UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING WINNFIELD, LOUISIANA SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE WINNFIELD, LOUISIANA
o APFEAKAXCES: MR. STEVE GILREIX MR. TOM OLIVER MR. ROBERT M. :BEST) GRISWOLD REPEESEXTIXG THE UXIIED STATES EXVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MR. DUAXE \VILSOX REFRESEXTIXG THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL nlALITY (Coiit iriued) :
COURROUTT EREPOflTER i. BOX MS« WtNNF«LO. LOUISIANA 7I4W
139851 APPEARANCES; (Cont'd): ALSO PRESENT; Betty Collier (resident) DPhilli. Eugenp eJone Johnsos (residentn (resident) ) Fredrick Bonnette (resident) WilliMary e DohertDoherty y (resident(resident) ) OarlanMarrioda HSander. Wilsos n (resident(resident) ) Martin Sanders, III (resident) FerrelPatriclk WJarnagi. Hamilton n(resident (resident) ) Jim Hutchins (resident) s Curtis Varnell (resident) I- 10 Sybil Barton (resident) Pete Varnell (resident) O Eck Bozeman (resident) r- 11 Lamar Tarver (resident) *a- 12 Manion H. Wilson (resident) Lester Olenn Smith (resident) o 13 Jimmy Martin (resident) o L. Oreg Crooks (resident) 14 Bob Holeman (resident) Claude L. O'Bryan (resident) 15 Weyman Brantley (resident) Kenny Caldwell (resident) 16 Andre' R. Howard (resident) Clyde F. Bryant (resident) 17 Jack Henderson (resident - Mayor) Clint Schilling (resident) 18 Kyle Martin (resident) Delane Crain (resident) 19 RaSamy BriaBonnettn (residente (resident) ) 20 ArthuPatricir a D. BonnettChandlee r (resident(resident) ) 21 Otis Peterson (resident) W. Kelly (resident) 22 Kirn L. Brantley (resident) Steve Straughan (resident) 23 Tommy Straughan (resident) Otis Paul (resident) 24 OeorgRichare d BC. . HarrisoHeard n (resident(resident) ) 25 PatriciScott Sandera Harrisos (residentn (resident) ) ChesteJ. W. r IfcLeoDerd r (resident) A. R. Boark (resident) Steve Horton (Alexandria Town Talk) ChasJack . CourtneyB. Kirsc, h Jr(Natchitoches. (Alexandria, , LA.LA.)) Jeff Courtney (Alexandria, LA.) DaviCarl d JohnsoIfcNeiln l (Wes(Pinevillet Monroe, , LA.LA.) ) 6 7 8 9
10 CD 11 12 o 13 o 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 MEETING COMMENCED AT 6:30 P.M. MR. S. OILREIN: Hello, everybody. Pardon us, really, again. We're kind of giving — the newspaper said 6:00 and the radio said 6:30. We really meant it to be 6:30, so we'll start now. My name is Steve Gilrein. I'm a section chief for the Superfund program with the U. S. Environmental
11 With me, this evening, are '*"- 12 Robert Griswold, site engineer for o 13 the American Creosote site. We also .. 14 have Duane Wilson, with the Louisiana 15 Department of Environmental Quality 16 here. 17 And, we have a community 18 relations specialist, Tom Oliver, who 19 has some handouts if you don't have 20 any. 21 I'd also.ask, that if you have 22 shown up and have not signed in, 23 please, do so. We have a mailing 24 list that we try to keep up-dated so 25 that if there's any information 5
1 that's generated as part ot the site,
2 we'll just automatically mail it out
3 to everybody.
4 The reason we're here tonight is
5 to talk about EPA's proposed
6 activities at the American Creosoting
7 site. We had proposed earlier to
8 basically cap over the site and pump
g and treat some contaminated ground
10 water. o n Once we proposed that, we «tf°° actually received quite an onslaught O 12 O 13 of comments in opposition. We
14 received those both from our own headquarters, EPA people; we received 15 •*-> 16 some comments from the State of
17 Louisiana, who have not yet committed
18 themselves, but they are evaluating a
19 number of alternatives. 20 We received comments from the 21 public, most of which are saying 22 capping is not a very permanent 23 solution. You're leaving the problem 24 for future generations.
25 So, with that, what we're 6
1 attempting to do this evening is to 2 re-solicit another proposal. We're
3 evaluating a number of alternatives, 4 some of which are, in some instances, 5 quite controversial. One is on-site 6 incineration. 7 So, what we're hoping of doing 8 this evening is — the only reason 9 we're here this evening is to solicit 10 public input and public comment on ^ 11 the range of alternatives that EPA is «*°° 12 considering, including on-site O 13 incineration of the contaminated O 14 material. 15 There is no — as of today, 16 there is no decision that EPA has 17 made. Part of the decision process 18 is State input, it's community input 19 and some other technical factors, 20 that legally, we have to consider. 21 And so, this is a very crucial part 22 of the whole process. 23 In a nutshell, I'm going to tell 24 you what the Superfund program is. 25 The Superfund refers to a specific 7
1 law that was passed in 1980 and again
2 in 1986, whereby it establishes an
3 eight point five billion dollar fund
4 to clean up abandoned, hazardous
5 waste sites.
6 It's primarily a tax on
7 petrochemical companies that
8 establishes this fund and sites — certain sites that get classified as 9 CM 10 bad enough, basically, they get O listed as Superfund sites. With °°
12 that, we start investigating them. o 13 Where we are at this site, we O
14 have conducted investigation of the
15 site, decided to determine how much
16 contamination was there, where it is. 17 We then conducted an analysis of a
18 number — an array of alternatives 19 for implementation, and now we're at 20 the next step, which is the 21 decision-making step. 22 We now are in the position, we 23 and the State and the community are 24 at a point that we have to decide 25 what is the most appropriate step to 8
1 take to address the hazards
2 associated with that site.
3 And, once we make this decision,
4 the next step is to complete a design
5 of whatever remedy is chosen and then
6 ultimately implementing that design 7 in cleaning up the site.
8 What Bert Griswold's going to
9 do, again, he is the site engineer, 10 and very quickly I would ask him to n 11 give an overview of some of the o 12 details of the site investigation. ^°° 13 What specifically we found out there, O 14 the level of the threats that the O
15 site poses. 16 And, again, there will be more
17 description as to some of the 13 alternatives that we evaluated. It 19 will be nice and short. 20 Once we have done that, we're 21 going to open up to the floor for 22 questions. 23 I had originally put a — we put 24 out a little list, and only two 25 people have identified the fact that 9 1 they may want to say something. 2 Since so few people have done 3 it, I will just open up the floor to 4 anybody who wants to say anything. 5 Please raise your hand, state 6 your name. Again, we have a court 7 reporter here and this is all for the 8 transcript. And, so, state your name 9 for the record and give your comment. 10 To the best of our ability, we «tf- O 11 will attempt to answer your questions —. here, right now. If we cannot do so "^ 12 O 13 right now, we will respond back to O 14 you in writing. 15 And so, it is important, again, 16 that we have your name and address 17 and we have it written down. But, to 18 the best of our ability this evening, 19 we will try to address your concerns 20 as best we can. 21 With that in a nutshell, again, 22 I introduce Robert Griswold, the site 23 engineer to give an overview of where 24 we are. 25 MR. R. GRISWOLD: Like he said, I'll keep it short 10
1 and I'll keep the technical language 2 to a minimum.
3 The facility is located out on
4 Front Street in the south portion of 5 the town. I imagine most of you know
6 where the site is located at.
