originaloriginal the united states environmental protection agency-region iii in re: : avtex fibers...
TRANSCRIPT
ORIGINALTHE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY-REGION III
IN RE: :
AVTEX FIBERS SUPERFUND SITE :
PUBLIC MEETING :
August 22, 1990
.*,.• , : Front Royal, Virginia
The above-entitled matter came on for a public
hearing beginning at approximately 7:05 p.m., at the
Front Royal Youth Center, 201 East 8th Street, Front
( j , Royal, Virginia.. - . . ; • ; •
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE EPA:
WILLIAM W. TOFFELCommunity Relations Coordinator
BONNIE GUY GROSSRemedial Project Manager
BOB CARONOn-Scene Coordinator
AR5000I6STABNER COURT REPORTING CO.
13 So. Loudoun Street Rt. 1, Box 2535Winchester, VA 22601 Front Royal, VA 22630
(703) 667-3704 (703) 635-9425
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r i 22j _ I
2
<.
MR. TOFFEL: I would like to say good evening
and welcome you for a discussion on the proposed plan
for the Avtex Fibers, Front Royal. We are going to have
a little discussion as to what is taking place.
But first I would like to introduce the folks
that are here this evening. Bonnie Guy Gross is our
Remedial Project Manager. Next to me is Bob Caron. He
is the On-Scene Coordinator.
I am Bill Toff el. I am the Community
Relations Coordinator. And we have some representatives
also from EPA. Bill Hagel is here. He is the Sections v
Chief in Waste Management Division for Virginia and West
Virginia.
From the State of Virginia, we have a number
of people here. Jamie Walters is my counterpart in
community relations. I am sure a number of you will
want to talk to Jamie.
Bob Wynn, the Project Officer from the State
of Virginia for this particular site, and John Horin,
the Remedial Project Manager is here. I see Mr. George
of the County, and I am sure some other city and town
and county officials will be here. jtocnnn i
J
j
;
1 We welcome everyone.
2 I would like to tell you that this is a formal
3 meeting. It is recorded by a court reporter and all of
4 this will go in the record.
5 I would like you to know that this plan and
6 all the materials related to this site can be reviewed
7 at the repository that is located over at the Samuels
8 Public Library. That's at 538 Villa Avenue, here in
9 Front Royal.
10 You are invited to review this material, make
[ , 11 comment on this proposed plan and we will accept
12 comments until September 14, 1990.
13 It was formally published. It was in the
14 Northern Virginia Daily on the 14th of this month, so
15 there is a 30 day period in which it is open. Your
16 comments should be sent to me, Bill Toffel, or to Bonnie
17 Guy Gross, at 841 Chestnut Street in Philadelphia. The
18 zip is 19107.
19 There are some .cards on the table, and there
20 is that address in the proposed plan. So if you have
21 comments and wish to send them, you can either refer to
22 that or come up and we will give you the address «flf 5000 I 8
n 4 01 I did mention the court reporter. This
2 meeting does become a part of the public record. That
3 is why the reporter is here this evening.
4 I would ask that your questions, and we will
5 have an opportunity for questions pertaining to the
6 formal presentation about the proposed plan.
7 We understand there are concerns about the
8 odor that emanates from the site. There are other
9 questions and concerns, and we will address those, but
10 we would like to do that after the formal portion of the
i_I 11 meeting. We will stay around as long as we have to, to \
12 talk about those questions.
13 There will be a responsiveness summary. We
14 will answer all the pertinent questions that we receive,
15 those questions that come in by the 14th of September,
16 and they will also be placed in the repository.
17 Superfund, a situation such as Love Canal, led
18 to the enactment of the very formal title called the
19 Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
20 Liability Act, CERCLA. It all boils down to the common
21 term, Superfund. About ten years ago, in 1980, it was
r -n 22 enacted.
AR5000I9
1 Now, his law provided a broad federal
2 authority and resources to respond directly to releases
3 or threatened releases of hazardous substances that
4 could endanger human health or the environment, and that
5 law, well, as I say, was enacted ten years ago.
6 We had amendments to that law known as SARA,
7 in 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
8 Act was enacted. This reauthorized the program for five
9 years. It increased the fund to $8.5 billion, and it
10 put some teeth into the enforcement actions that we have
11 available to us today. n
12 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
13 the primary responsibility for the managing the clean up
14 and enforcement activities under Superfund.
15 The comprehensive regulation known as the
16 National Contingency Plan describes the guidelines and
17 procedures for implementing this law. Every Superfund
18 site is unique. Clean-ups have to be tailored to
19 specific needs of each site, because the releases of
20 hazardous substances is different at each site.
