MASTERS HEARING 820810 N/A VOL. 1
WARESTONE, KENNETH
PAGES 1-29.
Introduction and discourse on logistics of hearing, scheduling,
Master's scope of authority, procedure for filing. Instructive
literature referred to.
PAGES 29-33.
Purpose of hearing is to discuss discovery timetable, procedure for
the pretrial in terms of documents and depositions, site examination,
expert witnesses, conferences, statements of contentions and proof,
stipulations, settlement, judicial notice, and specific requests.
Introduction of counsel.
PAGES 33-39.
Discussion of suggested timetables for discovery process and
interrogatories.
PAGES 39-49.
Discussion of motion outstanding to compel discovery from FEC and
CTA. FEC desires to stay all discovery until the development of a
uniform set of interrogatories and the production of documents common to
all defendants in each class. Contention by FEC that discovery in
question asks for data base different from that required for Phase I of
case and therefore should be delayed. Agreement for necessity of common
set of interrogatories and document requests made by RUMCO and
third-party defendants. Master reserves judgment. FMC and RUMCO have
substantially provided same information on chem composition, quantity,
transfers.
PAGES 49-63
Discussion on production, storage, and indexing of documents. Master
recommends that all documents be produced by 820907. RUMCO counsel
suggests that Reproduction Services be the initial recipient of
documents. Discussion on establishment of indexing of numbering system
for documents and who should do the indexing. Suggestion for standard
request for production of documents. Master asks that all suggestions
regarding document recipient, indexing method, and protections be
submitted by 820817.
PAGES 64-71.
Request by counsel for JCC to postpone contractual issues or
liability until Phase II. Counsel for FMC and liaison counsel for
insurance companies suggest that insurance coverage requests not be
delayed. Master asks that responses to these issues be filed by 820824.
The insurance companies for JCC are denying that they have coverage and
are defending under reservation of the rights.
PAGES 71-77.
Discussion on privileged claims and protective orders. Master asks
that liaison counsel submit guidelines by 820831, that he submit
recommendation to judge by 820907. Master is considering having a
comprehensive protective order to supersede and preempt all previous
protective orders. Hearing on 820917 on privileged claims along with
hearing on interrogatory objections.
PAGES 77-89.
Timetable for depositions presented by Master. Discussion of site
assessment. Counsel for CTA presents plan for remedial investigation
site assessment and requests a hearing on the issue of access to BASCO
site. Counsel for BASCO states concern for site safety, whether
assessment answers right questions, and possibility of counterclaim by
BASCO with respect to contamination of its well water. Government
desires to have meaningful and significant information from the site and
has been having reasonable discussions with BASCO. Counsel for KCP& LC
will enter into agreement to sink monitoring wells with other parties in
addition to EPA.
PAGES 89-96.
Discussion on original purpose of Joint Technical Advisory Committee.
Master suggests 820824 for hearing date for access to BASCO site, and
820817 for conference with liaison counsel interested in question of
site assessment. Requests list of suggested experts for site assessment
by 820817 and suggests 820824 for hearing on designation of experts.
Master wants to know nature of inspections, emergency measures required,
and have a status report on JTAC.
PAGES 96-101.
Discussion on timetables and site assessment. JCC wants indemnity
against anyone coming on site, does not want large numbers of people
digging wells.
PAGES 101-111.
Discussion of timetable for conferences, statements of contention and
proof stipulations, possible settlement. Suggestion that parties other
than principle parties have coordinating counsel represent them.
PAGES 111-117.
Discussion on privileged claims and protective relief of de minimus
defendants. Hearing on privileged claims set for 841017.
PAGES 117-121.
Discussion on filing motions. Discussion on government's motion to
dismiss the third party government agent defendants into the November
timeframe.
PAGES 121-125.
Discussion on joint and several liability and offer of judgment.
Adjournment.
MASTERS HEARING 820817 N/A VOL. 2
WARESTONE, KENNETH
PAGES 1-25. EXH., VIEWGRAPHS.
Special Master and counsel discuss pretrial matters including
scheduling, scope of discovery and storage of documents. Discussion of
access to Basco and ECPL sites.
PAGES 26-33.
Discussion of proposed Remedial Investigation on JCC site.
Introduction of experts on Site Assessment and discussion of scheduling
of witnesses.
PAGES 33-45.
Expert Steve Carson, Vice-President of SS Paratepulos and Associates
discusses extensively the ground water conditions and the direction of
ground water movement from JCC site to the Maryland and the problems of
determining the discharge levels occurring in Maryland River. No
discussion of what is in fact being discharged from the JCC site and the
effects on potential users. USGS graphics used by witness.
PAGES 46-57.
Expert T D Cambelia, consultant to FEC discusses data-gathering plan
which is preliminary to JCC site assessment. Plan provides for detailed
sampling by use of a series of borings on site, a series of wells on
both JCC site and Basco site installed to evaluate ground water
contamination. Discusses location of wells, aquifer evaluation, surface
water monitoring. Discusses scheduling of tests and analysis. Wells
planned for JCC, Basco, and ECPL sites.
PAGES 57-83.
Discussion on issue of access to JCC site and indemnity for
investigation and testing to be done on JCC site. Objections and
recommendations by counsel on proposed Site Assessment Plan and Site
Safety Plan.
PAGES 83-97.
Counsel for Basco objects to Site Safety Plan. Discussion among
counsel regarding starting date for intrusive drilling.
PAGES 97-100.
Recommendations and objections on issue of which expert witness
should assist the Special Master.
PAGES 101-108.
Discussion of scheduling hearings on Remedial Investigation Plan, on
issue of conflicts of interest for experts; and, Counsel for third
party defendants request access to data from Remedial Investigation.
PAGES 108-111.
Discussion on scheduling a hearing on allocation among the parties of
the costs of the Remedial Investigation.
PAGES 111-117.
Further discussion on issue of the Site Safety Plan and scheduling
additional hearing dates.
MASTERS HEARING 820820 N/A VOL. 3
WARESTONE, KENNETH
PAGES 5-17.
Hearing will involve 3 issues: site safety plan, remedial
investigation, and motion for Order to Compel Access to JCC property.
Government has submitted its site safety concerns in letters of 820806,
840820, and 820814; these will be addressed. Site safety plan is from
Woodward Clive Consultants dated 820809. The RI work plan, of which the
safety plan is one component, is dated 820818. Other components are site
sampling plan and QA QC plan.
PAGES 18-25.
Site safety plan identifies personnel responsible for site safety,
chemical and physical hazards of working on the site. Safety training
program includes history of the site and information about chemicals
that may have been disposed of on the site. Safety plan includes
sampling handling (refer to sampling plan), medical monitoring programs
comparable to that for EPA contractors, and emergency medical care
provisions. Medical monitoring program includes organic vapor analyzer
and hydrogen cyanide gas detector.
PAGES 25-29.
Description of technique used to top well hole; safety precautions
within 20 feet of sampling site. Mentions excaping gases as one danger
and radiation as a potential danger.
PAGES 30-38, EXH. 8, NOTES.
Workers will be protected from noxious gases by face respirators and
protective clothing. Decontamination procedures will be used.
Government safety concerns have been addressed. Monitoring of wind speed
and direction will be done. Dr. Lengantier notes of overall
considerations.
PAGES 38-43.
Basco had asked that all disposers at JCC provide lists of all wastes
ever sent there. It was agreed this was not technically feasible, so
safety plan will attempt to cover all known or expected dangers
including metals, phosphorus. Will use JCC invoices and other documents
from JCC and government to try to determine what wastes are at site.
Cambelia will provide Court with partial list of known chemicals
disposed of at JCC.
PAGES 44-47.
Cambelia of Woodward Clive gives his credentials for conducting
remedial investigations, and safety record for other projects he has
worked on.
PAGES 47-51.
Discussion of sampling plan. DCA contract lab, ETC of ND, will
analyze data. Minimum of 25 borings in the lagoons, up to 40. EPA
representatives will monitor boring.
PAGES 51-53.
Discussion of quality assurance and quality control plan. Will be
consistent with sampling plan and with QA QC plan of laboratory, and
will meet DCA and industry standards.
PAGES 53-54.
Discussion of cost of proposed plan. Original cost estimate of
550,000 dollars low. Present estimate is 1 to 1.5 million. Time delay
beginning work on the site is one factor that has increased cost. Time
delay might also limit scope of work that can be accomplished.
PAGES 55-63.
BN will provide data base for SF. Generator defendants will develop
and fund the SF based on their BN; SF will take about 2 months or less
once BN data is completed. Govt had planned to do its own RIFS, and
would need additional discovery time after the 841102 cutoff date. Will
work with generator defendants on discovery time table; whether
additional discovery is needed will depend on remedial option chosen.
PAGES 63-72.
Rumco counsel concerned about cost increases and cost sharing among
defendants and Govt. This will require further discussion among the
parties. Rumco and other defendants request that Govt stipulate that BN
work plan is adequate to establish necessary data base for SF. Govt will
so stipulate only after reviewing recently submitted documents such as
QA QC plan. Master requests that Govt be prepared to stipulate to the
adequacy of the BN plan by the following day.
PAGES 72-74.
Steve Carson, a hydrologist consultant for FMC Corp, and Claude
Huston, a consultant for Rumco, both testify that the BN plan will
provide adequate data base for SF. Consultants for CTA, not present at
hearing, have also reviewed and approved the plan.
PAGES 74-77.
Basco and JCC will save their questions for the experts until the
following day. They first need to review documents, which they had
trouble getting copies of. This problem will be discussed with counsel
following hearing.
PAGES 77-78.
Special Master will retain his own consultant firm, Environmental
Resource Management (ERM). ERM has done work for FMC and for some of the
third party defendants but none that involved the JCC site. He has not
been able to find a co in the field that has not done work for any of
the 190 corporations on the list, or for the Govt. No continuing
relationship between FMC and ERM. Rumco counsel says ERM is currently
active consultant for Rumco in Herndon. He will check with Rumco
management on the matter.
PAGES 78-79.
Rumco counsel requests Special Master prepare ground rules for use of
consultants by parties in the case. Master agrees to prepare this for
hearing the following day.
PAGES 80-87.
Defendant generators may be unable to get affordable insurance to
cover the risks associated with the BN; they are awaiting answers from
insurance agencies on this matter. Further problem is the possibility of
additional environmental harm resulting from the BN testing. Another
problem is the need to get immediate access to the site to begin the
testing. These issues will be argued at the following day's hearing.
PAGES 87-91.
Question of Govt liability is raised in the event of worsening of the
environment or injury to workers.
Counsel for FEC argues that earlier order finding Govt not required
to indemnify for the BN should be extended to defendant generators who
have stepped into the Govt's shoes with regard to site testing. The
issue will be addressed at the next day's hearing.
MASTERS HEARING 820824 VOL. 4A
WARESTONE, KENNETH
PAGES 1-18, EXH. 12, RESUME; EXH. 13, EXAMINATION; EXH. 14,
INSTRUCTIONS; EXH. 16, VIEWGRAPHS; EXH. 17-18, LETTERS.
Exhs on file with clerk in office of court. Introduction of the
expert witness for Special Master, James Gaston from ERM North Central
Inc. Discussion regarding issue of conflicting interest on part of Mr.
Gaston resolved.
PAGES 19-25.
Direct examination of JCC witness, Robert Slack of EBI, and
discussion of the Remedial Work Plan. Witness feels remedial plan is
inconsistent, purpose of chronology of material disposal needs to be
clarified, does not reflect JCC's concern to avoid drilling where drums
could be buried; the final report should have included the field
monitoring study which contains data on hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen
dioxide, phosgene, and cyanide analytical data.
PAGES 26-33.
Discussion of field monitoring data to be included in report:
hydrogen sulfide, chlorine gases, nitrogen dioxide, and possibility of
phosgene.
PAGES 34-42.
Discussion of Site Safety Plan with regard to safety of personnel
involved in testing. Concern expressed and allayed regarding
certification of staff in Safety Training Program. Concern also
expressed about construction of fence for site and provision of
emergency exits.
PAGES 42-44.
Ms. Kerry Reardon of DCA stated that Govt was satisfied with both
Remedial Action Work Plan and Site Safety Plan as they stood and would
comment orally in Court on Site Sampling and Quality Assurance Plans.
PAGES 45-52.
Discussion of Site Sampling Plan. Concern expressed regarding probing
of lagoons but assurances given by Mr. Cambelia that method to be used
would not involve puncture of any sealant membrane which may be present
which would further contaminate site. Aquifer to be probed by drilling
of burned areas between lagoons. Discussion of dissemination of
information and status of JTAC.
PAGES 52-54.
ETC of Edison ND to do analysis of samples for Govt and copies of
results to be made available to participants. Govt to conduct own tests
for dioxin and to provide spike samples to ETC for quality control.
PAGES 55-58.
Samples to be split in field so that one goes to contractor, one to
govt and one, if available, to go to landowner. If sample not large
enough to split thus, govt to share sample with landowner.
PAGES 58-59.
Some of third party generators express wish for retention of some
portion of samples for possible analysis at a later date. Cambelia
confirms that this can and will be done by the storage of excess solid
material either on site or in a lab but states that it will be
impossible to do with liquid samples.
PAGES 60-62.
Frost for FMC voices concern at cost of analysis and Master points
out that cost of additional analysis will be charged to party requesting
it. Storage of remainder is already planned so no additional costs will
be incurred in respect of this. Sample to be divided by weight as far as
possible.
PAGES 63-68.
JCC wants additional tests to be performed by themselves on:
Asbestos, Ammonia, Flouride, Phosphorus, Gold, Oil and Grease, pH,
Cation Exchange Capacity, Total Organic Carbon, Total Organic Halides
and Specific Conductance. Others have no objections and ask for results
to be shared, to which JCC objects because costs will not be shared.
Master rules that if JCC wishes to perform these tests and be reimbursed
they should first advise the Court of this by motion.
PAGES 68-70.
Samples to be distributed from site in proper sampling containers.
In event of only 2 samples being obtained, one will go to contractor,
the other to DCA who will make theirs available to any third party for
analysis.
PAGES 71-74.
Revised Site Sampling Plan presented. Gerald for FEC seeks consent to
proceed with nonintrusive work (Survey of existing wells, etc.) on JCC,
Basco and ECPL sites while discussions regarding intrusive work
continue.
PAGES 74-78.
ECPL reluctant to allow any sort of access to site until licensing
agreement reached. ECPL seeking property and personal indemnification.
Decision made to start nonintrusive work on JCC site. Motions to be
filed for access to Basco and ECPL sites for consideration on following
Friday.
PAGES 78-81, EXH. 19, 21, SAMPLING PLANS.
Amendments and additions to Exhibits discussed. Importance of daily
boring logs stressed by Mr. Slack, witness for JCC.
PAGES 81-85.
Discussion of breakdown of costs for the study. DCA asked if a site
evaluation of the existing aquifer has been done in terms of ranking
according to Mitre Score.
PAGES 86-88.
Discussion to determine the logistics for working out differences
that might arise during course of study.
PAGES 89-94.
Gaston suggests Safety Plan should include a coordination effort in
terms of release of contingency or evacuation plans of Basco including
precautions to Fire Dept. Discussion of work and time scope for the
Feasibility Study. Due to Master by 820917. Discussion on boundary
monitoring versus monitoring of source. Agreement that plan will include
ambient air monitor stations at boundary to provide data base to check
escape of noxious vapors.
PAGES 95-97.
Gaston to provide Court with greater detail on his background. He
notes that the site seems to have more than the usual number of
monitoring wells but they may be of limited use depending on their
construction, portion of aquifer monitored, frequency of data
collection. Govt to provide grid on prior wells.
PAGES 98-99.
Mr. Wilson questioned by attorneys about hydrology water flow of
site. Questioned whether he had sufficient points with which to draw map
exhibit of water contours of 001220 and whether north south lines might
be angled differently in view of lack of points within Basco plan area.
Replied yes to both queries, but map accurate as far as he was
concerned.
PAGES 99-103.
Wilson asked to locate waste barrel sites on map. Marked some along
northern and some along eastern boundary, between Basco plant site and
Basco bean field. Well 14 between Basco plant and bean field and data
has shown high concentration of some constituents, at least one of which
is also constituent of Basco's waste stream.
PAGES 103-107.
Zint asks if yellow lines, placed perpendicular to contour lines,
indicate direction of groundwater flow. Wilson confirms. Zint points out
line indicating water flow to west, to Blue River and asks about water
flow through and from Basco site. Wilson says that there may be such a
flow but Master indicates that questions of ultimate liability will be
dealt with at a later date. Zint asks if contaminants in Basco plant
water, if moving west, would show up in bean field. Wilson confirms, if
not attenuated by plant area in field. Contamination detected by placing
a well. BN and Wilson's plan would take 10 months to implement.
PAGES 107-110.
