COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE RECORD OF DEC ISION AMENDMENT…

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE RECORD OF DEC ISION AMENDMENT
OPERABLE UNITS TWO AND THREE BENNETT'S DUMP


INTRODUCTION

The Proposed Plan mentions on the first page, first paragraph, that the Preferred Remedial
Alternative addresses PCB contamination in groundwater, surface water and sediment at
Bennett's Dump Site. Further on, same paragraph, it says: First, the proposed remedy requires
the capture and treatment of PCB-contaminated groundwater that is presently being released into
Stout's Creek through several springs at Bennett's Dump, and , Second, the proposed remedy
requires the drainage of water-filled quarries that presently serve to re-charge the contaminated
groundwater system below the site.

        As you read on, you learn that sediment, mentioned in the first sentence as part of the
Preferred Remedial Alternative has been removed from further consideration because EPA has
determined that it does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Yet
later on within the Proposed Plan the word "sediment" is referred to in a way that seems to make
EPA ambivalent about Sediment.

      In the same paragraph, and in the third reference to the Preferred Remedial Alternative,
EPA informs the public that it was selected not only because of:

                its overall protection of human health and the environment but also because it
               was deemed to be the best choice in light of its long-term (and short-term)
               effectiveness, its reduction of toxicity, its implementability and its cost.

        EPA's braggadocio (and wholesale promises) for its Preferred Remedial Alternative on
the front page of the Proposed Plan, smacks of mind control, while its Preferred Alternative
which we find eventually on page 12, turns out to be, after 7 or 8 years of global negotiations
with CBS/VIACOM, a hypothetical non-remedy, although assuredly cost-effective for the
Principal Responsible Party!

       The Remedial Action Objectives, 3 in number, were not encouraging:

               ----- Reduce the amount of PCBs released from groundwater to Stout's Creek
                      through mass reduction.

               ----- Improve PCB levels in fish for beneficial reuse by reducing PCBs released
                      to Stout's Creek

               ----- Reduce the amount of PCB mass in sediments that may be available to fish
                     by reducing PCBs released to Stout's Creek.

       "Reduce" is the key word, but how much reduction of "PCB levels" will it take to make
them edible again in Stout's Creek where the fish have been essentially inedible since
Westinghouse started dumping capacitors at Bennett's Quarry Dump nearly 40 years ago. This is
supposed to be a "final Remedial Action" for cleanup of Bennett's Dump. The Proposed Remedy
should be capable of making fish edible again in Stout's Creek.


EPA OFFICIALS FRUSTRATED BY FAILURE OF SOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT
ONE EXCAVATIONS IN 1999 OF BENNETT'S QUARRY DUMP and NEAL's LANDFILL,
AND THE EXCAVATION OF LEMON LANE LANDFILL IN 2000

        We looked for but did not find in the current Proposed Plan any reference of EPA in
their rather extensive coverage of the excavation in 2000 of Bennett's Dump, which consisted of
removal of 36,172 tons of PCB-contaminated material and 1, 756 capacitors.(pages 2 and 3),
that THE EXCAVATION HAD FAILED.

        There was no news release of this failure, however, until March 16, 2003 when the
Herald-Times of Bloomington carried a news article with the headline PCBs STILL PRESENT
AT BENNETT'S DUMPS. This did not seem an adequate headline in terms of the content of the
news release but the sub-title was appropriate, noting OFFICIALS FRUSTRATED BY
FAILURE OF CLEANUPS. Tom Alcamo, EPA's Program Manager for the cleanup of the
Monroe County / City of Bloomington ( MC / CB) PCB-National Priority List Sites is quoted as
saying:

               "We expected when we did the Bennett's Dump remedy that the water would
                clean up, or at least the levels would be reduced." but, "We have not seen that"

        Actually the scope of removal of 36,172 tons of PCB-contaminated wastes and 1, 756
capacitors may seem impressive (although 55,000 cubic yards was estimated in the 1998 Plan)
but not in the context of failure. The fact that PCBs are discharging into Stout's Creek at THE
SAME HIGH LEVEL AS BEFORE THE CLEANUP, places a particularly heavy burden on
Operable Units Two and Three to compensate for the failure of Operable Unit 1.

.       Alcamo remarked in the same H-T news article that there were probably still bigger
issues to deal with at the other two sites (Lemon Lane Landfill and Neal's Landfill), for:

               "After heavy rains, water carrying high levels of PCBs flushes from springs near
                the dumps."

       We consider these failures of real significance, because EPA seemed to believe from
various statements they have made in the past about Operable Units Two and Three that they
were counting on them to take up the slack left by Operable Unit One's failure.

