REDACTED TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING - RI/FS
59
EPA Region 5 Records Ctr. o o .'... ••;• - • — 'I--.'" a • ;•.£-'*--• -- V • --.-._ - "- -^ «.-—-^T 1 "- •=• - - .— ^11. ' '•..•<'-•••-"•'•--"",.v.-^r^':^.---"."'" «'•.'-•"•••-•' 'iSi--•-'-''^^ ..-i'-«'•.-.••>•-*»-••-.?•.•• ; ' .•? r*>^.* . -,..!. 7C;».^-^ •...••••«,--V'*v.»»i:.>>.'>'-TC.-f- •*• •« yir o-.^-.' -•-'.•,._ ' . .';^>£?%.*:<*^.-. "' "" - -i^H
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
0 -
download
0
Transcript of REDACTED TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING - RI/FS
EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.
o
o
.'... ••;• - • — 'I--.'" a • ; • . £ - ' * - - • -- V • --.-._ - "- -^ «.-—-^T1"- •=• - - .— 11.' '•..•<'-•••-"•'•--"",.v.-^r ':^.---"."'" «'•.'-•"•••-•' 'iSi--•-'-''^^ ..-i'-«'•.-.••>•-*»-••-.?•.•• ; ' .•? r*>^.*
. -,..!. 7C;».^-^ •...••••«,--V'*v.»»i:.>>.'>'-TC.-f- •*• •«yiro-.^-.' -•-'.•,._ ' . .';^>£?%.*:<*^.-. "' "" - -i H
cb/l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 |
19 j|
20 j
21
22 :j
23:i
24 I
25!
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In the Matter of: )
BELVIDERE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL#1 SUPERFUND REMEDIATION PROJECTREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY (RI/FS)
) IEPS: No. 8973
Belvidere City Hall123 North State StreetBelvidere/ .Illinois 61008
ThursdayJune 2, 1988
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing,
pursuant to notice/ at 7:07 p.m.
BEFORE: JOHN D. WILLIAMS, ESO.Hearing Officer
USEPA OFFICIALS:
TINKA HYDESTEVE FREDERICH
ILLINOIS EPA OFFICIALS:
JEFFREY LARSONMICHAEL ORLOFF
WESTON OFFICIALS
STEVEN A. ANDERSONFRED TEST
3121 552 '
C3/2
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
OPENING STATEMENTS
Michael Or.loff
Jeffrey Larson
Fred Test
Steven Anderson
Tinka Hyde
Page Number
7
9
II
17
23
24
25
'312> 552 :599
cb/3
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7:07 p.m.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: On the record. The
hearing come to order. Let the record show that this is a
public hearing of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
in the matter of Belvidere Municipal Landfill Number I
Superfunds Remediation Project Feasibility Study. IEPA Number
8973.
If any of you haven't yet registered/ I would
appreciate if you would do so. This will put you on the Agency
mailing list for anything we mail out/ plus it — we will be
mailing out a Responsiveness Summary to any of the comments
that are made here this evening.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this
evening's hearing. My name is John Williams and I am the
Agency Hearing Officer of the Illinois Environmen-al
Protection Agency. Illinois EPA, IEPA, or Agency. I will
introduce the other Illinois EPA and USEPA speakers and staff
members at the conclusion of this statement.
The hearing tonight concerns Belvidere Municipal
Landfill Number I located at 7600 Appleton Road in Belvidece,
Illinois. The Illinois EPA's Division of Land Pollution
Control and the USEPA have recently completed a study of
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study or RI/FS evaluating
alternatives for remediating contamination of this landfill by
(312) 652 1599
cb/4
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
containment of the landfill contents and soil and groundwater
treatment. The RI/FS has been conducted under the provisions
of Superfund (CERCLA) Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986, commonly called SARA. Section 117(a)(2).
Before selecting a remedy, the Agency invites public
written and oral comments concerning this project. The
decision will be published and summarize the comments received
and will be included in the IEPA and USEPA's responses to
these comments.
This hearing will be conducted in accordance with
the Agency's "Procedures for Informational and
Quasi-Legislative Public Hearings", (35 Illinois
Administrative Code 164). Copies of which can be obtained
from me upon request.
There are copies of the proposed plans and fact
sheets as well as an agenda for this hearing and this opening
statement at the registration area. If you have not yet
registered at the registration area/ I would ask that you do
so now and indicate whether you wish to comment orally or will
submit written comments. This will assist me in knowing how
many people wish to comment so that I can assign a reasonable
time for them to do so, and it will also place you on the
Agency's mailing list with respect to any materials being
mailed out concerning this matter, including the Agency's
Responsiveness Summary.
(3121652 '599
cb/5
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 !i
19 ii
20 |
21
22 ii
23
24;
25
The purpose of todays hearing is twofold:
First to explain the details of the proposed
alternative options for remediation of the site contamination
and to — to answer questions that the public may have on
the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
Second to receive public oral and written comments
which will be on basis for the final consideration of the
Agency's preferred alternative disposal option.
The sequence of today's hearing will be firstly/
Illinois EPA and USEPA spokespersons will discuss the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study and the proposed remedial
alternative options.
Second, questions may then be asked of the speakers.
Thirdly, comments may then be made by interested persons.
Those who comment orally will not be required to do so under
oath, and those who have written comments may be submit these
at this time or mail them in postmarked on or before midnight
June 6th, 1988, and they will then become part of the hearing
record in this matter.
Persons making oral comments should state their
name, address and which organization, if any, they represent
for the record. They should confine their statements to the
issues that are the subject matter of this hearing. Please
note that written comments need not be notarized. So, if you
send me written comments they don't have to be notarized.
(312) 552-1599
cb/6
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
25;
The audience will be permitted to question anyone
who has given testimony provided the inquiry is firstly/
framed as a question; second, relevant to the testimony;
third/ not repetitious. Dialogue with any witness instead of
questions will not be allowed. Questions will he directed to
me/ and I will then direct the witness to respond if
necessary. The person asking the question will first state
his or her name and address for the record.
The hearing will be closed, but the record will
remain open until midnight/ June the 6th/ 1988. All written
comments should be mailed to John Williams/ Agency Hearing
Officer, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200
Churchill Road, P. O. Box 19276/ Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276. Phone number, area code 217, 782-5544.
The Agency's Response to Comments or Responsiveness
Summary will be formally made on or after June the 20th, 1988.
Anyone who fills out the registration form and so
requests by checking the box on the form will be sent a copy
of the Agency's Response to Comments when this document is
published.
Thank you for coming this evening and your
participation and cooperation in this matter.
I would also like to add, thank you to Mayor Terry
Gratz for the use of this hall and for the — for the City
Council for the use of these premises here this evening.
(312)652 1599
cb/7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
At this time I would like to introduce the Agency
staff and USEPA staff here present this evening. My name is
John Williams, I am the Agency Hearing Officer/ and I work for
Illinois EPA.
On my right is Mr. Jeffrey Larson, he is the Federal
Site Project Manager of the Illinois EPA. The gentleman on my
left here, Mr. Michael Orloff, is the Community Relations
Coordintor and works with Illinois EPA. On my immediate left
here is Ms. Tinka Hyde, she is Remedial Project Manager for
USEPA.
Mr. Bob Lass is Remedial Project Manager Enforce-
ment, Mr. Lass. Mr. Tim Connoway — I beg your pardon, is not
here present tonight. Mr. Steve Frederich is Community
Relations Coordinator for the USEPA.
I have two other gentlemen, Fred Test and Mr.
Steve Anderson, both of Roy F. Weston, Incorporated, to do
with the project. And I would also like to introduce, I am
sure you all know, Mayor Terry Gratz, the Mayor of Belvidere.