7 The plant went into operation
8 around the turn of the century. It
9 operated for about seventy to eighty years, using creosote and "^ 10 O 11 pentachlorophenol in the process for 00 12 treating timber. 15 that those contaminants are located 16 in the subsurface and in the ground 17 water of the site. 18 We're looking at approximately 19 two hundred and seventy-five thousand 20 cubic yards of contaminated 21 subsurface soils in the area of where 22 they did the treatment process and to 23 a drainage area to the east from the 24 process area. 25 There's been some indication of 11 1 some levels of contamination near. the 2 site in the sediments of the Creosote 3 Branch that flows on the northern 4 portion of the old process area. 5 And, the surface water has shown not 6 to be contaminated unless the 7 sediments are disturbed. 8 As Steve's mentioned, we have 9 considered a range of alternatives 10 out here for doing — with the site •u from no action, which means we walk CO «3- 12 away from the site, which we're not o 13 advocating right now because of the 14 levels of contamination out there. 15 All the way to incineration. 16 We're looking at capping 17 alternatives with the pumping and 18 treatment of the subsurface ground 19 water at approximately fifteen 20 million all the way up to 21 incineration at a hundred and 22 eighty-seven million. So, there's 23 significant cost associated with 24 this . 25 I can go into a lot more detail, 12 1 but, you know, this meeting, I'd like 2 to open it up to you and what — to 3 which issues you'd like us to 4 concentrate on. 5 This is the fourth meeting we've 6 had out here and I think that I can 7 open it up to questions now. 8 MR. S. OILREIN: Well, let me — let me just make 9 one thing — one statement and we'll 10 let you sit down. **"O " 11 Just to keep things in context, CD 12 our investigation, as Bert said, O 13 we've got contamination — a fairly O 14 large area that extends down to 15 forty-five feet and quite an 16 extensive volume of contamination. 17 The question has been asked in 18 the past, what risk is this currently 19 posing. And, you need to know how 20 Superfund works. 21 We don't necessarily have to 22 wait for somebody to get ill because 23 of the contaminants at the site. By 24 law, the reason we're out here is 25 because of the potential risks 13 1 associated with the site. 2 The compounds associated with 3 creosote, a number of them are 4 carcinogens. We've got floating oil 5 in the ground water, we've got an 6 extensive overflow area with some 7 extremely high concentrations of g carcinogenic compounds. 9 And what we assume, granted, 10 this is an abandoned piece of °° n property. There are residential 00 12 dwellings around it. Q 13 What we have to assume in our 14 analyses is that people can routinely 15 and are routinely exposed to this 16 material. It's a very conservative 17 way of addressing the site. We're 18 assuming unrestricted use. And we're 19 assuming that children are playing. 20 Now, in the reality, something 21 — we have that situation occurring. 22 We were at the site today, once 23 again, and you've got footpaths 24 across it, throughout the whole site. 25 So, the site is easily — 14 1 although it's fenced, people are 2 assessing the site. And we assume 3 that. And, we have a staff of 4 toxicologists that help us estimate 5 what the potential risk is. 6 So we have, because of the 7 carcinogens that are in the ground 8 water and the surface, we feel as 9 though this is a problem. If not 10 today, it's definitely a problem that O^ 11 needs to be addressed before it's a CO «5fr 12 severe problem in the future. ^ 13 So, that's really the rationale 14 for why we believe something 15 desperately needs to be — something 16 desperately needs to happen out there 17 with regard to fixing the site. 18 With that in a nutshell, yeah, I 19 would like to open up for whomever is 20 interested for questions. 21 Yes, sir, please give your name 22 for the court reporter. 23 MR. L. TARVER: My name is Lamar Tarver. Say 24 the situation is to the extreme and 25 it costs a hundred and eighty-seven D IS 1 million dollars. I understand it 2 would take ten percent from the 3 State, not a matching fund but the 4 State would have to put up ten 5 percent of the clean-up on this. 6 And who guarantees that we'll 7 get that? I know that money is a 8 problem for the State. g Is this available? 10 MR. S, OILREIN: Well, let me — yes. Let me ° 11 clarify a couple of things and where 00 12 we are. O 13 In order for the Federal 14 Government to clean up a site, in the 15 case where it's only Federal monies 16 being used, the States have to 17 anti-up ten percent of the costs; ten 18 percent of the cost, and then ninety 19 percent of all costs that are 20 incurred in long-term operation and 21 maintenance of whatever you do. 22 Well, we actually — we had a 23 meeting with the head of the 24 Louisiana Department of Environmental 25 Quality last week, Kiah Midbow, to 16 1 discuss this with them. And the 2 State is — one reason the State is 3 here is to find out what the 4 community thinks. 5 The State has not, necessarily, 6 decided what they want and what they 7 do not want to do. They are 8 approaching the Governor's office 9 with this situation, to say that v 10 there may be a need to come up with T- an eighteen million dollar match. CD 11 "tf 12 And they're evaluating that right O 13 now. o 14 I believe, and it has been borne 15 out in the past that if the State 16 believes this is necessary and is 17 what the community wants, they will 18 come up with the money. They have 19 done so already. 20 We have a site in Slidell, 21 Louisiana, another creosoting site, 22 up around a hundred forty-five 23 million dollars that the State 24 matched at fourteen million dollars. 25 They came up with the money because 1 they decided it was necessary and 2 something the community wanted. 3 So, historically, we've been 4 working personally with the State for 5 ten years. We've never ~ anytine 6 the State wanted something, we have 7 not had a situation where they've 8 been unable to come up with the 9 monies. Next question? Yes, sir. CM 10 T~ 11 MS. A. HOWARD: My name is Andre' Howard, City 00 12 Councilman for the City of Winnfield. 13 What danger does the 14 contamination pose for the people 15 that's living close to the area? And 16 what danger is there of this 17 contamination getting into the City 18 of Winnfield's water system, et 19 cetera? 20 MR. S. GILREIN: Let me — right now, the site 21 does not pose an immediate risk to 22 anybody living next to the site. 23 What we assumed and the risks 24 that we calculated, assumed some time 25 in the future, basically, people 18 1 living on the site and having 2 day-to-day exposure. 3 If the people are staying away 4 from the site and are obeying the 5 signs "Do not enter" or they're not 6 trespassing, regularly, there is no 7 risk associated with that site. 8 But, for the ground water, the 9 extent of ground water, however 10 severe, is still limited. It's ^ 11 weeping into Creosote Branch Creek, 00 «tf 12 yeah, but it's not going into the _ 0 13 drinking water supply. The drinking 14 water supply for the City of 15 Winnfield is quite deep. 16 This is not a risk, as of today. 17 This is a potential risk for years 18 down the road that we want to 19 address. 20 It's one of those situations, 21 the longer you wait, the more 22 expensive it gets. If this was 23 cleaned up when it first occurred or 24 if during the operation of the 25 facility they were much — much more 19 1 careful with what they were doing 2 with their spillage, it would cost 3 very little money. 4 To clean up the entire site now 5 is extraordinarily expensive. If you 6 wait another ten years until it 7 really becomes a problem, multiply it 8 again by an order of magnitude. 9 As the site exists today, we have not identified it as an acute "^ 10 v— 11 risk to anybody. oo «rf- 12 MR. A. HOWARD: Okay. One other question and O 13 then I'll be through. o 14 MR. S. GILREIN: Oh, please, as many as you want. 15 MR. A. HOWARD: What precautions are you-all 16 taking to prevent people from going 17 on-site, as far as guards are 18 concerned, and so forth and so on? 19 Because just putting signs up 20 there doesn't stop people from 21 trespassing, you know, and what — 22 what you-all are doing to, you know, 23 to help secure the area and keep 24 people from in — from in and out? 25 MR. S. GILREIN: What we are doing right now? 20 1 MR. A. HOWARD: Yes. 2 MB. S. GILREIN: All we have are signs and a 3 fence, which we will maintain. If 4 there's holes or breaches, we'll do 5 the best we can to fix those quickly. 6 But, as I said, we've determined 7 that it's not an acute risk as it 8 sits today. 9 We've had some EPA — a group of 10 EPA have already come in and in 11 consolidated some of the waste CD «5t 12 materials and put a very thin, o 13 temporary clay cap over most of the o 14 site. 15 So, it's not — even an 16 occasional trespasser is not at a 17 great risk. We try to discourage 18 that to the extent possible, but we 19 can't stop — we don't live down 20 here, we're not down here. We can 21 only — we can't stop it from Dallas. 22 All that we can do is exercise 23 as much — I mean our abilities are 24 really limited to just maintaining 25 the fence until we have an active 21 1 on-site presence. 2 When we start cleaning up the 3 site, then we'll have a twenty-four 4 hour guard. But as it sits now, we 5 don't believe the site is that much 6 of a risk. It's more of a long-term 7 future risk. 8 Questions? Yes, sir. 9 UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The mayor. 10 MR. S. GILREIN: Oh, the mayor, I'm sorry. Yes, v— 11 sir? 00 12 MAYOR HENDERSON: Go ahead and get him. o 13 MR. S. GILREIN: I saw a finger, I didn't know if o 14 that was a hand or ... Yes, sir, 15 do you have a question. