1
1
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 18, 2007
2
3 IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
4 PETITION OF JOHNS MANVILLE )
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
5 FROM: 35 Ill. Adm. Code
) No. AS 04-04
811.310, 811.311, 811.318, ) (Adjusted
6 and 814,
) Standard - Land)
)
7
)
8
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS held in the
9 above-entitled cause before Hearing Officer Bradley
10 P. Halloran, called by the Illinois Pollution
11 Control Board, taken before Laura Bernar, CSR, a
12 notary public within and for the County of Cook and
13 state of Illinois, at the Lake County Administrative
14 Building, 18 North County Street, 10th Floor,
15 Waukegan, Illinois, on the 19th day of July, 2007,
16 commencing at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
SIDLEY AUSTIN
ONE SOUTH DEARBORN
3
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312)853-2062
4
BY: MR. EDWARD P. KENNEY
Appeared on behalf of Johns Manville;
5
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
6
9511 West Harrison Street
Des Plaines, Illinois 60016
7
(847)294-4077
BY: MR. PETER E. ORLINSKY
8
Appeared on behalf of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency;
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
3
1
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Good
2
morning. My name is Bradley Halloran. I'm a
3
hearing officer with the Illinois Pollution
4
Control Board. I'm also assigned to this
5
case entitled in the matter of Petition of
6
Johns Manville for an adjusted standard from
7
35 Illinois Administrative Code 811.310,
8
811.311, 811.318, and 814. It's docketed
9
with the board as AS 4-4.
10
Today is July 19 it's 9:20. I
11
apologize for my lateness. There are no
12
members of the public here, but if there were
13
they'd be allowed to say their piece. We're
14
going to run this hearing pursuant to Section
15
104 Subpart D and Section 101 Subpart F of
16
the board's procedural provisions. I also
17
want to note for the record that this hearing
18
was properly noticed up. The hearing is
19
intended to develop a record for the Illinois
20
Pollution Control Board. I will not be
21
making the ultimate decision in the case.
22
That's left up to the five members of the
23
board. I'm here to rule on any evidentiary
24
matters and make sure the hearing goes
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
4
1
without a hitch. And a brief note, on July
2
9, 2007, I forwarded and filed possible
3
questions from our technical units to the
4
respected parties. And to that end we have
5
Miss Alisa Liu from our technical unit that
6
may or may not be asking questions of the
7
witnesses.
8
With that said, Mr. Kenney,
9
would you like to introduce yourself.
10
MR. KENNEY: Yes. Good morning,
11
Mr. Hearing Officer. My name is Edward
12
Kenney from Sidley Austin in Chicago. I'm
13
here representing Johns Mansville. With me
14
today is William Bow from LFR and he'll be
15
providing some testimony today. In addition
16
I have Denny Quinton, manager of engineering
17
from Johns Manville, and David Petersen, who
18
is one of JM's consultants. For short, I
19
think I'd like to refer to John Mansville as
20
JM. It's fairly typical for the company to
21
be known that way. And what we're here to
22
talk about is a petition for adjusted
23
standard involving the Johns Manville
24
property that's located a short distance from
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
5
1
here, just off of Greenwood Avenue, probably
2
less than a mile from here. It's -- the
3
Manville property is approximately 350 acres,
4
and it formerly held a large manufacturing
5
plant that dated back to the early part of
6
the 20th century. The landfill that is the
7
subject to this proceeding is a relatively
8
small part of the entire facility. Johns
9
Manville ceased manufacturing at that site
10
about ten years ago, and the manufacturing
11
buildings, which comprised about 1.9 million
12
square feet under roof, were demolished over
13
a period of years. That project was
14
completed in 2001. This site is somewhat
15
unusual in that it has been subject over the
16
years, for about the last 20 years, more than
17
20 years, to a great deal of oversight under
18
the Federal Superfund Program, and the State
19
has also -- Illinois EPA has also been
20
involved in overseeing various activities at
21
the site over the years. And just to provide
22
a short summary of the remedial activities,
23
they primarily involved consolidation of
24
asbestos-containing waste materials on the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
6
1
eastern part of the site and construction of
2
cover over that material. So the eastern
3
part of the site is -- and Mr. Bow will give
4
us an overview of the site as a picture to
5
show it, is essentially a large asbestos
6
landfill with engineered cover over it. This
7
petition involves a relatively small part of
8
the eastern part of the site, and Mr. Bow
9
will show us where that is and involves
10
essentially two major elements: One is
11
providing for an adjusted standard for gas,
12
landfill gas, monitoring and management
13
requirements of the Board's regulations, and
14
also the other major area is ground water
15
monitoring. That adjusted standard seeks to
16
provide alternative placement for ground
17
water monitoring wells.
18
We have previously submitted
19
written testimony and exhibits to the Board.
20
We had previously discussed that with the
21
Illinois EPA over the year -- Actually, we've
22
been in discussions with Illinois EPA about
23
this adjusted standard petition over the
24
years and submitted written testimony to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
7
1
them. Illinois EPA submitted a
2
recommendation that the adjusted standard be
3
granted. And pursuant to your request, we
4
submitted our written testimony exhibits at
5
the end of June, on June 28 or 29, I believe.
6
For convenience sake, I think, why don't we
7
have Mr. Bow sworn after any statement that
8
Illinois EPA would make, and then we can have
9
him vouch for his testimony.
10
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I agree
11
with Mr. Kenney. Thank you, Mr. Kenney.
12
Mr. Orlinsky?
13
MR. ORLINSKY: I'm Peter Orlinsky,
14
Illinois EPA division of legal counsel. As
15
Mr. Kenney just mentioned, over the course of
16
at least the last two years there have been
17
several back-and-forth meetings and
18
information exchanges between Illinois EPA
19
and technical personnel of Johns Manville.
20
As a result of that information, the agency
21
was able to come to the determination that
22
the -- that this adjusted standard should be
23
granted and that by doing so there would be
24
no adverse effects to the environment. We
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
8
1
want to just hear what Mr. Bow has to say
2
today. We may have very a few questions.
3
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Terrific.
4
Miss Court Reporter, swear in Mr. Bow,
5
please.
6
(Witness sworn.)
7
MR. KENNEY: Good morning, Mr. Bow.
8
MR. BOW: Good morning.
9
MR. KENNEY: I'm going to ask you to
10
look at this. This is the written testimony
11
that we had submitted to the Pollution
12
Control Board along with the exhibits. You
13
should have -- I've got some extra copies if
14
anybody needs one.
15
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I believe
16
I have that. Thank you.
17
MR. KENNEY: This is testimony that
18
you prepared in consultation with me and
19
others, correct?
20
MR. BOW: It is.
