BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVEDCLERK'S
OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,,
Complainant,
v.
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC .,
an Illinois Corporation, and CITY OF MORRIS,
an Illinois Municipal Corporation,,
Respondents.
RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT, COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY,
INC.'S MOTION TO CANCEL HEARING AND COMPLAINANT, STATE
OF ILLINOIS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CANCEL
HEARING
NOW COMES the CITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, by and
through its attorneys, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP, and for its Response to both the
Motion of Respondent, Community Landfill Company, Inc
.'s, Motion to Cancel Hearing and the
Complainant, State of Illinois', Response in Opposition to same, states as follows :
1 .
As indicated in oral arguments presented to Hearing Officer Bradley Halloran
earlier today, the City has and continues to maintain that it is essentially a putative, ancillary
Respondent in this matter, essentially caught in a "cross-fire" between the Complainant State of
Illinois and Respondent Community Landfill Company, Inc
. (the entity which, even by this
Honorable Board's admission at Page 14 of its February 16, 2006 Interim Order, conducted the
day to day waste disposal activities at the facility in question
. In turn, the City has made its
position clear that it vigorously objects to having been found a party that "conducted a waste
disposal operation" in this Honorable Board's Interim Order of February 16, 2006
.
2.
The City believes that actual prejudice will result to its position in this matter if
this hearing is not continued until such time as Edward Pruim can be compelled to testify
. The
City has included Edward Pruim on its Witness List for the hearing in question (copy of such
70502967v1806299
OCT 0 5 2006
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control Board
)
PCB No . 03-191
)
)
)
)
witness designation being marked Exhibit A and attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference and hereby served upon the parties) .
3.
Since (as established by the record in this matter) the cost of complying closure,
post-closure financial assurance requirements runs literally in the millions of dollars, obviously
since the State is claiming that the City is potentially responsible for such costs and expenses, it
is essential that a full hearing be afforded to all parties, with all witnesses and all material
evidence being received at that hearing .
4.
As indicated in oral arguments presented to Hearing Officer Halloran earlier
today, based upon its review of other depositions and other testimony given by the Pruim
Brothers in other related matters, it fears that if only one corporate representative (i.e.,
Robert
Pruim) is called in this matter that corporate representative will simply demurrer and defer to
knowledge possessed by Mr
. Edward Pruim (who is presently medically unavailable to testify in
this matter at the hearing which is now scheduled)
. In turn, since Mr. Edward Pruim was the
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the corporation, and since closure post-closure matters
by their very essence relate to financial issues, the City submits that it is absolutely essential that
it be allowed to question Mr
. Edward Pruim in detail as to why the parties find themselves in the
present situation they do before this Honorable Board
.
5 .
The City respectfully submits that its position in this matter is entirely consistent
with this Honorable Board's Supplemental Order of June 1, 2006, which clarifies and expands
upon the Board's Initial Interim Order of February 6, 2006
. The text of that Order makes clear
that (pursuant to Section 33(c) and 42(h) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act), not only
Board Member Melas, but the entire Board expects a full, complete and detailed explanation as
to
: (1) how the landfill facility in question found itself in the condition it did as of the initiation
2
70502967v 1 806289
of this enforcement action ; (2) who was responsible for the condition of the landfill
; (3) what (if
any) further steps have been taken to address concerns raised by the State during the course of
this action .
6.
In response to the State's allegation that a "hearing" on the "proposed remedy" is
necessary in this matter, the City notes that at Page 4 of the Board's order of June 1, 2006, the
Board notes that the purpose of the Act (and the financial assurance obligations set forth therein),
are to ensure that neither health nor the environment is harmed from the operation of a municipal
solid waste landfill .
The Board's June 1, 2006 goes further in noting that the Board must
interpret the Act as it applies " . . .in
each individual instance." (Emphasis added) . As indicated
in oral arguments had before Hearing Officer Halloran earlier today, in his 106 page deposition,
expert witness Devin Moose has indicated that based upon the current status of activities which
have been undertaken at the facility in question, no eminent and substantial threat to the human
health and the environment is posed by the facility in question . (See pp . 70-75)
. As noted by
Mr
. Moose in his deposition, the site is essentially closed, and for the past two years, site
characterization and preliminary closure activities have been undertaken by the City (pending
final resolution of the City's alleged status as a party responsible for the posting of closure, post-
closure financial assurance) to assure that the human health and/or the environment are not
harmed . (See pp . 76-80 and Moose Deposition Exhibit 8)
. As such, (and as noted by Mr. Moose
in his deposition testimony), the purpose of the financial assurance provisions of the Act have
been squarely met
. In turn, accordingly, there is no immediate need for the conducting of a
remedy hearing in this matter, and the more paramount concern is affording all parties a
complete hearing on all issues and factors noted by the Board in its June 1, 2006 order
.
3
70502967v1 806289
7.
In summary, the City wishes to again make clear that it does not take sides with or
support one part or the other in this matter
. Rather, the City's sole and controlling concern is that
it be afforded a full and fair hearing on all the evidence which exist in this case .
8.
In turn, it is the City's fear that if it is not allowed to examine the Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Co-Respondent, Community Landfill Company, Inc . in this matter,
it could be substantially prejudiced, and the tax payers of the City could face exposure for
literally millions of dollars of closure, post-closure obligations without having been afforded the
opportunity to fully and completely present its case. Put a different way, this Honorable Board
has consistently held in hearings such as this that for its own benefit (as well as the benefit of
each party to such an action) a complete and full hearing on all relevant evidence should be
conducted, and that the needs of all parties for a complete and full hearing should be satisfied .
The City would submit that the basic precepts of fundamental fairness established by this Board
required nothing less .
WHEREFORE, the City of Morris respectfully requests that the hearing in this matter be
continued until such time as both Edward and Robert Pruim are physically and medically able to
testify in this matter .
Dated
:
Lg
IA'6
Respectfullysubmitted
On behalf of the CIT )OF MORRIS
Charles
l
F . Helsten
Charles F
. Helsten
"One of Its Attorneys
Hinshaw
100 Park
&
AvenueCulbertson
LLP
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford,
815-490-4900IL
61105-1389
This document utilized 100%
4
recycled paper products .
70502967v 1 806289
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure, hereby under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America,
certifies that on
2006, she caused to be served a copy of the
foregoing upon :
Mr. Christopher Grant
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St ., 20th Fl .
Chicago, IL 60601
Mark LaRose
Clarissa Grayson
LaRose & Bosco, Ltd.
200 N. LaSalle, Suite 2810
Chicago, IL 60601
Ms . Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Pollution Control Board
100 W . Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Bradley Halloran
Hearing Officer
Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11
Chicago, IL 60601
A copy of the same was enclosed in an envelope in the United States mail at Rockford, Illinois,
proper postage prepaid, before the hour of 5 :00 p.m ., addressed as above .
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
100 Park Avenue
P .O . Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
(815) 490-4900
70415200v1 800289
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,,
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB No. 03-191
COMMUNITY LANDFILL COMPANY, INC
., )
an Illinois Corporation, and CITY OF MORRIS,
)
an Illinois Municipal Corporation,,
)
Respondents.
)
WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST
NOW COMES the Respondent, City of Morris, by and through its attorneys, Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP, and files its Witness List and Exhibit List, as follows
:
WITNESS LIST
1 .
Devin Moose
2.
William Crawford
3 .
John Enger
4.
J.P. Pelnarsh Sr.
5 .
Robert Pruim
6 .
Edward Pruim
7.
R. Michael McDermont
8 .
Joyce Munie
9.
Blake Harris
10.
Cristina Roque
11 .
Ellen Robinson
70502427v
14
1806289
EXHIBIT
71
12.
Mark Retzlaff
13 .
Brian White
14.
The City also reserves the right to call any other witness in rebuttal of any
position taken by the State or Community Landfill Company in presentation of their respective
cases.
EXHIBIT LIST
1 .
Any and all exhibits and/or information attached to any pleadings, motions or
other documents filed for the record in this case
;
2 .
Any and all documents, records, reports, information, and/or other tangible things
referred to in all depositions taken and all discovery requests (and responses thereto) made in this
matter ;
3 .
Any and all documents on file concerning the Morris Community Landfill with
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency .
4.
Any and all documents produced by any party in response to information riders
attached to depositions notices or discovery requests (including, but not limited to all documents
produced by the City of Morris in connection with the depositions of John Enger, William
Crawford and Devin Moose) .
5 .
The City also reserves the right to call any other exhibits in rebuttal of any
position taken by the State or Community Landfill Company in presentation of their respective
cases.
2
70502427v1 806289
Dated:
Respectfully submitted,
On behalf of the CIT OF MORRIS
Charles F
. Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
815-490-4900
Charles F. Helsten
One of Its Attorneys
This document utilized 100%
3
recycled paper products
.
70502427v 1
806289
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
Cmplainant,
vs .
)
PCB No . 03-191
(Enforcement-Lard)
enQDMMITY
Illinois
LANDFILL
corporation,
COMPANY,
ad
INCthe
. ))
CITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois
nuicipal corporation,
)
)
Respondents .
)
The deposition of DEVIN A . MOOSE, P.E., DEE
taken before Linda A
. Lace, C.S.R, R.P.R., a Notary
Public in ad for the County of McHerry, State of
Illirois, taken at the offices of Shaw Enviranmtat,
Inc ., 1150 N . Fifth Avenue, St . Charles, Illinois, a
Wednesday the 2rd of August, A .D., 2c06, sdhecULed at
the hour of 1 o'clock but coarcncirg at 1 :10 p.m .
PRESENT :
STATE OF ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY
: Mt
. CHRISTOPHER J
. GRANT,
Assistant Attorney General
188 W. Randolph Street, 20th Floor
((33122)8i4-53
6
8
1
8
M01
appeared a behalf of Caplaira-it ;
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
P1021
BY.O:
.
MRNorth
Box
.
19276BRUCE
Grand
A .
AvenueKUGLER,
Assistant Counsel
1
imf~ld IL 62794-9276
appeared a behalf of Illinois EPA ;
A
Q
A
something like that .
•
Have you ever testified in court?
A
Yes .
•
And can you tell me in what cases you've
testified?
A
I've been in front of the Pollution Control
Board . I have been in front of the City of Chicago in
their, I thirk it's Admnistratmve Law j1x e, I'm rot
sure if that's correct, and I have been in front of some
other
facilities
venues
that
having
Idon'tto
do
recall
with
at
pollution
this timecant
.
rov
EXHIBIT
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\69
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
(Witness Swoon .)
DEVIN A. MOOSE, P.E., DEE,
having been first dily sworn, was examined ad testified
as f at Laws :
EXAMINATION
BY MR . GRANT :
•
Mr . Moose, my ram is Chris Grant and I'm
with the Attorney General's office . I'm the attorney
representing the State in this case . First, let me ask
you, have you given a deposition before?
Yes .
Approximately how may tints?
I'm rot sure, six, eight, ton, twelve,
3
18
1
2
3
2
LaROSE & BCtZ LTD .
BY200 :
North
MS . CLARI~SA
LaSalle Street,
WILER (RAYSONSuite
2810
Chicago
(312) 642-4414IL
60601
Leaped an behalf of Respadmit Camanity
Company, Inc . ;
HINSHAW
BY : MR .
&
CHARLES
C)LBERTSON
F . HELSTENLLP
100
P .O .
Park
Box
Avenue1389
Rockford
(815) 490-4906IL
61105-1389
appeared on behalf of Respondent City of
Morris .
PRESENT VIA SPEAKERPHONE :
MsILLINOIS
. Christine
ENVIRONMENTAL
Rogf
, Bureau
PROTECTION
of LadAGENCY
INDEX OF EXAMINATION
WITNESS : UhVIN A . Mht .)CE .,DEE
a goveninmt agecy?
A
Although not part of a lawsuit, I represent
nay units of government . I've worked far nearly 60
counties in the State of Illinois, currently emplo yed by
over 20 municipalities in the State of Illirois . And
•
some of then that come to mind as far as working for the
jurisdiction as opposed to the applicant or the Landfill
•
aver, I include the City of Chicago Where I Was the
ity of Chicago's expert
. I developed the City of
icago's latifill regulations, trained all of their
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\dJ18
BY :
PACE
LINE
MSJ .
GRANTGRAYSON
99
r
4
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
NUBER DESCRIPTION
PAGE
T- Ourriculun vitae TY
LINE
10
5
10-20-04 IEPA Landfill Inspection . . 25
10
2 Respondent's Answers to 69
3
3
supplementalInterrogatoriesAnswers
to State's . . . 69 3
6
Premature
InterrogatoriesClosure
Cast Estimate - 102
10
7
Parcel B
Premature Closure Cost Estimate
- 102
10
8
Parcel A
Shaw Erwiranrental alternative . . . 102
10
4
Outline of
closure
tasksarproachtai 6-13-06 . . . . 103
11
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
4
Q Do you relnrber if any of those were
enforcement proceedings, in other words, enforcement
action under the Erwirrrn maL Protection Act, for
example?
A
Some of than probably were . I don't recall
the specifics of then .
Q
Were sane of then also permitting types of
hearings?
A
Yes .
Q
And in each case did you testify for the
person Who
was seeking the permit as opposed to a
government
age-y!
A
No .
Q
in What cases have you testified an behalf of
11
5
initial inspectors, and was
an expert for the City of
Chicago on numerous
landfill siting issues, operational
violations or alleged violation issues
. Ard one that
cores to mind was the Lard ad Lakes 122nd Street, Lard
and Lakes 130th . I have worked for other counties
representing their interest also for probably dozens of
different disputes .
(Exhibit No . 1 was marked for
identification an 8-2-06 .)
•
I am going to show you what's corked as
Exhibit Number 1
. And I believe you've identified this
as your CV or curriculum vitae ; is that correct?
A
It is .
• why don't you hold onto that
. I want to ask
you about your
ad,ation and experience and you've sort
of started on that
. So, why don't you generally tell ire
abort your post-secodary school adoration?
A
I have a Bachelor's in Science degree from
the University of Missouri-Rolla
. I have been involved
in --
ad that is a fogs in and double major in
geological and geotechnical ergineerirg . Those are
•
having to do with the study of soils ad groundwater . I
•
worked for a geotedhnical engineer on ad off from '77
thro-gh '83
. Begimirg in '83 I started working for --
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
7
a continuing education
requirement
that I'm required to
ma intain . So, it's just a higher level of accreditation
in the area of solid waste ogineerimg .
•
How old are yw?
A
I'm 49 an the 22nd of Angst .
•
1 was going to say, it's an awful lot of
stuff . Are you from Illinois originally?
A
Yeah, grew up in this area, lived here my
whole life .
0
Nd where do you now reside?
A
In St
. Charles just outside of town .
• Can you describe briefly your irwolvemmt
with Landfills specifically, permanent waste disposal
facilities?
A
Probably beginning in about the early '80's,
I'm going to say '83 or '84, 1 became involved working
on ladfilLs predominately fran a castrrctabiIity and
geotechnical aspect . At the tine there were rot very
extensive regulations involved in tarlfiLls and my
early
•
landfill client was waste Marageimt, Incorporated
. I
had been retained by then on a more increasingly basis
•
to help them with issues of castnxtion deaterirg,
•
slope stability analysis, constructing liners ad so
forth . And save of my early assigmmts were the
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
6
•
Was that your first professional jab cut of
college?
A
Yes .
•
Ard just to clarify, was your degree in
engineering?
A
Yes, I have a Bachelor's of Science degree in
civil engineering
. I'm a Registered
Professional
Engineer in Illinois and nine other states
. I've been
awarded the level of Diplomat by the Nnerican Academy of
Environmtat Engineers with
emphasis
in solid waste
engineering .
•
Can you explain what that fleas?
A
It's a higher level of accreditation
. It
requires that you become a Registered Professional
Engineer . It requires that you --
in all the things
that entails . It requires, I thick it's seven
or eight
years of experience as a Registered Professional
Engineer, and then it also requires a passing of another
written examination, extensive written examination in a
•
particular area of expertise . It also then requires you
to pass an oral examination by a panel of your peers
. A
•
nationwide pawl of peers are assembled and you have a
•
day Lag deposition like asking you different questions
abort your particular area of the irdstry
. It also has
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
8
Woodman Landfill, Settler's Hill Landfill, and a
ladfill in Dabury, Connecticut which was a big valley
•
fill that I worked on .
Over the years I got more involved in ladfilIs
just I+erare
of the increasirg scrutiny that they
received, increased regulatory require ants
. Ard I got
involved in grand+ater aonitorirg, hydrogeological
evaluations of new sites
. ALL of that delved really
•
good with m, edxatiaral backgrard in geological ad
geotednical engineering
. And as I continued to get
more involved, I'd say
somewhere
in the late '80's,
probably '87, '88, somewhere along those lines, I pretty
much converted full-tine to ewiranental egireering
.
And the atviroroental egineering foases in two areas,
solid waste Landfills and rerediatian type projects
.
Aid I participated in the deveLoprent of the Landfill
regulations in Illinois in cammtirg and working with
the scientific penal an that
.
0
Who was your client at the tine you were
•
cementing on the de.elcprmt
of the solid waste
regulations?
•
A
Solid Waste Agency of northern Cook County .
•
0 were you involved in the case, the BalefiIt
case?
LIMA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
11
9
A
I am the senior project manager for that
case . That's my project .
•
N-d you're currently employed with Shaw
Environmental, Incorporated?
A
Yes .
•
How lag have you been with Shaw?
A
we were acgiired by Shaw approximately two
•
ad a half years ago .
•
When you say %dl?
A
we were before that Envirogai . So, with Shaw
two and a half years and its predecessors prdably for
nearly ten . So, I haven't qnt work "mhed
. I just
charged business cards, if you will .
•
Ard
your
business card says Director of Shaw
Environmental . What are your responsibilities as
director?
A
My job is really to run the St
. Charles,
Illirois office. We have 30 employees here . We fogs
on solid waste ad etviraneital remediaticn type
projects . I'm also national director of solid waste
planning for Shaw Environmental nationwide, and we're
also the, if you will, go-to office for siting and
development of new landfills or expanding Landfills
nationwide . We're
currently
working probably an six or
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
financial experiare[sic .] or finacial performance or
financial guarantees begin at the very beginning which
in other gates is tatted an engineer's cost estimate
.
An engineer's cost estimate is used to deeelcp
projections of construction costs . In the lacifiII
regulations that engineer's cost estimate is used
predominantly in posting financial assurance for
landfills and more specifically
premature
closure and
post-closure care for ladfiIts .
•
Let me separate my gation a tittle bit
because I glass there's two things I'm thinking of . One
world be developing a cost estimate for
--
that would be
in compliance with financial assurance regulations, in
other words, something that it essentially estimates
closure arj post-closure care, end the second -- the
second part of that would be in actually working with
the varies mechanises for planing financial, assuance .
So, let me split the gestim up
.
A
I urkrstarl the grstion .
•
•
Okay
.
A
Aud that is a recessary precursor for
•
obtaining a, appropriate instrument for financial
•
assurance .
•
When you say that, you mean in caning Lip with
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
10
eight states including the Bahamas
.
•
Out of this office?
A
Yes .
•
okay . You say you were involved in
camrn,tirg on solid waste regulations . I assure that
•
you're familiar with the solid waste regulations in
Illirois?
A
Yes .
•
And with the Environmental Protection Act --
A
Yes .
•
-- ad the regiireraits of it? Are you
familiar with financial assurance req .dre ants --
A
Yes .
•
-- pertaining to landfills?
A
Yes .
•
Have you ever assisted, either with Envirogen
or in your professional experience, ever assisted in
obtaining financial assurece for a ladfill client or
for a governmental vjnv .y or something like that?
•
A
Yes .
•
Can you describe your experience with,
•
specifically with obtaining financial assurance for
landfills?
A
Our experience, my experience in obtaining
12
an engineering cost estimate?
A
Yeah . The State respires that a professional
engineer be involved in the process . so, that process
of developing the cost estimate is done by a
professional engineer ad has to be certified by a
•
Registered Professional Engineer
. Nobody else has the
authority in the State of Illinois to do that .
The second part is actually getting the financial
•
institution, the bending cagpary, for whatever other
mechanism of there which are ten, which is the financial
part, to accept ad use that
engineer's
cost estimate to
get firariat assurance
. As far as the second part, we
consult with financial institutions ad I'll just go
back to the Balefill example for example
. In that case
I thick we issued fifty, fifty some
million
dollars
worth of public debt for that project . I worked closely
with the bonding agencies to verify the costs ad
revenue projections for those facilities end the issue
of lad camp . fiat's a p.blic agency . On private type
•
agencies, like a lad carp, wrich it was at the time a
greenfield ladfill site ow-S by a s aLL private
•
developer, he seeked --
•
Q
Where was that?
A
That was in LaSalle Caurty, Illirois . He
LINDA LAME REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
13
seeked two different types of financirg . One is private
institution financing as well as some
municipal
guarantees and we worked on those issues also closely
with the firercial institutions in posting that mrey
and getting the firvrcial assurance that he needed . So,
•
the process kind of charges whether you're talking
p.blic or private . Ard with the large Publicly traded
companies we generally are involved in the,
besides the
•
engineer's
cost estimate or estimating the cost, is
working inside their internal pro foam .
Each are of
them have a separate model that they use so we work with
then individually .
•
is it fair to say that you really have an
in-depth knowledge of the financial assurance
process as
far as post-closure, closure and post-closure care?
A Well, I urerstad how the cost estimates are
pan
don . I uLJ-,stad the different mechanisms . I'm
not an economist . I'm rot an arrnntant
but I clearly
urlerstad and I have a lot of experience in dealing
•
with different institutions in getting thragh that
regulatory hurdle.
•
Q Based an your experience as a casultirg
•
engineer, is arragirg for financial assurance for
Landfills, in other words, with camirg up with a cost
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
15
grade . And we have to secure safe contours, close the
facility with an aginered cap and potentially develop
additional storm water related facilities . We cam up
with gsantity estimates
.
We use a unit cost type method
to care up with an estimated construction cost for a
third party to cam in and implement that work . We then
do the same for post-closure care . After the facility
is closed, the owner or operator are re4Jired to
maintain closure care for a period of up to 30 years or
more and that is monitoring costs, erosion repairs,
repairs to the top cep and sedimentation basins . We
then develop a cost estimate for a third party to
perform that work
and
submit all of that to the IEPA for
review, ad we have always gotten our permits ad got
through that process .
•
I wader if -- did w skip a step?
Becase
the first thing you mentioned
was
premature closure cost
estimate ad then a post-closure care estimate . Haw
abot, you know, say a planed closure cost estimate,
•
would that he the sam as a premature closure or
is that
a nuTber that you have to generate as well?
•
A A plated closer cost estimate?
•
•
In other words, just caning op with closure
costs .
Ard the only reason I ask is
b=ra'
you just
estimate and then looking for the best or maybe
something that's a compliant way of meeting the
regulations, is that normally the sort of thing a
consulting engineer does for a landfill client?
A
It's the type of thing we do but, you Ivcw, I
can't speak for other consulting a gineers
.
Sam
consultants have more capabilities and expertise than
others.
•
Just --
I would like to cpickLy go through
the process, based on your experience, of how -- of
caning Lp with a cast estimate and in providing
financial assurace . What I am thinking of specifically
is
your
interface with, in Illinois, with Illirois EPA
in coming up with a cost estimate that everybody agrees
an .
How does that process work?
A
Normally it's fairly straight forward in
Illirois. Illinois refuires a ptrature closure cost
estimate and that is, simply put, that point in time
µen the Landfill would be most costly to close prior to
•
its closure . And the engineer that's designing the
facility, in this case it would he sardcdy like
•
ourselves, estimates when that would be generally . It's
•
at some relatively early point in the landfill's
life
•
when there is -- when the excavation and waste is below
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
--
847\658\6918
14
16
mentioned a premature closure cost estimate that would
probably he the most expersiw option .
A
We talked abort --
•
So, let me
-- do you also have to -- do you
also cam up with a closure cost estimate?
A
Welt, I don't think it's necessarily
something you interact with the agacy on h---
facilities are closed as they're castrated normally .
•
How do you mean?
A
There's a fine vial ircentive ad good
operating practice standard that Landfills should be
closed as soon as practicable . You are regiired to post
closure cost estimates -- I'm sorry, you are correct,
and get some of that
money hack if you close the
facility giickty. I mean for every piece that you
close, you receive that money out of it,
the closure
cost care .
•
When you say closure, you mean like final
closure, in other womb, that portion of the landfill
•
would have everything in place that it would need for
closure?
•
A
Yes .
•
Q
Now as far as workirg with Illinois EPA
and
getting the cumbers approved, and that's part of
the
17
process, isn't it? In other words, you can't jest care
up
with a naher . It has to be submitted to the
Illinois EPA for approval?
•
A
Yes .
•
Ard for all -- for, say,
premature
closure,
•
for closure costs ad for post-closure care?
•
A
Yes .
•
• How is that done? Is it date always in a
permit application?
A
Unn, you know, I thick it's also doe under
a, by a consent decree type process, bit I thick
rornelty it's throw a permit application
.
•
So, for example, a ladfilL would be seeking
a development permit or to open up a brad raw Landfill
ad in its permit it would, it would in that permit
application process would has gore through this,
estimating these costs for closure ad post-closure? Is
that accurate?
A
Yeah, I thick that's predominately the way
it's dsne .
•
okay . I an going to get a little more
•
specific of what we are here for which is the Morris
•
Community
Landfill
case . You are familiar with the
ongoing or with the case that the State has against
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
19
BY MR . GRANT :
•
24th through 27th . Are you planning m
testifying at that hearing or have you bean asked to
testify at the hearing in the case?
A
I have rot .
•
dray.
•
A
If I had
--
did, I forgot .
•
dray .
A
I don't recall as I sit here .
NR . HELSTEN : He will be asked. He was
asked to testify when he thought it was earlier . I gave
him earlier dates .
BY NR . GRANT :
•
Ch, okay . And are you aware that's -- that
the purpose of that hearing is for the Pollution Caitrol
Board to decide what, if arty, relief to grant the State?
A
Un-hun.
•
Are you aware that the State's case has to do
with the failure to provide adequate financial assurance
•
for the Morris
Community Ladfill?
A
Yes
.
•
o
And you're familiar with the Morris Community
•
Ladf ill?
•
A Yes .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Morrislsic .] Caminity LandfiLL -- for Community
Landfill Caipary ad the City of Morris?
A
I believe I an .
•
And you've bean asked to testify at the
hearing in this case?
A
Yes .
•
Are you aware that the Liability has already
been ford by the Pollution Control Board in favor of
the State?
A
On certain aspects.
•
Are you aware that -- welt, first off, are
you aware of the hearing that's scheduled for October of
this year?
A
No .
•
Okay.
Ml . HELSTEN : I haven't had a chance to
tell him that . why don't you tell him when it starts .
I can't even remember
.
Ml . GRANT
: I can't rerarber either
. I
•
thick it's the last week in October . I thirk Tuesday
through Friday are the dates to be kept open, the last
•
week of October
.
M5 . GRAYSON : Maybe the 23rd .
Ml . 111GLER : 24th .
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
18
20
•
I'll ask you a little bit abort your
familiarity with the Morris Ca mnity Ladfill . You can
just tell me when, ad I'm done looking at the period
fran 2000 to the present, when you first became aware of
potential problems or when you first became
involved
with the Morris Community Landfill?
A
Being in the business I think I'll take
Liberty ad maybe go beyond 20011 !crude I don't krtw
exactly what recollections were before 20110 ad what
were after .
•
That's fire .
A
I'm in the business every day end have sae
a erarss of every facility in the state
. Morris
Canni»ty Landfill is well know to me before I was
employed
by the City of Morris . I uderstad who their
customer base was . I understand that they were being
operated
by
CLC and the, for lack of a better term, I'll
call then the Pruim brothers . And I was in the late
'80's writing the solid waste plan for Grndy County so
•
I became aware of rot only the facility hit its
volumes,
its
general
campliace record . I knew that it was owned
•
by the city . I knew it was operated by a private
•
mtity
. So, there was
probably more
than a geerat
awareness of precisely what was going on at that
9
facility. I nay have
a can been asked, and I don't
recall as I sit here, I nay have even been asked by a
private comp" to do an a tirunr,ital audit of this
site to take Waste
. We do a lot of work for large
corporations that ask us to look at facilities before
they
direct taste to then
. And I've looked at most of
the facilities in the state in that respect and I just
don't recall whether we did that in the 'S's or not as
I sit here
. I was with another company at the tine and
I wouldn't have those records with me
.
•
How lcrg were you working with Grudy County
on their solid waste plan? Do you recall?
A
You know, I don't recall precisely .
Developing a solid waste plan is usually about an
eighteen month, at that tine a two year exercise
. So, I
would say it was probably along those lines .
•
Would you have, would you have been aware of,
say while you were doing that solid waste plan, about
projecting capacity for waste disposal at the Morris
•
Community Landfill?
A
I probably was at the time, yeah
.
•
Q
Haw abort permit applications, would you have
•
taken a look at permit applications filed for the Morris
Community Landfill during that period?
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\6918
A
I was to investigate the inspection that was
dare by the State, which was in October I thick of that
year, ad to evaluate whether there's validity to it,
how serious was it, and what the operator reeded to do
.
a
Do you rams bar what that inspection was
about?
A
Yeah, I have it right here if I my refer to
it
.
0
Ch, sure
. And if you can identify the date
of it .
A
This is an attadnent to our work proceeding
letter which is dated December 14 from Hirshaw
Culbertsonw,o asked us to look at the attached
production by the State of Illinois which included
inspection reported photos by the inspector and that is
what we received and were asked to took at
. It's an
inspection that's dated October 20, 2004, ad it
included violations for failure to take remedial action
urxhr a landfill
pest-closure
care, maintenance, ad
•
inspection of the final cover ad vegetation, and it had
an ongoing list of violations, which I'll refer to, that
•
included leechate monitoring, grardater monitoring,
•
gas monitoring, and closure, post-closure care financial
assurance .
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
21
23
1
2
3
A
Probably rot, you know, it's rot really a
part, a necessary integral part of the planing
.
•
As far as working m behalf of the City of
Morris for the Morris Community Landfill, at what point
did you became involved, not necessarily specifically
•
for this case but say
retained by the City of Morris, to
•
do estimates or to do any work at the Morris Carnality
•
Landfill?
•
A
My real work at the Morris Community Landfill
as it pertains to this case really occurred in December
of 2004 . I got a call from, a joint call
from the Mayor
ad Mr
. Helsten that they
had been ratified of an
inspection that revealed same problems at the Landfill,
called me and wanted to retain me to help address or
investigate those problems I thick would probably be a
better way to put it .
•
At the tine was this, was Shaw Envi
tat
the company at that time?
A
Yes, I was with Shaw Ertviuunn,taL and
•
specifically I got a letter now from Chuck Helsten rated
December 14, 2004
. I sent then a professional services
•
agreement right about that time, so it
was in Deceber
•
of 2004 that I was retained .
•
What specifically were you retained to do?
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
22
24
•
can
you --
can we take a took at this? I
don't want to take a look at your letter bit as far as
the inspection?
W
. HELSTEN : Let me see what the cover
letter says . The only thing
-- well, this are is --
•
here's my dilemma with keeping the cover letter an
unless everybody waives any claim that if I give you
this letter I waive the attortry/client privilege
.
Mt . GRANT
: No, I'm most
curious
abort
who the inspector was
.
MS . tRAYSON
: Make copies of the report
maybe .
M2 . HELSTEN : As Mr
. Moose's cover letter
simply says the mayor is regestirg that Mr
. Moose
initiate a study as to what matter
--
what steps need to
be taken bit I'll give Mr
. Moose back the letter .
NR . GWT
: I mean this isn't really what
the deposition is about so we dn't want to spend too
inch time an it
. Clarissa, if you want, I can find a
copy of that end send it to you
Later an .
MS . CRAYscN
: Maybe we can nuke a copy
.
THE WITNESS
: We can just hake then here .
W
. (RANT
: I don't reed to attach it as
an Exhibit or arything .
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\6718
8
9
10
M2 . HELSTEN
: Well, it's relevant . It is
the threshold of his irvotveunrt
. The mayor was
extrerety concerned when he saw the report
. Do you want
to make copies of that?
MS
. GRAYSON : That would be great if you
don't mind .
(Exhibit No
. 5 was marked for
identification m 8-2-06 .)
BY MR . GRANT :
•
I've got that's been marked as Exhibit Number
5 . Is this the inspection report
you're talking about?
A
Yes .
•
And can you just generally describe that sort
of problems or that problem were disclosed by the
inspection report that you were asked to be involved
with or to look into?
A
I was
asked to take a look at the alleged
violations in the inspection report, get up to speed ad
than ultimately I was asked to advise the city whether
there was any relevance or health ad safety concerts
attached to these alleged violations . Ard the alleged
•
violations, I thick I mentioned before, is failure to
•
monitor gas, water, ad this was u der the post-closure
care category, 22
.17
. And than it had an attachmnt
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\6918
25
27
yearly 35 feet in Length .
•
where did you get the files fram?
•
A The Illinois EPA
. We had sere of the files
already in-house becase we had FOI'd, F-0-I, filed a
Freedom of Information Act re .rst sometime earlier for
•
another reason, and we ref i led that req est at sure
•
point, probably in December or January, December of 2004
•
or January of 2005
. I don't recall when .
•
Did you meet with anybody from, any
engineers
who were working for Community Landfill Carpay
.?
A
I perso alty did rot . I sent representatives
down there ad we may have rmt then bit rot
pnposefully
. We didn't schedile a meting with their
engineering firm
.
