THOMAS To ALCAMO/R5/USEPA/USEPA Region 5 Records Ctr. 259531 THOMAS To ALCAMO/R5/USEPA/US 09/25/2006...

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

[email protected] 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


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,


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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?


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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 ...


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.


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


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}


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


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.


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


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.


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?


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 ...


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.)


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

THOMAS To ALCAMO/R5/USEPA/USEPA Region 5 Records Ctr. 259531 THOMAS To ALCAMO/R5/USEPA/US 09/25/2006...

Documents

Transcript of THOMAS To ALCAMO/R5/USEPA/USEPA Region 5 Records Ctr. 259531 THOMAS To ALCAMO/R5/USEPA/US 09/25/2006...