21
MR. KENNEY: Is this testimony true
22
and correct as you sit here today?
23
MR. BOW: It is.
24
MR. KENNEY: Are the exhibits -- You're
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
9
1
familiar with the exhibits that are attached
2
to it as well?
3
MR. BOW: I am.
4
MR. KENNEY: And they are as
5
represented in the testimony?
6
MR. BOW: They are also correct, yes.
7
MR. KENNEY: Mr. Hearing Officer, I
8
would ask that this be, to the extent it's
9
not already, that it be introduced into the
10
Board's administrative record for this
11
proceeding.
12
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
13
Mr. Orlinsky?
14
MR. ORLINSKY: I have no objection.
15
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Want to
16
mark it Exhibit A then.
17
MR. KENNEY: I think that would be
18
fine then. For purposes of the hearing, it
19
has sub exhibits, and we may make reference
20
to some of them, but I think we can make it
21
clear as to what we're talking about.
22
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.
23
We'll mark it group -- Petitioner's Group
24
Exhibit A and that will be admitted into
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
10
1
evidence.
2
MR. KENNEY: Thanks very much.
3
Now, Mr. Bow, you've brought
4
some pictures of the site with you today; is
5
that correct?
6
MR. BOW: I have.
7
MR. KENNEY: Why don't we mark this
8
one as -- this would be Exhibit B.
9
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure.
10
MR. KENNEY: We'll mark this exhibit
11
B for identification. And we can -- we have
12
some extra copies of this, too, if you want
13
to take a look at it. I think what we'll do,
14
if it's all right, Mr. Hearing officer, to
15
the extent we need to identify particular
16
parts of this, we can maybe make distinctive
17
marks on it so that it'll be clear for the
18
record.
19
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Terrific.
20
MR. KENNEY: Mr. Bow, to the extent we
21
need to identify particular areas, we can
22
make marks on it and we'll just indicate what
23
kind of mark we're making on it.
24
MR. BOW: That's fine.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
11
1
MR. KENNEY: Could you, for the
2
benefit of the Board, sort of describe the
3
site? And if you could hold up the exhibit
4
and show what you're talking about.
5
MR. BOW: Sure. This is a site aerial
6
photograph of the Johns Manville property
7
that was taken on October 5, 2005. The
8
dashed outline with the double dots between
9
them is the property line that encompasses
10
the entire Johns Manville site. You can see
11
in the lower right corner of the photograph
12
is Lake Michigan which is the eastern
13
property line of the Johns Manville property.
14
The western property line is along some
15
railroad tracks that exists essentially along
16
Pershing Road which runs south of the city of
17
Waukegan. The property itself is roughly 350
18
acres in size. The former manufacturing area
19
is shown on the western side of the site
20
which is in sort of the upper left corner of
21
the property. It shows the former building
22
pads of the manufacturing buildings that were
23
removed, as Mr. Kenney stated, in 2001. The
24
eastern portion of the site, roughly 130 to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
12
1
140 acres in size, is a former disposal area
2
that was closed pursuant to a federal consent
3
decree in -- The closure was completed in
4
roughly 1992 through the placement of a
5
two-foot thick engineered soil cover over the
6
entire former disposal area, and that is
7
shown also in a dashed outline in the
8
photograph. Nested within that former
9
disposal area are two units that were closed
10
or are being closed pursuant to this
11
proceeding, an onsite landfill that was used
12
for the disposal of non-asbestos waste by the
13
plant while it was still in operation post
14
1992, and those disposal areas are shown
15
within the overall CERCLA closed disposal
16
area. They're shown as Fill Area 1 and Fill
17
Area 2 on this particular photograph. And,
18
again, I point out that they are nested
19
within the closed CERCLA landfill, and that
20
has some significant relative to the adjusted
21
standard that we're asking for today.
22
The Fill Area 1 is roughly ten
23
acres in size and was also known as the
24
former miscellaneous disposal pit. Fill Area
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
13
1
2 is roughly three and a half acres in size,
2
and it was formerly known as the collection
3
basin. There was a body of water that
4
existed to the east on the eastern end of the
5
former CERCLA landfill, the former disposal
6
area, and that was filled in in roughly 1996
7
and is known as Fill Area 2.
8
MR. KENNEY: Now, the -- This large
9
blue area, what is that?
10
MR. BOW: The large blue area is a 35
11
acre former settling basin that was used as
12
part of the plant's waste water treatment
13
system. Water would be used in the
14
manufacturing process in the former
15
manufacturing area. That water was
16
subsequently pumped upwards, and, again, it
17
was -- it is pumped in the disposal area and
18
was pumped into this former lagoon, again, 35
19
acres in size, former settling basin, where
20
various products including asbestos and other
21
entrained debris in the waste water would
22
drop out within the settling basin. That
23
water was then recycled back through the
24
plant as an ongoing waste water treatment
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
14
1
system. This particular lagoon, 35 acres in
2
size, is currently being closed pursuant to a
3
first amended consent decree which is also
4
part of the submitted testimony. This was
5
allowed to remain open after the 1992 closure
6
of the land areas so that the plant could
7
continue manufacturing. And when
8
manufacturing ceased during the 1990s, it was
9
no longer needed for manufacturing;
10
therefore, it is now being closed pursuant to
11
a first amended consent decree under a
12
federal and a state consent order.
13
MR. KENNEY: So what is the physical
14
state of that -- of that feature at this
15
point?
16
MR. BOW: Okay. The -- This
17
particular photograph happened to have been
18
taken on a day where we were actually pulling
19
across a very large geotextile across the
20
entire settling basin, and I'll show you.
21
The geotextile was placed on the western bank
22
of the former settling basin, and on this
23
particular day, October 5, 2005, it was
24
pulled across the water surface in order to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
15
1
provide a substantial base upon which we
2
could place sand and clay cover, because the
3
underlying sludge was quite weak and could
4
not hold up equipment placing sand and clay.
5
So we put a geotextile across, and it was
6
pulled across the basin on this particular
7
day. And on this photograph you can actually
8
see the leading edge at approximately this
9
location. This was 90 percent across the
10
basin as the photograph was taken.
11
Subsequent to this within an hour it was
12
pulled up on to the bank. Presently the
13
water level in that basin was originally
14
approximately 600 to 603 feet above sea
15
level. Lake Michigan current level is
16
approximately 577 feet above sea level. So
17
you have about a 26 foot difference between
18
the water level in the settling basin versus
19
the surrounding ground water in the area.