•
was their engineering firm Andrews
Erviramental Engineering at that time? Do you recall?
A
I don't know if it was Andrews . The
irdividal project mrarager is a man by the rare of
McDermott
. For awhile he was with Andrews and
than at
•
some point he left ad I didn't know exactly
when
he
left, so .
•
•
was Mr
. McDermott the ore who you met with or
•
representatives of Shaw net with?
A
I dkrYt recall any of us meting with him
.
1
2
3
5
6
26
with what I thick they referred to as awing viotations
which is in the beck of the report after the
photographs . And it had to do with contouring, cower
mleterials, erosion
gullies . i t had to do with learhate
monitoring, grardeter monitoring, gas
monitoring,
ad
firacial assurance
.
•
I think you said that you got the Letter in
Decarber of 2004
. When did you accept or when did you
became
retained by the city?
A
We became retained in December of 2004 .
•
what did you do after you became retained?
A
We had to get the file
. WlW had to get the
file in its complete package
. We visited the site .
Obviously,
we riot with the people at the site . We met
with the city
. The city was basically unaware, in my
opinion, of what was going
on at the site . The
operator, at lit the person operating the site at that
timm, appeared to just lack the resources to inpLarmt
alt of the things and,
you
know, we ended up ultimately
•
obtaining every 35 feet of historical records
on the
site
.
•
0
When you say 35 feet, do you mean a 35
foot --
A
The files pit in file folders constitute
LINDA LAME REPORTING --
847\658\6918
We may have riot him just briefly bit we never met him in
the purpose of dbtainirg a lot of information that I
recall
. I never did.
•
Did you met with
anybody
from Chamlin 8
Associates?
•
A
I don't recall whether we did or rot
. I did
rot .
•
•
Do you recall meeting with Richard
Schweickert?
A
I low the rule but I never
-- I don't recall
meeting
purpose-0with
After
him for
you
thisreviewed
the file, mat action did
you take?
A
We evsntually made the cancltsian that in
certain instances the IEPA had valid concerns in the
area of --
0
You're referring to Exhibit 5?
A
Yes
. In the area of leachate monitoring, I
thick that they for the met part were right that the
•
leachate rmmitorirg was rot being codcted in
accordance with the permit
. In the area of grardeter
•
monitoring, I agreed with the IEPA that they were in
fact rot dcirg all the grard.ter
monitoring that they
are regired to do as welt as the gas rrnitorirg
. In
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
28
29
the areas of erosion control, what I saw and chat we saw
out there, there was
some
work that need'd to be done
but all in all it wasn't that critical . It wasn't a
significant issue ad none of it posed
any
neat threat
to the pblic health in my feeling
. And in the area of
financial assurance, I thought that the financial
assurance estimate was
completely
off base .
•
Okay, let's --
row that inspection report
that was provided to you, the 10-20-04 inspection
report, did that have at/, set an violations for
financial assurance?
A
It said viler page four of the attachment,
Roman rumrat IX, right rear the back if you will,
secod to the last page
.
a
Oh, okay . I've got it .
A
So, yes, it did .
•
And just going to that viler Rman rureral
IX, I see
condition IX .1, Reran IX .1, I assure that's a
permit cadition bit I'm rot sure
. It re4jires removal
of excess waste, revision of the cost estimate for the
rmruval of waste, ad then in the next paragraph it says
•
requires respondents to adjust the cost estimates for
•
closure, post-closure ad corrective action . Is that
what you're talking abort khan you're talking alert
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\6918
31
A
Just through my work an other Landfills, not
an this particular lanfill that I recall, and I was
doing work in ad out of
Gnu*
County. But as far as
this
particular
issue, I just dich't have at/
recollection of previous knowledge of the site ad
specifically the financial assurance I don't recall
.
•
So, prior to 2004 you didn't knew the amount
of firanciat assurace that was repaired?
A
No . I mean if I did at one time, I don't
recall it . There are puhlicatiors that sometimes you
can see it in different reports, bit I nay have seen it
ad rot recalled it .
0
I assure that khan you -- khan you say you
reviewed the file that you reviewed the permits, the
Sigmt(phonetic) permits for the landfill?
A
lhrhum .
•
Ard the closure ad post-clcsure tier
requirarents that are contained in those permits?
A
Yes .
•
0
And khan I talk about the permits, I've got
then here if you want to take a look at then, but it's
•
2000 -- I think it's 2000-155-LFM . As a ratter of fact,
•
let me not
guess
the permits I an talkirc apart because
these are the rely ones really I thick rosy be involved
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
30
financial assure e?
A
Yes .
•
So, it doesn't specifically mention failure
to provide finacial assurance bit really just talks
abort isles that would be related to financial
•
assurance?
•
A
Well, the Last sentence says no application
has been filed sirs the issuance . I guess you're
correct in that but under the heading it says closure,
post-closure care and finrcial assurance .
•
Sure . I guess this is a goad tine to get
into the estimates of financial assurance. I think you
testified or stated that you're familiar with the
financial assurance requirements, haw they're generated,
haw they're coordinated with the Illinois EPA permits,
ad that sort of thirg . Prior to, say, 2004 were you
aware of the amount of financial assurance reFuired for
the Morris Camknity Landfill?
A
No .
•
And did you have at/ familiarity with the
•
financial assurance?
•
Yes . Yeah, the two permits that I'LL be
talking abort are 2000-156-LFM -- let's see
.
•
A I think these are it . I just took the
liberty to copy what I believe are the permitted
•
premature post-ctosure care cost estimates for parcels A
and B .
• dray
. And what I'll be talking abort is the
on I just mentiaed which is permit rurber, just for
shorthand µxpose I'll call it 156 is for Parcel B, and
permit No . 2000-155-LF14, which I'll refer to as 155, for
Parcel A, or maybe I'll just say the permit for Parcel A
or Parcel B .
A
Okay .
•
But sirce there's been a dauber of permits
there, this is the one that I'm referring to .
Anyway,
did you review the two permits, the are for A and the
•
as for B in 2004 what you were looking at the file?
A
It probably was in 2005 by the time I
•
reviewed it but yds .
•
0 And the closure ad
post-closure
re uirarents
that were contained in the permits?
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
pennittirg process in the '90's where the financial
assurance, runners were generated?
A
Yes .
0 Ard how did you know about that?
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\61918
32
with --
A
Are you talkirg about the current permitted
1
2
3
5
6
A
Yes .
Q
And than also the
a=nt
of financial
assurance that was contained in the permits?
A
Yes .
•
Not getting back to what you said, you say it
was
your
opinion at the tine that the amont of
financial assurance was higher than needed to be or --
A
well, I thaght that the approach that was
used to develop the engineer's cost estimate was
(a) if
it was
inplmehted, would not necessarily be protective
of pblic health, safety ad welfare ; (b) was really not
a practical approach to the egineerirg challerges at
the site, ad in fact there were mrh better ways to
approach securirg the site then were proposed and
ultimately approved in those permits .
And I thick it
was really just a result of regulation interpretation
that drove them as opposed to doing what was best for
that particular piece of grand
.
•
I warder if you can tell me what specifically
•
you thaght maybe was improper as far as I mean the
amount of financial assurances slightly in excess
of 17
•
million dollars for both Parcel A and Parcel B ad
•
that's both closure financial assurance ad post-closure
financial assurance
. What elements in that, if you
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\6918
33
35
model .
Please
tell me what that is
.
A
The regllations req.iire
that the engineer
develop a grard.eter
impact assessment, and that
grardeter assessment is a cmprter model that
is a
vaReble tool for an engineer .
Too often tines the tool
is mismsed ad misinterpreted and it becomes a little
bit of wag the dog .
In this particular case I thirk
that happened .
The model is meant to take the precise
design of the facility ad insert that design into the
precise hydrogeologic regime at that site and model
the
behavior of the lacifill over tine .
We do that on every
site we work on ad we're
modeling
every day . What has
happened is same
people have gotten, have lost sight of
it as a tool .
In this particular case, I don't thick
the model
-- let's go back to what the modeling is .
So,
that's really what it's meant to do
. In Parcel A the
model failed which minas the engineer or the operator's
e gineer was viable to get the medeL to pass
. I don't
know if that's necessarily a cavpo eit of his resources,
•
his capability, or the natural conditions .
I have not
checked that .
•
•
When you say "pass"--
•
A
But --
•
I'm rot going to internpt you bit
maybe
You
1
2
3
recall, were you specifically disagreeing with?
A
Virtually every caipasit
. But I'll give you
a couple of
examples
of rot only did I disagree with the
q-antity of materials that were estimated bit
the actual
work that was to be corcLcted
. I'll just give you a
caple of examples
. The permit for closure regiired
that the overfill in parcel, and I hope I get this
right --
•
It's Parcel B .
A
Parcel B would need to be relocated end the
only space as this facility that had capacity to accept
Parcel B overfill was in Parcel A
.
Interestingly
an-uh, the agency reviewed the grwMwater impact model
for Parcel B and it passed
. The agony reviewed the
grardaater impact model for Parcel A and it failed
.
so, they were asking us to remove excess fill, just
height not area, from Parcel 8 in an area
that passed
the model, pick it
tp
and move it to Parcel A to as area
that doesn't pass the model .
It would be completely
•
intuitivelsic
.] to protection of the pblic health,
safety, ad welfare .
•
0
It --
•
A
Counter intuitive I should say
.
•
Yeah .
Help me out with the grosdeter
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
34
36
can explain.
A
when it passes, it shows generally that
you're not impacting grardeter within the zone of
attenuation which is 100 feet from the waste at 100
years tine .
That's what we consider passing, sieplY
put
.
The issue becomes if yw're reo)Iired to do irpis
or a sensitivity analysis that takes
on more emphasis
than it might to and those inputs ro
Longer represent
anything close to real world caditios
.
Now let's go back to this particular site
. In this
particular site the owners --
I'm sorry, the operator's
engineer was uable to get the model to pass . Why, I
don't know .
I did Look at several input perimeters for
the model, ad I don't believe that the model
in any way
represents the conditions;
on
the grand nit there .
e=raiwP
he was unable to get it to pass, and althoh I
did rot participate in those negotiations with the
state, my eerie nce tells me that
they pretty oath jest
defaitted or some people
might say
threw tp their hark
•
and said, wall, if you agree to,
in this particular
case, pump the grardrater and treat the grardster,
•
rot the leachate, arard the site for 100 years,
we'll
•
give yw yar permit .
So, there are a lot of
camparding in my belief and nary more thrawg,art
the
37
site that we need to talk about . Ore is just the model
.
Does the model represent real world conditions out at
the site? No, I don't believe it does . Is it the
State's responsibility to model it for the operator?
No . Why the operator chose to do that they did, I don't
krw
. I wasn't there .
Having said that, I've also read some of the PCB
decisions, ad the PCB decisions seemed to be focused on
pnpirg leachate . But if you go all the my back to the
nail ad where this cares from, it's not actually
pnpirg leachate . It's pnpirg grcL deter and treating
groundwater that are the big nvrbers in these closure
cost estimates .
•
You're talking about --
A
I'll give you just one example of Joy the
model is not reflective of reality . The grardrater
that fl as uter the model
--
or I'm sorry, uder the
Landfill is represented as one particular nnber in the
permit application. That ore parameter I have measured
•
in the Last year since my irwoLvarent and that one
particular number that I was able to check is off by a
•
factor of forty thosad tires
.
•
Q
Are you talking about direction or voluve of
flaw or --
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
39
graudater below . It has to do -- are of the
camponaits that you look at is the footprint or the
•
exposure to the grand
t ereath . AM because
we're not
increasing the footprint as a result of that overfill, I
don't believe there is ay measurable difference in the
two . Moreover, exhuming waste and moving it is not
•
without its issues also .
•
Do you recall when we started this way you
•
were talking about the total amount of financial
assurarce at the ladfiII and Joy you thought it my be
excessive, ad the first example that you used was the
overheight . Do you recall what cagxrent of the total
financial assurance
requirement
was? And if you can
just tell us what you are referring to
.
A
I am referring to what I believe is the
current rep emitted premature and post-closure care cost
estimates for Parcel A and Parcel B, ad I can't find it
right now
.
MR . GRANT : Do you know Chuck?
PR . HELSTEN : I know how much it is .
MR . GRANT : I do too . I'm wondering if
•
we can save you some tine
.
THE WITNESS : I can't find it .
M . GRANT : It's 5950,000 1 think .
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
A
Rate, seepage rate under the landfill . So --
•
You think --
A --
charging
one factor is an irggrcpriate
way to look et the mail . The entire model needs to be
reevaluated if that were going to be necessarily
protective of the pblic health, safety, ad welfare .
But I think that at this point it's just more of an
•
academic exercise than solving the real problem .
•
0 Whon you first mentioned the model, you were
talking abort waste relocation. And I'm assuming that
you thoght the
idea
of waste relocation from a piece
there the model was suggested it would be in compliance
or would pass versus moving it to sareplace that was --
Where it was q estiasble was not a good idea . I assume
that's what you were talking --
A
Well, I don't think moving the waste in this
particular instance, knowing what I know now, I don't
thick moving the waste is going to protect the pblic
health, safety, and welfare . Remember What I said is
that what we are talking about here is an overheignt
issue and not a Lateral spread
Nwame
we're not
•
increasing the footprint of the landfill as a result of
•
that overfill, if you will . And really that Landfill
footprint doesn't present any increased risk to the
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847658\6918
Ml . HELSTEN : It's around 950, 950 to
975 .
MR . GRANT : And I think it was like $2 a
yard to nova it was put in the permit application .
Ml . HELSTEN : If we're making statements,
may recollection from my iowlecbe in this case --
THE WITNESS : I still can't find it .
MR . HELSTEN
: -- is that there was an
estimate of 300,000 plus abic yards of overfill ad
there was a reioral, edvration and removal cost figure
of $2 per cubic yard attached to that, slightly over
that, ergo, you core up with 950, $975,000 .
PR
. GRANT : I thick the amount of
override we've always talked about is 475,000 abic
yards
. That was in a permit app . from about 1996 on, so
that's probably --
Ml
. HELSTEN : That would be the math
than .
BY Mi . GRANT
:
•
0
Let's just assure that it was $950,000 . So,
going back to the total financial assuna a anoint, if
•
your opinion was, for example, the cnerheight did not
•
reed to be mod or was a lad idea to move it that that
would
retire
it b, $950,000?
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
38
40
41
A
If you assure that I agree with the two bucks
obit yard .
I've just done this within the last four
years at three sites ad it's ranged from $3
.50 to
$5 .50 .
•
I thick at the time everybody was asking
abort it, bit I thick, I believe it's true that
everybody,
we just sort of settled on that and that was
•
accepted
ever, thorn there was, if I recall, a disp to
as far as the adequacy of the $2 per cubic yard to meet
it . But I believe, I think we can pretty mrh agree
that the carporuait that was pit into the firohcial
assurance total was $950,000 .
A
I recall that . I just for some reason don't
have it in front of ire .
•
So if, for example, if that was retired, if
that was removed frail the total amount of financial
assurance, it world be sasethirg in slight excess of 16
million dollars?
A
If you were to accept those cost estimates,
yes-0
Sure . As far as -- let me ask you, what
•
other elements in that cost, in the financial assurance
•
amount do you believe are wrong?.
A
The grourdater pap ad treat system for a
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
43
be pumped and treated as well . If you're talking about
treating -- abort collecting and Putting an effective
leachate collection system, monitoring that -- or rot
monitoring it bit collecting leachate and treating that
for a hundred years, haw would that charge the cost as
•
opposed
to groundwater outside of the -- there were
only -- let me back up a little bit . when you're
talking abort groundwater, you're talking about
groundwater outside of the landfill?
A
Yes .
0
Okay . How far outside of, say, the waste
boundary, the waste disposal boundary was the plan?
A
The design is a little ambiguous on that . I
can tell you from haw I interpret what they're proposing
to do is to pulp ad create a core of depression around
the landfill so that grordater will always flow in 360
degrees towards the Landfill, which normally would
require you to be within that zone of attenuation within
a hundred feet or so of the ledfitt . I don't think
•
that's a good idea at all . I don't think it's
--
you
knew, I look at this as, I guess, mxh different than
•
same of the decisions and proceedings that I've read . I
•
think the most important thing to do is take whatever
rwrey is available and from who, that's something the
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
Ixrdred years . I mean that's the big cost and I don't
think it provides any measurable protection to the
pblic health . I think that is simply a residal effect
of the engineer incapable of producing a model that
passed . So, let's assure -- ad 1 thick I do have that
cost around in here . I saw it a minute ago . $101,000 a
year or according to them 10 .1 million dollars, I can
think of probably a hudred things as I sit here that
would be better to sped 10.1 million dollars on than
puapira the grorcLeter at that site and treating it .
The grardater is very poor "Lity groundwater new
.
It is in a heavily irdstrialized area . It's surrarded
by existing permitted ladfills . It's got an area, an
old coal mined area that has historical dnpirg an it
since the 1940's . It's at best a Class IV groundwater
.
If the -- the water that we're measuring and monitoring
in my opinion is rot potable . There are ro grardater
users in the vicinity of the site . Other areas on the
site, if there is new deetcrrmt, can be served by
mnicipal water which goes right by the front of the
site . So, piping and treating poor quality grardater
•
is a poor way to go
.
•
0 Okay . Well, let's talk abort treating
teachate horwn
the regulations require that leachate
LINDA LAME REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
42
44
court will decide, kit let's take that money and spend
it in the nest efficient, practicable way that has the
best, biggest, largest positive inpact for the
mvirommt . Ard as far as my client is cacertd this
is tahgsyens' noey .
•
Okay . Let me just ask you abort the
specifics . I uderstad -- hopefully we'll get into
that .
But as far as -- let me first ask you, when you
say a hudrd feet outside the ladfill, do you man a
hudred feet outside the waste boudary?
A
Again, I don't think the design was real
specific alert that kit that's rornelty what I wutd
see .
•
Okay.
So, it could be within the actual
property of the landfill but still be, but outside of
the waste banlary?
A
But you'll also be irndrirg a flow frail the
Landfill at the sate tine .
•
I uderstad . Now is it ur-amon to require
•
a ladfill owner to create a zone of atte cation so that
the leadhate doesn't have the possibility of flowing
•
A
No, but I don't think that's
consistent
with
what we just talked abort . We're talking about apples
•
out?
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
45
ad oranges .
•
I that --
that's `hat I thought you were
describing and I'll ask you . kfren I say it's rot
uncommon, I mean for leachate treatment systems,
Long-term leachate treatment systems, isn't it generally
•
preferred to have, to prevent a negative pressure so
that the Leachate will not -- will be flowing
inward
towards the Leachate collection system as opposed to
•
artwarrp
A
Leachate collection systems, removing the
leachate from the LadfilL ad treating the Leachate
safely one
it's removed from the ladfill, is an
appropriate, safe thing to do but that's not the sane as
treatirg groundwater arand the perimeter of the
Landfill. And there's a significant difference,
especially then you assure that a good cap is applied,
in the volute of leachate treatment . Moreover, I think
the board got that wrong also . I thick there is a
misunlerstadirg of the facts on the grand of that is
being done there and by whom then it cons to leachate
treatment .
•
•
The Leachate treatment is really the largest
•
single portion of the, of the closure cost, isn't that
true, the 10 .1 million I think!
47
A
I agree .
•
In general it's a req.tiranart that landfills
in both closure and post-closure rot impact the
groundwater outside of the waste baudary ; is that
accurate?
•
•
A
Outside of the zone of
attenuation.
The zone of attenuation .
A
Which is a hundred feet from the waste
•
boundary in three dimensions .
•
So, that you're saying is the regulations
req.tire that outside of the zone attenuation groxxWter
may not be impacted ad that's the purpose of the
teachate treatment?
A
Welt, it's more than just impact becase
everything we do impacts but let's just say does not
materially degrade . You can impact it at a level that's
so slow it's uneasurable but you
might
still be
technically
impacting it . But there are repirenmts
within the regulations that derestrate what level that,
•
for Lack of a better tern, impact is
allowed.
But you
have to meet that point at a hundred feet fran the
•
Landfill .
•
•
If --
as opposed to collecting groundwater
that is outside of the zone of attenuation as far as
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
A
If you were to implement the plan that's
permitted .
•
Yes .
A
It's groundwater treatment at 10 .1 million .
•
Okay
. And for a
hundred
years, correct?
A
Yes .
•
1 may have asked this grstion lit I don't
know that we really got to it . As opposed to papirg
end treating Leachate if it was done appropriately as
opposed to groudwater outside the landfill, and When I
say the Landfill let's talk abort the taste boundary, as
far as groundwater outside the taste boundary, as far as
pnpirg and treating the teachate -- and maybe we better
defire terns here. When I'm talking abort leachate, I'm
talking abort water that's run down through the taste
itself or close enough to the waste itself that it's
impacted by particulate matter or sore sort of dissolved
substance that mitt be in the taste in collecting that,
is that pretty mutt -- is that how you describe
•
teachate?
A
Yes .
•
•
Whereas, groundwater would just be whatever
•
is in either the shallow or the deep aquifer around the
ladfitI?
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
46
48
treating, collecting and treating the leachate within
the zone of attenuation for a hudred years, do you have
an estimate of what that cost would be?
A
Again, I thick we've got a mix-up of tens .
•
I thick we ckt.
A
The Leachate that's within the ladfilt
cocoon . Groundwater is any water whether it's in the
zone of attenuation and surrauded
by
soil particulate
or whether it's groundwater that's outside the zone of
attenuation ad still surrounded by wit particulate
.
The area of groudater within the hundred foot zee or
the zone of attenuation has the regulatory ability to
be --
have a higher level of impact than that
groundwater outside of the one hundred foot zone
. So, I
thick, I hope that helps with what my understanding of
the different tears are .
•
Well
-- right .
A
water ad wit particulate within the zone of
attenuation is rot leahate .
•
•
Okay . And the plan that was
stdznitted that
you think was not --
•
A
usual .
•
0 -- was not well thought out, in other words,
the ore that's referenced in the permit and has the
financial assurance, the 10
.1 financial assurance, I
•
think
you
referred to it as a grondwater treatment?
•
A
That's what it's called . That's not what I
refer to, that's what it's called
.
•
Okay.
Based on your understanding of the
•
currently permitted post-closure care plan, what would
it be treating?
In other words --
•
A
I'll be honest with you, the wlures of
•
documents that I haw are less than perfectly clear ad
consistent .
But, again, based on looking at them and
based on my own experience, it apgsars to me that the
IEPA said you can't get your motet to pass
. And this
is --
I'm speculating here, you carrot get your model
to
pass, so you ca 't get your permit
. If you want to get
your permit with this particular design the way you're
running your particular model, we want you to treat,
pump
ad treat groundwater ad that would give the IEPA
the ability to say yai're not impacting groundwater
beyond a hundred feet becase you're pulping the
groundwater before or somewhere around that zae
in
order to prevent that
. Is that clear?
•
0
Yeah . Did you see a diagram of the plans of
•
where the wells mould go, the collection walls?
A
I don't recall a catprdhesive design
. I
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
post-closure care costs for Parcel A specifically .
•
Okay . Ard do you haw an uderstadirg of
what grondwater as opposed to leachate is to be treated
under the current plan?
A
Yeah, it's going to be irstaltirg, ad I'll
try this again, it's -- leachate is ligiid that's in
contact with waste . once leachate is defused or is
deluded by
end enters grarciater, which is water that's
within a particulate soil mess, it may be contaminated
or impacted groundwater, but I don't thick it's fair to
call that leachate ayrnre .
So, that zone that reek to
be -- leachate reeds
-- or, I'm sorry, grotrdater reeds
to be withdrawn from, I think in order to be compliant
with the regulations you would haw to put those wells
in at a spacing, at a depth, and at a distance from the
ladfill at some point so that you're palling the
groundwater out of the soil matrix so that when you get
to a hundred foot away
you can show there's no impact at
that point .
•
0
And --
A
An d I don't know precisely what that is
.
0
But awe of the things that we talked abort is
•
creating a regatiw pressure or creating a zone of
attexaatim, in other words, so that there's no chance
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\6918
49
51
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
50
might have seen a sketch or two bit inat}ate and with
insufficient data to really warrant eastrtrtion or
conclusions from it
.
•
Based an your uderstar ding of that plan,
the
are that's currently permitted, haw far off from the
landfill is it collecting gronc6eter?
A
I d , t recall .
•
But you say that, and I guess this is where
I'm confused, because what you're saying is you're
saying that it repired the collection of groundwater as
opposed to late?
A
Correct
.
•
I still don't thick we've come to a common
trderstading of what ligaid we're talking abort is
treated uder the arrest permitted plan versus what
you're saying really is what should haw been looked at
.
A
Well,
the arrest permitted plan also
includes leachate, includes leachate and groundwater
.
•
Okay .
•
A But the big 10.1
minim dollars is
grc rrlater treatment .
•
0
But it's, they're all, they're both included
•
in the soon, the same figare?
A
They're both in the arrently permitted
52
or there's a limited chance that leachate is going to be
migratirg cut becase the pressure
from the well system
is going to be pulling it in?
A
That's the currently permitted well system I
assure you're referrirg to?
•
Yes, yeah
. And ahe of the gestiors I asked
was is it uncommon for that to be a regiira ant of
ladfiIIs?
A
Let's I guess stay with the State of Illinois
because I thick that was your desire previously
. I
don't think there are many facilities that
I'm aware of
in the State of Illirois .
None of the facilities that
I'm workirg on
are doing that, maybe are or two
. So, is
it a standard remedial tedmigs?
Yeah . Is it canon
for operating ladfiIts to employ that?
I don't know
what the 52 operating ladfills in the State of Illinois
that are rbirg it
. There might be a half a dozen, or
six, or eight, or ten. I don't knew
.
0
I don't know a lot of them myself hat I know
•
in Congress they
do that .
A
well,
there's a difference I thirk between
•
Congress
. Congress is trying to create a
new more
•
gradient facility . That's different .
That's where
you're tryirg to keep the leachate level below the
6
7
8
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
55
at that point .
•
When you say Liner, you mean what was put at
•
the top for that cap or a liner? Haw would you define
that?
A
I thick it was really a Liner
. It
was
orbiwL . Canersely, it would have been a cap for the
old tadfill
. But it was ccalacted clay and synthetic
Liner over the old facility. Nat separating the, if you
•
wilt, non-regulatory disposed waste from the regulatory
permitted waste might be are way to refer to it as
.
•
Can w take a
click
break? Can you give us a
minute so that we can talk to Chris a little bit?
(A brief recess was taken
.)
BY W . GRANT :
•
We' l l go back m
. We were discussing the
leachate and grardater
i~ ad that sort of stuff .
Do you have an estimate, have you estimated or do you
have an opinion m what the cost would be, the
third-party cost, for treating tearhate at the ladfiIt
for a hatred years?
A
No .
•
•
Do
You have an estimate or conclusion as to
•
what the cost would be to treat leachate for 30 years?
A
That I think I do have
. Fm leachate
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
54
mired it since, since aisrcbrrrent of the coat . There's
an uderctay layer that lies under the coat . We see
that in virtually all coal bearing zones . So, that
urenclay that
underlies
the coat has no ecoamic value,
ad that uderclay is a fairly inpenretole wit . What
we see in this area and what we saw also over at
Streeter not far from here is that urderclay was left in
place because it doesn't have any econoic value ad
that the coal mine subsequent to extraction of the
minerals backfilted with water ,
became sale kind of
local pmd/gsrry. Arid indeed
my
own interviews with
local people confirm that in fact it did have water in
it at one time . They piped the water out and they
started placing garbage of mnicipat solid waste . It
was
burned occasionally . None of that surprises me .
So, I dobt and I'm confident that there was no --
let me rephrase . I would be awful surprised if there
was ay caipacted clay liner, nenede engineered type
liner uder it . My belief is it's probably udertain by
the uderclay of the coat which is there and the
empirical
evidence
and the boring data that we have
support this . Arid at some point in the '80's a liter
was contracted over that previously filled area and
meant to, I guess, make sale type of an engineered liner
56
raegerent which includes operations and treatment,
8809,400 .
•
And for what period of tine is that?
A
That's for 30 years .
•
So, that's treating alt leachate facility --
A
Monitoring the teat hate and there's same
other associated activities with that .
•
And in coning Lp with that estimate who did
you use as the treatment facility?
A
City of Morris, POTW.
a
Are you aware that the city -- abort the
regulations ra}» rement fm a third party, for the cast
for a third party to treat the bate, in other words,
rot an owner or an operator? I knew I an saying that
poorly, but not someone directly involved with the
landfill.
ML HELSTEN : Object to the form of the
gaastim, the assurptim. It assures facts rot in
evidence . With that, Mr . Moose, I've mark my abjection .
•
You may answer .
THE WITNESS : I think part of the rigid
interpretations of the regulations
on
this is prdhebty
•
what got us to this point to begin with . We have a
sanitary tire that's in the pbltc right of way outside
53
1 surrounding groundwater Level, ad that's a very comah
1
2
technique ad a very proven technique. Ard I thick it
2
3
has a similar, similar physics behird it bit I think
3
4
there's a big difference between pnpirg leachate out
4
5
ad puiplrg grairleter .
5
6Q
Cre other q.rstim . Are you aware that at
6
7
least in Parcel A of the landfill that that site was
7
8 previously used for a mnicipal waste disposal?
8
9A
I just assured it was bit I don't really know
9
10
who used --
who utilized the facility . Are
you
talking
10
11
abate what customers went there or was it --
11
12
0
No, abaft its actual use prior to, prior to
12
13 the permitting, the 2000 permitting procedure . I mean
13
14
to give you my uderstadirg of it, it was -- would have
14
15
been closed dam for quite a period of tine but it was
15
16
formally a mnicipal solid waste landfill, in other
16
17
vends, gartege, municipal garbage was Japed .
17
18
A
It's my uderstadirg that it's been used for
18
19 varies kink of loping, including dnpirg ad burning
19
20
activities since the forties .
20
21
0
And do you know anything about the liner that
21
22 nay have been in place for that dumping, in other words,
22
23 the dumping before 2000?
23
24
A
Well, it was an old abarrlaed coal mine, coat
24
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
of our facility that's currently accepting leachate fran
the facility
. And to estimate the cost for something
other than that seers caipleteLy illogical rot only
F*Nwse
it would be bad for the environment Lit it would
take, theoretically if we were going to post firvrciat
assurance,
money
from putting it into the ground ad
giving it to sale kind of financial institution
. So,
althagh the regulations do speak to that, I thick there
is --
I thick there's a capability for the agency to
interpret those differaitly .
•
Are you aware that the board has already
ruled an the issue of whether a third party treatment
estimate is regrired?
Ml
. HELSTEN : Also I'll object
. I think
it assures facts rot in evidence
. But with that you nay
answer, if you know, Mr
. Moose .
THE WITNESS : I have the board decision
of February 16th
. Is that the one you're referring to?
BY Mi . GRANT :
•
0
of this year?
A
Yes .
•
0
No, it was a 2001 decision .
•
A Ch
. No, I'm rot aware of that .
•
In coning Lp with your estimate of 88]9,000
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
57
59
private sector operators for leachate treatment?
A
I don't recall as I sit here
.
•
Did you take a look at that rt±er? Did you
review that rurber?
A
I've Looked. I nay have . I don't recall it
as I sit here . My own experience is it can be artywiiere
from as low as a parry ad a half per gallon to
-- or
less to, I've seal tp to five to six cents a gallon.
•
May
. And jtat so I have this written down
right, you said -- I have .086 per gallon . Is that
.086?
A
Let ire find it .
•
In other words --
A
Less than a pert' a gatLon .
•
Okay
. Did you -- jtst so that I uderstad
it, you did rot care Lp with an estimate based on a
third-party cost, in other words, for somebody else
besides the City of Morris to treat it?
A
No, it seers rot practical or impracticable
•
to me
. It also seared like --
•
It was really just a yes or no
. Were you
•
able or have you care Lp with an estimated cost of
•
closirg Parcel A ad B of the landfill?
A
I've ore Lp with my own estimate, yes
.
1
for leachate treatment, haw mrh did you or `hat cost
did you use, what charge did
you
use for the City of
Morris to treat the leachate?
A
We tsed, I don't know if I have that with me
here
. Sorry, I should speak rp . I think it's .086
cents per gallon which is the contracted
-- what I used
is the contracted rate that they
were going to charge
CLC if they exceeded their amount
. So, I got that out
of their contract for operations to CLC
.
•
Did you use that for the entire voture of
leachate?
A
Yes .
•
So, you didn't give them credit for any
pretreatment?
A
No .
•
You have -- do you have any
knowledge abort
what other Landfills pay for leadiate treatment charges?
A
Georally .
•
And in
general
terms how does, how does that
• .
086 per gallon canpere?
A
It's probably less than they charge private
•
sector operators but it's probably very close to what
•
their actual costs are.
•
•
Do you know what the City of Morris charges
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
60
•
And what is
you
estimated cost of closing
the landfill?
A
I hadn't quite broken it down that way . I
had it really broken into four different tasks
.
•
I'm going to get into the details an the
tasks themselves, so.
A
What do you want by closure?
•
M estimate of the cost of closing the
hofilps in caifonrane with their permit ad Let m e
modify that a little bit
.
A
Ckay .
•
9 r-
r> we've already, sort of identified that
there's some
i- ,m with
waste relocation, but assunirg
no waste relocation from Parcel B to Parcel A, the cost
of performing the closure tasks that are called for in
the two permits .
A
No . I thoot
they were caipletely
impracticable and uprotective of the pblic health
.
•
The closure costs themselves?
•
A
Yeah, the whole approach
.