At this time as your -- if you will turn to your
agendas, we will start with a brief introduction of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study process by Mr. Mike
Orloff, Illinois EPA. Mr. Orloff.
MR. ORLOFF: Thank you. Okay, I would like to tall
you a little about the Superfund process. Where we were,
(312) 552 1599
cb/8
2 1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 I
where we are now, and where we are going.
When the site was first discovered/ there was a
preliminary assessment done by the Preliminary Assessment
Site Inspection Team/ and that information was taken back to
Springfield where that information was used to score the site.
If the site scored over 28.5 it was eligible for the Superfund
list.
When that was done there was a cooperative agreement
signed between the USEPA and the Illinois EPA. After that/
there was community relations plan done
communications within the community.
to improve
The USEPA would provide approval within two months
approximately/ and therefore there was a RFP, Request for
Proposal, sent out for contractor to do Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study. This was to determine
the nature and extent of the hazards at the site and to gather
all necessary data to support the Feasibility Study.
During that time/ however/ there were some drums
found at the site/ and they were leaking out hazardous PCB's
at the site/ and the soil underneath had been contaminated. I
will talk about that a little bit later.
During the Feasibility Study it would be used to
23||develop and evaluate remedial alternatives used — that may be
24
25
used at the site.
Today we are here at public hearing/ there was a
(312)652 '-599
cb/9
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
notice published 30 days before/ and then we have the hearing,
and there will be a comment period that will extend till June
the 6th. After that the comment period will be closed, and
there will be a document called the Responsiveness Summary,
which is the summarization of all your comments that will be
attached to the Record of Decision —
This Record of Decision is recommendations by the
Illinois EPA to the USEPA for the proposed alternative. The
USEPA's decision will be either to approve the recommendation
or select another one possibly based on further
recommendations or input by the public.
During that period, it takes about three months to
get through, there will be a design phase RFP sent out for a
contractor to design the selected alternative. Then you will
iave a construction phase, which we construct the selected
alternative. Are there any questions — or excuse me, this is
the Superfund process in brief.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you very
much, Mr. Orloff. At this time I call Mr. Jeffrey Larson, who
is going to describe site background, history and owner. Mr.
Larson.
MR. LARSON: Thank you, John. I don't know how
familiar all of you are with this site, but prior to 1939 tie
area which is now known as the Belvidere Municipal Number 1
Landfill was a sand and gravel operation. A privately
(312)552 1599
cb/10
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 i
24
25
10
operated facility and being that it was a sand and gravel
operation you can probably already guess that the basin and
the geologic formations that exist underneath the landfill are
very porous and allows a lot of groundwater to move through
this site very quickly.
The site was acquired in 1939 from a sand and gravel
operation by the City of Belvidere/ and it operated from 1939
until 1965 with — owned and operated by the City. During
that period of time approximately 52 tons a day of municipal
waste, landscape waste/ construction demolition and de-watered
sludge material went into the actual landfill.
In 1965 the City decided to go through a private
contractor as an operator at the facility. And from 1965 to
1973* the City owned the property, but the operations were
conducted privately. It was during this period of time that
the hazardous constituents were deposited in that landfill.
We have records showing that approximately 100 tons
a day of waste were placed in there, one-third of which was
commercial, one-third municipal, and one-third industrial type
waste.
An operating permit denied the City of Belvidere
further operations in 1972, after an Illinois State water
survey report showed that the potential of groundwater contam-
ination from the landfill proper to the Kishvaukee River and
the groundwater table.
•3121S52--599
cb/ll
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
The landfill formally stopped operations in 1973.
In 1979 the City sold the landfill property to the Boone
County Conservation District which has operated it as a
restoration prairie and wildlife area.
The — IEPA — in IEPA hydrological report in 1981
showed that indeed there was some groundwater contamination
through monitoring wells and the site was nominated for the
National Priority List of Superfund sites in 1982, and was
accepted to that list.
That began the process from which Mike Orloff has
just described/ where we go through — into the Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies.
In 1985 which was the last time we spoke to you
here/ upstairs/ I believe it was October of '85/ the — at
that time we were just contracting out with a consultant. We
hired that consultant/ Roy F. Weston/ out of West Chester/
Pennsylvania. And they completed their work on the site
through these investigations as of April of 1988.
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much/ Mr.
Larson. At this time I would like to call Mr. Fred Test and
Steve Anderson who are going to describe Remedial
Investigation and Risk Evaluation.
MR. TEST: This presentation of the Remedial
Investigation will be divided into two parts. The first half
(312)652 1599
cb/12 12
1 describes the site and presents the results of a field
2 sampling program. While the second half describes the risk to
3 public from site contamination.
4 The first overhead shows plan view of the site.
5 Belvidere Municipal Number 1 Landfill is a inactive landfill
6 located off of Appleton Road on land adjacent to the City of
7 Belvidere. The site consists of 139 acres of which the
8 landfill occupies 19.3 acres.
9 To the west of the landfill lies the Kishwaukee
10 River. To the east of the landfill lies two abandoned gravel
11 pits/ which are now filled with water and which are referred
12 to throughout as the West Pond and the East Pond. To the
13 south lies the public facilities of Spencer Park.
14 The area surrounding the landfill is primarily
15 wooded and the landfill itself rises 20 to 30 feet above the
16 surrounding land surface.
17 The next overhead shows a cross-section of the
18 ! landfill. The landfill contains about 790,000 cubic yards of
19 j municipal and industrial waste that were disposed of between
20j 1939 and 1973. Some of the waste includes sewage sludge,
21 ! paint oil sludge and an unknown liquid sludge.
22 I The wastes are currently overlain by a cover
23 installed in 1979 consisting of sand and some clay. The cover
24 includes a good stand of grass/ particularly on top, but in
25 certain spots along the slopes the cover has eroded away,
(3121652 1599
cb/13 13
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
exposing landfill waste and providing an avenue for their
escape.
Below the landfill is a thick layer of sand and
gravel. Here groundwater is located several feet below the
natural ground surface and is flowing toward the Kishwaukee
River. Beneath the sand and gravel layer lies bed rock.
Based on these conditions the Remedial Investigation
concluded that wastes are not being effectively contained
within the landfill. Instead they are slowly reaching the
groundwater by two primary avenues. First the groundwater
directly contacts wastes that are buried below the groundwater
table. In some locations the wastes are buried five feet or
more into the groundwater. This contact allows the
groundwater to dissolve and pick up the contaminants in these
areas.
The second primary route for landfill contaminants
to reach the groundwater is by rain water infiltration. The
sandy cover allows over 50 percent of the rain water falling
on the cover to pass through the cover and reach the landfill
waste. Here the rain water washes the contaminants into the
groundwater and contributes to the generation of leachade.
Leachade is highly contaminated liquid which contains the by-
products of biological degradation of organic material.
The leachade is then forced out of the landfill and
into the groundwater with each successive rain storm.
(312)652-1599
cb/14 14
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
To measure the levels of contamination in the
groundwater/ wells were installed at 26 separate locations
around the site. This is — dark line is a — outlines the
landfill and the circles shows where the wells are located.
This being the river.
Groundwater quality was sampled on three separate
locations. Excuse me/ three separate occasions with over 100
different contaminants being analyzed for. The results show
that the groundwater under the site is contaminated with
volatile organics, semi-volatile organics/ metals/ ammonia/
and PCB's/ many of which are hazardous.
The next overhead shows the level of volatile
organics found in the groundwater. The volatile organics
include benzene, ethylbenzene/ zylenes and toleuing
(phonetic)/ which are frequently used as industrial solvents.
Volatile organics are one of the most important
components of groundwater contamination at the site and are
representative of the pattern of contaminant migration.