20
Previously we used to pump -- JM used to pump
21
water up to the settling basin to keep it
22
full because there was asbestos fiber in the
23
bottom, and it needed to be kept wet. With
24
this closure, pumping to the settling basin
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
16
1
has ceased and water is -- has been allowed
2
to drain as it has always drained for the
3
past 80 plus years out the bottom; however,
4
it's not being replenished. And as the water
5
then exposes the now sunken geotextile at the
6
bottom, on the bottom surface of the sludge,
7
as that geotextile becomes exposed as the
8
water drains, sand is being placed over the
9
top of it. And so the current photograph
10
would actually show sand, very nearly half
11
way across from the southwest corner of the
12
settling basin toward the northeast as it
13
drains and covers -- sand cover is placed on
14
top.
15
MR. KENNEY: Now, you had mentioned, I
16
think, that there was another body of water
17
that existed to the east of Fill Area No. 2.
18
MR. BOW: Yes. It was actually to the
19
east of the former settling basin. There was
20
an interim basin called the collection basin,
21
and it received water from the settling
22
basin. The collection basin was a
23
rectangular body that was roughly the same
24
north/south dimension as the settling basin.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
17
1
However, it was much narrower in the
2
east/west dimensions. It was only, perhaps,
3
150 feet in width in the east/west direction.
4
That used to contain water, and we did some
5
engineering work several years ago to prevent
6
water from filling the collection basin. And
7
subsequent to that we filled it in with quite
8
a bit of clay. And the -- therefore, there
9
was no standing water in the collection basin
10
any longer.
11
Fill Area No. 2 is comprised of
12
roughly the southern one-third of the former
13
collection basin.
14
MR. KENNEY: Okay. What were the
15
purposes of the settling basin in that
16
portion of the collection basin that formerly
17
had water?
18
MR. BOW: They were both used as part
19
of the waste water treatment system at the JM
20
plant during manufacturing.
21
MR. KENNEY: When the plant was
22
operating in terms of manufacturing?
23
MR. BOW: Correct.
24
MR. KENNEY: And those were allowed by
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
18
1
the original consent decree?
2
MR. BOW: Yes.
3
MR. KENNEY: Now, the first amended
4
consent decree which is an exhibit to your
5
testimony, it's Exhibit No. 4. You were
6
involved in the negotiations process for that
7
that resulted in that, correct?
8
MR. BOW: I was.
9
MR. KENNEY: Okay. Now, did the --
10
What's the overriding purpose of that consent
11
decree?
12
MR. BOW: The purpose of the consent
13
decree is to obtain final regulatory closure
14
on the settling basin, the former collection
15
basin, as I had mentioned, the onsite
16
landfill, some smaller waste water ponds
17
located west of the former settling basin,
18
and two long linear bodies of water called
19
the industrial canal and the pumping lagoon
20
that are located roughly along the northern
21
property of the JM property.
22
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Kenney,
23
I guess just for clarification, that would be
24
No. 4 of Group Exhibit A.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
19
1
MR. KENNEY: That is correct.
2
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm trying
3
to make it clear to the board.
4
MR. KENNEY: That's correct. And the
5
Board had asked -- During the course of those
6
negotiations, was the idea of an adjusted
7
standard discussed with the USEPA, the IEPA
8
the Justice Department, and the Illinois
9
Attorney General's Office representatives who
10
were involved in that?
11
MR. BOW: Yes, it was.
12
MR. KENNEY: Is that reflected in the
13
consent decree?
14
MR. BOW: Yes, it is.
15
MR. KENNEY: The idea that the
16
adjusted standard would be necessary?
17
MR. BOW: It is.
18
MR. KENNEY: Do you know where?
19
MR. BOW: I believe it was on Page 24
20
under Subitem C on that page.
21
MR. KENNEY: Again, that's Exhibit 4
22
to Group Exhibit A. Do we need to read that
23
into the record? We can if you'd like.
24
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We don't
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
20
1
need to.
2
MR. KENNEY: Okay. There was also
3
somewhat contemporaneously with the
4
negotiation of the amended, first amended
5
consent decree, there were negotiations with
6
the state on a consent order; is that
7
correct?
8
MR. BOW: There were.
9
MR. KENNEY: I don't believe this
10
is -- It's in the -- this document is in the
11
record to the extent we submit it as an
12
exhibit to Mr. Orlinsky's -- to the IEPA's
13
recommendation, we can either submit it as a
14
separate exhibit here or we can just
15
reference that. The Board also asks if that
16
consent order addresses -- because I believe
17
it was in Mr. Campbell's comments, if that
18
consent order also addresses the adjusted
19
standard, and it does. Maybe it would make
20
sense to just introduce this as a separate
21
exhibit and just indicate where it is, if
22
that's okay?
23
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Exhibit C.
24
MR. KENNEY: I'm going to mark a
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
21
1
consent order dated January 6, 2005, People
2
of the State of Illinois, ex rel, Lisa
3
Madigan versus Johns Manville, No. -- it's
4
Circuit Court of Lake County No. 01 CH 857
5
and identify that as -- ask Mr. Bow to
6
identify that.
7
MR. BOW: This is the state consent
8
order.
9
MR. KENNEY: And look at Page 13.
10
MR. BOW: Item No. 2 references
11
closure of the miscellaneous disposal pit and
12
a portion of the collection basin where waste
13
was disposed.
14
MR. KENNEY: Does that acknowledge
15
that an adjusted standard might be necessary?
16
MR. BOW: It does. It says that
17
Mansville should either file a petition with
18
the board for an adjusted standard for
19
closure of the landfill.
20
MR. KENNEY: Okay. I'm going to ask
21
that that be introduced -- that that be
22
entered into evidence as Exhibit C.
23
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any
24
objection?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
22
1
MR. ORLINSKY: No objection.
2
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: So
3
admitted.
4
MR. KENNEY: I'll also ask that
5
Exhibit B be entered into evidence.
6
MR. ORLINSKY: No objection.
7
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Admitted.
8
MR. KENNEY: So the adjusted standard
9
proceeding that we're here today, that
10
involves Fill Area No. 1 and Fill Area No. 2,
11
correct?
12
MR. BOW: Correct.
13
MR. KENNEY: Okay. About how big are
14
those two features?
15
MR. BOW: Fill Area 1 is the former
16
miscellaneous disposal pit is approximately
17
ten acres in size and Fill Area 2, the former
18
collection Basin, is roughly three and a half
19
acres in size.
20
MR. KENNEY: How were those landfills
21
operated, during what period?
22
MR. BOW: When the CERCLA action was
23
completed in 1992, the facility filed an
24
initial facility report to provide for the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
23
1
disposal of plant-generated waste that were
2
not asbestos contained within former
3
miscellaneous disposal pit which was located
4
roughly the eastern one half of Fill Area 1.
5
The miscellaneous disposal pit was a pit,
6
because the surrounding area had been built
7
up during the CERCLA landfill work leaving a
8
pit that was subsequently filled in with
9
plant wastes in Fill Area No. 1.
