury-contaminated soils

from the drain field in this area and consolidation in the

center of the site. Plus we would install a cap over areas

where municipal waste and polyvinyl chloride sludge were

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTOW,nMpn/4AO-398-3243

18

1 exposed. That would be approximately a 30-acre cap. We would

2 install ground water recovery wells in the area of this, where

3 PVC-sludge was disposed of, and also around the perimeter of the

4 site.

5 If you recall, ground water flows outward this way,

6 radially outward. So these wells would capture any contaminants

7 that might leave the site. They're spaced rather closely.

8 That's not a reflection of the levels of contaminants that are

9 in ground water. It's required because of the geology of the

10 site. There is a rather small zone of influence — perhaps

11 Nancy can explain that later if there are any questions about

12 what I mean by that — in this area for extraction wells.

13 The remedy, the ground water to be extracted until

14 cleanup levels are achieved, the cleanup levels are presented in

15 Table 3 of the proposed plan, and treated on-site so that the

16 levels are reduced to levels that would allow the treated

17 groundwater to be safely discharged to the stream which crosses

18 the southern end of the site. Deed restrictions would be placed

19 on the landfill property. And ground water use restrictions in

20 the area would continue to be enforced. A fence would also be

21 erected around the landfill property to control access.

22 This is a vertical cross section of the cap that is a

23 part of EPA's preferred alternative. I'll start from the top

24 and go down. The top layer consists of about two feet of soil

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, EHOTOWcj |M» i 410-398-3243

19

1 which would allow grass, support grass and other vegetation.

2 Beneath the soil there is a drainage layer. Any rainwater that

3 percolates through this soil would be collected in this layer

4 and in drainpipes and transported away to the perimeter of the

5 site so that we can minimize the amount of rainwater that can

6 percolate through the cap and enter the wastes.

7 Below the drainage layer there would be a

8 low-permeability layer. Here I show two feet of very

9 low-permeability clay that impedes the migration of water and

10 minimizes the potential for water to enter waste and mobi-lize

11 contaminants that may be in those wastes.

12 Alternatively we might select during the design phase a

13 synthetic liner, a plastic liner, what's known as a flexible

14 membrane liner. It has been found to be as protective as two

15 feet of low-permeability clay.

16 Below the clay there is a gas collection zone. When

17 you put a low-permeability cap over a landfill, you need to vent

18 gas, such as the methane that may be generated, so that you

19 won't compromise the integrity of the cap and so that you will

20 not allow gases to migrate laterally beneath the surface of the

21 ground to off-site areas.

22 As I mentioned, EPA considered several alternatives,

23 six alternatives altogether. The first alternative shown here

24 is a no action alternative. There are no costs associated with

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTO*/nMpK/4AO-398-3243

20

1 that, we just walk away from the site.

2 The second alternative calls for continued monitoring

3 of ground water in residential wells. If contaminants are found

4 in any residential wells at a level that exceeds the cleanup

5 standards which are shown in Table 3 of the proposed plan, a

6 treatment system would be installed at that residence or an

7 alternate water supply would be provided. It also calls for

8 continued stream monitoring and monitoring of landfill gas

9 around the perimeter of the site. A fence would be constructed

10 to control access. Deed restrictions would be placed on the

11 landfill, and ground water use restrictions would be enforced in

12 the area of the site.

13 The third alternative — let me go with the costs. Th'

14 cost of that alternative, we're talking about 30 years of

15 sampling, et cetera, is 4, roughly $4 million.

16 The third alternative includes all the elements of the

17 second alternative: some monitoring, the fence, the deed

18 restrictions, ground water use restrictions, plus the cap, which

19 I described previously, but no ground water treatment. The cost

20 of that alternative is $16 million. None of these alternatives

21 would be acceptable for this site, however, because they would

22 not provide adequate protection of human health and the

.23 environment. Also, they would not comply with all Federal and

24 State environmental laws.

4

*JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTONy oMBfj (4 lp£ 3*8-3 243

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

21

The fourth alternative is EPA's preferred alternative.

It calls for a cap, the cap over the site, pumping and treatment

of contaminated ground water. The total cost of that

alternative is $24 million.

We also considered alternatives that, in addition to

providing capping of the site and treatment of ground water,

included excavation of the polyvinyl chloride sludge in disposal

Cells B/C and Cell A.

In Alternative 5 that waste would be approximately

36,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated and treated

on-site with low temperature thermal desorption. However, prior

to implementing that alternative, pilot testing would need to be

conducted to ensure that the technology, low temperature thermal

desorption is compatible with the waste material, the polyvinyl

chloride sludge, and that the process would not result in the

generation of additional toxic substances in the waste material.

The cost of that alternative is $31 million.

We also considered excavation of the polyvinyl chloride

sludge and off-site disposal. The cost of that alternative is

$37 million.

EPA's preferred alternative, Alternative 4, costs $24

million, but is as protective as Alternatives 5 and 6. It

provides the same degree of risk reduction by treating ground

water or providing treatment systems at residences where ground

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON,. MD. -4J.D-398-3243

22

1 water contamination may be found. Also, Alternatives 5 and 6

2 would require the same* amount of long-term maintenance and

3 management as Alternative 4. So EPA feels that Alternative 4

4 provides a reasonable balance between the nine evaluation

5 criteria.

6 And that concludes my presentation. I guess we'll open

7 for questions.

8 MS. WHITE: I just want to just mention something.

9 This is the question and comment period. I do want to note that

10 you can mail in whatever comments that you have during the

11 public comment period, so Debra is the point of contact for any

12 comments that are mailed in.

13 I also want to explain that any comments that we hear

14 tonight, as well as those that are mailed in, will be summarized

15 in a document which we call a responsiveness summary. The

16 responsiveness summary again summarizes the comments from the

17 public, and it also includes EPA's responses to those comments.

18 And that document will eventually become an attachment to the

19 record of decision once that is made.

20 In standing up with either comments or questions, if

21 you feel comfortable in stating your name, we would appreciate

22 that. If you don't feel comfortable in stating your name, if

23 you would identify yourself as a resident or, you know, as some

24 other representative, we would appreciate that as well. Any

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTOty< ,-MDn 4, 398-3243A

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23

questions, any comments?

MR. HORNIAK: I'm John Horniak, private citizen. Would

you- put those maps 1 and 2 back on that showed the area and then

the water fluid?

MS. ROSSI: Sure.

MR. HORNIAK: Now overlay the other map.