As shown by the large black circles/ the highest
levels of contamination are located in shallow groundwater/
underneath the landfill and along its western downgradient
border. Migration of this contamination is in a narrow south-
westerly direction towards the Kishawaukee River. That is, it
follows a pattern of groundwater flow at the site, which is
indicated by these arrows.
(3121652 '599
cb/15
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
The speed of groundwater movement at the site is
estimated at 254 feet per year, which means a travel time
from the center of the landfill to the river of four and a
half years.
On the other hand contaminated groundwater does not
appear to be spreading to the north, to the east, or to the
south. Neither does contamination appear to be migrating into
deep groundwater or bed rock.
And in addition to contaminated groundwater, the
site's surface soils are contaminated with PCB's, metals and
semi-volatile organics. Of particular interest is the PCB
contamination. As shown by the black circles PCB's were found
in a number of areas. But were most commonly found in an area
called the drum disposal area. Kind of north of the site.
Here approximately 100 drums were discovered that
were suspected to contain PCB residues. The drums were
removed in 1986, but one of the soil samples from the area
that says 10, had a PCB value of 51 parts per million, which
is above the Toxic Substances and Control Act limit of 50
parts per million.
These soils then are a potential risk to public
health and the environment.
The Remedial Investigation is a — this next
overhead is a — again of the site. The Remedial
Envestigation found that off-site migration of site
(312)652 1599
cb/16
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
contaminants is occurring. Contaminated groundwater flows
toward the Kishwaukee River while storm water run-off which
potentially picks up contaminated surface soils and other
exposed waste drains towards the river and the West Pond over
here.
To evaluate the effects of site contamination on
these water bodies samples were taken of the water/ sediments
and fish. The results show that the waters are generally free
of excess contamination with the exception of ammonia in the
Kishawaukee River.
On the other hand sediments of the pond and the
river did show measurable levels of semi-volatiles and PCB's.
For the Kishwaukee River sediment contamination was higher
downsteam than upstream, suggesting that site contaminants are
affecting the river.
The fish samples — the fish samples from the
Kishwaukee River and West Pond were measured for PCB's and
pesticides. The results show positive detections in all
sampling locations. West Pond and the river, adjacent and
upstream. But many more samples than not showed undetected
levels. Here one out of five or one out of nine.
The most frequently detected compounds were
agricultural pesticides. Frequent — and their source is more
likely agricultural run-off.
As for site related contaminants the results suggest
(312)652-1599
cb/17
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
17
some uptake of PCB's by fish. But it is not widespread or of
high concentration.
To summarize the Remedial' Investigation found that
the landfill wastes are not being adequately contained in the
landfill/ and as a result are causing contamination of shallow
groundwater. The contaminants entering the groundwater
include volatile organics/ semi-volatile organics/ metals/
ammonia/ and PCB's/ many of which are hazardous.
The Remedial Investigation also found the site
surface soils are contaminated with semi-volatile organics/
metals and PCB's. Off site migration of site contamination is
occurring via groundwater and storm water run-off heading
towards the Kishwaukee River and the West Pond.
The next speaker wil 1 provide a detailed discussion of
risk from site contaminants.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Test. Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good evening. I would like to talk
to you for a few minutes just about what we did to determine
what the effects of these chemicals might have on the people
in the area and on their health.
To start off with/ there are several reutes of
exposure whereby people can be exposed to the chemicals.
Basically you can breathe the air. You can eat it in your
food which is ingestion. Or you can absorb it through your
(312)652 1599
cb/18
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
18
skin. So this gives you kind of a context of how we look at
how the chemicals are getting into the body.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Excuse me a second, Mr.
Anderson. The gentleman standing outside/ there are seats
available over here if you wish to sit down. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: This process that we go through is
broken into two major steps. The first part is risk
assessment and risk management. The risk assessment we
determine what the consequences are/ what the risks are out
there from a quantitative point of view. Risk management is
what — part of what is being discussed here tonight is the
solutions to mitigate those risks.
We deal first off with identifying the pollutants
which was talked about by Mr. Test. From that we determine
certain chemicals that we will look at to determine which ones
are the most toxic/ which ones are the most prevalent in the
environment and evaluate them.
So we see/ how can you be exposed. Who is out
there. What the concentrations are. What is going on. How
do you get exposed to these chemicals. And on the other side
we look at the health effects. Do these chemicals cause a
mild irritation to the skin/ or do they cause liver disease or
kidney disfunction. What are the actual toxic effects of
these chemicals and at what concentrations.
(31216521599
cb/19
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
From that we put it together in a process of
evaluating the risks or trying to put the risk in context so
the decision makers and the public can get a feel for what
those risks mean.
Then we go into the risk management phase where it
deals with controlling those risks.
So for this site we determined that there are three
major pathways or routes of exposure. One is through soil
ingestion/ and this here shows a schematic of how you can
conceptualize the exposure. You have a soil concentration. You
consume the soil in terms of your hands. If your hands go in
your mouth, You eat your food, you don't wash it off
completely. You consume the soil/ you get a dose and it has
an effect.
There is dermal contacts. Some of these chemicals
will penetrate the skin and go into the bloodstream. And then
there is drinking of groundwater. You can take a drink of the
groundwater. It goes into the stomach and it gets into the
bloodstream.
These first two pathways here are present right now.
you can/ if you go on the site be exposed to soil ingestion or
dermal contact. This groundwater ingestion is if somebody
was to put a municipal well in there/ or drinking water well
to feed their livestock, then you could have groundwater
contamination.
(312)652 1599
cb/2C
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
One of the first things we looked at was the drum
disposal area. There was identified in that drum disposal
area some high concentrations of PCB's and other chemicals.
So we asked the question, okay/ what happens if somebody comes
on the site for an hour/ two hours/ three hours/ is there a
potential of having a short-term or immediate response to that
drum disposal area contamination.
This line here represents the break point between
potential health concerns and below that line we have reason
to believe that the effects are not likely to cause an adverse
reaction to most of the population. You can see from these
graphs/ I will push it up here a little bit so you can see it/
we looked at childhood exposure. We looked at adult exposure
to the average concentration at the site and the maximum
concentration.
This clearly shows that for a short-term effect in
the drum disposal area we don't expect to have a significant
health impact in the area.
Next we looked at the current conditions as they
stand out there today. You notice now that the line that
distinguishes between a potential health concern region is
here/ and that for the average condition we are approaching
that line. For the maximum conditions we have exceeded that
line/ meaning that we expect that there may be an adverse
effect associated with exposure to those chemicals on the
(312)652-1599
cb/21
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
current conditions which are groundwater — which are soil
ingestion or dermal contact.
Next we looked at what happens if you include
groundwater consumption and it says here/ we are talking about
non-cancer health effects. Effects that are not related with
cancer. Okay/ for example selenium is an essential nutrient
in your diet. And you can have a certain amount of it. But
once you go over a certain point it will produce an adverse
effect/ both in animals and in humans. So there is a
threshold effect.
In this situation you can see that clearly the
average exposure for children and the maximum exposure/ plus
the average exposure and the maximum exposure for adults
exceeds this threshold line. So there is the possibility of
some adverse health effects out there.
And finally/ we looked at the health consequences of
cancer, trying to predict if you had an exposure/ is there a
possibility of some cancer. And what is shown here now is
these numbers here are a scientific notation. What it means
here for like this 10 to the minus 2 is that you would put two
zeros in front of — .01 is what it would be. Ten to the
minus 3 is .001 so you can get an idea what that means.
The key point here is that these 10 to the minus 6
region is the delineation point between if the risk is less
than that/ it is generally accepted that that is a negligible
(312)652-1599
cb/22
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
22
risk. If it is greater than that/ it may be significant. It
depends on the people/ the society/ the population. But once
you go over this level/ there is a concern for a potential
concern for cancer as a result of this exposure. And we can
see here that there is three conditions outlined. I will push
this up so you can read it a little better.
