deposition reporters ca - records collections · 2020-05-17 · deposition reporters corporate...

The U.S. Bank Building 2890 N. Main Street, Suite 304 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: ( 415 956-9400 Fax: ( 415-956-9406

CAROL NYGARD & ASSOCIAIES

DEPOSITION REPORTERS

Corporate Office 2295 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 170 Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone: (916) 928-8999 Fax: (916) 928-9989

The Standard Oil Building 225 Bush Street, Suite 1830 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 956-9400 Fax: (415) 956-9406

The following changes and con·ections are to be included in the original and all copies of the transcript for the Public Meeting Re: LEHR UCO P1·oposed Plan, February 10, 2015.

Page 3, line 22: Page 4, line 2: Page 4, line 5: Page 4, line 20: Page 4, line 21 : Page 6, line 7: Page 8, line 3: Page 8, line 7: Page 9, line 9: Page 9, line 11: Page 9, line 15: Page lO, line 2: 0, line 6: Page 10, line 7: Page 10, line 14: Page 11, line 6: Page 12, line 5: Page 12, line 22: Page 17, line 1: Page 17, line 9: Page 18, lines 4, 6: Page 20, line 27: Page 29, line 6:

"responsive summary" should read "responsiveness swnmary" "responsive summary" should read ••responsiveness summary" ;•local paper" should read "local newspaper" '"Substance" should read "Substances" '"Regional Water Board" should read .. Regional Water Quality Board" Should be "'have" not "had" Should be "cobalt" not "coal" Should be "Waste Burial Holes" not ••waste Area Holes" [unintelligible] should be ••runoff" Should be "'and the" not "of the" Should be "done?" Should he "the heterogeneous,' Should be "The presumptive remedy" Should be "hauled" not ••all" Should be "the landfilJ cap" not "the land." Should be "modifying" not "modified" Should be "completion" instead of 11complete insulation" Should be '"wastes" instead of ••waste." Should be .. chloroform plume" not ··chloroform" Should be "maximum" not "maximal'> Should be "vadose zone" not "vadose" Should be ••graded" not "grated" "'local paper" should read ••1ocal newspaper"

J s~ Production Manager Carol Nygard & Associates

www.SacramentoCourtReporter.com www .SanFranciscoCourtReporter.com www.WalnutCreekCourtReporter.com

Toll Free: (877) 438-7787

SEMS-RM DOCID # 1161781

0f7f3f19-6de8-4139-b148-8721e487a98dElectronically signed by Charlotte Mathias (101-349-127-4150)

[1]

2/10/2015

Carol Nygard and Associates (916) 928-8999

PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE

LABORATORY FOR ENERGY-RELATED HEALTH

RESEARCH (LEHR)/OLD CAMPUS LANDFILL (OCL)

UC DAVIS, HOAGLAND HALL

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2015

6:00 p.m. - 6:46 p.m.


[2]

2/10/2015


1 JACKIE LANE: I think we're ready to get

2 started. Good evening, everyone. I would like to

3 thank each of you for coming out tonight and your

4 involvement in the cleanup decisions of the Laboratory

5 for Energy-Related Health Research/Old Campus Landfill

6 superfund site, which I will never say that again, but

7 I'll refer to it as LEHR Superfund site for the rest of

8 the evening. It's much appreciated.

9 Tonight, the proposed plan that the EPA is

10 presenting is concentrated on reducing risk associated

11 with the three landfills on the Davis campus, and we

12 will address any groundwater contamination concerns in

13 a separate plan.

14 My name is Jackie Lane. I'm a community

15 involvement coordinator with the Environmental

16 Protection Agency, and my office is located in San

17 Francisco. I hope I made sure and so did Sue that you

18 guys all signed in and that you picked up the fact

19 sheet and the presentation -- tonight's presentation.

20 If you did not get the presentation -- the

21 fact sheet in the mail, please see me and I'll make

22 sure you're on our mailing list and get future

23 mailings.

24 Also, David Stensby, who is the remedial

25 project manager, and myself, our contact information is


[3]

2/10/2015


1 both on the fact sheet as well as the presentation so

2 that you can get in touch with us whenever you need to.

3 In addition to the presentation tonight, we

4 will be taking formal, verbal comments after David's

5 presentation, and we do have a court reporter here with

6 us tonight.