•
Hare you came Lp
with an alternative plan or
•
an alternative closure plan, in other words, rot
•
recessarily what's in the permit, and have you won Lp
with the costs for that plan?
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
58
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
61
A
Yes .
0
what's your estimated cost of closing Parcels
A and B?
A
Total cost is right arfod 10 million
dollars .
•
dray . That's not post-closure?
A
Inclidirg post-closure.
•
0 dray
. Taking out the post-closure aspect,
post-closure care aspect of it?
A
Be about 8 .4 million .
•
And I'm going to assure that the post-closure
is the balance of that . So, that do you calculate as
far as past-closure care?
A
Rc*4ily 2 .6 million .
•
And the post-closure care, was that done
from -- on a third party basis?
A
Yes .
NR . HELSTEN : 2 .6 or 1 .6 Mr . Moose? I'm
doing the meth .
THE WITNESS : 2.6 . So, I must have been
off by -- it must be 7.4
.
BY Mt . GRANT :
•
Okay, abort 7 .4
. So, the total closure,
post-closure you believe to be abort approximately 10
63
mmey they could afford to sped?
A
No .
•
As far as the post-closure care, than let's
assue 2 .6 million dollars of post-closue care, have
you diseased that separately with then, in other words,
•
can the City of Morris afford to pit
tp
2.6 million
dollars of
-- to assure post-drsure?
A
No, I did rot discuss it separately with
0
You're familiar with the regulations
. Can
you tell me hod with, with the current financial
assurance that's in the permit of 17 plus million
dollars, if you wanted to, as you obviously thick that's
incorrect, has would you chance the required amount of
finanial assurance?
A
I would implement a plan that focused on
instead of financial assurance a series of tasks that go
to the --
0
Before you -- no, I utorstard . Before we
•
get into that, and I'm sure we will, I mean yai'LL agree
that currently the permits for the Landfill require at
least 17 million dollars of --
•
A
I agree.
•
-- closure, post-closure firacial assurance?
million dollars?
A
Correct .
•
And of that 2.6 million is post-closure care?
A
Correct .
•
Okay . You're going to -- I'm going to --
we're going to give you the opportunity to dicn .-c sate
of the things aid I Want to know about that
you
think
•
needs to be done . I thick that was in your disclosure
as far as the tasks that reed to be done at the
Landfill . But at this point let me just ask you about
financing the total of the 10 million dollars, the 7
.4
and 2 .6 million dollars . Your client is the City of
Morris
. Have you discussed the
various
tasks and
especially the amount of moey that's req»red to do
these tasks?
A
Yes .
•
Does the City -- can the City of Morris
afford to do closure at a, say, 7 .4 million dollars and
2 .6 million -- well, the two, the post-closure care we
can talk, we'll talk abort that separately . Brit as far
as doing closure at 7 .4 million dollars, can the City of
•
Morris afford to do that?
•
A
They tell me no
.
•
Did they give you an idaa abort how much
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\66918
If you disagreed with that
ruder
and you wanted to
legally, in other words, in catonrence with the
•
regulations in the Act, how do you charge that nnber to
a rurber that you thick is --
A
File a significant modification to the permit
and try and chance that rutber .
•
Has the city filed a significant modification
permit application?
A
Yes .
•
Art that was
that filed?
A
Arard Novater of 2005 .
•
And can you tell me the arrant status of
that?
A
Currently we have a denial letter from the
Agency on it for same numerous issues
.
•
Denial Letters up front are coma, in a
permit application, aren't they?
A
Yes .
0
Did it request modifications to it?
•
A
You know, we just got the letter this week
.
I haven't had a chance to really dig into it . Again,
•
that's not unusual
. There's a denial letter in the
•
interpretive process with the Agency is developed to
resolve the outstadirg issues .
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\66918
62
•
then.
64
0
Did you in your permit application silmit a
recammnted niter for financial assurance?
•
A Yes .
•
And was that the 10 million dollar niter
that you --
A
For Parcel A I'm at 5 .7 .
0
Ard as you're going throwuw those if you can
split cut the closure ad post-closure that would be
great .
A
Parcel A I'm at closure at 2 million and
post-closure at 3 .7. And Parcel B I'm at closure of 5
.1
and post-closure at 1 .4 . That puts the total of the two
at arard 10 . This is rot the same as the 10 million I
referred to earlier
.
•
And why isn't it the same ruder?
A
Because on this particular rurber we were
herd by the model and a few other things, bit the scar
of work for this particular one is more corgnrnt I
thick with the regulations ad rot as protective as what
I'll call our practical approach .
•
As far as -- jtst let me ask the grstion, as
far as being protective of the environment, isn't it
really the responsibility of the Illinois EPA?
A
It's also the responsibility of every
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
65
67
follow the rules, that's correct .
•
Or if you're a permitted ladfiII over as
A
You know, let's take the case in front of us.
I thick clearly Morris contracted that responsibility to
another party end then I thick it's an issue of the law
versus engineering .
•
But Morris has a permit that's issued to it
as aver of the ladfill?
A
Morris is a -- all permits are co-issued
between the operator and the owner . It's interesting
that the permits specifically Lists the owner separate
then the operator as opposed to first reairirg the
owner
. I read the PCB decision that indicated that
Morris was an operator ad I thick that there's some
material fact that they've misinterpreted, and I think
they're gwite wrong in their interpretation,
respectfully speaking .
•
No, I uderstad. But -- I mean the simple
•
answer is that the permit has a rurber of conditions
which bird the City of Morris ; isn't that correct?
•
A
Well, you know, that's a legal gestion . I
•
thick it binds the operator ad?or cFerator as I read
the regulatias . It doesn't say operator and owner
. It
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
Registered Professional Engineer in the State of
Illinois . That's our first responsibility.
•
But it's also the responsibility of both
landfill owners ad engineers to conform with the
regwlatias in the Envi
tal Protection Act ; isn't
that true?
•
A well, certainly
--
MR . HELSTEN : Objection . It's
•
arg.'mntative and I abject to the form . You say answer
Mr . Moose .
THE WITNESS : I thick, you know, it's
certainly an engineer's responsibility . As far as
whether it's Landfill owners or operators is another
issue . I thick that departs an who's responsible for
what .
BY Mi . GRANT :
•
The landfill operator does rot have the
choice of picking ad choosing what
regulations,
it can
conform with; isn't that true?
•
A A ladfilL operator I agree.
•
And I mean it's a bsiress and if you're
•
going to be in the Landfill bsiress you have to follow
•
the rules?
•
A If yw're a Landfill operator, you have to
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
66
68
•
well?
says operator or cover as I recall the regAatias . So,
I thick it really has to do with who's responsible for
what . The aspects of operation in ny mind are clearly
the respo sibility of the operator, ad what
responsibilities the ewer has I thick is, if you have
•
an
operator is -- if they're different parties, I thick
•
is not necessarily the same- .
0
But if the permit has a recpirarent that
specifically says the pier or operator or the over or
the pennittee, wouldh't that bird the aver of the
ladfi ll as well?
A
If a contract is specifically executed that
delegates all of that responsibility to anther entity,
I thick it goes to that entity, otherwise, the contracts
are of no valLe,
•
Is it your belief that a person can contract
away
their, with a private party, their permitted
obligation uder an Illinois EPA issued term permit?
A
I don't know . I thick that's a legal
•
gesticn .
MR . GRANT : Can you a give me a mince?
•
Yon g-0's caw sit . Let's go outside .
(A short break was taken .)
(Edwibit No's . 2 ad 3 were marked
8
69
for identification
on 8-2-06 .)
BY MR . GRANT
:
•
Let's get back on
. I'd like to put in a
couple of Exhibits
. Let's get these out of the way
. I
have got Exhibits 2 ad 3 which are copies of
interrogatory responses from the City of Morris .
Looking at Exhibit Number 2 which are interrogatory
responses from
-- I'm sorry, I mere Number 3
. I want
the
supplemental
ones which are interrogatory responses,
9{plarntal Answers to State's Interrogatories
slmitted on May 18, 20D6
. It says in disclosure
"Interrogatory No . 3 : Mr
. Moose nay also testify as to
closure/post closure actions he proposes to be
inplemented going fonard
." Do you see that?
A
Yes .
•
Have you developed an opinion about what
closure and
post-closure
actions should be done at the
Morris Comwnity Landfill?
A
Yes .
•
0
Let's talk alert this . Essentially before
getting into a lot of detail abort it, if you could, is
•
there a way to split the tasks out into separate things,
•
maybe we can talk abort then separately, in other words,
leachate is me?
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\6918
71
well . We measured the depth
. We wanted to make sure
that it was still functioning
. We compared that dpth
•
to existing geologic ad hydrogeologic date to really
assure ourselves that if we did obtain samples from
these wells that the wells would be
-- yield valid
•
results or to the degree we were able to assure
arselves that they were . That report was given to the
city in July of 2005 ad since approximately that tire
•
the city has granted us permission to go in there ad
monitor those wells . It's important for me to
uderstad the impacts from the facility, which the
monitoring walls measure, in order to assess that
potential threat .
•
Let me just for identification, is that the
documrt that's titled Landfill Monitoring System
Evahation Report dated at the bottom July 2005?
A
Yes .
•
And a cop/ of this has been presented to ell
parties today?
•
A Yes . Ard since that time we've been
monitoring the ladfill ad now we've had four garters
•
of recent date, and prior to that I thick or last data
•
was in 2000 or 2001 so there is a significant data gap
.
•
Is that being done by Shaw Ervircrnental?
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- &7\658\6918
2
3
4
5
6
A
Yes .
0
what general types of closure and
post-closure activities d you
think reed to be done at
the Morris Community Landfill?
A
Well, as I irdicated to the City of Morris,
first we need to assess whether there's an immediate
threat to the pblic health, safety, and welfare
. And
based an my visual inspection of the site and record
review, I recommended to the City of Morris a series of
actions that be initiated as soon as possible to better
ascertain whether there is
any potential pbtic health
threat . Those resulted in Morris retaining us to
produce the three d curents that I prad.ced
for you
earlier .
The first was completed in July of 2005
. The State
alleged that monitoring of the landfill
was rot
occurring in accordance with the permit, ad after close
evaluation of the facility rot only
was
the monitoring
not being completed in accordance with the permit,
really the sanctity or the worthiness of the monitoring
system was in q.estion by me . And 1 asked for
permission ad received permission by the City of Morris
to go out ad evaluate the monitoring system . We looked
at each monitoring well, located it
. We purged the
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
&7\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
70
72
A
Yes .
0
And as far as the mmrmitorirg parameters, are
those the sate parameters that are contained in the
ladfill permits?
A
Yes
. The second thirg I wanted to do is
evaluate the presence of the lmchate in the ladfill
and the effectiveness of the collection system
. That
report was
-- that regrest was approved by the city of
Morris ad that report was produced in September of
2005
. Ard it evaluates from a hdhate collection
stacpDint what has actually been constructed and
how it
func ti on, and its functionality versus what was
permitted
. Aud that was important for me to uderstad
the ability to withdraw leadiate, how it La
; beirg
leached -- handled at the site
.
0
Can you describe generally the lrechate
collection system at Parcel A ad Parcel B
111-re
I
know that
a
was operated as a municipal solid waste
ladfilt for a tag time ad it was an older ladfill?
•
So, if you could
just
give us
an
lobe of one parcel
versws the other .
•
A
Parcel A -- well, let me kird of start with
•
an overall statement
. Leahate collection at the
facility, both parcels, doesn't really meet today's
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
73
current operating standards . Ard what was permitted
versus what was constructed there's a disparity and
there's a lack of comprehensive as-built diagrams for us
to figure cut precisely what was constricted at each .
Having said that, we did go, ad it's explained in
detail in the report what we did, to try ad identify
,hat was constructed . lkrkrstadirg that some of the
stuff is stilt udergrard and some of the evidote was
based on Less than total camprehesive udbrstading we
did
make our best gess of what was actually
constructed
. So, between what our opinion is, ad this
is set forth in the report, and what actually might he
there, there's probably going to be same divergence .
Right now the Leachate collection system at Parcel
A is really pumping leechate out of several vertical
matholes and putting it into the gas extraction
manifolds to a central point where a simple
contractor's
pump is used to pulp the leadhate into a municipally
owned sanitary tine out front .
•
Ard Parcel B, its -- ad there's paragraphs ad so
forth within this report
. Parcel B they had some
•
vertical extraction points ad it has an overlirer ad
•
perimeter collection system around three sides or maybe
two ad a half sides that appears to be constructed ad
75
A
I didn't udarstand the question.
•
Was one of the options that you Looked at in
evaluating the problems out there contiruirg to operate
Parcel A, which I think has remaining waste to full
capacity?
A
By CLC?
• By anybody . Did you look at as ore of your
options continuing to dispose of waste at Parcel A? I
don't mean today or tomorrow lit as an option --
A
Well, there was volume available
bon
I didn't
evaluate several things I thick that are all part of
that question. I didn't evaluate whether we had the
contractual capability to do that . I dich't evaluate
who might be best to do that, and I didn't evaluate
precisely what the cost/benefit ratio of that might be
over tine, if that answers your gesticn .
•
Sure . So, basically all of the canlusiahs
that you have were based on closing the facility as
opposed to continuing to operate it?
•
A
I assured closing the facility.
•
Okay . Did you -- how abort in closing the
•
facility, hw abort the standard closure tasks of
•
putting in a final cover ad grading and those sorts of
things? We've talked about Leachate ad gas in sort of
74
it gets incre enally increased over tine . You lam,
without getting into more detail, I think that's
generally it .
•
0 Yeah, I wasn't lookirg for detail, I was just
curious about the from ore to the other .
•
A
The third thing I asked to do is in order to
address the public health iss'es is to look at the
ladfiII gas system. That report was pit together ad
submitted in April 2006 an Parcel B . Parcel a is the
west side facility. Based an our evidence that we had
at the site, I did-Vt thick landfill gas was mrh of a
concern on the east side or Parcel A . So, we really
looked at a caple of immediate things . First, we
obtained the information as quickly as possible and
rasped up an the site . Second, we received -- we
recommended ad ultimately received approval from the
city to fogs on the public health, safety ad welfare
in the area of monitoring, which is a critical factor to
know, leadhate collection ad gas collection iss, ec .
From there we than developed a recamedation of what we
•
would do to close the facility in the most
productive,
•
i .e ., least cost, highest impact manner
.
•
0
Did you investigate continuing to operate the
facility? In other words --
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
assessing the immediate threat
. Did you take a look
at --
A
Yes .
•
--
what would be
repired
A
We devekped a closure approach that felt
•
into five categories . Ore was the groundwater
•
monitoring network . We wanted to do work on the
groundwater monitoring network to make it more
cmprehasive and here reliable
. We had recmnettias
under leadete nenagerart and monitoring --
let me back
up
. What we call grcurdeter monitoring network were
tasks in the 100 series ad all tasks corrected to that
we had sub 10D nnbers
. Series 200 rnbers were
leadhate management ad monitoring
. Series 300 were
final cuter system and firel lard form
. Series 400 were
Landfill
gas ad monitoring, ad series 500 were
post-closure care activities for 30 years .
•
And these were recanrerzktio s that -- I'm
sorry, were these recametiatiors that you had care to
conclusions of what needed to be done with all those
where you devekwad a plan to deal with these?
•
A Yeah, these are my recamadatias at least
•
initially of what need to be implemented at the site
recognizing when you enter a project like this there's
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
--
847\658\64718
76
I
2
3
going to be charges and surprises prctabLy along the
way .
•
Before you talked abort closure costs, 7
.4
million dollars
. I think that's accurate, isn't it,
your estimate of closure costs?
A
Yes .
•
And also recognizing I thin
your
two rurbers
•
were -- ame was, ad I asked you what your estimate of
•
the cost of closure, it was 7
.4 million collars, ad I
think also
you
-- what I've got written down is that in
your permit application that you sbnitted to the
Illinois EPA you had closure costs of 2 million for
Parcel A ad for Parcel B 5.1 million. But I mean
basically with the conclusion, your conclusions that you
reached on what needs to be dre in those five areas, is
that where you cam up with the 7.4 million dollar cost
estimate?
A
Yes.
•
So, a camptetim of these five tasks your
•
estimate was 7.4 million?
A
You're correct .
•
0
Right .
•
A No, I'm sorry . No, it has five tasks go to
just aver 10 million because it ircluies task five which
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
77
79
W opinion. So, we have abort $28,000 worth of work for
monitoring well installation
.
•
And that's just closure, that's not
post-closure?
A
That's closure .
•
•
Yeah .
A
I mean it's important for us to continually
•
monitor the groundwater for us to make sure that our
•
assumptions on
pblic health, safety are always
consistent . We have approximately $15,000 for
groundwater well drwxLnnht . we have wells that are
damaged that could be a potentlat pathway . Lk want to
abandon those wells and seal them up and do the
appropriate permitting with the IEPA to do that .
There are repairs that are needed to existing
wells, wells that can be braght back to life with some
minor work with about a thousand dollars for the
repairs
.
And we want to establish a grardeter merugement
•
zoos around the ladfill versus the current no
grardater attenatim area . In this particular area,
•
prr tFP
it's an old abandoned coal mire, that it's got a
log history of dnpirg that in certain constituents the
p-gradient parameters or constituents exceed the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
is post-closure .
•
Okay
. That's furry, I didn't write that one
down. Okay
. well, ore through four is 7
.4 million?
A
Correct, ad charge .
•
Did you -- in caning mop with these
recamedtias did you attempt to make sure that you
were carplyirg with the existing permit ra}nirm ants?
A
No .
•
I'm rot talking about financial assurate so
nrch as the listed closure recyirarents .
A
Yeah . I thirk that's what we attempted to do
in the permit application that's currently pending
. For
example, just to select one thing in part, the current
application that's pending, it includes waste
relocation
. I don't believe that is a wise endeavor .
That's not included in we'll call it the alternative
closure plan .
•
As far as the grarckater monitoring network,
what sort of work would have to be doe to --
A
Got it broken out in five general categories .
We have to expand the groundwater monitoring network,
•
increase the miter of monitoring welts . Some of the
•
monitoring wells that we ford were damaged, nnsable .
Lk have an insufficient amount of Wgradient Net is in
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6!918
down gradient because we have a lard use that's in ad
around a facility of highly industrial, becase we're
rot using the
gro
-d+ater and because the gro relater is
rot potable anyway, this is I thick a perfect
application for utilization of a groundwater m3rgement
facility
. And then we've got ongoing greud .eter
monitoring during the period of closure . So, that
grardnter monitoring work is right about 869,000
. The
task two work --
•
Let me just --
as we go through these I'd
like to get an estimate abort haw long you mould thin
you would estimate it would take to complete these tasks
too . I don't know if this is maybe the right ore to ask
an .
A
I think probably we have a schedule of
implementation bit you
wouldn't
necessarily do all the
grardater monitoring and than do the next
. It's all
done at different tines .
0
Right
.
•
A
So, we have a year to year schedJle of what
we world do each year ad what the costs would be for
•
each year . For example, you would want to -- wall,
•
let's get into the next ore . Task 200 level is leachate
management .
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
--
847\658\6918
78
80
•
Sure, let's move an to that topic
.
A
That's task 201 is to complete the Leachate
collection system
. We need to develop a system where we
can extract the leachate from the facility
. Leachate is
one of the primary Potential threats, ad that's abet
•
$701,000 .
•
hat's the current status of the leachate
collection system in your opinion at the ladfilt?
•
A
It's set forth in our report which you have a
copy of
. I don't believe it meets toy's operating
standards . I think currently I saw
no evidence that it
Poses an immediate risk to the pblic health bit it
reeds significant work
. You can tell by the dollar
figure alone . There's a sig» ficant armrnt of
infrastructure that revue to be invested in the Lardfilt
in order to efficiently ad comprehesively extract the
leachate from the facility .
And than prepare a construction quality assurance
report, again, we have in this reporting
•
responsibilities and costs to report to the IEPA the
completion of each activity to demonstrate that the
•
activities were done in accordaee with the approved
•
approach
. So, we've got abort $746,000 worth of
leachate infrastructure investment
.
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
81
83
identify what's out there
. Now we have seven, $7,500 to
design a cover system after we know what's there, and
then design the final lad form and storm water
management system, which is really tyirg in all the
contours of the site, of abort $10,000
. For actual
construction of the final cover, storm water management
system, all the earth work if
you wilt, we have 5 .6
million dollars
. So, the final cover system we're
running just about 5
.7 million dollars .
0
And these numbers including both A ad B,
right?
A
Yeah, A and B .
0
So, of the 7.4 million, 5.6
is what you
estimate to be the cost of putting in the final cover?
A Yep. We have landfill
gas mmeagemmt
m onitorirg that includes evaluating the gas on
Parcel A,
design Parcel A gas management system, complete the
installation of Parcel B gas management system, install
and ccrstrtct the Landfill Parcel A gas management
•
system, and
than repairs to gas probes, and than cadet
agoirg ladfill gas monitoring . So, we have abut
•
$841,000 worth of ladfi ll gas castnction work that's
•
necessary .
O
How does that $841,000 compare to other gas
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\6918
0
You previously mentioned $701,000
.
A
That was just for the collection system
.
I've got another $45,000 of other tasks here that are
minor .
0
okay.
A
Final cover system and the final lard form,
the issue of there right now is rcbody knows precisely
haw mch soil cover is on
top of specifically
the
west
side portion . Based on
visual evidence at the site,
there are some fairly deep erosion gullies
. But those
deep erosion gullies, althar,b they pose an issue of
tack of maintenance, what I'm able to tell from them is
that there is a fairly thick cover of soil aver that
facility right now which is a good thing
. And the areas
that I've looked at, I've sear certain areas where
there's over two to three feet of soil existing over
that site
. But nobody knows what's there, and in order
for us to design a cover system that is respectful of
the taxpayers' money, which I'm assunirg Morris is
•
sperdirg the money, we should evaluate what's an
that
cover system and utilize whatever we can of that corer
•
system as opposed to just the assumption world be that
•
it's rot there at alt
. So, we have $50,000 to go cut
ad probe the cover system at fairly tight intervals to
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
82
84
management systems at other Landfills based
on your
expert ence?
A
We doe lot of other ladfilts so I think
acre for acre it's similar
. We've got about 85 acres of
footprint here . so,
it's rot, it's rot a small closure
•
activity, if you wilt
. Ard than the final is
•
post-closure activity
.
0
Let me stay an the gas management
just far a
minute
. what control device were you contemplatirg?
A
The first task is actually ladfill gas
evaluetian
. We'll acttatly go out ad do a study of the
landfill and identify how mdh gas is there, the gality
of the gas, and
than make a recommendation
an what's the
best way to treat the gas .
0
So, you haven't
decided yet which control
amaiani sal?
A We just made assurptias
. My
assumption
is
that the west side is probably
on the downhill side of
the one and there's p-cSoly not much
on the east
•
side
. We could be wrag by that bit you really reed to
go in and, you know, put a probe in and see what we got,
•
see what the quality ad quantity of the rmethare is and
•
than do a pro forma and see whether or rot it makes
se se to just flare it, incinerate it, or go to gased
LIIDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
9
10
11
85
basal on the findings that you came
Lp with for the
leachate
collection
system, how lag would it take to
construct the leachate construction collection?
A
WeLL, it's really not necessarily a question
of ho, long it's going to take . There's a series of
events ad Wovals that have to occur
. So, it doesn't
make any sale for us to resign a cap until we go out
and do the probes ad figure cut that's there
. We had
scheduled beginning with this fall --
welt, we've got
this sumer ongoing which is caplete, the rautire
•
grardater monitoring, complete the leachate
mnitoring, centirue the
landfill gas monitoring, and
then the
anal reporting that's required under our
•
permit .
Beginning in the fail, if we were going to
LIMA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
87
going on
for a period of six years until ultimate
closure .
•
Can you just -- you may have core so, but can
you clarify what work has been dare as of
today?
A
We have done annual reporting . We've gone
•
out and assessed the grardaater monitoring network
. We
have implemented grandeter monitoring . We've gone cut
•
and assessed the landfill gas system including the
ladfill gas rmitorirg system ad inpLehented Landfill
gas mmitorirg .
•
Can you explain, ad I hate to keep
internptirg, but can you explain what you mean by
ladfi It gas
monitoring?
A
We are required titer the permit to monitor
ladfitl gas in the Landfill acrd around the perimeter of
the ladfill on a monthly basis .
Q
Is that the surface scar?
A
It's surface as welt as
r<1-sairface .
•
So, it's like oxygen content, methane
•
content, and those sorts of things of the gas itself in
the wells?
A
In the wells, right .
Nd that had not been
•
done reportedly or allegedly by the IEPA .
We went out
and looked at the probes and ford then,
figured out
86
implement our alternative plan, we recamE dal another
ro.Ohly
a hudred thatsad dollars work this fall
which
included establish the grouidster matigem nt zone
. If
we dn't get that established and agreed upon with
the
agency early on, it charges all other factors . So, it
•
doesn't make a
y sale for us to ash au there and
start plu king dirt in the grout until we uderstad
•
what we're doing . We've got the grordater monitoring
•
work to do this fall, the gas monitoring probe repair .
And then, like I said, probe the ladfilt to figre out
what we have out there .
•
Right .
A
Then we have work scheduled for the winter of
2006 ad 2007 ad we broke this into seasons
purposefully . There are certain activities that don't
lad themselves very welt to sumer work ad there are
certain activities that don't led themselves very well
to winter work. So, we tried to stage things in a
logical order and then have earth moving activities
occur in the spring and sumer versa starting it
in
October .
•
Urrhun.
A
We're looking to get the lay of the lad .
Nd that really has is beginning work this fall
ad
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
8B
which am we could tae, which
ores we couldn't, and
began the monitoring system.
We began monitoring what
we could .
•
Your monitoring is monitoring of the gas
prds themselves?
•
A
Correct .
•
Not of the wells?
A
Welt, there's gas probes arard
. Wells are
•
monitoring wells .
Now we also started monitoring of the
gas -- or the grotrduater monitoring wells
.
•
Okay.
A
And then we've also evaluated the Leachate
collection system, what's there and what reeds to be
done to the best of our ability to u&rste d that
.
•
Have you doe any construction otA them or
instal Led any, anything at the ladfill,
any wells or
any
--
A
No, we have rot participated in any
castmvctian activities
. We have rot participated in
•
any
cover repair . We have rot had any city employees
other then maybe the mayor or something stadirg at
the
•
gate, entering the site and doing any of the activities
.
•
I was instructed to go look at that inspection report,
identify what's there and report back as quick as
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6718
energy .
0
Let me get you mad ad back you Lp a Little
bit .
A
Sure .
Q
There's a q. tim I wanted to ask you .
A
It takes a lot to get me had .
0
1 only got three hours . Maybe I can do it
.
A
You can take all night, fire with me .
Q
I just wanted to ask how long you thal#rt,
possible m health and
safety issues, and ny
recamve6tim that these were areas that I needed to
uderstad before I could make an opinion
on health and
safety .
•
As
you
know, obviously, Community Lardfill
Company is the operator of the LadfiIt Pursuant to an
agreement with the city?
A
Yes .
•
Does the agreement permit the city to core in
and cb any cawtnctim work? In other words, dies the
city have access to the site to do any construction
work
or err/ major work at this point?
A
You know, I know what the intent is
. If
you're asking ion for an interpretation of the contract
between the two, I thick that's probably beyond the
scope-
•
If the city, for example, the city wanted to
go in ad install a new gas system today could they,
based on
your urderstadirg, could they go in and do it?
•
A
I don't know .
•
Did you deal with that whole access issue, or
the contract issue, or the lease issue in your
•
recamsrbt i as?
•
A
I wouldn't say the lease issue
. There was an
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
1
.3 million.
•
Okay. Yeah, I think you said 3 million
.
A
Okay, sorry .
•
Okay.
A
Cordct routine Leadtate naege ant ad
monitoring, 8809,000
; and conduct routine ladfill gas
mmeagement ad monitoring at $110,000, for a total of a
little over 2
.6 million .
•
Okay
. Now the current permit calls for the
groundwater treatment ad leachate treatment
for a
hundred year period but you --
ad you've used 30 Years
as your estimate?
A
Right .
•
Lhy 30 versus 107+
A
Brace I don't believe there's any
scientific evidence that warrants (a) pnpirg
groundwater for a hurdred years ; (b) pumping and
treating teadnate for a hundred years
. I'm rot seeing
the evidence to d that
. I thick, you row, the way
that those nirbers care abaft I thick you have to
uderstad the permitting process and
efnrifically the
•
grondwater modeling process . And I think if you go
•
back and look at haw the model was pit together ad the
iterations
that want back and forth, I thick they just
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
89
91
access issue at the begimirg of whether we did have
permission to get an the site ad do that
. In my
recollection there was a little jesting of
whether we
had permission to go on
the site and do our
observations.
•
Lure you denied access at ay point?
A
I don't recall specifically . I know there
was some discussion abort it .
•
So, I
thick as far as I'm concerted You
discussed the gra.nliater
monitoring network and the
Ieachate management system, the final cover, the cost
on
it, ad the Landfill gas
. Haw abort -- is there
aythirg specific as far as post-closure activities
.
A
Yes . Ne recannercded
-- well, we categorized
then into four large areas of activities including
raitine inspections ad maintenance, this is for the
entire 30 years, of about a Little over $401,000
;
routine groundwater monitoring at 1
.3 million; routine
Leachate management ad monitoring at $879,000
;
and
routine --
•
1 wader if we can start aver because you're
•
giving the numbers I was going to ask abort
.
A
Too fast . The routine inspections and
•
maintenance, 8401,000
; routine grow later monitoring at
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
90
92
defaulted and said we'll do that joust to get the permit
.
That doesn't necessarily make sense from a pbtic
health, safety and welfare .
•
Are the two periods, the 30 years and 100
years, in the regulations someplace? I mean I really
•
don't know myself .
A
Yeah, the evolution of the regulations am
interesting in and of themselves
. The 30 years, there's
•
a lot of debate shout what the magic number is
. The
regulations in Illinois were written in that area pretty
closely to 9btitle D, and what it says to the effect is
that you're going to have to maintain this landfill for
at least 30
years after you close it
. The agency may
require you to monitor it for longer than 30 years if we
think it's stilt a threat
. Ne haven't had Subtitle D
facilities out there that long so we don't lam, exactly
krcw what that constitutes at some point
. But we d get
information from empirical evidence at older Landfills,
and we law that some of the older pre-9btitle D
•
Landfills really do became relatively irroauas after
somewhere close to that
. The 9btitLe D facility, I
•
think we have all had the opinion and we're really short
•
on
evidence, empirical evidence, the hundred years comes
from the groundwater impact model which is, which is
93
rot reclai red in nary merry many states . In Illirois they
decided to adopt regilations that were much more strict
than Subtitle D, Federal Subtitle D regulations, and
require us to demonstrate via this modeling that the
facility is safe, meaning that it won't impact the
grafrdaeter one hundred years after closure within one
hundred feet of the footprint
. And I think the modeling
•
is a wry wry useful toot . I'm afraid that the
modeling has gotten a little bit out in front of
rational decisions and I think this is a good example
where the modeling has kind of lost the forest for the
trees what the real purpose of it was to begin with . I
think that's where the regulator was at this point .
They had to demonstrate some hay if
they were going to
issue a permit that the facility would rot impact the
ground.eter
a hundred years, and the way they did it is
by just pmmping the groundwater ad treating it which
is, you know, kind of like an old Soviet Union type
approach, well, we'll just
put
a bigger engine on the
•
back of the thing, rot a wry elegant engineering
solution .
•
Is --
wham we talked about it earlier, the
•
haste relocation I thick, whet we were talking about
•
haste relocation, you were saying that Parcel A passed
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6718
95
have hear . They passed the nodal ad issued a permit
for it and the other parcel they did issue a permit bit
they required this rercdiation system to he implemented
before they would issue the permit . And if you look
back at the permit ad pour into it, it's
because the
model as presented to the agency didn't meet that 100
foot, 100 year criteria . So, I guess it's a semantic
•
issue and I don't rant to get into that . Sinply put, it
didn't meet that turdah ad they defaulted to this other
Wp'oach-
•
But it almost sands like if Parcel A had
never been opened rove of us would be talking abort this
hudred year learhate treatnaht; is that a fair
conclusion?
A
I want to hake sure I've got the right ore .
Parcel A does not have the overfill, right?
•
Right .
A
You know, there's a lot of different ways .
You could haw maybe nocYLed it differently, maybe you
•
cold have designed it differently . I didn't go lack
and remodel the facility . We could do that bit I don't
•
thick that dhages the facts of how we close the
•
facility . I think that would be an exercise in
academics . I man really what we matt to do now is be
the nodal or the mode I suggested that it would pass and
Parcel B suggested it would rot pass?
A
I get those two confused all the time so I
have to go back . But, yes, the essence was that the
closure plan had a fairly law unit cost of waste
relocation of some two bucks a yard or something on that
order . The only way you could core aywhere close to
meeting that is assuming that the waste is redo --
assuming that the waste is relocated legally is that it
was relocated in the same facility . You wouldn't be
able to Load it up and take it to a tack ad take it to
another landfiIt at two bucks a yard . So, the oily
assumption you can get to is that it was actually
disposed of within that sane facility . If you were
going to take it off of A, the only other place was the
other unit which failed the model .
Q
So, I guess what -- where I'm going is that
Parcel A or Parcel B -- Parcel B is wore the averheight
is at
.
•
A Go Mead, I'm listening .
Q
And that passed the model which essentially I
•
took to mean that the grass-Later impact was rot so tech
•
a problem on Parcel B .