Under the current use conditions for the average and
maximum exposure we are showing that we exceed that — if
you look at exposure to the downgradient wells, you can see
there is a little more risk involved. There is higher
concentrations of chemicals in that water/ therefore the risk
is higher.
And then if you look at the water directly under the
landfill/ and that was to be drank and added into the dermal
exposure and the soil ingestion, you would have these risk
levels identified here. Both the average exposure and the
maximum exposure.
So we have shown that basically for short-term
exposure we don't expect to see some adverse effects/ but for
the non-cancer health effects and for the cancer health
effects, there is a potential for some health impacts as a
result of exposure to the chemicals on the site.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Anderson. At this time I would introduce Ms. Tinka Hyde,
USEPA, who will describe nine criteria, feasibility study,
(3121552 1599
cb/23
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
23
summary of alternatives at this time.
MS. HYDE: I am going to tell you a little bit
about some of the possible solutions or alternatives we have
developed for this site. As both Fred and Steve have
discussed the Remedial Investigation determined that there are
three areas for potential exposure at the site/ and these
areas are the landfill located here/ the drum disposal areas
located just north of the landfill right here/ and then the
gorundwater that is located under the site itself.
The alternatives that we have developed will cover
all of these problem areas. During the development of the
alternatives we considered these nine criteria. The first one
is community acceptance/ that is why we are here tonight/ and
we want to get an idea of how you feel about what we are
proposing to do at the site.
The rest of these/ we want to make sure that we are
in compliance with all Federal/ State or local regulations/
and we want to make sure that the remedy we choose is going to
be cost effective. That we choose something that is going to
get the job done for the least amount of money.
Fourth/ we want to make sure that it is
implementable. We want to make sure that what we are going
to do is feasible and at the same time it is going to be
effective over the long run.
We also want to make sure that we are not only
(312)652 1599
cb/24
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
protecting human health but the environment out there/ and we
want to try to pick a remedy that is going to reduce the
amount of waste that is out there/ so we aren't going to have
any mobility of the waste/ it flowing off site or moving off
site anywhere.
And we want to make sure that the remedy is going to
be done in a short amount of time/ and finally we want to make
sure that both USEPA and Illinois EPA agree on what we are
going to do out there.
These are the nine alternatives that were developed
in the Feasibility Study. And to help you out there was a
copy up at the registration desk that you might want to follow
along with In case you can't read the diagrams. I am going
to go through each of these very briefly/ and if you have any
other question/ I can answer them later on.
Starting at the top/ the first two alternatives,
Alternative 1 and 2, you can see are very similar. They both
call for excavation of the entire landfill as well as the
soils in the drum disposal area. They also call for
groundwater extraction and treatment so that we can make sure
that the groundwater is also cleaned up.
The difference between the two is that Alternative I
requires incineration of the waste on site/ whereas
Alternative 2 requires that we transport the waste off site
away from the Belvidere area to a Federally regulated
(312) 652.1599
cb/25
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
25
hazardous waste disposal area.
Both of these alternatives will take approximately
six years to implement. Five years for the actual excavation
which is kind of a long time, and then an additional year to
make sure that the groundwater is cleaned up. As you can see
the cost of these two remedies is rather/ well over $100
million.
We go on to Alternatives 3/ 4 and 5. They are
rather similar. They are similar in that they all use
containment of the landfill as a way of dealing with the
wastes. Instead of digging it up it will stay there and they
will put a cap over the landfill. And a cap will be
consisting of a series of layers of impermeable soil.
Something like clay that won't let rain water go through the
waste and contaminate the groundwater even more.
They are also very similar in that they are all
going to treat the drum disposal area soils in the same way.
As Fred mentioned, there is a rule that USEPA that if soils
have more than 50 parts per million of PCB's that we have to
treat them a different way. And so we are going to go back
and look at those soils to make sure that we are going to
treat them correctly.
If they are over 50, we will either leave them in
place and put a cap or a cover over them so they can't be
exposed to anybody, or we will take them off site and burn
(3121652-1599
cb/26 26
1 them up/ incinerate them.
2 If they are less than 50 we can just scoop them up
3 and put them on the landfill and then cover it all up with a
4 cap.
5 The way that these three alternatives vary is the
6 types of caps. First of all Alternative 3 calls for a
7 sanitary landfill cap. And that type of cap is usually put on
8 a landfill that typically took municipal type wastes. Whereas
9 Alternatives 4 and 5 call for a RCRA/ that is Resource
10 Conservation Recovery Act that regulate hazardous waste
11 landfills. That type of cap for ^ and 5 is typically put on
12 landfills that have accepted hazardous waste/ which is the
13 case of Belvidere Landfill.
14 They also vary somewhat in how they treat the — how
15 they extract the groundwater/ and the extraction systems
16 essentially bring out the groundwater and then we will treat
17 it so that it is at clean/ acceptable levels.
18 All three of these will take approximately one year
19 for cap construction and cleaning up of the soils.
20 Unfortunately the groundwater clean-up portion will probably
21 take a lot longer and may even need to continue on for a
22 continuous period of time.
23 You can see that the costs are a little less than
24 Alternatives 1 and 2. They range from approximately $5
25 million all the way up to $22 million.
(312)552-1599
cb/2" 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18!i19 j
20
21
22
23
24
25
The final four alternatives are on this diagram
here. Alternatives 6 and 7 are again comparable. The only
difference is that you use a RCRA hazardous waste cap for
Alternative 6 and a sanitary landfill cap over the landfill
for Alternative 7. Both will deal with the soils in the same
ways that 3/ 4 and 5.
The difference from the previous alternatives is
that groundwater will just be monitored. We will put in
wells. We will take samples and we will monitor the
groundwater to make sure that we know if it is getting more
contaminated or if it is not. If it is staying where it
should be. And keep an on eye on that.
Again these two will take approximately a year for
the cap and the soils and groundwater monitoring would
continue on probably for an extended period of time.
Alternative 8 calls for fencing of the site.
Fencing of the landfill area so that we can restrict access/
so people don't get on the site/ don't get contaminated by the
soils/ and then groundwater monitoring to keep an eye on what
is happening with the groundwater.
Oh/ I forgot to mention the cost on 6 and 7 -- the
only difference betweeen 6 and 7 is the cost of the cap/ and
that difference is approximately $2.5 million. Whereas in
Alternative 8 the cost is down well below $1 million.
And finally Alternative 9 is no action, and this is
I
•312! 552 '599
cb/2J 28
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an alternative that we are required to do to look at kind of
as a base line to -- for comparison so we know where zero is
and we go up from there.
I would like to point out that although the
Feasibility Study has developed these nine alternatives, the
final remedial action can be a combination of any of these
alternatives/ and in fact/ as Mike Orloff is going to discuss
in a little bit/ we are going to be proposing a variation on
one of these alternatives.
with that/ I will turn it over to Mike.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, Ms.
Hyde. Mr. Orloff.
MR. ORLOFF: Thank you. I would like to present to
you the proposed alternative through the eyes of what I call
Randolph the Rain Drop and his family. As Randolph rains on
to the ground the water is going to go into the water table/
and move towards the landfill. Water will fall on top of the
landfill/ and some of it will be diverted because the top soil
underneath the vegetative cover has been graded so it will
move away from the landfill.
Then we get down to the multi-layer hazardous waste
cap. Let me first show you/ • this is what the sanitary
landfill cap consists of. You can see the various layers that
go through it. Eventually rain will penetrate through the cap
and there will be some flushing of the contents under the
(312)552 1599
cb/29
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
29
landfill and it will flush into the groundwater.
With the hazardous waste/ the multi-layer cap
Randolph and his family will hit the vegetative cover, some
run-off from that/ and then it will penetrate through the top
soil/ and then it goes down into what we call a drainage layer
where it will also come through because there is a synthetic
liner underneath the drainage layer which prevents the water
from going through.