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MAN: No. 17 MR. S. GILREIN: No. Mayor, do you have a 18 question? 19 MAYOR HENDERSON: Some of this may not pertain to 20 what you-all are talking about. 21 We're talking about a hundred 22 and eighty-seven million dollars. 23 And I'd like to, you know, of course, 24 with that money, we'd like to see 25 some of it left locally here. And I 22 1 don't know the procedure, except that 2 you're going to have to let it by 3 contract but I would like for some of 4 the local people to get some of this 5 money, too, you know. 6 That's what a lot of them are up 7 here for. They're interested in the 8 money. 9 And you-all asked me some 10 questions today about what was under 11 the ground and that — we've got a 12 man in our presence that was growed 13 up and raised out at the creosote 14 plant, Mr. Curt Varnell. You can ask 15 him any question you want to on that. 16 And the next thing, Louisiana — 17 Winn Parish is considered the highest 18 cancer rate in Louisiana. And, some 19 of them say in the United States. I 20 don't know, that's all hearsay. But 21 I don't say it's the creosote plant 22 causing all of this cancer but it 23 might contribute to it. 24 So, that's all the questions I 25 have and I'd like to get some input 23 1 for the local people where they can 2 get some money. I know no political 3 can get any. And check out this 4 cancer rate and this man that you 5 need to talk to that knows more about 6 it than anybody else. In fact, he's 7 here present tonight. 8 MR. S. GILREIN: Right. Let me — I can actually 9 — let me hit on a couple of things. 10 When we ultimately — whatever the remedy may be, when we ultimately CD 11 «tf 12 attempt to clean up the site, the o 13 project will be bid out by the Army 14 Corps of Engineers, New Orleans 15 District. And it's going to be bid 16 out competitively, nationally. 17 We don't have the ability 18 through our regulations, although 19 your mayor is voicing a strong 20 concern that we often times hear. We 21 don't have the ability to restrict 22 competition to Winn Parish. 23 What ordinarily happens, 24 however, especially for a project of 25 this magnitude, whatever that 24 1 magnitude be, whether it be fifteen 2 million or a hundred and eighty 3 million. Very rare is the situation 4 that the contractor won't find it 5 cost-effective to hire a lot of local 6 labor because of the fact that that's 7 generally the cheapest labor around. 8 It's not very cost-effective to bring 9 in labor from all across the country. 10 What — we likely are looking at n something that's going to last a few °° *=f 12 years. Anywhere from two to six o 13 years within the parish. And 14 virtually every time we've seen this 15 type of operation in the country, 16 there has been extensive use of local 17 labor. Again, we cannot mandate 18 that. We cannot mandate that, 19 legally. 20 But, again, our expectations is 21 that it would be economically quite 22 beneficial to the community. 23 With regard to cancer rates, 24 it's hard to say and it's really 25 impossible to say that this site, ) 25 1 individually, contributed to this 2 much cancer, if at all. Now, that's 3 a very difficult thing to do. 4 If you believe that you've got a 5 very high incidence, there are — the 6 Federal government, EPA not being 7 that party, but there are — the 8 Federal government does have the ability to look into that. And 10 that's really the reason you have the Agency for Toxic Substances and °° 12 Diseases Registry. «!fOr 13 If you have such a problem and O 14 you believe there to be a problem in 15 Winn Parish, there is an individual ie in Dallas by the name of George 17 Pettigrew who works for that agency 13 and we can put him in contact with 19 any interested people. 20 And their jobs are basically to 21 find out, are there human health 22 problems, associated generally, not 23 only with Superfund sites, but other 24 areas, if you think that there's a 25 problem. 26 1 One other thing that has cone 2 up, people have expressed interest 3 and we earlier had a conversation 4 with the mayor, some people have 5 expressed interest in something that 6 is referred to as Technical 7 Assistance Grants. 8 The Federal government has 9 available to communities, technical 10 assistance grants that are provided CM 11 to a community group to allow them to °° 12 hire a technical representative to o 13 review EPA documents and — so the 14 community feels as though they have 15 more of a vested interest. 16 One of the individuals with EPA, 17 Tom Oliver — Tom, you want to raise 18 your hand and waive? 19 MR. X. OLIVER: (Complying). 20 MR. S. GILREIN: — is really the person to speak 21 to regarding Technical Assistance 22 Grants. 23 Since that is not specific to 24 this project — it is, but since it's 25 not specifically related to the 27 t 1 technical aspects of this project, 2 what I'd like to do, if you've got 3 questions on Technical Assistance 4 Grants and how you go about applying 5 for those grants, what I'd like to do 6 is kind of leave that to the end of 7 the meeting and focus on EPA's 8 proposed actions for the clean-up of 9 the site. CM 10 We can then turn around and find ^ 11 out if anybody's interested in about «5°t° 12 how can you apply for this money? O O 13 The fact that there is matching 14 requirements, so on and so forth. 15 For ease of the meeting, I would 16 prefer to leave that to the end of 17 the meeting. 18 With that, yes, sir, please. 19 MR. G. HARRISON: George Harrison. I'd like to 20 challenge a statement maybe you made 21 just a little bit earlier, unless I 22 misunderstood you. 23 I believe I heard you say that 24 the ground water was not at — the 25 potable water for the City of 28 1 Winnfield was not being affected, nor 2 had it been, but it might be long 3 years in the future. Is that — 4 MR. S. GILREIN: We have no — we have no 5 information to indicate that the 6 drinking water for the City of 7 Winnfield is being impacted by this 8 site. 9 MR. G. HARRISON: And that is based upon what 10 information? CVJ 11 MR. S. GILREIN: We have numerous — we had a CO «tf 12 lot — we did a lot of extensive O 13 ground water investigation at the o 14 site. 15 MR. G. HARRISON: Test wells? 16 MR. S. GILREIN: Test wells, we have borings — 17 MR. G. HARRISON: To what depth? 18 MR. S. GILREIN: Seventy feet. 19 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Seventy feet. And we sampled, 20 back in '89, and were here recently 21 this year; the Red Hill well and two 22 other wells within the City. 23 MR. G. HARRISON: The soil, as I'm sure you know, 24 if very porous and permeable here. 25 For seventy years, it's received 29 1 creosote and pentachlorophenol. 2 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Yes, sir. 3 MR. 0. HARRISON: I don't know what the diagrams 4 would show of the interaction between 5 those two substances are. But, I do 6 know that there are a number of 7 faults, which you may not be aware 8 of, that occur in this area. There 9 are minor surface faults and those 10 are conductors of surface water down CM 11 to God knows what depth. 00 *fr 12 I would like to see that O 13 inclusion made in your study because O 14 it is a point that's often 15 overlooked. 16 MR. S. GILREIN: No, we are aware of that. As a 17 matter of fact, again, we have — 18 you're looking at only two people in 19 a very — in a fairly extensive team 20 that investigated this site. 21 We — what you have — one 22 beneficial aspect is the fact that 23 you have some artesian 24 characteristics of your aquifers. 25 So, you have an upward flow of water. 30 1 You also have a situation, a lot 2 of the oils that have gone down, have 3 basically been sitting on the ground 4 water and discharging into Creosote 5 Branch. 6 Ground water does not move 7 quickly. And we can't say — s necessarily, I can't say what 9 happened thirty, forty years ago. We can only say, as of within the last "^ 10 CM n year of our investigations and the 00 12 last few years of EPA's Q 13 investigations, we've never ^ 14 identified any information to 15 indicate that there has been 16 contamination of the potable water 17 supply for the City. 18 This is done — this is 19 actually — we actually have a number 20 of sites, creosoting sites, that have 21 been operating for — around — since 22 the turn of the century. And we 23 generally don't find the 24 contamination anywhere near as wide 25 spread as the people often times are 31 1 led to believe. 2 Ground water moves very, very 3 slowly. And this is why I think 4 we're fortunate. There is some 5 fortunate geology here and that 6 geology and hydrogeology is such that 7 we've — you've had a lot of 8 discharge at Creosote Branch, but 9 again, we have not — we have found it very limiting. vO 10 CM 11 MR. G. HARRISON: Have there been computer models oo 12 run on this — _ 13 MR. S. GILREIN: We have run — ^ 14 MR. G. HARRISON: — for plume studies? 15 MR. B. GRISWOLD: We're in the process of doing it 16 right now for the design as a 17 supplement to the Record of Decision. 18 We have, like I said, extensive 19 wells out there, of not only the 20 water phase but the soil phase 21 beneath the ground water and show no 22 indication of any contamination, 23 either in the water phase or the soil 24 phase. 25 MR. G. HARRISON: Which there's been no discharge 32 1 on there since 1985? 2 MR. B. ORISWOLD: Stallworth Lumber Company which 3 used that facility until 1985, yeah, 4 they were the last operator. 5 MR. G. HARRISON: The only point — and I'll 6 finish with this — is that there's 7 been no active — the volatiles are 8 gone, basically out of the 9 hydrocarbons? P*~ 10 MR. B. GRISWOLD: That's correct. MR. G. HARRISON: The surface volatiles have been °° 11 •3- 12 gone. So, what you're looking at are o O 13 the things that happened as long ago 14 as seventy years ago, which we don't 15 know how or where they may have gone. 16 And they may be below the seventy 17 foot depth, through faults. 