21 EPA makes a .concerted efforts to encourage
22 those responsible to pay ffor the clean up. Howfivntn^fn O n
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10ii 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r-i 221 _ 1
6
^
an immediate problem threatens human health, the welfare
or the environment, EPA will take actions.
Now, if efforts to ensure responsible party
response do not seem to prompt action, and EPA's
determination is that actions are necessary, then EPA
can initiate what is called a removal action.
That is a good bit of what has been happening
here at the Avtex site. We have been under a removal
action for almost a year.
These are short-term or so-called short-term
actions to clean up the hazardous site that poses a
threat to human health or the environment. This could
be just the removal of tanks or drums or in some cases a
train derailment or an overturned tractor-trailer, a
removal team would go out.
The situation at Avtex is slightly different.
It is extremely involved, yet we were still under what
is called a removal process.
The second portion of that is called the
remedial action. This is the study , the design, the
construction, the long term, and usually much more
expensive action aimed at a permanent remedy. And tlQu? . .
J
J
J
1 is the phase we are starting to go into now.
2 Bonnie is going to explain the proposed plans
3 for one of the steps of this remedial action.
4 The states have always been encouraged to
5 participate in the Superfund process and states are more
6 formally involved today than ever before in the
7 selection, the initiation, the development of the
8 remedial responses.
9 EPA must develop state participation
10 regulations that will provide for a number of
[ i 11 opportunities to participate, including review, comment
12 on planned documents, involvement in long-term planning
13 activities and participation in negotiations.
14 You should know that we are working very closely
15 with the State of Virginia on this particular site.
16 Based on the principal that the polluter
17 should pay, Superfund contains authorities which allow
18 EPA to ensure that those responsible for hazardous waste
19 problems pay for the clean up.
20 Superfund enforcement authorities enable EPA
21 to encourage responsible parties to undertake clff fffityQ Q 9 9
22 activities and recover fund monies spent for clean up
JR500022
n O1 from those responsible parties.
2 The clean up actions, in case of imminent
3 hazard to human health or the environment, Superfund
4 authorizes EPA to order the responsible party to
5 undertake necessary actions to control that threat.
6 To accomplish this, the agency can either
7 issue an administrative order or bring a civil action
8 against the responsible party. The new Superfund
9 provides specific procedures for negotiating
10 settlements.
I_1 11 Because the people in the community with the N-X
12 Superfund site personally face the hazardous waste
13 problems associated with that site, EPA encourages
14 community residents to participate in the process of
15 determining the best way to clean it up.
16 To ensure effective and substantive two-way
17 communication from the outset. At each remedial
18 response site, a community relations program is tailored
19 to local circumstances, and often EPA or state staff
20 will interview residents, local officials, civic
21 leaders, learning all they can about the site in jj o ut
r -i 22 the community concerns.
r
1 In this case, we had a community relations
2 plan that was started quiet a few years ago. And,
3 frankly, it's outdated, so we are in the process of
4 doing a new community relations plan.
5 This is not necessary under a removal action.
6 In this case, Avtex is unique. We are moving into the
7 remedial stage so we are doing a community relations
8 plan.
9 Many of you will probably be interviewed by
10 myself in association with someone from Booz, Alien,
[) 11 learning just how you feel about the situation, what has
12 been happening in the past what, may happen in the
13 future.
14 EPA is also required to publish a notice and
15 brief analysis of the proposed remedial action plan.
16 There are copies over here—that is what we are trying
17 to do tonight—provide an opportunity for the public to
18 comment on that plan, provide an opportunity for a :
19 public meeting to allow for two-way communication on the
20 remedial action of this plan.
21 We must make a copy of the transcript fj^QQQPtl
r 22 public meeting available to the public, and prepare a
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10iI 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r -i 221 __ 1
10v^
response to each significant comment made on the
proposed remedial action plan. That is what is taking
place this evening. This will all be available at the
repository in the library.
Community relations activities are somewhat
different during a removal action, where human health
and environment must be protected from an immediate
threat.
During the initial phase of these response
actions, the agency's primary responsibility is to finform the community about actions being taken and the ^
possible effect on the community.
Back around Thanksgiving, it wasn't quite as
formal as we are doing it now, with a community
relations plan. We set up a headquarters in this
building. We went around door to door. We worked
through WFTR and worked the Northern Virginia Daily. We
worked through the newspapers. We walked and talked
with everyone to let you know what was going on here
when we had a situation that was less than optimum. But
now we are going into a very formal process to keeo jfou
informed.v.
J
j
j
u12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L 1112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
, 22
11
There is another item I should inform you
about. We have a grant program to make funding for
technical assistance available to those who may be
affected by a release, and the purpose of this grant is
to help concerned citizens understand and interpret
technical information.