Some of the advantages to this — some of the
advantages to this that you have 100 percent leachade
reduction in an off site migration of leachade. You have a
reduced volume in contaminated groundwater from this. There
are also this cap that provides — and there enhances flood
control and erosion control over the site.
Okay/ and also gases will be formed under the
landfill when you have this cap over it/ and you are going to
have a vent sticking out the landfill to vent these hazardous
gases. Methane and other hazardous waste gases out of the
landfill so it will not create an explosive effect under the
landfill.
One of the disadvantages -- a couple of the
09 ;disadvantages of this is that it does require long-term
I23 jrnaintenance. The cap does require long-term maintenance. It
24
25
must be kept up. Also monitoring of the waste contents is
necessary.
(312)652 1599
cb/30
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 j
21
23
24 i
25 !
30
I think I talked about there will be some soil
remediation and it — the soil/ contaminated soil could go
under the cap or sent off to a disposal site for treatment.
So as Ralph is going through the water you are going to find
that they are going to have .a — barrier well extraction
system and that would be between the Kishwaukee -- there we
go. Have we got it?
MALE VOICE: Upside down.
MR. ORLOFF: Upside down.
MALE VOICE: Flip it over.
MR. ORLOFF: Like there/ okay/ there we are. Thank
you for the assistance. Okay, these black dots here represent
extraction wells so as Randolph and his family comes through
under the groundwater it will be pumped out and sent to an off
site treatment or an on site treatment center which will look
something like this. Okay?
As we have the extraction well system pumping
influent into a rapid mixing tank where they introduce lime to
coagulate some of the solid material in there/ it is sent to a
settling tank where the solid material settles to the bottom
of the tank and goes down over here as sludge/ just like a
sewage treatment plant/ to a filter press and then it is
solidified in the filter press and sent via truck to an
outside landfill. Most likely a hazardous waste landfill or a
special waste landfill depending on the material.
(312) 652 1599
cb/3
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
31
Then the effluent goes from the tank, it is pumped
to a pressure filter where some of the material is filtered
out/ then to an air stripper which volatilizes the hazardous
organic materials/ the volatile organic materials into the
air and that effluent is sent down here to a rapid mixing tank
again where C02 is used to bring the pH down to about seven
and a half/ or a neutral pH almost/ and then it is pumped in
through an activated carbon filter.
It works on the same order of a cigarette charcoal
filter. It takes out the contaminants/ the rest of the
contaminants out of the effluent which is then — it is
monitored and sampled to see that it meets quality standards/
and then it can be discharged right into the Kishwaukee River.
By the way that on site treatment system can be
masked or landscaped so you won't have to look at it when you
are going into the park. And also it will help against the
noise that would be created by a system like that. Okay.
The cost of this system is over $7 million/ but we
feel it is an effective solution to the hazardous waste
problems at the site. It will help to mitigate adverse pub'.ic
health and environmental impacts at the site. Although it is
not a permanent solution/ all things considered/ it is an
acceptable solution. It will help to — it will help to
(protect the overall public health and the environment. It is
an easily implementable project. It will cause a reduction
;3-2) 652 '599
cb/32
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
32
in the toxicity and the mobility and volume at a river and
even though the cost is over $7 million a permanent solution
would cost you hundreds of millions of dollars to take care of
it.
Let's help Ralph the Rain Drop protect his family
and yours. Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much/ Mr.
Orloff. Now I introduce Mr. Jeffrey Larson again concerning
future planning, the remedial design and remedial action. Mr.
Larson.
MR. LARSON: Now that Mike has introduced the
preferred alternative that the Agency would like to see/ I
want to make it clear that the process that we are in tonight
is quite valuable to us and that we solicit comments from you
to see how you all feel about the alternative that is selected
as well as we would encourage you to comment upon the
alternatives that we did not prefer.
! The next phase of this project is to implement the
.design which Mike has already introduced to you. The elements
20 jjthat are involved in that design require many different
21[construction details and plans.
22;| This next process is going to involve conceptual
23 i'piannina / construction plans and specifications, and thei !
24 : implementability of that plan on the environment. That is
25 called the remedial action phase.
'312' 552 '599
cb/33
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
33
We will definitely do this design and remedial
action phase. This project will go through. We are presently
in negotiations with the PRP's, the Potentially Responsible
Parties/ at this project site/ and we have great hope that we
can come to an understanding and we would like to turn the
ball over to them and let them do the project/ but if they do
not feel that they would like to take charge of it this time,
the State and the Federal Government has full intentions to
keep going with this.
We will do the design and we will do the
construction/ and we are looking at October of 1989 as the
start-up date for the actual construction on the site. That
is our goal.
As Mike has said, in his introduction of the
proposed alternative/ again I will just go quickly through
these different elements and the proposed alternative involves
the capping with a multi-layer cap, over 19.3 acres of the
landfill site. That covers up 790,000 cubic yards of
material/ of landfill contents. There would be a ground water
barrier extraction system that would be placed along the west
side/ the south and west sides of the landfill in which we
would like to see 100 gallons per minute of contaminated
groundwater pumped and treated — pre-treated or treated on
the site.
We would like to take the — we have intentions of
(312) 652 1599
cb/34
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
34
soil that it was — from the drum disposal area. Its PCB
laden soil. We would like to have that either incinerated or
encapsulated within the landfill. And we would upgrade the
fence that surrounds the barriers of the landfill and now
along the property which would inhibit any pedestrian type
traffic.
We plan on putting a couple of monitoring wells
across the river on the opposite side to just make sure that
there isn't any groundwater penetration that has escaped us in
any way, that we haven't found or monitored. And we will
continue a monitoring program on an annual basis of the pump
— of the groundwater type system and we will also — we would
like to see some deed restrictions placed on the project which
would require that the present owner make sure that in their
deed there will not be any wells penetrating the landfill area
itself or the area between the landfill and the Kishwaukee
River. That would eliminate any — any use of that
groundwater table.
The total price of ' this project right now is $7..9
million. Including the studies that have been conducting. We
are looking at about $8.9 million. And that concludes my
section of this. Back to you/ John.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Larson. At this time I would invite any questions that the
(public may have from the speakers. Anybody have any j
,2',2\ 652 1599
cb/35 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 I
17
18
19 !
20
21
22 ;
23
24
questions? Yes, sir, could you please state your name for the
record.
, I live next to the district
office on Appleton Road. You talk of putting monitoring wells
on the west side of this landfill, and why not on east side
road, we all live along --. You keep saying the water only
runs west when it runs south. And this is not right. There
is rocks below -- I think there is rocks below my place at 35
feet. There is a lot of groundwater between that rocks up
there and at — it goes all over. It depends on about how
much rain we get to which way the water flows. Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you, sir.
Can you answer him?
MR. LARSON: The groundwater that is coming out of
this landfill without a doubt, we have put a lot of wells in
in this area, and the groundwater, we have taken three rounds
of samples over two years, and monitored on a monthly basis
what the — where this groundwater is flowing from and it —
without a doubt it flows form this landfill towards the
Kishwaukee River. It doesn't flow — if we are using the word
south, that is misstated. We should be saying southwest. If
it runs southwest right to the closest point in the Kishwaukee
River from the landfill. It doesn't carry to the north or to
the south, right to the southwest, and I assume you live up in
this area. Is that —
'3125652 1599
cb/36
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
36
Right next to the —
MR. LARSON: Okay.
Right on the corner.
MR. LARSON: Well/ any of the water that comes
through this landfill does not go — any other direction.
Do you have any wells on the east side
to prove that?
MR. LARSON: Yes.
I would like you to -- if you don't
mind.