7 The public -- I want to remind you that the

8 public comment period started January 28th and ends on

9 February 26th, and we will be receiving, in writing,

10 comments by e-mail, fax, or postmarked no later than

11 February 26th.

12 I think that's everything. Our presentation

13 is kind of short, but we would like you, if you could,

14 to hold your questions until the end of the

15 presentation. And the only kind of questions that we

16 will entertain are those that are for clarification

17 purposes for the presentation.

18 If I think at that time your question is more

19 of a statement or a comment, I will interrupt you and

20 ask you for your name and ask you to spell it and let

21 you know that we will be responding to that in our

22 responsive summary.

23 When we do do the recording of verbal

24 comments, I will facilitate that portion of our

25 meeting. And all of the comments that we receive in


[4]

2/10/2015


1 writing or tonight will be reviewed and will be

2 addressed in what we call our responsive summary, which

3 will be attached to our record of decision, which

4 memorializes EPA's selected cleanup decision.

5 I will put a notice in the local paper letting

6 you know that's available. It will be also available

7 online at our EPA web address that's in our fact sheet,

8 and then we'll probably be sending out a notice in the

9 mail to let you know that's available as well.

10 Do you have any questions about that so far?

11 And I don't know if anyone knows, but the restrooms are

12 located to your left and through the double doors. And

13 because it's after 6:00, we have to get a key from Sue

14 Fields in order to get access. But it does have the

15 water fountain and everything you need.

16 I'd to take a little time and introduce a few

17 people. We have Caleb Shaffer here, who is our site

18 cleanup section chief that houses the LEHR site. And

19 then we also have Steve Sterling here from the

20 Department of Toxic Substance Control, and we have

21 Durin Linderholm from the Regional Water Control Board.

22 These are some of the regulators that are partners with

23 us and have helped us along the way in getting to where

24 we are today. So we have been through that.

25 So now, to get to why we're here today, David


[5]

2/10/2015


1 Stensby -- let's see if I can do this, okay -- will

2 give us an overview of the history of the site. He'll

3 talk about the cleanup alternatives that the EPA has

4 considered. He'll talk more explicitly about the EPA's

5 preferred proposed plan, and then address your

6 clarification questions at the end of his talk.

7 When you are speaking, we especially ask you

8 to speak loudly and clearly, so the court reporter can

9 get all of your statements or your information as best

10 that she can. And she's told me to make sure you slow

11 down a little bit.

12 Also, I would like to especially thank Sue

13 Fields for hosting us tonight, as well as providing

14 some of the refreshments that you see here tonight and

15 also assisting me with logistics. I really appreciate

16 that assistance. And she also wanted me to mention

17 that they have composting, so if you can make sure your

18 bottles and compostable items meet the right

19 receptacle, that would be appreciated.

20 And then without further ado, I would like to

21 have David come up and do his part of the presentation,

22 and then I'll be back and facilitate the public comment

23 portion.

24 DAVID STENSBY: Thank you, Jackie. Glad to

25 see so many people here tonight.


[6]

2/10/2015


1 So I'm going to start by talking a little bit

2 about superfund. Superfund was created in 1980 when

3 Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental

4 Response Compensation and Liability Act, which is

5 usually referred to as CERCLA.

6 Superfund created a system of dealing with

7 hazardous substances and pollutants that had been

8 released in the environment, and the site cleanup

9 process is what's used to address the environmental

10 releases. During the site cleanup process, information

11 is gathered and analyzed, and the parties responsible

12 for the contamination are held accountable.

13 So this slide just shows the steps in the site

14 cleanup process. And the first three steps are the

15 preliminary assessment/site inspection, the remedial

16 investigation, and the feasibility study. Information

17 is gathered during these three steps to understand the

18 nature and extent of the contamination and develop

19 potential solutions for cleanup.

20 We are here tonight at the proposed plan stage

21 which follows the feasibility study.

22 SUE FIELDS: Might I just interrupt you, if I

23 could, David? Are you able to hear him?

24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm having trouble hearing.

25 SUE FIELDS: Would you like to use a


[7]

2/10/2015


1 microphone?

2 DAVID STENSBY: Sure.

3 SUE FIELDS: It will just take me two seconds.

4 Sorry to interrupt you.

5 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm sitting in the front row

6 and I'm having trouble hearing.

7 SUE FIELDS: And we'll have to adjust to see

8 how the volume works here.

9 (Pause in proceeding.)

10 DAVID STENSBY: I feel I should be running up

11 the runway or something here. Is that too loud? Okay.