MS. ROSSI: Okay?

MR. HORNIAK: Okay, now where is the house that has the

well, the contaminated well?

SPECTATOR NO. 3: Where is all of them?

MS. ROSSI: Okay, manganese was found over here, vinyl

chloride was up here, and arsenic in two residences over in this

area.

MR. HORNIAK: And what is the rate of travel of

contaminants?

MS. ROSSI: The rate of travel. Well, the site has

been there, the last disposal activities occurred about 12 years

ago, and the wastes that were disposed in 1981, the last wastes

that were disposed at the site contained vinyl chloride.

Currently the vinyl chloride is primarily limited to this area.

And we have some very low levels up to this area. I don't know

if we've translated that into a migration rate. But it's not

moving particularly quickly. Most of the contamination is

limited to the landfill property, with a few exceptions that got

• JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON. JS» ntMt?R8-3243

24

1 covered earlier. Arsenic has been found in some of the

2 monitoring wells in this area and vinyl chloride in a monitoring

3 well up here.

4 MR. HORNIAK: Thank you.

5 MS. ROSSI: Yes?

6 SPECTATOR NO. 4: Assuming that you go ahead the way

7 you're planning it, how many other sites are at that stage in

8 the national system?

9 MS. ROSSI: The proposed plan stage or, you know, like

10 just completed?

11 SPECTATOR NO. 4: Well, what you've done, you're

12 getting ready to move forward, how many other sites in the

13 country are in the system?

14 MS. ROSSI: In our system? I don't have an answer for

15 that.

16 MR. LUDZIA: If I recall correctly — my name is Peter

17 Ludzia. If I recall correctly there are approximately 1,250

18 sites on the National Priorities List. It's somewhere in the

19 neighborhood of 500 to 700 sites have moved to this point. So

20 more than half of the sites we have issued records of decisions

21 on and we're at the point of designing the proposed remedy.

22 SPECTATOR NO. 4: And when would you move forward on

23 this, assuming everything goes the way you want it to?

24 MR. LUDZIA: Schedulewise, we would be hoping to

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKC6Nr <Ma r. 4M-398-3243

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

our record of decision in mid-summer, and we would then begin to

negotiate with the responsible parties to undertake the action.

SPECTATOR NO. 4: And assuming the best set of

circumstances, what's the earliest that you actually start

cleaning it up?

MR. LUDZIA: I think, I think realistically for a

situation like this, it's going to be the better part of two

years before people are, you know, putting any sort of

construction equipment in the field. But it's a large landfill

cap design. It's a 31-acre landfill cap. There would be. a fair

amount of design that would be required to go, that needs to be,

you know, completed and approved before people are out in the

field actually doing it.

SPECTATOR NO. 4: But in terms of appropriating the

necessary money, will that money be available in two years, the

$24 million?

MS. ROSSI: Well, we're, you know, as Peter mentioned,

we plan to negotiate with the parties that, you know, either

owned or operated this facility, generated wastes that were

brought to the site or transported wastes to the site so that

they will pay for this. If they don't pay, if we can't reach

agreement on the work that needs to be done, we have a few

options. We can pay for it with the Superfund money, or we can

issue an order requiring parties to conduct the work.

——JJ5QOQ60, ELKTON, MD 4IO-:JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

26

1 SPECTATOR NO. 5: Who are the parties exactly?

2 MS. ROSSI: EPA has not made a final decision on all of

3 the-parties. Two parties that participated in the investigation

4 and prepared, developed the cleanup alternatives are here

5 tonight, Cecil County owner/operator of the facility, and

6 Firestone, generator of polyvinyl chloride sludge that was

7 disposed of at the site. EPA is continuing to look into other

8 parties that brought hazardous materials to this site, and we

9 expect to identify those this summer as well and include them in

10 the negotiations for the design and construction of the -

11 alternative that is ultimately selected.

12 MR. WOLFFE: Excuse me, I'm Robert Wolffe. I am a

13 resident. I notice, you know, you have all these plans for

14 evaluating where the water is going, but what do you have for

15 allowing residents to get tested or to have, you know, to

16 monitor our health effects?

17 MS. ROSSI: Well, two things. We sampled 20 wells or

18 so in the vicinity. It's not necessary —

19 MR. WOLFFE: What about the people that live there? I

20 mean what can we do, you know, I mean you know just looking at

21 the water in the ground —

22 MS. ROSSI: Yeah, the ground water is the primary risk.

23 You're not going to be at risk by inhaling particulates from the

24 site. Any soils that blow off the site, there are no

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKT"O,JMD 40-398-3243

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

27

unacceptable levels of risk associated with that. There are no

unacceptable levels of'contaminants in the soils. The main

risk, for humans the only risk, is exposure to contaminated

ground water.

MR. WOLFFE: Like the wells that have been

contaminated, how about the people that live in those

residences? Have they been tested? Has their families been —

MS. ROSSI: Yeah, that's how we know there is

contamination there. As I mentioned, there was vinyl chloride

found in one well. The parties participated in the remedial

investigation, installed a treatment system at that well. They

monitor, they sample the water from the treatment system twice a

year.

As I mentioned, there was manganese found in one well

on the south of the landfill. Recently EPA developed new

information regarding the risk associated with exposure to

manganese in ground water. Until last month the standards

indicated that manganese was not of concern at this site in a

residential well. So I think EPA and the State will begin to

discuss with the parties who participated in the remedial

investigation the options for providing treatment at the

residence where manganese was found. The arsenic may or may not

be site related, but we're continuing to sample those wells on

an annual basis. Firestone and the County are sampling those

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKT$N) MB 0 QlA)y398-3243

28

1 wells on an annual basis and —

2 MR. WOLFFE: But generally we have to wait 10 or 20

3 years to see what happens to us before —

4 MS. ROSSI: No, no, no. We'll prevent the exposure.

5 The treatment system would remove the contaminants from the

6 water so that nobody is exposed to these contaminants. That is

7 a component of EPA's preferred alternative. We'll monitor the

8 residential wells and if contamination is found at unacceptable

9 levels that pose a risk, a treatment system would be provided

10 there so that we can eliminate the exposure.

11 MR. WOLFFE: That's from now on. But the water that's

12 already, or the ground that's already contaminated, that's below

13 your level that you're already covering and the streams that a

14 running out there that you haven't mentioned, you know, I've got

15 kids that play out in the streams in the backyard that aren't on

16 the map anywhere, and they're denied that they're even there.