        It's difficult if not impossible to see that happening without considerably more effort on
the part of CBS/VIACOM to identify or at least recognize that the parts they did not "study" in
their limited (and unacceptable) scope of contamination studies for "hotspots" have come back
to haunt them at Bennett's Dump, Neal's Landfill, and Lemon Lane Landfill.
        EPA needs to recognize that the scope of contamination study of Neal's Landfill was a
sham. Tetra Tech who performed the excavation recognized the fact that the entire landfill was
contaminated with PCBs and poor identification and recovery of "hotspots" at a 500 ppm level
would not do the job. The scope of contamination study of Lemon Lane Landfill covered less
than half of that dump even though they knew the entire Landfill was highly contaminated.

        The On Scene Coordinator and the TAT Team immediately recognized in 1983 that
Bennett's Dump was heavily contaminated with PCBs, especially in terms of the extensive
scavenging of capacitors for well on to 20 years? Region V EPA recognized the need for
immediate action and committed funding ($250,000) for a removal action of large outdoor
capacitors (252 removed from the surface along with contaminated soils, ending with capping
of the site, which occurred four years in advance of the capping and other interim remedial
actions at Neal's Landfill and Lemon Lane Landfill in 1987.

         The scope of contamination study and Unit One excavation at Bennett's, if one reads the
PSARA Technologies, Inc. Report, seems well planned, but they did discover three deep quarry
pits with capacitor parts and PCB contaminated soils which they did not excavate. John Foster
who capped Bennett's Dump Area, noted that he had seen quite a few Quarry pits like those
three that had been used as dumps for capacitors and capacitor parts (along with a very mixed
type of dumping) prior to Ed Bennett pouring rubble and fill over them to disguise them.

       It appears now that the contamination at Bennett's is more widespread than expected, and
they may not have excavated as much within the part of Bennett's Dump that is fenced, or
surrounding area that may have other quarry pits used as dumps for capacitors, or caches of
capacitors within or without the dump area. Whatever, the hydrology is complex in this KARST
AREA, and decades have passed since it was used as a place for dumping and scavenging of
capacitors giving time for PCBs to infiltrate, possibly extensively, the limestone bedrock.

        Given so many scientific uncertainties, it seems time to bring some karst hydrologists in
to study the Bennett's Dump Area prior to a decision to construct an engineering solution that is
only conceptual and has not even reached a preliminary planning stage.


SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

       Alternative 1 and 2 are meaningless as "Alternatives".

       Alternative 3 is meaningless by itself, and what EPA states it could be used for in
       conjunction with Wedge Quarry complex, seems spurious.

       Alternative 4 is meaningful in the sense that three buried quarry pits discovered in the
2000 excavation of Bennett's Dump would be excavated and the sites cleaned up. Hopefully
since EPA notes that "the buried quarry pits ON AND NEAR THE SITE contain "residual"
PCBs" that are contributing to the PCBs in the Springs, that they will search for more and
excavate them but that is only a part of the PCB contamination problem at Bennett's.
       Alternative 5 is EPA's Preferred Remedial Alternative: PASSIVE QUARRY DRAINS
with INTERCEPTOR TRENCH and CARBON TREATMENT. This is entirely
CONCEPTUAL (an IDEA), which EPA freely admits. Where is the evidence that it will work?
We learn that its design will depend on a pre-design study with the initial installation of the
passive quarry drain system to determine how groundwater flow and PCB contamination are
affected by the passive quarry design system The interceptor trench WOULD THEN BE
DESIGNED BASED UPON THE PRE-DESIGN STUDY . But what if the passive quarry drain
system itself proves flawed or inadequate for the purpose for which it was designed?

        The conceptual "design" of the Interceptor Trench (Figure 5). Conceptual approach for
the interceptor trench) would be to locate the trench along the east side of Stout's Creek and be
approximately 800-feet long and 8 feet deep. This trench would collect all discharges from the
springs at the site, as well as collect contaminated groundwater that may be emerging from
springs in and along Stout's Creek. It has been assumed that groundwater flow would be a
maximum of 100 gallons per minute during storm events.

         Will an 8 foot deep trench, given the depth of the quarries and the groundwater in that
area be sufficient? It would seem to need to be deeper to capture all discharges from the springs
at the site as well as collect contaminated groundwater that may be emerging from springs in and
along Stout's Creek.

        One thing never mentioned from first to last in the Proposed Plan but of utmost
significance that must be considered, is the high rate of volatilization of PCBs from water
especially when turbulent, and the principal goal of Alternative 5 is the capture of PCB-
contaminated water and groundwater that would be turbulent during storms. The interceptor
trench is supplied with pumps and pumps create turbulence too when moving water along.