Some of the materials you will see over in
that repository, it would take you — well, I am not a
technical person. It takes a technical person to go
through and understand and interpret all of the data
that is in there. It's all there, all the testing that
has been done at this site.
But there is money available through what ist ' ,
called a TAG grant. There are certain prerequisites in
order to get this TAG grant. It can be up to $50,000.
The grant recipient must contribute at least 20 percent
of the total cost of that grant, but I should let you
know that that is available.• • £' • ' - .
I am being a lot more formal than I normally
would at a public meeting, but I know that we have to
get these things across in a very specific manner to you
this evening. AR500026
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
312
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r-i 22LJ
12
What I would like to do now is introduce
Bonnie and let her go through the proposed plan and what
we have available to us.
MS. GROSS: As Bill said, what I am here to do
is explain to you the proposed remedial action we would
like to take at the site.
What I will do first is I will give you a
little bit of background, history, real brief, go
through the preferred alternative and the goals of what
we want to do out there, and conclude it and open it up
for questions.
You have copies of these overheads. If you
can't see them, you can follow along with those.
As I am sure most of you are aware, this is
the Avtex site. It covers approximately 440 acres.
And, just for clarification purposes, we are going to be
talking about actions to take place on the plant portion
of the property, and that is going to be — this is a
railroad line and the tracks, it will be above the
railroad tracks.
EPA first got involved in this site back in
1982 when the Virginia Water Control Board found groundAR500027 "
)
;
;
13
1 water contamination on the west banks of the Shenandoah
2 River in the Rivermont Acres home wells, over here.
3 Following the discovery of that contamination
4 some of the major activities that have taken place—and
5 these really are just some highlights—in '82, the
6 ground water contamination was discovered, which led to
7 an RIPS and a first operable unit ROD.; - j',..; '''
8 First operable unit dealt with to address the
9 ground water contamination problem that the Virginia
10 Water Control Board originally discovered.
11 And what that did was that it selected a
12 remedy that called for dewatering of three viscose
13 basins, which lets me just kind of bring you back here
14 so you can see what we are talking about. These are
15 down in the disposal area right in here, and pumping
16 ground water.
17 Following that, we issued an administrativei , ^ . ... :
18 order to two of the responsible parties to implement the'" ' •' ." 'V ' ' : . . . '
19 ROD. We are currently in the work plan stage to
20 implement this remedy.
21 In November of '89, Avtex's discharge permit
U22 was revoked following enforcement actions by theAR500028
C
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10f\ 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r -i 22i _ 1
14 J^
Commonwealth of Virginia. Following the revocation of
the permit, the facility was abandoned and EPA initiated
an emergency action.
The removal action took place to stabilize a
lot of the contaminated chemicals that were left onsite.
It also maintained freeboard and the sulf ate basins in
the disposal area to protect the Shenandoah River from
continued contamination.
Based on a lot of the work that has been done
by the removal program, we have developed another
operable able unit which is a long-term, what we V
consider to be a more of a long term action to deal with
some of the long term threats.
If you look in your proposed plan, the
proposed plan evaluated only two alternates, basically
taking inaction versus taking no action at this time.
Typically the remedial program goes through a
remedial investigation study which are detailed studies
and evaluate four or five alternatives.
In this case, we have some actions we can take
on specific things that didn't need a lot of design. SoM flRSOOOZPwhat we are doing is we are calling it accelerated - - - . . . T
V-
Fio^nnn^ft
•,j
j
j
15
1 action.
2 The preferred action addresses ground waste.
3 Approximately 2900 drums have been stabilized and
4 secured and put in a building within the Avtex plant.
5 They now require identification to verify what is in the
6 drums, transportation and disposal.
7 PCB's were also found at the Avtex site,
8 based on some PCS sampling that was initiated in the
9 river. We found two places onsite that contained PCB
10 contaminated soils near the polyester area and the coal
11 yard.
12 This action would allow us to excavate
13 approximately five thousand cubic yards of the PCB
14 contaminated soils and take it to an approved chemical
15 waste land fill for disposal. The action also addresses
16 the acid reclaim facility.
17 The facility structure is in poor condition
18 and continued degradation of the building through the
19 normal weathering process presents a hazard, due to
20 collapse.
21 What we propose to do here is dismantle frB 500030
22 building and demolish the outside structure. Any parts
ARi00030
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r -i 221 __ 1
16
-
that can be resold for value would be sold by the
trustee, who currently is running the site for Avtex,
and some facility components could be sold as scrap.
The rest of the rubble and debris would be left onsite.
And the final element is really contingency,
continued site security control, maintenance, health and
safety. Currently, the trustee is providing this.
It offers protection to human health and environment for
the workers who are currently working on the site.
It also allows us to maintain fire protection,
ventilation systems, and basically to maintain the-
critical systems to keep this plant running and to
prevent any further releases of hazardous substances.