10
MR. KENNEY: Now what kind of plant
11
wastes were those?
12
MR. BOW: Largely two kinds with some
13
additional materials: The two were calcium
14
silicate, which was essentially limestone,
15
crushed lime and sand that was made as part
16
of the insulation material. There was some
17
roofing materials, some granules, and then
18
there was miscellaneous and smaller amounts
19
of paper, cardboard, occasional pieces of
20
wood; but largely calcium silicate and the
21
rolled roofing or roofing granules. No
22
asbestos materials were disposed in the
23
miscellaneous disposal pit or the Fill Area 2
24
in the collection basin.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
24
1
MR. KENNEY: The consent decree
2
prohibited that, didn't it?
3
MR. BOW: That's correct. And as part
4
of that during the 1992 and 1991 CERCLA
5
closure activities, a layer of sand was
6
placed at the direction of the U.S. EPA at
7
the bottom of the former miscellaneous
8
disposal pit as a cover layer over any
9
materials at the bottom that may have
10
contained asbestos.
11
MR. KENNEY: Okay. Now, Johns
12
Manville, through consultants such as
13
yourself, did some work to evaluate and
14
verify what was in that landfill, those Fill
15
Area 1 and Fill Area 2, correct?
16
MR. BOW: That's correct.
17
MR. KENNEY: And did --
18
MR. BOW: The waste materials that
19
were discovered during the investigation that
20
were reported in one of the exhibits to
21
Exhibit A were well -- results from well
22
drilling showing the materials that were
23
disposed in the pit were consistent with what
24
they had said was going to be placed in the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
25
1
pit during the -- in the initial facility
2
report that was filed in 1992.
3
MR. KENNEY: Does that material
4
generate much in terms of landfill gas?
5
MR. BOW: It does not.
6
MR. KENNEY: And was work done to
7
verify how much landfill gas was being
8
generated?
9
MR. BOW: Yes, there was. There was a
10
landfill gas monitoring well that was
11
installed in miscellaneous disposal pit
12
through the waste materials. There was
13
landfill gas drawn from that, and there has
14
been monitoring of landfill gas. It is very
15
low pressure and is not indicative of a
16
typical chemical in a landfill.
17
MR. KENNEY: Does that gas monitoring
18
continue or has it continued since the
19
original work -- when was the original work
20
done?
21
MR. BOW: For the landfill gas
22
monitoring?
23
MR. KENNEY: Yes.
24
MR. BOW: I believe -- Let me find it.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
26
1
April 2003.
2
MR. KENNEY: Okay. And has there been
3
ongoing gas monitoring since then?
4
MR. BOW: Yes. Since that time, the
5
regulations call for monthly monitoring of
6
landfill gas. That is -- That continues to
7
this day. One of the adjusted standards is
8
to call for reduction of frequency of that
9
monitoring, but until that is resolved, we're
10
continuing the monthly monitoring.
11
MR. KENNEY: Okay. What is that
12
monthly monitoring showing?
13
MR. BOW: It is consistent with the
14
original investigation showing very low gas
15
pressures within the landfill itself and have
16
been no detections of landfill gas pursuant
17
to the standard monitoring that is done that
18
would indicate any migration of landfill gas.
19
MR. KENNEY: Okay. What does the
20
adjusted standard provide for?
21
MR. BOW: The adjusted standard
22
provides for two things: One is the -- a
23
reduction in the frequency of landfill gas
24
monitoring from a monthly period of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
27
1
monitoring for a minimum of five years. It
2
provides to go to semiannual monitoring for a
3
total of five years, after which if no
4
detections are noted, monitoring will cease.
5
The second standard provides for
6
the location of the subsurface monitoring
7
devices which would normally be placed at 100
8
feet away from the edge of the waste;
9
however, in this case, because that would
10
place us within some asbestos waste materials
11
along the side slopes of the CERCLA landfill,
12
we have asked that those monitoring locations
13
be allowed to be placed somewhat further out
14
to get away from having drilled through the
15
side slopes of the landfill.
16
MR. KENNEY: Okay. Now, you've
17
mentioned, I believe, a couple of times that
18
there is an asbestos landfill that was
19
constructed pursuant to the superfund consent
20
decree. Could you give the board an idea of
21
where that is.
22
MR. BOW: Sure.
23
MR. KENNEY: Using Exhibit B. If you
24
have another drawing that shows it, that
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
28
1
would be okay as well.
2
MR. BOW: I'll take a look at both.
3
Using Exhibit B, the former CERCLA landfill,
4
again, is located on roughly -- it's
5
distorted from the photograph, but it's
6
roughly the eastern half of the property
7
itself, and it is shown by this dashed
8
outline, and it can be seen essentially as
9
the green vegetated area on the landfill
10
itself. This is the former CERCLA landfill
11
outline as shown by this double dashed line
12
surrounding this area. The settling basin is
13
within that, as we've discussed, and the two
14
units for the onsite landfill being closed
15
pursuant to this proceeding and this adjusted
16
standard are nested within the former CERCLA
17
landfill in both areas, Fill Area 1 and Fill
18
Area 2. To further depict that, I have a
19
cross-section that is a west-to-east
20
cross-section. This cross-section is
21
located -- it may be found within the
22
exhibits --
23
MR. KENNEY: That would be Group
24
Exhibit A.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
29
1
MR. BOW: Group Exhibit A. This
2
cross-section is shown within that.
3
MR. KENNEY: Just for clarification, I
4
believe that is Group Exhibit A, and it's
5
Figure --
6
MR. BOW: Figure 2B.
7
MR. KENNEY: Figure 2B.
8
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you,
9
Mr. Kenney.
10
MR. BOW: This particular
11
cross-section, east/west, is shown through
12
the -- starting at the western edge of the
13
former CERCLA landfill as shown on the aerial
14
photograph, and it runs towards the east and
15
terminates at the edge of Lake Michigan. The
16
cross-section itself shows several units
17
within it. First of all, it's a closed
18
CERCLA landfill shown in the green hatch.
19
The native ground comes up to approximately
20
580 to 585 feet above sea level above which
21
is the former CERCLA landfill which we
22
identified previously as part of the disposal
23
area shown in the green hatch. On top of
24
that particular unit is an engineered cover
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
30
1
consisting of six inches of sand overlaid by
2
15 inches of clay overlaid by three inches of
3
topsoil upon which there is a vegetative
4
layer placed upon that. That CERCLA cover
5
extends from the west to the east to the edge
6
of the former miscellaneous disposal pit.
7
The former miscellaneous disposal pit, again,
8
was left open to allow for ongoing disposal
9
of nonasbestos plant waste post 1992.