17 MS. ROSSI: Well, no, we're not denying that. Let me

18 put up the map that shows the stream. Okay, here is the stream.

19 Contaminants would enter this stream, contaminant, there is no

20 contaminated ground water associated with the site up here. I

21 know Basin Run is up to the north. Maybe that's the stream

22 you're talking about.

23 MR. WOLFFE: No, there is a lot of underground springs.

24 I have two of them on my property that just come up out of the

4

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

29

ground and then runoff towards Basin Run.

MS. ROSSI: Well, in order to get to those springs, I

mean I guess ground water feeds those springs and the ground

water here is not a problem. There are no unacceptable levels

of contaminants over here, and we sampled the stream here and

found that there is a little concern possibly with the levels of

certain metals that may affect fish and other organisms that

live in the stream, because metals tend to precipitate out, form

solids and settle on the gills of the fish, et cetera, and they

can't breathe. That's how the contaminants affect the li-fe in

the stream.

But we also evaluated exposure. One of the scenarios

that was evaluated in the risk assessments for human health was

a child coming here on a very regular basis and playing in the

stream, so they may be ingesting some of that water and the

sediments in the stream. We also considered a child playing on

the landfill. As I mentioned, there is leachate coming out of

here. We assumed the child was exposed to that, you know, had

perhaps ingested any, ingested some of the leachate. Come into

contact, that the leachate had come into contact with the

child's skin, and also if there were any chemicals in the

leachate that tends to evaporate, what we call volatile

compounds, that the child could inhale those. And we assumed

that this child comes along on a very regular basis and is

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

30

1 exposed for 30 years. And there were no unacceptable levels ofI

2 risk associated with all those exposures: the stream, the soils

3 on the site, and the leachate. And all that information is

4 included in the risk assessment which is in the administrative

5 record file.

6 Our exposure scenarios are very conservative. They're

7 designed to be extremely protective.

8 MR. WOLFFE: And the number you gave before of 28.6 on

9 the chart for where they —

10 MS. WHITE: The hazard ranking?

11 MR. WOLFFE: That's fine, 28.6, but where is Woodlawn?

12 Are we at 28.7?

13 MS. ROSSI: 30 something, it was 30, I can't remember

14 off the top of my head. But that's not really an indication of

15 the risks posed by the site. We don't really have a lot of

16 information when we rank — that's why we conduct this remedial

17 investigation. So the ranking that was done years and years ago

18 in order to propose the site to the National Priorities List11

19 does not give you a good indication at all about the risks

20 associated with that site. But the risk assessment and the

21 information that's contained in that risk assessment will give

22 you a very good idea. And again, it's very conservative,

23 designed to be very protective.

24 MR. WOLFFE: And are there any funds available for peopl

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, JW$ 5 Q£jbQ3 3-3243

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

to get blood tests or do any kind of medical tests?

MS. ROSSI: I'"m not aware of any funds. I know that

the-Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry takes a

look at Superfund sites. They did a health assessment, it's an

independent agency, for this site. They looked at the incidence

of cancer and other health effects in Cecil County and found

that there was no level, the level was average, you know, the

incidence of those diseases are the same as the incidence across

the nation on a whole. There didn't seem to be any increased

rate of cancer or anything else in this area.

MS. WEINER: If I can interject one thing. One of the

things that I don't know has been made clear is that none of the

wells off-site have any contamination above drinking water

standards. So any of the materials that have been talked about

that are in these wells could be, would be acceptable in any

residential well anywhere in Cecil County and anywhere in

Maryland.

And I guess part of the Department of the Environment's

job and role is to make sure, being protective of human health

and the environment, and I think that since it's come to pass

some of the concerns that you have have been addressed and what

we know about the site is going to guarantee that it is

protective of human health and the environment. So that's part

of the basis of all these studies is to do just that. So we're

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, «CR 0$$- 96*3243

32

1 trying to alleviate people's fears and not to, you know, create

2 more of them for them.*

3 - MS. ROSSI: Yes, the first lady in the blue.

4 MS. CATALINA: My name is Elaine Catalina. And I own

5 property that is adjacent to the dump on the northwest corner.

6 Could you put the map back on, please? Thank you.

7 As Mr. Wolffe said, there are a lot of streams that run

8 besides the one that you've got pointed out there, your unnamed

9 creek, okay, and there's one that runs right along the — I

10 should come up and show you. The stream that we own on the

11 property runs right through here. This is my property right

12 there. And it runs down this way. And it starts right here at

13 the dump and it bubbles up, you know, springs from underneath

14 the dump.

15 MS. ROSSI: Is it a seasonal stream?

16 MS. CATALINA: I'm sorry, I think this is my lot here.

17 No, it runs all year.

18 MS. ROSSI: Okay, all right.

19 MS. CATALINA: And I had an independent chemist come

20 down and test the sediments and the water, and he found a lot of

21 just what you said, arsenic and barium, and I forget what the

22 other ones all were. But he suggested that I not put — and we

23 have animals and things like that. I'm sorry, can everybody

24 hear me? I had an independent chemist come down and do, I had.

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON,

12

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

33

an independent chemist, Dr. Crippen from Wilmington come down

and test soil samples from the stream. And he found a lot of

barium and lead and cadmium, is it?

MS. ROSSI: Cadmium.

MS. CATALINA: And other things, I can't remember the

whole list. He suggested that my children do not play down

there, that we do not have any animals down there. And I bought

the property because of the streams, so I could feed or water

the animals without, you know, having to depend on the well.

In the meantime, the County, I purchased the property

in 1981. The County knew at the time that it was a landfill.

They would only tell me that it was a Transfer Station and not

till 1985 could I ever get them to admit that it was a former

landfill. Okay. Where am I going with this exactly?

I put in a very expensive state-of-the-art water

system. But in the meantime, the circle that they have around

the dump for building restrictions applies to my property. Now

my question for you all tonight is whatever you decide with the

dump, is it going to lift the building restrictions from my

property? Since 1981, which was what, 12 years ago, I haven't

been able to do anything with my property as far as adding on to

it, any other buildings, any other wells, that kind of thing.

My children are now of an age where they can — I bought the

property so they could build their own homes. It's a 16-acre

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKT&fi M 0 Q$6398-3243

34

1 parcel. And I haven't been allowed for 12 years to do anything

2 besides finish the houSe that we have currently there, there at

3 the.property.

