CITIZENS INFORMATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 1995 MEETING

Attendees

Mike Baker, Coalition Opposed to PCB Ash
Pat Carrasquero, Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Diane Henshel, IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Dan Hopkins, U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager
Iris Kiesling, Bloomington City Council
Evelyn Brophy for John Langley, Bloomington PCB Coordinator
Michael List, Private Citizen, CIC Chair
Dave Novak, U.S. EPA Community Relations Coordinator
Brian Pence, People Against the Incinerator
Alex Tzallas, U.S. EPA Assistant RPM

Not Present

Deb Backhus, IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Lee Caulfield, Bloomington Rotary
Lynn Coyne, Bloomington Chamber of Commerce
Marti Crouch, Near Westside Neighborhood Association
John Foster, Bloomington Environmental Commission
George Hegeman, Monroe County Board of Health
Sally Hegeman, League of Women Voters
Dawn Hewitt, The Audubon Society
Rachel Loop, Indiana Public Interest Research Group
Flynn Picardal, IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Amy Roche, Student Environmental Action Coalition
Jordan Shifriss, Harmony School
Rob Stone, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Observers

Louis Schwitzer
Robin Gnagni

Approval of Minutes

The minutes were approved without amendment. List said that it was 
distressing to him that at the last meeting, everyone started 
talking to their neighbor when it became time to select a date 
for the next meeting.  He would like for the meeting to be adjourned 
before people start discussing amongst themselves.


Remedial Activities

Hopkins introduced IDEM's Pat Carrasquero, Resa Ramsey's supervisor 
and Susan Gross also with IDEM. 

Hopkins said that he mentioned at the last CIC meeting that the 
parties had been working on a sampling plan for Lemon Lane Landfill.  
Hopkins said that plan relates to groundwater sampling at monitoring 
wells, residential wells, springs and streams related to Lemon Lane.  
It was agreed that Westinghouse would conduct PCB sampling at those 
outlets.  EPA agreed to sample for other contaminants like volatile 
organics, semi-volatile organics, PCBS, pesticides, metals, dioxins 
and dibenzofurans.  Before sampling could begin, a quality assurance 
plan (QAP) was needed.  This is the methodology for the sampling to 
make sure that the samples meet a level of quality. Both EPA, through 
their contractor Earth Tech, and Westinghouse have developed a QAP.  
Hopkins said that Westinghouse's QAP has been approved by EPA.  This 
plan is available at the Public Information Center.  Earth Tech's 
Plan is in the process to be reviewed by EPA's quality assurance 
group.  The draft copy of Earth Tech's QAP is available at the PIC.  
The revised copy will be available soon.  

Conceptual Plan to Examine the Fill Material at the Lemon Lane Landfill

Hopkins said that the parties have discussed a number of ways that 
sampling could be done. Earth Tech proposed at Hopkins' recommendation 
a boring technique rather than trenching activities.  The proposal to 
use boring is predicated on the desire to  reduce exposing landfill 
material, in part, to avoid releasing volatile chemicals and also to 
reduce infiltration of storm water into the fill material.  If the 
cap is pulled back and it rains then water could be introduced to the 
landfill.  Contamination could then migrate from the landfill.  The 
draft conceptual plan is also available at the Public Information 
Center.  Hopkins said that the draft sampling plan, identifies 25 
boring locations. The locations were selected based on locations with 
known high PCB concentrations through previous sampling and based on 
aerial photography. Hopkins said that even though the aerial photographs 
provide a snapshot view of the sites, current and recent activities at 
the site could be determined. Hopkins said that in the 1967 aerial 
photograph, for instance, one could tell that not much activity occurred 
at the site for the past 4-6 months prior to that.  Hopkins said that 
they biased the borings based on these photographs. Hopkins said that 
EPA is trying to schedule  equipment to conduct a geophysical survey 
of the Lemon Lane Landfill.  Geophysics would detect metals.  EPA would 
use that to identify areas with large amounts of metal, presumably piles 
of capacitors.  If an area heavy in metals was detected, EPA would put a 
boring in that area.  EPA intends to relocate some of the planned boring 
locations based on the findings of the geophysical work.