10
However, within that area you can see there
11
is a sand layer depicted that has been
12
verified through drilling; sand layer
13
depicted at the bottom of the miscellaneous
14
disposal pit and has cover over any asbestos
15
wastes that were going to be located below
16
the former miscellaneous disposal pit. And
17
then at the far eastern edge, the CERCLA
18
cover picks up again outside of the limits of
19
the former miscellaneous disposal pit, and it
20
extends down to the closure area, the edge of
21
the former superfund site.
22
Above the CERCLA landfill and
23
CERCLA cap are miscellaneous disposal pit
24
wastes for on-site landfill waste material,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
31
1
and that's shown in the brown hatching as
2
depicted above the cover on the CERCLA
3
wastes. And above the miscellaneous disposal
4
pit wastes is a clay cover that was used as
5
interim cover on top of the wastes that were
6
placed in the miscellaneous disposal pit.
7
That clay cover varies, currently varies
8
between anywhere, from, say, three feet and
9
upwards of 18 feet in thickness.
10
MR. KENNEY: So at present the Fill
11
Areas 1 and 2 have cover on them?
12
MR. BOW: They do.
13
MR. KENNEY: They're not open waste?
14
MR. BOW: They are not. There are no
15
waste materials at the surface. There is a
16
second cross-section Figure 2D located within
17
Exhibit A.
18
MR. KENNEY: That's Exhibit A, Group
19
Exhibit A, and that's Exhibit 2 to that and
20
it's Figure 2.
21
MR. BOW: This is Figure 2D. This is,
22
again, also a west-to-east cross-section
23
through the miscellaneous -- I'm sorry --
24
through Fill Unit 2 which is the former
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
32
1
collection basin. The cross-section extends
2
roughly from the edge of the former settling
3
basin eastward to Lake Michigan. The top of
4
the CERCLA cover is depicted until it gets to
5
the edge of the former collection basin.
6
There are some waste materials consisting
7
virtually entirely of calcium silicate
8
material at the bottom of the former
9
miscellaneous -- I'm sorry -- the bottom of
10
the former collection basin. And on top of
11
that there is another clay cover that varies
12
in anywhere from 5 to 15 feet in thickness.
13
MR. KENNEY: Now, it's not part of
14
this proceeding, but there have been
15
discussions with -- between Johns Manville
16
and IEPA concerning the cover that is on the
17
Fill Area 1 and 2; is that correct?
18
MR. BOW: There have.
19
MR. KENNEY: Do you have an
20
understanding as to what IEPA's position on
21
that -- whether the cover is equivalent to
22
the regulatory requirements?
23
MR. BOW: Well, the existing cover
24
will need to be modified through the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
33
1
placement of some additional materials, sand
2
drainage layer, and some additional cover
3
materials. But we've been in ongoing
4
discussions with the Illinois EPA,
5
specifically Chris Liebman and his group.
6
And they have agreed that the cover that's
7
being proposed for the onsite landfill units
8
is the equivalent of the standard cover in
9
the regulations; therefore, an adjusted
10
standard will not be required.
11
MR. KENNEY: Okay. Now, in terms of
12
the adjusted standard proceeding here today,
13
we're talking about an adjusted standard for
14
gas monitoring and management requirements
15
and for ground water monitoring for Fill
16
Area 1 and 2?
17
MR. BOW: Correct.
18
MR. KENNEY: Could you briefly
19
describe -- First of all, why don't we start
20
with gas management monitoring. Could you
21
point out why that would -- why the
22
regulatory requirements would present
23
problems in terms of location of gas
24
monitoring wells and management systems?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
34
1
MR. BOW: Yes. The standard
2
regulation calls for the placement of
3
subsurface gas monitoring devices roughly 100
4
feet away from the edge of the waste unit.
5
And based on this cross-section 2B that I
6
referred to earlier, that would place the
7
monitoring wells or monitoring devices
8
roughly half way up the side slope of the
9
now-closed CERCLA landfill. So we would be
10
drilling -- We would be placing permanent
11
monitoring wells half way up the side slopes
12
of a closed superfund asbestos landfill. And
13
for a variety of reasons, health and safety,
14
and logistics and costs, we have felt that
15
the placement of monitoring wells half way up
16
the side slopes of the CERCLA landfill was
17
inappropriate and that placement of those
18
monitoring wells immediately at the top of
19
the slope was a much more practical solution.
20
MR. KENNEY: Now is that -- Are you
21
talking about ground water monitoring wells
22
or gas monitoring wells or both?
23
MR. BOW: Both.
24
MR. KENNEY: Okay. So is the problem
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
35
1
penetration of the cap or is the problem
2
getting equipment to put the wells in?
3
MR. BOW: It's both. The first issue
4
is that the U.S. EPA and JM would prefer to
5
avoid drilling through the CERCLA cap as much
6
as possible. Secondly -- and that's for
7
health and safety reasons simply during the
8
drilling event; and then, subsequent to that,
9
there is the concern that you could have
10
slope failure, and you would expose a
11
significant portion of the asbestos waste
12
materials underneath the cover should the
13
bringing of heavy equipment and construction
14
of the roads that would be necessary to put
15
these wells half way up the side slope should
16
that cover fail.
17
MR. KENNEY: Obviously with the drill
18
rig, you have to have some sort of equipment
19
to bring in and put it in place?
20
MR. BOW: That's correct.
21
MR. KENNEY: Like a truck or something
22
like that.
23
MR. BOW: Correct.
24
MR. KENNEY: And that can create
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
36
1
problems in terms of slope failure.
2
MR. BOW: Yes. So the combination of
3
slope failure and the potential health and
4
safety effects of the drilling and of the
5
potential slope failure led us to conclude it
6
would be more practicable to locate the
7
monitoring point; instead of half way up the
8
side slope, to just move them immediately to
9
the east or the south away from the side
10
slopes to the now closed CERCLA landfill.
11
MR. KENNEY: Okay. And the data that
12
JM has collected concerning gas generation is
13
that there is not much gas being generated by
14
the landfills anyway.
15
MR. BOW: That's correct.
16
MR. KENNEY: Okay. Let's talk about
17
ground water monitoring a little bit. Could
18
you sort of explain what Johns Manville is
19
seeking with respect to the adjusted standard
20
for the ground water monitoring?
21
MR. BOW: Similar to the location of
22
the gas monitoring devices, JM is seeking an
23
adjustment, adjusted standard to the location
24
of the ground water monitoring wells that
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
37
1
would normally be placed pursuant to the
2
regulation at a distance of one half of the
3
distance between the edge of the waste and
4
the zone of attenuation. That would, in
5
effect, locate those wells roughly 50 feet
6
away from the edge of the waste within the
7
two units. That 50-foot distance, again,
8
puts that within the CERCLA landfill
9
requiring drilling through the CERCLA cover
10
and along the side slopes of the CERCLA
11
landfill. Therefore, we have proposed
12
placing the monitoring wells and the zone of
13
attenuation extended outward a short
14
distance; that instead of the zone of
15
attenuation being 100 feet away from the
16
waste, it would be placed in various
17
distances roughly 150 to 200 feet away.