12 So the proposed plan stage is an important

13 step where EPA presents and asks for public comments.

14 The cleanup decision is then selected in the record of

15 decision, and a detailed plan for carrying out the

16 cleanup, called the remedial design, is developed and

17 implemented in the remedial action.

18 And then depending on the type of remedy, you

19 can either be finished with the cleanup or in other

20 cases, depending on the remedy, post-remedy monitoring

21 and long-term maintenance.

22 So now I would like to talk a little bit about

23 site history. This is an aerial view of the dog pens

24 that were used to house beagles for research on the

25 effects of radiation on mammals to better understand


[8]

2/10/2015


1 how radiation would affect humans. And the research

2 was done using radioactive forms of radium, strontium

3 and coal. LEHR was a Department of Energy sponsored

4 lab operated by UC Davis from the early '50s to 1988,

5 and it was identified as a superfund site in 1984 due

6 to releases of hazardous materials to soil and

7 groundwater.

8 DOE and UC Davis are responsible for cleaning

9 up specific areas of this site. The DOE portion of the

10 site already has the record of decision and has

11 implemented the selected remedy.

12 This slide shows the UC Davis solid waste

13 areas. So landfill 1 operated from the mid '40s to the

14 mid '50s, landfill 2 operated from the mid '50s to the

15 mid '60s, and landfill 3 operated during the '60s.

16 In addition, there are four solid waste

17 disposal areas. Waste area holes, which are right

18 there, received campus radioactive waste from 1957 to

19 '65. And the Hopland Field Station Disposal Area also

20 received waste from radiologic experiments conducted in

21 1965 to '68. And eastern trenches, which are there,

22 and southern trenches received waste from the -- from

23 the '60s -- sorry -- from 1957 to 1965.

24 There have been investigations done at solid

25 waste areas since 1988, including soil and soil vapor


[9]

2/10/2015


1 sampling. The contaminants that have been identified

2 were metals; volatile organic compounds, or VOCs;

3 pesticides; polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs;

4 polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs; and radioactive

5 carbon, cesium, strontium, and tritium. Previous work

6 has been done at the site.

7 Activities so far have been lining the eastern

8 drainage trench of the landfill with concrete. That

9 was to prevent [unintelligible] from eroding the

10 landfill.

11 Excavation of the waste burial holes of the

12 southern trenches also removed -- which are here --

13 also removed identifiable radiological waste and then

14 the soil was put back in the trenches.

15 So what still needs to be done. EPA is

16 proposing a presumptive remedy for solid waste disposal

17 areas. Presumptive remedies are preferred technologies

18 for common categories of sites based on historic

19 patterns of remedy selection and EPA's evaluation of

20 the performance data from those selected remedies.

21 EPA's presumptive remedy for landfills is

22 containment, in this case, by capping the existing

23 landfills. This has several advantages. It minimizes

24 the possibility that the risk assessment may

25 underestimate the actual risk. It is difficult to


[10]

2/10/2015


1 completely characterize the nature and extent of the

2 contamination in landfills due to heterogeneous nature

3 of the waste disposed and the uncertainty as to where

4 the waste was disposed and how much was actually

5 placed.

6 Presumptive remedy also avoids exposing the

7 community to contamination, as the wastes are all

8 offsite for disposal to another landfill offsite,

9 designed to hold hazardous wastes. Capping will

10 permanently isolate the waste. Land use controls, such

11 as deed notices and fences, will limit human access and

12 protect landfill caps. Annual inspections and

13 five-year reviews will further protect the integrity of

14 the land.

15 So here's the summary of alternatives

16 considered. EPA considered ten alternatives in total

17 and your handout has details of all alternatives. If

18 you didn't get a handout at the door, you might raise

19 your hand if you want to see one now.

20 SW-1 is the no action alternative. This is

21 required by law and nothing is done, and the landfills

22 will be left as they are.

23 SW-2 through SW-10 consider a range of

24 alternatives from simple grading, SW-2, to complete

25 excavation and offsite disposal of the landfills and


[11]

2/10/2015


1 other hazardous waste landfills, SW-10.

2 I'll talk a little bit about EPA's remedy

3 selection process. EPA uses nine criteria to evaluate

4 alternatives. The first two are threshold criteria,

5 and they are protection of human health and environment

6 and compliance with applicable or relevant and

7 appropriate requirements or ARARs, to be considered,

8 any remedy must meet these two threshold criteria.