•
A
Well, that's what the IEPA's opinion must
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
able to withdraw the contaminants from the facility that
pose the threat, put a cover on
the facility so that the
contaminants are isolated from the environment, and
monitor the facility after those features are in place
so we can tell how sucessfuL we're managing this . And
at this particular site for several reasons that's
altogether a good solution . First, it's the p'esuptiw
solution that the agency uses . It's the presurptive
solution that the U
.S . EPA uses . And it makes sense in
a lot of cases becase certainly it's the host
economical, ad if we're talking about expadirg
tapaayers' money, that cannot be forgotten
. The
taVayers don't profit from the facility
. They use any
iroame they got for other public neck bit they also
have the unicg . capability to treat leachate cheaper
than anybody . And when you look at the surrounding Land
use around this facility, this is a more -- even a sore
appropriate approach . When you look at the existence of
city water, when you look at the water that we're
•
monitoring, the hater of concern that we're modeling to,
you can't drink anyway
. But there are no wells arord
•
the site . It sear to me that we ought to, you know,
•
start really focusing on how to pt the real facts in
front . And I'm concerned when I read the Pollution
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
94
96
1
2
3
Control Board's decision that they misuderstood all of
the facts
. For exarpLe, they said that the city
participated in operating because they operated
ancillary facilities on site . Well, in fact, they did
rot . So --
a
Well, when you're talking about the Board's
decision, you're definitely talking abort a legal
decision.
A
Well,
I krnw What operated ancillary
facilities on site are .
M1 . HELSTEN : I object Mr . Grant . He can
go to the facts
. He can di-11Cs the facts without going
to the legal conclusion
.
PR . GRANT : I'll be happy to go through
it but they, you know, they decided what they decided .
I mean I try rot to be argumentative on
the issues .
MR . HELSTEN : But it goes to that's
practical here ad that's necessary ad realistic here
which is the heart, in my opinion, of the Board's June
•
1, 2006 order . In several instances they say we should
fogs on what's practicable, feasible ad realistic
•
here
. To do that you have to look really at uderlying
•
facts upon which they base their opinions, both the
--
M( . GRANT : Ch, yeah, ad I understand
LIMA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
point .
EXAMINATION
BY MS . GRAYS(N :
a
I have a couple of questions
. I was
wandering
if you could, ad maybe you could use this,
•
draw a very basic diagram, I'm a visual person, and in
terms of the zone of attenuation that you're talking
about . I kind of visualize it as a hill's-eye, that the
•
center area nay be where the waste is end than it kind
of goes out like that . If you could, just do something
that's real simple .
(Witness marking an blackboard .)
A
Kird of like a pot pie, if you will . If you
imagine a pot pie with the chat as the Landfill ad the
petal as the liner, the landfill in cross section,
althayi ours may not look exactly like this . It looks
like this . Ore hundred feet from the edge of the waste
we have to show canplia a at this point . This area in
here is called the zone of attenuation . We have to
•
prove that anything that might come from the Landfill
does rot measurably impact the groundwater on the other
•
side of that lire. In three dimension this wand be
•
the grand surface. Let's do it like this . That's the
ladfiII in three dimensions if you're following me, it
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 647\658\6918
97
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
that and you were clear enough in
your
disclosure and
that's one of the reasons we've gore -- we've sort of
allowed you to go into the amount of detail you have
about these things as opposed to, you know, being really
technical an it because that is certainly the case .
But, you know, as we've talked about (hack, our job is
to enforce the regulations . I mean if they're not being
net, then it's a violation or you charge it .
Mt
. HELSTEN
: Sire
.
Ml . GRANT : Those are really the options .
But if you're talking about Legitimately his going to
the 33(c) factors --
Mk . HELSTEN : Right, that's What we
thick, which the Board said go to the 33(c) factors ad
arty facts that hinge upon those determinations ad I
think that's what Mr . Moose is doing .
THE WITNESS : That's, you know, clearly
what I'm doing . I thick the 33(c) factors are
consistent with
Mlmy .
obligation
GRANT : Yeah,
as
it'san
.
engineer--
okay, we don't
have to talk an the record . I do want to talk with him
one more time . I'll be back in a minute
.
(A short break was taken .)
M2
. GRAM : That's all I have at this
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
98
100
would be a zone that would still go like that .
Q Okay. The other question that I had was When
you were referring to all the different aspects of the
closure ad post-closure care it seems as if you had a
piece of paper that you were looking at that had same
figures on it and I was wondering if maybe you would
like to mark that as an Ehdiibit and get a copy of it .
A
For the existing permitted facility an Parcel
•
A and Parcel B, they're simply copies out of the
--
ch,
this is rot it, cut of the existing permit . And then I
have copies of the revised permit application that's
currently pending ad I can certainly do that . And I'll
make four copies of each of these?
M( . (RANT : That would be great
.
M( . KLIGLER : Off the record .
(A discussion was had off the record .)
BY MS . GRAYSON :
a
I was referring to when you were going
through items one through five, me being groundwater,
two, Lea hate management, the latter part of your
deposition after the break .
•
A
That was
a dxument that I prepared at the
•
regret of Mr. Helsteh.
MR
. HELSTEN : Yeah, I don't have a
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\658\6918
Problem with this
. It was going to the State anyway,
eventually it was going to be submitted to you gi/s
. It
was
done
at my irstnction to submit to the State, so
.
MR . GRANT : Let's go off until he gets
back .
(A short break was taken .)
BY MS
. CRAYSCN :
Q
One other q.estian
. At one point whew you
were talkirg about the averhei¢wt you said that exhunirg
and mevirg is not without
uses . what would some of
those issues be?
A
well, when you exhure waste there is an odor
isle
. so, you're going to have a significant increase
in potential for odors
. You can mitigate that by doing
it cLrirg the winter meths, bat in this particular
case, you know, that would affect schedule also,
limiting that to a particular wirclow of tine
. If you
were to --
when you move waste, you expose the
construction
workers to the leadhate, sharp material, so
that material and the ccrstnction work, you have to
develop a castnction worker safety plan to protect the
workers
. You also have residal leachate that may be as
part of that, ad in this particular case if we're going
to be taking the garbage, loading it on
vehicles and
LINDA LANCE REPORTING --
847\658\6918
NR . GRANT
: This was also used ad
referred to drirg the deposition .
NR . HELSTEN : Mr . Moose, you have the
opportunity to review the deposition --
THE WITNESS : Yes, I would like to .
MR . HELSTEN : --
for accuracy. So, you'd
like to, okay
. . So, we reserve signature .
MR . GRANT : I'II order it up.
(Exhibit No . 4 was marked for
identification on 8-2-06 .)
MR . GRANT : Also, we would like to add as
a exhibit, Exhibit No
. 4 which is a cutlire of the
topics that Mr . Moose discussed of the closure tasks ad
discussed during the deposition .
THE WITNESS : That was actually diseased
with Mr . Child on Jut 13, 2006 . It's basically a
ageda for the meeting .
MR
. (RANT : Okay .
MR . HELSTEN : It touches upon issues
discussed today
.
MR . (RANT : Sure .
(The deposition ceded at 3 :55 p .m .)
LINDA LAME REPORTING --
847\658\6918
101
103
taking it into the, at least for a short period of time,
onto the
public
road or across the pblic road, it
creates another potential safety or nuisance issue that
reeds to be resolved and addressed .
MS . GRAYSON : That's all I have . Thank
you .
NR . HELSTEN : I have nothing .
(Exhibit No's 6, 7, and 8 were marked
for identification
on 8-2-06 .)
NR . GRANT : We're finished
. I would like
to attach three exhibits . Exhibit Number 6 is titled
Premature Closure Cost Estimate ad was referred to
by
Mr . Moose dirirg the deposition. Exhibit 7 -- I'm
sorry, Exhibit 6 is Parcel B . Exhibit 7 is Premature
Closure Cost Estimate -
Parcel A, on the first page,
and was also referred to ad used by Mr
. Moose . And
Exhibit No
. 8 is --
THE WITNESS
: Maybe alternative closure
approach .
NR
. GRANT : Right . It's anther
cirurvwt, at the top Show Environmental, Inc
.
Alternative, how would you describe it?
THE WITNESS : I'd call it the alternative
closure approach .
LINDA LANCE REPORTING
-- 847\68\6918
102
104
STATE OF ILLINOIS)
SS .
COLNTY OF MCHENRY)
Reporter
a Rotary Public
No. 84-h56,
I
in
LINDA
end
Registered
for
A .
theLANCE,
County
Professional
Certified
of McHary~
ShorthandReporter,State
of Illinois, do hereby certify that DEVIN A
. fDDSE,
•
P .E .,
DEE, previous to the cameteienit of his
examination,
truth ad rothirwas
dulyba[ n by me to testify to the
ruthg
•
taken
that there
at the
were
time
I
present
FLRTHER
ad place
those
CERTIFY
in the
persas
that
caption
the
ad parties
deposition
specified
as
wasand
indicated on
the aFpeara a page of said transcript .
shorthad the foregoingI
FURTHER CERTIFY that
thereafter
cased to be trascrib
irgs,
ire trascnpt,
.pages
1 thro9i 103, which is a tea
correct trascnptic
of my orthad rotes .
suit
thereoffor
nor
nor
.
in
am
anyI
in
way
I F1any .RTHER
related
way interested
CERTIFY
to ery
that
of
in
the
I
the
en
parties
outcomenot
carselto
this
IN WITNESS WiEREOF, I have hereunto set
icyhAnd
affixed my notarial seal this 14t5-clay of
Ur.
ArhI
A
.
Q ,tttt>
Registered
Certified
Notary
LindaPublic
Professional
Shorthand
A .
McHary
ateReporterCountyReporter
FEICIAL SEAL
LINDA A LANCE
•
STATE
I, AMV 0Md
tO&I5A 6
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Carplairent,
VS
.
PCB
(Enforcenmt-Lard)No
. 03-191
CON LAITY LANDFILL COMPANY, I NC .
an
Illinois corporation, ad the
CITY OF MORRIS, an Illinois
mnicipal corporation,
Respondents .
1, DEVIN A . MOOSE, P.E., DEE, hereby certify
that I have read the foregoing transcript of my
deposition given at the time ad place aforesaid,
consisting of pages 1 thrayn 103,
inclusive, ad I do
again cilsrribe
ad Rake oath that the same is a true,
correct ad complete trascript of my deposition so
gives as aforesaid, as it now appears .
UEVIN
A . M.Abt, P.L., UEt
9-bscribed ad swum to before me
this day
of , 2006 .
MY OFFICIAL SEAL :
IARY FWLIC
LINDA LANCE REPORTING -- 847\658\6918
105
08-02-06 Deposition of Devin Moose
Page 1
37 :10 ; 72 :11 ; 73:10,12 ;
84 :10,11 ; 94
:13 ; 103:15
add 103
:11
additional 15 :3
address 22:14 ; 74 :7
addressed 102 :4
adequacy 41 :9
adequate 19
:19
adjust 29
:22
Administrative 3 :21
adopt 93 :2
advise 25 :19
affect 101 :16
affixed 104
:16
afford 62 :18,22 ; 63 :1,6
aforesaid 105 :11,15
afraid 93 :8
agencies 12 :17,20
agency 1
:21 ; 2 :10.5 ; 4:12,
15 ; 8 :22
; 10 :19 ; 12 :19 ;
16 :7 ; 34
:13,14 ; 57 :9 ;
64 :15,23
; 86 :5 ; 92 :13 ;
95 :6 ; 96:8
agenda 103 :17
ago 9 :8
; 42 :6
agree 36:20 ; 41 :1,10 ;
47 :1 ; 63 :20,23 ; 66 :20
agreed 28
:22 ; 86 :4
agreement 22 :22 ; 89 :7,9
agrees 14 :14
ahead 94 :20
alleged 5 :3 ; 25 :17,21 ;
70 :16
allegedly 87 :23
allowed 47:20 ; 98 :3
almost 95 :11
alone 81 :14
already 18:7 ; 27:4
; 57:11 ;
60 :12
alternative 2 :23 ; 60 :21,
22
; 78 :16 ; 86 :1 ; 102 :18,
22,23
although 4 :16 ; 36 :16 ;
57:8 ; 82:11 ; 99:16
altogether 96 :7
ambiguous 43 :13
American 6 :9
amount 30 :17 ; 31 :7 ; 33 :2,
6,21 ; 39 :9 ; 40 :13,21 ;
41 :16,23 ; 58:8
; 62 :14 ;
63 :14
; 78:24 ; 81 :14 ; 98:3
analysis 7:23 ; 36 :7
ancillary 97 :4,9
and/or 67 :23
Andrews 27 :15,17,19
annual 85 :22 ; 87:5
another 6:18 ; 21 :9 ; 27 :6 ;
66 :13
; 67 :6 ; 68:13 ; 82 :3 ;
86 :1 ; 94 :12 ; 102
:3,20
answer 56
:20 ; 57 :16 ; 66 :9 ;
67 :20
answers 2
:19,20 ; 69 :10 ;
75 :16
anybody 27:9
; 28 :4 ; 75 :7 ;
96
:16
anyway 32:18 ; 80 :4 ; 96 :21
;
101 :1
app . 40 :15
appearance 104 :9
appeared 1 :20,24 ; 2:3 .5,8 ;
26
:18
appears 49 :11 ; 73 :24 ;
105 :15
apples 44 :24
applicant 4
:21
application 17 :9,12,16 ;
30:7 ; 37:19
; 40 :4 ; 64 :8,
17 ; 65 :1
; 77 :11 ; 78 :12,
--------------------------
77 :12
642-4414 2 :3
8
2
.6 61 :14,18,20 ; 62 :3,12,
69 2 :19,20
69,000 80 :8
--------------------------
--------------------------
$5 .50 41 :4
19 ; 63 :4,6 ; 91 :8
20 4:19 ; 23 :17
200 2 :2 ; 76 :13 ; 80:23
2000 20 :4,8,9 ; 31 :22 ;
$701,000 81
:6
$809,400 56 :2
$841,000 83 :22
7
--------------------------
53 :13,23 ; 71 :23
7 2
:15,22 ; 102 :8,13,14
2000-155-LFM 31 :22 ;
2000-156-LFM 32
:5
2001 57 :22 ; 71 :23
2004 22 :11,21,23 ; 23 :17 ;
--------------------------
32 :13 7,500 83 :1
,
7 .4 61 :21,23 ; 62 :11,18,21 ;
--------------------------
'77 5 :23
77:3,9,16,20 ; 78 :3
; 83 :13
701,000 82 :1
746,000 81 :23
782-5544 1 :23 .5
--------------------------
8
'80's 7 :15 ; 8 :11
; 20:19 ;
21 :8 ; 54 :22
26 :8,10 ; 27:7 ; 30 :16 ;
31 :7 ; 32:20
'83 5 :24
; 7:16
'84 7:16
'87 8 :12
'88 8 :12
2005 27 :8
; 32:21 ; 64 :11 ;
70
:15 ; 71 :8,16 ; 72 :10
2006 1 :14 ; 69:11 ; 74 :9
;
86 :14 ; 97:20 ; 103
:16 ;
104 :16 .5
; 105 :19
--------------------------
8 2:23 ; 102 :8,17
'90's 30
:21
8-2-06 5 :9 ; 25 :8 ;
-----------------------
------------------------
69:1 ;
2007 86 :14
19 :2
102:9 ; 103 :10
201 81 :2
8 .4 61 :10
20th 1 :18 .5
809,000 57:24 ; 90 :19 ; 91 :6
- 2:12 ; 103 :22,24
-------------------------
--------------------------
.086 58
:20 ; 59:11
--------------------------
217 1 :23 .5
814-5388 1 :19.5
815 2 :7.5
84-1565 104 :4
841,000 83 :24
85 84 :4
22 .17 25 :24
22nd 7:5
23rd 18 :23
24th 18 :24
;
25 2 :18.5
27th 19:2
--------------------------
09
--------------------------
28,000 79 :1
2810 2 :2
2nd 1 :14
--------------------------
950 40 :1,12
950,000 39 :24 ; 40
:20,24 ;
41 :12
975 40:2
03-191 1 :4 ; 105
:4
086 58 :5 ; 59
:10
--------------------------
--------------------------
1
--------------------------3
--------------------------
975,000 40 :12
1 1 :15 ; 2
:18 ; 5 :8,11 ;
3 2 :15,19,20 ; 68:24
; 69 :5, 99 2 :15 .5
97
:20 ; 104 :11 .5 ; 105 :12
8,12 ; 91 :2
-------------------------
1 .3 90
:18 ; 91 :1
3.50 41 :3
A
1 .4 65 :12
3 .7 65
:11
--------------------------
1 .6 61 :18
30 9:18 ; 15 :9 ; 55 :23 ;
A .D . 1 :14 ; 104:16.5
10 2 :18,18 .5,21,22,23
;
56 :4 ; 76 :17 ; 90
:17 ;
abandon 79 :13
61 :4,24 ; 62 :11 ; 65 :4,13
;
91 :11,14 ; 92 :4,8,13,14
abandoned 53 :24 ; 79 :22
77 :24
300 76 :14
abandonment 54:1 ; 79 :11
10,000 83 :5
300,000 40 :9
ability 48 :12 ; 49 :18 ;
10-20-04 2 :18
.5 ; 29 :9
312 1 :19 .5 ; 2 :3
72 :14 ; 88:14
10.1 42:7,9 ; 45 :24
; 46:4 ; 33 98:12,14,18
able 37 :21 ; 59 :22 ; 71 :6 ;
49 :1 ; 50 :20
35 26:20,22 ; 27:1
82 :12 ; 94:11 ; 96 :1
100 2 :6 ; 36:4,22 ; 76 :12,
360 43 :16
academic 38 :8
13 ; 91 :14
; 92 :4 ; 95 :6,7
3:55 103 :23
academics 95 :24
101,000 42 :6
--------------------------
Academy 6 :9
102 2 :21,22,23
4
accept 12
:11 ; 26 :8 ; 34 :11 ;
1021 1 :22
--------------------------
41 :19
103 2:24 ; 104:11 .5 ; 105 :12 4 2:15 .5,24
; 103:9,12
accepted 41 :8
11 2 :24
400 76 :15
accepting 57:1
110,000 91 :7
401,000 90
:17,24
access 89 :11,21 ; 90 :1,6
1150 1 :13
45,000 82 :3
accordance 28:21 ; 70:17,
122nd 5 :4
475,000 40 :14
19 ; 81 :22
13 103 :16
49 7 :5
according 42 :7
130th 5 :5
490-4906 2 :7 .5
accountant 13 :18
1389 2 :6 .5
-------------------------
accreditation 6
:13 ; 7 :2
14 22 :21 ; 23 :12
5
accuracy 103:6
14th 104 :16
--------------------------
accurate 17 :18
; 47 :5 ; 77 :4
15,000 79:10
5 2
:18,18 .5 ; 25 :7,11 ;
acquired 9
:7
155 32 :13
28:17
acre 84 :4
156 32 :12
5 .1 65 :11 ; 77:13
acres 84
:4
16 41 :17
5 .6 83 :7,13
across 102:2
16th 57:18
5.7 65:6 ; 83 :9
Act 4 :3 ; 10 :9 ; 27 :5 ;
64:3 ;
17 33
:21 ; 63:12,22
50,000 82 :23
66 :5
18 69 :11
500 76:16
action 4 :3 ; 23 :18 ; 28
:12 ;
188 1 :18.5
52 52 :16
29 :23
19276 1 :22 .5
-------------------------
actions 69 :13,17 ; 70 :10
1940's 42 :15
6
activities 53 :20 ; 56 :7 ;
1996 40 :15
------------------ -------
70 :3 ; 76 :17 ; 81 :22 ;
1 :10 1 :15
6 2 :21 ; 102 :8,11,14
86:15,17,19 ; 88 :19,22 ;
--------------------------
6-13-06 2 :24
90 :13,15
2
60 4 :17
activity 81 :21 ; 84 :6,7
--------------------------
60601 1 :19 ; 2 :2 .5
actual 34 :4 ; 44 :14 ; 53 :12 ;
2 2 :19 ; 40 :3,11
; 41 :9 ;
61105-1389 2 :7
58 :23 ; 83 :5
65 :10 ;
68 :24 ; 69 :5,7 ;
62794-9276 1 :23
actually 11 :16 ; 12 :8 ;
08-02-06 Deposition of Devin Moose
Page 2
categories 76 :6 ; 78 :20
categorized 90 :14
category 25
:24
caused 104 :11
center 99 :9
central 73 :17
cents 58 :6 ; 59 :8
certain 18 :10 ; 28 :15 ;
79 :23 ; 82 :15 ; 86 :15,17
certainly 66 :7,12 ; 96 :10 ;
98 :5 ; 100 :12
certified 12 :5 ; 104 :3 .5,19
certify 104 :5,7 .5,10,13 ;
105 :9
challenges 33 :12
Chamlin 28 :4
chance 18 :16 ; 51 :24 ; 52:1
;
64 :21
change 43 :5 ; 63 :14 ; 64 :3,
6 ; 78:4 ; 98:8
changed 9 :13
changes 13 :6
; 77:1
; 86:5
;
95 :22
changing 38
:3
charge 58 :2,7,21
charges 58 :17,24
Charles 1 :13 ; 2:5 .5 ; 7:11 ;
9 :17
cheaper 96 :15
check 37 :21
checked 35 :21
Chicago 1 :19 ; 2:2 .5 ; 3 :20 ;
4 :22
; 5:2
Chicago's 4 :23,24
Child 103 :16
choice 66 :18
choosing 66 :18
chose 37 :5
Chris 3 :7 ; 55 :12
Christine 2 :11
CHRISTOPHER 1 :17 .5
Chuck 22 :20 ; 39:19 ; 98 :6
city 1:6 ; 2:8 ; 3:20 ; 4:22,
23
; 5 :1
; 18:2 ; 20:15,22 ;
22:3,6 ; 25
:19 ; 26 :9,15 ;
56 :10,11 ; 58 :2,24 ; 59 :18 ;
62 :12,17,21 ; 63 :6 ; 64 :7 ;
67:21 ; 69 :6 ; 70 :5,9,22 ;
71 :8,9 ; 72 :8 ; 74:17 ;
88 :20 ; 89 :7,9,11,17 ;
96 :19 ; 97:2 ; 105 :6
civil 6 :7
claim 24
:7
clarify 6 :4 ; 87 :4
CLARISSA 2 :1
.5 ; 24 :19
Class 42 :15
clay 54 :18
; 55
:7
CLC 20 :17
; 58
:8,9
; 75 :6
clear 49 :9,21 ; 98 :1
clearly 13
:18
; 67 :5
; 68
:3 ;
98 :17
client 7:20 ; 8 :19 ; 10:18 ;
14:4 ; 44:4 ; 62:12
close 14 :19 ; 15 :1 ; 16:14,
16 ; 36:9 ; 46:16 ; 58:22 ;
70 :17 ; 74 :21 ; 92 :13,21 ;
94
:7
; 95 :22
closed 15 :8 ; 16 :8,12 ;
53 :15
closely 12:16 ; 13 :3 ; 92:11
closer 15 :22
closing 59 :23 ; 60 :1,8 ;
61 :2 ; 75 :18,20,21
closure 2
:21,22,23 .5 ;
11 :8,15
; 13 :15
; 14
:17,20 ;
15 :9,17,19,20,23 ; 16 :1,5,
13,16,18,19,21
; 17
:5,6,
17
; 23:23
; 29:23 ; 30 :9 ;
14 ; 80:5 ; 100
:11
attenuation 36
:4 ; 43 :18 ;
big 8:2
; 37:12 ; 42 :1 ;
applications 21 :22,23
applied 45 :16
approach 2
:23 .5 ; 33 :8,12,
14
; 60:20 ; 65 :20 ; 76:5 ;
81 :23 ; 93 :19 ; 95:10 ;
96 :18 ; 102 :19,24
44 :20 ; 47 :6,7,11,24 ;
48
:2,8,10,12,19 ; 51 :24 ;
79 :21 ; 99 :7,19
attorney/client 24 :8
audit 21 :3
August 1 :14 ; 7:5 ; 104:16.5
50 :20 ; 53 :4
bigger 93
:19
biggest 44 :3
bind 67:21 ; 68 :10
binds 67 :23
bit 11:10; 20:1 ; 35:7 ;
appropriate 11
:22 ; 45 :13 ;
79 :14 ; 96
:18
appropriately 46 :9
approval 17 :3 ; 74 :16
approvals 85 :15
approved 16
:24 ; 33 :15 ;
72 :8 ; 81 :22
approximately 3 :12 ; 9 :7 ;
61 :24 ; 71 :8 ; 79:10
April 74 :9
aquifer 46 :23
area 6 :20,24 ; 7 :3,8 ;
28 :16,18,21 ; 29 :5 ; 34 :17,
authority 12
:7
available 43 :24 ; 75 :10
Avenue 1 :13,22 ; 2 :6
awarded 6 :9
aware 18 :7,11,12 ; 19 :14,
18 ; 20:4,20 ; 21 :17 ;
30 :17; 52:11 ; 53 :6 ;
56 :11 ; 57 :11,23
awareness 20 :13,24
away 51 :18 ; 68 :17
awful 7:6 ; 54:17
awhile 27 :19
--------------------------
43:7
; 55 :12 ; 60 :10 ; 85
:3 ;
93 :9
blackboard 99 :12
board 1 :1 ; 3:20 ; 18:8 ;
19:16
; 45 :18
; 57 :11,17
;
98 :14 ; 105
:1
Board's 97 :1,6,19
bonding 12 :9,17
boring 54
:21
BOSCO 2 :1
both 33 :22,23 ; 47 :3 ;
50 :22,24 ; 66 :3 ; 72:24 ;
83 :10 ; 97 :23
18 ; 42 :12,13,14 ; 48 :11 ;
B
bottom 71 :16
54 :6,23 ; 74 :18 ; 79 :21 ;
--------------------------
bound 65 :17
92 :10 ; 99 :9,18
Bachelor's 5 :18 ; 6 :6
boundary 43 :12 ; 44 :10,16 ;
areas 8 :14 ; 29 :1 ; 42 :18 ;
back 12:14 ; 16 :14 ; 24 :16 ;
46 :11,12
; 47
:4,9
77:15 ; 82:14,15 ; 89:2 ;
26:2 ; 29:13 ; 33:5 ; 35:15 ; Box 1 :22 .5 ; 2 :6 .5
90 :15
36 :10 ; 37:9 ; 40 :21 ; 43 :7 ; brand 17:14
aren't 64 :17
55 :15 ; 69:3 ; 76:10 ;
break 55 :11 ; 68 :23 ; 98:23 ;
argumentative 66 :9 ; 97 :16
