BEFORE THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SUBJECT OF VERTAC SUPERFUND SITE (GROUND WATER) BE I' this 16th day of July, 1996, a public hearing was held in Jacksonville, Arkansas, before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to hear comments regarding proposed plan of action at the Vertac Superfund Site. Said public hearing began at approximately 7:05 p.m. APPEARANCES: REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U.S. EPA: JOHN DUGDALE PHILIP ALLEN WILLIAM HONKER WREN STENGER DONN WALTERS ROBIN E. JOHNSON, C.C.R. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING 620 WEST 3RD STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115
Transcript
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SUBJECT OFVERTAC SUPERFUND SITE (GROUND WATER)
BE I' this 16th day of July,1 9 9 6 , a public hearing was held in Jacksonville, Arkansas,before the U . S . Environmental Protection Agency to hearcomments regarding proposed plan of action at the VertacSuperfund Site. Said public hearing began atapproximately 7:05 p . m .
A P P E A R A N C E S :
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U . S . EPA:
JOHN DUGDALEPHILIP ALLENWILLIAM HONKERWREN STENGERDONN WALTERS
MR. WALTERS: Let's go ahead and getstarted if we could. It's 7:00 and now it'stime for the meeting and so to stay onschedule for all of those of you who are hereon time, we want to go ahead and get started.
I ' m Donn Walters, EPA SuperfundCommunity Relations, Region 6 , in Dallas.
This is the public meeting for theground water operable unit at the VertacSuperfund Site. This meeting is based uponCERCLA requirements -- ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation andLiability Act requirements -- as well aspublic participation requirements and we'rehere to receive public input on May 31st, 1 9 9 6proposed plan as issued by the EPA.
Let me go through some introductionshere so you will know -- all know who is here.Joining me from the EPA Region 6 is BillHonker, Branch Chief Superfund; Wren Stenger,Section 10 Arkansas/Oklahoma Section; JohnDugdale, Senior Attorney, Superfund --up hereat the front table; and our project managerfor the site, Philip Dellinger and Philip
4
Alien, here on the front.Also with us is Mayor Swain and
Oliver Marshall Smith. We're glad you'rehere.
Any other members of theJacksonville City Council?
From the State ADPC&E -- Jean, wouldyou like to introduce who is with you thisevening?
(THEREUPON, introductions are made.)MR. WALTERS: I believe we have a
representative from the Arkansas Department ofHealth.
DR. CHESSNEY: Just me. DonChessney.
MR. WALTERS: This meeting is withinthe public comment period, which is forty-fiveday comment period and it is running from June12th through July 26th.
Continue to send your comments to mein Dallas. They will become part of theresponse and the summary for the selection ofremedy.
Let me mention a couple of otheradministrative things. Obviously, we have a
5court reporter here this evening to report thecomments on the ground water proposed plan andthe selection of the remedies for that. Ifyou have questions on other matters, we willstay after the formal proceeding to discussthose. We will stay as long as we need to todo that.
Now, I'd like to turn the meetingover to Bill Honker, our branch chief.
MR. HONKER: We have a courtreporter and we're recording all the commentstonight. So the -- the court reporter's nameby the way is Robin Johnson. So to help herI'm going to ask that you all use themicrophones so Chat she can pick up thecomments and questions more effectively. Wereally want to get an accurate record oftonight because comments are important.That's why we're here.
Basically what we're going to dois -- first of all, I refer you Co thisdocument here which outlines the proposed planfor the ground water operable unit. If youhaven't gotten one of those, there's manycopies at the front table and -- this is
probably the most handy guide in terms ofexactly what we're proposing to do here.
We're going to have an initialpresentation by Philip Dellinger, who is ageologist on our staff and has the lead onthis issue. And following that, we'll open itup to comments and questions. As Don said, wewane to keep the on-the-record time to issuesregarding this proposal and the ground waterat the site. If you have questions, comments,et cetera, on other issues, we ask Chat youhold those until we're done with the groundwater discussion and we can send the courtreporter home and wrap that up. And thenwe'll be happy to stay and have a question andanswer period on any other issues that youwould like 10 discuss.