Gardner questions Wilson about data from Wells and contamination from
JCC site. Wilson replies that one contaminant could only have come from
JCC because not used in any process at Basco. Gerald for FEC objects to
this questioning because it is based on data not yet distributed. Master
rules that objection is proper, that BN will encompass water flow in
both directions, from JCC to Basco and from Basco to JCC.
PAGES 110-113.
Questions by Gerald as to the object of BN Plan. Cambelia replies
that it will focus on JCC site to obtain data to be put into context
with that previously obtained from surrounding sites. Wells to be placed
in downgradient area of site to test for materials leaving site. Slug
tests to be used to characterize aquifer due to pressure of time. Pump
test to be performed at later stage of SF if thought necessary and would
be designed according to data obtained in BN.
PAGES 113-115.
Carson, hydrogeologist, says that pumping test would give general
view of bulk of aquifer. Slug tests will give information at specific
sites which will help in determining rate of groundwater movement.
PAGES 115-116.
FMC, Rumco and CTA at choke point on costs. Gardner, Basco, say that
intention is not to add to costs but to reallocate resources available.
PAGES 116-120.
Johnson, JCC, presents background to request for indemnification:
govt was going to conduct tests for contaminants and Judge Scott Wright
had ruled that, under RCRA, govt did not have to give indemnification to
gain access to site for tests. Then time allowed for tests shortened and
govt claimed impossible to do tests in time. Four generator defendants
proposed performing tests in lieu of govt. JCC objected and requested
indemnification. Johnson argues that danger to health and environment
has not been proved and that to allow such tests could generate or
exacerbate such a hazard. Nothing in RCRA or CERCLA to allow private
individuals to stand in for govt.
PAGES 120-122.
Master queries application of Rule 34 and right to inspection of
land. Johnson confirms right to inspection but inspection does not
constitute testing. Says they can only drill under statute, which
requires proof of endangerment.
PAGES 122-123.
Gardner disputes FMC claim to be indemnified by virtue of original
indemnification given to FMC by JCC. Right to punch holes in land not
specifically stated in original indemnification.
PAGES 123-124.
Gardner cites Cambelia's reference to danger of ruptures at site by
drilling holes, hence need for indemnification.
PAGES 124-128.
Verification by Master of submission of certain briefs and motions in
case.
PAGES 128-132.
Zint, CTA, argues that his client does stand in govt's shoes. Claims
that it is ridiculous for JCC to require indemnification when situation
brought about by JCC's negligence and clients are in fact relieving JCC
of a responsibility to conduct tests. Spread costs of conducting tests.
DCA did provide indemnification for work on ECPL site on 820621. Four
defendants feel full indemnification is too high a price and would not
pursue study if it were required.
PAGES 132-136.
Discussion of attempts to obtain insurance. Reigel for Rumco reports
no possibility of getting insurance. Query from Master as to why govt
exempt from indemnification. Warestone replies that justification is to
be found in CERCLA, Section 107 and cites Bunker Hill case. Master
points out that Bunker Hill was Rule 34 not CERCLA case. Gerald concurs
but points out similarity in that both are in public interest.
PAGES 136-138.
Master asks whether major defendants rise and fall with govt. Gerald
argues that they do stand in shoes of govt and in addition property
owner whose responsibility the site was is no longer solvent. Therefore
no indemnification should be required. In reply to Master she states
that drilling should be allowed under Rule 34.
PAGES 138-140.
Warestone gives statutory citations of Cercla Sections 104 and 107
under which entry to JCC request was grounded. Master reserves decision
on Motion.
MASTERS HEARING 820821 N/A VOL. 4
WARESTONE, KENNETH
PAGES 1-5, EXH. 22, BIOGRAPHY; EXH. 23, MONOGRAPH.
Mr. Wilson, a witness for Basco, is a hydrogeologist and will give
testimony relating to BN studies. There is a lot of geology data and
good flow system information available.
PAGES 6-13.
Two more rounds of sampling of existing wells near the JCC site are
recommended in order to determine ground water quality. Basco pumping
may induce contaminant migration from JCC site to Basco wells. Has no
knowledge of what underlies JCC site.
PAGES 14-21.
Surface water sampling should be done upstream and downstream of the
JCC site in the various streams. Wilson recommends adding five cluster
wells to those recommended in the BN.
PAGES 22-27.
JCC is upgradient of Basco's property, therefore will not provide a
background for the JCC site. Natural flow systems push contaminants from
JCC onto the Basco property. Basco pumping causes interference with the
natural flow and may influence an evaluation of JCC and RUMCO.
PAGES 28-34.
Wilson received data from COE and the DCA. He also received 830000
Woodward and Clive report on the pumping wells located on the Basco
property.
PAGES 35-41.
Basco's two pumping wells provide water for their waste water system,
and the water is discharged through the treatment system. Sometimes
water from Basco will flow into the government monitoring field south of
the JCC site.
PAGES 42-50. EXH. 24-37, VIEWGRAPHS.
Flow of water is generally southeast under ECPL, JCC, BASCO, and the
bean field east of the levee on Basco property. The water then
discharges into the Blue and Maryland Rivers.
PAGES 51-58.
Mr. Warestone accepts the BN study as a basis of proceeding with the
feasibility study.
PAGES 59-67.
Gaston recommends that some boundary site monitoring be done so that
a base line is established. By doing this, if anything is released it
will be picked up quickly. Wilson states that additional wells on the
BASCO property are not needed since there are already enough test wells
around the JCC site. Emphasis should be on drilling on site monitor
wells.
MASTERS HEARING 820824 N/A VOL. 5
WARESTONE, KENNETH
PAGES 1-17.
General announcements; Master's recommendation concerning
defendants' motion to compel access to the land owned by JCC was
approved, and an order issued by the ourt on 820823. The timetable for
expert designation is set for 820907. Deadlines; joinder of parties by
841001, cross claims by 820831, replies to cross claims by 820921.
Categories into which documents will be separated must be decided by
840907.
PAGES 17-19.
BASCO granted access to the generator defendants, and the motion to
compel was withdrawn. ECPL was granted access, and the motion was
withdrawn.
PAGES 19-20.
Special Master is advised that a suit was filed against the
government to require the turning over of National Contingency Plan site
assessment. Reminds counsel that documents ruled work product and not
discovery. Mr. Warestone declines to turn the documents over.
PAGES 21-35.
Discussion of the government's motion to compel against CTA and FEC
are the two known significant contributors of chlorinated hydrocarbons,
especially trichloroethylene. Figures showing that the records provided
by CTA and FEC concerning their transactions with JCC are incomplete.
Evidence indicates the importance of obtaining more specific information
from CTA and FEC; the danger of trichloroethylene, the companies'
apparent significant use of JCC site. Presentation of amounts of waste
sent to JCC by government for comparison. DCA sent 384 gallons of waste,
NASA sent 4,172 gallons, 1,000 pounds and eight crates of waste,
Laughlin Air Force Base sent 2,460 gallons of carbon remover, and 330
gallons of cyanide solution. Richards Gelber sent 200 gallons of cyanide
solution, and 330 gallons of cyanide. Mellon Air Force Base 4,236
gallons, 11 drums, 1732 pounds and 700 ounces of cyanide. Fort Riley
sent 7,000 ampules of ammonia inhalent. Fish and Wildlife sent 75
gallons of arsenic trioxide. Western Electric sent 307,945 gallons of
cyanide solution, and 5,599 drums. DCA emphasizes intention to compel
companies only to meet with experts and arrive at approximate levels of
waste deposited at JCC by these companies through a waste stream
reconstruction.
PAGES 35-49.
CTA counsel contends it has met all requests for documents concerning
chemicals sent to JCC. CTA submitted list of 45 chemicals including
trichloroethylene. Arguments claiming that DCA doesn't need waste stream
reconstruction to establish endangerment, which is Phase 1 purpose. CTA
claims that documents already provided combined with an BN will be
sufficient. DCA says waste stream reconstruction necessary because of
possible chemical breakdown of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
PAGES 49-63.
Counsel for FEC also maintains that it has complied fully with DCA's
requests for documents. Further arguments against waste stream
reconstruction, the information yielded would be irrelevant to the
problems of Phase 1. Sizing up the damage and allocating responsibility
for it, if one generator is subject to the reconstruction, then all
generators, no matter how small, should be subject to it. All defendants
agree with this final argument. Defendants also submit that any
information gained by the reconstruction would only be relevant to Phase
2. DCA expresses special interest in shipments by FEC at Lexington which
were rerouted from JCCI to JCC. Special Master closes the matter.
PAGES 63-73.
Discussion of the cross claims question. Phase 1 cross claims or
counterclaims must be pleased by 820831, unless good cause is shown for
late discovery. Both stainless steel pipes and CBC pipes will be used on
the wells at JCC.
PAGES 73-89.
Discussion of motion to incorporate insurance questions into Phase 1.
Counsel for JCC and Hallston argue for postponement until Phase 2
because JCC will not have time and resources to handle liability and
contractual claims simultaneously. Clarification that Phase 1 will
concern endangerment, liability for the endangerment, and cost of the
remedy. Phase 2 will concern allocation of cost between parties.
Counsel for insurer third party defendants argues that insurance
coverage constitutes cost allocation, and should be put off until Phase
2. Also suggests that discovery of the insurance matter would throw the
Court badly off schedule.
PAGES 89-92.
Discussion of which parties are being defended by insurance
companies. Established that the third party plaintiffs seek indemnity,
not defense, from insurance companies. Argued that the insurance
coverage motion concerns only the 16 insurance defendants sued by the
generators.
PAGES 92-104.
Continued discussion of the insurance coverage motion. Counsel for
FMC Corp argues for early settlement of insurance questions. The
evidence concerning coverage overlaps the evidence concerning liability.
Environmental cleanup expedited by getting all monies up front. The
Superfund statute requires proof of financial responsibility for
cleanup. And postponement would deny the third party plaintiffs their
interpleader rights under Rule 14. Suggestion that use of rifleshot
discovery would keep the Court on schedule.
PAGES 104-117.
Third party defendants' counsel suggests that settlement of insurance
coverage will insure JCC's payment of costs by motivating insurance
companies to contribute their share. Counsel for insurer third party
defendants reiterates complexity of coverage discovery. Cites minutes
from pretrial conference of 820716 which urge expedition in determining
endangerment and remedy above all else. Counsel for principal generators
suggests insurance companies' unwillingness to contribute to site
investigation costs is indication that coverage issue needs to be
resolved up front. Discussion of coverage motion is ended.
PAGES 118-123.
Third party generator defendants deem reasonable the interrogatories
and requests for documents served by third party plaintiffs. This
agreement subject to condition that third party plaintiffs provide same
information that they requested from third party generators. Discussion
of the allocation of costs of JTAC. Suggestion that DCA should fund
entire study. Resolved to discuss membership of JTAC and allocation of
costs of the hearing on 820910.
MASTERS HEARING 820910 N/A VOL. 6
WARESTONE, KENNETH
PAGES 1-7.
Appearances.
PAGES 8-9.
Special Master suggests separate lawsuit for Freedom of Information
Act suit by defendants.
PAGES 9-22.
Bob Dash, Reproduction Systems President discusses logistics of
documents depository located 1828 Walnut, Room 630, phone 212-471-1414.
Cost for space, equipment, furniture, telephone, and librarian will be
common costs. Parties are to send documents to Reproduction Systems for
three digit code. Documents then returned to sender. Separate index,
cross index filed with Master. Documents with old numbers will be
categorized in the new system and divided as to old and new numbers.
Parties will bear individual responsibility for the costs for numbering.
Ann Prosange and Paula will be the coordinators for the depository.
PAGES 23-26.
JCC estimates 6 to 7000 manhours necessary to prepare documents.
Requests expense assistance for document preparation. Master suggests
JCC file original documents at depository.
PAGES 26-30.
FMC negotiated with JCC for documentary discovery 200,000 EC site
documents. Received two thirds of documents. Master instructs JCC to
categorize documents and meet obligation to produce.
PAGES 30-33.
Whittier, G. requests hearing for third party generators to file
motions for dismissal based on de minimis. Motions scheduled for 841010.
PAGES 33-34.
University of Oregon motion for dismissal by sovereign immunity to be
heard in November. Court will allow late answers to be filed.
PAGES 34-36.
Motion granted that Regional Liquidating Corp can intervene as third
party defendant. Ober Corp fourth party claim denied.
PAGES 37-39.
Government moves to dismiss third party complaint against federal
agencies, third party defendants. Accountability should be by
counterclaim. Third party claims not alleging new facts, not providing
new legal basis, not seeking relief, no authority in CERCLA for these
third party claims, third party plaintiffs have not shown entitlement to
injunctive relief.
PAGES 40-41.
Master asks government difference between third party claim with
injunctive relief and counterclaim. Government says since it is already
party in the case a third party claim is inappropriate. Defendants say
United States means only DOJ and DCA. Government says not position taken
uniformly but only in discovery requests. Files of any U.S. agency
searched at request of defendant and documents produced by government.
PAGE 42.
Government says Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA does not authorize order
of injunction. Undecided about defendant's ability to counterclaim under
106 in U.S. case brought under 106.
PAGES 43-44.
Williams for third party plaintiff to overrule cites 107(g) of
CERCLA, says government is both plaintiff and defendant, if public is to
pay for part of the remedy interest of public should be represented by
the agency and their admin.
PAGES 44-46.
DOJ in similar motion in Kenison case wants to treat claims against
US agencies as counterclaims for purpose of uniformity. Differs with
Williams on interpretation of 107(g).
PAGES 46-47.
CTA says govt did not pay its 500 dollars per agency to Master's
fund. Govt should contribute to cost of study, etc., that third party
generators are required to make. Thinks third party complaint fixes
responsiblity. Govt. paid 75,000 dollars to Master's Fund twice.
PAGES 48-49.
FMC argues 107(g). Cites advantages to litigation of govt agencies as
third party defendants.
PAGES 49-51.
Govt says Tort Claims Act doesn't allow injunctive relief, Section
106 of CERCLA authorizes injunctive relief in proven endangerment only
to U.S., not other litigants, 107(g) provides for contribution remedy
not injunction remedy.
PAGE 52.
Master rules to return 2nd 75,000 dollars to the govt. Contribution
made to Master fund, not to CTA for remedial investigation as requested
by Zint.
PAGES 52-55.
Discussion of motion for payment BN costs which have gone from
5-600,000 dollars to 2 million eight due to additional govt
requirements. Third party insurer, Bavi concerned about apportionment of
costs and possible Court order to third party defendant insurers to
advance BN costs violates pretrial order and prejudges liability.
Request motion be denied.
PAGES 56-60.
On behalf third party plaintiffs Zint argues that BN for benefit of
everyone. Says govt unable to meet statutory duty so third party
plaintiffs initiated the BN. Govt accepts this then adds more to study
and costs rise. Costs escalate due to various third-party defendants and
expert consultation with Master. Suggests allocation of costs of BN at
30 percent original defendants, 30 third-party defendants, 20 insurers,
20 govt with govt paying shortfall and, or longfall.
PAGES 60-63.
Discussion of apportionment of costs. Initial list of top 50
generators incomplete Aerco, Aruco, Interstate Pollution Control also
top generators.
PAGES 63-65.
Special Master requests parties file on rough allocation of costs OK
at Phase I trial level or if other Court decisions preclude
apportionment of costs pursuant to injunctive order.
PAGES 65-68.
FMC complains that a Phase I allocation would undercut hope of
negotiation and increase time to litigate an allocation. Master wants
letter from each liaison counsel on this issue by end of September. JCC
wants govt to pay for entire study now. JCC's insurer, Commercial Union
agreed to pay one-fifth, 100,000 for the BN but does not want to pay
more for costs incurred due to govt footdragging. Original defendants
cooperate to initiate BN and now seem to be stuck with the bill, now
over a million dollars.
PAGES 69-71.
Discussion of increased cost of BN. Original study was to be done by
original defendants and grew to meet everyone's concerns. Master says
initial estimate included SF. Asks if SF cost in 1.8 million dollar
estimate.
PAGES 71-75.
BN consultant says BN cost is about a million or a million and a
half; add cost of SF makes it one million and eight or a little more.
Costs have escalated due to changes in scope. Original costs were only
field or lab related costs and not plan preparation, EC participation,
report and interpretation. Attempting to coordinate better to control
costs. Master says four defendants may be reimbursed only for reasonable
and proper costs. Suggests eliminating some consultants. Consultant
says costs are not excessive.
PAGES 75-76.
FMC on SF: Will discuss SF with govt. this week. Hard to determine
needs and project costs until in the field. Court deadline also a
problem.
PAGE 76-80.
On behalf of third party generator defendants: costs allocated to
them must be done after end of Phase II or there will be violation of
due process. Agreement between govt and original four defendants who
volunteered to do BN. When did Commercial Union become part of this
group? Govt figures indicate third-party generators produced 15 percent
of waste volume.
PAGES 80-81.