We added this as a contingency because if the
trustee can no longer provide this, we would have the
mechanism to go right in and implement these activities.
The goals of the proposed remedial actions
include the elimination of potential releases of
hazardous substances, specifically the substances that
are contained in drums.
Continued degradation of the building throughAR50003I
the weathering process and an eventual collapse would • -
^
17
1 cause the release of hazardous substances. We want to
2 eliminate that possibility.
3 The potential collapse of the acid reclaim
4 facility could affect other nearby process buildings
5 which still contain hazardous substances in vessels and
6 process lines.
7 By removing the PCB soils, we also eliminate
8 potential migration of hazardous substances,
9 specifically PCB's into the sewer system, which is
10 currently diverted now into sulfate basins.
i j 11 A good rain or a good flood, right now, that
12 could go into the Shenandoah River, even though FMC is
13 maintaining freeboard, a good storm presents the
14 possibility of introducing more contamination into the
15 Shenandoah River.
16 Dismantling and demolishing acid reclaim
17 facility really provides two benefits to us.
18 It eliminates the safety hazard that would be
19 presented if the facility collapsed. It currently
20 exists as an obstacle for future investigations.
21 We believe this facility to be a siSnif i Pfrl f) f) O p
r i 22 source of ground water contamination. Due to itsO ' ''•"""."
AR§00032
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10r ~|1 _ 1 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r -i 221 _ 1
18
^
structural instability, we can't go in there and assess
the ground water condition until we get rid of the
building. So this would allow us to do a more
comprehensive evaluation, as we continue in our actions
at the site.
And finally, the proposed action would
eliminate a reduced potential direct contact threat by
continuing site safety control and maintenance, we
eliminate the possibility of having the public access to
the chemical and physical hazard which still exists at
the site. ^
Estimated costs: this ranges anywhere from $3
million to $1.350 million, as you can see here, and they
are broken down under each activity, keeping in mind
that the site security element here is really a
contingency, but we believe that the estimated costs for
this to be approximately $8.7 million.
In conclusion, I recommend the preference at
this time is to take an action. We think to take an
early action and to continue to deal with the problems
and tackle each one and get the site to a more
manageable state is really our preference.v_
flosnnm
J
J
j
3
j- T
U
19
1 It achieves the goals I Identified on a couple
2 of slides. It complies with our appropriate
3 requirements .
4 We are required to comply with other laws,-, *
5 such as the Resource Conservation Recovery Act and, in
6 this case, there are PCB's; we have to meet other laws
7 as to what we clean down to and where we dispose of the
8 PCB contaminated soils in a chemically approved
9 landfill. He will be doing that.
10 It also will allow us to do a more
11 comprehensive investigation by getting rid of the acid
12 reclaim facility, and it is consistent with future
13 remedial activities.- . -, .-i1
14 It will contribute to our long-term
15 performance at evaluating and cleaning up the site. The.* ,,i.
16 really good part about this is we feel we can complete
17 this all within a year.fl.:- --- • ., •
18 So it is going to be a quick action and we can
19 see some positive benefits as opposed to, you know, a
20 remedial program is really a long-term program and you
21 don't see things happen typically this quick. -***^.AR50003I*22 And, hopefully, I have made everything - - - -
i — . 20n1 perfectly clear. We will open it up to any other
2 questions that you might have.
3 MR. TOFFEL: Before you ask your questions, we
4 would appreciate it if you would state your name for the
5 record.
6 MR. GEORGE: I am Ron George, County
7 Administrator of Warren County.
8 In terms of the alternative, we are dealing
9 with none versus one. I assume that staff -wise there
10 were other alternatives considered or obviously there
i _ I 11 had to be something considered in order to come up with
12 this proposal.
13 Are there other things that — I guess when
14 those of us judge, again, a none versus one type of
15 solution, you look at, are there other things that could
16 be done in this first year that would be important that
17 for one reason or another were not included in this
18 proposal? How did this combination of proposal come to
19 be?
20 MS. GROSS: Well, it came to be, I think as I
21 said earlier, these were actions that didn't require a
22 lot of study or design to implement or remedy.r -i
G 21
1 Most of the situation, the things that exist
2 out there, still require design investigation. We are
3 still finding out about, new things every day.
4 So, in this case, we looked at some actions
5 that we could take that we knew didn't require a lot of
6 design and study time, something we could do quickly,
7 and that is how these came into play. These were some
8 obvious things we could do.
9 MR. GEORGE: So this doesn't preclude other
10 things being done in the future? This is basically the
[ , 11 short-term?\_s ' " .. t - - -12 MS. GROSS: .Yes, this is just a short-term
13 remedial action. Like I said, we still don't have a
14 handle on all of the problems that are out there and
15 there will be a number of more remedial actions to go
16 forth.