MR. LARSON: We have a monitoring well in this area
What is —
MR. LARSON: I am sorry that is a bench mark. This
area right here.
If you follow the middle of that/ what
you call the West Lake you come straight to your right that is
iwhere I live/ about -- right straight in the middle of that
lake. Right there. And your well is north of this/ so you
are not telling me that your monitoring well —
MR. LARSON: Well/ we have documented this very
well/ and any of the land -- any of the water that goes
through this landfill dees not go east from the site/ so it is
not affecting you.
Under those conditions the standard
graph is south of me/ over on Perry Street and that pond they
(312)552 '599
cb/37 37
1 ! have in back of their factory contaminated my well in 1962.
2 And a few more down the street from me that had to hook to
3 ! city water, but we did some — some of our expenses and got by
4 without doing it but that water then ran north. Now you tell
5! me what happened in that case.
5 MR. LARSON: That Standard Brass site is a site
7 which we are looking at right now, the Illinois EPA.
8 Explain the water flows, I am not
9 talking about what you are looking for in the future. Explain
10 that water flow from that pond. That is all I want to hear.
11 MR. LARSON: Can you explain it any further? I
12 don't know how much more clear I can make it. It goes
13 straight for the river.
14 You can't tell me one thing and then
15 something else happens some place else in the same area.
16 | MR. TEST: Okay, the first thing you talked about
17 was the groundwater and how it — excuse me, the bed rock( in
18 !! your place it is very high and the bed rock down by the riverI
19 is very low. It is about 120 feet down, so in that respect
20 the water is kind of flowing down the bed rock away from yourt
21 place.I
22 ! The other thing is we did take samples of privateii
23,j wells out in that area and all of them came up negative.I j
24' Mine as well?
25 MR. TEST: Yes, all of them came up clean.
;312> 552 '599
cb/38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 !
i20 |
21 !
22 !
23 |
24 |
25
38
Pretty Borderline — you know that
yourself.
Okay/ well we have the data here, we will
put that into the recrod.
: Sure/ thank you.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir. Any more
questions for the speakers? Yes/ sir, could you state your
name for the record.
MR. GRATZ: Mayor Gratz, Mayor of Belvidere. In
1979 the Illinois EPA authorized a local contractor to put the
current cap on the landfill. It is now nine years later and
you want several millions of dollars to put a new cap on.
What is the guarantee the community has that standards won't
change in the next 10 days and then you will come back and
request a different type of cap or different solution to the
problem.
MR. LARSON: Well, I think you will find that the
record shows, Mr. Mayor, that the landfill when it was
operating was cited many/ many times for inadequate cover, and
so that -- again, that is in the record and I don't think the
cover ever has been adequate out there.
MR. GRATZ: No, I am saying is, the final cover that
is on there now, below the vegetation was approved by the
Illinois EPA. It was signed off by the Illinois EPA as
sufficient cover for the landfill. Now, you want a different
(312) 552 ''99
cb/39 39
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
type of cover because there is groundwater contamination. My
question is/ is what -- what will be the next step/ you know,i
this is approved now will it always be approved? I mean, what
guarantees does the community have that you are not going to
want another type of cap or some other type of cover?
MR. LARSON: I think it is a good question/ and I
don't think there are any guarantees. I don't think we can
certainly guarantee something at this point in time. What we
feel is certainly the best alternative to secure this problem,
but I certainly can't guarantee science and technology
development 20 years from now and what might be the best
decision.
At the time that you are talking about in 1979, when
evidently the IEPA approved this enclosure plan the — I think
the standards were different. There were very, very few
design standards at all on these things, and I think we have
all admittedly in State government/ Federal government/ in
private enterprise have all learned an awful lot about
hazardous waste. We have all learned an awful lot about
landfill design/ and capping design/ and I think that just
goes along with the progress that -- the natural progress we
have all made in getting a little smarter about this thing.
And everybody makes some mistakes.
MS. HYDE: I think another thing to be pointed out
is in 1979 they didn't have the data on the landfill to tell
(312:552 '599
cb/40
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
40
you that it was hazardous waste and that so much contamination
was coming off of the landfill and if they had that data back
then/ the cap that they approved may have been different than
what it is going to be today.
Regulations may change, but it—you as the public do
have an opportunity to comment on those/ and give your words.
MALE VOICE: Terry —
MR. LARSON: The — I am sorry, go ahead.
MR. ORLOFF: Excuse me/ the cap is designed to take
care of a certain problem on top, where it is on top of a
landfill itself/ and we are looking for certain quality of
standards and measures that have been taken to make sure that
we get the job done. That contaminated water doesn't get to
the Kiswaukee River. If it continues to do that, I don't know
if there would necessarily be a need to change the cap at a
later date.
I think if the -- if there was a liner underneath
the landfill or something like that, that might be a different
story, where it would — was deteriorated from the hazardous
waste.
MR. LARSON: Let me just rehash too, that the — the
only report that we had prior to 1979 was an Illinois State
water report which said that there would be — there may be
[the potential of a groundwater problem at the landfill, and
the Illinois EPA's report on the actual groundwater
<3'2I 652-1599
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
41
23
24 j
25
infiltration and problems that were out there was dene in
1981.
So at that point in time that is when we nominated
this for the national priority list. So/ I don't think tnat
it is really anybody's fault for anything that has happened.
It is a situation where we gathered the data in 1981 and we
realized/ boy/ there is a problem there/ and we have to do
something about it.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Larson.
Any more questions for the — yes/ sir/ could you state your
name for the record.
I live out there in the
same area as-the gentleman who spoke earlier, and I have lived there
since 1968 and I worked at Chrysler so I worked second shift
at that time. I am sure Bud will tell you the same thing I am
telling you.
I used to get home at 12:30, 1:00 in the morning,
and they were hauling stuff in there, and my question to you
gentlemen, do you know what is in there? I don't know, if the
Byron Nuclear Plant would have been in operation, I wouldn't even
be sure some of that stuff wouldn't be in there/ you know.
That is what I am saying. Do we know what is in there? Do
you?
MR. LARSON: We can't guarantee that we know of trie
contaminants in there. I think that we spent -- we spent an
(3121652 1599
cb/42 42
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 j17!18 ;
19 |
20 •
21
22i
23;i
24!i
25!
awful lot of time — a lot of you folks are probably unhappy
that we have spent so much time. Actually this project: is
only four months behind schedule/ but we have spent a lot: of
money and a lot of time to research what is in there and a lot
of different geophysical surveys, electromagnetic
conductivity, and ground penetrating radar. Recitivity
(phonetic) surveys. These are all different types of
surveying that we do above ground that tell us what is going
on below ground.
We have taken soil borings. We have done soil gas
testing. We have put in groundwater monitoring wells, and we
have three rounds of data over different times of the year,
and I think we have done all that we can possibly do without
somebody saying that we may be going too far. We are spending
too much money looking at this, and why don't we make a
decision on it.
And 'we feel confident that we know what — what is
coming through in the groundwater right now, which is
impacting Mother Nature. We feel that we know what is in the
soils right now, which is affecting anybody that would be
walking on the landfill and would be a risk element involved.
And we have also through solicitation of the different
potentially responsible parties and knowing who those people
are, legally inquired to them on what they did take to the
landfill, and we had a number of responses back, and yeah., we
(312) 652 '599
cb/43
have a very good inventory of what was deposited by some
different parties, right down to the cubic yard per year in
that landfill.
Even the ones that went in there at
1:00, 2:00 in the morning.
MR. LARSEN: Well, we can't control — that is
right, we can't control the midnight dumping. So, that is a
8 police action power,
9 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, the gentleman
10 behind the pillar, would you state your name for the record.