9 Then there are five balancing criteria.

10 Balancing criteria are used to compare

11 alternatives and provide the basis for EPA's decision

12 to choose a preferred remedy. They are long- and

13 short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, and

14 the opportunity for reduction to the volume, toxicity,

15 or mobility of waste.

16 The last two criteria are modified criteria,

17 and they are state and community acceptance, which is

18 part of the public comment process.

19 This side shows the features of EPA's

20 preferred remedy. EPA has chosen SW-6 as our preferred

21 alternative. Your handout and this poster shows how

22 EPA ranked all ten alternatives to the selection of

23 SW-6 as the preferred remedy. So the features on that,

24 the yellow squares are VOC hot spot areas that will be

25 excavated. The purple is where the additional


[12]

2/10/2015


1 trenching will be done in the Hopland Field Station

2 Disposal Area and southern trenches to determine and

3 fully characterize any waste that is placed there.

4 The dark gray areas are buildings that will be

5 demolished to allow complete insulation of the proposed

6 landfill caps. And the gray areas -- they're kind of

7 difficult to see on that, but are easier to see on

8 this -- are the actual areas proposed for landfill

9 caps.

10 Finally, the blue areas are storm water

11 drainage enhancements that will catch the storm water

12 runoff and allow the solids to settle before

13 discharging.

14 So this slide summarizes EPA's preferred

15 alternative and has a diagram of a typical

16 multi-layered cap. SW-6 was modified since it was

17 originally presented in the feasibility study to align

18 more closely with EPA's presumptive remedy for the

19 landfills. It leaves soil and waste largely

20 undisturbed, but it does include excavation and offsite

21 disposal. In hot spot areas, trenching to determine if

22 the waste in the Hopland Field Station Disposal Area

23 and the southern trenches are there, and if wastes are

24 found in the area, the landfill cap will cover and be

25 extended to cover those areas.


[13]

2/10/2015


1 A multi-layer cap similar to the one shown on

2 the slide will cover each of three landfills. A

3 typical multi-layer cap consists of a topsoil layer, a

4 bio-barrier and protection layer, a drainage layer, and

5 geomembrane, and an impermeable liner, and foundation

6 layer.

7 There will be grading enhancements to capture

8 storm water runoff to allow solids to settle,

9 institutional controls will protect the landfill caps,

10 and groundwater monitoring will ensure the caps are

11 performing as expected.

12 So that concludes my summary of SW-6, EPA's

13 preferred alternative for the old campus landfills, and

14 I'm turning it back to Jackie for questions and

15 comments.

16 JACKIE LANE: Okay. Are there any questions

17 for David? Clarification questions about the

18 presentation?

19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Question. What is the

20 specific VOCs?

21 DAVID STENSBY: I think it's the standard --

22 there's a range. The primary ones are, -- and Karla

23 correct me if I'm wrong -- are TCE and PCE?

24 KARLA BRASAEMLE: No. Chloroform.

25 DAVID STENSBY: Chloroform. It's -- it's


[14]

2/10/2015


1 involved, but yeah, chloroform is the main one.

2 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Chloroform?

3 DAVID STENSBY: Yeah.

4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: That makes sense. What

5 would be the second most important?

6 DAVID STENSBY: I think -- Karla, TCE?

7 KARLA BRASAEMLE: What did you find, Bill?

8 BILL McILURIDE: DCA.

9 KARLA BRASAEMLE: 1,2-DCA?

10 BILL McILURIDE: 1,1-DCA.

11 KARLA BRASAEMLE: Oh, 1,1-DCA. Okay, so

12 1,1-dichloroethane.

13 BILL McILURIDE: And 1,2 -- and those are

14 actually at the hydropunch, groundwater sampling, I

15 guess you could say. And 1,1,2-TCA.

16 KARLA BRASAEMLE: 1,1,2-trichloroethane.

17 BILL McILURIDE: 1,1,2-trichloroethane.

18 DAVID STENSBY: Those are the recent samples?

19 KARLA BRASAEMLE: Yes.

20 BILL McILURIDE: And recent groundwater

21 samples as well. The MIP did not detect specifically

22 VOCs. It was calibrated for chloroform. But we -- it

23 doesn't distinguish between different VOCs.

24 KARLA BRASAEMLE: But the groundwater samples

25 did.


[15]

2/10/2015


1 BILL McILURIDE: The groundwater samples told

2 us what the MIP signals actually consisted of.