17 We have got the whole disposal area to deal
18 with yet. We have got a lot of the plant. There is a
19 lot more work to be done out there. This is just one
20 small piece.
21 MR. CARON: Ron, I will speak to also th(fc D C n n r> /-
r , 22 removal program, the emergency phase. We are not done.
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LJ 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r-i 22i _ I
22
^
Got plenty more work to do.
There are things there, it is a large
facility, it is complex. Time in itself will cause
things to become unstable and then make them
time-critical activities.
We would like to catch things. As I said, way
at the beginning, we are lucky in this site because it
didn't blow up or burn or do the normal things that I'm
used to. We are able to stop it before it actually
happens .
If we can evaluate process lines, structures i
inside the tank and identify things that will become
unstable as time goes, we can deal with them now under
the authorities of emergency, if it's appropriate.
These items, a lot of them you could make into
emergencies. A lot of them also are actions that we can
do with this mechanism in a much more planned approach,
much more formal approach.
I think what we really like about it, it does
allow public input. Now we are working through the
mechanisms we have had during the emergency. It's a
mechanism where we can bring in the input of tneflR500037
'-v
J
)
J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
affected populace in here into the decision-making. We
would like to do that.
MR. TOFFEL: Are there any other questions or
comments? Please.
MR. SEALOCK: Richard Sealock. How come it
took the EPA from 1982 when the ground water was
polluted on the other side of the river , how come it
took until 1988 to realize they had a problem with this
plant? Two questions: how come you haven't done any
study on the Shenandoah River as of yet?
MS. GROSS: ; Well", the Shenandoah River study
is planned in our next remedial investigation which we
will be starting in the next couple of months, where we
do the formal work.
We go through a long-term planning phase and
the Shenandoah River study will be part of that. EPA
goes through a process in order to get the site to where
it is now. !
What happens after 1982 when we found out
about the site, it goes into what we call the
pre-remedial program, 'and what happens there is the v d
a preliminary assessment, site investigation and" then go'
• -
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1 —— 1 221 __ 1
24
^
through a scoring procedure to rank this site for the
NPL, the National Priority List.
Once the site becomes on the National Priority
List, it becomes available for remedial investigation
studies to be done. So the site had to get up into the
NPL stage before any remedial investigation was done.
In this case, the responsible parties did the
remedial investigation, the first remedial investigation
that was done.
The contamination that was found across the
sJ
Shenandoah River were contaminates directly related to j
the disposal area on the Avtex property, those viscose
basins I was telling you about, that was what was
attributed to the ground water contamination.
So we had a negotiation process to go through
in order to even begin the remedial investigation. The
responsible parties did the remedial investigation which
took, I am not exactly sure of the time, approximately
two years.
And then we went through the record of
decision phase, and now we are into the design phase forAfl500039the implementation of the remedy. So there is a lot' of -^
J
25
1 different steps that go on in order to get it to the
2 point where it is now. The first study was really
3 limited in focus. :M
4 MR. CARON: I think also you need to
5 understand, we are not the only ones that take
6 enforcement actions when something like this is
7 discovered. ,
8 Back in '82, when the ground water
9 contamination was found, immediate steps taken by the
10 Commonwealth at that time were to have Avtex to provide
11 potable water; in other words, eliminate the threat of
12 people drinking the contaminated water. That was done
13 by the Commonwealth. So the people are immediately
14 protected by being given potable water.
15 As you are probably aware, Avtex later then
16 purchased the properties that removed the people from
17 the threat. That was the mechanism that they chose to
18 use.
19 Since the folks were, their immediate health
20 impacts were being handled by the Commonwealth
21 authorities, we are out of the emergency, I <*orfl$g^QQ^ Q
22 to respond. It's being handled by the state, and we can
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
\ 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r-i 22
26
V.
get into this evaluation of why we have a ground water
problem.
And, believe me, it's not small, it's a big
deal and it will require quite a lot of evaluation and
still more to be done to determine how we are going to
deal with it. We don't know right now.
MR. CHRISTENSEN: Merle Christensen, Front
Royal. Does that also apply to the waste basins, that
you don't know how to deal with them? You don't know
what is in them?
MR. CARON: We know what is in, believe me. I »
have done an awful lot of evaluation in my program as to
what is in those things so that we can properly treat
the water prior to discharge.
FMC, as you know, has been given an order by
EPA to operate that waste water treatment plant.
Bonnie's program is presently negotiating with them, as
my program is, as to their long-term plans out there.
We know what is in the basins. We have some
technological ideas about how we are going to get them
closed out.
There is some study work that needs to be 31 5000 U*
J
J
j
AR50001H
G 27
to determine whether or not those things are feasible.