11 MR. GIBRANT: Rich Gibrant, AAA Disposal. The —
12 you mentioned $7 million for a model VOC air stripping
13 process. I recently read about a new technology that involves
placing aerobic, anaerobic infected bacteria in the ground
15 with phosphorous and nitrogen. And these bacteria actually
16 feed upon these volatile organics, and it can be done for a
17 fraction of the cost of air stripping. Has this been locked
18 into or, on the Federal level, I understand it has been cone
19 in Ohio. Has this been looked into, as the technology that is
20 recognized or is it an up and coming technology that could be
21 i addressed to cut the cost of this in half?
22 MS. HYDE: For this site it wasn't looked at, but
23ithere are more than volatile organics at this site, and so --
24 MR. GILBRANT: You have got some heavy metals,
25right.
'3*2i 552 '599
cb/44
MS. HYDE: We have heavy — and we have some
polyaromatic hydrocarbons/ which would act differently than
the volatile organics/ so it is suspected that it wouldn't work
on all the contaminants that are there. So we would then need
to set up a separate system above and beyond what you are
suggest ing .
MR. GILBRANT: But we wouldn't have to do the air
8 stripping process.
9 MS. HYDE: Well/ we aren't quite sure what our
10 treatment train is going to be. What Mike put up/ there was
11 an example of what could be/ but during design we are going to
12 pump out water and look at it and see what we actually can
13 come up with for the most economical treatment system.
14 MR. GILBRANT: Okay/ has this bioremediation been
15 looked at all as a possible avenue for cutting the cost on
16 this?
17 MS. HYDE: It was — the particular one you are
18. talking about/ no/ as far as I know.
19 !| MR. TEST: Biological remediation has been looked
20 into/ and often times they extract it out of the ground and!
21 ; treat it partially on the surface and then reinject it back
22iinto the ground. That has problems of mixing and making sure
23 j that you get all the contaminants. So it — it seems to be
24'more efficient to extract the groundwater and treat it on the
25 surface.
(312) 552 i^99
cb/45 45
3
8
9
10
11
MR. GILBRANT: What I am familiar with, they have done
some computer modeling and they have been able to track it and
know what they were doing during the beginning, and it
significantly reduced the cost/ and it was a tremendous
difference inVOC numbers in a relatively short three/ four month
period of time.
I am just saying it might be something you might
want to look into.
MR. TEST: Yes.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you/ sir. Yes,
ma'am.
12 MS. MILES: Louise Miles/ from the County Board.
13 You did mention as I understood 254 feet per year is the way
14 you feel it is traveling from the center point/ and it wculd
15 take four and a half years to get to the river. Well what
16 timeframe is that in? I mean/ when was that four and a half
years, are you saying from the day you did the work or —
18 • MR. LARSON: If you started today, it would take
four and a half years for the groundwater to reach in the
2° jj upper aquifer. There is two different aquifers by the way. I
21 ishould point out —
22
23 yet?
24
25
Ms. MILES: You don't think it has reached there
MR. LARSON: Yes, the landfill —
MS. MILES: Or has it reached there?
'599
cb/46 46
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LARSON: Yes, the landfill is — has — the
groundwater has reached the river/ in four and a half yeacs.
This landfill has been operating from 1939 to 1973/ and so
yes, certainly, the groundwater —
MS. MILES: The contaminants already are in the
river, aren't they?
MR. LARSON: Yes.
MS. MILES: Okay.
MR. LARSON: The water —
MS. MILES: It isn't that we have got four and a
half years to wait. They are already there.
MR. LARSON: That is right.
MS. MILES: Okay.
MALE VOICE: Our tests showed that —
MR. LARSON: There is two aquifers. Maybe we should
say that. The upper aquifer is more mobile and moved at a
rate of about four and a half foot — I am sorry four — about
four and a half years. 254 feet per year, which is very, very
rapid for groundwater. The bottom aquifer takes about 11 and
a half years to reach the river barrier.
MS. MILES: Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Yes, ma'am,
would you state your name for the record, please.
Yes, my name is and I am
asking this as a concerned taxpayer. You mentioned how much
(312)652 1599
cb/47
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
47
it would cost to set up this system/ but you did not mention
how much the upkeep of this system would be and what if
something happened/ there is no guarantee that this process is
ever going to end. In the long run/ it is going to be the
taxpayers who are paying for this. Is it going to cost more
in the long run for the taxpayers to go this system, than to
do a complete clean-up?
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. TEST: I believe those are present work costs?
MS. HYDE: Yes, those are present work costs.
MR. TEST: Okay/ those costs include the operation
and maintenance costs over 30 years/ as well as the capitol
costs of constructing it. So you are looking at the total
costs in the 30 year period/ so we are $8 million versus $127
million/ that is a lot of 30 year periods before we get up to
that cost of removing the waste from the site.
MS. KELLY: But what if something happens and it
does not — this way?
MR. LARSON: You mean the groundwater changes?
The unknown. What about the unknown.
What if something unknown happens and we end up/ like she
said/ or like Terry said/ at one time that was okay, as
capped. You know/ what guarantee do we have that in 30 years w
aren't going to be starting from scratch again.
MR. LARSON: Well/ the idea of the cap, of course,
(3121652 1599
cb/48 48
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
again is to not allow any vertical movement of the water —
rain water into the landfill contents. The saturated part of
the landfill contents down here is what is going through a
groundwater elevation already and through the lateral movement
of groundwater. We feel that — that the cap, if it is
constructed the way we would like to see it/ it will hold up.
I think that these caps are getting better and better every
year. And we know more about how to design them now . Every
-- if you are looking for the future/ I can't — I certainly
can't guarantee the development of different science and
technological designs.
But — I don't think there are any guarantees.
You might even change your standards for
what is coming out of there in the —
MR. LARSON: That — that could — I mean we may
drop the numbers or raise the numbers.
MS. HYDE: I would like to point out that the costs
are extremely conservative. We make a broad range so that we
have a play with what we actually come out with of almost 50
percent above or below what our costs are. I think it is
50/30. So it is an extemely conservative cost to begin with.
We try to build in as many/ as you said/ unknowns/ as we can
so that we come up with the most realistic worse case costs
that we can.
MR. ORLOFF: You know, this cap is the state of the
(312)652 1599
cb/49 49
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 !|
art cap/ okay/ and as long as it accomplishes the goals and
objectives that we have stated previously to you/ okay, there
is not going to be any necessary reason to change it. As long
as it is maintained properly and you don't have trail bikes
going over the cap or roughing up the dirt/ you know, that cap
will endure.
MR. LARSON: Let me point out also that you asked
about the upkeep/ of the costs/ and the future/ okay. What if
something happens that is unforeseen? Well, there are a lot
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of good things that can happen such as maybe five years form
now, due to the ground -- the barrier extraction/ groundwater
extraction system we have pretty well pulled the water all
through those landfill contents to the point that the
groundwater numbers/ the hazardous constituents drop below one
in a million risk to people/ and we can shut that groundwater
system off.
It can get a point where it is an acceptable — an
acceptable area. There is the other aspect too which God
forbid, you don't know, there might be something slowly moving
through this landfill that we certainly — we haven't found or
don't know about yet/ that all of a sudden we could recove at
a monitoring well, and we may have to rethink about our
treatment process or something. Redesign some aspect of it to
— to address that certain constituent.
So again, there is no guarantees, but :here is
O121652 1599
cb/50 50
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
probably as many good things that can happen as there —
probably more good things than bad things/ because we are
pumping the groundwater/ so —
MR. TEST: The other thing too is that the removal
alternatives are not eliminated just on cost, but also the
risk of going in there and exposing all material to the
environment. Also of taking it off site, the traffic on the
highways, that you would create the potential for waste being
put on road, that was a concern too.
MR. ORLOFF: There is more of health hazard if you
uncover that mess and go down and try and dig it up than there
would be by containing, like we are proposing.