        Additionally to be considered d is the nature of the four springs within Bennett's Dump
Site: Middle Spring, Mound Spring, North Spring, and Middle-North Spring, (and an additional
spring (Rusty) within the channel of Stout's Creek) for it states on the front page of the PP:
:
               "The proposed remedy requires the capture and treatment of PCB-contaminated
                groundwater that is presently being released into Stout's Creek THROUGH
               SEVERAL SPRINGS AT BENNETT'S DUMP. and, on page 5 notes:

               None of these springs flow continuously and there is seasonal variation in the
               spring flow regime. Both Mid-North and North Springs flow for only brief
               periods during extremely wet periods while Mound and Middle Springs flow
               consistently except during extremely dry periods.

       Gareth Davies, a Karst Hydrologist and a consultant of COPA, has read the Geology and
Hydrology Section of the Proposed Plan, pages 5 and 6 and notes regarding the constant flow or
discontinuous flow of springs:

               Since all the springs at the site cease flowing and it is likely that the aquifer does
               not cease flowing and the springs are of the "overflow" type, that therefore the
               "baseflow" must be discharging elsewhere. If this base flow component has not
               been identified it will have to be if the migration and discharge of contaminants
               are to be properly understood. Smart (1982) and Worthington, 1991) describe
               overflow and underflow springs, but a century earlier Martel (1893) did so also,
               so there is nothing surprising and strange about this phenomenon. The vertical
               hierarchical nature of surface discharge from carbonates may qualify as one of the
               most misinterpreted phenomenon in hydrogeology. A spring can be recognized as
               an overflow type by a large variation in discharge or by the fact that the spring
               ceases to discharge at any time. A baseflow or underflow spring has a constant
               discharge and discharges constantly.

        We cannot accept assertions EPA makes about their Preferred Remedial Alternative in
their Summary on page 18:

                This alternative was selected over the other alternatives since it is expected to
               achieve substantial and long term risk reduction through the capture and treatment
               of contaminated groundwater and minimize the PCBs released to Stout's Creek.

       Saying that it is "expected" to achieve great things and "minimize" (whatever that
means) the release of PCBs is not saying it will do so. Actually not a single Alternative is
acceptable as a final remedial action. EPA is asking us to buy a "pig in a poke", to accept a
conceptual cost-effective engineering proposal in a complex KARST situation. We have heard it
said over and over, not as an Old Wives Tale, but from Karst Hydrologists and Geologists, that
you can't control Karst, you can't manipulate KARST, you can't predict what KARST will do
when you impact it in any way, shape or form...

      What we see in EPA's Conceptual Plan is Murphy's Law just waiting to happen. It
abounds in so many scientific uncertainties that there is little to say besides the fact it is
unacceptable.

       We ask that Alternative 5 be withdrawn from consideration as a final Remedial Action at
Bennett's Quarry Dump and it be replaced with the objective of COMPLETE REMOVAL OF
PCB-CONTAMINATED SOILS and other materials remaining on site at the PCB-Superfund
National Priority List Sites of Bennett's Quarry Dump, Lemon Lane Landfill and Neal's Landfill
and consideration of water treatment as a follow-up residual removal action at these Sites.

       ·       COMPLETE REMOVAL OF PCBs FROM ALL OF THE PCB SUPERFUND
               SITES of Monroe County /City of Bloomington (MC / CB) was the GOAL and
               CORNERSTONE of the Consent Decree (CD) and unanimously recommended by
               the Scientific Consultants advising Region V EPA during development of the
               Consent Decree. MC / CB Citizens approved completely of that provision and
               supported it then and ever since.


EPA ABANDONS COMPLETE EXCAVATION OF THE PCB SUPERFUND NATIONAL
PRIORITY LIST SITES OF NEAL'S LANDFILL AND LEMON LANE LANDFILL
REQUIRED BY THE CONSENT DECREE               .
       It was a shocking and discouraging when we learned from a document in the Monroe
County Public Library (MCPL), REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND SPECIAL MASTER, signed by Judge Hugh Dillin on Feb 1,
1999 under D. OUTSTANDING ISSUES, page 5:

              The governments contend that the parties agreed or understood that the
              consideration of water treatment and sediment removal were integral to the
              targeted excavation scheme planned for Lemon Lane Landfill and Neal's Landfill
              as an alternative to the now-abandoned complete excavation required in the
              Consent Decree. The governments want the issues of water treatment and
              sediment removal to be discussed on the scientific and technical merit of what
              will protect public health and the environment; other wise, the extent of the
              current targeted excavation scheme must be re-examined and possibly reopened if
              significant public and environment health risks remain after targeted excavations.

        The Report goes on to say that CBS agreed to negotiate about additional water treatment
and sediment removal, but did not want to relinquish defenses under the Consent Decree in
advance of a consensus and did not want to face the risk of demands for additional excavations
after having negotiated and completed expensive targeted excavations.