You know, they are on a flood plain and that is not a
good place to have that stuff.
MR, CHRISTENSEN: They also constitute a much
greater threat to the biology of the river and the
people down the river than the plant site itself.
MR. CARON: I concur with that.' •'" •
8 MR. SEALOCK: The second part of my question,
9 were you people ordered to do a study on the river this
10 spring, or requested to start a study this spring?
[i J 11 MS. GROSS: Yes, that was a bill by Senator
12 Warner, I think you are referring to?
13 MR. TOFFEL: Tacked onto an appropriations
14 bill, yes.
15 MS. GROSS: Yes. The first part of that study
16 has been completed and, the best I know, was sent off to
17 Senator Warner.
18 The first part, I didn't explain what the
19 first part was. The first part of that study was to
20 assess the water quality, and they used past data and
21 did a water quality assessment, a historical jiDc.nft
22 The next part will be done through the RIPS*""
n " o1 process and will evaluate the sites under Superfund,
2 will evaluate the river that way, and that will be
3 starting in a couple of months.
4 MR. SEALOCK: Has that been published or is it
5 over at the library?
6 MS. GROSS: That, I don't believe, is part of
7 the public record. That was done by a different program
8 within EPA, and if you need a copy of that, I can
9 certainly get your name and send you a copy.
10 MR. FORTUNE: Ken Fortune, Front Royal.
I_| 11 Going back to ground water pollution problem \_
12 caused here at Green Acres, Mr; Ron Napier (ph.), who is
13 a resident, lives over there, approached the county and
14 I think they said a contingency fund of about $250,000
15 for the medical related problems to people who lived in
16 the area, and I was wondering if you all have any plans
17 to carry on a study of the residents of that area over
18 long period of time?
19 MS. GROSS: That would be done by the health
20 organizations, and I do know that health department did
21 a study in the area that was recently completed.AR5000U3
22 Dr. Weiss, I believe, just did that and he '
rw
- -
0
u
i2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
29
found that there was no, I think it was in relation to
cancer specifically, but he didn't find any problem
associated with the site and any occurrence of cancer.
MR. SEALOCK: Was Dr. Weiss aware of the fact
out of 1200 residents and 12 weekend residents there,
there was seven cases of cancer, which nearly all of
them are dead now or where they can't do anything?
MS. GROSS: I don't know.
EFA also does do health assessments. The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry will do
a health assessment as part of the RTFS process, and I
know preliminary assessment was completed for the Avtex
site. - :
MR. CHRISTENSEN; The $8.7 million, will part
of that be from FMC, or this all federal funds?
MS. GROSS: This is a fund financed action.
EPA does take enforcement actions when they have the
legal jurisdiction. In this case, we don't have that
right now. ,
MR. CARON: * FMC is presently incurring all of
the cost associated with the water treatment now fftfSGDQUIi
have been since February, February 26th.
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
i — i 221 _ 1
MR.
MS.
30
^
TOFFEL: Yes, ma'am?
CASSIDY: Pat Cassidy from Berryville. As
part of the health assessment that would be done, is
there a contact person that we could share information
with about known health problems we feel are related?
MS. GROSS: You can give me your name and
number and address and I can find out who you can talk
with.
MR. TOFFEL: Are there any other questions
related to the proposed plan?
Yes, sir.S«
MR. FORTUNE: Do you have any idea how many
years it will take for the biological problems in the
river to correct themselves?
MS.
MR.
GROSS: No, I don't, not at this time.
FORTUNE: Are you in contact with the Fish
and Game Commission?
MS.
agencies when
MR.
there a time
MS.
GROSS: We do coordinate with those
we do our work, yes.
SEALOCK: I may have missed it. Is
frame on this next stage?AR5000l*5
GROSS: It will be implemented and " ~ ' •
V_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
31
completed within a year.
MR. CARON: I think also in answer to the
gentleman's question about the river, the Commonwealth
is to establish another round of the fish sampling in
the last two months, so they are keeping an eye on
things in relation to the existing ban on fishing.
I would look at that as a monitoring effort at
this point. That is not a study.
MR. TOFFEL: I really appreciate the fact that
you have kept the questions on the proposed plan.
I would open it up now if you have any
questions pertaining to the site since we do have Bob
here, who has been practically living down there. We
could probably approach some of those questions, too, so
if you have additional questions, please feel free at
this time.
If we have no questions, I will say that we': *".•!":: i * -:
would be dismissed, but we will stay here and answer any
questions if you would like to come up and talk to us
one on one and we will stay around as long as you keep
asking the questions, we'll be here.
Wait, we have one more here, sir.
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r - 22
32^
MR. CHRISTENSEN: Is there any likelihood with
the present problems in the Mideast that funding may be
cut for such operations as this?