3 KARLA BRASAEMLE: This investigation just

4 happened within the past six months or so, I think.

5 BILL McILURIDE: It was in June of last year.

6 KARLA BRASAEMLE: June. Eight months.

7 JACKIE LANE: Does that answer your question?

8 Any other questions? So do we have anyone that's going

9 to give formal comment tonight? If you would mind.

10 FRED LEE: Fred Lee.

11 JACKIE LANE: Thank you.

12 FRED LEE: What is known about the current

13 pollution of the groundwater by the landfills? The

14 existing situation?

15 DAVID STENSBY: So is this a question?

16 FRED LEE: Yeah.

17 KARLA BRASAEMLE: Do you want me to try that

18 one?

19 DAVID STENSBY: Yeah.

20 KARLA BRASAEMLE: The -- recently -- actually,

21 coming out of what they found -- what the investigation

22 that they just did was in -- okay. It was in this area

23 here. This is the DDC area, where the chloroform

24 source area was believed to be and where they were

25 running an in-ground treatment system, essentially.


[16]

2/10/2015


1 And in order to evaluate the extent -- the

2 sources of this contamination, and to further refine

3 it, they did basically a membrane interface probe

4 investigation. That's what Bill was helping us by

5 providing some information.

6 And so that then revealed there were some

7 other VOCs and some other hot spots that we didn't know

8 existed. And so there are a number of hot spots in

9 this general area at depths ranging from about 15 to

10 17 feet to 80 feet or so, I think it was.

11 BILL McILURIDE: Yeah, 80 or even 90 feet.

12 DAVID STENSBY: That was the big, new

13 information, that it was deeper than originally

14 thought?

15 BILL McILURIDE: Yeah.

16 KARLA BRASAEMLE: So this groundwater, by the

17 way, we're still -- they're still in the process of --

18 UC is still in the process of investigating the extent

19 of groundwater contaminations, the sources of it, and

20 running some treatability studies.

21 Groundwater is going to be dealt with in a

22 separate record of decision. So there will an upcoming

23 feasibility study sometime in the next couple of years,

24 and there will a separate proposed plan meeting and a

25 separate decision for that.


[17]

2/10/2015


1 But the main chloroform basically extends out

2 into this area here. There is also then a hexavalent

3 chromium plume that's kind of centered in here, and it

4 extends -- it may extend offsite. There's still --

5 we're still doing work to try to evaluate the

6 background concentrations.

7 There are -- historically, there was a small

8 carbon 14 and tritium plume in this area, but the

9 concentrations are below the maximal contaminant

10 levels. And -- let's see. I think -- you know, there

11 have been some -- you know, there are some issues with

12 nitrate. And what they actually found is that the

13 nitrate and the hexavalent chromium, basically

14 concentrations above the current MCL extend over most

15 of the -- a good deal of the site, and the extent of

16 that is still being investigated, which is why they're

17 not ready to do a groundwater ROD.

18 But it's hoped that when the landfill caps are

19 put on, that if the landfills are providing a source,

20 that that will stop the landfills from being an ongoing

21 source to groundwater, because you'll no longer have

22 groundwater infiltrating through the caps, and

23 dissolving the contaminants into groundwater.

24 So by capping these landfills, we're hoping

25 that any of that would stop. So I mean that's the way


[18]

2/10/2015


1 it's supposed -- that's the way it's supposed to

2 happen, because the landfills themselves are above

3 groundwater. So they're only in the top 30 or 40 feet

4 of the vadose, and maybe not even that deep. 20 feet?

5 BILL McILURIDE: No. Less than 20 feet.

6 KARLA BRASAEMLE: 20 feet of the vadose. So

7 groundwater usually doesn't come up much above 35 feet

8 below the ground surface. So there should be a 10- or

9 15-foot barrier between -- soil barrier between

10 groundwater and the landfill, so if we stop the

11 water -- rain water from infiltrating through the

12 landfill, it will stop any contaminants from dissolving

13 out of the landfills.

14 FRED LEE: What's the cost of this cap?

15 DAVID STENSBY: Approximate cost is

16 16 million.

17 FRED LEE: I'm sorry?

18 DAVID STENSBY: 16 million.

19 FRED LEE: 16 million?

20 DAVID STENSBY: Is that right?

21 JACKIE LANE: 16.9.

22 DAVID STENSBY: 16.9, 17.

23 FRED LEE: Do we know -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

24 JACKIE LANE: I have one here and in the back,

25 and then come back to you. Go ahead, Sue. Is there


[19]

2/10/2015


1 any more questions about the presentation? So, Sue, do

2 you want to go?