4 So my concern is with all of your investigation and

5 things that I have waited 12 years for you all to finish, okay,

6 am I going to be able to do anything with my property? I mean

7 I'm paying property taxes on property that I can't do anything

8 with. And I have addressed Mr. Belford and Mr. Sumner and

9 everybody at the County. I have repeatedly asked for, you know,

10 a trailer to be allowed for farm help and that kind of thing,

11 which seems to me that most people in Cecil County have. But I

12 can't do anything.

13 So my concern is whether I'm going to be allowed to d

14 anything more with my property besides that one house and one

15 well and one septic that I currently have. Thank you.

16 MS. ROSSI: Okay. First let me mention that you had

17 some sample results for the stream. And if you wouldn't mind

18 sharing those with EPA, if you could make a copy perhaps and

19 send it to us, we'd be happy to take a look at it.

20 MS. CATALINA: I have told you all this all along. I

21 have been to every one of these meetings.

22 MS. ROSSI: And I'm not sure that we ever saw the

23 results. However, if you'd like us to take a look at them, we

24 can do that.

•

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243— - ~ - - - - - ---—_. -ftR50Q077

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

35

MS. CATALINA: I said the stream is not shown on your

map there. I mean there is a lot of springs that come up from

underneath of the dump that run through everybody's property

here.

MS. ROSSI: Um-hmm. Okay, but you know, as I

mentioned, let me just address that point first. The ground

water contamination coming from the site was pretty much, you

know, restricted to the site. It goes off-site in some areas.

If we had found high levels of ground water contamination out

here, I think we'd be concerned about the impact the site may

have on those streams. But let us look at your data. Perhaps

we can figure out where the samples were taken on a map and sit

down and look at that. If you look at your data regarding the

ground water use restriction, the State and the County plan to

continue to review that restriction. Right now it's included in

EPA's proposed plan because we feel it protects the public. And

it also, if this area were to be developed, a lot of wells were

installed there, the pumping on those wells may accelerate the

migration of contaminants in ground water from the site. And

that's a concern. But we're not ignoring this or forgetting

about it and just, we understand that it's not an ideal

situation. Once the ground water cleanup levels would be

achieved, those restrictions could be lifted. But we'll

continue to evaluate those restrictions. Monitoring, as I

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTQtt, -44D n 4/3/0-398-3243

36

1 mentioned, will be conducted every year, ground water

2 monitoring. And we'11"evaluate those results and evaluate the

3 effectiveness of the pump and treat, ground water pump and treat

4 system that is installed here and, you know, determinations will

5 be made whether or not it would be protective to leave those

6 restrictions in place or to modify them.

7 MS. WEINER: If I can answer a little bit too, we'd

8 like to meet with you after the meeting because there's been a

9 revision to the map of the restricted area, and I don't know

10 when the date of your last request was.

11 MS. CATALINA: I'm still on the restricted area.

12 MS. WEINER: When did you last request it?i

13 MS. CATALINA: I have a letter from Mr. Sumner's

14 office, maybe two months ago.

15 MS. WEINER: So I'd be curious to see it, because we

16 have a change in the map where, on the plat map where you're13

17 allowed — all I'm saying is that we have a map that's revised

18 as of March of '92 when the latest revision was. And I'd like

19 to see where her property is in relation to that revision,

20 because our concern, and just to take it a step further because

21 I'm sure that this is a concern to a lot of the residents, once

22 the record decision is made and the plan for remediation goes

23 forward, we'll be able to reevaluate some of those restrictions,

24 But until the fix begins and we can start to see some of the

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTONc MD^ rv4-l^j-398-3243

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

37

results, we need to know obviously that it's working, you know,

and that it's being effective and so that nothing else could be

pulled off potentially. At the same time, monitoring is going

on during this whole process and we'll be able to get some

information on the wells in the area.

MS. CATALINA: Okay, but like I said, I have a

state-of-the-art water purification system so, you know, will I

still not be able to do anything, even though I'm, I myself have

paid for this? I mean anybody can buy one. But you're still

going to put building restrictions on my property that I .cannot

do any more developing on the property in two years or five

years or 10 years from now?

MS. WEINER: I think some of the concern is to see what

impact any additional pumping, I don't know the rate of water

that you're using, how that may be changed, you know, if there

is an additional tenant and a new well or is it just more usage

off the old well.

So I think some of what we need to know is how that may

impact. Because my understanding is that the wells around this

area are low yield, or can be some low yield wells, and we just

need to be certain that it's not going to impact the cleanup

that's going on. So again, as more of the information is known,

we'll be able to revise some of the decisions. But I can't sit

here and tell you now two years or 10 years.

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 4 1 - 398-3243~"

38

1 MS. CATALINA: Okay, what kind of a time frame are you

2 saying before you can determine any of that?

3 - MS. WEINER: My guess is still we're talking, my

4 understanding is we're probably about two — correct me if I'm

5 wrong, EPA — two to two and a half years away from starting,

6 from implementing the design plan. If the design plan goes

7 forward in mid-summer, it will probably be two years more or

8 less before all the engineering work is done and then

9 remediation starts in terms of the capping?

10 MS. ROSSI: That's right, um-hmm, approximately right.

11 MS. WEINER: And then again, there will be a period of

12 time, probably somewhere between, I would say, two to five years

13 to know how that's going, and factoring all the information we

14 know. So at this point that's about the best time estimate I

15 can give you, because we still have some unknowns.

16 MS. CATALINA: Do you understand that's going to be

17 close to 20 years of my life there, be five years from now and

18 I've owned the property 12, that's 17 years I'm waiting to do

19 something with my property.

20 MS. WEINER: I understand. I think our role is to make

21 sure that we're being protective of human health and the

22 environment.

23 MS. CATALINA: But I'm willing to put a cleanup system

24 on my water. And if it happens then other people should be

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON *MIt Q4A0Y-a 9,8-3 243

14

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

39

allowed, you've added a system to somebody else's well. I was

told that they couldn't bring water in and that kind of stuff.

I mean, you know, you're looking short-term, and I mean, you

know, if there were 600 residents in this area, you would be

more apt to do more for everybody than because there's only 30

residents there.

MS. WEINER: No, I think what we're trying to do is

factor in what, if the restriction were to be lifted, what

development may go on and how that overall may impact what we're

trying to do at the site. Because it's not, there may be. 30

residents now, but if there was no building restriction, my

sense is you may have a lot more development going on.

MS. CATALINA: How about with the $26 million you put

in a water system for everybody and everybody has, you know, a

community water source?