Baker asked if there are any plans to put borings in any place that EPA 
suspects is clean?

Hopkins said that EPA would like to concentrate on areas where they think 
there are PCBs.  He said on a 9 1/2 acre site that they will be putting in 
25 or so borings.  They want to take samples where they are likely to get 
a hit. Hopkins said that at this point, the Lemon Lane Sampling Plan is a 
conceptual model and he is open for public comments on the plan.

Pence asked if EPA is planning to use these results for future excavation 
activities at the site. 

Hopkins said that he did not know if this would be sufficient for 
determining excavation.  Hopkins said that if they find large concentration 
levels in large volumes of soils, then they would be predisposed to removing 
the hot spots. Hopkins said that it could be that there are hot spots, 
limited in size and deep in the landfill and that it may not be technically 
or economically feasible to excavate. He said that the goal is to determine 
a remedy based on the investigative work.  Excavating small hot spots 
located deep in the landfill, for instance, may not make much difference 
in terms of protecting human health and the environment. Hopkins said that 
they only want to mobilize the sampling effort once.  He said that it is 
costly otherwise.  Hopkins said that they would perform screening tests to 
determine whether or not there is a hot spot. Hopkins said the screening 
technique would give them the size of the hot spot.

Pence asked what EPA would do with the material within the hot spot.

Hopkins said that this data will help the parties make an assessment about 
a remedy.  Hopkins said that EPA would still have to conduct ecological and 
health based risk assessments.  Hopkins said that EPA would not excavate 
the material and store it before a remedy is selected.

Baker said that he would like to encourage EPA to sample areas where they 
think there are no PCBs present.  Baker said to sample the areas where you 
think it is and to find PCBs there does not tell you about the areas you 
did not sample.  He said that you cannot assume that area is clean if 
you do not have data to support it.  Baker said that it would strengthen 
EPA's position if they could find areas that were non-detect.

List said that he feels uncomfortable with sampling in 25 locations on 
a 9.5 acre site and then saying that they have gotten it all.

Valentin said that if EPA is going to be using these quick screening 
tests (rapid assays), they should be able to cover a larger area because 
these test kits are relatively inexpensive.  She said that once you 
generally define the area then EPA can take additional samples where 
needed.

Hopkins said that what EPA is attempting to use the screening for 
identification of hot spots. Hopkins said that EPA still needs to 
define the hot spots at the site.  His understanding of the rapid 
assay kits is that there is no calibration curve, the test results 
basically tell you whether a contaminant exists above a predetermined 
level or not. 

Valentin said that you can get the kits to tell you whether or not an 
area is hot.  It is just a screening and you can purchase your kits 
with your  individual cutoff.

Hopkins said that if people want to make other comments on the 
conceptual model, to write out their comments and give them to him.

List said that it was disturbing to him that if they find a hot spot 
that they may just leave it alone if it is too deep.

Hopkins said that there would have to be an evaluation done for that 
hot spot.  If you found a small hot spot that was fairly deep, you may 
have to consider what difference it would make to remove it.  Hopkins 
said that you may spend a great deal of money to remove it.

List asked if Hopkins was planning to do a swiss cheese removal at 
the site.

Hopkins said that it is difficult or impractical to get each capacitor 
or each hot spot.

Pence said that is why it is important to find the areas that may be 
clean.  Pence said that if you are going to do a piece mill cleanup, 
then you should make sure that you are confident that what you take 
out is clean.

List said that his understanding of the sampling was to characterize 
the material and the extent of contamination. He said that if EPA is 
sampling to determine where to excavate then he thinks that it is 
irrational to not do random sampling.  List said that if you bore 
several holes into a block of cheese and you come out with cheese 
then you have cheese.  If you do not bore into the cheese then you 
do not know if you have cheese.

Baker said that he thinks it is more important to note that EPA is 
predisposing the type of remedy which is a limited excavation. Baker 
said that is more of a reason to do random sampling.

List said that by doing a focused excavation you can make sure you 
cover it all.

Baker said that it would be cheaper to sample it all, rather than to 
excavate it.

Henshel asked Baker what would be acceptable to him?