3 SUE FIELDS: Sure. I would like to try this

4 without the microphone -- I don't know if that will

5 work -- just so it be a little simpler for me since I

6 only have two hands. So let me know if anybody can't

7 hear me. I'll be glad to use the microphone.

8 This submittal is in the form of a formal

9 correspondence from the University of California to

10 Mr. David Stensby, the remedial project manager, dated

11 today's date, February 10th, 2015.

12 Dear Mr. Stensby -- can you hear me? Okay.

13 The University of California Davis would like to

14 comment on the US Environmental Protection Agency's

15 selection of alternative SW-6 as the preferred remedy

16 as documented in EPA's proposed plan for the University

17 of California Davis area soil solid waste and soil gas

18 at the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health

19 Research/Old Campus Landfill superfund site, University

20 of California Davis -- the proposed plan, yes.

21 As discussed below, UC Davis believes that the

22 EPA's evaluation in the proposed plan may be in some

23 cases inconsistent with the process described in the

24 National Contingency Plan at 40 CFR 320 and with the

25 evaluation of alternatives contained in the


[20]

2/10/2015


1 EPA-approved final feasibility study for the University

2 of California areas, volume 1, soil solid waste and

3 soil gas as in the final FS report dated April 30th,

4 2012.

5 We believe that reconsideration of these

6 evaluation factors supports the selection of

7 alternative SW-3, because it meets the NCP selection

8 goal of being the most cost-effective alternative.

9 As outlined in the attached letter from UC

10 Davis to the EPA dated February 22nd, 2013, UC Davis

11 believes that alternative SW-3 is protective of human

12 health and the environment and is preferable to

13 alternative SW-6 due mainly to its improved short-term

14 effectiveness and lower cost.

15 Alternative SW-3 includes VOC hot spot and

16 principal threat waste removal; installation of three

17 on-site corrective action management units with grated

18 covers (at a minimum 1.5 slope to facilitate drainage

19 and covered with a low permeability soil cover to

20 reduce infiltration (thickness estimated between 2 and

21 3.25 feet) and a vegetative cover); developing and

22 enforcing institutional controls; installing and

23 maintaining drainage enhancements and long-term

24 groundwater monitor.

25 Alternative SW-3 meets applicable, relevant,


[21]

2/10/2015


1 and appropriate requirements identified for the site,

2 specifically the post-closure monitoring requirements

3 for inactive landfills under Title 27 of the California

4 Code of Regulations.

5 Decades of groundwater monitoring data from

6 the site show that the contaminant concentrations

7 associated with the covered land disposal units are

8 declining and that leachate production has ceased.

9 The main difference between alternatives SW-3

10 and SW-6 is in the amount of material that must be

11 imported to construct the CAMUs, C-A-M-U -- which for

12 everybody, it stands for corrective action management

13 unit. Alternative SW-3 requires an estimated 11,880

14 cubic yards of materials be imported to construct a

15 soil cap with the thickness between 2 and 3.25 feet,

16 while alternative SW-6 requires an estimated

17 44,540 cubic yards of material be imported to construct

18 a cap with a maximum thickness of 4.5 feet.

19 The EPA's proposed plan does not include a

20 detailed comparison of the short-term effectiveness of

21 alternatives SW-6 and SW-3.

22 Based on information contained in

23 Section 6.2.3.3 of the Guidance for Conducting Remedial

24 Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA,

25 Interim Final dated October 1988, EPA considers the


[22]

2/10/2015


1 evaluation of long-term effectiveness and permanence to

2 cover conditions after source/soil containment is met;

3 therefore, the EPA-approved FS report evaluated

4 short-term effectiveness during the construction phase

5 of the landfill remedy. The thicker cap included in

6 alternative SW-6 requires that an additional

7 32,660 cubic yards or 1,633 truckloads of material be

8 imported to the site, resulting in more than two and a

9 half times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions over

10 SW -- alternative SW-3.

11 Additionally, implementing alternative SW-6

12 will result in the use of nearly three times more

13 energy than alternative SW-3. As stated in the

14 proposed plan in Section 8, criterion 5, short-term

15 effectiveness, the number of truck trips, total

16 mileage, greenhouse gas/vehicle emission, road dust,

17 and total energy use increase progressively from

18 alternative SW-3 to alternative SW-10.