So, I'll turn it over to PhilDellinger for his presentation on exactly whatwe're proposing.
PRESENTATION BY MR. DELLINGER:MR. DELLINGER: First of all, good evening
everybody. What I'm going to do this evening isdescribe the site geology -- the ground water geologyand I'll then describe also the nature of the
contamination.I'll then talk about the three alternatives
for addressing the contaminated ground water at the sitethat we considered and conclude by covering thealternative that forms the basis for our proposed plan.
The site geology at the Vertac site is fairlycomplex. The subsurface rocks at the site are made upof the formation which consists of alternating beds ofsandstones, shale and siltstone.
These beds dip to the north at an angle ofabout thirty degrees. So this is -- the overhead hereis like a slice from north to south - - a vertical slicethrough the surface of the earth. This is a tree tokind of give you some orientation and looking at thebeds dipping to the north at an angle of thirty degrees.
You can see the sandstone units aredifferentiating here and within Chose units that theground water at the site primarily occurs. And in thoseunits, the ground water occurs in fractures within thesandstone.
There is ground water in the sandstone or theshale and siltstone, but it's primarily the sandstonesthat form the subsurface optimum.
I'm going to show another orientation ofdipping beds of sandstone. This is a -- represents a 3D
0000g ^5box. This surface right here is the land surface. The °
top of the box is the land surface. You can see here isRocky Branch Creek cutting the land surface and flowingto the south.
This area would be on the western side ofRocky Branch Creek. The central process area is over onthis side of Rocky Branch Creek. I'm just showing thisdiagram to give a general depiction of the threedimensional subsurface geology. As you can see, thisrepresents a sandstone bed dipping to the north, againat an angle of about thirty degrees.
Now, what I've done on this next overhead issketch on here the same diagram -- what I've sketched onhere are these lines which -- this is a very generalizedsketch. These lines that I've put on here represent thefractures in the sandstones. So in a sense you canthink of these sandstone layers as being cut by aknife -- as if you went along cutting it by a knife andthe trend in this direction.
So, you have a fractured system that isoriented almost east/west. We have a secondaryfractured system and that's represented by these linesor these slices.
Now, it's within those fractured systems thatthe ground water moves; that the contamination
9
infiltrates and moves. It's within those fracturedsystems that the subsurface voracity exists.
So, as you can see, we have a fairly complexgeologic setting.
This overhead represents a map view. We'relooking from above the site.
These shaded areas are where some of thedelineated beds would intersect the surface. So if youlook at the site from above we would see shales, whichare represented by the shaded areas, and sand, which arethe light areas. We see bands of these shales andsands.
So, right in here is the central process areaand it's -- the intersection of these bands is where thewaste is basically entering the ground water -- wherethere have been spills and discards so forth to thesurface. They are entering the subsurface in theseareas.
I hope that gives a picture of the geology.DR. CHESSNEY: I have a question. I always
heard that clay was one of the natural occurrences thatkept the migration of ground water down. You don't sayanything about clay. Is there any clay there at all?
MR. DELLINGER: There's some clay on the site.What we have is -- let me put this other on the
0a>10 2ooverhead. ^
We have a vertical zonation here. This blackarea is just weathered bedrock. And then below that wehave a somewhat weathered bedrock. This black here isjust completely weathered. And there are soils there.And then below the second zone are the consolidatedweathered bedrock. We have an unweathered bedrock. Butwhere we have weathering of the shales in this blackarea you have clay ac the surface. Shale is basicallyweathered clay.
Where you have sands that have weathered overmany years, you'll have more of a sandy soil. So youhave both here on this site. But it's not completelyclay.
Okay. This diagram again is a view fromabove. It's a map view of the site. The centralprocess area boundary is this dark dotted line.