18 Some people believe in migration 19 throughout those aquifers and some 20 don't. I've seen studies that show 21 that they — that it does happen. 22 And that's my question and concern. 23 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, we have — we actually — 24 we believe there's extensive 25 interconnection between all of the 33 1 aquifer systems. And, we've always 2 made that claim, that soil in 3 Louisiana is quite complex. 4 It's just — from what we have 5 right now, we just don't have the 6 information — we have extensive 7 information. We don't have the 8 evidence to indicate that 9 contamination has occurred. 00 10 Again, if it had occurred in theCM past, we have no information to 00 11 «d- 12 indicate that it did, as of our Q 13 studies today. 14 MR. G. HARRISON: Thank you. 15 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Let me include one quick subject 16 on that. On the remedial 17 investigation that's available over 18 in the public library, there is a 19 discussion on contaminant fate 20 transport and I really encourage you 21 to read that. And if you need 22 additional information, just call or 23 contact me in Dallas. 24 MR. S. GILREIN: What you have — we handed out 25 all the — really, this is kind of a 34 1 Cliff Note summary of what has 2 actually occurred, of the proposed 3 plan. 4 We have it in the library and I 5 believe at the courthouse, fairly 6 extensive documentation as to what 7 has occurred at the site. There's 8 some pretty monstrous reports that 9 we've put out that are difficult to 10 digest. But, I encourage you, if you^CM have the opportunity, attempt to do 00 11 «tf 12 so. 0 13 With the blue shirt, I'm going ° 14 to promise to get you next. Yes, 15 sir. 16 MR. C. DERR: My name is Chester Derr. I'm a 17 landowner of this water flow. And 18 for your information, it's also got 19 names other than Creosote Branch. 20 (General laughter). 21 Also, the first five years of my 22 career, after I graduated from 23 Louisiana Tech, was spent working for 24 American Lumber and Treating Company. 25 And, I was actively engaged in 35 1 working at the plant with the 2 creosote. So, I have no fear of 3 walking across the ground down there 4 at the American Creosote. 5 But, my fear comes from your 6 report where you state that five to 7 thirty feet deep there is at least 8 one foot of dense liquid creosote and 9 several inches of floating soils in O 10 the wells. K% 11 One, I would like to know if 0«t0f 12 you-all were to remove that, would O 13 that be for forever, or is that O 14 aquifer moving all the time and 15 moving that somewhere else? A 16 In other words, that one foot of 17 oil there, is that in a pool or 18 where? 19 MR. G. HARRISON: I don't imagine. It's moving. 20 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Right now, what we have 21 indications of, you've got in the 22 process area, in the middle of the 23 site, itself — I guess, we can call 24 it site, for right now — there was 25 this pooled product. The floating 36 1 materials and the sinking materials. 2 Surrounding that, we have a 3 dissolved base, it's gone into the 4 ground water, it's not acting as an 5 oil. 6 And that plume runs from the 7 Creosote Branch almost all the way to 8 the sewage treatment plant, along 9 Creosote Branch. It's right between T 10 what is owned right now by the — on ~ 11 the old facility's property and the 00 12 adjoining property between the ^ 13 treatment area and — ^ 14 MR. C. DERR: Has that been there forever? 15 Has it moved? 16 MR. B. GRISWOLD: It's — it's — it has spread 17 from the process area. It is not — 18 it was not there previous — prior to 19 the operations — 20 MR. C. DERR: There's very little possibility 21 of that ever moving into anybody's 22 water system then, if it's been 23 contained in just that small an area 24 in seventy years. 25 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Well, the indications are based 37 1 on pumping rates within this parish, 2 that the salt-water interface is 3 moving up in this area because people 4 are over pumping the aquifer. 5 We're concerned, as Steve 6 Oilrein pointed out earlier, that in 7 the future, maybe twenty to thirty 8 years, somebody could come back in 9 and sink a well in the middle of this w 10 site. 11 MR. C. DERR: Why would they? 00 12 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, the thing is, what — EPA o 13 is right or wrong as to maybe over —^ 14 we've been accused of severe 15 over-conservatism in the past. 16 We don't have the ability to 17 subjectively say, "Oh, that's a silly 18 thing to do." We have to assume, 19 again, that there's the possibility 20 since we have no ability to enforce 21 deed restrictions. 22 MR. C. DERR: Well, if you're going to have — 23 if this thing as I read it says, 24 you're going to have it written into 25 the deed if anybody ever would want 38 1 to buy it, that would be in there. 2 MR. S. GILREIN: It's unenforceable. You 3 cannot — we cannot enforce deed 4 restrictions in Louisiana. 5 MB. C. DERR: Well, the guy would know it, 6 though, wouldn't he? 7 MR. S. GILREIN: Not — perhaps. Again, in 8 thirty or forty years, it could get g buried in the deed. They may never 10 see it again. That's part of the ^ 11 problem. You don't have the legal 00 12 ability to enforce deed restrictions. o 0 13 So, we don't view that as a very 14 permanent way of addressing a site. 15 We see that as very much a band-aid 16 approach and you're kind of taking 17 your lumps. You may or may not be 18 successful in keeping people from 19 doing that. 20 Yes, sir? Yes, sir? 21 MR. J. WOMACK: My name is James Womack. 22 Address P. 0. Box 629, Winnfield, 23 Louisiana. You're touching on the 24 thing that I'm interested in. 25 First, I want to set up an 39 1 assumption. Part of the assumption 2 is that something's got to be done. 3 The second assumption is that you 4 reached the decision — now this is 5 important, we're assuming — you 6 reached a decision that the 7 incineration of the material on the 8 site — I understood you mentioned g that that's the last resort you have — is taken. "^^ I want to know what happens to ^0r0 12 the site after that incineration of 13 the material is taken. Would it be 14 suitable for any kind of industrial 15 location or development? I'm not 16 talking about residential, I'm 17 talking about industrial, commercial, 18 a factory or some other installation. 19 The second part of my question, 20 I'd like to get some time element. 21 Let's assume you reach a decision 22 that you're going to incinerate it, 23 what time table are we looking at? 24 Six months, one year, two year, three 25 year? 40 1 Second, if that's the decision 2 you meet or you take, how long will 3 it take for it to be done? Six 4 months, five years? I have no 5 conception. 6 I'd like to see some indication 7 from the engineer as to what time 8 element is involved and what the site 9 could be used for after the soil has in 10 been incinerated? KN MR. B. GRISWOLD: I can answer — 00 11 ««± 12 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, let me just mention a O 13 couple; future uses of the property. O 14 There's & couple — when you say 15 incineration, there's a number of 16 things we could do and what we're 17 evaluating. 18 Assuming one incinerates all the 19 risks, all the contaminants. There 20 will be no restrictions on future 21 use, whatsoever. Residential or 22 commercial, period. 23 If one was to only incinerate 24 the top ten or fifteen feet, which 25 could be identified as the principle 41 1 threats, there would, again, be no 2 restrictions except for use of ground 3 water. Which, one problem with that, 4 is the inability to enforce that long 5 term. But incineration — 6 MR. C. DERR: You're talking about, again, 7 surface. I don't see any harm to us 8 from the surface. I see harm from 9 it, from the aquifer of the movement 10 of the chemicals into the water 11 surface. 0^f0 12 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, you have — you have a o 13 problem at the surface. You have o 14 creosote in the surface. Creosote 15 is — the chemicals within the 16 creosote are carcinogens. And as 17 carcinogens, although you, yourself, 18 may have worked there, what we 19 evaluate are the sensitive people 20 within the population. 21 And according to our studies, it 22 is a carcinogen and there is a 23 potential of cancer from coming in 24 contact. That does not mean 25 everybody will. But those are — I 42 1 mean, that's just the assumptions. 2 Now, but, incineration done 3 correctly, there will not be any 4 restrictions, residential or 5 industrial usage. 6 Time table is such that if a 7 decision is made within a month, we 8 believe that we could complete the 9 design within three or four months. 10 We believe that we could have a contractor selected and work 00 11 «?t 12 beginning within — starting next O O 13 summer. Within a year — within a 14 year, we'd be actually be beginning 15 work. 16 And complete site clean-up would 17 probably take on the upwards of four 18 to six years, active clean-up. 19 MR. J. WOMACK: Four to six years? 20 MB. S. GILREIN: Yes, sir. You've got a 21 tremendous amount of material. And 22 there's a lot of things that have to 23 occur. You don't just set up an 24 incinerator. 25 You've got to build access 43 1 roads, you've got to bring on your 2 trailers, you've got to hook up your 3 utilities. There's ~ there's a lot 4 of things that have to occur. 5 You've got an extensive pumping 6 system. If you're going to excavate 7 down to thirty, forty feet, extensive 8 dewatering has to occur, dewatering 9 and subsequent pumping, treatment and 10 discharge. 11 This is an elaborate — this is 00 12 a very, very elaborate thing that we o 13 are — that's being proposed. This 14 is not a very simple clean up. If 15 we're looking towards the hundred and 16 eighty-five million dollar clean up, 17 this is a huge, huge, complex 18 project. 