MS. WEINER: Again, I don't, part of what we're doing

or what EPA is trying to do here is to put in a system for

affected wells. Okay, the good news is that your well is not

affected. The concern we have is that any additional pumping on

the ground water reservoir, on the ground water itself may cause

some contamination off-site. What we're trying to do is try to

make sure everything stays on-site and is cleaned up before it

has a chance to move into any wells so we're not making

additional problems.

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

40

1 MR. WOLFFE: Part of the problem is drilling wells and

2 changing where the ground water is going. Since I've been

3 there, since '85, there has been three good size ponds put,

4 built right in the area. I mean if that, if that's going to

5 change anything, I mean putting a pond is going to change, why

6 would they be allowed to do that and, you know, this lady is not

7 allowed to drill another well? I mean those ponds are 300 feet

8 across, one of them is, it's huge.

9 MS. WEINER: But again, I don't know the details on

10 that, so I don't know how the ponds are fed, if they're fed by

11 rainwater, by surface water, by ground water.

12 MR. WOLFFE: They're big enough, I mean they'd have to

13 be ground water.

14 MS. WEINER: They don't have to be.

15 MS. ROSSI: Do you have a question?

16 MS. BARTON: Well, my name is Vickie Barton, and I just

17 recently purchased 20.3 acres on Colora Road behind or adjacent

18 to Woodlawn Landfill. Now I've heard three different people

19 talk, and it's my understanding that no — the three of you are

20 not really saying the same thing because you told her one thing

21 and him another thing, okay.

22 But I recently purchased this property in October. And

23 it was my understanding from her that there is nothing found in

24 these waters that would be any more dangerous than any other

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON* pMfi ft AWO31?8-3243

«

41

1 community in Cecil County. I was told when I purchased this

2 property that it would"not be a good idea to put a pump — I

3 have two sewage systems and two wells on this property that I

4 purchased. And I was told that it would not be a good idea to

5 put a pump in either of these wells, because it would draw,

6 because the contaminants right now is believed, and I quote

7 believed, to be confined to the landfill. But if I was to start

8 using the two wells that are already on my property, that have

9 been there for years and years and years, if I was to use these

10 two wells, it would draw enough contamination from the la.ndfill

11 to contaminate the whole water system again.

12 Now, I was told that from the Health Department. So

13 apparently, everybody doesn't have their heads together and know

14 exactly what they're, you know, it seems to me that if the

15 Health Department and the Superfund and the EPA are all working

16 together, that everybody should have the same story. And nobody

17 does.

18 MS. WEINER: I'd like to correct you if I can.

19 MS. BARTON: And the other thing too that I want to

20 address to you is, it's like she told you. That's a 30-acre

21 area we're talking about, and you got your circle there. That's

22 a designated 30-acre area, okay. Around that area she owns 16

23 acres that butts up right to the landfill. I own 20.3 acres.

24 There is another man there that owns 20 some acres, and another

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD rt4J.O-398-3243

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12(

1315

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

42

person that owns 20 some acres, okay. All of these people are

single-family owners tfiat want to put animals on their property^

And. I don't know how much land, I don't know what he owns.

MR. WOLFFE: I have five acres.

MS. BARTON: But I'm sure that each of us is not —

plus, first of all, you cannot subdivide that land. So how many

houses do you really think we can put there? They told me that

two wells that have been there for years and years and years can

pull enough contaminants out of that place to contaminate the

whole watershed. And then, you know, you're saying that you

don't want to put any more houses, or she's not allowed to put a

house up for her son. But yet you know, you know, there's no

problem. I mean it's a contradiction of terms. First there's flj

no problem, there's nothing in the water there that's not going

to hurt any development anywhere in Cecil County, but yet I

can't open up two wells that are already on my property in fear

of contaminating the watershed, and she can't build a house for

her son, but there's no problem. It's not in the water.

MS. WEINER: What I said, if I can, is that it's not in

the water, and what we don't want to do is create a mechanism

for it to get to the water.

MS. BARTON: But it's not there.

MS. WEINER: Right, but if you begin to pump more than

is being pumped out before the pump and treat goes on at the ^^\

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTONL MD_ J3-0-398-3243

12

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

43

landfill, you can potentially move some of the material off-site

into some of the wells*so you could — our purpose is not to

keep you from having farm animals but to make sure that the

contamination that is on the landfill stays on the landfill.

MS. BARTON: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm

saying is I have two wells that are existing that have been

there for years and years and years, and I was advised by the

Health Department not to open these two wells. So here I've got

20.3 acres that isn't worth a damn because I can't put any water

on it.

MR. WOLFFE: They shouldn't raise your taxes then.

MS. BARTON: I mean I want to be able to open these two

wells and do exactly what she did, put a purification system on.

And I feel that along with the cleanup and everything, that we

may not, you know, I'm not expecting the EPA to come in and put

a system in for me, but I do expect them to pay a quarter or a

half. I mean why should that come out of my pocket when I

wasn't even born when they put this stuff in? And I wasn't told

when I purchased this property that I would not be able to open

these two wells.

And then the other, my other gripe is they come in and

they ask you if they can test these wells and you give them

permission to test these wells and you tell them okay, I don't

mind you doing this, I don't mind turning my system off for two

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

44

1 and a half hours and draining it out so you can get the water

2 direct from the water System. But if it wouldn't be too much

3 problem, I would like a list of what you find in my water, and

4 you don't hear from them again. I think it's a citizen's right

5 to know or at least receive a copy of the results from the test

6 that we voluntarily let them do.

7 MS. WEINER: I agree with you. What we can do is, I'm

8 not familiar as to when the tests were taken from your well.

9 But —

10 MS. BARTON: She can tell you what test was take.n from

11 her well and she specifically handwrit a request for the results

12 of that and never heard from them again.

13 MS. WEINER: You wrote a request to EPA?

14 MS. CATALINA: Yes, ma'am.

15 MS. WEINER: Well, I personally can't answer for EPA.

16 But —

17 MS. ROSSI: Miss Catalina —

18 MS. WEINER: I do believe that you should be provided

19 with those results.

20 MS. BARTON: I think your charts and all that stuff is

21 wonderful if you're going to do this stuff, but I think it's

22 easy, and I don't mean no hostility toward you all, but I think

23 it's easy for everybody to stand on the outside and look in and

24 say we can do this and we can do that. But for people like her^

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTQtL rMDn 41p-398-3243

16

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

45

that's spent 17 years of their life and not get anything for it,

then something there ought to be done.