What this diagram depicts is the movement ofthe ground water at the site -- the shallow groundwater. These black arrows indicate the direction of themovement of the ground water. So, this dashed line thatcomes right up through the center of the central processarea is what we call the ground water divide. Thatmeans on the west side of this divide ground water ismoving westward. On the east side of this divide ground
water i e,"•'- ls movlncr »- "2 r6^ . J. ; the east- --e^, " ®3 —————— ;: " th————— „ „ 3round ——— §
4 „- flow ^to two dT ~ you kn0^,the shalln^ ^^ctions5 w grou^ water. ns - at ^ast for
„ and i- »^ that•s to the 9round ———— ,, , ;ent- -.. „ „
..- se. „ ^ ^ ^
J d————— ^ , ,";;——— "- ,
, :—————-°—————. .::::———————— :Lt ;l-nfilt-r-=>f- a-c-ound water
21 ae-::s:;reandthe---e;.l::;trains• •22 the east and west ^wnward
And then •:: ::•"••" — ::":; ""• »"•••..t0 come "P. Over h. ground ^ter i. .-) c •^V'-I. nere i <- / -'--i- ig crrnr.-,—--..,;,; - - r3
12one reason it flows.
Okay. How do we know what's going on withrespect to the ground water and the contamination of thesice? Well, we have numerous monitoring wells to take alook at what the ground water is doing and thesubsurface geology.
This is just a map. Again, the centralprocess area outlined here and it's showing thesemonitoring wells Chat are scattered throughout the site.These monitoring wells -- the locations were selectedstrategically based on the history of the site and thehistory of the spills and the history of activities atthe site surface as well as the nature of the geology --the trend of the beds and so forth.
So this .isn't just a random selection of welllocations. They're determined -- based on what we knowabout the subsurface area of the site.
Okay. Let's talk about the nature of thecontamination a little bit. There have been many areasacross -- particular the northern part of the centralprocess area where there has been releases of waste.I'm talking about this general area here. This is wheremost of the releases that we're dealing with in thisaction originated. We know there's a land fill up hereand a land fill down here that was dealt with in 1984.
13Vertac remedy. But in this action the releaseoriginates from this central process area.
The nature of the contaminates that are --there are dissolve phase contaminates, meaning dissolvein water, and then there are contaminates that areinsoluble in water. We call these insolublecontaminates, non-aqueous phase. Liquids or non-waterphase. It means they don't dissolve very well in water.It's like oil floating on water. That's an example ofnon-aqueous phase.
Some of these non-aqueous phases are lighterthan water so they float on the ground water surfacelike oil does. And then some are heavier than water sothey sink within the ground water columns.
We have both types at the Vertac site and thatpresents a major problem with respect with trying torestore this ground water, particularly when we'redealing with the type of refractured aquifer.
These non-aqueous phase contaminants -- theywill gradually dissolve in ground water. Therefore,they contribute to aqueous phase contamination ordissolve contamination.
Based on the well sampling at the site forcontaminants -- this is a generalized outline of wherethe contaminated ground water plume exists. Now, this
j-14 %
outline -- this blue outline is based on the dissolve ophase contaminants so this is where we have protectedcontamination levels in the ground water from sampling.I might add, this plume is based on the concentration ofall the contaminants at the site. It's not oneparticular contaminant. It's all contaminants at thesite that went into making this plume. So it'sinclusive of all the contaminants.
Okay. We considered three options foraddressing the contaminated ground water.
The first option requires Superfundregulations with no action. No action would allow thisground water plume to move eastward off the site. Sowe're not going to implement that option.
Option No. 2 would be to install a number ofground water producing wells. In this area here towardsthe eastern edge of the site and up here of existingmonitoring wells -- these wells would produce groundwater and based on the tests that have been run at thesite on these wells and ground water, we believe that byproducing these wells we can actually pull this plume --blue outline area -- back on to the site eastward.