19 And yes, four to six years for 20 actual operation of that clean up. 21 MR. J. WOMACK: You're saying then, possibly 22 five years before it could ever be — 23 five or six years before it would be 24 available for any industrial 25 development? I 44 1 MR. S. OILREIN: Correct. 2 MB. B. GRISWOLD: If we're able to get funding 3 right now, we feel we can be done at 4 the turn of the century. That's what 5 we're telling you right now. We can 6 award a contract and start mobilizing 7 in 1994 and probably be done around 8 1999. 9 MR. J. WOMACK: Oh, my God. c 10 MR. S. OILREIN: Yes, sir. Name again, for „ 11 the — every time. 00 «3- 12 MR. A. HOWARD: Yes, it's Andre' Howard. O 13 MR. S. OILREIN: Thanks. o 14 MR. A. HOWARD: How long have you-all known 15 about the problem that was — at the 16 creosote plant? 17 MR. S. GILREIN: Now, when you say "we", 18 institutionally, EPA — 19 MR. A. HOWARD: EPA has been aware. 20 MR. S. GILREIN: — has been aware in one way or 21 the other, when were the first 22 studies? 23 MR. B. GRISWOLD: It was referred to us in 1987 24 from the State of Louisiana. We 25 started operations with a removal 45 1 action in 1989. 2 MB. S. OILREIN: So, 1987. 3 MB. A. HOWARD: So, would you tell me, why has 4 it taken this long for something to 5 be — to begin? 6 MR. S. GILREIN: It is a ~ it's a -- it's a 7 glitch in the program. It's a glitch 8 in the — what happens is, EPA gets 9 referred thousands and thousands and 10 thousands of sites. We don't have ^. 11 the resources to address them all. 00 12 So, there is a — there's kind 13 of a — there's a process that we go 14 through that we do some preliminary 15 looks, preliminary studies to 16 determine if it's a significant of 17 enough hazard to address. So, we 18 have these screening processes. 19 What's been happening from 1987 20 to 1991, there was a series of two or 21 three screens that it had to go 22 through before ultimately the 23 decision was made. This — we have 24 enough data to suggest that this 25 truly is a hazard. 46 1 We then have to propose it, 2 nationally, for public comment for 3 inclusion on the Superfund list. 4 EPA does not have the ability to 5 address every site that's referred to 6 us. We rely very, very heavily on 7 the State to help us in that regard. 8 That's purely, it's just a screening 9 process we went through. And that's 10 what really what took long. *?Hr 11 I don't — I don't — it often 00 «!t 12 times — things takes much, much too o O 13 long and I agree with that. 14 There's no — yes, sir, standing 15 up. 16 MR. P. JONES: Yeah, I wanted to expand on what 17 Mr. Womack said. 18 MR. S. GILREIN: Can you — excuse me, could you 19 give your name for the court 20 reporter, please? 21 MR. P. JONES: Phi Hip Jones. 22 MR. S. GILREIN: Excuse me? 23 MR. P. JONES: Phi Hip Jones. 24 MR. S. GILREIN: Thank you. 25 MR. P. JONES: If you build an incinerator 47 1 there, can the incinerator be used 2 for something besides on-site 3 disposal? 4 MR. S. OILREIN: No. The incinerator would be 5 purely dedicated to cleaning up the 6 contaminants associated with the 7 site, after which it is dismantled 8 and taken off-site. 9 We do this — there's a number 10 of other Superfund sites across the 11 country that utilize what we call 12 transportable incinerators. This is 13 strictly a short-term incinerator, 14 never to be seen again at the site. 15 It would have to be legally 16 dismantled. 17 MR. P. JONES: That's the same incinerator used 18 in the big report then or a bigger 19 model? 20 MR. S. GILREIN: I beg your pardon. Which big 21 report? 22 MR. P. JONES: The one at the library and the 23 courthouse. 24 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, what happens, what we 25 have — the reports that we generated 48 1 assume an incinerator, but, right, it 2 assumes a temporary incinerator, for 3 what, for costing. 4 MB. P. JONES: And didn't you take bore samples 5 down to one hundred fifty foot 6 water — ground water level? 7 MR. S. OILREIN: Pardon me? 8 MR. P. JONES: Did you find any contamination 9 at a hundred and fifty feet ground 10 water level? 1 People liken the incinerator we have 2 to some trash incinerator. 3 Superfund, when we implement a 4 clean up, and in this case, if we 5 were to build or have built an 6 incinerator, we are more stringent 7 than any other Federal or State 3 program is. We — we heap on 9 enormous amounts of requirements and state-of-the-art requirements for air °° 10 •stf* ^ cleaning and ash handling. «a0-0 12 Basically, when we finish with ^ 13 this, really the ash will be edible, ^ 14 if one wanted to eat ash. But, we 15 are going to establish human 16 ingestion standards for the ash 17 that's generated. That's how 18 conservative we are when we do this. 19 We also establish extremely 20 conservative air-emission 21 requirements and state-of-the-art 22 requirements for cleaning this. 23 The process, again, the thermal 24 oxidation of the contaminants is 25 scientifically well proven, and we 54 1 have quite a lot of experience within 2 Dallas region — within the Dallas 3 EPA office* very successful 4 experience with incineration. We 5 believe that our experience bears out 6 the fact that we can, and have, 7 effectively incinerated quite a large 8 array of contaminants. 9 So, from a — from a strictly an 10 engineering perspective, we believe «3^- that this is something very 00 11 «d" 12 implementable and something very Q 13 worthwhile. ° 14 I don't know if that's — is 15 that too general or broad of an 16 overbrush? Does that answer your 17 question? 18 MRS. P. HARBISON: That's pretty good. I was 19 thinking in terms of the affects 20 there on the community surrounding 21 this site. 22 MR. S. GILREIN: Because we don't believe — 23 MRS. P. HARRISON; Like the effects — things they 24 might be affected by. 25 MR. S. GILREIN: — that's — we have air 55 1 monitors that will be set up. Air 2 monitors, the discharge air 3 monitoring, within the community to 4 insure that we are not. 5 We can tell you until we are 6 blue in the face that it's not going 7 to be a problem, but we've got to 8 monitor to insure that it doesn't 9 happen. So, as part of anything that we do, there will be community O 10 in •H monitors to show and prove that there QD ^ 12 is not a problem. _ 13 Always, there is a contingency ^ 14 plan. Accidents — it would be naive 15 of me to say that it's impossible for 16 an accident to occur. We have no 17 incidence of ever a life-threatening 18 accident, but upsets can occur. 19 And, if that's the case, we have 20 the ability and we have an occasion 21 to shut down the incinerators before 22 any problem occurs. 23 Occasionally, you have computer 24 glitches and we have had situations 25 up in Arkansas, were not life- 56 1 threatening, but we had a computer 2 glitch that for one minute the air — 3 we had some problems with the air 4 cleaner. The incinerator was 5 automatically shut down. 6 That's the way we — we have a 7 lot of redundancy built in and we 8 have those safeguards built in to our 9 systems, to show that it would not be 10 a problem to the community. i"*"n " 11 So, again, from our information, CD •53- 12 it is not. ^j 13 Yes, sir. 14 MR. C. BRYANT: I'm Clyde Bryant. And, I have 15 two questions. 16 Will anyone have to be relocated 17 during any phase of this construction 18 or work, whatever it is? 19 And, will the City be assessed 20 any charge? 21 MR. S. GILREIN: We have no information. We have 22 done, actually, we have done a lot of 23 studies out there. We've done a lot 24 of studies in similar creosote sites. 25 We have no information to indicate 57 1 there will be any need to relocate 2 anybody. 3 And, no, the City will not be 4 assessed any charges for this. 5 Assuming we go ahead and fund 6 this ourselves and the State, it will 7 be entirely funded by the EPA and the 8 State of Louisiana. There will not 9 be any assessment for the City or the CM 10 Parish. in 11 Any questions? Sir. CO *f 12 MR. P. JONES: What about the fence? I drove o 13 out there after the last meeting and o 14 it's down. 15 MR. S. GILREIN: We, as a matter of fact — 16 that's — somebody had brought up 17 before the concern with access. We 18 need, if that's the case, if you 19 would visit us after the meeting and 20 show us on a map and we'll get the 21 fence fixed. 22 Yes, sir. 23 MR. F. JARNAGIN: I'm Ferrell Jarnagin. And, I 24 just wanted to know if, for some 25 reason, the incineration doesn't 58 1 work, you have to go back to scratch; 2 what will happen? 3 Will you have to then separate 4 these toxins from the premises or are 5 you going to have to move that soil 6 to some other location or ... 7 MR. S. GILREIN: If incineration does not work? 8 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Yeah. You said awhile ago, you 9 may move or you may have to go some • 10 other way. I was just — in 11 MR. S. GILREIN: No. The only way — oo 12 incineration, technically, we've got 13 extensive experience, will work. We 14 don't really have a doubt that 15 incineration will work. 16 Incineration is the state of the 17 art and quite honestly is the most 18 conservative way of addressing and 19 the most definitive way of addressing 20 creosote contamination. 21 MR. F. JARNAGIN: But, assuming it don't work. 22 MR. S. GILREIN: Okay, assume it doesn't work? 23 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Then what are you going to do 24 with the material that contains — 25 that's got contaminants in it from 59 1 coming out of the creosote posts. 2 What will happen to it? Will it be 3 cleansed on the — or through some 4 detoxifier out there or will — 5 MR. S. OILREIN: If — 6 MB. F. JARNAGIN: — it be moved to some other 7 location in Texas, Oklahoma or ... 