Third party generator defendants concerned that they will be made to
pay for BN SF before liability is determined and they will be paying for
information and expert witnesses to be used against them. Asks Master to
make provision in his Order so that this does not occur.
PAGES 81-82.
Master says four defendants agree reimbursement will be made after
determination of liability. Instructs four liaison counsel to submit
briefs on Phase I cost of cleanup and BN in light of joint and several
liability by 820930.
PAGE 82. Master says de minimis party points to be submitted to him
as suggestions before 841010.
MASTERS HEARING 820917 N/A VOL. 7
WARESTONE, KENNETH
PAGES 1-4.
Appearances.
PAGES 5-8.
Introduction. Master distributed recommendations. Subject of hearing:
objections to interrogatories, requests for additional interrogatories
and privileged claims.
PAGES 8-23.
Interrogatories to government Nos. 12, 31(a), 33, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44,
45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 60 all objected to on grounds of
plaintiff's and plaintiff's consultants' work product.
PAGES 12-14.
Interrogatories to government Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30 all objected to on
grounds that they ask plaintiff to state a legal conclusion. The first
two relate to standards of liability, the other two to joint and several
liability.
PAGES 18-29.
Interrogatories to government Nos. 41, 51 objected to on grounds that
they are overly broad and burdensome. Both relate to a request for a
list of all disposal sites within a five mile radius of JCC. Weinfurt
claims an agreement was reached between plaintiff and defendant that two
mile request was too broad. Mr. Zendarison, counsel for FMC, denies it.
Mr. Hallsaterne, counsel for CTA, indicates that five miles inland may
be too broad but that because of hydrology, five miles upstream may not
be far enough.
PAGES 22-25.
Objection to Interrogatory to government No. 56 on BASCO Chemical
Corp business confidentiality grounds. Requests that plaintiffs provide
detailed narrative of claims.
PAGES 25-27.
Interrogatories to government No. 62 objected to on grounds of work
product confidentiality. Also sub part (c) relates to documents given by
BASCO to government. Government claims BASCO is aligned with it because
any waste from JCC affects it as adjacent landowner. No govt agreement
not to litigate against BASCO.
PAGE 27.
Mention that FMC suggested additional interrogatories to govt.
PAGES 30-31.
Document problems. JCC has just received (FMC)?, FEC interrogatories.
PAGES 31-38.
CTA objects, in part, to interrogatories related to insurance. FMC,
FEC concur, especially with objections to Interrogatories Numbers 18
through 22. Insurance Co's desire to know how they might share out the
cost.
PAGES 38-39.
JCCI is not legally related to JCC, so it is probably included as a
third party generator.
PAGES 39-40.
Getty Packing Co and other de minimis cos fear suit will get into
their insurance coverage.
PAGES 40-42.
Insurance co's mention difficulty of producing documents given time
frame.
PAGES 42-44.
Document problems.
PAGES 44-49.
Rewer, Counsel for several de minimis generators, objects to
Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5(b), 6(b), and 9(b). Grounds are redundancy and
burdensomeness. Above interrogatories would require information on
manufacturing processes, some of which are not now used.
PAGES 49-56.
JCC objects as too broad to Interrogatory No. 10 asking for
information on other JCC sites. JCC also objects to interrogatories on
insurance and work product and attorney client privilege. Discussion of
Interrogatory No. 10 shows JCC operated other sites, No. 10 was directed
towards revealing transshipments between the sites.
PAGES 56-59.
JCCI objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on grounds it is too broad. Also
says JCC and JCCI are separate corporations.
PAGES 59-61.
Ober objects to insurance Interrogatories Nos. 17 through 22 as too
broad. Master says because of joint and several liability need to know.
PAGES 62-64.
FEC concerns about waste transshipped between JCCI and JCC.
PAGES 64-78.
Insurance companies concern about discovering fourth party
defendants. Scheduling problems. Insurance Co's left out of deposition
schedule.
MASTERS HEARING 820924 N/A VOL. 8
GEDSTONE, KENNETH
PAGES 1-4.
Lists appearances and attorneys representing DOJ, JCC and Norman
Hallston, third party plaintiffs, third party generator defendants and
insurance third party defendants.
PAGES 5-6.
Ann Kressley explained about depository, its location, hours for
reviewing documents, and special arrangements for evening and weekend
viewing. There are only three different viewing rooms.
Need to know from all parties in the case who should have access to
the documents.
PAGES 6-25.
Depository received and reviewed about 50,000 documents and expect to
receive 20,000 to 30,000 more. Will be the sum total of all documents
previously produced. Documents have not been indexed in accordance with
four categories set forth by the Special Master. FMC, FEC and CTA have
categorized their documents. RUMCO submitted their documents in
numerical order and are preparing an index which relates the number to
the category. JCC is producing documents; they have not been
categorized or indexed. JCC has, in addition to previously produced
documents, about 400,000 current documents. There was a question about
the number of documents, especially JCC documents.
Special Master asked Ann Kressley and William Session representing
JCC for an answer the next day.
PAGES 25-27.
John Williams will prepare order for dismissal of various third party
defendants. Will file a summary of every party they have sought to or
intend to dismiss with brief description of the basis for it and give
people a few days to make objections. Most of those are erroneously
named parties.
PAGES 27-31.
All parties have not worked out an agreement to proceed with
deposition of Norman Hallston. Thirty seven third party generators as
well as third party defendant insurers met separately and agreed that
schedule proposed by original defendant generators was totally unfair
and deprived third party generators and insurers of due process of law.
Preparing to file an application for relief. Other parties will joint
the application for relief from the schedule.
PAGES 31-40.
At a meeting 820919 representatives of all groups were present and
four of the groups submitted proposed schedules. They were DOJ, third
party plaintiff generators, insurance companies for JCC and third-party
insurance defendants. Discussed schedule, including names of parties to
depose court directs depositions and discovery to close 841102. Special
Master cannot change that. Special Master will submit another set of
recommendations for the Court to rule on. Some parties could not get in
to review documents; they don't know who to depose.
PAGES 40-43.
Special Master proposed to extend the date of expert witness
depositions 841112 to 841123 with regard to the BN. He also proposed
841124 to 841130 expert witness depositions on the SF. He will also
extend the date of non-expert deposition to 841112.
PAGES 43-49.
Deposition of Norman Hallston is scheduled 820926 to 841102. He will
only be available three days a week because he has business interests
outside of this lawsuit. Third party insurance companies object because
they have not gotten JCC's interrogatory answers back. First two days of
deposition will be devoted to examination regarding identification and
providing more information on other responsible parties.
PAGES 49-58.
Almost all the people scheduled to give depositions are no longer
employed by JCC. JCC does not know where these people are. JCC will give
their best information regarding the present whereabouts so the Court
can issue subpoenas. Discussion of notification of all parties as to
deposition schedule, name of persons being deposed, dates, times and
locations. Special Master went through the names of persons to be
deposed. There are five tracks of witnesses running at one time.
PAGES 58-71.
Next group of witnesses to be deposed are persons involved in the
site investigations for the USA.
USA has indicated it will seek reimbursement of its legal costs as
part of Phase I. They identified the names of the government witnesses
and the dates they are scheduled to appear.
PAGES 71-73.
Will hold off scheduling third-party generator defendants until
841113 to review responses to interrogatories. Mr. Lanzer, a former
employee of JCC, wrote some of the letters to insurance companies
concerning this lawsuit.
Also scheduled RUMCO, FEC, FMC and CTA for depositions. Depositions
of third party plaintiffs were requested by insurance companies. CTA
questioned whether they are appropriate for Phase I. Questions in Phase
I concern whether or not JCC's risk is covered by these insurance
policies. Depositions based on third party plaintiffs claims should be
in Phase II, as argued by third party plaintiffs.
PAGES 73-81.
At the request of insurance third party defendants, Special Master
will send out a notice to third party generators asking them to
designate a corporate representative with respect to insurance.
Discussed three-track depositions for RUMCO, FEC, FMC and CTA because
some questioning will cover different general areas such as insurance,
shipment of wastes, and questions from JCC.
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 820716 N.A.
WARESTONE, KENNETH
PAGES 1-3.
Method will be to bifurcate case. First phase will be on injunctive
relief to determine if hazardous wastes are in JCC, and if they threaten
environment. If found so, a determination of responsible defendant(s)
will follow. An order then to clean up site and to create cleanup fund
will come. Preliminary determination of cleanup cost and defendant
amounts.
PAGE 3.
Second phase of case determines amounts defendants are found to be
generators of and amounts each must contribute for clean-up.
PAGES 4-6.
Mr. Robert Fremante, Urban Environmental Law professor at University
of Maryland at EC named Master. Original and third party defendants will
agree on liaison counsel.
PAGES 6-7.
Received letters from some third party defendants who state never
deposited at JCC, others have admitted liability to avoid legal
expenses.
PAGES 8-10.
Warestone offers to work out arrangement whereby JCC would not have
to contribute money for JTAC if court would permit govt to pay 75,000
dollars without paying 500 dollars to Master for each agency sued.
Court will rule on Friday.
PAGES 11-12.
CTA counsel concerned that discovery process will proceed before
technical assessment is completed. Court responds that govt will meet
set schedule or case will be dismissed.
PAGES 12-15.
Iowa Electric Light and Power counsel states third party defendants
have already met and selected liaison counsel and would like to
recommend that counsel to the Court. Court agrees, allowing for govt
defendants to decide for themselves to use the liaison committee.
PAGE 16.
In answer to third party counsel, Court states that if govt prevails,
defendants found liable must pay all costs, including the 75,000 dollars
forwarded by govt.
PAGES 16-17.
Court states third party defendants who admit liability will still be
required to pay 500 dollars in Master costs and their determined portion
of cleanup and litigation.
PAGES 17-20.
Court states that dumping only non hazardous wastes will not get
company out of case if that waste later was combined to form hazardous
waste.
PAGES 20-21.
Court explains that interrogatories will be submitted to Master, who
will determine which are to be asked.
PAGES 21-26.
Insurance issue will be decided in Master's proceeding. No motion for
production will be needed. Master will order every defendant to produce
documents and circulate these to all concerned.
PAGES 27-28.
Court agrees third party defendants entitled to representation when
site observations are being made. Basco told to give its request of
being on any joint technical committees to Master; Basco counsel
concerned with ground water seepage from JCC.
PAGES 29-32.
Court turning matter over to Master, but retaining final approval.
DEPOSITION 820819 HALLSTON, NORMAN B. VOL. I
BRAND, DANIEL J.
PAGES 4-8.
Hallston gives personal history including, work experience,
education, residence and discusses formation of JCC and his
responsibilities as President.
PAGES 9-11.
Other facilities owned and operated by Hallston and his involvement
in daily operations described.
PAGES 12-13.
JCC site described as "just brush". Initial waste handled included
caustic and pickle liquor from Rumco and plating waste.
PAGES 14-18.
Initial equipment included tanks and basins. Treated cyanide, phenol
type caustic, plating waste, and "Chem-Mill". Would store caustic and
acid in tanks and lined basins. Metal washes disposed of in basin.
PAGES 18-22.
Air pollution problem resulted from treatment of a "doctor solution",
a sodium plumbite solution used to deodorize waste. Plant generated
Mercaptans. Basco had similar problem. Stopped taking waste from
Standard Oil because of odor problem.
PAGES 22-28.
Relied on vendors for chem analysis of waste. Contracted with Rumco
to haul all inorganic liquids. Received 5-6 loads daily, as much as
300,000 gallons monthly. Consisted of pickling liquor, 95% sulfuric,
wetting and foaming agents, inhibitors and spent acid.
PAGES 28-34, EXH. 1, DRAWING.
Corrects exhibit labels and drawing. Describes lining of basins,
burrow pits where sludge and acid were stored, and depth of lagoons down
to 10-15 feet below original grade of property. Lagoon dug to where
ground was wet from water table.
PAGES 35-36.
Consulted a civil engineer about construction of lagoon. Received
permit from COE for facility.
PAGES 36-38.
JCC operated incinerator, stored oil in tanks and pumped it to
incinerator. Built a simple combustion chamber and devices to atomize
oil with compressed air. No scrubbers. Built a tank lined with
firebrick. Burned acetone for Western Electric.
PAGES 39-40.
Storage tanks removed and cut up, either buried or dissolved in
reactor tanks. Acid dissolved incinerator. Qualifications of operator
discussed.
PAGES 40-42.
Details on the Rumco pickle liquor: contained 5-10% iron, trace
levels of lead, nickel, chrome, zinc, copper. Also sodium hydroxide,
sodium carbonates, sodium mercaptides, sodium sulfides, smaller
quantities of sodium phenates, sodium crystallates. Organic compounds,
phenol and cresols resulted from the "springing" process.
PAGES 42-44.
Treatment of cyanides, (mainly sodium, potassium, metallic containing
copper, nickel, zinc, cadmium) described. Buried resulting waste
products in basin. Complexed the cyanide with iron, the so called "waste
plus waste" method.
PAGES 45-47.
Handled arsenic containing compounds for FMC. Put loads of filter
cake and elemental phosphorous into dump truck lined with polyethylene
liner. Load then dropped into same basins containing neutralized pickle
liquor.
PAGES 48-51.
Handled hexavalent chromium by combining with pickle liquor in small
rubber lined tank until Basin 6 was constructed. Does not think plating
solutions contained organic compounds because rubber liners lasted 5
years.
PAGES 51-55, EXH. 2, 3, LETTERS.
Basco may have been source of metal bearing solvents that JCC
incinerated. Does not remember 700605 fire, but puts location at lagoons
3 and 4.
PAGES 55-57.
Believes JCC received organics in bulk not drums, but did receive
drums from Oregon University and Gulf Research. Once a drum blew up.
Drums containing solid residue were crushed and buried anywhere on site.
PAGES 58-60, EXH. 4, LETTER.
Doesn't recall which of three incinerators letter refers to. Variety
of organics present in different tanks mixed with fuel oil. Does not
recall source of solvent containing 13.1% Chlorides.
PAGES 61-67, EXH. 5, REPORT.
Familiar with report. Agreed that pollutants escaped from lagoon
could contaminate ground water, but at time disagreed with need for
artificial liners. Agreed that liquids from sludge holding basins could
seep into water table and be carried to Maryland River. Description of
what happens to sludge from neutralization.
PAGES 68-70, EXH. 6, LETTER.
Insoluble matter such as iron oxide, silica, dirt cleaned out of
Basin 6. JCC installed better liner. Insolubles mixed with lime and put
into other basins.
PAGES 70-76, EXHS. 7, 8, LETTERS.
Spent caustic from refining and chem manufacturing was generated only
by Amoco. Drums containing solids, organics, filter cakes from the FMC
arsenous sulfide and unknown wastes were smashed on concrete pad then
placed in basins. Leak of material. Recalls liquid incinerator operation
shut down in 710000.
PAGES 76-79, EXH. 9, 10, LETTERS.
Old solvent drums, emptied but not cleaned, were buried and covered
with topsoil in Basin 2.
PAGES 79-82, EXH. 10, LETTER.
Caustic waste from Amoco contains 0.5% organic creosote and
naphthalene or "spent doctor solution". Discusses leakage problems,
pluggage in lines between Basin 6 and reactor.
PAGES 82-84.
Admits storage tanks were down in levee and could float away during
flood. Basco discharged directly into tanks on levee.
PAGES 84-85.
Received Salolen from Basco, Klamathe for incineration on site.
Never did independent chemical analysis on the Basco waste.
PAGES 85-90, EXH. 17, SALES JOURNAL.
Sold ECPL sodium aluminate which JCC made from Chem Mill. Can't
remember quantities of waste received. Additional records in storage at
St. Louis plant, and in Elicot City Files.
PAGES 90-91, EXH. 11, SALES JOURNAL.
JCC received waste for incineration from Klamathe during 600000,
stopped prior to 710800.
PAGES 91-92.
Details on design of the incinerators; two rows of brick, used
natural gas. Proper reaction time "was visual so that there wasn't any
visual haze". No scrubbers.
Hallston, Stewart Beal, Larry Hardee and son, Scott Wagner operated
the incinerators.
PAGES 92-94, EXH. 11, SALES JOURNAL.
No instruction manual. Used organic material under pressure, then
used either steam or air or both for atomization. Incinerators operated
daily for few years. Maintenance involved replacing brick, cleaning
combustion chamber, firing nozzles. Incinerator had 5 to 15 gallons a
minute capacity.
PAGES 94-96, EXH. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, SHIPPING PAPERS; EXH. 17,
AGREEMENT.
Agreement between FEC and JCC on waste disposal. Majority of waste
was inorganic, plating wastes spent ferric chloride and MEK occluded to
ink which was carbon or iron oxide.
PAGES 96-98, EXH. 13, 14, 15, 17, SHIPPING PAPERS.
No recollection of 10 drums of spent cyanide. If the MEK was liquid
it was resold. If solid ("printing ink" with little MEK occluded), then
the waste was buried. Inorganic waste was hauled from JCC to Lane,
brought cyanide back from Lane to JCC.