The nature of the aquifer being a fracturedaquifer with very low voracity means that you can pump awell here and have a very strong influence for a long
1 )(^15 03way. We believe by pumping this one well we're 0
affecting the subsurface well water all the way off thesite.
So, option 2 involves not only theinstallation of some new wells, but the pumping ofmonitor well 92 and the Reasor-Hill well and that willtry to get some of the non-aqueous phase contaminantsthat were found in the Reasor-Hill well.
These wells will be pumped and the water willbe sent to the existing ground water treatment plant andgo through the treatment there and the resulting waterwill be discharged to the Rocky Branch Creek.
Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 2 withthe exception that additional wells will be installed inthis area here adjacent to this northern land fill wherethere have been -- that's where we found some of thenon-aqueous phase contaminants.
These wells are being installed in an effortto try to produce some of the non-aqueous phasecontaminants out of the aquifer. Instead of justproducing contaminated ground water, we'd actually tryto produce some of these contaminants that are floatingon the ground water surface.
This diagram shows these area -- the result ofinfluence areas. I mentioned earlier how large the zone
016 ®
is that we can affect by pumping one well and that's owhat these shaded areas represent. These shaded areaswould be pulling the ground water back on to the siteback to the west.
The option that we propose in the proposedplan is option or alternative 2 where we do installthese producing wells -- ground water production wellsand produce several wells on the site. There's fourwells shown in this figure. There may be more wells.We're going to get some more information on the geologyand the nature of the aquifer and so this --it may evenbe possible that four wells will be produced.
To test whether our remedy is doing what wewant it to do -- that is, keep contaminants on site,we're going to monitor strategic locations using monitorwells that are around the plume. If we find that thesemonitor wells which will be surrounding the plume starttaking contamination, that's going to be when we'll takeadditional action. Either putting in production wellsor -- that's going to be the test of whether our methodis working. And what we have developed are triggerlevels. These are the levels -- the concentrationswe're proposing that if exceeded will tell us that themethod is not effective. So we will look in themonitoring wells surrounding the plume to see if these
17
levels are ever exceeded. If they are, that means weneed to take additional action.
Okay. In conclusion, due to the complexity ofthe geology, the nature of the contaminants, we're notproposing that the ground water be restored at the site.We're proposing that we contain the ground water on siteby using a series of production wells in the area tokeep the ground water on site.
The aquifer is not used in the area of thedrinking water. The yield -- it doesn't yield enoughground water generally speaking to be used as amunicipal water supply.
I guess we take comments.MR. HONKER: We're now entering the comment
phase of the meeting. Again, we are making a record ofthe meeting. We're Crying to be very meticulous. Ms.Johnson is trying to be very meticulous in gettingcomments and concerns down verbatim. So again I ' d askthat you come to the microphone and use the microphoneso that we can pick it up better for that. Only oneperson talking at a time, et cetera.
I ' d first like to offer elected officials theopportunity to make any comments or statements if you sodesire. Mayor Swain? Do you have anything?
MAYOR SWAIN: No.
0018 S
MR. HONKER: Alderman Smith? §ALDERMAN SMITH: No.
MR. HONKER: In that case, if you've got acomment or a concern, a question, et cetera, regardingthe ground water proposed plan, please come up to themicrophone and -- in the order that you come up.
MR. WALTERS: And be sure to clearly identifyyourself for the record.
MR. HONKER: Yes. Please state your name atthe beginning of your comment.
DR. CHESSNEY: My name is Dr. Tom Chessney.I' d like to know how deep are the monitoring wells --how far down to the aquifer?
MR. DELLINGER: The ground water on the siteis generally five to ten feet below the surface. Themonitoring wells vary in range from just ten feet allthe way down to 242 feet is the deepest monitoring well.
The monitoring wells are installed - youremember those three vertical zones? A series of themwere installed in the uppermost zone, a series in themiddle zone and a series for the deeper zone. So, wehave a range of wells ranging -- most of the wells areless than fifty feet deep.