8 MR. S. GILREIN: If incineration does not work, 9 EPA will have to go back and 10 reevaluate other options. And, those in 11 other options could be biological 00 12 treatment. And, maybe by that time C 13 we'll have new innovations for o 14 biological treatment. 15 We try to — we try to correct 16 all Superfund problems on the site. 17 We don't like, and statutorily, 18 legally, we are told not to, or the 19 preference is against it. We don't 20 like to pick it up and relocate that 21 problem to somebody else. 22 So, to the best of our 23 abilities, we always try to treat the 24 contaminants there. So, if 25 incineration doesn't work, we will 60 1 come back and tell the community that 2 'it didn't work and we'll come up with 3 another remedy that we hope would 4 work. 5 MR. F. JARNAGIN: So, in other words, you don't 6 see any chance of moving it? 7 MR. S. GILREIN: No. The — 8 ME. F. JARNAGIN: It can be detoxified here? 9 MR. S. GILREIN: The way the law is written, the in 10 law specifically states the least 11 preferred alternative will be °° 12 off-site disposal without treatment, o O 13 Basically, it's saying, picking 14 it up and moving it to another 15 community is unacceptable. And, 16 that's only as a last resort if 17 there's absolutely nothing else 18 viable, nothing else implementable. 19 MR. B. GRISWOLD: And, we'll do the construction 20 in such a manner that we won't 21 excavate this large volume of 22 material and then start incinerating. 23 We'll start with a small quantity and 24 prove that it's effective before we 25 start mass — mass excavation out 61 1 there. 2 MR. S. GILREIN: Right. As a matter of fact, the 3 first thing we do is a trial burn. 4 We have to — we set up the 5 incinerator — the contractor is 6 going to come back and say, "Guys, 7 it's going to work." We don't 8 believe them; we don't take them at 9 face value. We make them prove it to 10 S 11 First, we make them prove it to CD 12 us on clean dirt, that they can burn Q 13 what they say they can burn. Then we 14 make them go through a sort of — 15 basically, a trial period with some 16 material and prove to us that they 17 can do what they say they can do. If 18 they can't prove it, they're off the 19 site and we'll bring somebody else on 20 who can do the work. 21 So, we have a lot of safeguards 22 built into our system to insure that 23 what is done and what they claim to 24 be able to do, they can actually do. 25 Sir, do you have a question? 62 1 MR. J. COURTNEY: Yes. My name is Jeff Courtney 2 and I'm from Alexandria. 3 I just wanted to ask relevant to 4 DEQ, has it been decided how much 5 participative funding that they are 6 going to have in the project, if any? 7 MR. S. GILREIN: If DEQ, again, we are not 8 sure — DEQ's position is not 9 concrete yet. Again, they are still 10 talking amongst themselves. iIn 11 But. no matter what happens, ten 12 percent of the cost will be paid by O 13 the State. And, that the funding O 14 mechanism is actually through DEQ. 15 So, they're responsible for ten 16 percent of the costs. 17 MR. JEFF COURTNEY: Well, my concern is — I just 18 recently worked on a Superfund site, 19 specifically, Old Inger site — 20 MR. S. GILREIN: Urn-hum. 21 MR. JEFF COURTNEY: — as a contractor and I saw a 22 situation where you had a dollar 23 waiting on a dime, more than once. 24 And, I think it's very important 25 for the mayor and these people to 63 1 know that — you know, you are 2 talking about fifty to a hundred 3 million dollars and ten percent of 4 that is significant sums. 5 And, if they're having to wait 6 on the State and someone didn't 7 communicate to the State, now, like 8 this gentleman's concern was, it may 9 go beyond your time frame. 10 And, I think it's important that °° in 11 they understand what role that the CO 12 State plays in holding the progress 13 up. 14 MR. S. GILREIN: In this particular case, this is 15 a different type of site than Old 16 Inger, and I'll tell you why. 17 But, sir, what we will request 18 before we even initiate anything, we 19 sign — we literally sign a contract 20 with the State, where the State 21 guarantees the money. 22 And, that's the only time, once 23 we have that written contract, then 24 we can move. The contract is going 25 to be awarded by the Army Corps of 64 1 Engineers and overseen by us and the 2 Army Corps of Engineers. 3 The Old Inger site, which was 4 down around Darrow, Louisiana — 5 MR. J. COURTNEY: Right. 6 MR. S. GILREIN: — is, we actually have funded 7 the State and the State is overseeing 8 that project. So, as a matter of 9 fact, their technical oversight will 10 not be as great in this project as in in that one. 00 11 12 MR. S. GILREIN: What will happen is, there are o 13 two things. If we were to excavate 14 the entire amount of material for 15 incineration, as part of that, we'd 16 have to have a dewatering operation 17 because you wouldn't be able to dig 18 into it without it all caving in. 19 So, we'd have to have a 20 dewatering operation. In the 21 event — one of the alternatives we 22 looked at was capping and pumping. 23 We would, in that case, we would have 24 to install some wells and we'd have 25 to, basically, pump and treat the 76 1 groundwater forever. If we just 2 capped and left all of the material 3 there. 4 C. VARNBLL: You really would because there 5 ain't a big enough pump in this world 6 to pump that much water out of there. 7 MR. S. GILREIN: Correct. 8 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Correct. It's more effective to 9 do it in a slow method, we're finding 10 out, to get these oils out. You r- 11 can't really — well, it's like the 00 12 oil industry. If you — if you 13 remove too much oil too quick, your 14 usefulness of your well is greatly 15 diminished. So, you have to do it in 16 a slow method. 17 MR. C. VARNELL: One of those levels down there 18 is at about seven feet. 19 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Pardon me? 20 MR. C. VARNELL: One of the levels — 21 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Correct. 22 MR. C. VARNELL: — at the creosote site, is at 23 about seven feet. 24 MR. B. GRISWOLD: It's as deep as — as shallow as 25 five feet. 77 1 MR. C. VARNELL: Right. Where we had our well at 2 down there was at seven feet. 3 MR. S. GILREIN: That's correct. 4 MR. C. VARNELL: Seven feet. And, it stayed 5 there. 6 MR. S. GILREIN: That's right. 7 MR. C. VARNELL: I don't care how much you pumped 8 it. 9 MR. S. GILREIN: It's rather shallow. That's right. eg 10 f>^ 11 MR. C. VARNELL: And, that was an eight-foot well 00 and I don't know how deep it went. «tf 12 O 13 MR. S. GILREIN: The main — the main thing that O 14 the long-term pumping and treatment 15 would accomplish is more what we term 16 hydraulic control. Is that we could 17 keep it, if operated forever, we 18 could keep it from contaminating 19 other areas. 20 But, it would be — it would 21 require continual pumping. We 22 wouldn't —we don't believe that 23 we'd have the ability to clean up the 24 whole site just by pumping. It would 25 be more of just a control of the 78 1 problem. 2 Way upstairs? 3 MR. B. HOLEMAN: Bob Holeman. Let me ask about 4 your decision process. You said, 5 perhaps in a month. How far, as a 6 community action, or input, how does 7 the EPA interpret the basically 8 passive response from the community 9 over the past months or years? Does 10 it make the project seem less I important? 11 ^CfO 12 MR. S. GILREIN: Oh, it's no less important, at o 13 all. The passive response that we o 14 have received — generally, this 15 is — it's quite common to receive — 16 that the community not say a lot 17 until such time as a decision is 18 made. That's quite — that happens 19 in about ninety percent of the cases. 20 In the situation now, we're 21 interested in seeing what the 22 community says. EPA, again, that's 23 part of the decision-making process. 24 We try, to the best of our ability, 25 to address the concerns expressed by .- ) ) 79 1 the community. 2 That does not mean, routinely, 3 we can always give the community what 4 they want. But, we try to be as 5 sensitive to that as possible. 6 But, no, this in no way 7 diminishes the importance of the 8 site. This is just something that we 9 have to address regardless if the 10 community thought there was no need 11 to do anything and didn't really care 00 12 about the site. O 13 That does not eliminate our 14 responsibility to address what we 15 perceive and what we believe to be a 16 public health threat. We would still 17 be required, legally, to address it 18 in some fashion. 19 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Let me add something here. This 20 is the decision-making step. It's 21 not the — once we sign this Record 22 of Decision, that was the formal rule 23 making that was set up in the Federal 24 statutes to handle this. 25 We cannot come back in, in two 80 1 years when we've already started the 2 clean-up operation and say, "Well, we 3 want to stop it because we want to 4 have another public meeting to 5 reconsider the initial decision." 6 In order to expedite the 7 process, that's why they've defined 8 this as a milestone. And, it's 9 really important now, that the 10 community speak up during these 11 community comment periods, and write °° «=T 12 to us and let us know what your o 13 feelings are, in addition to voicing 14 them here tonight. 15 MR. B. HOLEMAN: So, the community people will 16 again be encouraged to contact the 17 EPA? 18 ME. B. GRISWOLD: Yes, sir. Our comment period 19 closes on the 27th of this month. 20 MR. S. OILREIN: What we are — we are by 21 definition, public servants. To be 22 quite honest with you, and we don't 23 take that lightly. Even after this 24 decision process is over, we still 25 encourage your input throughout the 81 1 whole process; during the process of 2 the remedial design; during the 3 process of actual site remediation. 