18
MR. KENNEY: Now, you're referencing
19
Figure 2A which is part of Exhibit 2 of Group
20
Exhibit A; is that correct?
21
MR. BOW: Correct.
22
MR. KENNEY: Okay. Now, the Pollution
23
Control Board, prior to the hearing, asked
24
the question concerning zone of attenuation
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
38
1
and whether the zone of attenuation could be,
2
apparently based on this drawing, which is
3
also the same drawing as Exhibit 8 to the
4
adjusted standard petition. Is that correct?
5
MR. BOW: That's correct.
6
MR. KENNEY: Do you recall the Board's
7
question?
8
MR. BOW: The question regarding that
9
was whether or not the zone of attenuation
10
actually extends in a complete encirclement
11
of the two waste units. And that is, in
12
fact, the case. The concern was that the
13
exhibits, as depicted, only showed the zone
14
of attenuation in the down gradient
15
direction, which is, from a practical
16
perspective, where the ground water
17
monitoring has to be conducted. But the zone
18
of attenuation, in effect, extends, encircles
19
the entire unit at a distance roughly 100
20
feet away from the edge of the waste.
21
However, in the down gradient directions
22
where the monitoring has to take place, it's
23
extended somewhat further to the east and to
24
the south. But to the northern and the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
39
1
eastern -- western sides of the two units, it
2
would not be changed. It would be left at
3
the standard 100 foot distance.
4
MR. KENNEY: I'm going to ask that
5
Exhibit D, which is a drawing, be marked for
6
identification. And I'll ask Mr. Bow to take
7
a look at this. You've seen this, Peter.
8
I'll have Mr. Bow discuss this as well. I'm
9
going to ask you to take a look at Exhibit D
10
and explain what it is.
11
MR. BOW: Exhibit D is a modification
12
to Figure 2A that shows the -- shows the
13
proposed zone attenuation boundary on the
14
south and east sides as had been requested in
15
the adjusted standard petition. However, it
16
includes a dashed line that would depict the
17
zone of attenuation at a 100 foot distance
18
away from the waste edge -- away from the
19
unit -- the boundary of the waste in a
20
traditional fashion, pursuant to the
21
regulations at 100 feet away.
22
MR. KENNEY: Okay. Now, there
23
wouldn't be ground water monitoring wells
24
located to the north or where that --
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
40
1
northern part of that line to the north of
2
Fill Area 1 or Fill Area 2; is that correct?
3
MR. BOW: No, there would not.
4
MR. KENNEY: Because --
5
MR. BOW: They are in a cross
6
gradient, not a down gradient direction.
7
There would not be monitoring the ground
8
water quality from these two units because
9
they are not down grading. Those directions,
10
the west side on the north side are not down
11
grading of the units.
12
MR. KENNEY: Now, would the same type
13
of issue -- In the event that the gradient
14
never shifted and there needed to be wells,
15
would the same issues present themselves
16
there?
17
MR. BOW: They would.
18
MR. KENNEY: In terms of slope and
19
drilling through the asbestos landfill?
20
MR. BOW: They would.
21
MR. KENNEY: Because the asbestos
22
landfill extends around Fill Area 1 and Fill
23
Area it, doesn't it?
24
MR. BOW: It does. The asbestos
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
41
1
landfill extends a considerable distance to
2
the west and to the north of the two fill
3
areas.
4
MR. KENNEY: Okay. The one exception
5
to that is where the settling basin is,
6
but -- the former settling basin. But that,
7
similarly, you can't drill through that
8
either, can you?
9
MR. BOW: That's being closed pursuant
10
to the first amended consent decree, and the
11
U.S. EPA and JM would view drilling through
12
those units as -- we would like to see that
13
as limited -- just as limited as the existing
14
CERCLA cover.
15
MR. KENNEY: In order prevent --
16
MR. BOW: In order to prevent --
17
MR. KENNEY: -- migration of
18
asbestos-containing material and that sort of
19
thing?
20
MR. BOW: And, again, since these
21
directions are not down gradient of the two
22
units of the miscellaneous disposal pit and
23
the former collection basin ground water
24
monitoring would never be anticipated for
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
42
1
those areas.
2
MR. KENNEY: So in answer to the
3
question raised by the board, this document
4
would show the zone of attenuation extended
5
around the landfills. But in terms of
6
location of ground water monitoring wells,
7
they wouldn't be required because -- under
8
the regulations because at present it's not
9
down gradient?
10
MR. BOW: That's correct. There was
11
never any intent to modify the zone of
12
attenuation in those other directions.
13
MR. KENNEY: Okay. I think we've
14
addressed the board's questions about the
15
consent orders. We've addressed the question
16
about the zone of attenuation.
17
MS. LIU: Actually, I do have some
18
remaining questions. Is it all right --
19
MR. KENNEY: We can do it now or --
20
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Let's do it
21
now since we're on the topic. Want to go
22
ahead, Miss Liu.
23
MS. LIU: Since the consent order was
24
the first thing you addressed, I believe the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
43
1
question related to whether or not there had
2
been any development since those consent
3
orders came out that might have changed the
4
directives at all? There was some indication
5
in a public comment that perhaps there were
6
future developments that might impact today's
7
adjusted standard. I was wondering if you
8
could provide any insight on that.
9
MR. KENNEY: Not to my knowledge.
10
What is occurring under the consent orders,
11
the Illinois consent order, the penalty has
12
been paid. It was -- The consent order arose
13
from an enforcement proceeding. Penalties
14
have been paid. I think there's been some
15
stipulated penalties for some sort of ongoing
16
MPDS type issues that have been paid. And
17
the only other issue essentially associated
18
with that was there was a reference to the
19
adjusted standard which is what we're here
20
for. And there really haven't been any other
21
development that I'm aware of with respect to
22
that.
23
In terms of the federal
24
consent decree, the federal consent decree
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
44
1
provides for some extended remedial
2
activities, settling basin is being done
3
pursuant to that. There's some additional
4
work that's being done pursuant to that. At
5
some point in time, the two bodies of water,
6
two of the bodies of water to the north of
7
the site -- Why don't you identify those,
8
Mr. Bow.
9
MR. BOW: The industrial canal located
10
along the northern boundary and the pumping
11
lagoon, which is an extension, westward
12
extension of the canal.