DR. CHESSNEY: I just wonder now if thecontamination will be continual into perpetuity. How do
19we stand on this? Is this a thing that goes on for --is there varied material there leaking into the aquifer?
MR. DELLINGER: There is varying material inthe north landfill and then possibly other areas of thesite that will contribute -- dissolve phasecontamination for the foreseeable future. The areas tothe west that were addressed in the Vertac remedy, thefrench drain installation and so forth, but, yes. Toanswer your question, basically it will be from now on.There will be contamination contributed from the variouswastes.
DR. CHESSNEY: The figures show theunderground -- ground water contaminants -- that's thefirst time I'd ever seen that and Chat's really what Iwanted to see tonight. Thank you.
MR. DELLINGER: Thank you for that input.MR. HONKER: Thank you. Anyone else have a
comment?MR. FERGUSON: My name is Gregory Ferguson.
And I have a couple of things.First of all, the last time we were here I
believe -- if I recall my notes correctly there was somecontamination that was found off site on the other sideof Marshall Road and then I noticed on your map with theblue lines that it looks like the contamination had
20 §t~T——lmoved inside Marshall Road. 00
MR. DELLINGER: We don't have monitoring wellsfor the other side of Marshall Road. We don't know ifcontamination is on the other side of Marshall Road.
We know contamination exists as far east asmonitor well 9 4 , which you can't hardly see because it'slocated right here. We suspect the contamination isactually probably off site. It's just outside of thesite boundaries. But there are no -- we don't have anymonitor wells to verify this on the other side ofMarshall Road.
MR. FERGUSON: Why not?
MR. DELLINGER: I' m not sure why there weren'tany monitor wells put over there.
MR. FERGUSON: So, this could be completelyinaccurate. Your designation of contamination beingwithin the site could be completely inaccurate?
MR. DELLINGER: No. I think the level ofcontamination indicated in these wells out here suggestthat we're very near the end of the plume.
MR. FERGUSON: But that's the ground waterplume and not the nappa plume, is that correct?
MR. DELLINGER: That's correct. It's thedissolve phase plume. There's no nappas out of thesewells in the eastern part of the site.
„- 021 f-
MR. FERGUSON: But you don't have a map like §this where the nappa plume would be?
MR. DELLINGER: No.
MR. FERGUSON: Is there any possibility ofgetting the sample results from the wells? I thinksomeone had asked about that the last time we were here.
MR. DELLINGER: Yes. That should be availableunder the Freedom of Information Act.
MR. FERGUSON: I was contacted by some peoplewho like Dr. Chessney are concerned about how muchcontamination was present on this site and during someof my research I came upon a -- some testimony infederal court from a Mr. Honey, who used to work forHercules out at the plant. In his testimony -- I've gota copy for the court reporter, too, so -- but I wouldlike to read portions of it.
This was taken before Judge Carl Ruben onFebruary 1 6 , 1988, in Little Rock and there was aquestion:
" Q While you were working at Herculeswas there any chemical waste produced?A Yes, sir.Q Did you dump that waste?A I dumped it. Yes, sir.Q Where did you dump that waste? Name
(N22 g
0all the place where you dumped the waste oand we'll get into those in more detail.A Well, I dumped it on the southwestside. I dumped on the northwest side. Ihauled it in drums and small amounts ofit all mixed together in drums out to theCity dump."
And then let's skip on over to page 2 9 9 ." Q Were there large pits dug on theside?A Yes. Large pits.Q This, again, is in the same areasouth of the plant site, is that right?A Well, some of it was south of thesite and some of it was northwest. Wedid it over the years both places."
And then there was a question:" Q Did you see any water in those pits?A Yes, sir.Q Now, I take it that Hercules coveredover with something at that point, isthat right?A We have covered them over severaltimes, yes, sir.Q Why did you have to do that?
23A It kept rusting down, settling down,and over the years some of it come to thetop.Q Did you ever see any of thechemicals from those pits come out on thesurface?A Yes, sir.Q Where did the chemicals that cameout on the surface go to?A Down Rocky Creek -- just everywherethey cook a notion to go, I suppose."