4 Basically, if you want us here 5 to talk to, we'll talk to you. We 6 always — we schedule meetings. We 7 schedule the meetings when we think 8 they are necessary. Often times 9 that's not when you think they are 10 necessary. *^ If you believe there's a need to 00 11 •3- 12 get us down to talk to you or if you Q 13 have a concern you'd like to express 14 to us or if you have questions, tell 15 us to come down and we'll come down 16 whenever you need us to come down, 17 So, yeah, we very much encourage 18 you to get involved; to get 19 interested; to ask questions; and, if 20 need be, tell us to come down again 21 and we'll be happy to have any type 22 of meetings and whatever. 23 MR. F. JARNAGIN: I'd like to ask — 24 MR. S. GILREIN: Yes, sir. 25 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Are there any type of 82 1 contractors in Louisiana — 2 MR. S. GILREIN: Excuse me, name please, just for 3 the record? 4 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Ferrell Jarnagin. Are there any 5 general contractors in Louisiana 6 capable of taking this type job? 7 MR. B. GRISWOLD: There are multi — well, there's 8 National firms with offices in the 9 State of Louisiana that can handle t» 10 all phases of the work — Is- 11 MR. F. JARNAGIN: How many contractors have 0«t0f 12 you-all used on previous sites in o 13 Louisiana? o 14 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Right now, in Slidell the 15 individual — 16 MR. F. JARNAGIN: No, I mean the names of the 17 companies that you-all let the bids 18 to? I know how these decision-making 19 processes work. 20 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, sir, some of the bigger — 21 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Are they all based in St. Louis 22 or — 23 MR. S. GILREIN: Some of the bigger companies — 24 you say where are they based, as Bert 25 said, they've got offices all over 83 1 the country. IT Corporation; Chem 2 Waste Management — 3 MR. B. ORISWOLD: AWD Technologies. 4 MR. S. GILREIN: — AWD Technologies. 5 MR. F. JARNAOIN: Westinghouse. 6 MR. S. GILREIN: Westinghouse. There's a lot — 7 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Where are these companies 8 geographically located? Where are 9 they at? GO 10 MR. S. GILREIN: Okay. i ~- 11 MR. B. ORISWOLD: Okay. Okay. IT Corporation has °° 12 offices here, Texas — O O 13 MR. F. JARNAGIN: They all have to have a 14 home-base office somewhere. 15 MR. S. GILREIN: Yeah. And, California is one 16 regional office and Pennsylvania. 17 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Is it true that you-all have a 18 unrestrictive — non-published 19 telephone numbers in St. Louis at the 20 main EPA office? 21 MR. S. GILREIN: We are the main EPA office in 22 this area is in Dallas, Texas. 23 MR. B. GRISWOLD: In Dallas, Texas. 24 MR. F. JARNAGIN: The reason why I asked. I 25 called and tried to get a dump site 84 1 out here and I went through everybody 2 in the country. And, finally had to 3 get hold of senators and everybody 4 else. 5 I got to Dallas — I went to 6 Monroe and got to Dallas and they 7 said they couldn't give out any 8 numbers up there because they are not 9 — they are restricted numbers. ( 10 MR. S. GILREIN: The 1-800 numbers? MR. B. GRISWOLD: To contractors? oo 11 *3- 12 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Huh? o 13 MR. B. GRISWOLD: To contractors or to EPA, the o 14 numbers you are referring to? 15 MR. F. JARNAGIN: I called the EPA office. 16 MR. S. GILREIN: I mean there are no — I'm 17 unaware of any restricted numbers for 18 EPA. And, as a matter of fact, our 19 phone numbers are published in the 20 back (indicating) — 21 MR. B. GRISWOLD: I'll give you my direct line to 22 my — to my office. 23 MR. F. JARNAGIN: No, I don't want it. What I 24 wanted was the head man, that was the 25 one I was wanting to talk to. 85 1 Because I couldn't get anything out 2 of the people in Monroe and I 3 couldn't get anything out of the 4 people in Dallas. 5 And, so, I said, "Well, give me 6 somebody I can talk to." 7 MR. S. GILREIN: Well — 8 MR. F. JARNAOIN: And, they said, it's all in St. 9 Louis; am I correct? 10 MK. S. GILREIN: No. There's no EPA office — CD well, we don't have any EPA office in00 11 «3- 12 St. Louis. o 13 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Well, okay. Whereabouts in the 14 middle west do you call? 15 MR. S. GILREIN: In Kansas City. 16 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Well, maybe it was Kansas City, 17 then. 18 MR. S. GILREIN: There is a Kansas City office. 19 MR. F. JARNAGIN: It was in the midwest somewhere, 20 as I recall. 21 MR. S. GILREIN: Kansas City and Chicago, we've 22 got ten offices across the country. 23 In the midwest it's Kansas City and 24 Chicago. 25 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Do what? 86 1 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Let me give you a toll-free 2 number to us and this is — 3 MR. F. JARNAGIN: Well, are you in charge of the 4 Dallas office? 5 MB. S. GILREIN: No, no, no. 6 MB. B. GRISWOLD: No, no. 7 MB. S. GILREIN: We work within the Dallas 8 office. 9 MR. F. JARNAOIN: Well, I was told in your Dallas 10 office — in the Dallas office that 00 11 the Kansas City — they could not 00 12 give me the number to that because it 13 was a restricted number of the people 14 in charge up there. Now, that's been 15 about three years ago. 16 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, that's — I'm sorry if 17 that happened. That sounds odd. 18 MR. F. JARNAGIN: I just wanted you to be aware of 19 things. 20 MR. S. GILREIN: If you want — if you want the 21 number in Kansas City, I'll be happy 22 to give it to you. I've got a whole 23 list of EPA phone numbers. 24 MR. F. JARNAGIN: I've got it now, but I had to go 25 through eternity to get it. 87 1 MR. S. OILREIN: Yes, sir. 2 ME. C. JOHNSON: My name is Carl Johnson. I'm 3 from Pineville and I'm just kind of 4 an observer tonight. 5 And, I try to work in the wood 6 preserving industry and have for the 7 last fifteen years. And, I'm very 8 familiar with the problems that 9 people are talking about. CM 10 And, I would like to — along 00 11 the lines of economics, I notice here 00 •st 12 in your report that, in 1998 — 1988, o 13 EPA ordered Stallworth Timber Company ° 14 to fence the property, which they 15 did. 16 Then, I noticed "In 1989", it 17 says, "EPA issued an Administrative 18 Order directing the company to 19 address the imminent threats posed by 20 the site. However, Stallworth 21 declined to comply with the order, 22 necessitating — necessitating EPA 23 action." 24 I'd like to know how Stallworth, 25 who these people may not be aware of, 88 1 is based in Alabama. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Mississippi. 3 MR. C. JOHNSON: Well, I think it's Alabama. 4 Were able to decline to comply with 5 an order from the EPA. 6 The reason I ask that, along the 7 line of economics and I know that 8 Winnfield is a lot of the timber 9 industry. Our plant sits probably a KS 10 mile from the 1-49 that's being put 00 11 in through Alexandria. 00 ^t 12 And, we could not compete with O 13 the treating plants in Mississippi o 14 and Alabama who shipped all that 15 piling for that job. And, we didn't 16 get any of it. Because of things of 17 like this, where we have to spend 18 millions of dollars to comply with 19 all the EPA regulations and DEQ 20 regulations. And, we have one of the 21 best looking plants in the country 22 and yet these people are able not to 23 comply with EPA orders. 24 And, now, I would like somebody 25 to explain to me, how they were able 89 1 to do that and walk off and leave 2 this plant and now the taxpayers have 3 got to cough up the money to clean up 4 this site? 5 MR. S. GILREIN: Let me tell you, we are trying 6 to go after Stallworth. We can't — 7 what happened was, we gave — we gave 8 Stallworth an opportunity to clean up 9 the site and he refused. By him 10 refusing, that basically — 0"0^ 11 basically, we have to sue him to 00 12 actually do it. ^ 13 Now, we are going after 14 Stallworth. And, we are actually 15 going after American Creosote, the 16 company, and any other companies that 17 we can find that had any dealings at 18 the site, whatsoever, to try to 19 recover all the monies that we spend. 20 And, if we are able to do so, 21 that does negate the need for the 22 State of Louisiana to come up with a 23 match. So, we actually — we have a 24 whole team of attorneys and we have a 25 whole team of enforcement staff. 90 1 And, trust me, we are diligently 2 going after them to try to recover 3 all the monies that we spend. And, 4 so, don't — you know, trust me on 5 that one. 6 Yes, sir. 7 MR. P. JONES: Now, again, like he asked — 8 I — now, I know that oil and most chemicals will float on water and 9 in 10 it's in a valley and it's kind of oo 11 trapped, but, was there any kind of a 00 12 study made with a computer or o 13 whatever, on the odds of this ever, o 14 with heavy rains or something like 15 that, dispersing that, do you know? 16 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Yeah, we are doing additional 17 modeling at this time to insure that 18 how we remediate the site, how we 19 clean it up, we do it adequately to 20 make sure we prevent any migration 21 from the site. 22 I can tell you, based on the 23 existing data, we have defined the 24 plumes where they are now as 25 presented in the document. 91 1 MR. S. OILREIN: The bottom lines that we've 2 looked at, is the fact that heavy 3 rain — as is now, even a heavy rain, 4 you get discharge and some of these 5 floating — floating oils into the 6 creek there. 7 MR. P. JONES: Well, I understand — 8 MS. S. OILREIN: And that's — 9 MR. P. JONES: — that's it's been there ninety 10 years and it's been seeping down to 11 that level now. °° 12 MR. S. GILREIN: It has seeped down. It has gone o O 13 down to forty-five feet and the plume 14 has gotten larger. It's just — 15 again, but it also moves very, very 16 slowly. 