Baker said that he understands that there are going to be some financial 
limitations.  He said, however, that if you look at the cost of excavating 
the entire landfill (which is what Westinghouse was initially required to 
do) compared to 25 core samples, there is a tremendous difference in that 
cost.  

Valentin said that an evenly spaced grid throughout the landfill will 
give you an idea of the extent of contamination.

Hopkins said that the larger your sample space, he gets uncomfortable 
with it.  This would be thousands upon thousands of samples.

Henshel said that Valentin's point is well taken.

Hopkins said that you need to know what the volume is.  Hopkins said 
that the idea of doing this is to see if it is workable to excavate.  
You have to have a sense of the size.

Valentin wanted to know why size or volume was not important when 
excavation was called for in the consent decree.

Hopkins said that was the agreement struck.  He said that the goal of 
determining alternative remedies is different.  Hopkins said that the 
landfill has household hazardous waste in it and EPA does not have any 
information to show that there are discrete hot areas.  The typical 
protocol for that is to cleanup leachate, groundwater, and landfill gas.  

Valentin does not want EPA to give the impression that excavating a 
landfill is unheard of.  She said that there are municipal landfills 
where landfill mining is conducted. This means that they collect the 
recyclables, use some of the waste for energy and they do this voluntarily.  
Valentin said that the prohibitive aspect that Hopkins discussed is cost.

Hopkins said that it does primarily come down to a cost-benefit 
relationship.  It is not that the waste cannot be handled in a 
typical hazardous waste landfill.  Hopkins said that what the issue 
is here is whether or not it is worth it to excavate.  Under the 
Superfund program, certain criteria must be met.  Of these cost is 
one. He said that there are a number of balancing criteria of which 
EPA has to look.  Hopkins said that EPA needs to know how bad it is 
and what are the consequences of leaving it there.

Schwitzer said that the assessment was made when the consent decree 
was signed and it was decided that everything would be dug up, toasted, 
and moved.

Hopkins said that the consent decree was the agreement that was made t
hat 176,000 cubic yards at the sites would be excavated and incinerated 
and Westinghouse would be paid for the fuel by use of a tipping fee.  
There were things given up and things obtained through this agreement.  
Hopkins said that we are working under a scenario where the costs and 
benefits must be balanced.

Schwitzer asked Hopkins if the consent decree is still being held over 
the community's head.  He said that if that is the case then it will not 
make a difference to talk about in-situ vitrification or the other 
wonderful alternative treatment technologies that Westinghouse owns.  
Schwitzer said that he thinks that it is the dollar bill driving the 
cleanup because Westinghouse has worked very hard to deplete their 
balance sheet. Schwitzer said that EPA is pinching pennies for 
Westinghouse  over a few hundred thousand dollars on some borings 
that are necessary to characterize the landfill.

List asked how EPA proposes to estimate volumes of hot spots.

Hopkins said that was a difficult question to answer. 

List said that it would be difficult to assess the volume.

Hopkins said that if you are hitting a hot spot, then there should be 
an effort to delineate how big it is.

List said if you are really trying to establish volume then okay.

Hopkins said that basically what they would like to do is to determine 
what is in the landfill and that will be a difficult assessment to make.  
Hopkins said that they will need to know that partly for examining the 
human health and the environment impact and partly for the disposition 
of the material.  Hopkins said that they may find TCE or PCE which are 
solvents that may be land ban materials.

Valentin said that if you have land ban materials, then closure in place 
should not be a possibility.  She said that if you cannot put it in a 
double lined leachate collection system type landfill, it does not make 
sense to leave it in an unlined landfill.

Hopkins said that he understands the inconsistencies but to put the matter 
in some perspective, you have PCBs in the landfill greater than 50 ppm and 
TSCA may not apply.  The decision to excavate contaminants relates to 
protection of human health and the environment, the decision to dispose 
of contaminants relates to protection of human health and the environment, 
the decision to dispose of contaminants (including excavated materials) 
must consider the laws applicable to disposing of them. 

Valentin said the material is not subject to land ban requirements until 
it becomes a RCRA waste. It does not become a RCRA waste until you dig it 
up.  If you do not dig it up, it is not a waste which means that it is 
bad enough that it should not be land disposed.