And on page 301:" Q We've been talking about the burialsouth of the plant site. Mow I want toask you were there other places on theplant where wastes were buried?A Yes. There was north. We buriedthe barrels, tank trucks, with front endloaders, basically anything we could getat one time for waste material."
Skipping over to page 308 of the transcript:Q Now, let's talk right now about whatyou dumped on the plant site all aroundthe plant, and if you can tell me, if youknow, what types of chemicals were in
24
there.A Basically anything they made was init. Of all the kinds of herbicides, Iwouldn't know. There was a lot of theherbicides that they made, plus what theybrought in would be raw materials, sacks,barrels, and so forth. You would do thesame thing with them. Now, are youtalking about dumping it on the plant?Q Yes, sir.
Let me ask you first about on-site. Was there something called goopthat you picked up?A Yes. You picked up goop around atall the area of it, a certain amount.There was some that was left over thatthey would barrel up, but if it run overor a piece or in any way might come, itwould set out in a trash carrier pickup,you know. It could be a 100 pounds to asmall amount on up.Q Is this goop that we're talkingabout the same stuff that would eatthrough metal?A Basically, yes. I think it would
u025 rseat through anything. We barreled it up °
and put it in tanks of all things, andover the years it would eat through it.Q Was there something else calledstill bottoms?A Yes. It was another form of goop.It come from basically -- well, it wasmade and made all over the plant but itcome to the recovery unit and that'swhere it was washed, settled out and thatwas the goop part. I don't know justlike I said -- it come from probably allunits."
And then I' m skipping a question." Q As far as this goop goes or thestill bottoms, is that something thatHercules didn't want? Is that why it wasbeing thrown away?A Yes, sir. It was something thatthey could not make no product out of oranything that I knew of.Q Was it the stuff left over in thetanks after they made their product?A Well, no. It was - - i t come out ofthe product of all the mixtures of
26chemicals, the goop. To my knowledgethat's where it accumulated from. It wassettlings out of it and basically that'swhere -- my understanding it was from.Q Now, we're talking before lunchabout the north burial area, thenorthwest burial area in the northernpart of the plant. If you can, pleasetell the jury if there was any dumpingout in that area.A Yeah, I have dumped. Basically,most all I ever dumped out there wasliquid barrels, dumped with a tank truckwith a tank unit, and that way a form ofa front end loader or a forklift, youknow -- but basically it was either in atank truck or barrels, liquid.Q Okay. Now, you mentioned a tanktruck. How big was the tank on thattruck? Do you recall, sir?A I aim to guess it was probably froma 500 to 800 gallon tank. It was a largecank.Q And how many times in one shift didyou take the tank loads of goop of still
27
bottoms out to the north burial ground?A Well, basically I would say fivetimes in eight hours, but that couldvary. We used a vacuum pump a lot oftimes to load it. If your material waslight -- you know, your vacuum, it's apump sumping it up and you could load itpretty quick. But I would say at leastfive times in up to eight hours.Q What about barrels? How manybarrels would you take out there in eighthours?A Well, a lot of times the pits wouldbe dug and the barrels would be sittingright on the edge of the pit. Well, youcould take a forklift where they wasstacked chree high and just dump themover in it. I would say you could dump1,000 of them.Q In one shift?A In one shift. You take, if you dumpquickly sixteen barrels in a pickup andjust, you know, moving no distances.Now, there was different varies ondifferent times, but you asked me the most.
00028 C-3Q Yes, sir. OA I don't know that, but like I said,a lot of it was on the soil. If you werehaving to run the forklifts over it, ifit was drying good you could move more.If it was bad, you know, muddy, it gotmuddy or slick on you, you could moveless.Q Now, I'm trying to picture thesebarrels there. When you were puttingthem into the pits with a forklift, werethose barrels placed into the pit?A No. We just run up here and dumpedthem over, pallets and all. We wouldtilt our lift forward. I don't knowwhether anybody understands it, but aforklift can pick up two pallets, threepallets, ever what you could get on it.Five thousand pounds basically. That'swhat our lifts was and up. But you wouldrun under there and pick a pallet up andyou would have two stack, three stackedhigher -- three, you could go up thereand tilt it way forward and it would justslide off into the hole.