17 One — one instance of heavy 18 rain is very likely not going to 19 disperse it, catastrophically. It's 20 a matter of something happening over 21 a long period of time. 22 MR. P. JONES: I was just wanting to know if 23 you did a study on the odds of — 24 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, that's something we 25 look — we look at prior — that's 92 1 one of the things that we have to 2 evaluate for remediating the site. 3 As Bert said, that's something we're 4 doing right now. 5 Questions? Yes, sir. 6 MR. K. CALDWELL: Kenny Caldwell. This area is 7 kind of in the heart of my district. 8 Did — I don't know, you might have mentioned on the odor of this 9 • 10 incinerator. Would it be a strong 00 11 odor? 00 12 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, hopefully, it's mostly — 13 hopefully, it should have very, very O 14 little odor — 15 MR. K. CALDWELL: Very little odor? 16 MR. S. GILREIN: — at the end of it. I mean, 17 you obviously will have much more of 18 an odor with the raw creosote than 19 you would out of the incinerator. 20 The odors that we're anticipating, 21 and what we've seen in the past, is 22 more the handling of the creosote 23 before incineration. We don't really 24 anticipate any odors coming out the 25 incinerator, whatsoever. 93 1 What happens is, when we start 2 excavating, this will be bringing up 3 some raw oils and some raw creosote. 4 And to the best of our abilities, if 5 we have an odor problem, there are 6 odor suppression techniques that we 7 will utilize to keep the odor down. 8 But from the incinerator, no. 9 MR. K. CALDWELL: I notice the alternatives, 00 10 there's one through five, are you-all 00 11 looking kindly at five? 0*t0f 12 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, that is one of the o 13 alternatives that we are looking at. o 14 Obviously, we don't have a proposal 15 saying this is what we want. We have 16 discussed this with the State. 17 The State is saying, "Hey, it 18 looks like incineration is really the 19 thing that's really going to work." 20 And that's one reason we wanted to 21 get the community input, specifically 22 on that. And, yes, sir, we're 23 certainly looking at that. 24 MR. K. CALDWELL: As far as the Alternative-5, 25 that's what I would recommend. 94 1 Because that's would — 2 MR. S. GILREIN: You would recommend 3 Alternative-5? 4 MR. K. CALDWELL: Yes, I would. 5 MR. S. GILREIN: Thank you. 6 MR. K. CALDWELL: Also, on the creek, on Creosote 7 Creek, I know you — probably 8 questions have been answered on that, 9 already, it's a lot of — down the 10 creek, there's a lot of areas where 00 11 it's real boggy, kind of like 00 •sfr 12 quicksand. O 13 And this question that I've got o 14 is, this sediment and all goes into 15 Dugdemona River. Does this 16 contaminate the fish in Dugdemona 17 River? 18 MR. B. GRISWOLD: Let me address that. First of 19 all, we've done samples up to almost 20 two miles downstream. And, yes, we 21 have creosote in the sediments there. 22 There is a chance for some of the 23 contamination going to the fish once 24 the sediments are disturbed. But, 25 right now, the water columns are 95 1 showing to be cleaned. 2 We tried to get some water — 3 some fish samples, of their tissues, 4 and we were not successful. But, 5 there is a potential for that. 6 From a human health standpoint 7 about contacting those sediments, we 8 found out there's not a substantial 9 risk associated with this and we 10 found out, if we were to dredge from ^ 11 the site, down to the Dugdemona, we CO 12 would cause more environmental harm Q 13 than any benefit we could provide. 14 So, what we're advocating is a 15 potential out here, right now, is to 16 leave the sediments alone. Do some 17 minimal excavations near the source, 18 which is the site, but the 19 concentrations downstream don't 20 represent a significant risk. And, 21 like I said, we — 22 MR. K. CALDWELL: On the purification of the 23 water, would you-all cleanse that and 24 let it go down Creosote Branch? Is 25 that how you would do it? 96 1 MR. S. OILREIN: Any water that's — that's 2 pumped from the site, will be treated 3 prior to discharge, to meet Louisiana 4 and Federal discharge standards. 5 MR. K. CALDWELL: Okay. I believe that's it. 6 Thank you, sir. 7 MR. C. O'BRYAN: Claude O'Bryan. Several years 8 ago, I worked on a construction job 9 that done some work on that site, 10 which consisted of pushing the sand i 11 off of that hill, covering the old 00 «3- 12 sediment pond. Some of these O 13 gentleman know more about it than I 14 do. 15 But, it seemed like we done — 16 we hauled dirt, tons and tons and 17 tons, like two or three months in our 18 trucks. And we dumped it in there, a 19 sand mix, and finally capped it out. 20 With that being that much sand 21 dumped in that old sediment pond, 22 which it was a pretty good size pond, 23 does that — would that present more 24 of a risk moving out of that into the 25 stream and maybe up the other side — 97 1 disposal — I mean, I don't know, 2 you-all probably found it. 3 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, we actually have — there 4 is a lot of material that we found. 5 As a matter of fact, one thing, it 6 was kind of an invaluable thing that 7 we did, two things are very helpful 8 for us. 9 Again, we have detailed aerial CM 10 historical photographs that go back ON quite a number of years so we know 00 11 •st 12 where all the old abandoned pits O 13 were, the ones that were closed out. o 14 In addition to that, we trenched 15 across that whole site, looking for 16 all the old ones. 17 So we're — we feel as though 18 we're very much aware of where all 19 the closed pits were and things. And 20 if — does that answer your question 21 regarding that? We really have found 22 most of them. 23 MR. C. O'BRYAN: The only thing is, it was closed 24 with sand and I know water and oil 25 moves in sand more better than it 98 1 does in — 2 MR. S. GILREIN: Sand — that's not, again, as 3 far as we're concerned, that's not an 4 effective way to clean up a site. 5 All that that does, that has a 6 tendency to increase the volume of 7 material that has to be treated. 8 So, we're having to have to 9 treat all the contaminated sand, as 10 opposed to just the sludge material 11 in the pit, itself. So that ~ 11 problem, I encourage you to contact i' 12 us to tell us or tell the State of O O 13 Louisiana, and we'll see what we can 14 do about addressing it. 15 MR. C. BRYANT: I believe you-all covered this 16 pretty good, all of this. 17 MR. S. GILREIN: Do you? Are there any other 18 comments or questions? All right. 19 We're still, again, we're just a 20 phone call away. At the back of 21 the — some of the — the proposed 22 plans, we have our address. We 23 encourage you to send any written 24 comments. 25 Any time, again, that you need 107 1 us to come back again, we'll be happy 2 to do so. We actually have one more 3 questions. Yes, sir. 4 MR. D. MCNEILL: It's not really a question. I'm 5 David McNeill. As you know, I've 6 been in contact with you quite a few 7 times. And I've been still having a 8 little problem getting some 9 information. 10 I talked with Mr. McFarland two ™ Os 11 weeks ago and he said he would send 0 •xf 12 me a bundle of these (indicating) to o 13 put out and post in public places, 14 where we'd have a little more — a 15 little better coverage. He said that 16 this would also be sent to be put in 17 the paper. I haven't seen this in 18 the paper. 19 What was in the paper was an 20 interview that I gave to the paper 21 and that's the reason that there was 22 any publicity, at all. I never 23 received these. 24 MR. S. GILREIN: Okay, well we — 25 MR. D. MCNEILL: I also have applied to get the 108 1 book for the technical assistance 2 grant for the community. I haven't 3 received that. 4 MR. S. GILREIN: Well, I've got the man for you. 5 MB. D. MCNEILL: Okay. I've called six times. 6 MR. S. GILREIN: Okay, I'll tell you what. What 7 I'm going to do, again, let me 8 express my appreciation for the fact 9 that you came out this evening. t, 10 Again, we had only a couple of O 11 people the last couple of meetings 12 and it's very nice to know that we O 13 travelled all this way and we have as O 14 many people that we have. And, I 15 really do appreciate you coming out. 16 Again, I encourage you to watch 17 us. To stay involved. To know what 18 we're doing and when we're doing it. 19 And, any questions, you have our 20 names and numbers. Please, contact 21 us. 22 But, again, as far as the court 23 reporter, that's going to be the 24 official end, unless you have 25 something else to add. 109 1 MB. B. GRISWOLD: Let me add one thing. Please, 2 write us, if you can, this week or 3 next week. Because, we are set to 4 make decisions with the State of 5 Louisiana. 6 MR. S. GILREIN: And we're going to make Bert 7 respond to every — everything we get 8 in writing because he's not busy 9 enough at work. (General laughter). 10 So that's the official end of the O 11 public comment period and the court 12 reporter can go home. O O 13 14 ***************HEARING ENDED AT 8:28 P.M. * 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 I, KATHY A. HAMILTON, a Certified Shorthand Reporter 4 in and for the State of Louisiana, do hereby certify that 5 the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the 6 PUBLIC HEARING on the captioned matter on the 15th day of 7 September, 1992, as taken by me in machine shorthand and 8 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my direct supervision. 9 in 10 Winnfield, Louisiana, this 25th day of September, o 11 1992. ON 12 ORIGINAL SIGNED P' O KATHY A. HAMH T O 13 KATHY A. HAMILTON 14 Certified Shorthand Reporter Louisiana Certificate #87335 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25