MR. LARSON: And the cost. Our final — as you can
probably see in the proposed plan that we handed out, the
final alternative costs of Alternative 1 and 2 were $127
million and $173 million, and that is an awful lot of money to
spend out there/ so —
Yes, if the taxpayers have to foot that
bill, they are all going to go broke.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you. Are there any
more questions for the speakers? Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MR. GRATZ: My other question is — I don't know
which speaker it would be addressed to. When the original
investigation was done and the list of potentially responsible
parties in the area was — the original list, there seven -•- I
(312)652 1599
cb/51
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
recall the USEPA 104, I believe, some of the local industries
truthfully responded to that and are now part of the group
that is probably going to end up paying for it, but are some
other industries in the area that were in business at the
time, obviously had some waste that never responded or have
yet to respond, and they have not been brought into the list
of potentially responsible parties. Will we be allowed to
know who responded and who didn't? What the responses were
and what actions are going to be taken on those that refused
to respond or have not responded?
MS. HYDE: The point on whether they responded or
not, if somebody hasn't responded to those letters, different
letters will go out and a procedure will be followed to make
sure that they respond to us within a certain amount of time
under law. So the people, if they haven't responded, we are
going to keep after them, okay.
If — as far as -- what was your other question?
Oh, can you get a list of the people who responded/ or who
didn't? Yeah, you can get that list from us, if you would
request it.
MR. GRATZ: How do we do that? Under the Freedom of
Information Act?
MS. HYDE: Yeah, just write a letter to us.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Any more questions for
the — yes/ sir.
(312)652 1599
cb/52 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 i
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I have got one.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Couldl you state your
name again/ please.
My first question, I have
a concern with the environment with the health of my water
supply as most of the people there are/ but my big question to
you. How long do — do you have any idea how long we can
consider that as a potential hazard over there. This
landfill. Are we ever — are we going to live with it
forever/ or is it going to pass over?
MS. HYDE: To a certain extent/ you will live with
it forever because what we are proposing/ the waste will
always be there. Through time we expect it to become ". =ss and
less a hazard and -- by putting on the cap/ removing the soil
and treating the groundwater. To tell you how much time I
can't really do that. We will have to wait and see what
happens after we get the cap on and when we start pumping and
treating the groundwater and monitoring it.
It will be some years down the road/ I can tell you
that.
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Any more questions foe the
speakers? Well there are apparently no more questions for the
speakers/ and at this time I am going to call a 10 minute
break and after which certain people have indicate;d ' that they
(3121652 1599
cb/53
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
53
wish to make comments and we will call those people. Ten
minute recess.
(Whereupon/ a short recess was taken.)
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: On the record. At this
time I would like to call out the various people who have
indicated that they have statements to make or comments to
make/ and I would like to call Mayor Terry Gratz .
MR. GRATZ: I will pass at this time.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much/ Mr.
Mayor. Mr. Glenn Barnes.
MALE VOICE: He done left.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: He left already?
MALE VOICE: Yeah.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Mr. Bob Wilson.
Yes.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, you can just
stay where you are. Okay, thank you.
My question is this, gentlemen, these
five proposals you have given to us is based on what it is
going to take us to supposedly make the landfill safe for ai
while at least. From what I am getting, we are not sure
whether it is going to last long, but the big question I have
for you is this. The County and the City is primary
responsible for this landfill. And my question, will you go
after the people that also dumped the hazardous waste material
(312) 652.1599
cb/54
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
54
into the dump or are we going be responsible for the whole
bill?
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Wilson. Can you answer that?
MR. LARSON: Was that a statement or a question.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: That was apparently a
question.
That was a question.
MS. HYDE: We are gathering information and entering
into negotiations with people other than the City and County
who were responsible for disposal at the landfill. We are
currently doing that right now.
MR. WILSON: So you are not telling me that we are
still not going to be held responsible/ the taxpayers of the
County/ I am saying to you.
MS. HYDE: The taxpayers? It is the City of
Belvidere and the Boone County Conservation District in
addition to some others are all being negotiated with to
determine if we can get a settlement. If we do not get a
settlement/ then we/ USEPA and Illinois EPA will start the
process and start paying for it. At some later date/ we will
probably come back and try to get our money back from the
group of people.
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Thank you very rcuch.
(312)652 !599
cb/55
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
55
Have you got anything else to say, Mr. —
No,that is fine.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Okay. Are there any more
statements or comments that people wish to make at this time?
Can I say something?
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Could you
state your name for the record, please.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Yes,sir.
As long as this landfill is out here,
there is going to be — is a hazard right now. A very
dangerous one. And it is going to be a potential hazard after
Mr. Orloff gets that other system installed. And we start
this flushing process, and according to what I have heard so
far from contractors and everybody else talking, this could
take up to a period of 10, 20, 30 years before this water gets
clean. In the meantime we all live on the Appleton Road on the
east side of this thing, and I was wondering if I could, the
ninutes of your meeting that we are requesting that Illinois
SPA come around and at least monitor the one — his well or my
to make — at least every two years to make sure that we
ire on the same side of the fence because, — we are a hell of
i nice people and we want to keep them around, you know.
MR. ORLOFF: I have a response to you. We do have a
lazardous waste monitoring program with houses within a half
(3121652-1599
cb/56
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
56
mile of a hazardous waste landfill either active or inactive.
However/ we have run out of money in that program/ and we
can't do that. I don't know if under the Superfund law we can
come in and monitor your wells/ except under that present law
if we get money to do that again.
Wouldn't monitoring our wells be part of
the Superfund monitoring system?
MR. ORLOFF: It could be. Okay/ yes, I am told.
MS. HYDE: If we don't monitor your wells/ we can at
least put monitoring wells up at an equal area on the side.
That is right. A couple of ours/ East
Well/ that is all we care.
MR. LARSON: Good comment.
MR. ORLOFF: You got it.
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS:
comments or questions? Okay. There apparently being no more
comments or questions/ I would like to thank everybody for
coming here tonight and their cooperation at this hearing.
The record will remain open until midnight June the
6th/ 1988 for submission of written comments. Written
comments need not be notarized and should be sent to the
attention of the Agency Hearing Officer/ that is myself. And
ny address is on the last page of the agenda there. It is
John D. Williams/ Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Are there any more
(3121652-1599
cb/57
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
57
2200 Churchill Road, P. O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276. My phone number is there also, area code
. So if you remember something by gosh, I forgot
to say this at the hearing, I think it is important/ okay,
write it in a letter, send it to me, and we will enter that in
the record.
And as a I say all your comments tonight or
questions that we will be responding to. We will be sending
out Responsiveness Summary to everybody who has registered
here tonight, and hopefully providing we can read your hand-
writing and address, we will send you a copy of the
Responsiveness Summary.
I would like to again thank everybody on behalf of
Illinois EPA Director Bernard Killian and on behalf of the
Regional Director of the USEPA, Mr. Val Adamkus. On behalf of
the Illinois EPA, Division of Land Pollution Control Manager,
Mr. William Child. On behalf of the staff here present, both
of the USEPA and the Illinois EPA, thank you very much for
coming, and also from Randolph the Reindeer and his family.
Thank you very much. The hearing is closed.
(Whereupon, at 8:48 p.m., the hearing was
concluded. )
(312) 652-1599
cb/58 58
'
HEARIKC; DA7L:June 2, 1988
LOCATION: Belvidere, Illinois
CASE NUMBER:IEPA #8973
CASE TITLE: Belvidere Municipal Landfill#!/ Superfund Remediation ProjectRemedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/DS)
I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence
herein are contained fully and accurately on tape and notes
reported by me at the hearing in the above case before
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same.
DATE:
/)Official Reporter
BENGSTON ENTERPRISES
Cicero, Illinois 60650(312) 652-1599