13
MR. KENNEY: Those will need to be
14
addressed, but they really don't relate to
15
this proceeding at all. So there really have
16
not been any development associated with
17
either the state consent order or the federal
18
consent decree that I'm aware of that would
19
affect this, what the adjusted standard
20
proceeding.
21
MS. LIU: Thank you for that update.
22
The other question I had was pertaining to
23
the zone of attenuation, and I appreciate you
24
clarifying where you intended it to be. But
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
45
1
I believe the question related more to the
2
wording of the adjusted standard as proposed.
3
When I read it, I thought perhaps it might
4
exclude the identification of the zone of
5
attenuation on the western and northern side.
6
And I was wondering, not being a lawyer, if
7
there was an alternate way you could word
8
that so that there wasn't confusion.
9
MR. KENNEY: Yes. There was a
10
reference in the adjusted standard language
11
that refers to Exhibit 8 which was Exhibit 8
12
to the petition which is the same as figure
13
2A. We could do an alternative figure, or we
14
could -- I was looking at the language, and
15
I'm not sure I can figure out a better way of
16
doing that, but we're certainly not adverse
17
to that if the Board feels it needs to be
18
clarified. We can even do an alternative
19
exhibit more along the lines of the one that
20
Mr. Bow was just discussing. I suppose we
21
could do alternative language, too, but I'm
22
really not sure exactly how to do it. The
23
location -- yeah. Basically the language
24
that we had suggested talks about installing
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
46
1
ground water monitoring wells at the location
2
specified on the attached Figure 8. Figure 8
3
really was intended to identify where the
4
ground water monitoring wells were going to
5
be installed and had the zone of attenuation
6
placed on that for sort of additional
7
information. We could either amend Figure 8,
8
2A to clarify that, you know, the zone of
9
attenuation surrounds the two fill areas.
10
It'll still show the monitoring wells in the
11
same locations if that's -- if that's what
12
the Board feels would be necessary.
13
I guess the other thing we could
14
do is submit something that -- basically a
15
revised figure that just shows where the
16
monitoring wells would be and not indicate
17
the other language.
18
MR. BOW: I believe that the Illinois
19
EPA felt it important that we distinguish
20
that the zone of attenuation would be moved
21
as a result of this adjusted standard. So
22
the act of moving the ground water monitoring
23
wells outward to the slope also necessitated
24
an adjustment to the zone of attenuation
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
47
1
adjusted standard to that.
2
MR. KENNEY: Okay.
3
MR. BOW: The language references
4
Figure 8 as the location of the zone of
5
attenuation as adjusted. We could -- easiest
6
to modify Figure 8 in order to show the zone
7
of attenuation in much the same way that we
8
have shown Group Exhibit -- on Group
9
Exhibit D where we would show the zone of
10
attenuation at the 100 foot distance on the
11
sides, the west and the north sides, and
12
leave the modified zone of attenuation on the
13
east and south sides as are already on the
14
figure. Since the language references
15
Figure 8 in the original adjusted standard, a
16
modification of Figure 8, I believe, would
17
just address the issue without trying to
18
figure out how to write it down in words
19
depending upon this corner and that corner,
20
et cetera, et cetera, if that would be
21
acceptable.
22
MS. LIU: I think that would be a good
23
way to go.
24
MR. KENNEY: And that's fine. Now,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
48
1
could we do this or do you want to do --
2
submit another revised Figure 8?
3
MR. BOW: I'm fine with this
4
handwritten sketch as Group Exhibit D because
5
the -- that's essentially what it's going to
6
look like on the revised Figure 8. The
7
question would be whether the Board would be
8
concerned that the hand sketch isn't exactly
9
reflective of 100 foot distance on the north
10
and west sides in the sense that it's going
11
to wobble a little bit between 90 and 110 as
12
my pen moved around it. We could, on a much
13
more detail level, submit a figure that was
14
exactly 100 feet. I think it's a distinction
15
without a difference, but if the Board would
16
prefer that we come up with an exacting
17
drawing, I don't have any problem doing that.
18
I just don't have it with me today. In other
19
words, you know, this is --
20
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Off the
21
record.
22
(Short break taken.)
23
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We can go
24
back on the record, I think. We took a short
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
49
1
break. We're now back. It's approximately
2
10:31. Mr. Kenney?
3
MR. KENNEY: I think there was some
4
discussion when we were off the record how
5
best to address this Exhibit 8 to the
6
petition issue and to kind of clarify that.
7
I think the conclusion was that we can submit
8
a revised Exhibit 8 that shows the zones of
9
attenuation around Fill Area 1 and 2, and we
10
can do that within the next day or so. So
11
that would be our proposal in terms of
12
clarification of the record.
13
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yeah.
14
That's fine with me. Or I'm trying to -- I'm
15
thinking out loud here. Do you wish to
16
submit that into evidence?
17
MR. KENNEY: We can submit -- Why
18
don't we have -- and I would ask that
19
Exhibit D be entered into evidence. That's
20
the figure that Mr. Bow had identified and
21
was addressing. We can also submit a
22
revised -- and that should be part of the
23
administrative record as well, but I'm not
24
sure how best to do that.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
50
1
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
2
Mr. Orlinsky, I guess first off, do you have
3
any objection to Exhibit D being admitted
4
into evidence?
5
MR. ORLINSKY: No.
6
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Exhibit D
7
is admitted into evidence.
8
Now, the query is do you want to,
9
I guess, at our behest, submit a revised
10
Exhibit A?
11
MR. KENNEY: Just so the record is
12
clear, this drawing was submitted as
13
Exhibit A to the original -- to the amended
14
adjusted standard petition. And it's also
15
included in Group Exhibit A as Figure 2A; is
16
that correct?
17
MR. BOW: Correct.
18
MR. KENNEY: So it's sort of in two
19
places. What we would be submitting would be
20
sort of a modification of Exhibit D, which
21
was just entered just a little bit more
22
precisely drawn to show the zone of
23
attenuation around Fill Area 1 and Fill
24
Area 2, just be more precise by CAD; is that
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
51
1
correct?
2
MR. BOW: It is. The Exhibit D is a
3
hand sketch of what a more accurately
4
depicted revised Figure 8 would be. But it
5
will -- largely it will be exactly reflective
6
of what is on Exhibit D already.
7
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay.
8
Thanks for the clarification, and I think the
9
record will reflect that. However, I feel a
10
little uncomfortable accepting it if you were
11
going to offer it into evidence. What will
12
happen, the Board will take that into
13
consideration, you'll just submit the revised
14
Exhibit 8 and Group Exhibit A.
15
MR. KENNEY: That's fine.
16
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: And any
17
objection, Mr. Orlinsky, just for the record?
18
MR. ORLINSKY: No. I wouldn't object.