MR. TOFFEL: There is always that possibility.
We are up now. You know, our five year period, we were
refunded in '86, so that will be coming up. The number
of dollars that go into the pot are being considered,
although this is, let's call it a priority site, I am
sure we will continue here.
MR. GEORGE: Bill, certainly, I think that as
far as response to this alternative is obviously one ^-
that favors Alternative II over Alternative I. And I
think the only issue probably among those of us in the
community is, you know, are there other things that can
done and how much can be done in this phase?
And I think certainly we appreciate very much
the fact that EPA is here and you have done what you
have done and are continuing to work on it, and we are
sorry that the situation lends itself to being here for
a long term. And I think you all recognize, and we do,
that is what is called for. AR5000U7
And we certainly hope that you have that
J
J
j
33
1 commitment to try to stay here through this to get this
2 community through this situation.
3 MR. TOFFEL: I think you can be assured that
4 we will be around for quite some time.
5 MR. SEALOCK: What is your best guess on the
6 time frame, for this thing to be safe, for everybody to
7 go back in there and start another factory?
8 MR. TOFFEL: No idea.
9 MR. CAROK: ;If they let me go and gave me all
10 the money I wanted to clean it up, five years, at least,
L J 11 at least; there is that much to do out there. That's
12 not going to happen, by the way. He are not a
13 bottomless pit. a
14 MR. TOFFEL: Liken it to an iceberg, too. You
15 see about this much of the problem and the further we go
16 the more we find, so we really don't know.
17 Yes, sir.
18 MR. FORTUNE: I read an article in the
19 Northern Virginia Daily the other day, a letter to the
20 editor about recycling.
21 Do you think that the power plant co&f$5S 001*8
22 converted for a burn plant or converted where you could
AR5ooo48
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
[H 1112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
i —— j 221 __ 1
34
^
burn trash?
MR. CARON: This power plant?
MR. FORTUNE: Yes.
MR. CARON: No, not without a lot of capital
equipment cost, which is probably not worth it. Also,
remember, I have a PCB problem over there and an
asbestos problem, and it's 1949 technology and I think
there is a better way to do it now.
MR. CHRISTENSEN: Who is the contact person
for the TAG grants?
MR. TOFFEL: Please get in touch with me and I ^
will make sure that the right person back in
headquarters will get the information. I will get the
initial information but there are certain people that
handle that sort of thing, and I will get them in touch
with you. Please see me.
Don.
MR. DERNER: I just answered a question that
somebody here was asking and I get asked every day and,
you know, I know the answer to it but I think it ought
to appear, and that is, what is that stinking out there?
MR. CARON: There is a lot of theory. Ju8t*pQOUH9
)
J
j
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
35
because this plant was shut down doesn't mean that it is
not going to continue to smell to some degree.
Chemistry, and that's really what I want here,
industry that uses sulphur based compounds, are going to
smell. Their wastes are sulphur based wastes, where we
have got basins out there whose conditions change every
time it rains and when the sun comes out.
We may have aerobic conditions one day and
then it will turn into an anaerobic condition, kind of
like a swamp, and all of a sudden, we have got a major
odor problem out there.
We thought at first that it might be our
activities or FMC's activities in draining or providing
freeboard and thereby exposing sludge to the air. We
are not so sure that is what it is any more.
There is a lot of free sulphur compounds that
have very, very low odor thresholds. The folks that
have lived here know exactly what I mean. It doesn't
take very much of that in the air to cause an odor.
What we are doing right now is, some of those
days, we have been aware of some of the complaints. j$%°H n r\ c r\
some of the folks that live near the site. We are going
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
[J12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
n 22
36
-
to try our very best to characterize exactly what is in
the air in terms of chemical compounds so we can see, in
fact, those compounds are going to cause any kind of
health problem.
The other thing we are doing is working with
FMC and their contractors on interim measures that we
can take to control the odor, and we are looking at
those things now. There are things that can be done.
We are acutely aware of the problem. If you
can smell it outside of the site, you can imagine what
it smells like on the site.V*.
MR. GEORGE: Let me ask one other thing.
Did this proposal, as far as the Virginia
Department of Waste Management is concerned, have they
sort of signed off on this as also being part of their
proposal or is this something that you propose and they
evaluate?
MR. MARTIN: I am John Martin from the
Virginia Department of Waste Management.
We concur that these actions are actions
necessary to be done now, immediately, to clear, the wayAH50005I
to do the longer term studies. So we do concur with EPA
v_.
J
)
j
37
1 that these are actions that are necessary that should be
2 done now. We have no problem with that.
3 We have some questions procedurally about how
4 the actions be completed. Right now we believe that
5 they were started as removal actions, really following
6 the removal process, and we believe they should be
7 completed in Bob Caron's program as removal actions.