79 :16 ; 85 :2 ; 88 :24 ;
100 :21 ; 101 :6
around 36 :22 ; 40:1 ; 42:6 ;
91 :23,24 ; 93:20 ; 94 :4 ;
brief 55 :13
43 :15 ; 45 :14 ; 46 :23 ;
95 :5,20
; 98
:22 ; 101 :5
briefly 7:12 ; 28:1
49 :20 ; 61 :4 ; 64 :11 ;
backfilled 54 :10
broke 86 :14
65 :13 ; 73 :23 ; 79 :20 ;
background 8 :9
broken 60
:3,4
; 78 :20
80 :2 ; 87:15 ; 88:8 ; 96:17, bad 40 :23 ; 57:4
brothers 20 :18
21
arranging 13 :23
Bahamas 10 :1
balance 61 :12
brought 79 :16
BRUCE 1 :21
.5
as-built 73 :3
Balefill 8
:23
; 12 :14
bucks 41 :1 ; 94 :6,12
ascertain 70 :11
base 20
:16
; 29 :7
; 97
:23
bull's-eye 99
:8
aspect 7 :18 ; 61 :8,9
based 13 :22 ; 14 :10 ; 49 :5, burden 95 :9
aspects 18 :10 ; 68:3 ; 100 :3 10,11 ; 50:4 ; 59:16 ; 70:8 ; Bureau 2:11
assembled 6 :22
73 :9 ; 74 :10 ; 75 :18 ; 82 :9 ; burned 54 :15
assess 70 :6 ; 71 :12
84 :1 ; 85 :10 ; 89 :19
burning 53 :19
assessed 87 :6,8
basic 99
:6
business 9
:13,14
; 20 :7,12 ;
assessing 76 :1
basically 26 :15 ; 75 :17 ;
66 :21,22
assessment 35 :3,4
assignments 7 :24
77 :14 ; 103 :16
basins 15 :11
--------------------------
C
Assistant 1 :18,21 .5
basis 7 :21 ; 61 :16
; 87
:16
--------------------------
assisted 10 :16,17
bearing 54 :3
C
.S .R 1 :10
associated 56 :7
became 7 :16 ; 20 :4,5,20 ;
calculate 61
:12
Associates 28 :5
26
:10,11
; 54 :10
call 20 :18
; 22
:11 ; 32 :12 ;
assume 10 :5 ; 29 :18 ; 31 :13 ; become 6 :14 ; 22:5 ; 26 :9 ;
51 :11 ; 65 :20 ; 76 :11 ;
38 :14 ; 40 :20 ; 41 :1 ; 42 :5 ;
92 :20
78:16 ; 102 :23
45
:16
; 52 :5 ; 61 :11 ; 63:4 becomes 35 :6 ; 36 :6
called 11 :3 ; 22 :14
; 49
:3,
assumed 53 :9 ; 75 :20
began 88:2
4 ; 60 :15 ; 99 :19
assumes 56 :18 ; 57:15
begin 11 :2 ; 56 :23 ; 93 :12
calls 91 :9
assuming 38 :10 ; 60 :13 ;
beginning 5 :24 ; 7:15 ;
came 77:16 ; 85 :10 ; 91 :20
82 :19 ; 94 :8,9
11 :2 ; 85:18,24 ; 86 :24 ;
cannot 49 :13 ; 96 :12
assumption 56 :18 ; 82 :22 ;
90 :1
cap 15 :2,11 ; 45 :16 ; 55 :3,
84 :17 ; 94 :13
behalf 1 :20,24 ; 2:3 .5,8 ;
6 ; 85 :16
assumptions 79 :9 ; 84
:17
4 :14 ; 22 :3
capabilities 14 :7
assurance 10 :12,18,22 ;
behavior
behind
35 :11
53 :3
capability 35 :20 ; 57 :9 ;
11 :7,13,17,23 ; 12 :12 ;
75 :13 ; 96 :15
13 :5,14,23 ; 14 :12 ; 19:19 ; belief 36 :24 ; 54 :19 ; 68 :16 capacity 21 :19 ; 34 :11 ;
23:24 ; 26 :6 ; 29 :6,7,11 ;
believe 5 :11 ; 18:3 ; 32 :7 ;
75 :5
30 :1,4,6,10,12,14,17,22 ;
36 :14 ; 37 :3 ; 39 :5,15 ;
caption 104 :8
31 :6,8 ; 32 :3 ; 33 :3,7,23,
41 :6,10,23 ; 61 :24 ; 78 :15 ; card 9:14
24 ; 39 :10,13 ; 40 :21 ;
81 :10 ; 91 :15
cards 9 :13
41 :12,17,22 ; 49 :1 ; 57 :6 ;
below 14 :24 ; 39:1 ; 52 :24
care 11 :9,15 ; 13 :15 ; 15
:7,
63 :12,15,17,24 ; 65 :2 ;
beneath 39 :3
9,18 ; 16 :17 ; 17 :6
; 23 :19,
78 :9 ; 81 :18
besides 13 :8 ; 59 :18
23 ; 25 :24 ; 30:10
; 32
:8 ;
assurances 33 :21
best 14 :1 ; 33 :17 ; 42 :15 ;
39 :16 ; 49:6 ; 51 :1
; 61
:9,
assure 63 :7 ; 71 :4,6
44 :3 ; 73 :10 ; 75 :14 ;
13,15 ; 62 :3,19 ; 63 :3,4 ;
attach 24 :23 ; 102 :11
84 :14 ; 88 :14
76 :17 ; 100:4
attached 23 :13 ; 25 :21 ;
better 20 :17 ; 22 :16 ;
case 3 :9 ; 4:10 ; 8 :23,24 ;
40 :11
33 :13 ; 42 :9 ; 46 :13 ;
9 :2 ; 12 :14 ; 14 :21 ; 17 :23,
attachment 23 :11 ; 25 :24 ;
47:20 ; 70 :10
24 ; 18 :5 ; 19:4,18 ; 22 :6,
29:12
between 52:21 ; 53:4
;
10 ; 35 :7,14 ; 36:21
; 40:6 ;
attempt 78 :6
67:11 ; 73 :11 ; 89:15
67 :4 ; 98 :5 ; 101 :16,23
attempted 78 :11
beyond 20 :8 ; 49 :19 ; 89 :15 cases 3 :17 ; 4:14 ; 96
:10
08-02-06 Deposition
of Devin Moose
31 :17; 32
:23 ; 33 :23 ;
34:6 ; 37:12 ; 45:23 ; 47:3
;
60 :7,15,19,22 ; 61 :23
;
62 :18,21
; 63 :24 ; 65 :8,10,
11 ; 69:13,17
; 70:2 ;
75 :22
; 76:5 ; 77:3,5,9,12
;
78 :10,17; 79:3,5 ;
80 :7 ;
84:5 ; 87:2
; 93:6 ; 94:5 ;
100 :4 ;
102 :12,15,18,24 ;
103 :13
closure/post 69 :13
co-issued 67 :10
coat 42:14
; 53:24 ; 54 :1,2,
3,4,9,20 ; 79 :22
cocoon 48 :7
collecting 43 :2,4
; 46 :18 ;
47:23 ; 48:1 ; 50
:6
collection 43
:3 ; 45 :8,10 ;
49 :23 ; 50 :10
; 72 :7,10,17,
23 ; 73:14,23
; 74 :19 ;
81 :3,8
; 82 :2 ; 85 :11,12 ;
88 :13
college 6 :2
come 4:20 ; 15 :3,5,6
; 16 :5 ;
17 :1 ; 40:12 ; 50:13 ;
59 :16,22,24 ; 60
:21,23 ;
76 :19 ; 89 :9 ; 94 :7
; 99 :20
comes 5 :4
; 37 :10 ; 45 :20 ;
92 :23
coming 11 :24 ; 13 :24 ;
14 :11,14 ; 15 :23
; 56:8 ;
57 :24
; 78 :5
commencement 104 :5 .5
commencing 1 :15
commenting 8 :17,20 ; 10 :5
common 50 :13 ; 52:14 ; 53 :1 ;
64 :16
COMMUNITY 1 :5 ; 2:3 .5 ;
17 :23
; 18 :1 ; 19:20,22 ;
20 :2,6,14 ; 21 :20,24 ;
22 :4,7,9 ; 27 :10 ; 30 :18 ;
69 :18 ; 70 :4 ; 89 :5 ; 105 :5
comp 12 :19,20
compacted 54 :18
; 55 :7
companies 13 :8
company 1 :5 ; 2:4 ; 12:9 ;
18:2 ; 21 :3,9 ; 22:18
;
27:10 ; 89 :6
; 105 :5
compare 58 :20 ; 83 :24
compared 71 :2
Complainant 1 :3,20 ; 105 :3
complete 26 :13 ; 80 :12 ;
81 :2 ; 83 :17 ; 85 :19,20 ;
105 :14
completed 70 :15,19
completely 29
:7
; 34 :19 ;
57:3 ; 60 :17
completion 77 :19 ; 81 :21
compliance 11 :13 ; 20 :21 ;
38:12 ; 99 :18
compliant 14:2 ; 51
:13
complying 78 :7
component 34 :2 ; 35 :19 ;
39 :12 ; 41 :11
components 39 :2
compounding 36 :24
comprehensive 49 :24 ; 73 :3,
9 ; 76:9
comprehensively 81 :16
computer 35
:4
concern 74
:12
; 96:20
concerned 25 :3 ; 44
:4 ;
90 :9 ; 96 :24
concerns 25 :20 ; 28 :15
conclusion 28 :14 ; 55 :22 ;
77 :14 ; 95 :14 ; 97 :13
conclusions 50 :3 ; 75 :17 ;
76
:20 ; 77:14
condition 29 :18,19
conditions 35 :20 ; 36 :9,15 ;
37:2 ; 67:20
conduct 83 :20 ; 91 :5,6
conducted 28 :20 ; 34 :5
cone 43 :15
confident 54 :16
confirm 54
:12
conform 66 :4,19
conformance 60 :9 ; 64 :2
confused 50 :9 ; 94 :3
Congress 52 :20,22
congruent 65 :18
connected 76 :12
Connecticut 8 :2
consent 17 :11
consider 36 :5
consistent 44 :23
; 49 :10 ;
79:10 ; 98 :19
consisting 105 :12
constituents 79
:23,24
constitute 26 :24
constitutes 92 :17
construct 83 :19 ; 85 :12
constructability 7 :17
constructed 16 :8 ; 54 :23 ;
72 :11 ; 73 :2,4,7,11,24
constructing 7 :23
construction 7 :22 ; 11 :5 ;
15 :5 ; 50 :2 ; 81 :18 ; 83 :6,
22 ; 85 :12 ; 88:15,19 ;
89 :10,11 ; 101
:19,20,21
consult 12
:13
consultants 14 :7
consulting 13
:22 ; 14 :4,6
contact 51 :7
contained 31
:18 ; 32 :24 ;
33 :3 ; 72:3
contaminants 96
:1,3
contaminated 51
:9
contemplating 84
:9
content 87
:19,20
continually 79 :7
continue 85 :21
continued 8 :10
continuing 7:1
; 74 :23 ;
75 :3,8,19
contouring 26
:3
contours 15 :1
; 83 :5
contract 58
:9 ; 68 :12,16 ;
89
:14,22
contracted 58 :6,7 ; 67 :5
contractor's 73 :17
contracts 68 :14
contractual 75 :13
control 1 :1 ; 3:19,23
;
18:8 ; 19:15 ; 29:1 ; 84 :9,
15 ; 97:1 ; 105 :1
Conversely 55 :6
converted 8 :13
Cook 8 :22
coordinated 30
:15
copies 24 :11 ; 25 :4
; 69:5 ;
100 :9,11,13
copy 24
:20,21 ; 32 :7;
71
:18 ; 81 :10 ; 100 :7
corporation 1 :5 .5,6 .5 ;
105 :5 .5,6 .5
corporations 21 :5
correct 3 :22 ; 5 :12
; 16:13 ;
30 :9 ; 46 :5 ; 50 :12
; 62:2,
4 ; 67:1,21 ; 77 :21
; 78:4 ;
88:6
; 104 :11 .5 ; 105 :14
corrective 29 :23
cost 2
:21,22 ; 11 :3,4,6,12 ;
12
:1,4,11 ; 13 :9,16,24 ;
14
:11,14,17 ; 15 :4,5,12,
17,19,22
; 16 :1,5,13,17 ;
29 :20,22 ; 32 :8
; 33 :9 ;
37 :13 ; 39 :16 ; 40:10 ;
41 :19,22 ; 42 :1,6 ; 43 :5 ;
45 :23 ; 48 :3 ; 55
:18,19,23 ;
56 :12 ; 57 :2 ; 58 :1
; 59:17,
22
; 60 :1,8,14 ; 61 :2,4 ;
74
:22 ; 77 :9,16 ; 83 :14 ;
90:11 ; 94 :5 ; 102 :12,15
cost/benefit 75
:15
costly 14
:19
costs 11 :5 ; 12 :17 ; 15 :10,
24 ; 17 :6,17 ; 51 :1 ; 58 :23 ;
60 :19,24 ; 77 :3,5,12 ;
80 :21 ; 81 :20
couldn't 88
:1
Counter 34 :23
counties 4 :18 ; 5 :5
County 1 :11 ; 8 :22 ; 12:24 ;
20 :19 ; 21 :11 ; 31 :3 ;
104 :2,4 .5,20
couple 34 :3,6 ; 69:4 ;
74 :13 ; 99 :4
cover 23 :20 ; 24 :4,6,13 ;
26 :3 ; 75 :23 ; 76 :15 ; 82:6,
8,13,18,21,24 ; 83 :2,6,8,
14 ; 88 :20 ; 90:11 ; 96 :2
create 43 :15 ; 44 :20 ; 52 :22
creates 102 :3
creating 51 :23
credit 58 :13
criteria 95 :7
critical 29
:3 ; 74:18
cross 99
:15
crust 99 :14
cubic 40 :9,11,14 ; 41 :2,9
CULBERTSON 2 :5 ; 23 :13
curious 24
:9 ; 74 :5
current 32
:2 ; 39 :16 ;
50 :15,17
; 51 :4 ; 63 :11 ;
64 :12
; 73 :1 ; 78 :13 ;
79 :20 ; 81 :7
; 91 :9
currently 4 :18 ; 9 :3,24 ;
49
:6 ; 50 :5,24 ; 52 :4 ;
57:1 ; 63 :21 ; 64:14 ;
78:12 ; 81 :11 ; 100 :12
curriculum 2 :18 ; 5
:12
curve 84 :19
customer 20 :16
customers 53 :11
CUTLER 2:1 .5
CV
--------------------------5:12
D
------------- ------------
damaged 78
:23 ; 79 :12
Danbury 8 :2
date 50 :2 ; 54:21 ; 71 :3,22,
23
date 23
:9
dated 2
:24 ; 22:20 ; 23 :12,
17 ; 71 :16
dates 18:21 ; 19
:12
day 6 :23 ; 20 :12
; 35 :12 ;
104 :16
deal 76
:21 ; 89 :21
dealing 13 :19
debate 92 :9
debt 12 :16
December 22 :10,21,22
;
23 :12 ; 26 :8,10
; 27:7
decide 19 :16 ; 44 :1
decided 84 :15 ; 93 :2
; 97 :15
decision 57 :17,22 ; 67 :14 ;
97 :1,7,8
decisions 37 :8 ; 43 :22 ;
93 :10
decree 17 :11
DEE 1 :9 ; 2:13.5 ; 3:2 ;
Page 3
104 :5 .5 ; 105 :9,16
.5
deep 46 :23 ; 82 :10,11
defaulted 36 :19 ; 92 :1 ;
95 :9
define 46:14 ; 55 :3
definitely 97 :7
defused 51 :7
degrade 47 :16
degree 5 :18 ; 6:4,6 ; 71 :6
degrees 43 :17
delegates 68 :13
deluded 51 :8
delved 8 :8
demonstrate 47 :19 ; 81 :21 ;
93 :4,14
denial 64
:14,16,22
denied 90 :6
depends
66 :14
deposition 1
:9 ; 3:10 ;
6 :23 ; 24 :18 ; 100:21 ;
102 :13 ; 103 :2,4,14,23 ;
104 :7 .5 ; 105 :11,14
depression 43 :15
depth 51 :15 ; 71 :1,2
describe 7:12
; 10:21 ;
25 :13
; 46:19 ; 72:16 ;
102 :22
describing 45 :3
DESCRIPTION 2
:17 .5
design 35 :9 ; 43 :13 ; 44 :11 ;
49 :15,24 ; 82 :18 ; 83 :2,3,
17 ; 85 :16
designed 95 :20
designing 14
:20
desire 52
:10
detail 69 :21 ; 73 :6 ; 74:2,
4 ; 98:3
details 60
:5
determinations 98
:15
develop 11 :4
; 15 :2,12 ;
33 :9 ; 35 :3
; 81 :3 ; 101 :21
developed 4
:23 ; 64 :23 ;
69 :16 ; 74
:20 ; 76 :5,21
developer 12 :22
developing 11 :12 ; 12 :4 ;
21 :14
development 8 :16,20 ; 9 :23
;
17 :14 ; 42 :19
device 84 :9
DEVIN 1 :9 ; 2
:13.5 ; 3 :2 ;
104 :5 ; 105
:9,16 .5
dewatering 7 :22
diagram 49:22 ; 99:6
diagrams 73 :3
difference 39 :5 ; 45 :15 ;
52:21 ; 53 :4
different 5 :7 ; 6:23 ; 13:1,
17,20 ; 31 :11 ; 43 :21 ;
48 :16 ; 52 :23 ; 60 :4 ; 68:6 ;
80 :18 ; 95 :18 ; 100:3
differently 57
:10 ; 95 :19,
20
dig 64 :21
dilemma 24
:6
dimensions 47 :9 ; 99 :22,24
Diplomat 6 :9
direct 21 :6
direction 37 :23
directly 56 :15
director 9 :14,16,20
dirt 86 :7
disagree 34 :3
disagreed 64 :1
disagreeing 34 :1
disclosed 25
:14
disclosure 62 :8 ; 69 :11 ;
98 :1
discuss 62
:6 ; 63 :8 ; 97:12
08-02-06 Deposition of Devin Moose
discussed
62 :13 ; 63:5 ;
90 :10 ;
103 :13,14,15,20
doing 21 :18 ; 28:23 ; 31 :3 ;
23 ; 79:23
during 21 :24 ; 80:7 ;
101 :15
;
102
:13 ; 103 :2,14
--------------------------
E
--------------------------
either 10
:16 ; 18 :19 ; 46 :23
elegant 93 :20
elements 33 :24 ; 41 :22
emphasis 6 :10
; 36 :7
empirical
54:21 ; 92 :18,23
employ 52 :15
employed 4 :18 ; 9 :3 ; 20 :15
employees 9 :18
; 88 :20
endeavor 78 :15
ended
26:19 ; 103 :23
energy 85
:1
enforce 98 :7
enforcement 4 :2
Enforcement-Land 1 :4 .5 ;
105 :4
.5
engine 93 :19
engineer 5 :23 ; 6 :8,15,18 ;
12:3,5,6 ; 13 :23 ; 14 :4,20 ;
35
:2,5,17,18 ; 36 :12 ;
42 :4
; 66:1 ; 98 :19
engineer's 11
:3,4,6 ;
12
:11 ; 13 :9 ; 33 :9 ; 66:12
engineered 15 :2 ; 54 :18,24
engineering 5 :21 ; 6 :5,7,
11 ; 7 :3 ; 8:10,13,14 ;
12 :1 ; 27 :14,15,16
; 33 :12 ;
67:7 ; 93
:20
engineers 6:10 ; 14
:6 ;
27:9 ; 66 :4
enough 34 :13
; 46 :16 ; 98 :1
entails 6 :16
enter 76 :24
entering 88 :22
enters 51 :8
entire 38 :4 ; 58 :10 ; 90 :17
entity 20 :23 ; 68 :13,14
Envirogen 9 :10 ; 10 :16
environment 44 :4 ; 57 :4 ;
65 :22 ; 96:3
environmental 1 :12,21 ;
2 :10.5,23 ; 4:3 ; 6:10 ;
8 :13,14 ; 9 :4,15,19,21 ;
10 :9 ; 21 :3 ; 22:17,19 ;
27:16 ; 66 :5 ; 71 :24 ;
102 :21
EPA 1 :24 ; 14:13 ; 16 :23 ;
17:3 ; 27 :3 ; 30:15 ; 65 :23 ;
68:18 ; 77:12 ; 96:9
ergo 40 :12
erosion 15 :10
; 26:4 ; 29 :1 ;
82 :10,11
especially 45 :16 ; 62 :14
essence 94 :4
essentially 11 :14 ; 69 :20 ;
94 :21
establish 79 :19 ; 86 :3
established 86 :4
estimate 2 :21,22
; 11 :3,4,
6,12 ; 12 :1,4,11 ; 13 :9 ;
14 :1,11,14,18 ; 15
:12,18,
19,22 ; 16:1,5 ; 29:7,20
;
33:9 ; 40
:9 ; 48
:3 ; 55 :17,
22 ; 56 :8 ; 57:2,13,24 ;
59 :16,24 ; 60 :8 ; 77:5,8,
17,20 ; 80 :11,12 ; 83 :14 ;
91 :12 ; 102 :12,15
estimated 15 :5 ; 34 :4 ;
55 :17; 59 :22 ; 60 :1 ; 61 :2
estimates 11 :14 ; 13 :16 ;
14 :22 ; 15 :4 ; 16 :13 ; 22 :7 ;
29:22 ; 30 :12 ; 32 :8 ;
37:13 ; 39 :17 ; 41 :19
estimating 13 :9 ; 17 :17
evaluate 23 :3 ; 70 :23 ;
72 :6 ; 75 :11,12,13,14 ;
82 :20
evaluated 88 :12
evaluates 72 :10
evaluating 75 :3 ; 83 :16
evaluation 70 :18 ; 71 :16 ;
84 :11
evaluations 8 :8
even 18 :18 ; 21 :1,2 ; 41 :8 ;
96 :17
events 85 :15
eventually 28 :14 ; 101 :2
everybody 14 :14 ; 24 :7 ;
41 :5,7
everything 16 :20 ; 47 :15
evidence 54 :21 ; 56 :19 ;
57:15 ; 73 :8 ; 74
:10 ;
81 :11 ; 82 :9 ; 91 :16,19 ;
92 :18,23
evolution 92 :7
exactly 20:9 ; 27 :20 ;
92 :16 ; 99 :16
examination 2 :13 ; 3 :5 ;
6 :19,21 ; 99 :2 ; 104:6
examined 3 :3
example 4 :4 ; 12 :14 ; 17:13
;
37:15 ; 39:11 ; 40 :22 ;
41 :15 ; 78:13 ; 80
:22 ;
89:17 ; 93 :10
; 97 :2
examples 34 :3,6
excavation 14 :24
exceed 79 :24
exceeded 58 :8
excess 29 :20 ; 33 :21 ;
34:16 ; 41 :17
excessive 39 :11
executed 68 :12
exercise 21 :15 ; 38:8 ;
95 :23
exhibit 5 :8,11 ; 24 :24 ;
25 :7,10 ; 28:17 ; 68 :24 ;
69 :7 ; 100 :7 ; 102 :8,11,13,
14,17 ; 103 :9,12
exhibits 2 :16 .5 ; 69 :4,5 ;
102 :11
exhumation 40 :10
exhume 101 :12
exhuming 39:6 ; 101 :9
existence 96 :18
existing 42 :13 ; 71 :3 ;
78:7
; 79:15 ; 82 :16 ;
100 :8,10
expand 78 :21
expanding 9 :23
expending 96 :11
expensive 16 :2
experience 5
:15 ; 6 :17 ;
10 :17,21,24
; 13 :19,22 ;
14 :10 ; 36 :18 ; 49:11
;
59 :6
; 84
:2
experience[sic .] 11 :1
expert 4:23 ; 5 :1
expertise 6 :20 ; 14 :7
explain 6:12 ; 36:1 ; 87 :11,
12
explained 73 :5
expose 101 :18
exposure 39
:3
extensive 6
:19 ; 7 :19
extract 81 :4,16
extraction 54 :9 ; 73 :16,22
extremely 25 :3
-------------------------
F
-------------------------
F-O-I 27 :4
facilities 3 :24 ; 7 :14 ;
12 :18 ; 15 :3 ; 16 :8
; 21 :5,
7 ; 52 :11,12 ; 92 :16 ; 97:4,
10
facility 14
:21 ; 15 :2,7 ;
16:15
; 20 :13,20 ; 21 :1 ;
Page 4
34 :11 ; 35 :9 ; 52:23
;
53 :10 ; 55 :8 ; 56:5,9 ;
57:1,2 ; 70 :18 ; 71 :11 ;
72 :24 ; 74 :10,21,24
;
75 :18,20,22
; 80 :2,6 ;
81 :4,17 ; 82 :14 ; 92 :21 ;
93 :5,15 ; 94 :10,14 ; 95 :21,
23 ; 96 :1,2,4,13,17; 100 :8
fact 28 :23 ; 31 :22 ; 33:13 ;
54 :12 ; 67 :16 ; 97:4
factor 37:22
; 38 :3 ; 74 :18
factors 86 :5 ; 98 :12,14,18
facts 45 :19 ; 56 :18 ; 57:15 ;
95 :22 ; 96 :23 ; 97:2,12,23
;
98 :15
failed 34 :15 ; 35 :17; 94 :16
failure 19
:19 ; 23 :18 ;
25
:22 ; 30 :3
fair 13
:13 ; 51 :10 ; 95:13
fairly 14 :16 ; 54 :5 ; 82 :10,
13,24 ; 94
:5
fall 85 :18,24 ; 86 :2,9,24
familiar 10 :6,12 ; 17 :23 ;
19 :22 ; 30 :13 ; 63
:10
familiarity 20 :2
; 30 :20
far 4:20 ; 12 :12 ; 13 :15 ;
16:23 ; 22:3 ; 24:2 ; 31 :3 ;
33 :20 ; 41 :9,21
; 43 :11 ;
44 :4,8 ; 46
:12 ; 47:24 ;
50 :5
; 54 :7 ; 61 :13 ; 62 :9,
20 ; 63 :3
; 65 :21,22 ;
66:12 ; 72 :2
; 78:18 ; 90 :9,
13
fast 90 :23
favor 18 :8
feasible 97 :21
features 96 :4
February 57 :18
Federal 93 :3
feeling 29 :5
feet 26 :20,22 ; 27:1 ; 36:4 ;
43 :19 ; 44 :9,10
; 47:8,21 ;
49 :19 ; 82:16
; 93 :7 ; 99 :17
fell 76
:5
few 65 :17
Fifth 1 :13
fifty 12 :15
figure 40 :10 ; 50
:23 ; 73 :4 ;
81 :14 ; 85 :17
; 86:10
figured 87 :24
figures 100 :6
file 26 :12,13,24
; 28 :12 ;
31 :14 ; 32 :20 ; 64:5
filed 21 :23 ; 27:4 ; 30
:8 ;
64 :7,10
files 26 :24 ; 27:2,3
fill 8:3 ; 34 :16
filled 54 :23
final 16 :18 ; 23 :20 ; 75 :23 ;
76 :15 ; 82:6 ; 83 :3,6,8,14 ;
84 :6 ; 90:11
financial 10 :12,18,22 ;
11 :1,2,7,13,17,22 ; 12
:8,
10,12,13 ; 13
:4,5,14,23 ;
14 :12 ; 16 :10
; 19 :19
;
23 :23 ; 26
:6 ; 29:6,11 ;
30
:1,4,5,10,12,14,17,21 ;
31
:6,8 ; 32 :3 ; 33 :2,7,21,
23,24
; 39 :9,13 ; 40 :21 ;
41 :11,16,22 ; 49 :1 ; 57
:5,
7 ; 63 :11,15,17,24 ; 65 :2 ;
78 :9
financing 13 :1,2 ; 62 :11
find 24 :19 ; 39 :17,23 ;
40 :7 ; 59:12
findings 85 :10
fine 20:11 ; 85 :8
finished 102 :10
each 4 :10 ; 13 :10 ; 70:24
;
73:4 ; 80 :21,22 ; 81 :21 ;
100 :13
earlier 19 :11,12 ; 27:5 ;
65 :14 ; 70 :14 ; 93 :22
early 7 :15,19,24 ; 14 :23 ;
86 :5
earth 83 :7 ; 86 :19
east 74:12 ; 84 :19
economic 54 :4,8
economical 96 :11
economist 13
:18
edge 99
:17
education 5 :15,17 ;
7 :1
educational 8 :9
effect 42 :3 ; 92 :11
effective 43 :2
effectiveness 72 :7
efficient 44 :2
efficiently 81 :16
eight 3 :13 ; 6:16 ; 10 :1
;
52 :18
eighteen 21 :15
discussing 55
:15
discussion 90
:8 ; 100 :16
disparity 73 :2
disposal 7
:13 ; 21 :19 ;
43 :12 ; 53
:8
dispose 75
:8
disposed 55
:9 ; 94:14
dispute 41 :8
disputes 5 :7
dissolved 46
:17
distance 51
:15
divergence 73 :13
document 71 :15 ; 100 :22 ;
102 :21
documents 49 :9 ; 70 :13
dog 35 :7
33 :17 ; 52:13,17; 61 :19 ;
62 :21
; 86 :8 ; 88 :22 ;
98 :16,18 ; 101 :14
dollar 65 :4 ; 77 :16 ; 81 :13
dollars 12 :15 ; 33:22 ;
41 :18 ; 42 :7,9
; 50 :20 ;
61 :5
; 62 :1,11,12,18,21 ;
63 :4,7,13,22 ; 77 :4,9 ;
79 :17 ; 83
:8,9 ; 86 :2
done 12 :4 ; 17:8,10,20
;
20:3 ; 23:2
; 29:2 ; 41 :2 ;
45 :20 ; 46 :9 ; 61
:15 ; 62:8,
9 ; 69:17 ; 70:3
; 71 :24 ;
76 :20 ; 77:15 ; 78 :19 ;
80 :18 ; 81 :22 ; 87 :3,4,5,
23 ; 88:14,15 ; 101 :3
double 5 :20
doubt 54 :16
down 13 :17 ; 27:12 ;
46:15 ;
53 :15 ; 59:9
; 60 :3 ; 77 :10 ;
78 :3 ; 80 :1
downhill 84 :18
dozen 52 :17
dozens 5 :6
draw 99 :6
drink 96
:21
drove 33 :17
duly 3 :3
; 104 :6
dumped 53 :17
dumping 42 :14 ; 53 :19,22,
08-02-06
Deposition of Devin Moose
23,24 ;
78 :20 ; 100:19
flare
84 :24
Floor 1 :18 .5
flow 37 :24 ; 43
:16 ; 44 :17
flowing 44
:21 ; 45 :7
flows 37 :17
focus 5
:20 ; 9 :18 ; 74 :17 ;
following
99 :24
follows 3 :4
foot 26 :23 ; 48:11,14 ;
51
:18 ; 95:7
footprint 38 :22,24 ; 39
:2,
4 ; 84:5 ; 93:7
foregoing 104 :10 .5,11 ;
105 :10
forest 93 :11
forgot 19 :7
forgotten
96 :12
form 56 :17
; 66 :9 ; 76 :15 ;
82 :6
; 83 :3
forma 13 :10 ; 84:23
formally 53 :16
forth 7:24 ; 73:12,21 ;
81 :9 ; 91 :24
forties 53 :20
forty 37 :22
forward 14 :16 ; 69 :14
found 18 :8 ; 78 :23 ; 87:24
four 29 :12 ; 41 :2
; 60 :4 ;
71 :21 ; 78 :3
; 90:15 ;
100 :13
Freedom 27 :5
Friday 18 :21
front 3 :19,20,22 ; 41 :14 ;
42 :20 ; 64 :16 ; 67 :4 ;
73 :19 ; 93 :9 ; 96 :24
full 75 :4
full-time 8 :13
functionality 72 :12
functioning 71 :2
functions 72 :12
funny 78 :2
FURTHER 104 :7 .5,10,13
--------------------------
--------------------------G
gallon 58 :6,20 ; 59 :7,8,10,
14
gap 71 :23
garbage 53 :17 ; 54 :14 ;
101 :24
gas 23:23 ; 25 :23 ; 26 :5 ;
28 :24 ; 73 :16 ; 74 :8,11,19
;
75 :24 ; 76 :16 ; 83
:15,16,
17,18,19,20,21,22,24
;
84 :8,10,12,13,14
; 85 :21 ;
86 :9 ; 87
:8,9,10,13,15,20 ;
88 :4,8,10 ; 89 :18
; 90 :12 ;
91 :6
gased 84 :24
gate 88 :22
gave 19 :11
general 1 :17,18 ; 20 :21,23 ;
47 :2 ; 58 :19 ; 70:2 ; 78:20
General's 3 :8
generally 5 :16 ; 13 :8 ;
14:22 ; 25 :13 ; 36 :2 ; 45 :5
;
58:18 ; 72 :16
; 74 :3
generate 15 :21
generated 30 :14,22
genres 11 :3
geologic 71
:3
geological 5 :21 ; 8 :9
geotechnicat 5
:21,23 ;
7 :18
; 8 :10
gets 74 :1 ; 101 :4
getting 12 :8 ; 13 :5,20 ;
16:24 ; 33 :5 ; 69 :21 ; 74:2
give 24 :7,16 ; 34 :2,5 ;
36:23 ; 37 :15 ; 49 :17 ;
53:14 ; 55 :11 ; 58 :13 ;
62 :6,24 ; 68:21
; 72 :20
given 3 :10 ; 71 :7; 105
:11,
15
giving 57 :7 ; 90
:22
go-to 9 :22
got 8:4,6 ; 15 :14 ; 22 :11,
20 ; 25 :10 ; 26:7 ; 29 :15 ;
31 :20 ; 42:13 ; 45 :18 ;
46 :8 ; 48 :4 ; 56 :23 ; 58 :8
;
64 :20 ; 69:5 ; 77:10 ;
78 :20 ; 79:22 ; 80 :6 ;
81 :23 ; 82:3 ; 84:4,21 ;
85 :7,18 ; 86:8
; 95 :15 ;
96 :14
gotten 15 :14
; 35 :13 ; 93 :9
government 4
:12,15,17
governmental 10 :19
grade 15 :1
gradient 52 :23 ; 80 :1
grading 75 :23
Grand 1 :22
grant 1 :17.5 ; 2 :15 ; 3 :6,7 ;
18 :19 ; 19 :1,13,16 ; 24 :9,
17,23 ; 25 :9 ; 39 :19,21,24 ;
40 :3,13,19 ; 55 :14 ; 57 :19 ;
61 :22 ; 66:16 ; 68:21 ;
69 :2 ; 97 :11,14,24
; 98 :10,
20,24 ; 100 :14
; 101 :4 ;
102
:10,20 ; 103 :1,8,11,18,
21
granted 71 :9
GRAYSON 2
:1 .5,15 .5 ; 18:23 ;
24 :11,21 ; 25 :5 ; 99 :3 ;
100 :17 ; 101 :7 ; 102 :5
great 25 :5 ; 65 :9 ; 100:14
greenfield 12 :21
grew 7:8
ground 33 :18 ; 36:15 ; 39:3 ;
45:19 ; 57 :6 ; 86:7; 99:23
groundwater 5 :22 ; 8 :7;
23 :22 ; 26 :5 ; 28:21,23
;
34 :13,15,24 ; 35 :3,4 ;
36 :3,21 ; 37 :11,12,16
;
39:1 ; 41 :24 ; 42 :10,11,15,
17,21 ; 43 :6,8,9,16 ;
45 :14 ; 46 :4,10,12,22 ;
47 :4,11,23 ; 48 :7,9,11,14
;
49 :2,17,18,20 ; 50 :6,10,
18,21 ; 51 :3,8,10,12,17 ;
53 :1,5 ; 55 :16 ; 76:6,8,11
;
78 :18,21 ; 79
:8,11,19,21 ;
80 :3,5,6,8,17 ; 85
:20 ;
86 :3,8 ; 87:6,7
; 88 :10 ;
90 :10,18,24
; 91 :10,17,22 ;
92 :24 ; 93 :6,16,17
; 94 :22 ;
99:21 ; 100 :19
Grundy 20:19 ; 21
:11 ; 31 :3
guarantees 11 :2 ; 13
:3
guess 11 :11 ; 30 :8,11 ;
31 :23 ; 43 :21 ; 50:8 ; 52:9 ;
54 :24 ; 73 :10 ; 94 :17
; 95
:7
gullies 26
:4 ; 82 :10,11
I
-------------------------
i .e . 74 :22
idea 38 :11,14 ; 40
:23 ;
43 :20 ; 62:24
; 72 :20
identification 5 :9
; 25 :8 ;
69 :1 ; 71 :14
; 102 :9 ;
103 :10