19
MR. KENNEY: That's fine. We have no
20
problem with that. This is really for the
21
Board's clarification in any event. So we
22
have no problem doing it that way.
23
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Terrific.
24
We can move on.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
52
1
MR. KENNEY: One other question that
2
the board had raised was concerning
3
Exhibit 11 of Group Exhibit A which is --
4
it's an onsite landfill ground water aviche
5
(ph.) quality report, and there was a
6
reference to a submittal to the Pollution
7
Control Board in that report. It actually
8
should be -- the submittal was to the
9
Illinois EPA; is that correct?
10
MR. BOW: It was a submittal from the
11
Illinois EPA.
12
MR. KENNEY: I'm sorry.
13
MR. BOW: Dated September 14, 2005.
14
There was a question from the Illinois EPA,
15
and we inaccurately stated it was a question
16
from Illinois Pollution Control Board. So
17
the sentence in Exhibit 11 that has been
18
referred to in the question that the Board
19
had, it should have stated from the IPCB. It
20
should have stated from the IEPA dated
21
September 14. So we're clarifying that it
22
should have been from the IEPA, not from the
23
Pollution Control Board.
24
MR. KENNEY: So that should clarify
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
53
1
the record on that score.
2
Now, the -- I believe you had
3
testified that the types of wastes that were
4
in the landfill were similar to, more similar
5
to inert type wastes than they were to
6
chemical and putrescible type wastes. Is
7
that accurate?
8
MR. BOW: I did not -- I can make that
9
characterization that they are more similar
10
to inert type wastes. We hadn't discussed
11
that specific point, but the presence of
12
calcium silicate and the roofing material
13
would be much more similar to an inert type
14
waste, although technically it's being
15
considered chemical and putrescible based
16
upon the limited amount of landfill gas
17
generation and the aviche (ph.) quality. It
18
is much more similar to an inert waste than
19
it is a chemical and putrescible waste.
20
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Bow,
21
could you speak up, please.
22
MR. BOW: In a traditional sense.
23
MR. KENNEY: So is it your opinion
24
that the adjusted standards that have been
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
54
1
proposed by Johns Manville would be
2
protective -- equally protective of the
3
environment as in compliance with the
4
regulatory requirements?
5
MR. BOW: It is my opinion. That is
6
correct.
7
MR. KENNEY: That is true of both
8
landfill gas monitoring proposed adjusted
9
standard, and gas -- and the ground water
10
monitoring?
11
MR. BOW: It is true of both.
12
MR. KENNEY: Well, I have no further
13
questions for Mr. Bow, unless -- I know
14
Mr. Orlinsky has some. And if the Board has
15
any additional questions, we'd certainly --
16
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN:
17
Mr. Orlinsky?
18
MR. ORLINSKY: I have a few, and to
19
some extent I think you may have just hit on
20
the question. But Sandra Bron, that's
21
B-R-O-N, who is our project manager with
22
Johns Manville was not able to make it. But
23
she had sent me just a couple of questions
24
and she wanted to clarify based on the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
55
1
written testimony that was submitted to the
2
board. And these go to what you were just
3
talking about, about the distinction between
4
inert wastes and chemical and putrescible
5
wastes. So let me just read them verbatim
6
and see.
7
On Page 10 you say that waste
8
material generated at the plant in 1992 for
9
disposal on the onsite landfill included
10
sludge from the presettling lagoons,
11
parentheses, insert solids from
12
manufacturing, parentheses. How do you know
13
the sludge from the presettling lagoons was
14
inert solids?
15
MR. BOW: The sludge from the
16
presettling lagoons came out of the thermal
17
12 manufacturing process. Thermal 12 or T12
18
insulation was primarily and largely
19
consisted of lyme and silica sand quartz.
20
Those materials are inert. It did not
21
contain organic materials that you would
22
typically consider to be a chemical and
23
putrescible waste. Therefore, the
24
description as largely inert is accurate in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
56
1
that it was lime material and sand.
2
MR. ORLINSKY: And Ms. Bron's second
3
question: On Page 11 you say the initial
4
facility report on Page 9 has a reference to
5
the waste being inert. For the record, in
6
your discussions and communications with
7
Illinois EPA, is it your understanding that
8
Illinois EPA agreed with the reference to the
9
waste being inert?
10
MR. BOW: They did not agree that it
11
was inert.
12
MR. ORLINSKY: Now, and this is just
13
my question now. If, in fact, there was some
14
chemical and putrescible waste mixed in with
15
the inert waste, would that have any bearing
16
one way or another on this adjusted standard?
17
MR. BOW: Yes.
18
MR. ORLINSKY: It shouldn't have --
19
MR. BOW: It could because the ground
20
water monitoring requirements as a whole,
21
should they have been inert waste, would have
22
been largely different. Because it is
23
chemical and putrescible by definition in a
24
strict sense, we are looking at the ongoing
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
57
1
ground water monitoring that we're currently
2
addressing. So I believe there would be a
3
substantial difference had it been determined
4
to be fully inert. But the presence of
5
cardboard and wood caused it to be considered
6
as a chemical and putrescible waste even
7
though it was largely inert.
8
MR. ORLINSKY: Thank you. I have
9
nothing further.
10
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you.
11
Miss Liu?
12
MS. LIU: Nothing else for me. Thank
13
you.
14
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Terrific.
15
We can go off the record.
16
(Off the record.)
17
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We can go
18
back on the record. We're back on the
19
record. We were just talking about
20
post-hearing briefing schedules. The parties
21
have rested, our technical personnel,
22
Miss Liu, has no further questions. We've
23
agreed on a post-hearing briefing schedule as
24
follows: Mr. Kenney, JM's brief is due --
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
58
1
opening brief is due August the 31st, 2007.
2
The IEPA, Mr. Orlinsky's brief, is due
3
September 12, 2007, and JM's reply, if any,
4
is due September 19, 2007. I'll set public
5
comment for August 17.
6
All right. If there's no
7
further questions, this concludes the
8
hearing, and I appreciate your
9
professionalism. And I apologize, again, for
10
my lateness. I thought the quality of
11
evidence was very enlightening and very good.
12
Thank you so much.
13
(Which were all the
14
proceedings had.)
15
* * * * * *
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
59
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 COUNTY OF COOK )
3
4
I, LAURA BERNAR, being a Certified
5 Shorthand Reporter doing business in the City of
6 Chicago, Illinois, County of Cook, certify that I
7 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
8 foregoing hearing of the above-entitled cause. And
9 I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
10 transcript of all my shorthand notes so taken as
11 aforesaid and contains all the proceedings had at
12 the said meeting of the above-entitled cause.
13
14
15
___________________________
16
LAURA BERNAR, CSR
CSR NO. 084-003592
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292