PAGES 98-101, EXH. 12, 17.
Bills of lading might provide information on inter plant shipments.
Recalls reselling FEC's MEK. FEC waste included Epoxy, possibly used in
mfg fiber reinforced plastic. Doesn't know "sonic" solvent or "lonic"
solvent, may be Trichlorethyene or Chlorothyene. Discussed waste content
with FEC.
PAGES 101-104, EXH. 16.
JCC Manager or chief operator responsible for decisions on waste
disposal. JCC policy to require generators to label drums. Primarily
received FEC waste in drums. Doesn't recall FEC bulk shipment of 2,000
gallons in tanker referred to in Exh 16.
PAGES 105-107, EXH. 18, 19, 20, INVOICES.
Received inorganics, acids and alkalies from plating in drums from
Western Electric at JCC site. Generally waste put into acid receiving
vessel. Didn't examine drums instead relied on external labels. No
recollection of constituents of "mixed chemicals" or spent solvent.
PAGE 107, EXH. 20, INVOICE.
Waste from Western Electric resulted from washing electronic gear in
acetone. Doesn't know what happened to the waste, "should" have been
resold or shipped to Lane, IN site.
PAGES 107-108, EXH. 21, 22 INVOICES.
Speculates that JCC received hydraulic oil from Western Electric.
May have been used for dusting road, unaware of existence of PCBs at
time. No recollection of misc. wastes referred to in Exh 22.
PAGES 109-113, EXH. 23, 24, INVOICES.
No knowledge of 5,000 gal of waste solvent, but volume and weight
inconsistent. Error on invoice, ammonium persulfate shipped from Lee's
Summit, Mo. to Lane, IN., not to JCC site.
PAGES 113-115, EXH. 25, 26, LETTERS.
Recalls only the names, Mr. Dell and Mr. Gennert.
Pages 115-116; EXH. 27, 28, INVOICES.
Received water soluble coolants from Vendom, would break it down with
acid and spread the oil on property. Doesn't recall process for disposal
of 6,000 gallons of waste solvents received from Vendom.
PAGES 116-119, EXH. 29, INVOICE.
Two shipments of "heavier" oil, one 4600 gallons, one 5,000 gallons,
from Vendom remained at JCC site.
PAGES 119-121, EXH. 30, FMC INVOICE; EXH. 31, 32, INVOICES.
Waste filter cake from FMC consisted of diatomaceous earth, arsenous
sulfide, occluded phosphoric acid and, prior to 790000 elemental
phosphorous. No recollection of Danner Radio Corp., MO.
PAGES 121-123, EXH. 33, 34, INVOICES.
Waste cyanide from Midland Ross treated using Bureau of Mines' "waste
plus waste" process. Later JCC agreed to discontinue treating it and put
it into basins. Received spent sulfuric acid, analyzed as very high in
sulfuric acid, a little water and very small amount of organic aromatic
sulphonate, from Gulf Oil. Relied on Gulf's analysis. Waste placed in
Basin 6 was combined with pickle liquor and neutralized with lime.
PAGES 123-124, EXH. 35, 36, 37, INVOICES.
Received chrome, cyanide, nickel stripper from samsonite at JCC until
750000. Nickel stripper added to the ferrous sulfate solution and
complexed out.
PAGES 124-127, EXH. 38, CHEM ANALYSIS; EXH. 39, LETTER.
Caustic from Aruno was stored in either Basin 1 or Basin 2. Doesn't
recall receiving drums of phenol from Aruno at JCC site, the letter
refers to waste sent to St. Louis.
PAGES 127-129. EXH. 40, LETTER; EXH 41, MEMO.
Doesn't recall Aruno letter. Has no knowledge that JCC ever received
any materials containing vinyl chloride.
PAGES 129-130, EXH. 42, LETTER.
Hallston speculates that the "large orange colored cloud" was the
result of processing very concentrated nitric acid with some material
containing potassium carbonate to make potassium calcium nitrate which
caused nitrous oxide fumes. Nitric acid generated either by the Navy or
Gulf.
PAGES 130-132.
JCC's only remaining business is a continuing purchase order with
Rumco that in the event that their copperous recovery unit is in
disorder JCC will haul the material to St. Louis. Describes current
business of JCCI.
PAGES 133-138.
Corporate relationship between JCC and JCCI explained: allocation of
money, number of employees, assets, current stockholders, future
business plans. JCC site to be closed in summer.
PAGES 138-140, EXH. 43, PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATION.
Paper was presented at a meeting of Trade Organizations. The slides
that accompanied the paper, showing how sludges were stabilized with fly
ash, are in JCC offices.
PAGES 140-142.
MDNR ordered JCC to close landfill sometime between 750000 and
760000. MDNR wanted a "turf of good soil that would be impermeable and a
grass" growing on JCC site.
PAGES 142-144.
JCC's first step was to solidify the deep pits of metal hydroxide
sludges with flyash, which forms a calcium aluminate and a calcium
silicate matrix. The matrix latches onto water and forms a very hard
gypsum hydrate, similar to concrete, within 30 minutes. Began work on
lagoon 1, then finished 2, 5, 4 and 6 last, took 2 years total.
PAGES 144-146.
Several methods were used to fill the lagoons. In deep pits a crane
was used, in shallow pits JCC used a backhoe. The depth of the material
fixed varied from 6 feet to 12 feet, depending on the lagoon, but at all
times stayed above any drums that might be buried in the lagoons.
PAGES 146-147.
The original elevation of JCC site was approximately 728 feet. By
760000 it was 740 feet. JCC hired Elicot City Testing to drill holes to
test the permeability. There was no leakage generally.
PAGES 148-149, EXH. 44, LETTER.
Letter from Hallston to Roger Schnelbern, the chemical engineer
assisting in design work, describes a hole in Basin 1 oozing a heavy
oil, like a No. 6 fuel oil or a bunker C fuel oil. Vendom was probably
the generator of the oil. The leakage caused a problem in the closure.
JCC tried mixing fly ash, then straight ash to form an asphalt
aggregate.
PAGES 150-151.
Finally solved leakage by breaking open the hole, kept adding ash to
absorb the oil, then spreading it out on the very top of the field.
Also had a problem with a very heavy oil film on the caustic to retain
the odor in Basin 1. There is no exact consistency as far as the
combination of materials from one lagoon to another.
PAGES 152-153.
JCC received chrome acid from Hologan Raft, known to Hallston as
Pintex Agribusiness. Did not receive any organic waste from Syntex.
PAGE 153.
JCC holds one patent called "Integral Evaporator". It recovers the
acid in pickle liquor, saves energy, saves attack on bare metal and
makes a salable product out of pickle liquor by concentrating it.
PAGES 153-155.
Hallston answers questions on current profits of JCC, his counsel
objects.
DEPOSITION 820924 HALLSTON, NORMAN B. JCC
NOBLE, DANIEL J.
PAGES 1-25, EXH. 98, 006439, MEMO WITH ATTACHMENTS.
Deposition's purpose: to question Hallston about 96 potentially
responsible parties other than those named by DCA in US v. JCC et al.
Attorneys representing 47 companies placed objections on the record and
filed a Motion for Protective Order under Rule 26 to quash the
deposition, and strike testimony taken before the Motion is ruled upon.
Objections to deposition for failure to comply with Rule 30(b).
PAGES 25-29.
JCC established in 590000, shut down in 820100. Principally recycled
and disposed of industrial waste from other companies.
PAGES 29-44, EXH. 1, INVOICES; EXH. 2.
Waste was sometimes sold to another company by JCC without coming
first to JCC. The payments were sent to JCC, so participating companies
wouldn't know where waste chemical came from or went. Material from
Miamout Shamrock used "to some extent" to make ferric chloride at JCC
St. Louis plant.
PAGES 44-49, EXH. 4; EXH. 5; EXH. 6; EXH. 7; EXH. 8; INVOICES.
Unfamiliar with companies in Exhibits 4 to 8 Essow Motor Freight
Line, Inc., Hines Truck Line Inc., Abe Line Motor Freight Inc of Salem
(does remember Darling Transport), Monroe Auto Equipment, Burgess
Transport, Salemline Hydraulics Corp, Yale Electronics Inc, Biers
Transportation or Turco Inc.
PAGES 49-53, EXH. 9, MEMO.
JCC cleaned up a dump for Commonwealth Edison in Howen, Ia. Two
loads, 10395 gallons high concentration cyanide hauled to JCC in 741000
from Howen. Tank to store sodium hypochloride or in situ treatment of
cyanide fabricated in EC.
PAGES 53-59, EXH. 10; EXH. 11; EXH. 12, MEMO.
Does not recall Consolidated Forwarding or Rucker Freight Lines Inc.
May have taken pickle liquor from Cook Co, GA to Castle Bayns, CT.
PAGES 59-63, EXH. 13, LETTER; EXH. 14, LIST.
Doesn't remember George Ide Construction Co at present. Had job years
ago cleaning up Govt facility. Treated cyanide separately, buried
equipment at JCC that couldn't be cleaned well. Job was for Atchison, KS
facility. Supplied Electric Storage Battery Co, EC with byproduct
caustic solution. Fire in 600000 decade destroyed JCC low grade
documents, customers real or potential and research work.
PAGES 63-67, EXH. 15, JOURNAL; EXH. 16, BILLS OF LADING.
Cleaned tanks for General American Tank Co or General American
Transport Co. Material disposed of at JCC in 660000. Doesn't remember
Gateway Transportation.
PAGES 67-69, EXH. 17, JOURNAL; EXH. 18.
JCC disposed of cyanide on 760705 for 532 dollars for General
Services Aluminum or General Services Administration. Doesn't recall a
co named General Services Aluminum. Doesn't recall Gordon's Transport.
PAGES 69-73, EXH. 19, MEMO; EXH. 20; EXH. 22; EXH. 23.
Records show JCC sold rinyl chloride to Great Plains Beef for
wastewater treatment but Hallston says it was ferric chloride. Doesn't
recall HES Sales Corp. Doesn't recall Haynes Freight Lines Inc as waste
transport for Salem Line Hydraulics Corp but dispatcher Joan Wilson
might. Doesn't recall Schmengley Freight Lines Inc.
PAGES 73-75, EXH. 24, LETTER WITH ATTACHMENT; EXH. 96, LIST.
Disposed of cyanide in the sixties at JCC from Industries of
Rockford, a group of Rockford, LA.
PAGES 75-79, EXH. 25, LETTER.
JCC issued insurance certificates to Companies with which it held
contracts. Hallston traveled to Chicago to solicit contract from Johnson
Outboard Marine Co during late sixties or early seventies. Intent to
transport cyanide and heavy metal waste to JCC. Joan Wilson or Ralph
Buker may know more.
PAGES 79-81, EXH. 26, INVOICES WITH ATTACHMENTS.
Doesn't recall Jones Truck Lines Inc. Sometimes JCC would use
trucking firms as vendors for transporting for their customers or JCC
would accept loads damaged in shipping for emergency or safety reasons.
PAGES 81-87, EXH. 27, LETTER.
If JCC disposed of a company's waste or stored chemicals for them an
insurance certificate was issued that company. Draft Chemicals may have
been a broker, or brought chemicals to JCC about 740000. Remembers
broker James Chemical. Received payment for cyanide disposal from
Ralkford Sanitary District No. 6, 112 dollars on 651026, Laurence
Brothers RSD 9, 70 dollars on 660408, same co. RSD 8, 226 dollars and
cyanide, 73 dollars on 660705 from same. Again Laurence Brothers of
Starling, IL, manufacturers of metal hardware seat 153, 141 and 294
pounds cyanide to JCC.
PAGES 86-89, EXH. 28, JOURNAL; EXH. 96, LIST; EXH. 29, LETTER.
Spots General Services Administration clearly in exh 28. Recalls
doing a decontamination job for Army through Manikin Co, Atchison, MD in
about 640000.
PAGES 89-99, EXH. 30; EXH. 31; EXH. 32; EXH. 34; EXH. 35; EXH.
39; EXH. 33; EXH. 40; JOURNAL; EXH. 37, BILL OF LADING; EXH. 36,
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE.
Doesn't recall Stanley Transfer, Middlewest Freightway, Barshern
Brothers, Part Plating (from which cyanide was shipped), Rumaco Transit,
Zero Manufacturing, Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co, NETCO of CO,
Universal Oil Products Process Division, Daisy Division Manufacturing Co
or Dassy Freight, American Battery (acid disposed, document dated
670531, 83 dollars) and Bartening Seed Co (for disposal of cyanide at
JCC in 650000). Companies issued insurance certificate indicates waste
might be deposited at JCC. Halvert, a Roto Rooter agent in Santa Fe
district and Carlton, 600000 decade superintendent of Rockford
wastewater treatment plant may know more about Relkford waste
evacuation.
PAGES 99-101, EXH. 41, JOURNAL.
Remembers Benson Mnfg may have disposed of 165 dollars worth of
nitric acid 660412.
PAGES 101-104, EXH. 42; EXH. 43; JOURNALS.
Apparent disposal of acids at JCC by Bairstone Cable in 680000, 196
dollars worth. Krantz Mnfg Co, Starling IA, disposed of 575 dollars
cyanide on 670613. Drantz was JCC customer for several years.
PAGES 104-105, EXH. 44, JOURNAL.
Powers Co, Chicago, paid 417 dollars to dump cyanide about 660428 at
JCC. Possibly Senator Saron's company, motion picture camera makers.
PAGES 105-110, EXH. 45; EXH. 46, JOURNALS; EXH. 47.
660208 solvent waste received from Maryland Solvent and or Humble
Oil. Acid waste deposited from Darmelee Pharmaceutical Co, EC about
651025. Stencil Chemical, later bought by Gulf Research or Gulf
Chemical, deposited acid several times in 650000.
PAGES 110-117, EXH. 48; EXH. 50; EXH. 51, EXH. 49.
2,3 loads cyanide from Garner Toleman of Relkford IA sent to JCC on
651026 and 660427. Memo 740521 JCC sold 4,600 acetone solvent to
Chemical Recovery, Romulus MI. Sold to, did not dispose chemicals for
Chemical Recovery in 740000 period. Then, Barry Wilburn dispatcher.
Gates Rubber Co, Power Boss Division paid 30 dollars apparently to
dispose cyanide to JCC on 651026. JCC dealt with Philip N Hurt Chemical
Co over a broad period of time. 680329 JCC paid 480 dollars for deposit
of acid at JCC from Hurt, now owned by Ober.
PAGES 117-120, EXH. 52, EXH. 54, BUSINESS RECORDS; EXH. 53, SALES
JOURNAL.
Cyanide from Charles O Carson Co of Relkford disposed at JCC on
660527 costing $121.45. Midland Lithograph Co deposited acid at JCC
680315 cost 156 dollars. Acid of Valley Steel Products either St Louis
or Louisiana MD paid 176 dollars to dispose of acid at JCC 680325.
PAGES 120-122, EXH. 55, LETTER; INSURANCE CERTIFICATE; EXH. 55;
EXH. 56; EXH 57; EXH. 96, LIST.
Woodsten Governor Co deposited 14 dollars cyanide on 651026 and at
another time 19 and 44 pounds cyanide to JCC. Doesn't remember American
Frieght Systems transporting waste to JCC for DeSoto, Inc, Goudaille
Industries. Michigan Metals Corp waste transported to JCC.
PAGES 123-126, EXH. 58.
Documents indicate JCC received 84 drums of arsenic sulfide filter
cake encapsulated in cement from Wheeling Disposal Service, but Hallston
says documents are wrong. Waste was from FMC in Laurence and sent to
Wheeling landfill operated by Chas Bentrop in Amazonia, Maryland. Says
no possibility that this waste transferred to JCC.
PAGES 126-130, EXH. 59 MEMO; EXH. 60.
Memo from George Baggell to Hallston 770804 about customers no longer
sending waste to JCC indicating they were small, little profit. Bellow
Mnfg not sent waste since 750000, not remembered by Hallston. Canadian
National Railway transported Stelco or Steel Company of Canada Limited
sent waste to JCC.
PAGES 130-133, EXH. 61; EXH. 63; EXH. 64; EXH. 96, LIST; EXH. 62,
LIST.
Anaconda Wire Cable of Relkford group deposited 534 dollars cyanide
JCC. Exh 96 shows deposits of 1,671 and 3,058 pounds cyanide from same.
Doesn't remember Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. Clayton Chemical Co was
broker recycler of organic waste. Hallston doesn't remember disposing of
waste for them. Doesn't remember Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight Inc,
shipper for York Automotive Division but documents indicate wastes
disposed at JCC.
PAGES 133-134, EXH. 65.
University of Maryland deposited 2 drums waste solvent 55 gallons
each at JCC costing 50 dollars.
PAGES 134-138, EXH. 66; EXH. 68; CUSTOMER RECORDS; EXH. 67,
LETTER.