8 One sidelight of going to remedial actions is
9 that the state has to -come up with the ten percent cost
10 share, and I am sure everybody knows here, the state has
11 been having a considerable budget crunch.
12 So we are working with EPA on this issue,
13 remedial actions versus removal action. In the
14 meantime, we are going forward to try to find funding to
15 get is a ten percent match and make sure this action is
16 not delayed.
17 MR. GEORGE: . So if this went ahead under her
18 program, then the going ahead is something going to be
19 subject to ten percent state money?
20 MR. MARTIN: That is right, the state will
21 come up with $870,000, which is not budgeted and nflto <?f) n n C9
22 item already put into a budget.
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10ii 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
! — | 22i _ i
38
-
We are talking with EPA and I think it will be
worked out. But just right now we believe it's a
continuation of a removal action and it should go
forward as a removal action.
MR. CARON: Very much procedural related. My
budgets on a national scale in the region are extremely
small. We are small potatoes. We are meant for
emergencies. We don't have that kind of dollar hanging
around. That is not to say that our pot can't be
sweetened.
But, in general, on a yearly basis, I don't .
have much money to work with. We got $13 million for
five states, and we will do, on the average, anywhere
from 24 to 52 actions in the course of a year.
And, of course, this site, we obligated $9
million of our $13 million ceiling here. It made a
severe dent in our ability to respond to anything else
that was happening. And, believe me, there is stuff
happening every day that we are spending money on.
MR. SEALOCK: What happened to all that money?
I thought the fund had quite a few billion dollfl1ffc: n n n c o
They done Love Canal, which they are selling back againV-
J
J
J
r-i 39
1 to the people that are crazy enough to move back on it.
2 MR. CARON: It's still there. The money is
3 not in my program. It all went to Bonnie's. (Laughter.)
4 MR. SEALOCK: Who actually owns the Avtex
5 property? Wouldn't the state get some money back out of
6 that eventually when it was cleaned up? Would it be
7 worth something? :;
8 MR. MARTIN: I don't think the value of the
9 property is anywhere close to the magnitude of the
10 dollar we are talking about.
11 MR. CARON: The legal situation there is
12 extremely complicated right now. As you know, Avtex
13 declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which is a
14 reorganization, protection of the assets, things like
15 that, and the list of creditors in this particular
16 instance was rather long.
17 The bankruptcy Judge has appointed a federal
18 trustee to administer the bankruptcy in general, and
19 that gentleman definitely has his hands full with a
20 great many legal issues.
21 He has got liquidation to perform out thetOT500051*
22 It's a difficult and complex task. So, who owns it? I
G
uAR§0005l»
ni2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10n12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
r-i 22U
40
^
would say, eventually, we do. The Federal Government
does.
Part of the requirements of the Superfund law
is that, as Bonnie said earlier, we don't just run
around spending taxpayer money cleaning stuff up.
It's a law that we enforce. If we can't get
the responsible parties to do the clean up, then we will
do it, but we will, where possible, take civil action to
recover our money so it goes back in the coffer so we
can use it on another site.
So when all of this shakes out in the wash,'
and who gets what and all that other stuff, there's a
lien that is on from the state which covers some county
activity. Of course, we have a very large lien in place
right now. There are secured creditors. The list is
long.
MR. TOFFEL: Where does that all money go in
region III, which is Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware,
Virginia, West Virginia And the District. We have over
180 Superfund sites that we are working on at this time,
and obviously there are 10 regions in the country. This
money is divided up among those regions. AnpUUUuD
V
J
J
y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
41
When you throw in Pennsylvania and this area,
you are talking about the industrial rust belt, where we
have a number of very, very expensive sites, such as
Avtex or Publicar (ph.) in Philadelphia, or some severe
lead problem sites, an old battery crushing facility up
in northeast Pennsylvania.
So the money is being is spent and I might say
despite the things you see in the papers or some
editorial cartoons, rather prudently. We are watched
extremely carefully on how we spend these dollars.
But there are an awful lot of sites, and we
keep finding new ones.
If we have no addition questions, I will say
that I thank everyone for being very, very cooperative.
As I said before, we will be up here to answer
any one on one questions to help you out. We will be
here as long as need be.
Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at
approximately 7:55 p.m.)
1R500056
n
1
i _ r
42
s-
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, Carolyn P. Stabner, a court reporter, do
hereby certify that I reported, by stenotypy, the
proceedings had and/or testimony adduced, upon hearing
in the above-styled case.
I further certify that I have caused to be
transcribed the foregoing proceedings to the best of my
ability, as taken from my stenotype notes.
,s\ / ft
t/Carolyn P. Stabner
S
AR500057
V-j