identified 5
:11 ; 60 :12
identify 23 :9
; 73:6 ; 83 :1 ;
84:12 ; 88
:24
IEPA 2 :18.5
; 15 :13 ; 28:15,
22 ; 49
:12,17 ; 79 :14 ;
81 :20
; 87 :23
IEPA's 94
:24
IL 1 :19,23 ; 2 :2
.5,7
ILLINOIS 1 :1,2,5
.5,6,12,
13,17,21,24 ; 2 :10 .5 ;
4 :18,19 ; 6 :8 ; 7:7
; 8:17 ;
Page 5
9 :18 ; 10
:7 ; 12:7,24 ;
indicated 67 :14 ; 70 :5 ;
104 :9
individual 27 :18
individually 13
:12
inducing 44
:17
industrial 80
:2
industrialized 42 :12
industry 6
:24
information 27 :5 ; 28 :2 ;
74 :14
; 92 :18
infrastructure 81 :15,24
initial 5 :1
initially 76 :23
initiate 24
:15
initiated 70 :10
innocuous 92
:20
input 36 :13
inputs 36 :6,8
insert 35 :9
help 7:22 ; 22 :14 ; 34:24
helps 48 :15
HELSTEN 2 :5 .5 ; 18 :16 ;
46:1 ; 63 :16 ; 86:1
implementation 80 :16
implemented 33 :10 ; 69 :14 ;
19:10 ; 22:12,20 ; 24:4,13 ;
76:23 ; 87 :7,9 ; 95 :3
25 :1 ; 39 :20 ; 40 :1,5,8,17
; important 43 :23 ; 71
:10 ;
56:17 ; 57:14 ; 61 :18 ;
72:13 ; 79 :7
66 :8 ; 97 :11,17
; 98 :9,13 ; impracticable 59
:19 ; 60 :18
100 :23,24 ; 102 :7
; 103 :3, improper 33 :20
6,19
in-depth 13
:14
hereby 104 :5
; 105 :9
hereunto 104 :15 .5
in-house 27 :4
inadequate 50
:1
higher 6:13 ; 7:2 ; 33 :7 ;
inappropriate 38 :3
48 :13
Inc 102 :21
highest 74 :22
highly 80 :2
Hill 8 :1
hinge 98 :15
HINSHAW 2:5 ; 23 :12
INC . 1 :5,13 ; 2:4 ; 105
:5
incapable 42 :4
incentive 16 :10
incinerate 84 :24
include 4 :22
historical 26 :20 ; 42 :14
included 23
:14,18,22 ;
history 79 :23
hold 5 :14
50:22 ; 78 :16
; 86 :3
includes 50
:18 ; 56 :1 ;
honest 49:8
77 :24
; 78 :14 ; 83 :16
hope 34 :7
; 48 :15
including 10 :1 ; 53 :19 ;
hopefully 44
:7
hour 1
:15
hours 85
:7
61 :7 ; 83 :10 ; 87 :8 ; 90:15
inclusive 105 :12
income 96 :14
hundred 42 :1,8 ; 43
:5,19 ;
Incorporated 7
:20 ; 9 :4
44 :9,10 ; 46 :5
; 47 :8,21 ;
incorrect 63
:14
48 :2,11,14
; 49 :19 ; 51 :18 ; increase 78
:22 ; 101 :13
55 :20 ; 86:2 ; 91
:11,17,18 ; increased 8 :6
; 38 :24 ; 74:1
92 :23 ; 93:6,7,16 ; 95
:13 ; increasing 8:5
; 38 :22 ;
99 :17
hurdle 13 :21
hydrogeologic 35
:10 ; 71 :3
hydrogeological 8
:7
39 :4
increasingly 7 :21
incrementally 74
:1
indeed 54
:11
----------------------
INDEX 2
:13,16 .5
97 :21
focused 37
:8 ; 63 :16
focuses 8
:14
focusing 96 :23
FOI'd 27
:4
folders 26 :24
follow 66:22 ;
67:1
guys 68 :22 ; 101 :2
14 :13,17 ; 16
:23 ; 17:3 ;
--------------------------
23 :14 ; 27 :3
; 30 :15 ; 52 :9,
H
12,16 ; 65 :23 ; 66:2 ;
--------------------------
68 :18 ; 77 :12 ; 92 :10 ;
half 9 :8,11 ; 52:17
; 59:7 ;
93 :1 ; 104 :1,5
; 105 :1,2,
73 :24
5 .5,6
hand 104 :16
handled 72 :15
hands 36 :19
illogical 57 :3
imagine 99 :14
iamediate 70 :6 ; 74 :13 ;
happened 35
:8,13
76 :1 ; 81 :12
happy 97 :14
impact 34
:13,15 ; 35 :3 ;
hate 87
:11
44 :3 ; 47
:3,14,16,20 ;
heading 30 :9
48 :13 ; 51
:18 ; 74 :22 ;
health 25 :20 ; 29 :5 ; 33 :11 ;
92 :24 ; 93
:5,15 ; 94 :22 ;
34 :20 ; 38 :6,19 ; 42 :3 ;
99
:21
60 :18 ; 70 :7,11 ; 74 :7,17 ;
impacted 46 :17 ; 47 :12 ;
79 :9 ; 81 :12 ; 89 :1,3 ; 92 :3
51 :10
hearing 18 :5,12 ; 19 :3,4,15
impacting 36 :3 ; 47 :18 ;
hearings 4 :8
49 :18
heart 97 :19
heavily 42
:12
height 34 :17
impacts 47 :15 ; 71 :11
impermeable 54
:5
implement 15
:6 ; 26 :18 ;
firm 27
:14,15
first 3 :3,9 ; 6:1
; 15 :17 ;
18 :11 ; 20 :4,5
; 38 :9 ;
39 :11 ; 44
:8 ; 66 :2 ; 70 :6,
15 ; 74:13
; 84:10 ; 96:7 ;
102 :15
five 59 :8 ; 76 :6
; 77 :15,19,
08-02-06 Deposition of Devin Moose
itself 46 :16 ; 87 :20
IV 42 :15
last 18 :20,21 ; 29:14
;
30 :7 ; 37 :20 ; 41:2 ; 71 :22
late 8:11 ; 20 :18
later 24 :20
Lateral 38 :21
latter 100 :20
law 3 :21 ; 67:6
lawsuit 4 :16
lay 86
:23
layer 54 :2
leachate 23 :22 ; 26 :4 ;
28:18,20
; 36
:22 ; 37:9,11 ;
42:24
; 43 :3,4
; 44 :21 ;
45 :4,5,7,8,10,11,17,20,
22 ; 46 :9,13,14,20 ; 47 :13 ;
48 :1,6,19 ; 50 :11,18 ;
51 :3,6,7,11,12 ; 52 :1,24 ;
53 :4 ; 55 :16,19,23,24 ;
56
:5,6,13 ; 57:1 ; 58 :1,3,
11,17 ; 59 :1 ; 69 :24 ; 72:6,
10,14,16,23 ; 73 :14,15,18 ;
74 :19 ; 75 :24 ; 76 :10,14 ;
80 :23 ; 81 :2,4,7,17,24 ;
85 :11,12,20 ; 88 :12 ;
90 :11,19 ; 91 :5,10,18 ;
95 :13
; 96 :15
; 100:20
;
101 :19,22
leached 72
:15
Lease 89 :22,24
least 26 :17 ; 53 :7
; 63 :22
;
74 :22 ; 76 :22 ; 92 :13 ;
102 :1
left 27
:20,21
; 54 :7
legal 67 :22 ; 68 :19 ; 97:7,
13
legally 64 :2 ; 94:9
legitimately 98 :11
Lend 86 :16,17
length 27 :1
less 49
:9 ; 58:21 ; 59 :8,14 ;
73
:9
letter 22 :20 ; 23 :12 ; 24 :2,
5,6,8,13,16 ; 26 :7 ; 64 :14,
20,22
letters 64 :16
Level 6 :9,13 ; 7:2 ; 47:16,
19 ; 48:13 ; 52:24 ; 53:1 ;
80 :23
Liability 18 :7
liberty 20 :8 ; 32 :7
lies 54 :2
life 7:9
; 14 :23 ; 79 :16
limited 52 :1
limiting 101 :17
Linda 1 :10 ; 104 :3 .5,18 .5
line 2 :14 .5,17 .5 ; 56:24
;
73:19 ; 99 :22
liner 53 :21 ; 54 :18,19,22,
24
; 55 :2,3,5,8 ; 99:15
liners 7 :23
lines 8:12 ; 21 :16
liquid 50 :14 ; 51 :6
list 23 :21
listed 78 :10
Listening 94 :20
lists 67 :12
Little 11 :10 ; 17 :21 ; 20 :1 ;
35 :6 ; 43 :7,13 ; 55 :12 ;
60 :10 ; 85 :2 ; 90 :3,17 ;
91 :8 ; 93 :9
lived 7 :8
LLP 2 :5
load 94 :11
loading 101 :24
local 54 :11,12
located 70 :24
logical 86 :19
long 6:23 ; 9:6 ; 21
:11 ;
72 :19 ; 79 :23 ; 80 :11
;
85 :9,11,14 ; 92 :16
Page 6
Long-term 45 :5
longer 36 :8 ; 92:14
look 21 :5,23 ; 23:13,16 ;
24 :1,2 ; 25
:16,17 ; 31 :21 ;
36:13
; 38 :4 ; 39:2
; 43 :21 ;
59:3
; 74:7
; 75:7 ; 76:1 ;
88 :23
; 91
:23 ; 95 :4 ;
96 :16,18,19 ; 97 :22 ; 99 :16
Looked 21 :6 ; 50 :16 ; 59 :5 ;
70
:23
; 74 :13 ; 75 :2
;
82 :15
; 87 :24
looking 14 :1 ; 20 :3 ; 32 :20 ;
49 :10 ; 69:7 ; 74 :4 ; 86:23 ;
100 :5
looks 99 :16
lost 35 :13 ; 93 :11
lot 7
:6
; 13:19 ; 21 :4 ;
28 :2 ; 36 :23 ; 52 :19 ;
69 :21 ; 84 :3 ; 85:6 ; 92:9 ;
95 :18 ; 96 :10
low 59 :7 ; 94 :5
LTD 2 :1
-------------------------
M
--------------------------
mad 85 :2,6
made 28 :14
; 56
:19
; 84 :17
magic 92 :9
maintain 7:2
; 15 :9 ; 92 :12
maintenance 23 :19; 82 :12 ;
90 :16,24
major 5 :20 ; 89:12
man 27 :18
management 7 :20 ; 56:1 ;
76 :10,14 ; 79:19 ; 80 :5,24
;
83 :4,6,15,17,18,19 ; 84 :1,
8 ; 86
:3
; 90 :11,19 ; 91 :5,
7 ; 100 :20
manager 9 :1 ; 27:18
managing 96 :5
manholes 73 :16
manifolds 73 :17
manmade 54 :18
manner 74 :22
many 3 :12 ; 4 :17 ; 36 :24 ;
52 :11 ; 93:1
mark 100 :7
marked 5 :8,10 ; 25 :7,10 ;
68 :24 ; 102 :8 ; 103:9
marking 99 :12
mass 51 :9
material 67
:16
; 101
:19,20
materially 47 :16
materials 26 :4 ; 34 :4
math 40 :17 ; 61 :19
matrix 51 :17
matter 24
:15 ; 31 :22 ; 46:17
mayor 22
:11 ; 24 :14 ; 25 :2 ;
88
:21
McDermott 27 :19,22
McHenry 1 :11 ; 104
:2,4 .5,20
mean 11 :24
; 16
:9,15,18
;
24
:17
; 26 :22 ; 31 :9 ;
33:20 ; 42:1 ; 44:9 ; 45:4
;
53
:13
; 55 :2 ; 63:20 ;
66
:21
; 67 :19 ; 69 :8 ; 75 :9 ;
77:13 ; 79 :7 ; 87 :12 ; 92:5 ;
94 :22 ; 95 :24 ; 97:16
; 98
:7
meaning 93 :5
means 6:12 ; 35 :17
meant 35 :8,16 ; 54 :24
measurable 39 :5 ; 42 :2
measurably 99 :21
measure 71 :12
measured 37 :19 ; 71 :1
measuring 42 :16
mechanism 12
:10 ; 84 :16
mechanisms 11 :17 ; 13 :17
inside 13 :10
inspection 2
:18 .5
; 22
:13 ;
IX 29 :13,18
IX .1 29:18
23 :1,5,15,17,20
; 24 :3 ;
--------------------------
25 :11,15,18 ; 29 :8,9 ;
70 :8 ; 88:23
inspections 90
:16,23
--------------------------J
January 27
:7,8
inspector 23:15
; 24 :10
job 6:1 ; 9
:17
; 98 :6
joint 22 :11
jousting 90 :3
judge 3 :21
July 70
:15
; 71 :8,16
June 97:19 ; 103 :16
jurisdiction 4 :21
inspectors 5
:1
install 83
:18 ; 89 :18
installation 79 :2 ; 83 :18
installed 88 :16
installing 51 :5
instance 38 :17
instances 28
:15 ; 97 :20
instead 63
:17
institution 12 :9 ; 13 :2 ;
--------------------------
K
--------------------------
57 :7
institutions 12
:13 ; 13 :4,
keep 52
:24
; 87 :11
keeping 24 :6
20
kept 18 :21
instructed 88:23
kind 13 :6 ; 54 :10 ; 57:7 ;
instruction 101 :3
72 :22 ; 93 :11,18 ; 99 :8,9,
instrument 11 :22
insufficient 50 :2 ; 78 :24
integral 22 :2
intent 89 :13
13
kinds 53 :19
knowing 38 :17
knowledge 13 :14 ; 31 :5 ;
interact 16 :7
interest 5 :6
40:6 ; 58:16
known 20 :14
interested 104 :14
knows 82 :7,17
interesting 67:11 ; 92 :8
KUGLER 1 :21 .5 ; 18 :24 ;
Interestingly 34 :12
--------------------------100
:15
L
interface 14 :13
internal 13 :10
interpret 43 :14
; 57
:10
---------------- ---------
interpretation 33 :16 ;
lack 20 :17 ; 26 :18 ; 47:20 ;
12 :19,20 ;
1 :10 ; 104 :3 .5,18 .5
67:17
; 89
:14
73 :3 ; 82:12
interpretations 56 :22
interpretive 64 :23
Interrogatories 2 :19 .5,
Lakes
Lance
land
5 :4,5
2 :11 ; 5 :4 ;
20 .5 ; 69:10
Landfill
76:15
; 80
:1 ; 82:6
;
86 :23 ; 96 :16
4 :21,24 ; 5 :2 ;
1
:5 ; 2:4,18 .5 ;
83 :3 ;
7 :20 ; 8 :1,
12 :21 ;
interrogatory 69
:6,7,9,12
interrupt 35 :24
interrupting 87 :12
intervals 82 :24
interviews 54 :11
intuitive 34 :23
2,16 ; 10:18 ; 11 :5 ;
14 :4,19 ; 16 :19 ; 17 :13,14,
23 ; 18:1,2 ; 19 :20,23 ;
intuitive[sic .] 34 :20
20 :2,6,14 ; 21 :20,24 ;
invested 81
:15
investigate 22:15 ; 23 :1 ;
?2 :4,8,9,13
; 23 :19;
27:10
; 30 :18 ; 31 :2,15
;
35 :11 ; 37:18 ; 38 :1,22,23 ;
39 :10
; 43 :9,16,17,19
;
74 :23
investment 81 :24
involved 5
:19 ; 7 :16,19 ;
44 :9,15,18,20
; 45
:11,12,
8 :4,7,11,23 ;
15 ; 46 :10,11,24 ; 47 :22 ;
13 :8 ; 20 :5 ;
31 :24 ; 56:15
10:4 ; 12:3 ;
22 :5 ; 25 :15 ;
48:6 ; 50 :6 ; 51 :16 ; 53:7,
16 ; 55 :7,19 ; 56 :16 ;
59:23 ; 60:2 ; 62 :10 ;
63 :21
; 66 :4,13,17,20,22,
involvement 7 :12 ; 25 :2 ;
37 :20
inward 45
:7
24 ; 67
:2,9
; 68
:11
; 69 :18
;
isn't 17:1
; 24
:17
; 45 :5,
70
:4,16
; 71
:15,21
; 72
:4,
23 ; 65
:15,22 ;
66
:5,19 ;
6,19
; 74
:8,11
; 76 :16 ;
67 :21
; 77 :4
79 :20
;
81 :8,15
; 83 :15,19,
isolated 96 :3
21,22 ; 84 :10,12
; 85
:21 ;
issuance 30 :8
86 :10 ; 87 :8,9,13,15,16 ;
issue 12:18 ; 29:4 ; 31 :4 ;
88 :16 ; 89 :5,6 ; 90:12 ;
36 :6 ; 38 :21 ; 57:12 ;
91 :6 ; 92 :12 ; 94 :12 ;
66 :14 ; 67 :6 ; 82
:7,11 ;
99 :14,15,20,24 ; 105 :5
89 :21,22,24 ; 90
:1 ;
93 :15 ; Landfill's 14 :23
95 :2,4,8 ; 101 :13 ; 102 :3
landfills 7:13,17,19 ; 8 :4,
issued 12 :15 ; 67:8 ; 68:18 ;
15 ; 9 :23 ; 10 :14,23 ; 11 :8,
95:1
9 ; 13:24 ; 16 :11
; 31
:1 ;
issues 5 :2,3 ; 7 :22 ; 13 :3 ;
42 :13 ; 47:2 ; 52 :8,15,16 ;
30 :5 ; 39 :7 ; 55 :16 ; 60 :13 ;
58 :17; 60 :9 ; 84 :1,3 ;
64 :15,24 ; 74 :5,7,19 ;
92 :18,20
89:1 ; 97 :16 ; 101 :10,11 ;
large 13 :7 ; 21 :4 ; 90 :15
103 :19
largest 44 :3 ; 45 :22
items 100 :19
iterations 91 :24
LaROSE 2 :1
LaSalle 2:2 ; 12 :24
08-02-06 Deposition of Devin Moose
months 101 :15
MOOSE 1 :9 ; 2 :13 .5 ; 3 :2,7 ;
24 :14,16 ; 56 :19 ; 57:16 ;
61 :18 ; 66:10 ; 69 :12 ;
98 :16 ; 102 :13,16 ; 103 :3,
13 ; 104 :5 ; 105 :9,16 .5
69
:12 ; 102:17 ; 103 :9,12 ;
104 :4 ; 105:4
nobody 12 :6 ; 82 :7,17
non-regulatory 55 :9
none 29 :4 ; 52 :12 ; 54 :15 ;
95
:12
nor 104 :13
.5,14
normally 14 :3,16 ; 16 :8 ;
17 :12 ; 43 :17 ; 44:12
North 1
:22 ; 2 :2
northern 8 :22
notarial 104 :16
Notary 1 :10 ; 104 :4
.5,20 ;
105 :20 .5
notes 104 :12
nothing 102 :7 ; 104 :6.5
notified 22 :12
November 64 :11
nuisance 102 :3
number 2:17.5
; 5 :11 ;
15 :21
; 17:2 ; 25 :10 ;
32 :11,17 ; 37 :18,21 ; 59 :3,
4 ; 64 :1,3,4,6 ; 65 :2,4,15,
16 ; 67:20 ; 69 :7,8
; 78 :22 ;
92 :9 ; 102 :11
numbers 16 :24
; 30 :22 ;
37:12 ; 76:13 ; 77:7
;
83 :10 ; 90
:22 ; 91 :20
numeral 29 :13,17
numerous 5 :2
; 64 :15
--------------------------
0
--------------------------
o'clock 1 :15
oath 105
:13
object 56:17; 57:14 ; 66 :9 ;
97 :11
objection 56:19 ; 66 :8
obligation 68 :18 ; 98
:19
observations 90 :5
obtain 71 :4
obtained 74 :14
obtaining 10
:18,22,24 ;
11 :22
; 26:20 ; 28:2
obviously 26 :14 ; 63 :13 ;
89 :5
occasionally 54 :15
occur 85 :15 ; 86 :20
occurred 22 :10
occurring 70 :17
October 18 :12,20,22 ; 23 :2,
17 ; 86 :21
odor 101 :12
odors 101 :14
office 3 :8 ; 9 :18,22 ; 10
:2
offices 1 :12
OFFICIAL 105
:20
often 35 :5
okay 10 :4 ; 11 :20 ; 17:21
;
18:15 ; 19 :6,8,14
; 29:8,
15 ; 32 :10,16 ; 42 :23
;
43:11 ; 44 :6,14
; 46 :5 ;
48:20
; 49:5 ; 50 :19
; 51 :2 ;
59:9,15 ; 60 :11 ; 61
:6,8,
23
; 62 :5 ; 75 :21 ; 78:2,3
;
82 :5 ; 88:11 ; 91
:2,3,4,9 ;
98 :20 ; 100 :2 ; 103 :7,18
old 7:4 ; 42 :14 ; 53
:24 ;
55 :7,8
; 79:22 ; 93:18
older 72
:19 ; 92 :18,19
once 45 :12 ; 51
:7
one 5
:3 ; 11 :11 ; 13:1,10
;
24 :5 ; 27:22
; 31 :9 ; 32:11,
18,19,20 ; 37 :1,15,18,19,
20
; 38:3 ; 39 :1 ; 48
:14,24 ;
50:5 ; 51 :22 ; 52 :6,13 ;
53 :6 ; 54 :13 ; 55 :10
;
57:18 ; 65:18 ; 69 :24
;
72:20 ; 74 :5 ; 75 :2,7 ;
76 :6 ; 77 :8 ; 78:2,3,13
;
80 :13,23 ; 81
:5 ; 93 :6 ;
95 :15
; 98:2,22 ; 99 :17 ;
100 :19 ; 101 :8
ones 31 :24
; 69 :9 ; 88 :1
Page 7
ongoing 17:24
; 23 :21 ;
26 :1 ; 80 :6 ; 83:21
; 85:19
only 15 :24
; 20:20 ; 24 :5 ;
31 :24 ; 34 :3,11 ; 43 :7 ;
57:3 ; 70 :18 ; 85 :7 ; 94:7,
12,15
open 17 :14 ; 18 :21
opened 95 :12
operate 74 :23
; 75 :3,19
operated 20
:17,22 ; 72 :18 ;
operator 15 :8 ; 23:4 ;
26 :17 ; 37:4,5 ; 56 :14 ;
66 :17,20,24
; 67 :11,13,15,
23,24 ; 68 :1,4,6,9
; 89 :6
operator's 35
:17 ; 36 :11
operators 58 :22
; 59:1 ;
66 :13
opinion 26 :16
; 33 :6 ;
40:22
; 42 :17 ; 55 :18 ;
69:16
; 73 :11 ; 79 :1 ; 81 :8 ;
89:3 ; 92:22 ; 94 :24 ; 97:19
opinions 97
:23
opportunity 62 :6 ; 103 :4
opposed 4 :11,21 ; 33 :17 ;
43 :6 ; 45 :8 ; 46 :8,10
;
47:23 ; 50:11 ; 51 :3
;
67:13 ; 75 :19
; 82 :22 ; 98 :4
option 16:2 ; 75 :9
options 75 :2,8
; 98 :10
oral 6:21
oranges 45
:1
orbicul 55 :6
order 49:21
; 51 :13 ; 71 :12 ;
74:6 ; 81 :16
; 82 :17 ;
86:19 ; 94 :7
; 97:20 ; 103 :8
originally 7 :7
other 3:23 ; 4:2 ; 5:5
; 6:8 ;
11 :3,14 ; 12 :9
; 13 :24 ;
14 :6 ; 15
:23 ; 16:19 ; 17:1 ;
31 :1 ; 41 :22
; 42:18 ;
48:23 ; 49:7
; 51 :24 ; 53 :6,
16,22 ; 56:7,13
; 57:3 ;
58 :17 ; 59 :13,17 ; 60 :22 ;
63 :5 ; 64:2 ; 65:17 ; 69:23
;
72 :21 ; 74 :5,24
; 82 :3 ;
83 :24 ; 84 :1,3
; 86 :5 ;
88 :21 ; 89:10
; 94:15,16 ;
95 :2,9 ; 96:14
; 99 :21 ;
100 :2 ; 101
:8
others 14 :8
otherwise 68
:14
ought 36:8 ; 96:22
ourselves 14
:22 ; 71 :4,7
out 6:1 ; 10 :2
; 16:16 ;
29 :2 ; 31 :3
; 34 :24 ; 36 :15 ;
37:2 ; 44 :22 ; 48
:23 ;
51 :17 ; 52 :2 ; 53
:4 ; 54 :13 ;
58:8 ; 61 :8 ; 65 :8
; 69 :4,
22 ; 70 :23 ; 73
:4,15,19 ;
75 :3 ; 78:20 ; 82:7,23
;
83:1 ; 84 :11 ; 85
:16,17 ;
86 :6,10,11 ; 87
:6,7,23,24 ;
88:15 ; 92 :16 ; 93
:9 ;
99 :10 ; 100 :9,10
outcome 104 :14
outline 2:24 ; 103
:12
outside 7:11
; 43 :6,9,11 ;
44 :9,10,15
; 46 :10,12 ;
47 :4,6,11,24
; 48 :9,14 ;
56 :24 ; 68:22
outstanding 64
:24
meet 27:9
; 28:4 ; 41 :9 ;
47
:21 ; 72 :24 ; 95 :6,9
meeting 14 :2 ; 27:13,24
;
28 :8,11
; 94 :8 ; 103 :17
meets 81
:10
mention 30
:3
mentioned 15
:17 ; 16:1 ;
Moose's 24 :13
Moreover 39:6 ; 45 :17
MORRIS 1 :6 ; 2 :8.5 ; 17:22
;
18 :2 ; 19 :20,22 ; 20 :2,6,
13,15 ; 21 :19,23 ; 22 :4,6,
7,9 ; 30:18 ; 56:10 ; 58 :3,
24 ; 59 :18 ; 62 :13,17,22 ;
25
:22 ; 32:11 ; 38 :9
; 82 :1
63 :6 ; 67 :5,8,10,15,21 ;
met 26 :14 ; 27 :12,22,23
;
69 :6,18 ; 70
:4,5,9,12,22 ;
28 :1 ; 98 :8
72 :9
; 82 :19 ; 105 :6
metal 99 :15
methane 84:22
; 87 :19
Morrislsic
.] 18 :1
most 14 :19 ; 16:2
; 21 :6 ;
method 15 :4
24 :9 ; 28 :19
; 43 :23 ; 44 :2 ;
might 36 :19 ; 46:18
; 47:17 ; 74
:21 ; 96:10
50 :1 ; 52 :17 ; 55
:10 ;
move 34:18 ; 40:4,23 ; 81 :1 ;
73 :12 ; 75
:14,15 ; 99 :20
101 :18
migrating 52
:2
moved 9 :12 ; 40 :23
million 12
:15 ; 33 :22 ;
moving 38:13,16,18
; 39 :6 ;
41 :18
; 42 :7,9 ; 45 :24
;
86 :19 ; 101 :10
46:4
; 50 :20 ; 61
:4,10,14 ; MS . 2 :1 .5,11,15
.5 ; 18 :23 ;
62
:1,3,11,12,18,19,21
;
24 :11,21 ; 25 :5
; 99 :3 ;
63 :4,6,12,22 ; 65
:4,10,13 ;
100 :17 ; 101 :7
; 102 :5
77
:4,9,12,13,16,20,24
;
much 8 :13 ; 24
:19 ; 33 :13 ;
78 :3 ; 83 :8,9,13
; 90:18 ;
36 :18 ; 39
:20 ; 41 :10 ;
91 :1,2,8
43 :21
; 46 :19 ; 58 :1 ;
mind 4
:20 ; 5 :4 ; 25 :6 ; 68 :3 62
:24 ; 74 :11 ; 78 :10 ;
mine 53
:24 ; 54 :9 ; 79 :22
82 :8
; 84 :12,19 ; 93 :2 ;
mined 42
:14 ; 54 :1
94 :22
minerals 54
:10
municipal 1 :6.5 ; 13 :2 ;
minor 79
:17 ; 82:4
minute 42
:6 ; 55 :12 ; 68:21 ;
42
:20 ; 53:8,16,17 ; 54 :14 ;
72
:18 ; 105 :6.5
84
:9 ; 98 :22
municipalities 4 :19
misinterpreted 35 :6 ; 67 :16
Missouri-Rolla 5 :19
municipally 73 :18
must 61 :20,21 ; 94:24
misunderstanding 45 :19
myself 52 :19 ; 92 :6
misunderstood 97
:1
--------------------------
misused 35 :6
mitigate 101 :14
mix-up 48 :4
N
name 3 :7 ; 27 :18 ; 28 :10
model 13 :11 ; 34 :13,15,18,
national 9 :20
19 ; 35 :1,4,8,10,15,17,18
; nationwide 6 :22 ; 9 :21,24
36 :12,14 ; 37 :1,2,4,10,16,
natural 35 :20
17 ; 38 :4,9,12 ; 42 :4 ;
near 29 :13
49:12,13,16 ; 65 :17 ;
nearly 4 :17 ; 9 :12 ; 27 :1
91 :23 ; 92:24 ; 94 :1,16,21 ;
necessarily 16 :6 ; 22:5 ;
95 :1,6
33 :10 ; 35 :19 ; 38 :5 ;
modeled 95 :19
60 :23 ; 68 :7 ; 80:16 ;
modeling 35 :12,15 ; 91 :22 ;
85 :13 ; 92 :2
97 :3,9
operating 16 :11 ; 26 :17 ;
52 :15,16 ; 73 :1 ; 81 :10
;
97 :3
operation 68
:3
operational 5 :2
operations 56:1 ; 58:9
93 :4,7,9,11 ; 96 :20
modification 64 :5,7
modifications 64 :19
modify 60 :10
money 13:4 ; 16:14,16 ;
43:24 ; 44 :1,5 ; 57:6 ;
62 :14 ; 63 :1 ; 82:19,20 ;
96 :12
monitor 25 :23 ; 71 :10 ;
necessary 11 :21 ; 22:2 ;
83 :23 ; 97 :18
need 16 :20
; 24 :15,23 ;
34:10 ; 37 :1 ;
70 :3,6
; 81 :3 ;
40 :23 ; 62:9 ;
84 :20
needed 13 :5 ; 23 :4 ; 29 :2 ;
33 :7
; 76 :20 ; 79 :15 ; 89:2
needs 38:4 ; 51 :11,12 ;
62 :8
; 76 :23 ; 77 :15 ;
79 :8 ; 87:14 ; 92:14 ; 96 :4
monitoring 8 :7 ; 15 :10 ;
23 :22,23 ; 26 :5 ; 28 :18,20,
22,23,24 ; 42 :16 ; 43:3,4 ;
56 :6 ; 70 :16,18,20,23,24 ;
81
:13,15 ; 88:13 ; 96 :14 ;
102 :4
negative 45 :6 ; 51 :23
negotiations 36 :17
network 76 :7,8,11 ; 78 :18,
71
:12,15,21 ; 72:2 ; 74:18 ; 21 ; 87:6
; 90 :10
76 :7,8,10,11,14,16 ;
never 28
:1,3,10 ; 95 :12
78:18,21,22,23
; 79 :2 ;
new 8 :8 ; 9:23 ;
17:14 ;
80:7,8,17 ; 83 :16,21 ;
42 :19 ; 52:22
; 89:18
85
:20,21 ; 86 :8,9 ; 87:6,7, next 29 :21
; 80 :17,23
9,10,13 ; 88 :2,4,9,10 ;
night 85 :8
90
:10,18,19,24 ; 91 :6,7 ;
nine 6 :8
96 :20
No's 102 :8
month 21 :15
No's
. 68 :24
monthly 87 :16
No . 1 :4
; 5 :8 ; 25 :7 ; 32 :13 ;
08-02-06 Deposition of Devin Moose
parties 68:6 ; 71 :19 ;
104 :8 .5,13 .5
party 15 :6,12 ; 56 :12,13
;
57:12 ; 61 :16
; 67 :6 ; 68 :17
43 :12 ; 46:1
; 48:20 ; 49 :6 ;
50 :4,15,17
; 51 :4 ; 60 :21,
22,24 ; 63:16
; 76 :21 ;
78 :17
; 86:1 ; 94:5 ; 101 :21
93:13
; 99 :1,18 ; 101 :8
points 73
:22
pollution 1 :1 ; 3 :19,23 ;
18:8 ; 19:15 ; 96 :24 ; 105
:1
pond/quarry 54 :11
poor 42
:11,21,22
poorly 56 :15
portion 16 :19 ; 45 :23 ; 82 :9
pose 82 :11 ; 96:2
posed 29 :4
poses 81 :12
positive 44
:3
possibility 44
:21
14 :17 ; 15 :17,20 ; 16:1
;
17:5 ; 32 :8 ;
102 :12,14
prepare 81 :18
prepared 100 :
presence 72 :6
present 1 :16 ;
38:24 ; 104 : 8
presented 71
:
pressure 45 :
presumptive
pretreatment
pretty 8 :12 ;
46:19 ; 92 :10
prevent 45 :6
; 49 :21
previous 31 :5
; 104 :5 .5
previously 52 :10 ; 53 :8 ;
54
:23 ; 82 :1
primary 81 :5
prior 14 :19
; 30 :16 ; 31 :7 ;
53 :12 ; 71 :22
private 12 :19,21 ; 13 :1,7
;
20:22 ; 21 :3 ; 58 :21
; 59 :1 ;
68 :17
privilege 24 :8
pro 13 :10 ; 84 :23
probably 4 :5 ; 5 :6
; 7:15 ;
6
Page 8
8 :12 ; 9 :11,24 ; 16 :2 ;
20 :23 ; 21
:16,21 ; 22:1,15 ;
27:7 ; 32
:21 ; 40 :16 ; 42:8 ;
54 :19 ; 56 :22 ; 58:21,22 ;
73 :13 ; 77:1 ; 80 :15 ;
84 :18,19 ; 89
:15
probe 82
:24 ; 84:21 ; 86:9,
10
probes 83 :20 ; 85 :17 ;
87 :24 ; 88 :5,8
problem 38 :8 ; 94 :23 ; 101 :1
problems 20 :5 ; 22 :13,15
;
25 :14 ; 75 :3
Pruim 20 :18
pumped 43 :1 ; 54
:13
pumping 37
:9,11 ; 42 :10,21 ;
46:8,13
; 49:19 ; 53 :4,5 ;
73:15
; 91 :16,17 ; 93 :17
purged 70 :24
purpose 19 :15 ; 28 :2,11 ;
32 :12 ; 47 :12
; 93 :12
purposefully 27 :13
; 86 :15
pursuant 89 :6
put 13 :17 ; 14 :18 ; 22
:16 ;
26:24 ; 36 :6 ; 40:4 ; 41 :11 ;
51:14 ; 55:2 ; 63 :6
; 69 :3 ;
74:8 ; 84 :21 ; 91 :23 ;
93 :19 ; 95 :8 ; 96 :2,23
39 :16 ;
public 1 :11 ; 12 :16,19 ;
13 :7 ; 29:5 ; 33 :11
; 34 :20 ;
38 :6,18 ; 42 :3 ; 56:24
;
22
60 :18 ; 70 :7,11
; 74 :7,17 ;
79 :9 ; 81 :12 ; 92 :2
; 96 :14 ;
2 :9 .5 ; 20 :4 ;
102:2 ; 104 :4
.5,20 ;
.5
105 :20 .5
18 ; 95 :6
publications 31 :10
; 51 :23 ; 52:2 publicly 13:7
6 :7,8
pulling 51 :16 ; 52 :3
58
:14
pump 36 :21 ; 41
:24 ; 43 :15 ;
36
:18 ; 41 :10 ; 49 :17 ; 73:18
outward 45 :9
over 4 :19 ; 8
:4 ; 35 :11 ;
40 :11
; 54 :6,23 ; 55 :8 ;
74 :1 ; 75 :16 ; 77:24 ;
82 :13,16 ; 90
:17,21 ; 91 :8
overall 72
:23
overfill 34
:7,12 ; 38
:23 ;
39 :4 ; 40 :9
; 95 :16
overheight 38
:20 ; 39 :12 ;
40 :22
; 94 :18 ; 101 :9
overtiner 73
:22
override 40
:14
own 49
:11 ; 54 :11 ; 59:6,24
owned 12 :21 ; 20 :21 ; 73 :19
owner 4 :22 ; 15 :8 ; 44:20 ;
56 :14 ; 67 :2,9,11,12,14,
24 ; 68 :1,5,9,10
owners 36 :11
; 66 :4,13
oxygen 87
:19
--------------------------
pending 78 :12,14 ; 100 :12
penny 59 :7,14
people 1 :2 ; 26:14 ; 35 :13 ;
36 :19 ; 54 :12 ; 105 :2
per 40 :11 ; 41
:9 ; 58:6,20 ;
59 :7,10
perfect 80 :4
perfectly 49 :9
perform 15 :13
performance 11
:1
performing 60
:15
perimeter 45 :14 ; 73 :23 ;
87
:15
perimeters 36 :13
period 15 :9 ; 20 :3 ; 21 :24 ;
53 :15 ; 56:3 ; 80:7; 87:1 ;
91 :11 ; 102 :1
periods 92 :4
permanent 7 :13
permission 70 :22 ; 71 :9 ;
P
.