0\029 ^
0Q Now, would the barrels break open °when they hit?A Yes. They was mostly bad damagedbarrels that they would be putting inthem. They was leaky. Some of them comein two. When they would hit, they wouldjust splatter like you would drop an egg.Q Did you ever see any liquid in thosetrenches?A Yes, sir. I seen thousands ofgallons in it. It comes from the barrelsand from the dump trucks --or tanktrucks. You know, you might --basically, they, a lot of times wouldfill it up with liquid and then go toputting barrels and pallets and stuff,you know, on the very top of it.Q Did you ever see any ground water inthose trenches?A Yes, sir. I've seen a lot of timesground water, rust, chemicals, basicallyanything in it. If we made it out thereor if they bought it and brought it inthere, eventually some of it, to acertain point, was in it.
30Q Now, in these pits -- let me ask youwhat the goop was like.A The goop, when it was hot was like athin tarry substance. It would get coldand it was still. You know, it was likecoal tar. It was stiff. It would jusstick and you couldn't scrape it off withthe ground or nothing. You know, I mean,it was a big job like asphalt almost, youknow, if it got cold or nothing.Q What color was it?A Black.Q Now, let me ask you if Hercules whenthey were there having these pits dugwould fill them in after they were fullof dirt.A They would cover them over, yes,sir.Q Did you ever see any problems withthe covering on these trenches in thenorth burial area?A Over the years? Yes, I've seen --I've seen it come out of the ground.I've seen it run through the ground. Youcould dig a hole away from it with a --
31
for instance I run --we would run a 00power line down a good ways form it and Iseen them holes full of -- it looked likeliquid stuff and that was the way throughthe ground for -- basically I don't knowhow far. It was a long distance. As faras down to the creek south and north ofRocky Creek, I have seen it come up outof the ground, you know, and down towardthe bottom of the creek. When the creekwould get low you could see it.Q Would it come out of the ground uparound the north burial area?A Yes, sir. Yes, sir. It come out ofthe ground up north and down on the southbasin down there, you cold see it on topof it. Basically you could see it workout. Well, I don't know. It was justlike motor oil. You cold see it. Itwould just start working through theground and it might be a pretty goodstream, you know, not no gush, but I'mtalking about for 100 yards down,probably all the way down. But most ofthe time, you know, I wouldn't travel
(N32 ^
that far a distance down it. But you ocould find it.Q Did you ever see it go into thecreek?A Yes. That's where I'm talking aboutit was going, coming up.Q It would go down the creek, you'resaying?A Yeah. It went down the creek. Hadto.Q Now, in this north burial area we'vebeen talking about -- was that area everwet or soggy?A Yes, sir. It was like any otherpart of the country, you know. It had --it was wet and soggy, yes.Q Did you ever see water standing outthere?A Yes.Q Over the top of these trenches wherethe barrels were buried?A I've seen them run over, be full andrunning towards Rocky Creek.Q The trenches, themselves, would runover?
33A The trenches themselves arebasically -- probably a hundred yardsor -- it's probably further than that,but I don't want to overestimate. But Iwold say it was at least a hundred yards.Yeah, it would run over and go down inthere. And basically it was covered uppretty quick then, you know. When it wasthat full, but it had done i t . "
And so chat -- pardon the length of that, butthat gives some idea about some of the contaminationthat was -- that went on and was in the area that we'redealing with.
I just wanted to make sure that the publicknows that there's map of the concentrated wastesthemselves and there's no telling where they go becausethey may not go in the same direction that ground waterdoes. I think you can confirm that; that the nappaplume does not necessary flow in the same direction asground water. Is that not correct?