MS. WORKMAN: Rosetta Workman. I'd like to know what

kind of cancer they say can come from this all? I mean is it

just a special kind or like leukemia or other cancer?

MS. ROSSI: Yeah, maybe Dawn can address that. She is

a toxicologist with EPA.

MS. IOVEN: I can tell you in general what kinds of

cancer are caused by vinyl chloride, for instance. But before I

do that, let me say that vinyl chloride was found in one

off-site well at trace levels, very low levels. The levels of

vinyl chloride that we found in this one well — and the reason

I'm discussing vinyl chloride is because that is the most potent

cancer-causing chemical that we found associated with the site.

The levels of vinyl chloride that we found in this off-site well

were very low, and it would take years and years of exposure to

elicit a cancer risk as a result of that exposure.

I think that it's highly unlikely that anybody in this

community has been impacted by site-related contaminants because

we just didn't see enough contaminants at high enough levels

off-site to pose a threat to anybody that's been exposed.

MS. BARTON: Then why 12 years of restrictions? If you

have not found anything to pose any danger to these people, then

why put them through 17 years of their lives of restrictions

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTQM-nMDQ 410-398-32438

46

1 when they own property that they can't do a damn thing with?

2 MS. IOVEN: Quite possibly because if those

3 restrictions weren't in place and that well were pumping water,

4 it could move contaminated ground water that is now under the

5 site off-site where people could be potentially exposed. I mean

6 the whole, as I understand it, I don't know the details of your

7 situation, but as I understand it, the fear is that by pumping

8 your well, you'd be pulling contamination from the site to

9 off-site where people could potentially be exposed. And that

10 was what was trying to be prevented.

11 Now to answer the original question about the types of

12 cancer, vinyl chloride does cause cancer in humans. We have

13 evidence that it does. The types of cancer most frequently

14 noted in people that have been exposed to vinyl chloride,

15 primarily through the workplace, are liver cancer and lung

16 cancer. Now there are also a lot of other chemicals and types

17 of exposures that could cause those kinds of cancer, but vinyl

18 chloride has been associated with lung cancer and liver cancer.

19 Arsenic, which we've also seen in ground water which

20 may be naturally occurring in this area because arsenic is found

21 in rocks and in soil, and the ground water may be picking up

22 levels of arsenic that we've seen in ground water from rocks and

23 soil. But arsenic, like vinyl chloride, causes cancer in

24 humans. We know that it does. The types of cancer that have

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 43-07398-3243... .. _..... ~ . , A8500007

47

1 been associated with arsenic are lung cancer and skin cancer,

2 non-fatal types of skift cancer.

3 . I believe they are the two contaminants of primary

4 concern with regard to cancer as a toxic end point from

5 exposure.

6 MS. WORKMAN: How about benzene?

7 MS. IOVEN: Benzene wasn't found at the site.

8 MS. ROSSI: Right. No benzene.

9 MS. IOVEN: No, benzene wasn't found at the site.

10 Benzene we find in gasoline, so when you go out to the pump and

11 pump your own gas, you're inhaling benzene. Benzene causes

12 cancer too. But it's not associated with this site.

13 MS. WHITE: Yes, ma'am?

14 MS. OSBORNE: My name is Wendy Osborne. And I am

15 purchasing right now property right next to the Basin Run

16 Stream. And if I understood you right, that's to the north, is

17 Basin Run Stream itself pretty much in the clear, and also isn't

18 that monitored a good bit by the State of Maryland, because like

19 a natural resource that they stock with trout every spring and

20 that kind of thing, isn't that even more closely monitored?

21 MS. ROSSI: That's right. I think Basin Run is a State

22 designated trout stream and I believe we can discuss that with

23 the State personnel in a moment, that it is monitored on a

24 fairly regular basis. We don't expect that it would be

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTO£__.___,___ .._ .... .... ... _ ..... ri

48

1 contaminated. There's no indication that that stream has been

2 contaminated by the site.

3 - MR. JACKSON: Okay, John Jackson. I am a resident. I

4 am on the high side, so the water really doesn't, from what you

5 say, doesn't bother me. But would someone speak on the air

6 stripper column for a few moments? It seems like we're taking

7 it out of the ground and throwing it up in the air. Now it says

8 readily evaporates. Is that 50 feet, a hundred feet, two miles

9 before it dissipates, becomes nonvolatile? It just seems like

10 we're taking it out of the ground and the wind blows every way.

11 MS. ROSSI: That's right. So before we talked about in17

12 the fact sheet the use of an air stripper for removing certain

13 compounds from the contaminated ground water, and you're right,I

14 those compounds which evaporate very readily would be discharged

15 to the air so we would need to conduct, use a computer model,

16 gather data on, atmospheric data from a local airport or

17 something which tells us the directions of wind flow in the area

18 and to determine the amount of vinyl chloride that would be

19 released to the air stripper and the maximum concentrations that

20 would be expected in the air in the vicinity. And then we would

21 do a risk assessment based on, we would assume that somebody is

22 standing there where the maximum concentrations in air would be

23 expected to occur, and inhaling that all the time. Perhaps some

24 residents in here, somebody who lives in one of the homes.

4

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243- , flR50009!

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

49

we would assess the risk. There would be a cancer risk that we

would be concerned witn associated with that exposure.

Generally if the risk is less than 1 in a million of developing

cancer as a result of 30 years of exposure to those emissions,

that's considered to be an acceptable risk.

Also, we would ensure that the emissions comply with

any Federal and State laws that regulate emissions from vents.

So it's not, by consuming the ground water the risk may be

different, it may be greater. If somebody consumes ground water

contaminated with vinyl chloride on a daily basis, the risk may

be different than the risk associated with inhaling any vinyl

chloride that would be released from the air stripper. And we

would ensure that those releases would not result in a cancer

risk greater than 1 in a million, which is very, very, very

small. If it would, if the model indicated that the cancer risk

would exceed 1 in a million, there would be controls installed

on the air stripper to reduce those emissions.

It's a good question. I understand your concern. The

overall objective would be to reduce the risk associated with

the site. And by removing the contaminants from the ground

water which people may drink, we hope to do that.