Hopkins said that what EPA has to look at is the relationship between what 
is there and how bad it affects human health and the environment.  Hopkins 
said that when they monitored the springs, no organics were found.  He 
asked if it was so bad, why was it not showing up in the water.

Baker asked if EPA is going to do some of the more sophisticated tests to 
determine the level of dioxins and furans because they may be a larger 
threat than the PCBs.

Hopkins said that he does want to do dioxin and furan sampling.  Hopkins 
said  that EPA has been concerned about the draft dioxin reassessment and 
what that will mean for the Bloomington sites. Hopkins said that EPA is 
working with their current protocol and instead of sampling to the 
quadrillionth level, they intend, at this time, to sample at the current 
detection (trillionth level).  Hopkins said that working in the 
quadrillionth level is a sophisticated test and he is unaware of any lab 
that has a detection limit that low.

Henshel said that there are some EPA contract labs qualified to do that.

Hopkins said that may be the case but he is unaware of them but will check 
into it.

Schwitzer said that at the last CIC meeting, there were two labs mentioned 
that could do the work.

Hopkins said that the city did some dioxin and furan testing and that they 
were significant numbers but they do not show where the sampling was done.

Valentin said that the city did a couple of samples at the landfill and 
then they took a background sample in a city park and found dioxins there 
too.  Valentin asked if anything was done about that.

Hopkins said that he was unaware of that and would hesitate to draw a 
conclusion without knowing more.

Tzallas said that it could be coming from another source.  It is his 
understanding that the hospital has an incinerator.

Pence said that he understands the framework for using a cost-benefit 
analysis but he feels that the cost to human health and the environment 
keeps coming up on the lighter side of the scale.

Hopkins said that very few of the residential wells around the site had 
detectable levels of PCBs or dioxins.  He said that many of them did 
not even show a connection to the landfill through the tracer test.  
He said that there was one exception.  Hopkins said that the sampling 
does not demonstrate that there is a widespread problem to human health.

Pence said that the Fish and Wildlife Service does have data to show 
PCBs are migrating to the areas tested and he believes that is a 
direct threat to human health and the environment.  Pence said that 
PCBs are still contributing to the degradation of Bloomington's 
environment and he does not feel that they have been dealt with 
effectively.

Valentin said that a 1 part per billion detection limit is high 
and that has been the detection limit used.

Hopkins said that he is also concerned about the length of  time 
it has taken for this cleanup.  He said that the parties would 
like to move on and they are doing that with rigor. He said that 
this is the way that it is typically done.  He would like everyone 
to recognize that this is not a research effort, rather a serious 
investigation.  He said that there would be some limitations, 
financial and resource related. Hopkins invited everyone to make 
comments on the plan but reminded them to have realistic expectations.

Hopkins said that removing the cap could cause more problems than 
sampling the area could solve.

Valentin said that she did not understand why uncovering the landfill 
would cause potential problems when there was a layer of clean fill 
put on top of the landfill prior to capping it.

Hopkins said that stormwater could enter the landfill and facilitate 
the migration of contaminants if the cap was off.         

Hopkins said it is not about how much money so much as it is what is 
reasonable.  Hopkins said that a typical RI/FS costs about one million 
dollars.

Baker said that Westinghouse's initial projections regarding the 
cleanup was 100 million so they would have a lot of money left over 
if they did an RI/FS.

Baker asked why EPA would require less financially than what is 
already mandated in the consent decree.  Why would Westinghouse 
be obligated to do less financially in this new plan than they 
were under the consent decree.

Hopkins said that was a good question.  He said that the parties 
are working under a different paradigm than the consent decree.

Schwitzer said it sounds like EPA is giving up the 148 million 
that was on the contract and Westinghouse instead of having the 
time value of money which today is probably worth about 900 million. 
Westinghouse says they have not got it so EPA is going to settle 
for 50 million and hope you can do the cleanup and the heck with 
the community.

Hopkins said that EPA is not settling for anything. He said that 
the contract may be in place but it is no longer being pursued.