Cerus Truck Line of EC hauled pickle liquor for JCC to JCC. Letter to
J L Gredy from JCC 641013. Doesn't recall if Skelly Oil Co of ElDorado
disposed waste at JCC. Two types of business with Granite City Steel.
JCC studied color problem on their F line. JCC took Granite's spent
pickle liquor to produce ferric chloride for sale by JCC. EC Testing
Laboratory used by JCC for testing.
PAGES 138-140, EXH. 69; EXH. 70, LIST.
Inconclusive discussion of Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co with
respect to Byron job, Relkford IL. Doesn't recall what JCC traded with
Inland Chemical Co, Fort Wayne IN. Doesn't remember Inland Chemical Co,
Warrensburg, MO.
PAGES 140-142, EXH. 71.
Documents show Tay Transport Co shipped "a few drums" of material to
JCC. Hallston says material was Tay's although Tay maintains they were
only transport. Tay could have been a generator or broker transporter.
Exh seems to indicate Tay selected disposal sites. Hallston worked 9
years at Sugar Creek, met Tay Transport people, knows Mr Holwick.
PAGES 142-149, EXH. 72, OTHER.
Hallston is fairly sure that by 790500, he stopped taking iridite,
chromic acid at EC, despite JCC records showing 3,400 gallons chromic
acid from Keota Corp sent to JCC. Hallston believes his records may be
misleading. Chromic acid wasn't disposed at JCC, but sent to Waste
Management, Oak Brook IL, as indicated on page 10 of exh 72.
PAGES 149-151, EXH. 73, LIST; EXH. 74, LETTER WITH ATTACHMENT.
Remembers visiting Motorola Inc facility to make sales call.
Obtained business, but doesn't remember if it was the transportation of
waste to JCC. Thinks he got copper amonium sulfate that went to Lane IN.
Says doesn't remember it went to JCC but "that conversely reverses too,"
doesn't recall it wasn't there either. Doesn't recall R Levin and Sons
Inc. Off the record discussion held at Mr. Meyerson's request.
PAGES 151-156, EXH. 75; EXH. 77; EXH. 76; JOURNAL.
James and Loughlin Steel was a pickle liquor source. Material from
them probably sent to St Louis MO. Doesn't remember their waste sent to
JCC during 750500. Baclade Steel got 4077 dollars byproduct caustic
solution from JCC St. Louis. Monoethycalione 160 drums picked up by JCC
from Maryland Pacific Railroad, poured into JCC'S bulk handling trailor
truck and sold to customer in AL.
PAGES 156-160, EXH. 78; EXH. 79.
Doesn't remember The Moore Co Inc disposing waste at JCC. On 770621
Reveling tank car of muriatic acid leaked while on Thomason Howard
facility in EC. JCC was called to pump acid into its own truck and
presumably then used by Rumco Steel, not deposited at JCC.
PAGE 160, EXH. 80, LIST.
May have bought chlorine from PPG Industries Inc to manufacture
ferric chloride. Doesn't remember waste disposal relationship.
PAGES 161-163, EXH. 81.
JCC brokered and, or, transported waste for Rockherst College or
University, sometimes disposing their waste at landfill of KA Industrial
Waste Environmental Services Inc, now owned by Waste Management. Five
drums of ether from Rockhurst were taken to JCC and "shot."
PAGES 163-167, EXH. 82.
JCC primarily sold ferrous sulfate to Union Carbide. Did tank
cleaning job for them in which Union Carbide was charged for the removal
of waste and it was consigned to JCC.
PAGES 167-171, EXH. 83; EXH. 85; EXH. 86; EXH. 87; EXH. 84, LIST.
Doesn't remember SJ Grove and Co. Doesn't remember Union Oil of CA
waste to JCC, but now has business dealings with JCCI. Not aware of
United Parcel Service delivery for Burton Matheson Scientific Inc.
Documents indicate Yellow Freight Systems Inc deposit 80 drums unknown
mixed chemicals.
PAGES 171-178, EXH. 87; EXH. 88; EXH. 89.
Zenith Radio, now Zenith Electronic Corp sent to JCC 30 drums spent
acid, 50 drums waste solvent in fourth quarter 750000. Chloride pickle
liquor from Rochester Corp as a rule resold at Diamond Shamrock and
Castle Hayne. Doesn't remember Spector Freight Systems Inc, transporter
for McCord General Products and Mueller Co.
PAGES 178-182, EXH. 91; EXH. 92; EXH. 90, LETTER.
Hallston met with Industries of Relkford at inducement of and on
premises of Sanitary District of Relkford IL. Doesn't remember Mid
Atlantic Lines In, transporter for Getty Packing Co but it looks like
one drum shipped to JCC. Recovered copper and ferrous chloride at St
Louis Plant from ferric etchant from Advanced Circuitry Division of
Litton Systems Inc.
PAGES 182-184, EXH. 93.
Zero Mfg. Co of MD maintains it is not the one in JCC records, which
show a FL address and a CA bank in exh 93.
PAGES 184-189, EXH. 96, LIST.
Of Industries of Relkford listing, doesn't recall Muehlemeyer,
National Lock, Sassaton or Standard Brass. Recalls Russell Birdwell and
Ward, both of Rock Falls IL, deposited 146 pounds cyanide. Roto Rooter
man, Julian Calvert, collected Relkford wastes and sent to JCC. Has
lists of co names whose wastes transferred to JCCI. Can't remember any
other co not on third party list already whose wastes JCC took.
PAGES 189-192.
Mr Swank has no more questions about potential responsible parties,
which are only those not already named in third party list. Discussion
held as to whether deposition to be continued next day. Confusion.
Shorthand reporter notes: "... deposition was continued at this time."
DEPOSITION 820928 HALLSTON, NORMAN B. VOL. II
NOBLE, DANIEL J.
PAGES 1-16.
Preliminary remarks. Discussion of order of proceedings and
scheduling of deposition.
PAGES 17-22.
Background information on deponent. Education and employment history.
PAGES 22-29.
Custodians and locations of corporate files discussed. Documents of
secondary importance lost in fire at JCC site between 600000-690000.
Vendor brochures damaged by water at Pershing Road between
700000-790000. No known documents or materials on company located other
than at offices. Old counsel may have same. Documents in fire were bills
of lading and invoices.
PAGES 29-33, EXH. 98, 770457, 318167, 006439, MEMO.
Filing system and possible location of letters about closure of JCC
discussed.
PAGES 33-35.
Background on Hallston's creation of JCC. Original idea was to
neutralize caustic solutions from Standard Oil with waste acids from
Sheffield Steel and reduce salt going into MD river.
PAGES 35-45, EXH. 99, FM100003, ARTICLE.
Genesis of JCC discussed. Hallston obtained technical advice from
several friends: Adams, Jim; Salger, Albert; Garnett, Robert; and
Attrick, Jim. Also, search of literature. Primary emphasis at that time
were refinery, petroleum and metal finishing wastes. Refinery wastes
were spent caustics and cresylates: sodium hydroxide, sodium sulfide,
sodium hydrosulfide, sodium cresols and phenols. Metal finishing wastes
were of two types, acid cleaning and plating solutions. Acid cleaning
were for steel and later aluminum. Plating solutions had nickel, chrome,
copper, cyanide, zinc and cadmium. Planned to treat caustics and pickle
liquor by neutralizing pH 12 to 14 caustic with pH 3 and under pickle
liquor to a final pH of 7 to 8.5, then dewatering or drying the residue
was metal hydroxide, or for refinery caustic, iron sulfide. The metal
hydroxide in the basins are largely insoluble. Iron would tend to make
other heavy metals more insoluble. Planned to treat hexavalent chromium
wastes, which are soluble over most pHs, by converting to trivalent
chrome because it is relatively insoluble at a neutral pH. Hallston's
previous work experience was organic where JCC was primarily inorganic.
PAGES 46-52, EXH. 100, U14298, LETTER.
Original solicitation of customers and origin of original prices for
hexavalent chromium, pickle liquor, and phenolic wastes discussed.
PAGES 52-60, EXH. 101, U14286, LETTER.
Original idea was to neutralize caustics with pickle liquor and
dispose of residue on site and possibly recycle phenolar and cresol
bearing caustics. Nickels, aluminum, sulfuric acid was to be treated for
metal platers. Request that records from a former counsel, Lowell
Smithson of Spencer, Fane, Britt, and Browne be produced. Purpose for
setting up JCC and original officers, directors, and stockholders
discussed.
PAGES 60-64.
Original criteria for site selection discussed. Does not recall any
assistance from federal, city, or state officials or COE in site
selection. Sell characteristics and ground water hydrology were not
considered in site selection.
PAGES 64-71; EXH. 102, U14297, LETTER, EXH. 103, U14290, LETTER,
EXH. 104, U14255, LETTER.
Does not recall correspondence with COE. Original plan for site was
to build basins. Does not recall a layout plan which was not adopted.
Does not recall which proposed site COE considered inadequate.
PAGES 72-80, EXH. 105, U04044, PERMIT.
Permit from COE to construct and separate JCC plant discussed. Does
not recall if there was a formal hearing on the permit. COE mailing
list, presumably of people interested in permit discussed. Intention was
to build a process area up almost to the elevation of the levee. Basin
to be constructed was over a clay area. Soil for basin was to be
obtained from area riverward of basin leaving burrow pits. Does not
recall any plans for burrow pits. Regarded COE permit as for
construction and operation.
PAGES 80-86, EXH. 106, U14282, LETTER; EXH. 107, U20879, 70070,
ORDINANCE.
Right of way agreement with Elicot City discussed. City was fully
informed of purpose of and plans for site. There was an ordinance
hearing. Construction on site was done by JCC. Does not recall any
supervision by city or COE of construction. City told metal hydroxide
would remain in basin at site. Neutralization process fully explained.
Process area two feet down from levee top.
PAGES 86-95, EXH. 108, BLUEPRINT.
Does not recall if COE saw blueprint for site construction.
Construction occurred as in blueprint except for a ramp and having dug
in toward MD river to fill up an area near levee. Flood plain soil
consisted of heavy clay. In the area of one treatment basin soil was
sandy and an impervious fill consisting of clay material was used. Does
not recall if COE required an impervious liner on that basin.
Construction of basins so that no leakage was possible was not a
condition. COE did not ask about hydrology or for soil borings. COE had
own borings at site. "Impervious" in 600000 meant clay which retained
water as opposed to sand which doesn't retain water. Impervious was a
relative term in 600000.
PAGES 95-99, EXH. 109, 720761, 010176, 321868, LETTER.
A well was constructed on northwest side of processing plant to
provide washwater for equipment and personnel and for sanitary
facilities. Operation of company began in 600000. Does not recall names
of employees then.
PAGES 100-102, EXH. 110, 720716, 321685, 006018, BROCHURE.
A sales representation was that JCC was disposing of the chemicals in
a manner complying with pollution laws. Two of the recovered products
were sodium aluminate and copperas. The first contracts were with
Western Electric for treating metal plating waste and with Vendom.
PAGES 103-108, EXH. 111, 725148, 318981, 18675, AGREEMENT.
Vendom purchased services of JCC to dispose of toxic wastes. Atomic
Energy Commission approved of agreement. Hexavalent chrome, acid,
cyanide, alkaline solution disposed of at JCC site. Hallston agreed to
take responsibility for materials after picking them up, to comply with
federal and state regulations, to indemnify Vendom and AEC from loss, to
take safety precautions, and to provide insurance.
PAGES 108-112, EXH. 112, 725305, 319513, 21571, LETTER, CERTIFICATE;
EXH. 113, 725108, 318887, 21133, LETTER, CERTIFICATE.
Procedure for soliciting business discussed. Told businesses would
comply with federal, state, local pollution laws and usually offered
insurance.
PAGES 112-118.
Scheduling and logistics of deposition discussed. Objection by
counsel of third party insurance company defendants to the continuation
of the deposition.
MASTERS HEARING 841031 N/A VOL. 9
STRONG, DAVID
PAGES 1-10.
Mr. Wilkins of Central National Insurance Co says the hearing was
requested to clarify the scope of permissible discovery the insurance
companies are going through. Discussion of insurance coverage.
PAGES 11-22.
Insurance carriers want to know if the big defendants expected
pollution damage at the time they took out policies. Discussion of
phases of discovery.
PAGES 23-32.
Insurance companies believe Hallston knew or had access to
information concerning the damage by the waste to environment.
Discussion on scope of discovery.
PAGES 33-45.
670000 was the only year that had been established for transfer of
waste from Lexington to JCC. Problem with scheduling depositions.
PAGES 46-60.
Insurance companies are trying to find out if the big companies knew
the harm their wastes would do to the environment. Special Master will
allow the insurance companies to ask a broad range of questions to JCC
and the major defendants. Insurance companies want to show that FEC must
have known that their wastes would be disposed of improperly because of
the low price JCC charged relative to other vendors. Problem with
production of witnesses discussed.
PAGES 61-77.
FEC states that if Mr. Strong has a question that FEC believes is
relevant to the case and the question can not be answered on the spot,
the witness will find the answer at the FEC plant and record it on the
court record. From 670000 until 720000 FEC had no written policies on
waste disposal. FEC agrees to give the names of its people who supplied
information used in the Betz Report. The Betz Report estimated future
FEC waste disposal needs and doesn't show the wastes at JCC. Insurance
companies want to see current FEC waste policies. FEC does not think
they are relevant to the case.
DEPOSITION 841029 GIMBLE, HERMAN S. VOL. I
STRONG, DAVID E.
PAGES 7-11
Durbin is employed as environmental engineer at Lexington plant of
FEC. Has worked there since 590000.
PAGES 11-23.
Did electroplating from 590000 to 630000. Cyanide generated was
processed at FEC during that period. From 640000 to 690000 worked as
materials engineer. Visited electroplating dept one or two times a week.
From 700000 to 740000 was process engineer with electroplating dept.
PAGES 23-24.
Has attended seminars about hazardous waste.
PAGES 24-28.
Reviewed documents found in discovery relating to Austin and
Lexington facilities in past week including invoice to JCC from 720000.
PAGES 29-35.
Did not know FEC Lexington disposed of wastes at JCC until litigation
began.
PAGES 35-39.
Had meeting with attorneys and FEC employees from other facilities in
previous week. No other employees knew of transactions between JCC and
FEC.
PAGES 39-42.
From 670000 to 730000 waste sent to JCCI included sodium cyanide and
3 proprietary mixtures from Houghton and MacDonald.
PAGES 42-47.
Trichloroethylene was disposed of offsite from 660000 to 730000. FEC
had more than one chemical scavenger.
PAGES 47-52.
Discussion among counsel as to which FEC representatives would be
available.
PAGES 52-54.
Still bottoms were pumped to a bulk holding tank owned by FEC, then
pumped to tank truck.
PAGES 54-60, EXH. 7, INVOICE.
Spent solvent sent to JCCI on 690815. Does not think it was
trichloroethylene. Could have been mix of tetrahydrofuran and toluene
and isopropyl alcohol. Probably majority was tetrahydrofuran. Some ethyl
alcohol.
PAGES 60-63, EXH. 2, 102547, PURCHASE ORDER; EXH. 7, INVOICE.
Flammable solvent tank probably held more than 70 percent
tetrahydrofuran.
PAGES 63-67.
FEC sent wastes to JCCI from 690000 to 730000. Flash point for
mixture in flammable solvent tank would have been less than 140 degrees
Fahrenheit.
PAGES 67-73, EXH. 8, INVOICE.
Non-flammable solvents sent to JCCI included trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene, and oil, possibly cyanide, chromium, and nickel, oily
wastes.
PAGES 73-82.
FEC had a dedicated trichloroethylene tank. Probably 3 to 4 times
more trichloroethylene than 1, 1, 1 trichloroethane disposed of. Leased
tank from JCCI for alkaline oil solution 710000 to 730000.
PAGES 83-86.
30 to 40 percent of waste consisted of mild alkaline solution, Recon
Washer. Also included a rust preventative, Spray Altrex.
PAGES 86-90.
Dedicated trichloroethylene tank installed in 740000 at FEC. It
included oils whose flashpoint was above 140 degrees Fahrenheit.
PAGES 90-94.
Believes trichloroethylene waste was incinerated at JCCI according to
shipping documents.
PAGES 94-97.
FEC sent wastes to JCC in 670000 and to JCCI from 680000 to 720000.
Waste sent to JCC consisted of cyanide and chromium. 10 shipments to EC
in 690000, less than 10 percent FEC Lexington.
PAGES 97-101.
The cyanide waste included the proprietary materials Metex Strip-Aid
and Houghton Perliton. Both had pH value of more than 12.
PAGES 101-102.
Ten to 15 percent of FEC waste sent to JCCI.
PAGES 102-112.
Chromium waste sent to JCC contained chromic acid and sulfuric acid,
both with pH of 2 or less and copper. Waste contained more than one
percent chromium.