MR. McCULLOUGH: My name is Kevin McCullough, and I

work as an appraiser, real estate. And I guess from a

standpoint of property value, how, I mean if they can't put a

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTJDN^ MD-. o410-398-3243

50

1 well on their property, that obviously reduces the value of

2 their property significantly. So what I want to know is you're

3 saying anything outside of the site itself is safe to, at this

4 time is save to drill a well, even though, even though by

5 pumping they could pull the contaminants but it's safe right

6 now, so that after the cleanup everything would be pretty much

7 back to normal in that area?

8 MS. ROSSI: More or less. Any contaminants found in

9 off-site wells, wells beyond this green boundary, the levels

10 were below standards for public drinking water supplies. - As I

11 mentioned, manganese was found in one of the wells. Until

12 recently the information available to EPA indicated that those

13 levels of manganese would not pose any unacceptable risk. But

14 now new data has become available, and it was found that the

15 levels of manganese in the one well could result in non-cancer

16 health effects if a person were exposed to that water for a

17 30-year period, drank eight glasses of that water every day for

18 30 years. Otherwise, we don't find that there is a high level.

19 MR. McCULLOUGH: So two or three years from now after

20 the cleanup takes place, these wells are going to be pretty much

21 typical to the rest of the County?

22 MS. ROSSI: I'm not really aware about the water

23 quality in the rest of the County. I have some idea about

24 arsenic levels in the County because arsenic is a site specifi4.JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON^Mp^ 410-398-3243

51

1 contaminant, potential contaminant at the Wpodlawn site. So we

2 looked at that. I'm rfot really familiar with the water quality

3 in .the rest of the County. And also, we wouldn't begin the

4 remediation until about two years. We'd start constructing the

5 ground water extraction treatment system in about two years.

6 MR. McCULLOUGH: Well, a lot of loan committees around18

7 at the banks around the County I know are really hesitant about

8 taking a mortgage on properties near Woodlawn because they're

9 concerned about if you can't drill a well, then you know they're

10 not really safe. Say the place is okay now and they take out a

11 mortgage on it, in 20 years if it's contaminated and they've got

12 a 30-year mortgage, then they don't have any collateral on the

13 property.

14 So I guess what I want to know is if I'm trying to do

15 an appraisal for a bank or something, how can I, how can I value

16 this if I'm not going to know, you know, you all don't know how

17 long it's going to take. So it's pretty hard for me to tell a

18 bank yeah, well, this is typical to my comparable sales that

19 aren't, you know, it's going to be hard to find comparable sales

20 for one thing near a site like this that has the hazardous

21 waste. So it kind of puts you in a tough spot. I mean —

22 MR. LUDZIA: I think basically you're talking about

23 asking EPA to make business recommendations to a bank, and

24 that's certainly not our business. And as a matter of policy we

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343 n £LKIONQ ,MD 410-398-3243

52

1 would not do that.

2 MR. McCULLOUGH: Well, what I want to know is with this

3 time- frame, if they get it done, the cleanup plan within the

4 time frame, everything they, you know, you're all saying the

5 wells are going to be fine, if you get it done in whatever the

6 time frame is, but you've talked about the responsible parties

7 having to compensate and everything for it, you know, there's

8 obviously going to be problems there. And, you know, it just

9 seems to me like it's going to definitely take longer than you

10 think, you know, because the responsible parties aren't gp.ing to

11 just pay out that easily. You know, so assuming that it does

12 take a lot longer than you think, you know, are all these people

13 living around here going to just, you know, what happens if

14 their wells are contaminated? Can't anything be done about it?

15 MS. ROSSI: The one thing that we can do is make sure

16 that nobody is exposed to unacceptable levels of contaminants,

17 that the water quality in their well or the quality of the water

18 that they drink is not going to result in an unacceptable cancer

19 risk or non-cancer risk, because we'll monitor and then provide

20 treatment, if necessary, to eliminate those exposures of the —

21 MR. McCULLOUGH: So is there funding federally or

22 otherwise to compensate the people that have interests in these

23 properties?

24 MS. ROSSI: No, I'm not aware of any federal funding 4JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

ftR5GQ095

53

1 myself.

2 MR. LUDZIA: The purpose of the remedy is to ensure

3 tha.t we basically create a situation that's protective for human

4 health and the environment. As Debra pointed out, if a private

5 resident who has a well now determines that that well is

6 contaminated, there is a mechanism for us to come in, do

7 something about that contamination and create a protective

8 situation once again. There is not money or funds or a system

9 available to deal with property values or, you know, loan

10 considerations or those kinds of things. So the main purpose of

11 Superfund is to create situations that are protective of human

12 health and the environment. It did not get into all these other

13 conditions which are not unusual, I mean these conditions do

14 occur on other Superfund sites.

15 MS. CATALINA: So what I hear you saying tonight is

16 that you're going to do absolutely the very least that you need

17 to do, and I have to deal with it the next 20 years?

18 MR. LUDZIA: I mean what we are proposing to do here is

19 $26 million worth of construction. We've tried to put together

20 a remedy that is protective. I think —

21 MS. CATALINA: But you're not protecting me and I back

22 up to the dump.

23 MR. LUDZIA: I think there was a concern expressed

24 about being inconsistent. I'm not sure that I understand how it

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, S JffJf) (J°O £410-398-3243

54

1 is that we're being inconsistent. With respect to the

2 contamination, it currently appears to be confined to the area

3 of the site. That's very good news. We don't have a situation

4 where people are exposed to high levels of these contaminants.

5 We would be criticized if we did nothing. If throughout the19

6 course of this investigation there were no ground water

7 restrictions and people were able to do whatever they wanted to,

8 you don't have to look very far in this general area to see how

9 developments could go. You know, you don't expect them this

10 year but two years from now, suddenly there is a 300-home.-

11 development.

12 If you were to put a development like this near the

13 site, have a single production well serving that development,

14 it's easy to imagine that that single production well, drawing

15 large volumes of water could, in fact, spread the flow of

16 contamination, create a much more costly situation to clean up

17 and expose other people to the contamination at the site. I

18 mean I certainly feel for you and the other individuals who are

19 personally affected. But we're not trying to get out of this

20 cheap or easy. We're just trying to select a remedy that's

21 protective of the community as a whole.

22 MS. CATALINA: Well, I need you to select a remedy

23 that's going to lift the building restrictions from my property

24 Ultimately that's what I want you all to do. I want you to

4

4JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTOM-pJO)-, 410-398-3243

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

55

clean it up so I can get on with my life.

MR. LUDZIA: I understand.

. MS. CATALINA: And 12 years is long enough.