MR. DELLINGER: Yes. Non-aqueous phaseliquids are those that are heavy in water. It goes --they're controlled by gravity. They go down hill.You're right.
MR. FERGUSON: All right. That's all I have.
t-34 ^
MR. DELLINGER: Let me just elaborate on that ojust a little bit.
We know - - w e know that there's been widespread areas where waste has been disposed in past wastepractices. We know the land fill is out there. We knowthere's a lot of speculation and so forth that it's beendumped and spilled and leaked all over this projectarea.
With regard to the movement of the nappas.They do go down -- they try to go down. They'reaffected by gravity. They're heavier than water sothey're going to continue to go down.
At the site as we mentioned earlier, the bedsdip approximately 30 degrees to the north. So if thesenappas exist, they're going to want to move downward andif they follow the bedding planes, which is apossibility, they will move -- here's the groundsurface. Let's call this a sandstone bed. They willmove down hill regardless of the direction of the groundwater flow.
If this dip is 30 degrees here and they move athousand feet -- say this is a thousand feet -- fromthis point to this point, that means they're down to adepth of about 600 feet.
So, my point is, it doesn't take very far
moving north along one of these sandstone beds beforeyou are so deep that -- you know, that the water wouldnot be -- the productivity is so low any way there wouldbe no wells there. It's too deep.
A thousand feet on this map -- there's eighthundred feet. So, here's the central bed. That's wherea lot of the waste is dumped. For something to move --it would move down the bedding planes and down the hillas we've described. By the time it gets to about righthere it's going to be six hundred feet deep yet we'restill on the site boundary. As you move northward it'sjust going to go deeper and deeper.
MR. HONKER: Phil, one point ofclarification. Mr. Ferguson asked about theavailable of ground water sampling data. Isthat data in the administrative records?
MR. DELLINGER: Yes. Some of the data isin the administrative record. There was arecent round of sampling that we just - - w ejust received some of the data that was --wejust received it like within the last fewdays.
MR. HONKER: Is that the only data that'snot in the record right now?
MR. DELLINGER: Yes, it should be.
36
MR. HONKER: Why don't we -- we'll checkwhile we're here tomorrow and see what is inthe record and what isn't. And any that isn'tin the record we'll get it up here pronto.Okay. Any other comments?
MR. WALTERS: Bill, let me add one thing.We have copies on the table over here of theseearlier written comment page. Again, it wasin the fact sheet. If you're more comfortableor prefer submitting written copies to us,please, use that and we have a mailing addresson it if you prefer to do that as well.
MR. GRUNNAGLE: And, also, the commentperiod is up till the 26th of July. So youstill -- if you want to submit any comments inaddition to this, you can mail it in.
MR. HONKER: If you have any furthercomments tonight on the ground water proposedplan, leave them with us and if you want tosend in comments -- if you don't want to leavethem with us, the address is in the handoutand we will be accepting those by July 26th.
Okay. Any further comments tonight onthe ground water proposed plan? Last call.
Again, I encourage you to submit written
comments and concerns by the 26th of July. Ifthere are no further comments, it's 7:50 andI'll declare the record closed in terms of theground water operable unit and we'll go offthe record.
(THEREUPON, the public hearing concludedat 7: 5 0 p . m . )
38oor^
STATE OF ARKANSAS ) §) SS.
COUNTY OF PULASKI )BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing public hearing
was taken before me, ROBIN E . JOHNSON, Certified CourtReporter and Notary Public in and for the County ofPulaski, State of Arkansas; that the foregoing pages area true and correct transcript of all proceedings had uponthe taking of said public hearing, all done to the best ofmy skill and ability.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am in no way related toany of the parties hereto nor am I in any way interestedin the outcome hereof.
DATED at Little Rock, Arkansas, this 26th day of)
July, 1 9 9 6 . / -^,/ /' \ /
\ ROB-IN E. JOHNSON, C . C . R .Certificate/No. 319