        Actually the targeted excavations were based on unrepresentative scope of contamination
studies that the public rejected and the excavations FAILED TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, leaving the public at as great a risk as before the excavations.
EPA did nothing but admit their failure as noted previously in these Comments and did not
require CBS to do further excavations.


JOINT STATUS REPORT AND ANTICIPATED TIMETABLE FOR THE PROPOSAL AND
SELECTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES AND THE RESOLUTION OF
OUTSTANDING CLAIMS

        EPA never notified the public of their ABANDONMENT OF COMPLETE REMOVAL
REQUIRED BY THE CONSENT DECREE in a news release to the Herald-Times, which is the
best source to notify the general public of what they had done, with EPA in full knowledge of the
fact the public wanted complete removal for Neal's Landfill, Lemon Lane Landfill and Bennett's
Dump, MC /CB's PCB National Priority List Sites as an integral part of the Consent Decree.

       A Joint Status Report and Anticipated Timetable for the Proposal and Selection of
Remedial Alternatives and the Resolution of Outstanding Claims, from Joseph W. C. Warren,
Environmental Enforcement Division, U.S. Department of Justice Division, Washington, D.C.
was signed and issued on January 13, 2005.

Under BACKGROUND, the opening statement reads: "The unique posture of this case arises out
of the joint decision in 1994 to suspend implementation of the remedy set forth in the Consent
Decree (CD) entered by the Court in 1985. This was reference to the rejection of the public to
incineration as a remedy and subsequent amendments to a number of PCB Superfund Sites that
had been cleaned up.

On page 3, the Joint Status Report notes that the parties had not agreed upon all potential
elements of an alternative remedy for additional water treatment at and sediment removal at
Neal's Landfill (NL), and Lemon Lane Landfill. Note 2 at the bottom of the page said that
Bennett's Dump was not included in discussions about groundwater contamination because EPA
believed that the excavation would eliminate any threat, but since the excavation had failed they
were now investigating groundwater and surface water.

        We oppose Water Treatment per se, or Water Treatment coupled with sediment removal
for Final Remedial Action for the 3 NPL Sites and believe COMPLETE REMOVAL is still the
answer for the NPL Sites over KARST.

         Cost-effectiveness was the deciding factor in Operable Unit 1 for Neal's Landfill and
Lemon Lane Landfill and failed and COST should not take precedent over Protection of Public
Health and the Environment in decision-making. Still it did again in choosing water treatment as
the final Remedial Action for Bennett's Dump.

        In fact we have seen no further action to make its "abandonment" of Complete Removal;
legal by an Amendment to the Consent Decree. The Joint Status Report States, page 4:

       EPA is required by its regulations at 40 CFR Section 400.435(c) to amend its original
remedial decision authorizing the actions set forth in the 1985 Decree. Specifically EPA's
Regulations require it to publish for public comment a proposed record of decision ("ROD")
amendment for each site, setting forth the new alternative remedy for the site.

       This seems to indicate that EPA did not consider Complete Removal as an integral part of
the CD Remedy and qualifying for an Amendment. On the other hand Complete Removal is
what the public wanted adhered to as part of any remedial action and to consider alternatives as
required in an RI / FS for treatment.

        EPA seems to consider at this point Water Treatment an end in itself. There has never
been a Public Hearing on the Illinois Central Spring Water Treatment Plant although one was
promised at the January Public Hearing on the excavation of Lemon Lane Landfill "at a later
date" Nearly six years have passed without a Hearing although it has been mentioned many
times at CIC meetings that an improved version is being prepared.


PCBs. HIGHLY VOLATILE IN WATER AND SEDIMENT AND EVEN FROM
CONTAMINATED SOILS AS PROVEN IN THE LEMON LAND LANE EXCAVATION

EPA does not mention PCBs remarkable ability to volatilize as vapor into our environment in the
present Proposed Plan for Water Treatment as a final remedial action at Bennett's Dump
mentioning they would be addressing PCB-contamination only in surface water and ground
water. Nor did they address PCBs ability to volatilize in considering Action Specific or
Chemical Specific ARARS except to state under short-term effectiveness that Alternative 4 has
the highest potential for short-term risk due to the excavation of PCBs and other hazardous
constituents which may VOLATILIZE into the air and noting air monitoring at the excavation
perimeter and worker monitoring will occur to ensure the protection of public health and the
environment. Such "protective" measures did not protect public health during a considerable
part of the excavation of LLL. We request that before final RODs are issued on each NPL Site
that a detailed Plan for control of air emissions be submitted to the public for review with
sufficient time for comments.
        .
Sarah Elizabeth Frey
2625 S. Smith Rd.
Bloomington, IN 47401
812-336-5777