MR. WOLFFE: Since this area is so small, why couldn't

they put in systems in all the wells, since it's restricted and

there can be no more building, why not have water systems on all

the wells instead of dealing with numbers saying well you have a

1 in 10,000 chance of getting cancer from this, we'll just put

systems on everybody's well that's already there, we can't have

any more wells drilled and then go with the cleanup? It .seems

to me that would make a lot of sense and you're saving a lot

more than, you know, the possibility at least if you have a

system on your well or safer than with nothing on a well. And

then since the water in the ground changes direction from day to

day or year to year, you don't know if it's going to affect her

house next week and his house over there next week after that.

Put a filter on everyone's well and then go through your cleanup

and I think we'd all be a lot safer. We may not be able to sell

our property or subdivide it or do anything, but at least

physically we'd be safer and mentally we'd probably feel better

about the EPA and the government.

And I work for the federal government and I know what

kind of politics goes on. And I can imagine with the 20 or $30

million budget the politicking that goes on. And the local

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243- .„.._.. „- - - - . - . - - AR5QQQ98

56

1 politics that goes on in this County is not helping the

2 residents of this area."* And the only way to really help us is

3 to actually show us that you're doing something. Put filters on

4 our wells, give us something that, you know, that we can

5 actually see well maybe we can't sell it but we're protected.

6 You're doing something, even if it's small, even if you say the

7 system, I put in a system costs me thousands of dollars and it

8 cleans out 99 percent. Some biologist or somebody told me said

9 well, this stuff in that ground water there, that one drop in

10 10,000 gallons is going to be lethal.

11 Now if that's the case, even at 99 percent, it isn't

12 good enough to save me if I happen to get it through on my

13 property.

14 MS. ROSSI: Yeah, that remark, if that's what somebody

15 told you, can be misleading. You know, I think perhaps they're

16 talking about the vinyl chloride, and we're talking about the

17 level that was found in the one residential well is less than 1

18 part in a billion. Very low. And as we've discussed, it's

19 below the standard for public drinking water supplies. And it's

20 not, it will not result in a risk to the people in that home,

21 even if there was no treatment that exceeds 1 in 10,000 cancer

22 risk it won't. But the treatment has been provided anyway.

23 Now, I also didn't mention that there will be, there

24 are some monitoring wells between the landfill and this area anc

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELK1O.N,, MCL n410-398-3243

203

4

5

6

7

3

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

57

the residences. And there are plans to install additional

monitoring wells so that we would know by monitoring these wells

if contamination was moving further off-site before it got to

any residential well. So in addition to sampling residential

wells on an annual basis, we'll be sampling monitoring wells

that are between the site and the residents. And there will be

no questions asked, no second thoughts if contaminants are found

in a residential well, or if the results for a monitoring well

indicate that there may be contaminants in downgradings in

residential wells, sampling can be conducted.

There is really no need to have a treatment system in

place if there are no contaminants in the well. But we'll be

watching that. We're not going to walk away from this site

operation. And maintenance of this cap is going to be going on

for 30 years. EPA is going to be reviewing this site all the

time for 30 years. It's not going to be a situation where we go

in, put on a cap and walk away and, you know, nobody is looking

any more. Yes?

MS. BARTON: What about two years before the cap and

all that stuff gets started? That's probably what he's

referring to, the next two years he wants something done with

his water before this cap, but you said two years and that's if

everybody agrees to pay their share and if all the haggling is

over that in two years it will be started. What about these two

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243- - .-. ftRSOOlOO

58

1 years before then?

2 MS. ROSSI: Actually we reached an agreement with

3 Firestone and the County. They have agreed to conduct

4 monitoring annually until we reach that point, until we reach,

5 you know, an agreement on what's going to be done. We realize

6 that you know we just can't say we don't care what's going on in

7 these residential wells for five years until we're finished

8 constructing our remedy, then we'll start monitoring. In fact,

9 I think International Technologies may have been out sampling

10 this week.

11 So we're going to continue to look at this on an annual

12 basis. If there are any problems, we'll increase the frequency

13 of our monitoring. We'll sample more wells if there is

14 indication that other residential wells may be impacted. And,

15 you know, in the proposed plan Table 3 shows you the cleanup

16 levels that we propose for the various contaminants, and

17 treatment would be provided where the contaminant levels exceed

18 those levels.

19 MS. BARTON: He also said that one of his major

20 concerns was a 300-home development coming in that area pulling

21 the water. There is not enough acreage around that area that

22 you have in that circle to put a 300-home development.

23 MR. LUDZIA: You got me. I mean it was simply an

24 example. The idea was that often, if there were no

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243........... :._ .. .._ AR-SOOIOI

59

1 restrictions, that it's difficult to sit here today and imagine

2 what development could'occur in an area. I mean obviously I

3 haven't done any sort of calculations or thought about it very

4 much in terms of whether it's 300 or 200. But it's conceivable

5 that a large number of additional residents can be put in an

6 area that could draw contamination from the site. And our

7 concern is that the plume does spread and it then has the

8 potential to impact a larger number of individuals.

9 MS. WHITE: Are there any more questions or comments

10 you have? Okay, if there aren't any more questions or comments,*

11 then we'd like to go ahead and close the meeting. If any of you

12 would like to talk to any of the EPA representatives, and I hope

13 I'm not mistaken in saying the MDE people, that we will hang

14 around for a while and you can talk to any of us personally.

15 Again, if you think of any comments that you may not have made

16 tonight, you still have time, as I said earlier, to mail in your

17 comments. Thank you for coming out.

18 (The hearing adjourned at 8:37 p.m.)

19

20

21

22

23

24

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTON, MD 410-398-3243

60

1 CERTIFICATE

2 State of Maryland,

3 County of Cecil, to wit:

4 I, Julie H. Parrack, Registered Professional

5 Reporter and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing

6 hearing was taken at the time and place stated herein; and that

7 the hearing was recorded stenographically by me; and then

8 reduced to writing with computer-aided transcription, and

9 constitutes a true record of the testimony given by said

10 witnesses.

11 I further certify that I am not a relative,

12 employee, or attorney of any of the parties, and that I am in no

13 way interested directly or indirectly in this action.

14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and

15 seal this Jj>TXday of June, 1993.

16

17

18

19 Julie H. Parrack

20 My Comm. Exp.: 2/1/97 Notary Public

21

22

23

24

JULIE PARRACK, RPR, CM, P.O. BOX 1343, ELKTQN. MD 4J.O-398-3243