19 Correspondingly, the risk to the community due

20 to these emissions and increased traffic would also be

21 markedly higher for SW-6 than alternative SW-3.

22 The final FS report shows that the highway

23 fatality risks due to accidents and vehicular emissions

24 for alternative SW-6 is approximately two times higher

25 than for alternative SW-3.


[23]

2/10/2015


1 We also note that the highway fatality risks

2 for alternatives SW-3 and SW-6 are between 2 in 100 and

3 4 in 100, i.e., 2 percent to 4 percent, respectively,

4 based largely on the number of trucks required to

5 dispose of and import material during remedy

6 implementation.

7 These highway fatality risks exceed the site's

8 contaminant-related excess cancer risks of less than

9 six in 10,000 for a hypothetical on-site resident by a

10 factor of 100 or more.

11 The short-term protectiveness of alternatives

12 SW-3 and SW-6 would be the same during installation of

13 the remedy since site access will be controlled and

14 pre-remediation risk for site workers and potential

15 offsite receptors have been deemed acceptable by the

16 EPA.

17 Therefore, in accordance with applicable EPA

18 superfund regulations, i.e., 40 CFR

19 300.430(e)(9)(iii)(E) -- thanks for hanging with me --

20 and according to the EPA-approved FS report, the

21 short-term effectiveness of alternative SW-3 is more

22 acceptable than alternative SW-6.

23 We note that table 5 in the proposed plan

24 incorrectly shows the opposite. And, in fact, it shows

25 the short-term effectiveness of alternative SW-3 as


[24]

2/10/2015


1 being unacceptable. A specific comparison of the

2 short-term effectiveness of alternatives SW-3 and SW-6

3 is provided below, so under the NCP, short-term

4 effectiveness sub-criteria in 40 CFR

5 300.430(e)(9)(iii)(E): "Short-term risks that might be

6 posed to the community during implementation of an

7 alternative." So that's the risk. And then the

8 specific comparison between alternatives SW-3 and SW-6

9 is that alternative SW-6 results in 100 percent

10 increase in vehicular accident risk and transportation

11 emission fatality risks to the community.

12 Another one of the criteria is the potential

13 impacts on workers doing remedial action and the

14 effectiveness and reliability of protective measures.

15 And as far as comparison, both alternatives have

16 equivalent worker exposure and effectiveness and

17 reliability of worker protection measures.

18 The third sub-criteria we're pointing out is

19 that the potential environmental impact of the remedial

20 action and effectiveness and reliability of mitigative

21 measures during implementation, alternative SW-6

22 produces 150 percent more greenhouse gas and consumes

23 170 percent more energy than alternative SW-3. The

24 effectiveness and reliability of the mitigative

25 measures during implementation are equivalent for both


[25]

2/10/2015


1 alternatives.

2 And the third sub-criteria is -- from the NCP

3 is time until protection is achieved, and alternative

4 SW-3 achieves protection (containment) sooner, since

5 less effort is required to install the cover.

6 Due to the greater thickness of alternative

7 SW-3 -- I'm sorry -- SW-6 caps, larger surface areas

8 will be burdened to allow for adequate slopes for the

9 edges of the CAMUs. Due to these grade changes and

10 enlarged footprint of the caps, nine existing buildings

11 will need to be demolished and potentially replaced to

12 implement this alternative. Only one building will

13 need to be demolished to implement alternative SW-3.

14 Although the cost of replacing these buildings

15 are not considered in comparing alternative costs under

16 the CERCLA process, they are real costs that California

17 taxpayers will incur if alternative SW-6 is

18 implemented.

19 Replacement costs for those buildings are

20 estimated to be more than $3 million. The EPA's

21 proposed plan does not include a detailed comparison of

22 the long-term effectiveness of alternatives SW-6 and

23 SW-3. The only direct comparison of the two

24 alternatives is provided in table 5 in the proposed

25 plan, which graphically depicts the acceptability of


[26]

2/10/2015


1 each alternative.

2 Table 5 shows that alternative SW-6 is

3 somewhat more acceptable than SW-3 with respect to

4 long-term protectiveness, i.e., EPA shows a one-quarter

5 filled circle for alternative SW-3, and a half-filled

6 circle for alternative SW-6.