90:2,4
permit 4 :11 ; 17 :9,12,14,
P .E . 1 :9 ; 2:13.5 ; 3:2 ;
104 :5 .5 ; 105 :9,16.5
p .m 1 :15 ; 103 :23
P .O . 1 :22 .5 ; 2 :6.5
package 26 :13
page 2 :14
.5,17.5 ; 29 :12,
14 ; 102 :15
; 104 :9
pages 104
:11 ; 105 :12
panel 6
:21,22 ; 8 :18
paper 100 :5
paragraph 29 :21
paragraphs 73 :20
parameter 37 :19
parameters 72 :2,3 ; 79 :24
parcel 2 :21 .5,22 .5 ; 32:12,
14,15 ; 33 :22 ; 34 :7,9,10,
12,14,15,17,18 ; 35 :16 ;
39:17 ; 51 :1 ; 53
:7 ; 59:23 ;
60 :14 ; 65
:6,10,11 ; 72 :17,
20,22 ; 73 :14,20,21 ; 74 :9,
12 ; 75 :4,8 ; 77 :13 ; 83 :16,
15 ; 21 :22,23 ; 28 :21 ;
29 :19 ; 32 :11,13,14 ; 34 :6
;
36 :23 ; 37 :19 ; 40 :4,15 ;
48 :24 ; 49 :14,15 ; 60
:9,23 ;
63 :12 ; 64 :5,8,17
; 65 :1 ;
67 :8,20
; 68 :8,18 ; 70 :17,
19 ; 77:11 ; 78:7,12
;
85 :23 ; 87:14
; 89:9 ; 91 :9 ;
92 :1 ; 93 :15
; 95 :1,2,4,5 ;
100 :10,11
permits 15 :14 ; 30:15 ;
31 :14,15,18,20,23 ; 32 :4,
17,19,24 ; 33 :3,15 ; 60 :16 ;
63 :21 ; 67 :10,12 ; 72:4
permitted 32 :2,7 ; 42 :13 ;
46
:2
; 49:6 ; 50 :5,15,17,
24 ; 52 :4 ; 55 :10 ; 67 :2 ;
68 :17; 72 :13 ; 73 :1
; 100 :8
permittee 68 :10
permitting 4
:7 ; 30 :21 ;
53 :13 ; 79
:14 ; 91 :21
17,18,19 ; 93 :24 ; 94 :2,18,
person 4 :11 ; 26 :17
; 68:16 ;
23 ; 95 :2,11,16 ; 100 :8,9 ;
99 :6
102 :14,15
personally 27
:11
parcels 32:8 ; 61 :2 ; 72
:24
Park 2 :6
persons 104 :8 .5
pertaining 10 :14
part 4 :16 ; 11 :16 ; 12 :8,11,
pertains 22 :10
12 ; 16:24 ; 22 :2 ; 28
:19 ;
phonetic 31 :15
56:21 ; 75 :11 ; 78:13 ;
photographs 26 :3
100 :20 ; 101 :23
participate 36 :17
photos 23 :15
physics 53 :3
participated 8 :16 ; 88
:18, pick 34 :18
19 ; 97 :3
picking 66 :18
particular 6
:20,24 ; 31 :2, pie 99
:13,14
4 ; 33 :18 ; 35 :7,14
; 36 :10, piece 16 :15
; 33 :18 ; 100 :5
11,20 ; 37:18,21
; 38 :17 ;
place 16
:20 ; 38:11 ; 53 :22 ;
49 :15,16 ; 65:16,18
;
54:8 ; 94:15
; 96:4 ; 104 :8 ;
79
:21 ; 96
:6
; 101 :15,17,23
particulate 46 :17 ; 48 :8,
105
:11
placing 54 :14
10,18
; 51 :9
plan 20
:19 ; 21 :12,14,18 ;
possible 70 :10 ; 74 :14 ;
89 :1
procedure 53
:13
proceeding 23
:11
post 16 :12 ; 57:5
post-closure 11 :9,15 ;
proceedings 4 :2 ; 43 :22 ;
104 :10
.5
13:15 ; 15 :7,18 ; 17 :6,17 ;
23:19,23 ; 25 :23 ; 29 :23
;
process 12 :3 ; 13 :6,14 ;
14 :10,15 ; 15 :15 ; 17 :1,11,
30:10
; 31 :17; 32 :8,23 ;
33:23
; 39 :16 ; 47:3 ; 49 :6 ;
16 ; 30:21 ; 64 :23
; 91 :21,
22
produce 70 :13
produced 70 :13 ; 72 :9
producing 42 :4
production 23 :14
productive 74 :21
51 :1 ; 61 :6,7,8,9,11,13,
15,24 ; 62 :3,19 ; 63 :3,4,7,
24 ; 65 :8,11,12 ; 69 :17 ;
70:3 ; 76 :17 ; 78 :1 ; 79 :4 ;
84 :7 ; 90 :13 ; 100 :4
post-secondary 5 :17
professional 6 :1,7,14,17
;
posting 11 :7
; 13 :4
pot 99 :13,14
potable 42 :17
; 80 :4
10 :17
; 12 :2,5,6 ; 22 :21 ;
66:1 ; 104
:4,19 .5
profit 96
:13
potential 20 :5
; 70 :11 ;
project 9:1,2
; 12 :16 ;
71 :13 ; 79:12
; 81 :5 ;
27
:18 ; 76 :24
projecting 21 :19
projections 11 :5 ; 12 :18
101 :14
; 102 :3
potentially 15 :2
P01N 56
:10
pour 95 :5
projects 8:15 ; 9 :20
property 44 :15
practicable 16
:12 ; 44 :2 ;
proposed 33 :14
97 :21
proposes 69 :13
practical 33 :12 ; 59 :19 ;
proposing 43 :14
65 :20 ; 97 :18
protect 38 :18 ; 101
:21
practice 16
:11
protection 1 :21 ; 2
:10 .5 ;
pre-Subtitle 92 :19
precise 35 :8,10
precisely 20 :24 ; 21 :13 ;
4 :3
; 10:9 ; 34 :20 ; 42 :2 ;
66 :5
protective 33 :10 ; 38 :6 ;
51 :21 ; 73 :4 ; 75 :15 ; 82 :7
65 :19,22
prove 99 :20
proven 53 :2
precursor 11 :21
predecessors 9 :11
predominantly 11 :7
predominately 7 :17 ; 17 :19
preferred 45 :6
provide 19 :19 ; 30 :4
provided 29 :9
provides 42 :2
premature 2 :21,22 ; 11 :8
;
providing 14 :11
pass 6 :21 ; 34:19
; 35 :18,
22 ; 36 :12,16 ; 38 :13 ;
49 :12,14 ; 94 :1,2
planned 15 :19,22
planning 9 :21 ; 11 :17 ;
19 :2 ; 22:2
passed 34 :14,17 ; 42 :5 ;
plans 49 :22
93 :24 ; 94 :21 ; 95
:1
Please 35:1
passes 36 :2
plunking 86 :7
passing 6 :18 ; 36:5
plus 40 :9 ; 63 :12
pathway 79 :12
point 14 :18,23 ; 22
:4 ;
pay 58 :17
27 :7,20 ; 38 :7 ; 47:21
;
PCB 1 :4 ; 37:7,8 ; 67:14
;
51 :16,19 ; 54:22
; 55 :1 ;
105 :4
56 :23 ; 62 :10
; 73 :17 ;
peers 6 :21,22
89 :12 ; 90
:6 ; 92 :17 ;
08-02-06 Deposition
of Devin Moose
quality 42 :11,21 ; 81 :18 ;
84 :12,22
quantity 15
:4 ; 34 :4 ; 84 :22
quarters 71 :21
question
11 :10,18,19 ;
46:7
;
53:6 ; 56:18 ; 65:21 ;
67
:22
; 68:20 ; 70 :21 ;
75 :1,12,16 ; 85 :5,13
;
100 :2 ; 101 :8
questionable 38
:14
questions 6:23
; 52 :6 ; 99 :4
quick 55
:11 ; 88 :24
quickly 14
:9 ; 16:15 ; 74 :14
quit 9 :12
quite 53
:15 ; 60 :3 ; 67 :17
--------------------------
R
--------------------------
R .P
.R . 1
:10
ramped 74 :15
Randolph 1 :18 .5
ranged 41 :3
rate 38 :1
; 58:7
ratio 75 :15
rational 93 :10
reached 77 :15
read 37 :7 ; 43 :22 ; 67:14,
23 ; 96 :24 ; 105 :10
real 22 :9 ; 29:4 ; 36:9 ;
37 :2 ; 38:8 ; 44 :11 ; 93:12 ;
96 :23 ; 99 :11
realistic 97 :18,21
reality 37 :16
realty 8:8 ; 9:17 ; 13 :13 ;
22 :1,10 ; 24 :17; 30:4 ;
31 :24 ; 33 :11,16 ; 35:16 ;
38 :23 ; 45 :22 ; 46:8 ; 50:2,
16 ; 53:9 ; 55
:5
; 59:21
;
60 :4 ; 64 :21 ; 65:23 ; 68 :2 ;
70 :20 ; 71 :3; 72:24 ;
73 :15 ; 74 :12 ; 83:4 ;
84 :20 ; 85 :13
; 86
:24 ;
92 :5,20,22 ; 95 :24 ; 96 :23 ;
97
:22
; 98 :4,10
reason 15 :24
; 27:6
; 41
:13
reasons 96 :6 ; 98 :2
recall 3 :24
; 4 :5
; 19
:9 ;
21 :2,8,12,13 ; 27 :8,16,24 ;
28 :3,6,8,10 ; 31 :2,6,10 ;
34 :1 ; 39:8,12; 41 :8,13 ;
49 :24 ; 50:7 ; 59 :2,5 ;
68:1 ; 90 :7
recalled 31 :12
receive 16 :16
received 8 :6
; 23 :16
;
70 :22 ; 74 :15,16
recent 71 :22
recess 55 :13
recognizing 76 :24 ; 77 :7
recollection 31 :5 ; 40 :6 ;
90 :3
recollections 20
:9
recommendation 74 :20 ;
84 :13 ; 89 :2
recommendations 76 :9,18,
19,22 ; 78 :6 ; 89:23
recommended 65 :2 ; 70
:9 ;
74:16 ; 86
:1
; 90 :14
record 20 :21
; 70
:8 ; 98
:21 ;
100 :15,16
records 21
:10 ; 26 :20
reduce 40 :24
65 :14 ; 102:12,16 ; 103 :2
referring 28 :17 ; 32 :18 ;
39 :14,15 ; 52 :5 ; 57:18 ;
100 :3,18
ref fled 27:6
reflective 37 :16
regime 35 :10
Registered 6 :7,14,17
;
12:6
; 66 :1
; 104
:4,19 .5
regulation 33 :16
regulations 4 :24 ; 7 :19 ;
8 :17,21 ; 10:5,6 ; 11 :6,13 ;
14 :3 ; 35 :2 ; 42 :24 ; 47 :10,
19 ; 51 :14 ; 56:12,22 ;
57 :8 ; 63:10 ; 64 :3 ; 65 :19 ;
66 :5,18 ; 67:24 ; 68 :1 ;
92 :5,7,10 ; 93 :2,3 ; 98 :7
regulator 93 :13
regulatory 8 :6 ; 13 :21 ;
48 :12 ; 55 :9
related 15 :3 ; 30 :5 ;
104 :13 .5
relatively 14 :23 ;
relevance 25 :20
relevant 25 :1
reliable 76 :9
relief 19 :16
relo 94 :8
relocated 34 :10 ; 94 :9,10
relocation 38 :10,11 ;
60 :13,14 ; 78 :15 ; 93 :23,
24 ; 94:6
remaining 75 :4
remedial 23 :18 ; 52 :14
remediation 8 :15 ; 9 :19 ;
95 :3
remember 4 :1 ; 18 :18,19 ;
23 :5 ; 38 :19
remodel 95 :21
removal 29 :19,21 ; 40 :10
remove 34 :16
removed 41 :16 ; 45 :12
removing 45 :10
repair 86
:9 ; 88 :20
repairs 15 :10,11 ; 79 :15,
18 ; 83:20
repermitted 39 :16
rephrase 54 :17
report 24 :11 ; 25 :3,11,15,
18 ; 26:2 ; 29:8,10; 71 :7,
16 ; 72 :8,9 ; 73 :6,12,21 ;
74 :8 ; 81 :9,19,20 ; 88 :23,
24
reported 23 :15 ; 104 :10
reportedly 87
:23
Reporter 104 :4,19,19
.5
reporting 81 :19 ; 85 :22 ;
87 :5
reports 31 :11
represent 4:16 ; 36:8 ; 37:2
representatives 27 :11,23
represented 37 :18
representing 3 :9 ; 5 :6
represents 36 :15
request 27 :5,6 ; 64 :19 ;
72 :8 ; 100 :23
requesting 24 :14
require 35 :2 ; 42:24 ;
43
:18 ; 44:19 ; 47 :11
;
63:21 ; 92:14 ; 93 :4
required 7:1
; 15
:8 ; 16:12 ;
28:24 ; 30 :17 ; 31 :8 ; 34 :6 ;
92 :20
12 ; 30:14 ; 31 :18 ; 32 :23 ;
47
:18 ; 78 :7,10
requires 6 :14,15,16,18,20 ;
12 :2 ; 14 :17 ; 29 :19,22
requiring 67 :13
reserve 103 :7
reside 7 :10
residual 42 :3 ; 101
:22
resolve 64
:24
resolved 102 :4
resources 26 :18 ; 35 :19
respect 21 :7
respectful 82 :18
respectfully 67 :18
Respondent 2 :3 .5,8
Respondent's 2 :19
respondents 1 :7 .5 ; 29 :22 ;
105 :7 .5
responses 69 :6,8,9
responsibilities 9 :15 ;
68:5
; 81
:20
Page 9
saw 25:3 ; 29:1 ; 42:6 ;
54 :6 ; 81 :11
saying 47 :10 ; 50 :9,10,16 ;
56:14
; 93 :24
says 9:14 ; 24 :5,14 ; 29:21 ;
85 :18 ; 86 :13
school 5 :17
Schweickert 28
:9
Science 5
:18 ; 6:6
scientific 8 :18 ; 91 :16
scope 65 :17 ; 89 :16
scrutiny 8 :5
seal 79 :13 ; 104 :16 ; 105 :20
seasons 86 :14
second 11 :15,16 ; 12 :8,12 ;
29:14 ; 72 :5 ; 74 :15
section 99 :15
sector 58:22
; 59 :1
secure 15 :1
securing 33 :14
sedimentation 15 :11
responsibility 37 :4 ;
65 :23,24 ; 66 :2,3,12 ;
67:5 ; 68 :4,13
see 24 :4 ; 29 :18 ; 31 :11 ;
32 :5 ; 44 :13 ; 49 :22 ; 54 :2,
6 ; 69
:14 ; 84 :21,22,23
responsible 66 :14 ; 68 :2
result 33 :16 ; 38:22 ; 39:4
seeing 91
:18
seeked 12 :22 ; 13 :1
resulted 70 :12
seeking 4
:11 ; 17 :13
results 71 :6
seemed 37 :8 ; 59 :20
retain 22 :14
seems 57:3
; 59:19 ;
96:22
;
retained 7 :21 ; 22 :6,23,24 ;
100
:4
26:9,10,11
seen 31
:11 ; 50:1 ;
59 :8
;
retaining 70 :12
82 :15
revealed 22 :13
revenue 12
:18
review 15 :14
; 32 :19 ; 59:4 ;
seepage 38 :1
select 78 :13
semantic 95 :7
70:9 ; 103 :4
send 24 :20
reviewed 28 :12
; 31
:14 ;
senior 9 :1
32 :22 ; 34 :13,14
sense 84 :24 ; 85 :16 ; 86 :6 ;
revised 100 :11
revision 29 :20
92 :2 ; 96 :9
sensitivity 36 :7
Richard 28 :8
rigid 56 :21
sent 22 :21 ; 27:11
sentence 30 :7
risk 38
:24
; 81
:12
separate 11 :10 ; 13 :11 ;
road 102 :2
Rockford 2 :7
67:12 ; 69 :22
separately 62 :20 ; 63 :5,8 ;
Roman 29 :13,17,18
Roque 2 :11
69 :23
separating 55 :8
roughly 61 :14 ; 86 :2
September 72 :9
routine 85 :19 ; 90 :16,18,
series 63 :17 ; 70
:9
; 76
:12,
20,23,24 ; 91 :5,6
ruled 57 :12
13,14,15,16
; 85 :14
serious 23 :4
rules 66:23 ; 67 :1
served 42
:19
run 9 :17 ; 46 :15
services 22 :21
running 49:16 ; 83 :9
rush 86 :6
--------------------------
S
--------------------------
safe 15 :1 ; 45 :13 ; 93:5
set 29:10 ; 73
:12 ; 81 :9 ;
104 :15 .5
settled 41 :7
Settler's 8 :1
seven 6:16
; 83 :1
several 36:13
; 73
:15 ;
safely 45 :12
75:11 ; 96:6 ; 97:20
safety 25 :20
; 33 :11
;
shallow 46:23
34:21
; 38:6,19 ; 70 :7 ;
sharp 101 :19
74:17 ; 79 :9
; 89 :1,4
;
Shaw 1 :12 ; 2 :23 ; 9:3,6,7,
92 :3 ; 101 :21
; 102
:3
10,14,21 ; 22:17,19 ;
same 15 :7,20 ; 44 :18 ;
27:23
; 71 :24 ; 102:21
45 :13 ; 50 :23 ; 65 :13,15 ;
short 68:23
; 92:22 ; 98:23 ;
68 :7 ; 72 :3 ; 94 :10,14 ;
101 :6 ; 102 :1
105 :13
shorthand 32 :12 ; 104 :3 .5,
samples 71 :4
10 .5,12,19
sanctity 70 :20
show 5 :10 ; 51 :18 ; 99:18
sanitary 56 :24 ; 73 :19
shows 36 :2
save 39:22
side 74 :10,12 ; 82:9 ;
puts 65 :12
reduced 41 :15
36:6 ; 50:10 ; 57 :13 ;
putting 43:2 ; 57 :6
; 73 :16 ; reevaluated 38 :5
62:14 ;
63
:14 ; 76
:4 ;
75 :23 ; 83:14
refer 23 :7,21 ; 32 :13 ;
85 :22 ; 87 :14 ; 93 :1 ; 95 :3
--------------------------
49 :4 ; 55
:10
requirement 7 :1 ;
39
:13 ;
0
referenced 48:24
47:2 ; 52:7; 56 :12
; 68 :8
--------------------------
referred 26 :1 ; 49 :2 ;
requirements 8 :6 ; 10 :11,
30 :7,9 ; 68 :1,9 ; 69 :11 ;
92 :11
scans 87 :17
schedule 27 :13 ; 80 :15,20 ;
101 :16
scheduled 1 :14 ; 18 :12 ;
08-02-06 Deposition of Devin Moose
84 :18,20 ;
99 :22
sides 73 :23,24
sight 35 :13
Sigmot 31
:15
signature
103 :7
significant 29 :4 ;
45 :15 ;
64 :5,7 ; 71
:23
;
81 :13,14 ;
101
:13
similar
53 :3 ; 84 :4
simple 67:19 ; 73 :17 ; 99 :11
simply 14 :18 ; 24 :14 ; 36 :5 ;
42 :3 ; 95 :8
;
100 :9
since 30 :8 ; 32 :17 ;
37:20 ;
42:15 ; 53
:20 ; 54:1 ; 71 :8,
20
single 45 :23
sit
19 :9
; 21 :2,9 ; 42:8 ;
59 :2,6 ; 68 :22
site 12:21 ; 21 :4 ; 26:13,
14,16,17,21 ; 31 :5 ;
33 :13,
14 ; 35 :10,12 ; 36
:10,11,
22 ; 37 :1,3
;
42
:10,18,19,
21 ; 53 :7 ;
70:8 ; 72:15 ;
74
:11,15
; 76:23 ; 82:9,17 ;
83:5
;
88:22 ; 89:11 ; 90:2,
4 ; 96 :6,22 ; 97:4,10
sites 8:8 ; 41 :3
siting 5:2 ; 9:22
six
3:13
; 9:24 ; 52:18 ;
59:8 ; 87:1
sketch 50 :1
skip 15 :16
slight 41 :17
slightly 33 :21 ; 40 :11
slope 7 :23
slow 47 :17
small 12 :21 ; 84 :5
soil 48 :8,10,18 ; 51 :9,17 ;
82 :8,13,16
soils 5 :22
solid 6:10 ; 7 :3 ; 8:15,20,
22 ; 9:19,20 ; 10 :5,6 ;
20 :19 ; 21 :12,14,18 ;
53
:16 ; 54
:14
; 72
:18
solution 93 :21 ; 96 :7,8,9
solving 38
:8
somebody 14 :21 ; 59:17
someone 56 :15
someplace 38 :13 ; 92 :5
something 3 :14 ; 10 :19 ;
11 :14 ; 14 :2 ; 16 :7 ; 41
:17;
43:24 ; 57:2 ; 88 :21 ; 94
:6
;
99
:10
sometime 27
:5
sometimes 31
:10
somewhere 8 :11,12 ; 49 :20 ;
92 :21
soon 16:12 ; 70:10
sorry 16:13 ; 36 :11 ; 37:17 ;
51 :12 ; 58:5 ; 69:8 ; 76:19 ;
77:23 ; 91 :3 ; 102 :14
sort 5 :15 ; 14:3 ; 25:13 ;
30 :16 ; 41
:7 ; 46:17 ;
55 :16
; 60 :12 ; 75 :24
;
78:19 ; 98 :2
sorts 75 :23
; 87:20
sounds 95 :11
Soviet 93 :18
space 34 :11
spacing 51
:15
SPEAKERPHONE 2
:9 .5
speaking 67
:18
specific 17 :22 ; 44 :12 ;
90 :13
specifically 7 :13 ; 10 :22 ;
11 :8 ; 14 :12 ; 22:5,20,24 ;
30:3 ; 31 :6 ; 33:19 ; 34:1 ;
51 :1 ; 67 :12 ; 68:9,12 ;
82 :8 ; 90:7; 91 :21
specifics 4 :6 ; 44 :7
specified 104
:8
speculating 49 :13
speed 25 :18
spend 24 :18 ; 42 :9 ; 44:1 ;
63 :1
spending 82 :20
split 11 :18 ; 65 :8 ; 69 :22
spread 38 :21
spring 86 :20
Springfield 1 :23
SS 104 :1 .5
St . 1 :13 ; 7:11 ; 9:17
stability 7 :23
stage 86 :18
standard 16 :11 ; 52:14 ;
75 :22
standards 73 :1 ; 81
:11
standing 88
:21
standpoint 72
:11
start 72 :22 ; 86:7; 90:21 ;
96 :23
started 5 :16,24 ; 39 :8 ;
54 :14 ; 88 :9
starting 86 :20
starts 18 :17
state 1 :2,11,17 ; 3:9 ;
4 :18,19 ; 12 :2,7; 17 :24 ;
18 :9 ; 19:16 ; 20 :13 ; 21 :7 ;
23 :2,14 ; 36 :18 ; 52 :9,12,
16 ; 66 :1 ; 70 :15 ; 101 :1,3 ;
104 :1,4 .5 ; 105 :2
State's 2:20 ; 19
:18
; 37:4 ;
69
:10
stated 30 :13
statement 72 :23
statements 40 :5
states 6 :8 ; 10:1 ; 93 :1
status 64
:12
; 81 :7
stay 52:9 ; 84:8
step 15 :16
steps 24 :15
still 40
:7
; 44:15
; 47:17
;
48:10 ; 50:13 ; 71 :2 ; 73 :8 ;
92:15
; 100:1
storm 15 :3 ; 83:3,6
straight 14 :16
Street 1 :18 .5 ; 2:2 ; 5 :4
Streeter 54
:7
strict 93 :2
study 5 :22 ; 24 :15 ; 84 :11
stuff 7 :7 ; 55:16
; 73:8
sub 76 :13
submit 15 :13
; 65:1
; 101
:3
submitted 17 :2 ; 48 :20 ;
69
:11 ; 74 :9 ; 77:11 ; 101 :2
subscribe 105 :13
Subscribed 105 :18 .5
subsequent 54 :9
substance 46
:18
subsurface 87 :18
Subtitle 92 :11,15,21 ; 93 :3
successful 96 :5
suggested 38 :12 ; 94
:1,2
suit 104
:14
Suite 2 :2
summer 85 :19 ; 86 :16,20
supplemental 2 :20 ; 69 :9,10
support 54
:22
surface 87 :17,18 ; 99 :23
surprised 54
:17
surprises 54 :15 ; 77
:1
surrounded 42 :12 ; 48 :8,10
surrounding 53 :1 ; 96 :16
sworn 3 :1,3 ; 104 :6 ;
105 :18 .5
synthetic 55 :7
84 :10
tasks 2
:24
; 60 :4,6,15 ;
65 :12
; 73
:9 ; 91 :7
touches 103 :19
62:9,13,15 ; 63 :17 ; 69 :22 ; towards 43 :17 ; 45 :8
75 :22 ; 76:12 ; 77:19,23 ;
town 7:11
80:12 ; 82:3 ; 103 :13
taxpayers 96 :13
taxpayers' 44 :5 ; 82 :19 ;
traded 13 :7
trained 4 :24
transcribed 104 :11
96 :12
transcript 104 :9,11 ;
technical 98 :5
technically 47 :18
105 :10,14
transcription 104 :11 .5
technique 52 :14 ; 53 :2
treat 36
:21
; 41
:24
; 49:16,
tells 36 :18
17; 55 :23 ; 56 :13 ; 58 :3 ;
ten 3 :13 ; 9 :12 ; 12 :10 ;
52 :18
term 20:17 ; 47:20
; 68
:18
terms 46 :14 ; 48 :4,16
;
58:19
; 99:7
testified 3 :3,15,18 ; 4 :14 ;
30 :13
testify 4 :10 ; 18 :4 ; 19 :4,
11 ; 69:12 ; 104 :6
testifying 19 :3
themselves 60 :6,19 ; 86 :16,
17
; 88:5
; 92:8
theoretically 57 :5
there's 11 :11 ; 16:10
;
23:3
; 32:17 ; 45 :15 ;
59 :18 ; 84:14 ; 96 :15
treated 43 :1 ; 50
:15
; 51 :3
treating 37 :11 ; 42 :10,21,
23
; 43:2,4 ; 45 :11,14 ;
46 :9,13 ; 48:1 ; 49 :7;
55 :19 ; 56 :5 ; 91 :18 ; 93:17
treatment 45 :4,5,17,21,22 ;
46 :4 ; 47:13 ; 49 :2 ; 50 :21 ;
56 :1,9 ; 57:12
; 58 :1,17 ;
59 :1
; 91 :10 ; 95 :13
trees 93 :12
tried 86 :18
truck 94 :11
true 41 :6 ; 45:24 ; 66 :6,19 ;
104:11 .5 ; 105 :13
51 :18,24 ; 52:1,21 ; 53 :4
; truth 104:6.5
54:1
; 56:6 ; 57:9 ; 60:13 ;
try 51 :6; 64:6; 73 :6;
64:22
; 67:15
; 70
:6
; 73
:2, 97:16
3,13,20
; 76
:24
; 81
:14 ;
trying 52 :22,24
82 :16
; 84
:19 ; 85 :5,14 ;
Tuesday 18 :20
88
:8 ; 91 :15 ; 92:8 ; 95 :18 twelve 3 :13
thereafter 104 :10 .5
two 8 :14 ; 9 :7,11 ; 11 :11 ;
thereof 104 :14 .5
13 :1
; 21
:15
; 32:4,19 ;
they've 67 :16
39:6 ; 41 :1 ; 50:1 ; 52:13
;
thick 82:13
60:16 ; 62 :19
; 65
:12 ;
thing 14:3,5 ; 15 :17 ; 24 :5 ;
73:24 ; 77:7
; 80 :9 ; 82:16 ;
30 :16 ; 43 :23 ; 45
:13 ;
89:15 ; 92 :4 ; 94 :3,6,12 ;
72 :5 ; 74:6 ; 78:13 ; 82 :14 ;
100 :20
93 :20
tying 83 :4
things 6:15 ; 11
:11 ; 26 :19 ; type 8:15 ; 9 :19 ; 12:19 ;
42 :8
; 51 :22 ; 62 :7 ; 65 :17 ;
14 :5 ; 15 :4 ; 17 :11 ; 54 :18,
69:22
; 74 :13 ; 75 :11,24 ;
24 ; 93 :18
86 :18 ; 87:20 ; 98:4
types 4 :7 ; 13 :1 ; 70 :2
Page 10
system 41 :24 ; 43 :3 ; 45 :8 ;
52 :2,4 ; 70 :21,23 ; 71 :15 ;
72 :7,17
; 73
:14,23
; 74
:8
;
tier 31 :17
tight 82 :24
time
. 98 :22
76 :15 ; 81 :3,8 ; 82 :2,6,18,
21,22,24 ; 83 :2,4,7,8,17,
18,20 ; 85 :11 ; 87:8,9 ;
titled 71 :15 ; 102:11
today 71 :19 ; 75 :9 ; 87 :4
;
89 :18 ; 103 :20
today's 72 :24 ;
together 74 :8 ;
tomorrow 75 :9
81 :10
91 :23
88 :2,13 ; 89 :18 ; 90:11 ;
95 :3
systems 45 :4,5,10 ; 84 :1
--------------------------
took 32 :6 ; 94 :22
T
tool 35 :5,14 ; 93 :8
--------------------------
top 15 :11 ; 55 :3
; 82
:8 ;
talked 16:3 ; 40:14 ;
44 :24 ;
102:21
51 :22 ; 75 :24 ; 77:3 ;
topic 81 :1
93 :22 ; 98 :6
topics 103 :13
talks 30 :4
total 39 :9,12 ; 40 :21 ;
task 77 :24 ; 80 :9,23 ; 81 :2 ;
41 :12,16 ; 61 :4,23 ; 62 :11 ;
thinking 11 :11
; 14
:12
third 15 :6,12
; 56 :12,13 ;
57 :12 ; 61 :16 ; 74:6
third-party 55 :19 ; 59 :17
though 41 :8
thousand 37 :22 ; 79 :17 ;
-------------------------
U
------------------ -------
U .S . 96
:9
ultimate 87 :1
ultimately 25
:19 ; 26 :19 ;
86 :2
33 :15 ; 74:16
threat 29 :4
; 70:7,12 ;
Um-hum 19:17
; 31 :16 ; 86:22
71 :13
; 76 :1 ; 92:15 ; 96 :2 Lion 17:10
threats 81 :5
unable 35 :18
; 36 :12,16
three 41 :3 ; 47:9 ; 70:13 ;
unaware 26:15
73 :23 ; 82 :16
; 85 :7 ;
uncommon 44 :19 ; 45 :4 ; 52:7
99 :22,24 ; 102:11
under 4
:3 ; 17 :10 ; 23 :19 ;
threshold 25 :2
25 :23 ; 29 :12,17 ; 30 :9 ;
threw 36 :19
37:17 ; 38 :1
; 50 :15 ; 51 :4 ;
throughout 36
:24
54 :2,19
; 68 :18 ; 76 :10 ;
08-02-06 Deposition of Devin Moose
85 :22 ; 87
:14
underclay 54 :2,4,5,7,20
underground 73 :8
underlain 54
:19
underlies 54
:4
underlying 97
:22
understand 11
:19 ; 13 :16,
17,19
; 20 :15,16 ; 44 :7,19
;
59:15
; 63 :19 ; 67:19 ;
71
:11 ; 72 :13 ; 75 :1
; 86 :7 ;
88 :14 ; 89 :3 ; 91 :21
; 97 :24
understanding 48
:15 ; 49 :5 ;
50 :4,14 ; 51 :2
; 53 :14,18 ;
73 :7,9
; 89 :19
Union 93
:18
unique 96
:15
unit 15 :4
; 54 :5 ; 94
:5,16
units 4 :17
University 5
:19
unless 24 :7
unmeasurable 47
:17
unprotective 60
:18
until 85 :16
; 86 :7 ; 87 :1 ;
101 :4
unusable 78
:23
unusual 64 :22
up 7 :8 ; 11 :18,24 ; 13
:24 ;
14 :11,14
; 15 :3,5,9,23 ;
16:5 ; 17:2,14
; 25 :18 ;
26:19
; 34 :18 ; 36 :19 ;
40 :12 ; 43
:7 ; 56 :8 ; 57 :24 ;
58 :5 ; 59
:8,16,22,24 ;
60 :21,23
; 63 :6 ; 64 :16 ;
74 :15 ; 76:11
; 77 :16 ;
78 :5 ; 79:13
; 85 :2,10 ;
94 :11
; 103 :8
up-gradient 78
:24 ; 79 :24
useful 93 :8
users 42 :18
using 80 :3
Usual 48 :22
utilization 80 :5
utilize 82
:21
utilized 53 :10
V'
--------------------------
valid 28:15 ; 71 :5
validity 23 :3
valley 8 :2
valuable 35 :5
value 54 :4,8 ; 68:15
various 11 :17 ; 53:19 ;
62 :13
vegetation 23 :20
vehicles 101 :24
venues 3 :23
verify 12 :17
versus 38 :13 ; 50 :15 ; 67:7 ;
72 :12,21 ; 73 :2 ; 79 :20 ;
86 :20 ; 91 :14
vertical 73 :15,22
via 2 :9.5 ; 93 :4
vicinity 42 :18
violation 5 :3 ; 98:8
violations 5 :3
; 23 :18,21 ;
25
:18,21,22 ; 26 :1 ; 29 :10
virtually 34 :2 ; 54 :3
visited 26 :13
visual 70 :8 ; 82 :9 ; 99 :6
visualize 99 :8
vitae 2 :18 ; 5 :12
volume 37:23 ; 45 :17 ;
58 :10 ; 75 :10
volumes 20:20 ; 49 :8
vs 1 :4 ; 105:4
W
--------------------------
wag 35 :7
waive 24 :8
waives 24 :7
wanted 22 :14 ; 63 :13 ; 64:1 ;
71 :1 ; 72 :5 ; 76:7
; 85 :5,9 ;
89 :17
warrant 50 :2
warrants 91 :16
waste 6 :10 ; 7:3,13,20 ;
8 :15,20,22 ; 9 :19,20 ;
10 :5,6 ; 14 :24 ; 20:19 ;
21 :4,6,12,14,18,19 ;
29 :20,21 ; 36 :4 ; 38
:10,11,
16,18 ; 39 :6 ; 43 :11,12 ;
44 :10,16 ; 46
:11,12,15,16,
18 ; 47:4,8 ; 51 :7
; 53 :8,
16
; 54 :14 ; 55 :9,10 ;
60 :13,14 ; 72
:18 ; 75 :4,8 ;
78:14
; 93 :23,24 ; 94 :5,8,
9 ; 99:9,17
; 101 :12,18
water 15
:3 ; 25 :23 ; 42:16,
20 ; 46 :15 ; 48 :7,18 ; 51 :8 ;
54 :10,12,13 ; 83 :3,6 ;
96 :19,20
way 14:2 ; 17:19
; 22:16 ;
36 :14 ; 37:9
; 38 :4 ; 39:8 ;
42 :22
; 44 :2 ; 49 :15 ;
55 :10
; 56 :24 ; 60 :3 ; 69:4,
22 ; 77:2
; 84 :14 ; 91 :19 ;
93 :14,16
; 94 :7 ; 104 :13 .5,
14
ways 33:13
; 95 :18
Wednesday 1 :14
week 18
:20,22 ; 64 :20
welfare 33 :11 ; 34 :21 ;
38:6,19 ; 70:7; 74 :17 ;
92 :3
wells 49:23
; 51 :14 ; 71 :5,
10,12
; 78 :22,23,24 ;
79 :11,13,16
; 87 :21,22 ;
88
:7,8,9,10,16 ; 96 :21
west 74:10
; 82:8 ; 84 :18
whatever 12
:9 ; 43:23 ;
46 :22
; 82 :21
Whereas 46
:22
WHEREOF 104
:15 .5
whether 13 :6 ; 21 :8 ; 23 :3 ;
25 :19 ; 28 :6 ; 48 :7,9 ;
57:12 ; 66:13 ; 70:6,11
;
75 :12 ; 84 :23 ; 90:1,3
who's 66:14 ; 68 :2
whole 7 :9 ; 60:20 ; 89:21
whom 45 :20
will 9
:13,22 ; 19:10 ;
29 :13
; 38 :23 ; 43 :16 ;
44:1 ; 45 :7
; 55 :9 ; 63 :20 ;
83 :7
; 84 :6 ; 99:13
window 101 :17
winter 86 :13,18 ; 101 :15
wise 78 :15
withdraw 72 :14
; 96 :1
withdrawn 51 :13
within 36 :3
; 41 :2 ; 43 :18 ;
44 :14 ; 47:19
; 48 :1,6,11,
18 ; 51 :9
; 73 :21 ; 93 :6 ;
94 :14
without 39 :7 ; 74 :2
; 97 :12 ;
101 :10
WITNESS 2:13 .5 ; 3 :1 ;
24
:22 ; 39 :23 ; 40 :7 ;
56 :21 ; 57:17 ; 61 :20 ;
66 :11 ; 98:17 ; 99 :12 ;
102 :18,23 ; 103
:5,15 ;
104 :15 .5
wonder 15
:16 ; 33 :19 ; 90 :21
wondering 39
:21 ; 99 :5 ;
83 :22
worthiness 70
:20
write 78
:2
writing 20
:19
written 6:19
; 59 :9 ; 77:10 ;
--------------------------92
:10
Y
------------------- ------
yard 40:4,11
; 41 :2,9 ;
94
:6,12
yards 40 :9,15
year 18 :13 ; 21 :15
; 23:3 ;
37 :20 ; 42 :7
; 57 :20 ;
80
:20,21,22 ; 91 :11 ; 95
:7,
13
years 6 :17 ; 8:4 ; 9 :8,11
;
15 :9
; 36 :5,22 ; 41 :3 ;
42:1
; 43 :5 ; 46 :5 ; 48 :2
;
55 :20,23
; 56 :4 ; 76:17 ;
87:1 ; 90
:17 ; 91 :11,17,18
;
92
:4,5,8,13,14,23 ; 93
:6,
16
yield 71 :5
--------------------------
Z
--------------------------
zone 36:3 ; 43 :18
; 44 :20 ;
47 :6,7,11,24
; 48 :2,8,9,
11,12,14,18 ; 49
:20 ;
51
:11,23 ; 79 :20
; 86 :3 ;
99 :7,19 ; 100
:1
zones 54 :3
------------------------
------------- ------------
day 105
:19
105 :19
105 :16
105 :20
104
:18
Page 11
100 :6
Woodman 8 :1
words 4
:2 ; 11 :14 ; 13:24 ;
15 :23 ; 16 :19 ; 17:1 ;
48
:23 ; 49 :7 ; 51 :24 ;
53 :17,22 ; 56 :13 ;
17 ; 60 :22 ; 63:5 ;
59 :13,
64
:2 ;
69 :23 ; 74 :24 ; 89:10
work 9:12
; 13 :11 ; 14 :15 ;
15 :6,13
; 21 :4 ; 22 :7,9 ;
23
:11 ; 29 :2 ;
34 :5 ; 35 :12 ;
78 :19 ; 79 :1,17 ;
81 :13 ; 83 :7,22 ;
31 :1,3 ;
65 :18 ; 76:7 ;
80 :8,9 ;
86 :2,9,
13,16,18,24 ; 87:4 ; 89:10,
11,12 ; 101 :20
worked 4:17 ; 5:5,23
; 8:3 ;
12 :16 ; 13 :3
worker
101 :21
workers
101 :19,22
working 4
:20 ; 5:24 ; 7:16 ;
8 :17 ; 9
:24 ; 11 :16 ; 13 :10 ;
16:23
; 21:11 ; 22:3 ;
27:10 ; 52:13
world 36 :9 ; 37:2
worth 12 :16 ; 79:1 ;
81 :23 ;
Shaw Environmental, Inc .