PAGES 112-121, EXH. 1, 102546, PURCHASE ORDER; EXH. 2, 102547,
PURCHASE ORDER.
T. L. Surot, contracts administrator at FEC in 700000 spent between
one quarter and one half of his time dealing with waste disposal. Was
responsibility of Purchasing Dept to select vendor to dispose of waste.
In 700000, Surot selected vendors.
PAGES 121-129, EXH. 2, 102547, PURCHASE ORDER.
Believes the depts which sent wastes to JCCI in 690000 manufactured
typewriter ribbons. FEC storage tank contained mainly tetrahydrofuran.
PAGES 129-132, EXH. 3, 102539, LETTER.
Emulsified oil wastes were sent to JCCI. Does not know how they were
processed at JCCI. Letter dated 711126.
PAGES 132-134, EXH. 3, 102539, LETTER.
There were 3 waste tanks: one underground oily waste, one 500 gallon
underground tank for washing operation, one 10000 gallon tank rented
from JCCI for spent solvents. Did not know oil was decanted at JCCI and
sent to JCC.
PAGES 134-136.
Trichloroethylene tank put into operation in 740000.
Trichloroethylene cannot be cracked through the acid treating
de-emulsification process.
PAGES 136-137, EXH. 3, 102539, LETTER.
Cannot prove that decanted oil was not shipped from JCCI to JCC but
believes that fact that no payment was made to JCC refutes it.
PAGES 137-138.
Acid, de-emulsification agents, and heat used in that order could not
break down trichloroethylene oil and water mixture.
PAGES 138-142, EXH. 4, 102540, LETTER.
Not aware that organic solvent base chemical wastes were shipped from
JCCI to JCC in 710000. FEC leased only one tank from JCCI a 10000 gallon
tank in 720000 or 730000. In 670000 payment records show chromic and
cyanide waste to JCC-KC.
PAGES 142-152, EXH. 5, 102543, PURCHASE ORDER; EXH. 6, IL000328,
REPORT; EXH. 4, 102540, LETTER.
Believes the figure of 3000 gallons of oily waste per week disposed
of by JCCI to be too high. Thinks figure is 1200 to 1800 gallons. Not
possible to say amount that came from trichloroethylene stills. Katz
Report on treatment of waste lists 3000 of oily waste hauled by JCC.
PAGES 152-153.
No one at FEC was dissatisfied with Katz report in 720000.
PAGES 154-162.
Included in waste sent to JCCI was rust preventative, called M-685
and black oxide.
PAGES 162-164.
Oil from impregnator line not toxic but may be a pollutant.
PAGES 164-175.
Vythene tank drippings which went to JCCI included 1,1,1
trichloroethane OR methyl chloroform. Less than 1 gallon per month of
1,1,1 trichloroethene disposed of.
PAGES 175-180, EXH. 2, 102547, PURCHASE ORDER.
FEC did not treat wastes before sending them for disposal. Labels on
waste drums identified their contents.
PAGES 180-182, EXH. 2, 102547, PURCHASE ORDER.
Does not know whether methyl isobutyl ketone or methyl ethyl ketone
shipped to JCCI.
PAGES 183-186, EXH. 9, IL000039, INVOICE; EXH. 10 IL000037, INVOICE.
Doesn't dispute 3400 gallon chromic acid pick up by JCC in EXH. 9.
Site unknown.
PAGES 186-188.
Industrial waste treatment sludge was not disposed of by JCC or JCCI.
PAGE 188.
Does not believe chrome waste sent to JCC in 670000 was in drums.
PAGES 188-195.
Does not believe Katz Report waste amounts are accurate. FEC
employees not normally present at shipping weighings. Page 352 of BETZ
Report lists 7400 gallons of cyanide waste and either 1440 or 14400
gallons of chrome waste disposed of by JCCI.
DEPOSITION 841030 GIMBLE, HERMAN S. VOL. II
STRONG, DAVID E.
PAGES 196-200.
Appearances and exhibits index.
PAGES 201-205, EXH. 6, IL000328, REPORT; EXH. 11, IL0001032,
BROCHURE.
Oil waste tank at FEC, Lexington contained McDermid M685 and
trichloroethylene. Does not know if M685 is Phosphotex 685. Did not know
if JCCI acid cracked the waste oil. Objection that FEC shipments to Lane
should be deemed irrelevant since no evidence exists indicating any
waste was transshipped from JCCI to JCC in EC.
PAGES 205-208, EXH. 6, IL000328, REPORT.
Some cyanide containing wastes were dumped to a cyanide hold tank.
In the Katz report, the cyanide dump is probably the hold tank.
However, Bath No. 11, page 440 of the Report was a plating tank so its
contents were continuously reused, not dumped.
PAGES 208-210, EXH. 6, IL000328, REPORT.
Bath No. 8, page 449 of Katz Report, a nickel stipping operation,
dumped 85 to 100 gal. to cyanide hold tank about once every 3 weeks.
Objection by counsel that Katz does not show what went to JCC or JCCI.
PAGES 210-212, EXH. 6, IL000328, REPORT.
Cyanide waste was shipped to JCC in 670000, and to JCCI mid 690000 to
720000. If cyanide shipping documents say "bulk", then shipment was from
cyanide hold tank at Lexington. If cyanide shipping documents say
"barrels", then shipment was not from hold tank. Gives list of Lexington
people who might be familiar with disposal of hold tank contents. Yaste,
Vernil; Miles, Tom; Mitchell, Kenneth; Smith, Robert; Lang, John;
and Worrell, Bill.
PAGES 212-217, EXH. 6, IL000328.
Zinc plating operation, Bath No. 16, did not dump cyanide. Cyanide
was added to it. Contents of Bath No. 19, page 449 did not go to JCC or
JCCI. Bulk tank shipments contained sodium cyanide and Strip-Aid. Drum
cyanide shipments were solid waste from heat treating operations.
PAGES 216-223, EXH. 12, IL0001000, CHEM ANALYSIS; EXH. 6, IL000328,
REPORT.
Chromic acid would have gone to JCC in 670000 and as part of a copper
stripping material to JCCI. Gimble says chromic acid would be a
hazardous waste under 780000 RCRA.
PAGES 218-219, EXH. 6, IL000328, REPORT.
Page 437 of Katz Report is not correct, Bath 14 was pumped back to
Bath 15. Bath 15 was not dumped, additions were made to it.
PAGE 223, EXH. 13, IL0001023, CHEM ANALYSIS.
A safety data sheet showing Metex Strip Aid.
PAGES 224-226.
Deposition scheduling.
PAGES 226-228, EXH. 6, IL000328, REPORT.
Page 441 of Katz, Bath 12 contained cyanide, not chromate.
PAGES 228-230.
Problem of handling of exhibits.
PAGES 230-232, EXH. 13, IL0001023, CHEM ANALYSIS.
Matex Strip Aid was mixed with sodium cyanide for use in nickle
stripping. Spent material shipped to waste disposal vendor.
PAGES 232-235, EXH. 14, IL0001072, CHEM ANALYSIS; EXH. 15,
IL0001074, CHEM ANALYSIS.
Berliton 398 and 400, contained high percentages of sodium cyanide.
Cyanide waste from heat treating process was not treated by his
facility. Heat treat waste disposed of in barrels. Barrel cyanide waste
from Lexington would include these. Says would need to look at shipping
documents.
PAGES 235-239.
Witness knows of one trip by FEC Lexington to determine how waste was
disposed of at JCC and JCCI. Purchasing Dept may have inquired about
lawful disposal. In 670000 buyer would have been Withrow, Jack or
Dearing, Jim. 680000 to 730000 Mr. Kent or Mr. Stein would have been
buyers. No lab packs were disposed of with JCC or JCCI.
PAGES 240-242.
Ethylene glycol may have gone to JCC or JCCI. Methylene chloride,
vinyl chloride and benzene did not go to JCC or JCCI. The paint
department did not use the underground oily waste tank.
PAGES 242-244, EXH. 16, IL0001040, CHEM ANALYSIS.
Does not recognize exhibit. Chemicals on list were not used in heat
treat or plating in 670000 to 730000.
PAGES 244-246, EXH. 17, INVOICE.
104 drums cyanide waste disposed of to JCCI, 720920. Another shipment
sometime 730000 to 740000.
PAGES 246-249, EXH. 18, INVOICE.
80 drums of solvents, tetrahydrofuran, toluene, isopropyl alcohol and
ethyl alcohol, disposed of through JCCI, 720421. Trichloroethylene was
not used 670000 to 730000. Does not know meaning of "Class A-12
Chemicals" on JCCI Bill of Lading.
PAGES 249-251, EXH. 19, INVOICE.
Purchase order and invoice refer to two different shipments. Two oily
wastes produced at Lexington: Underground oil waste tank, primarily
McDermait M-685; and washer recon operation, 90 percent water to 10
percent oil. 3000 gal 90 to 10 solution went to JCCI 720308.
PAGES 251-253, EXH. 20, INVOICE.
4600 gal nonflammable oil disposed of at JCCI. Part of oil from oily
waste tank, part from oil recon waste. Indication that wastes mixed in
truck.
PAGES 253-260, EXH. 21, PURCHASE ORDER.
1000 gal 95 percent water, 5 percent oil went to JCCI. Purchase order
specifies disposal by incineration. Witness not aware of means of
disposal. Mr. Smith went to Lane and said incinerator not in operation.
Had been, but no indication how long out of operation. Mr. Smith
appalled at number of drums sitting around at JCCI.
PAGES 260-263.
FEC never owned or rented trucks to haul waste. Document control Nos
given to Exhs 1 through 5. Procedures.
PAGES 263-290, EXH. 22, PLEADING.
Argument over broadness of notice. Witness produced to discuss
Lexington, not FEC in general. Deposition notice has no restriction of
relevance to JCC. FEC following Special Master directive.
PAGES 290-291.
No known cost analysis of Lexington waste disposal.
PAGES 291-294.
Katz report written 720000, witness reviewed 740000. Expressed verbal
objections then to Crockett, Dan and Will, Zollie.
PAGES 294-342.
Document production questions. Lexington production only 670000 to
730000, the period it shipped to JCC and JCCI.
PAGES 308-323.
Lexington environmental services dept names and dept heads.
PAGES 343-345.
Environmental engineer position created 710000. Prior to that, buyers
would have made decision on where to dump waste. Buyers in 670000
Keating, Jim and Wintrow, Jack. Environmental Engineers since 710000,
Smith, Harvey and Gimble.
PAGES 345-351.
Standard procedure in 670000 to ask waste disposal vendor if capable
of proper disposal. Buyers would not have known proper disposition
procedures. Not sure if buyers ask if disposers had proper state, local,
or federal permits. Question to that effect may have been on purchase
order or shipping documents.
PAGES 351-357.
Until litigation started, no one from Lexington had visited JCC.
Trip to Lane in 710000 to 720000. Not sure if trip because of new FEC
policy or if report of trip. Smith, Harvey, one of men on trip, will be
deposed. After 670000, all shipments were to JCCI.
PAGES 357-358.
Decision by Smith, Harvey to stop using JCCI based on JCCI's general
condition, physical appearance, waste accumulation, unidentified drums.
PAGES 358-361.
No written instructions to buyers on how to purchase disposal
services 670000 to 740000. May have been list govt approved vendors mid
70s. FEC list created 800000 to 820000.
PAGES 361-362.
Lexington had own cyanide disposal system 670000. Could not meet city
.025 ppm total cyanide law. Does not know of any cyanide disposal system
which could. Also Lexington system could have only handled liquid
cyanide.
PAGES 362-367, EXH. 23, 0060000202, PURCHASE ORDER.
Lexington paid 60 cents per gallon to JCCI to have 95 percent water,
5 percent oil solution disposed of by incineration. Witness says might
be able to make a profit in 820000 doing that. FEC buyers would not have
had technical background to have known if vendor could lawfully dispose
of material given only prices. Buyers may have had training in selection
of disposers.
PAGES 367-372, EXH. 24, IA000112, MEMO.
Memo from Wright, T L, says disposal contracts should be reviewed to
make sure disposer can handle FEC material under existing law. Also,
technical assistance should be obtained from chemical coordinator or
regional Industrial Hygienist. Witness did not interview Lexington memo
receipients and knows of no Lexington response.
PAGES 372-376.
There is no existing file on JCC in buyer department on 670000
period. FEC counsel says all documents related to JCC have been
produced.
PAGES 376-379.
List given of departments searched for documents and persons
interviewed at Lexington.
PAGES 379-381.
Letter to Lexington concerning JCC probably would have gone to
general manager's office first, then down two levels to Mr. Smith, then
down to witness. Legal requests may have gone to vice president at
corporate office. In 670000 to 740000, corporate office only involved in
waste disposal if legal requirement that vice president sign document.
PAGES 381-382, EXH. 24, IA000112, MEMO.
Does not know Wright, T L; Brane, J A; or Hinnegans, R. Terry, H
may be corporate safety man.
PAGES 382-384.
Corporate memos or policies concerning waste disposal would have gone
to purchasing 670000 to 740000. Buyers don't recall any. In 840000,
vendors dictated by corporate contracts.
PAGES 384-386.
Mr. Darteck plant general manager 670000 to 740000. Mr. Balk and or
Gadd, W may have been heads of purchasing. Witness did not interview any
of these three.
PAGES 386-390.
List given of people witness asked about JCC. No one at Lexington had
personal knowledge of disposal practices at JCC.
PAGES 390-396, EXH. 22, PLEADING.
Did not find any written policies, procedures, rules or regulations
on pollution control, labeling of materials for disposal, studies of any
hazardous waste disposal sites or waste disposition and disposal
practices, policies, procedures, rules and regulations for 670000 to
740000 which have not been produced at depository.
PAGES 396-397, EXH. 22, PLEADING.
All cost analyses, studies, investigations on disposal, all purchase,
use, generation, and disposition regarding JCC, and all warnings,
instructions, procedures for storage and handling sent to JCC known at
Lexington have been produced.
PAGES 397-399, EXH. 23, 0060000202, PURCHASE ORDER.
Some purchase orders of Lexington with JCC refer to lawful
disposition of cyanide waste in 670000 through 740000. Any Lexington
documents instructing JCC on disposal techniques were found. In 720000,
the instructions to incinerate the 95 percent water 5 percent oil
solution would have been drawn up by the Environmental Engineering
group. Prior to 720000, any instructions would have been drawn up by
purchasing or by the Chemical Control Coordinator.
PAGES 399-402.
Does not know where any files of Mr. Falone, Chemical Control
Coordinator in 670000 to 740000, are. Current and prior individuals in
that post do not have them.
PAGES 403-404.
Drums to JCC and JCCI from Lexington in 670000 to 740000 were
unlabeled, except perhaps as flammable or listing the contents, and were
probably black.
PAGE 404, EXH. 22, 0060000202, PLEADING.
Does not know of any documents commenting on JCC or how JCC disposed
of waste.
PAGES 404-406, EXH. 22 006020000202, PLEADING.
Saw one insurance related document. Buyers, Withrow, Jack and
Keating, Jim, said any time contractors came on site they were asked if
had liability insurance. Also, was unwritten practice to check insurance
coverage of ** 16-23 disposal services.
PAGES 406-410.
In 670000, the purchase of disposal service would have been at the
discretion of the buyers at Lexington. Other FEC plants may have been
different. FEC corporate may have set policies beginning in the 70s. As
of 800000, all disposal has been done by corporate contracts and only by
corporate approved disposers.
PAGES 410-415.
No opinion as to who might have been able to order that Lexington
policy on toxic waste disposal be written down.
PAGE 415-418.
Since 780000, Lexington has followed RCRA part B permitting
procedures prior to turning materials over to disposers. If there were
any written policies prior to 740000, they would have been produced at
the repository.
PAGES 418-423.
Unless the Master requires certified questions answered or rules
change on Phase I, deposition at an end. Deposition adjourned 841031.
DEPOSITION 841031 CHANCE, ERIC H. FEC VOL. I
STRONG, DAVID E.
PAGES 1-9. 4 Appearances, exhibits, introductory remarks.
PAGES 9-20.
Chance, BS chem engineer, FEC Austin Austin environmental engineer,
worked for IL DCA, wrote Austin site operations procedures for disposal,
PCP capacitors, mercury batteries, cathode tubes. JCC used by Austin to
dispose of cyanide wastes, a by product zinc plating, nickel strip
operations and heat treating procedures. mall amounts of cyanide could
have been generated from FEC Austin labs. Cyanides produced from salt
pots.
PAGES 20-32, EXH. 1, IA000333, REPORT; EXH. 2, IA0001001, RECORDS.
Zinc, sodium cyanide and sodium hydroxide were used in making Rohco
bath. The nickel strip bath had udilite brightners No. 61 or 63, sodium
cyanide and strip aid. Baths were later dumped in FEC tank, then to JCC
tank truck. 220 gallons bath solution dumped 720314. FEC holding tank
capacity 220 gallons.