7 UC Davis believes that the long-term

8 protectiveness of alternative SW-3 is only slightly

9 less protective than alternative SW-6 if a bio-barrier

10 is added to alternative SW-3. We base this opinion on

11 the fact that the landfills have not received waste for

12 over 40 years, and groundwater monitoring down-gradient

13 of the landfills shows no evidence of ongoing landfill

14 leachate production.

15 Thus, we believe that the added waste

16 isolation provided by alternative SW-6 will have little

17 to no effect mitigating future migration of

18 contaminants to groundwater. Alternative SW-3 provides

19 adequate protection by regrading the existing soil

20 cover and adding new, clean fill where needed.

21 UC Davis plans to continue to use the site for

22 research activities requiring controlled site access.

23 Long-term groundwater monitoring provided in

24 alternative SW-3 ensures that groundwater will be

25 protected.


[27]

2/10/2015


1 Consistent with the information provided in

2 this letter and the EPA-approved final FS report and

3 regulations contained in the NCP, and more current

4 perspectives on environmental stewardship, UC Davis

5 believes alternative SW-3 is the most sustainable and

6 cost-effective alternative that satisfies the EPA's

7 threshold criteria of achieving overall protection of

8 human health and the environment and meeting ARARs.

9 The limited increased long-term effectiveness

10 achieved by alternative SW-6 does not justify its

11 disproportionate higher cost and significant short-term

12 impacts on students, faculty, and staff on campus, the

13 community at large, and the environment.

14 Thus, in consideration of this information, UC

15 Davis requests that the EPA reconsider the merits and

16 cost-effectiveness of alternative SW-3 in their final

17 remedy selection decision.

18 UC Davis appreciates the EPA's consideration

19 of this matter and is available to discuss this issue

20 at your convenience. And this letter is signed

21 sincerely by Jill Parker, the associate vice chancellor

22 for safety services here on campus.

23 And one piece of data that didn't make it into

24 the letter, since there were revisions to SW-6 from the

25 original FS, we tried to update a cost comparison and


[28]

2/10/2015


1 we're just under $4 million would be the difference in

2 cost between SW-3 and SW-6. Thank you.

3 JACKIE LANE: Thank you, Sue. Any other

4 comments? Okay. If there's no further comments on the

5 proposed --

6 FRED LEE: I was --

7 JACKIE LANE: Name please.

8 FRED LEE: Oh, Fred Lee. I was a public

9 advisor for this site for 15 years until EPA stopped

10 community [unintelligible] from continuing. At the

11 time that I stopped becoming active, five years ago, I

12 raised the question then about what are these landfills

13 really doing now? We know what they did in the past.

14 We know about the hot spot on the corner where the

15 chloroform was dumped by UCD. But we don't know about

16 anything else. And what you're telling me -- what it

17 looks like now is we're going into a capped approach

18 which ultimately will fail, because the HDPE liner in

19 there will decay over time -- there's no question about

20 that -- and that a clay cap, if all we're dealing with

21 is minor infiltration and no real groundwater

22 pollution, it's perfectly adequate for the site.

23 I didn't know UCD was coming this way, but I

24 certainly would support reexamining this whole thing,

25 because it's premature to go with this $16 million


[29]

2/10/2015


1 proposal.

2 JACKIE LANE: Any other comments? If that's

3 the end of the comments for tonight, we're closing the

4 comment -- verbal comments at this time.

5 And I just want to let you know that we will

6 be putting in the local paper when the record of

7 decision is complete. It will also have responses to

8 all the comments that we have gotten tonight. And me

9 and David will probably send out a note to everyone

10 letting them know of the availability of the record of

11 decision.

12 We also want to thank you all for coming out

13 tonight and it's much appreciated.

14 (Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned at 6:46 p.m.)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


[30]

2/10/2015


1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

2

3 I hereby certify that the foregoing

4 proceedings were taken at the time and place herein

5 named; and that the testimony of said proceedings were

6 reported by me, a duly Certified Shorthand Reporter and

7 disinterested person, and was thereafter transcribed in

8 my presence.

9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or

10 attorney for either or any of the parties to said

11 proceedings, nor in any way interested in the outcome

12 of the proceedings.

13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my

14 hand this 18th day of February, 2015.

15

16

17 _____________________________________________ CHARLOTTE A. MATHIAS, CSR 9792

18 State of California

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

deposition reporters ca - records collections · 2020-05-17 · deposition reporters corporate...

Documents