1150 N . Fifth Avenue, Suite C
Shay h
Si . Charles, IL 60174-1231
ErMronmerttal,
Inc.
Fox 6
630 .762-1400
0
.762 1402
June 7, 2006
INSERT NAME
INSERT ADDRESS
INSERT ADDRESS
Subject:
Morris Community Landfill
Dear INSERT NAME
:
Shaw Environmental, Inc
. (Shaw) proposes the following scope of service to close the Morris
Community Landfill Parcels A and B in accordance with the requirements of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency permits
.
As you may already know, due to the difficult history and negligent performance on the part of
the Community Landfill Company (the Operator), the City of Morris assumed at their own
expense the responsibility for the IEPA required landfill monitoring activities
. The City of Morris
hired Shaw to perform these activities on their behalf beginning with the third quarter 2005
monitoring period
.
In order to resolve the outstanding IEPA and IPCB compliance issues with the Morris
Community Landfill, the City of Morris will also assume at their own expense the responsibility of
completing the required installation / construction of the leachate management and monitoring
systems, the landfill gas management system, the final cover system, and the stormwater
management system
. Also, the City of Morris will assume at their own expense executing all of
the required closure and post-closure activities
.
In order to close the Morris Community Landfill in a timely, cost effective manner while still being
protective of the environment, and public health, welfare, and safety, the City of Morris
respectfully requests from the IEPA an allowance for the modification of the permitted
requirements that address the removal of the waste overfill on Parcel B, and installation of the
Parcel A groundwater treatment system
. If the IEPA agrees to these allowances, the City of
Morris will take the following actions :
•
Stop the receipt of waste in Parcel A and begin immediate closure of the landfill
;
•
Redesign the final landform to coincide with the lower waste height / waste volume
across Parcel A, and the higher waste height I volume due to the overfill on Parcel B
;
•
Redesign the stormwater management systems for Parcels A and B to account for the
modified final landform ;
•
Construct the final cover system which will exceed federal and state regulations
;
DEPOSITION
9
~g
EXHIBIT
g-~-o~
t1,
INSERT NAME
Page 2 of 8
June 6, 2006
•
Complete the installation of all required facility systems including leachate management
and monitoring systems, and landfill gas management and monitoring systems ;
•
Expand the groundwater monitoring system with six (6) new wells ; and
•
Develop a Groundwater Management Zone pursuant to 35 III
. Adm . Code Part 620 .250
to address the potential on-site groundwater contamination .
The following scope of service provides in detail the activities outlined above .
SCOPE OF SERVICE
Tasks 100
: Groundwater Monitoring Network
Task101-Expand
Groundwater Monitorinq Network . Shaw recommends that an additional five
(5) groundwater monitoring wells be installed to more appropriately monitor and characterize the
groundwater quality upgradient and downgradient from the facility . These additional wells will
be used to establish the Groundwater Management Zone as described later in Task 103 . Shaw
proposes one (1) additional well upgradient to the facility, and four (4) additional wells
downgradient from the permitted facility property
. Locations of these five additional wells are
presented on Figures 1 and 2, contained in Attachment 1 .
Additionally, Shaw recommends that the nine (9) non-permitted wells that were identified in the
field (G-13E, G109S, P-13W, P-17D, P20S, P-21D, R-109S, R110S, and R111D) located
adjacent to Parcels A and B be added to the groundwater monitoring program as piezometers .
The piezometers would only be monitored for groundwater elevations every quarter at the same
time as the groundwater monitoring wells are sampled . The non-permitted wells to be added as
piezometers are shown on Figure Nos . 1 and 2, contained in Attachment 1 .
Task 102-GroundwaterMonitoringWellAbandonment. Shaw recommends that the six (6)
groundwater monitoring wells identified in
the field that could not be correlated to existing boring
logs, as-built diagrams, or any other documentation, be abandoned in accordance with the
standards in 35 III . Adm . Code 811 .316, and decommissioning and reporting procedures
contained in the Illinois Department of Public Health's (IDPH) Water Well Construction Code, 77
111 . Adm . Code, Part 920 . The proposed wells to be abandoned are shown on Figure Nos. 1 and
2, contained in Attachment 1 .
Task 103-RepairstoExistinqPermitted Groundwater Monitorinq Wells . Shaw will make the
following necessary repairs to the existing wells as listed below :
•
Install bumper posts at groundwater monitoring well G128 ; and
•
Install Well Caps at groundwater monitoring wells G131, G132, G133, and G136
.
Task104-EstablishGroundwater ManagementZone. Shaw recommends establishing a
Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) pursuant to 35 III . Adm . Code Part 620 .250 -
in lieu of
the permitted groundwater treatment system . A GMZ is defined as a three-dimensional region
containing groundwater that is
being
managed to mitigate impairment caused by the release of
contaminants from a site . The goal of the GMZ will be to remediate the groundwater to the level
of standards applicable to Class IV groundwater (35 III . Adm . Code Part 620 .430)
.
INSERT NAME
Page 3 of 8
June 6, 2006
A GMZ cannot be established without prior approval from the IEPA
. A written report must be
submitted and evaluated by the Illinois EPA to determine whether the controls and management
of the GMZ are adequate
. Following their review, the IEPA will issue a letter in regard to the
: (1)
adequacy of the GMZ
; (2) the continued management of the GMZ
; and (3) conditions necessary
to ensure that the requirements of 35 III
. Adm
. Code Part 620 will be met .
The written report must include the following information
:
•
Identification of specific units (operating or closed) present at the facility for which the
GMZ is proposed ;
•
A USGS topographic showing the location of the site
•
A detailed scaled map of the facility clearly delineating the location of each waste
management unit ;
•
A description of the geology and hydrogeology within the proposed GMZ and the
surrounding area
;
•
Groundwater classification at the site
;
•
Information regarding the release, including
:
Identification of the chemical constituents detected in groundwater that are above the
applicable standard in 35 III
. Adm
. Code Part 620 ;
A description of how the site has been investigated to determine the source or
sources of the release
;
A description of how groundwater has been monitored to determine the rate and
extent of the release ;
A description of the groundwater monitoring network and groundwater sampling
protocols in place at the facility;
The schedule for monitoring of the groundwater
; and
-
A summary of the results of the groundwater monitoring associated with the release
;
•
Scaled drawings identifying the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the proposed GMZ
;
•
Information regarding the approved remedial action including :
A description of the approved remedial action
;
A description of how the approved remedial action has impacted the release
;
A description of how the approved remedial action is operated and maintained
;
A projected schedule for completion of remediation
;
•
A description of how groundwater at the facility will be monitored following the future
completion of the remedy to ensure that the groundwater quality standards have been
attained ; and
•
A discussion addressing the adequacy of the controls and management of the proposed
GMZ at the site
.
Shaw will prepare the written report as outlined above requesting IEPA approval to establish a
GMZ.
Task105- ConductGroundwater
Monitorinq,
Shaw will continue to conduct routine quarterly
groundwater monitoring at the Morris Community Landfill
. Groundwater monitoring will include
measurement of groundwater elevations, sampling and laboratory testing of groundwater,
analysis of laboratory test results, and IEPA reporting
.
INSERT NAME
Page 4 of 8
June 6, 2006
Tasks 200 : Leachate Management and Monitoring
Task 201 -CompleteLeachate Collection System
. Shaw proposes to complete the installation
of the leachate collection systems for Parcels A and B with the system features that have been
permitted by EPA but not yet installed . The following list represents these features :
Parcel A
•
Perimeter leachate collection piping, drainage layer, and associated manholes ([305,
L306, and L307), leachate collection trench sumps (L313, and L314), and leachate
extraction wells (L311, and L312) ;
Parcel B
•
Leachate conveyance lines for the perimeter manholes, and leachate extraction wells
(L303, L309, and L310) ; and
Parcel A & B
•
Leachate storage tank to store leachate collected from both Parcels A and B and
conveyance piping to the existing sanitary sewer line .
Task202-CompleteLeachate Monitorinq System .
Shaw proposes to complete the installation
of the leachate monitoring system which includes the installation of the following leachate
monitoring points :
Parcel A :
•
Leachate Collection Manholes (Task 201) : L305, L306, and L307 for environmental
sampling / testing ;
•
Leachate Collection Trench Sumps (Task 201) : L313 for measuring leachate head
elevations, and L314 for measuring leachate head elevations and for environmental
sampling / testing
;
•
Leachate Extraction Wells (Task 201) : L311 and L312 for measuring leachate head
elevations ; and
Parcel B :
•
Leachate Extraction Wells (Task 201) : L303, L309, and L310 for environmental sampling
/ testing .
Task 203 -ConstructionQuality Assurance Report .
Shaw will prepare the Construction Quality
Assurance Report upon completion of Tasks 201 and 202 as required by the IEPA and the
IPCB for the leachate management and monitoring system .
Task 204-ConductLeachate
Monitorinq .
Shaw will continue to conduct routine quarterly
leachate monitoring at the Morris Community Landfill . Leachate monitoring will include
measurement of leachate head elevations, sampling and laboratory testing, analysis of test
results, and IEPA reporting .
Task 300: Final Cover System and Final Landform
Task 301- Verification ofExistinq
Permitted Final Cover. Shaw will inspect the landfill to verify
areas that have had the permitted final cover system installed . Shaw will lay out a grid system,
based on the site coordinate system and the existing site topographic survey, with 25 to 50
INSERT NAME
Page 5 of 8
June 6, 2006
probe points (1 probe point for every 2-4 acres) to obtain field measurements of the final cover
system thickness
. Assuming that appropriate thicknesses are confirmed of the low permeability
soil layer at the various probe points, Shaw will next collect soil samples at 2
- 4 locations for
laboratory testing of moisture content, and soil classification
. Assuming the thickness and
quality of soil material are appropriate as permitted, Shaw will then push several tubes into the
final cover soils to obtain undisturbed samples for hydraulic conductivity testing
. Based on the
results of this investigation, Shaw will prepare a report with the findings and conclusions
.
Task 302-Desiqn ofAlternateFinal
Cover
System . Shaw will prepare the design for an
alternate final cover system for Parcels A and B that will tie into areas of the landfill having
permitted final cover
. The final cover system will consist of a low-permeability layer to prevent
precipitation from entering the landfill, and a protective soil layer to prevent erosion and maintain
the long-term integrity of the landfill cover system
.
The low-permeability layer will include a 40-mil LLDPE geomembrane and a one (1) foot layer of
recompacted low permeable clay soil
. The permeability of the 40-mil LLDPE combined with the
recompacted clay soil will meet or exceed the IEPA required 3-foot clay liner having a
permeability of 1x10'7 cm/sec
. A geocomposite drainage net will overlay the geomembrane to
drain precipitation away from the low-permeability layer
. The protective layer will be placed over
the geocomposite and will include a minimum of three (3) feet of protective soil, with the upper
six (6) inches being a vegetative layer
.
Task303-Desiqn
Final Landform and
Storm water ManagementSystem .
Shaw will modify and
design the permitted final landform and stormwater management systems for Parcels A and B
.
The redesigned final landform will take into account the lower waste height and waste volume in
Parcel A, and the overfill volume left in place in Parcel B
. The final landform will be designed to
promote drainage of surface water runoff away from the landfill in order to minimize infiltration
into the waste mass .
Shaw will redesign the stormwater management system taking into account the revised final
landform and the resulting final grades
. The stormwater management system will be designed
to do the following :
•
Facilitate drainage and reduce the potential for erosion of the final landform
;
•
Detain, manage, and control the release of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event
; and
•
Facilitate sedimentation of collected runoff thereby improving water quality
.
Task 304-Install FinalCoverandStormwaterManaqement
System .
Shaw will oversee the
installation / construction of the final cover system and stormwater management system
. Shaw
will prepare the required construction quality assurance and quality control documentation to be
submitted to the ]EPA as part of the final cover certification
.
Task 400
: Landfill Gas Management and Monitoring
Task 401-ParcelALandfill
Gas Evaluation .
Shaw proposes to conduct a test program to
evaluate and characterize the landfill gas production from Parcel A in order to assess whether
an active or passive gas collection system is required for Parcel A
. Since historical records
indicate that only construction and demolition debris was landfilled in Parcel A, the landfill gas
INSERT NAME
Page 6 of 8
June 6, 2006
production may be such that only a passive collection system is needed . However, field testing
will need to be done to accurately characterize gas production rates prior to developing a
system design
.
Task 402 - Desiqn of Parcel A Landfill GasManagement System . Shaw will design the Parcel A
landfill gas collection system based on the results of field testing and evaluation performed in
Task 401 .
Task 403 -CompleteInstallation
of Parcel BLandfillGasManagement System.
Shaw will
oversee the completion of the Parcel B landfill gas management system installation . The
following activities will occur during the installation and startup of the landfill gas management
system :
•
Installation of the landfill gas blower / flare station and connection to the existing landfill
gas collection system ;
•
Evaluation of the existing landfill gas collection system to determine vacuum distribution,
individual cell flow, gas quantity and quality, and header function
;
•
Any necessary repairs and/or modifications that were identified from the evaluation will
be performed to optimize the performance of the landfill gas management system . Also,
a system calibration will be done to optimize the efficiency of the system .
Task 404 -InstallLandfillGas
ManaqementSystem . Shaw will install the landfill gas
management systems for Parcel A and B, and will prepare all required construction quality
assurance and quality control documentation for submittal to the IEPA . For purposes of
estimating costs it is assumed that a passive landfill gas collection system will be required for
Parcel A, and the ]EPA permitted Parcel B landfill gas collection system will not require
modification.
Task 405 - Repairs toExistinq LandfillGasProbes . Shaw will install bumper posts at landfill
gas probes X-125, X-126, X-126, X-128,
Task 406-Conduct LandfillGasMonitorinq
. Shaw will continue to conduct routine monthly
landfill gas monitoring and reporting at the Morris Community Landfill
. Landfill gas monitoring
will included field sampling and testing of landfill gas probes, ambient air sampling and testing,
analysis of test results, and IEPA reporting. (Note that the budgeted costs for Task 404 cover
only 1 year of monitoring - the time estimated to close the landfill . Budgeted costs for Task
504 cover the monitoring costs for the 30 year post closure care period) .
Task 500: Post Closure Care Activities
Task 501-Conduct Routine Inspections and Maintenance
. Shaw will conduct the routine
facility inspections : quarterly from post closure years 1 through 5, and annually from post
closure years 6 through 30
. These inspections will be conducted to identify and document any
areas of the final landform / final cover system that have been compromised requiring repair or
maintenance, and any facility systems that require repair or maintenance . Costs budgeted for
Task 501 will include the costs for the following routine maintenance and operations : repair of
cover system, and mowing of vegetation .
Task502-Groundwater Monitorinq .
Shaw will continue to conduct routine quarterly
groundwater monitoring at the Morris Community Landfill . Groundwater monitoring will include
INSERT NAME
Page 7 of 8
June 6, 2006
measurement of groundwater elevations, sampling and laboratory testing of groundwater,
analysis of laboratory test results, and IEPA reporting .
Task503-Leachate Management and Monitorinq . Shaw will continue to conduct routine
quarterly leachate monitoring at the Morris Community Landfill . Leachate monitoring will include
measurement of leachate head elevations, sampling and laboratory testing, analysis of test
results, and IEPA reporting
.
Task 504 - Landfill Gas Manaqement and Monitorinq . Shaw will continue to conduct routine
landfill gas monitoring at the Morris Community Landfill : monthly from post closure years 1
through 5, and quarterly from post closure years 6 through 30 . Landfill gas monitoring will
include field sampling and testing of landfill gas probes, ambient air sampling and testing,
analysis of test results, and ]EPA reporting .
BUDGET
The proposed budget for implementing Tasks 100 through 500 is presented in Attachment 2
and is based on our 2006 Fee Schedule .
SChiEdULE
m
crv
r
m fP t
d . ..
y
+k- r w
TF e proposed
schedule for'compleftng asks f 0 thfoL0 4
%.art
resertte in Attadhmen~u!
If you should have any questions, please contact Jesse Varsho or me at (630) 762-1400 .
Very truly yours,
Shaw Environmental, Inc.
Devin A. Moose, P .E., DEE
Director
O
0
Verify the installation of any existing final cover for Parcels A and B
. This includes
collecting Shelby tubes for hydraulic conductivity analysis and determining thickness
with probe points within a grid . Complete report of findings (Task 301) .
Winter 2006-2007
($70,700)
•
Respond to IEPA comments on revisions to groundwater monitoring network and
GMZ (Tasks 101) ;
•
Install five groundwater monitoring wells (Task 101) ;
•
Add nine non-permitted wells into groundwater monitoring network as piezometers
(Task 101);
SCHEDULE OF CLOSURE ACTIVITIES AT THE
MORRIS COMMUNITY LANDFILL - PARCELS A & B
The proposed schedule assumes that the following on-going tasks will be completed on a monthly
or quarterly schedule, as noted :
LI
Complete routine quarterly groundwater monitoring (Task 105) ;
•
Complete routine quarterly leachate monitoring (Task 204) ;
•
Complete routine monthly landfill gas sampling (Task 406)
; and
•
Annual Reporting (Annual Report, Tasks 105, 204, and 406) .
Fall 2006 ($96,9b0)
•
Establish Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) report and submit to IEPA for
review and approval (Task 104) ;
•
Abandon six groundwater monitoring wells (Task 102) ;
Repair existing groundwater monitoring wells (Task 103) ;
Prepare permit modification request regarding groundwater monitoring network for
IEPA review and approval (Tasks 101)
;
Repair existing landfill gas monitoring probes (Task 405) ; and
•
Design alternate final cover system (if required), including tie-ins to existing final
cover and revision to waste boundary based on existing waste limits for Parcels A
& B (Task 302); and
•
Design final landform, stormwater management system, and perimeter leachate
collection system for Parcel A (Task 303) .
Sprinq 2007 ($186,500)
•
Submit permit modification request to IEPA regarding alternate final cover, final
landform, stormwater management system, and perimeter leachate collection
system (Tasks 302 and 303) ;
•
Install landfill gas blower/ flare station at Parcel B
. Connect with the existing gas
collection system (403)
;
•
Begin evaluation of existing landfill gas collection system for Parcel B to determine
vacuum distribution and individual cell flow, gas quantity and quality, and header
function (Task 403) ; and
p
Respond to comments regarding permit modification request to IEPA regarding
alternate final cover, final landform, stormwater management system, and perimeter
leachate collection system (Tasks 302 and 303) .
Summer 2007 ($186,500)
lU
Complete evaluation of existing landfill gas collection system for Parcel B (Task
403);
•
Complete any necessary repairs to the Parcel B landfill gas collection system to
optimize performance of landfill gas collection (Task 403) ; and
•
Prepare and submit CQA documentation report to IEPA for Parcel B landfill gas
management system (Task 403) .
Fall 2007 ($701,600)
•
Install leachate storage tank for Parcels A and B (Task 201) ;
•
Construct Parcel A perimeter leachate collection system and associated manholes
(Tasks 201 and 202)
;
•
Install Parcels A and B leachate extraction wells (Tasks 201 and 202)
;
•
Install leachate conveyance piping for Parcels A & B (Task 201) ;
•
Prepare and submit CQA documentation report to IEPA for Parcel B leachate
conveyance system (Tasks 203 and 304)
; and
•
Respond to IEPA comments on Parcel B landfill gas management system report
(Task 403) .
Winter 2007-2008
•
Respond to IEPA comments on CQA report of Parcel B leachate and landfill gas
collection systems (Task 203 and 404)
.
Sprinq 2008 ($15,000)
•
Field test the Parcel A landfill gas collection system to determine whether gas is
passively or actively collected (Task 401) ; and
•
Begin construction of Parcel B final cover (Task 303)
.
Summer-Fall
2008 ($902,900)
•
Construct 15 acres of Parcel B final cover system and submit CQA Report (Task
304) ; and
•
Design Parcel A landfill gas collection system based on results of field testing and
evaluation and feedback from the IEPA on the alternate final landform
. Submit
permit modification request to IEPA for Parcel A landfill gas collection system (Task
402).
Winter 2008
•
Respond to IEPA comments regarding the design the Parcel A landfill gas collection
system (Task 402) .
Sprinq-Fall
2009 ($1,905,000)
•
Construct 25 acres of Parcel B final cover system and submit CQA Report (Task
304) ; and
t7
Construct Parcel A landfill gas collection system and submit CQA report (Task 404)
.
Spring 2010 ($887,900)
•
Construct final 15 acres of Parcel B final cover system and submit CQA Report
(Task 304)
; and
t7
Begin excavating any required stormwater control features and stockpiling soils as
necessary for Parcel A final cover construction (Task 304)
.
Summer -Fall 2010 ($592,000)
•
Begin excavating any required stormwater control features and stockpiling soils as
necessary for Parcel A final cover construction (Task 304)
; and
•
Construct 10 acres of Parcel A final cover system and submit CQA Report (Task
303) .
Spring-Fall
2011 ($592,000)
•
Construct 10 acres of Parcel A final cover system and submit CQA Report (Task
303).
Spring-Fall 2012 ($592,000)
•
Construct 10 acres of Parcel A final cover system and submit CQA Report (Task
303).
•
Complete Parcel A final cover system and associated stormwater controls such as
downchutes (Task 304) .
Spring-Fall 2013
•
Respond to IEPA comments regarding CQA report to Parcel A final cover (Task
203).
Post-Closure Period (30 Years) ($2,662,400 or 88,700 per year)
•
Conduct Routine Inspections and Maintenance (Task 501) ;
•
Conduct routine groundwater monitoring (Task 502) ;
•
Conduct routine leachate monitoring (Task 503) ; and
•
Conduct routine landfill gas monitoring (Task 504).
Shaw Shaw Environmental, Inc .
I
Introduction
11.
Site Background
A.
Key Facts
B.
Site History
C.
Permitted versus Constructed Design
1 .
Overliner System
i .
Design
ii.
Constructed
2.
Leachate Collection System
i .
Design
ii
.
Constructed
3 .
Final Cover System
i .
Design
ii.
Constructed (3 .75 acres certified closed)
4.
Landfill Gas Collection System
i.
Design
ii .
Constructed
iii.
Landfill Gas Exceedances
5 .
Groundwater Monitoring Network
i .
19 Existing/Permitted Groundwater Monitoring Wells and 2
Piezometers (G136 used for both Parcels A & B)
ii .
Groundwater Flow
Groundwater Quality/Exceedances
III.
Recommended Closure Tasks
A.
Exemptions from Permit Conditions
1 .
STOP accepting waste and initiate closure activities
2 .
Overfill of Parcel B
i
Leave in-place
i
Overfill volume is approximately 475,000 cubic yards
iii .
Parcel A remaining volume is approximately 759,400 cubic yards
3.
Parcel A Groundwater Remediation System
i .
Pump and Treat system
u.
Not installed, propose not to install
iii .
Permit requires 100 years of operation
Agenda June 13, 2006
T :\Projects\2004\1 12005 - Morris\Corresponclence\agenda06l3O6 .wpd
Page 1 of 2
B .
2.
3 .
4.
ii.
iv.
C.
Schedule
IV.
Questions
Proposed Closure Tasks
I .
Groundwater Monitoring Network
i .
Expand Existing Groundwater Monitoring Network
ii.
Abandonment of Non-permitted Groundwater Monitoring Wells
In .
Repairs to Existing Permitted Groundwater Monitoring Wells
iv .
Establish Groundwater Management Zone
v .
Conduct Groundwater Monitoring
Leachate Management and Monitoring
Complete Leachate Collection Systems for Parcels A & B
Complete Leachate Monitoring Systems
Complete Construction Quality Assurance Report
iv.
Conduct Leachate Monitoring
Final Landform and Final Cover System
i .
Design of Alternate Final Cover System
ii.
Verification of Existing Permitted Final Cover
iii.
Design of Final Landform and Stormwater Management System
iv
.
Construct Final Cover and Stormwater Management System
Landfill Gas Management and Monitoring
Parcel A Landfill Gas Evaluation
Design of Parcel A Landfill Gas Management System
Complete Installation of Parcel B Gas Management System
Install Landfill Gas Management System
ii .
t
ii
.
iv
.
v.
Repairs to Existing landfill Gas Probes
vi.
Conduct Landfill Gas Monitoring
Post-Closure Activities
Conduct Routine Inspections and Maintenance
Groundwater Monitoring
Leachate Management and Monitoring
Landfill Gas Management and Monitoring
T :\Projects\2004\112005 - Morris\Correspondence\agenda061306
Page 2 of 2
T QMKMQWW I WE - MrisW..s .&M .TM. cost proposal NNAS
SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
. BUDGET
TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE CITY OF MORRIS
FOR THE MORRIS COMMUNITY LANDFILL
w
i4
Task Description
-
-------------
Cost
Talks
Task
Grounwater
Establish Groundwater
Task
Conduct Groundwater' -
bf%
------------------------------------- -------------------- --------- -------- -------- --- ---------------
$24154
Monitoring W ell Abandonment (includes preparation of IEPA
significant permit modification application)
------ ---- -------$14,700
-------
---------
$24000---
$68,934
-----
$701 _567
Management Zone
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I --
-----
:
. .
Task 201
Task
. . . . . .
204
. . . .
- Complete Leacha!?
.
Collection9.System
n -----------------------------------------------------------
----------
Monito
----- -------- ------ ---
$45,000
$746,567
- Conduct Leachte Monitoring
U2
(cost Included
m task
503)
I
Subtotal :
Tasks-300 .
Task 301 Verification of
"JiM i WWI
0-Existing
y
' aGm
Permitted Final Cover System
g i ; q!
--------------nom--------------------p""M
------------------------ $ 50 ' 000
. . . . . . . . .
$10,000
Task 302 -
Design Alternate Final Cover
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Task 303
= Design Final Landforrn and Stormwater _
Task 304 -
install / Construct Final Cover and SIormwater Management Systems (includes(includes
CQA documentation
-----------
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
-
$5523571
Subtotal :
$5,691,171
Tasks
X100-
Task 401
Landfill' Gas Mahagetr~ep `nnn
a
- Parcel A Landfill Gas Evaluation
.
. . . . . . .. . . ... . . . .... . . . ... . . .. . ... . .... . . . .... . . . .... . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ---------------
-----------
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
: .De
System
Parcel A Landfill Gas Management
$25aOO
--------
$372 900
$-42M
0
q
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Task 403 -
Complete Installation
documentation)
ParcelKEandfil Management
!
. . .
Task 405 _
Repairs to Existing Landfill Gas ProbesGas
Management System (includes GOA documentation)
$3,000
-
Conduct Landfill Gas Monitoring
------ - --
(costs
- ---
included
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------in
Task 504)
-----------------------
Subtotal :
$840,900
TasksTask 50Q
501
:
-
Conduct Routine
rR
Inspections and Maintenance
$401,300
TTaska;k 502
Routine
---------------------
- Conduct
itorin~'.'-
Groundwater
--m-o
--
------ --------
a ate Management
---
and Monitoring Operations
$809,400
Task 504
- Conduct Routine Landfill Gas Management
and Monitoring Operations
-----
$110,000
Subtotal :
$2,662,400
TOTAL :
$10009,9721