Schwitzer said that there was a reason for the trigger level in 
the consent decree, but now Geoff Grodner and the other attorney's 
have gone behind closed doors and said that there does not need 
to be a bond. If a bond had been put up and the 150 million had 
been set aside in an escrow account, Hopkins would not be having 
this conversation now.  Schwitzer wants to know why the meetings 
are still being held behind closed doors.

Valentin asked why Westinghouse was the only party that could 
pose an alternative if the parties are generally abandoning the 
consent decree.

Hopkins said that proposing an alternative to the court is not 
an issue at the moment.  Hopkins said that the operating principles 
are to establish the path that the parties are on now.  Hopkins 
said that the parties will collectively come to an agreement about 
what is going to be done.

List said that if Westinghouse decides that they do not want to 
do what the other parties do, then you would have to fall back 
on the consent decree.

Schwitzer said that Westinghouse gets to say "jump" and the other 
parties get to decide "how high".

Hopkins said that we are not doing this so that if it fails they 
can fall back on the consent decree.  All of the parties have an 
interest in resolving this matter, and EPA believes that the 
current approach is the most promising. 
Pence said that if EPA can convince Westinghouse to do a thorough 
characterization at the landfill, then it would be much cheaper 
than excavating the entire landfill.

List asked Hopkins if he had a general schematic of the sampling 
for Lemon Lane.

Hopkins said that the draft sampling plan is available at the 
Public Information Center and it gives that information.

There was a discussion about why Hopkins could not give the 
citizens an estimate on sampling costs.  He responded that 
it was appropriate to provide an independent cost estimate 
before the contractor bids the job.  Disclosing costs now 
allows the contractor that information in advance of their bid. 

Hopkins invited everyone again to submit their comments regarding 
the plan.  He suggested that they leave them at the Public 
Information Center and they would be forwarded to him.

Update on IDEM Feasibility Study

Carrasquero said that the state had received a draft feasibility 
study from their contractor and they are making comments.  The 
deadline for submission to the public is July 1st.

Schwitzer asked if IDEM would ask the vendor to provide that on 
diskette so that it could be put onto the bulletin board.

Carrasquero said yes.

Valentin asked how the public comment period would work.

Carrasquero said that originally IDEM was going to give the public 
two weeks to comment on the draft.  Because the document is so long, 
the state has decided to provide a longer comment period.  

COPA's Computer Bulletin Board

Baker said that one of the problems with the PCB issue is that there 
are tons of data but no one can find it.  Baker said that COPA has 
created a computer bulletin board to present the information in a 
non-technical way.  COPA is putting together information regarding 
site histories, cleanup technologies, and other information regarding 
the PCB cleanup in Bloomington.  COPA has the capability of posting 
information on upcoming public meetings and inputting information 
received from EPA and Westinghouse.  They have printed material to 
help citizens who would like to use the bulletin board and COPA is 
donating a bright pink computer for the Monroe County Public library's use.  COPA said that they may look into putting in an 800 number for those who would be using the bulletin board outside the Bloomington calling area if some of the other parties would subsidize it. 


Lou Schwitzer said that there is a manual for use with the bulletin board. 
He said that you can download that from the bulletin board.  
Schwitzer demonstrated how to use the bulletin board with the 
use of a laptop.  If you would like to use the bulletin board, 
you can call 333-8822. The following settings must be used for 
your communication' software: 
	Baud Rate:      From 2,400 to 28,800
	Parity:                 N
	Data Bits:      8
	Stop Bits:              1
	Duplex:         Full
	Terminal
	 Emulation:     ANSI, ANSI BBS, VT100, RIPTERM


Schwitzer said that once you get into the system that you can 
download RIPTERM graphics onto your computer and use it as a 
graphic interface for your dos machine.    

Melissa Valentin showed some of the treatment technologies that 
are listed on the bulletin board. Valentin lists the citation 
where the information came from at the bottom of each page.
 
Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned by Michael List at 9:25 pm.  The next 
meeting will be held Tuesday, June 13th, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the 
PCB Public Information Center, Suite 322 Fountain Square Mall.  
Free Parking is available in the 4th street parking garage and 
off-street parking is available in front of Fountain Square Mall.

Adapted minutes recorded by Sona Chambers, Bloomington PCB  Public 
Information Center, staffed by Earth Tech.

***********************************************************************