PAGES 32-36.
Does not know the specific components of matex strip aid, matex 685
nor who the supplier was. FEC records state number of times tanks were
evacuated. To the best of Chance's knowledge, contents always taken to
JCC.
PAGES 36-42. EXH. 2, IA0001001, RECORDS.
Products of the waste treatment facility were sludges containing
cyanide. To his knowledge not disposed at JCC. Heat treating operation
wastes were cyanide salts, actually salt pots. This disposed of by
putting into drums with tops. Identified by stencil as waste cyanide,
not labelled as to where they came from. Function of heat treating
process discussed.
PAGES 42-50, EXH. 2, IA0001001, RECORDS; EXH. 3, IA000033, SHIPPING
PAPERS.
Matex INSP no 27 stripper could have been one of the elements used in
the nickel stripping operation at FEC Austin. Some shipping papers for
cyanides shipped to JCC were misdated, then changed. 33 drums of spent
cyanide shipped to JCC could have come from heat treating or plating
baths. Does not know if contents of drums were solids or liquid.
PAGES 51-57.
Nickel stripping and zinc plating produced sodium cyanide liquid
waste. Heat treating produced potassium cyanide waste.
PAGES 57-64, EXH. 3, IA000033, SHIPPING PAPERS; EXH. 4, IA000036,
BILL OF LADING; EXH. 5, IA000001, PURCHASE ORDER; EXH. 6, IA000035,
OTHER.
33 drums of cyanide waste weighing 13380 pounds (see exh. 6) shipped
to JCC 680605. Two 5 gallon cans of undetermined contents also shipped.
Liquid put in drums may solidify.
PAGES 64-72, EXH. 7, IA000003, PURCHASE ORDER; EXH. 8, IA000014.
REQUISITION WITH ATTACHMENTS; EXH. 9, IA000021, PURCHASE ORDER; EXH.
10, 313284, INVOICE.
Some chrome wastes may have been disposed of off site. 1,700 gallons
of bulk liquid of spent cyanide sent to JCC site.
PAGES 73-80.
FEC Austin selected JCC for disposal of cyanide wastes on
recommendation from its sister plant in Lexington. Business with JCC was
terminated when waste treatment, plating and heat treatment operations
were shut down in 720700. JCC Oregon was the exclusive vendor for
cyanide wastes from 680000 to 720000. Heat treatment salts were drummed
and trucked to JCC.
PAGES 80-86.
Quench oils and TCE were used in heat treatment operations at FEC
Austin. TCE wastes were stored in unlabelled 5 gallon cans. Sludge could
have been formed after quench oil use. This waste may contain low
concentrations of cyanide. JCC was not vendor for this waste.
PAGES 87-92, EXH. 4, IA000036, MEMO.
Lab pack is a drum that contained various lab chem wastes. Does not
admit that lab packs nor sodium nitrite wastes were sent to JCC.
Doesn't know how JCC disposed of cyanide bearing waste. Names FEC
personnel he spoke to about JCC's cyanide waste disposal methods.
Chance kept notes of these conversations. JCC trucks carried wastes from
FEC Austin.
PAGES 92-96.
Reiterates position, staff engineer. Duties at FEC, solvent
distillation and carbon absorption equipment engineering. Questioned by
Central National Insurance Co about 680600 to 720700. C. Roberts and M.
Collier in FEC Austin purchasing dept, and L. Henry, facilities
engineer, safety dept responsible for site hazardous waste.
PAGES 96-99.
B. Artils, one unnamed person, and J. Burger were FEC Austin's chem
control coordinators 680600 to 720700. Had no responsibility for off
site hazardous waste. Chem control now separate corp organization at
FEC.
PAGES 99-100.
Description of files review. Accounts payable had payment records,
invoices, payments for shipments to JCC. Purchase file had purchase
orders for vendors, blank purchase releases for shipments to JCC, one
order from Lexington. FEC Austin letters to JCC establishing hold
harmless agreements.
PAGES 101-105.
Accounting files had voucher file with JCC invoices and payment
records. Nothing in facilities files relative. Didn't review
maintenance, FEC Austin legal files.
PAGES 105-108.
JCC selected by Clay Roberts 660000 with consult from Lexington. No
written bids, correspondence. Didn't inquire about disposal methods. No
policy then for hazardous waste disposal per safety dept.
PAGES 109-115.
FEC objects to waste disposal policy questions on lack of foundation.
Refuses to answer.
PAGES 115-120.
Purchasing dept had contract and procurement responsibility for
hazardous waste disposal. Vendor selection policy in effect since
790000, 800000 or later. FEC counsel instructs no answer to questions on
waste site visits by FEC personnel.
PAGES 120-125.
No record of any waste site visits 680000 to 720000. Record of
subsequent visits in purchasing, facilities or environmental dept. FEC
had no knowledge of JCC or their disposal methods. Didn't ask either.
Chance learned FEC relied on Lexington's use of JCC. Liquid and solid
cyanide waste streams from FEC Austin. TCE removed by other vendor
680000 to 720000.
PAGES 125-138, EXH. 11, IA000772, MEMO; EXH. 12, IA000070,
REGULATIONS.
There was no attempt made by FEC Austin to establish the capability
of JCC Oregon in the handling of its waste products. JCC Oregon relied
on the recommendation of FEC Lexington in the handling of wastes from
FEC Austin. Chain of command for disposal of waste discussed.
PAGES 138-157, EXH. 13, IA000043, LETTER; EXH. 14, IA000044, EXH.
15, IA000022, EXH. 16, IA000032, CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE.
JCC issued certificates taking on full responsibility for the
treatment and disposal of wastes from FEC. JCC does not appear in the
list of vendors issued in 790000. Discussion on how cyanide drums were
labelled. Discussion on how FEC determined that JCC was an appropriate
vendor.
DEPOSITION 841101 MERLON, ERIC H. VOL. II
HALL, MARGARET
PAGES 159-175, EXH. 17, IA000092, PROCEDURE.
Procedure refers to Operating Procedure 615 which pertains to the
control of chemicals and hazardous materials at FEC Austin. Mr. Chance
believes that a similar document preceded exh 17, Procedure 615.
PAGES 176-187.
There are currently departments of safety and industrial hygiene at
FEC Austin. Chance says there might have been corporate standards about
hazardous materials from 680000 to 720000.
PAGES 188-198.
There are currently facilities operating procedures in effect at FEC
Austin. Each individual department at FEC Austin could make the decision
to call in an outside vendor to dispose of wastes.
PAGES 199-213, EXH. 12.
The document entitled Handling And Use Of Solvents covered the
disposal of chemicals. There was no safety bulletin from the same time
period covering the handling of cyanides. A department would have to
forward a requisition to the purchasing department in order to hire a
waste disposal service. Copies of requisitions from departments
generating cyanide have been found. JCC's specific vendor number is
214200. Carl Swieterman may have had some responsibility for the
selection of JCC for the services shown on Chance Exhibit 8 a
requisition for off site disposal of waste.
PAGES 214-219.
There may be some documents made prior to starting up a manufacturing
process which identify the various costs and operations which will go
into an operation. Manufacturing operations that generated cyanide shut
down in 720000. There are no records kept prior to 680000 which
identified wastes generated at FEC Austin which required off site
disposal.
PAGES 220-224.
The answer to interrogatory 5A states that materials were transported
from FEC Austin in 55 gallon metal drums with lids that could be sealed
tightly. The drums were the same ones in which cyanide salts used in the
metal processes at FEC had been received.
Non FEC personnel selected the drums the cyanide wastes were
transported from FEC Austin to JCC in. Chance has no knowledge of any
documents or analysis about the suitability of the metal drums for waste
disposal, and he has no knowledge of what happened to the drums at the
EC site.
PAGES 225-229.
Has no knowledge of JCC's disposal methods used on the drums, the
gauge of the drum's steel, the source of the original cyanide salts
obtained by FEC or any criteria used by FEC in drum selection. The
original salts were not produced by another branch of FEC. Has no
knowledge of any documents or analysis done by FEC relating to the
disposal of cyanide wastes from 680000 to 720000. Does not believe the
drums were returned to FEC Austin from the EC site. Specifications of
the drums were the same as the original drums the cyanide salts were
sent to FEC in. Nobody at FEC Austin gave any consideration to the
elevated temperature of the wastes when they were placed in the drums.
PAGES 230-233.
Has no knowledge of what FEC's expectations were as to what JCC would
do with the drums when it received them from FEC Austin. Jurdon and
Titlebaum, FEC employees, never attempted to find out whether or not JCC
was emptying the drums before it disposed of the drums in any fashion.
The managers of the plating and heating departments were responsible for
transporting the wastes to JCC.
PAGES 234-238.
A document, possibly called waste treatment, was related to waste
treatment operations and directed to persons working in the plating and
heat treat area. The document did not discuss the condition, methods or
procedures relating to putting the wastes in the drums. He has not seen
any other documents which relate to the procedures for preparing the
waste to be transported to JCC. Other than putting the wastes in drums
or containers, Chance couldn't determine any other FEC required
procedures connected with preparing materials for transport to the EC
site. This was the only site such wastes were shipped to. Cyanide wastes
were the only wastes FEC Austin sent to JCC.
PAGES 239-242.
Drum wastes were usually solid, but liquids were usually placed in
tank trucks. In 690000 a tank was installed at FEC Austin and liquids
were now put in tank trucks instead of drums. Chance is not aware of any
instructions from FEC to JCC concerning how to handle the wastes. He
also has no recollection of any FEC personnel making objections to
anyone at JCC about the way the wastes were treated or disposed of.
From 680000-720000, nobody from FEC Austin made any inspection of the KC
site.
PAGES 243-251. EXH. 18, IA000026, PURCHASE ORDER.
Chance has seen invoices reflecting the disposal of wastes, and he
has seen letters from JCC to FEC Austin discussing the disposal of
cyanide wastes under various purchase orders. The letters did not
reflect the method or manner of waste disposal. Nobody at FEC had any
knowledge of JCC disposal practices. FEC placed no poison labels on the
drums.
DEPOSITION 841101 HERMON, JACK, P. VOL. I
STRONG, DAVID
PAGES 1-10
Harmon is mgr of environmental engineering and services, FEC at
Rochester, MN. History of plant operations.
PAGES 10-18.
660600 to 730900 FEC in Rochester sent waste to JCC. Donald Brossoit,
chem control technician, Roger Settala, Chemical Coordinator, Lou
Bitmen, environmental engineer, all worked in waste disposal during this
time period.
PAGES 18-24.
Don Edwards, now retired, was FEC employee associated with selection
of JCC. Bob Reagan, FEC, produced a letter summarizing Edwards'
comments. Strong asks for its production.
PAGES 24-33, EXH. 1, IR197, BILL OF LADING.
On 661031 2,385 pounds of cyanide contaminated quench oil was
transported to JCC. EP toxicity test was done on this waste.
PAGES 33-44, EXH. 2, IR126, BROCHURE; EXH. 3, IB196, INVOICE.
Items shipped to JCC included tin compounds, methylene chloride,
acids, potassium fluoride, alcohols, chromic acid, and cyanide salts,
flammable liquids.
PAGES 44-52, EXH. 4, IR195, INVOICE.
Dated 730419, Shipment to JCC includes cyanide contaminated pots,
chromic acid sludge, cyanide salts, misc flammable chemicals. Shipper
was Witte.
PAGES 52-66, EXH. 5, IR194; INVOICE, EXH. 6, IR186; INVOICE.
Dated 730214; 720515, shipments to JCC of cyanide salts, paint
thinner, carbon tetrachloride, methlene chloride and other chemicals.
PAGES 66-78, EXH. 7, IR175, INVOICE, EXH. 8, IR82, INVOICE.
Dated 701214, 13 barrels of cyanide waste shipped to JCC. Exhibits
3-8 shipped to JCC-Elicot City. EXH. 8, 701103, includes cyanide waste
and other chemicals. Shipper-Witte/Bruce.
PAGES 78-86, EXH. 9, IR30, NOTES, EXH. 10, IR198, INVOICE.
Shipping instruction voided by Dyral Haag, dated 710413. Handwritten
notes refer to this shipment of cyanide, trichlorethylene and other
wastes. Zitnay located other shipping instructions with the same
quantities but a different vendor dated two weeks later.
PAGES 87-99, EXH. 11, IR1; LOG; EXH. 12, INVOICES, EXH. 13, IR189,
INVOICE; EXH. 14, IR149, MEMO; EXH. 15, IR146, NOTE.
720712 10-30 gallon drums cyanide salts to JCC. After 700824 JCC
disposed of cyanides, chromates and other chemicals for FEC-Rochester.
Memo, 700824, W. P. Galligan, chemical buyer, JCC disposes cyanide slag,
average shipment is 15 drums labeled Class "B" poison. Considering
additional disposal of chromates and other chemicals. Tom Murray, former
manager, facilities engineering has little recall of JCC. Invoices show
quantity of waste but not the type.
PAGES 99-102, EXH. 16, IR147, NOTE.
Reads as follows: Roger Seppala (Plant Chemical Coordinator) wants
to know how JCC disposes of the cyanide waste (brick). Ask Don Edwards
if he knows. They bury it old abandoned (illegible word) mine.
PAGES 102-113, EXH. 17, IR1098, REPORT.
Discussion of which factory process produced waste. Zinc sludge from
zinc plate tanks, copper plating waste disposed at JCC.
PAGES 113-123, EXH. 18, IR36, REPORT; EXH. IR1007, REPORT; EXH. 20,
IR1070, REPORT; EXH. 21, IR1073, REPORT; EXH. 22, IR1110, REPORT;
EXH. 23, IR1127, REPORT; EXH. 24, IR1012, REPORT.
No recall of which process produced copper sludge, nickle sludge
produced by electroless or electrolytic black nickle bath.
PAGES 123-124, EXH. 25, IR91, PURCHASE ORDER.
No bulk shipment of waste from Rochester to JCC.
PAGES 124-127, EXH. 26, IR61, LETTER; EXH. 27, IR154, BILL OF
LADING.
JCC request for 660000 contract to dispose of cyanide waste. 12 drums
cyanide slag shipped to JCC, 660408. Weight 1,910 pounds. Shipper
Witte/Bruce.
PAGES 127-132.
Roger Settela identified flammable waste, separated from nonflammable
waste. FEC did not test waste shipped. No firm knowledge of JCC disposal
practices.
DEPOSITION 841102 HARMON, JACK P. FEC VOL. II
STRONG, DAVID E.
PAGES 133-156.
Conducted two year investigation of FEC Rochester relationship with
JCC. Is Environmental Engineering Services Manager for FEC. No written
notes taken in investigation, only written communications to co workers
about investigation.
PAGES 157-167.
Attended meetings with other FEC representatives concerning JCC. In
840400, one such meeting was called to review interrogatories requested
by Govt. At meeting, mention of chems that were stored at JCC or sampled
in ground water.
PAGES 165-171.
Discussion of meeting continues. Dispute over the right of work
product protection, and if it applies to meeting where no attorney is
present. Court recesses to settle question.
PAGES 171-176.
Agreement reached. Will answer questions but retains privileges for
future argument. At meeting, Mr. Mark Balston, FEC Boulder
representative discussed waste shipments to JCC. Recalls Balston
mentioning solvents being shipped from Boulder, but no mention of
destination. Recalls nothing else said.
PAGES 176-183.
Attempt to discuss a 830500 meeting dealing with hazardous waste, but
not involving JCC. Counsel objects to questioning.
PAGES 184-204.
More objections. Doesn't recall if Roger Settela had overall
responsibility for hazardous waste disposal at FEC Rochester, but
confirms Settela's job title as chemical coordinator. Believes all site
disposal of hazardous waste had to be cleared through Settela.
PAGES 204-215, EXH. 28, IR000149, MEMO.
Memo dated 700909, to W.L. Bayer from W.P. Shannons, concerning
disposal of waste chemicals. Mentions that JCC is being considered as
disposal site for chromate, cyanide. Also names Settela as responsible
for all chemical waste disposal either on or off site. Memo responds to
Mr. Bayer's 700824 memo which cannot be found. Recalls no discussion
with Settela on memo.
PAGES 215-220, EXH 28, IR000149, MEMO.
Discussed Rochester's cyanide waste with Settela, previous on site
disposal practices, and reasons for changing to off site contractor.
Began shipping to JCC in 660000. Cyanide waste either incinerated or
neutralized at JCC.
PAGES 220-234.
Discussion of decision regarding cyanide, including cost analysis and
potential harm of slag. Talk of solvents trichloroethylene,
methachoroform and freon, kept separate and returned to vendors.
PAGES 234-236.
Another contractor was used, in addition to JCC for depositing waste.
The site of Pollution Control, INC was visited by Mr. Settela, but JCC
was not visited. A JCC trip was requested by Settela, but there were
insufficient travel funds.
PAGES 236-237.
FEC decision was made to stop using JCC in late 730000 after Mr.
Bocim told Mr. Settela JCC was not in good stead with FEC.
PAGES 237-239, EXH. 29, IR000034, MEMO.
Memo from Roger Settela to W.P. Shannons on 700429. Expresses
interest in reviewing JCC facilities due to pollution regulations,
probably State of MD regulations.
PAGES 239-241, EXH. 29, IR000034, MEMO.
Doesn't recall if any old chemicals other than cyanide dumped at JCC,
or if cyanide slag was sent to site other than JCC.
PAGES 241-251, EXH. 30, IR000151, REPORT.
Discussion of Pollution Control Inc. site visit. Recalls a printed
manufacturing instruction on evaluating off site vendors. See EXH. 32.
PAGES 252-256, EXH. 31, IA00112, MEMO; EXH. 28, IR000149, MEMO.
Document discusses waste disposal and pollution laws in 690200. Mr.
Settela turned over Facility files on disposal to Harmon before being
transferred in 790000.
PAGES 256-260, EXH. 32, IR000152, CORPORATE INSTRUCTION.
Document is corporate instruction for evaluating off site vendors.
Corporate Manufacturing, Real Estate and Construction Division, and
Corporate Purchasing were FEC divisions involved with chemical waste.
Instruction, dated 720113 requires monitoring of vendors. Discussion of
previous monitoring practices.
PAGES 261-262.
Recalls another corporate policy document on waste disposal entitled
Policy 129 Environmental Programs, Environmental Policies, implemented
in 730000. Also aware of a site chemical control procedure adopted in
690000.
PAGES 262-274, EXH. 33, IR000143, STANDARD; EXH. 34, IR000203,
MINUTES.
Discussion of published documents on chemical waste. He recalls
seeing draft of this exh. Mr. Bitner gave him notes and memos of
conversations on waste sites between maintenance and shipping depts.
Recalls some names involved.
PAGES 275-279, EXH. 32, IR000152, CORP. INSTRUCTION; EXH. 33,
IR000143, STANDARD.
FEC Rochester's chemical control program had two branches;
authorization of on site chems and inventory control at chem warehouse.
Both started in 690000. Chem control committee formed before official
chem control program.
PAGES 279-285, EXH. 34, IR000203, MINUTES.
Chem Control meeting on 700500. Testimony on meeting attendees and
respective job titles.
PAGES 285-287, EXH. 35A, IR000150, LETTER; EXH. 35, LETTER.
Both exhs are copies of same 700506 letter from Mr. Settela to
plating dept manager, Mr. Karteler, concerning plating sludge. Discuss
people receiving copies of this letter.
PAGES 287-290, EXH. 36, IR000192, REPORT; EXH. 37, IR000190, LETTER.
Mr. Settela writes Mr. B.G. Baily in real estate and construction
division a report on pollution control, dated 701222. Now, a letter from
Tom Wilson to Mr. Baily, very similar to above pollution control report.
PAGES 291-294, EXH. 38, IR000194, REPORT.
Annual Pollution Control Report 8, authored by Mr. Settela on 720630.
States 40 barrels containing mixture of solvents and cyanide sent
annually to JCC.
PAGES 294-297.
Discussion of search for off site vendor in 750000 for lime metal
hydroxide sludge.
PAGES 297-300, EXH. 39, IR000125, LETTER; EXH. 40, IR000131,
BROCHURE.
On letter of 751124, Harmon handwritten notes about negative FEC
experience with JCC, based on discussion with Mr. Settela. Called MDNR
about waste disposal facilities. Concluded MD should not be used.
PAGES 300-308, EXH. 41; EXH. 42, IR000138, MEMO; EXH. 43, IR000097,
PURCHASE REQUISITION.
Interdept request for JCC material list. No response. Shipment of
Oakite phosphoric acid from heat treat area sent to JCC in 710800. Does
not know cost to FEC for cyanide disposal at JCC.
PAGES 308-316, EXHS. 44-50, DOCUMENTS.
Brief mention of documents for clarification. Discuss FEC labeling
practices for chem drums. A pollution control memo names Roger Settela
as person to contact about control program.
PAGES 317-323, EXH. 28, IR000149, MEMO.
Review of past exhs. Has seen letters from JCC to FEC Rochester, but
cannot recall contents. Confirms that drum labels which named contents
were only information given to JCC. No handling or disposal directions.
Poison B label on cyanide.
PAGES 324-338, EXH. 40, IR000131, BROCHURE.
More drum discussion. More review. Through a records retention index,
Harmon located 660000 purchasing records. Call to produce index for
years 660000 through 730000.
PAGES 338-347.
Review of FEC decision to use JCC. No written or verbal instruction
with JCC, nor site visit. Discussion of Mr. Edwards who made FEC
contract with JCC.
PAGES 347-349, EXH. 51, IR000113, PURCHASE ORDER.
Refers to nonspecific hazardous chemicals. Must go through earlier
documents to find shipping instruction 22261, which names these
chemicals.
PAGES 349-352, EXH. 52, IR000201, LETTER; EXH. 53, IR000061, LETTER.
Refers to four barrels of nonspecific chems. Letter refers to oily
waste, explained by Harmon as contaminated quench oil shipped in early
660000 to JCC.
PAGES 352-354, EXH. 54, IR000044, LETTER; EXH. 35, IR000137, MEMO;
EXH. 35A, IR000150, MEMO.
Letter mentions Settela's proposed trip to JCC.
PAGES 354-364, EXH. 36, IR000192, REPORT; EXH. 38, IR000194, REPORT.
Discussion waste treatment conferences 710000 to 760000 and whether
or not Settela attended. Didn't know.
MASTERS HEARING 841106 N/A VOL. 10
STRONG, DAVID
PAGES 1-5.
Appearances.
PAGES 6-12.
Motion for protective order by JCCI for Lane site inquiries. JCC
counsel doesn't want govt to ask FEC Lexington about processes, products
or people at Lane. Govt wants to know if waste transshipments went from
JCCI to JCC. Govt thinks circumstantial evidence of transshipment of
waste to JCC exists and foundation desired by JCCI duly restrictive.
This relative to H. Smith's testimony. Smith is FEC Lexington employee.
PAGES 12-16.
Discussion of constitution of foundation. Master says govt can
question FEC Lexington about Lane site if govt has sufficient
information to believe Lane could not handle specific wastes. Govt says
JCCI is in case as generator, may be transporter too so questions about
processes, products, people directly related to issues. Master says
question to Smith cannot be exploratory or general. Govt can ask Smith
questions related to his personal knowledge of shipments by FEC
Lexington to Lane.
PAGES 17-19.
Govt wants to ask Smith questions about Lane site capabilities.
Master says can ask Smith about his observation of treatment or
particular waste. FEC suggests limited set of interrogatories about
these issues be sent to Smith since his deposition will be in December
or January.
PAGES 20-26.
Continuing discussion about questioning by govt of Smith about
transshipments and Lane disposal capabilities by CTA, JCCI, govt and
Master. Govt has information that Lane site incinerator not working.
That indicates transshipment of some waste. Proof exists that wastes
went from Lane to EC so govt has right to question final destination of
wastes shipped to Lane.
PAGES 27-30.
Central National Insurance doesn't want inquiry restricted to
conditions at Lane site. Insurance Co's contend property damage expected
or intended by JCC. Says FEC Lexington quit using JCC due to Lane site
conditions. Cannot get key documents from FEC. Wants to question eyeball
witnesses of Lane site and EC site.
PAGES 31-32.
Govt says D. W. Crockett of FEC Boulder saw Lane site and may know
about transshipments. Will be deposed in December. FEC will produce a
document requested by govt relative to FEC Lexington witness.
PAGES 33-35.
JCCI says relevance of Lane site to EC must be established. Says
condition of Lane site irrelevant to condition of EC site. FMC brings up
Rule 26 Federal Rule Civil Procedure and 403 Rule Evidence that Hallston
operation at Lane not relevant, not leading to discovery admissible
evidence, or evidence would confuse and mislead.
PAGES 35-36.
Home Insurance Co says FEC witness says two ways wastes from FEC
Boulder to EC then to Lane for incineration. Therefore FEC witnesses
should be questioned about extent of communication between FEC plants
about waste problems and EC site problems.
PAGE 37-44.
Master reiterates scope of discovery relevant to what was going on at
Lane and EC.
PAGES 44-50.
Central National Insurance Co. disputes FEC's refusal to produce
notes based on work product and privilege. Says should be able to
question FEC witnesses and have witnesses notes as back up to witnesses
memories.
PAGES 50-57.
Govt says either govt or Special Master be allowed to see alleged
work product to narrow lawsuit issues. FEC cites Upjohn against US, says
these notes, work product solely for litigation.
PAGES 57-67.
Master will rule on this Thursday. FEC says that if their work
product is ruled subject to discovery they will pursue all legal
channels to protect their position. Cites 560 Fed Second 326 case of
opposing party calling and questioning witnesses seeking to preserve
work product privilege.
PAGES 67-68.
Central National Insurance says FEC waived work product privilege by
allowing their 30(b)6 witness to testify. Discussion of FEC's witness,
Loggin, testimony as waiver. Master will rule before tomorrow morning.
DEPOSITION 841105 PARSONS, MARK L. VOL. I
PICKEN, CYRUS
PAGES 1-7.
Title page and list of attorneys and others appearing. List of
exhibits.
PAGES 8-14.
Introduction of Mr. Balston as senior associate engineer in
Environmental Programs Engineering Dept, FEC Boulder CO. General
instructions. Discussion of his qualifications and experience.
PAGES 14-16.
FEC Boulder began operation in 650000 and continues to operate. Had
business relationship with JCC from mid 690000 until early in 740000,
this period to be referred to as the relevant period. Business
arrangements and most shipments to JCCKC; information from and
occasional shipments to Lane, IN.
PAGES 16-19.
Organization and function of FEC Boulder. Buyer for original
contracts with JCC was George Wilton, no longer with FEC. Four vendors
in addition to JCC would have handled waste for Boulder plant, which did
not have its own treatment facility.
PAGES 19-20.
All 3 divisions at Boulder generated chemical waste. Shipped to JCCKC
in JCC owned truck.
PAGES 21-36, EXH. 1, IB000011, BILL OF LADING; EXH. 2, IB000028-31,
BILL OF LADING.
Exh 1 dated 690613 for 1 of first shipments to JCC. Exh 2 dated
701119 lists waste including 16 55 gallon containers of ink which would
have been made up of cyclobexanone, methyl isobutenyl ketone, toluene,
iron oxide and resins. Also one 55 gallon drum of trichloroethylene.
Necessary to consult drum tag logs to determine content of 21 55 gallon
drums of solvent and waste chemical mix. Waste freon made up of
trichloromethane. Ferric chloride had pH of 8 to 10. 50 pounds potassium
chloride shipped. Other wastes shipped whose chemical constituents not
known. Chlorothene listed was 1,1,1 trichloroethane. Perchlomethylene
listed, if not reclaimed, probably would have been incinerated.
PAGES 36-42.
Methy ethyl ketone usually reclaimed off site until too contaminated.
Trichloroethylene reclaimed on site. Lab tests done to check purity of
reclaimed substance.
PAGES 42-47.
Three types of waste methyl ethyl ketone at Boulder, 1 used to clean
pipe, 1 in waste ink, 1 from rags and filters. First type stored in tank
to await transport to reclaimer. Waste ink generated in drums. All waste
methyl ethyl ketone contained iron oxide and that from ink and pipes and
filters had consistency of sludge.
PAGES 47-48.
Polyvinyl chloride would not have been a constituent of waste sent to
JCC.
PAGES 48-51.
Pumpable waste methyl ethyl ketone, as found in ink and pipes and
filter sludge would have been shipped to JCC for presumed incineration.
Actual rags and filters would have been buried. No knowledge of how iron
oxide would affect incineration.
PAGES 51-55, EXH. 3, IB000336-344, REPORT.
Report of trip made by FEC Boulder engineer, David M. Wheaton to CCKC
on 730315. Original photographs requested.
PAGES 56-58.
Methyl ethyl ketone waste storage tank filled by direct pipeline from
manufacturing area. Very difficult for anything else to get into tank.
PAGES 58-60.
Formulation changed in 700000. Cyclohexanone removed and toluene
mixture increased. In 741200 tetrohydrofuran, a solvent, added to
formulation. Chlorinated hydrocarbons were never part of formulation.
PAGES 60-63.
Capacity of storage tank 3000 gallons, normally emptied when 80 or 90
per cent full. Two other waste tanks at Boulder, 1 for ferric chloride,
1 for coolants and machining oils. Only ferric chloride waste sent to
JCC. Ferric chloride tank contained 10000 gallons and has emptied twice
in 730000. Possible that Skip Lambert or John Martin at Boulder would
know pH of ferric chloride shipped.
PAGES 63-67, EXH. 4, IB000392-7, REPORT.
Flashpoint of methyl ethyl ketone is 22, that of ink waste and rags
and filters waste not known. Does not know whether this is in Fahrenheit
or Celsius. Ink waste flashpoint would probably be less than 140 degrees
Fahrenheit.
PAGES 67-70, EXH. 5, IB000345-7, MEMO.
Memo prepared by David W. Crockett. Ball mill cleaning done with
methy ethyl ketone, later on tetrahydrofuran also used. Waste shipped to
JCC in tanker. Indication of quantity in shipping papers.
PAGES 70-73, EXH. 6, IB000355, MEMO.
Discussion of Crockett's signature.
PAGES 73-79, EXH. 7, IB000601-15, MEMO.
List of chemicals as inventory and estimate of quantity of these
chemicals used in one month. Other documents of this nature exist, many
are shipping papers to JCC. Spill tank never converted for waste
disposal, usually empty for use in emergency. No documents indicating
contents shipped to JCC. Spill tank attached to experimental area.
PAGES 79-86, EXH. 8, IB000534-7, LETTER.
Letter addressed to George Wilson of FEC from Norman Hallston. Not
aware of any reply from Wilson. In general, recommendations in letter
implemented or already in use at time. Small containers often but not
always placed in large drums. Leaking or damaged drums replaced before
shipment. Waste water effluent never sent to JCC, it was treated in
neutralization pits and discharged into city sewers.
PAGES 86-88, EXH. 9, IB000517, NOTES.
Does not recognize document which seems to come from letter in Exh.
8.
PAGES 89-92, EXH. 10, IB000412, LIST.
Monthly chemical waste list prepared using waste drum tags. Document
does not indicate how much of this waste was shipped to JCC but
background knowledge indicates that all containerized waste for the
period in question would have gone to JCC, except waste sent to be
reclaimed.
PAGES 92-93, EXH. 11, IB000032, BILL OF LADING.
Represents shipments from FEC Boulder to JCC.
PAGES 93-97, EXH. 12, IB000465, LOG.
Drum tag log for 710100. Combines with bill of lading for month to
determine amount and actual chemicals shipped to JCC Log does not
indicate chemicals shipped in a particular month, only their arrival at
waste storage area. Shows total gallonage, both waste and recoverable,
and poundage. Would have expected waste material to be sent to JCCKC,
recoverable waste to be sent to recovery vendors. One or 2 recovery
vendors at this time. Waste oil coolant sent to vendor other than JCC.
PAGES 97-105, EXH. 13, IB000412, LOG.
Drum waste log for 700100. Does not differentiate between recoverable
and nonrecoverable waste, although many materials were recoverable. Used
alcohol and freons were reclaimed. Empty containers would have been
removed. Waste ink would have contained MIBK, toluene, cyclohexanone,
iron oxide, resins and other formulation materials. None of research and
development chemicals would have been reclaimed. Trichlorosilane
alcohol acetone included as waste.
PAGES 105-107, EXH. 14, IB000415, LOG.
Freon and alcohol would have been removed for recovery. Tech-Solv
would have gone to JCC.
PAGES 107-111, EXH. 15, IB000418, LOG.
Drum tag log sheet for 700300. Freons would have been recoverable.
Not sure where trichloroethane would have gone. Alcohol reclaimed.
Waste ink sent to JCC.
PAGES 111-115, EXH. 16, IB000421, LOG.
Drum tag log sheet from 700400. Any item marked with R would have
been recoverable. Some freon not recoverable. Trichloro still sludge
would have been recoverable. NR note probably means not recoverable.
Organic solvents may have been recovered.
PAGES 115-116, EXH. 17, IB000424, LOG.
Drum tag log from 700500. No reclaimable waste for month, not even
freons.
PAGES 116-118, EXH. 18, IB000427, LOG.
Drum tag log from 700600. Asterisk denotes reclaimable. Freons
reclaimable, remainder would have been sent to JCC.
PAGES 118-119, EXH. 19, IB000430, LOG.
Drum tag log from 700700. No asterisks, so probably all material
shipped to JCC.
PAGES 119-121, EXH. 20, IB000433, LOG.
Drum tag log for 700800. Freon and trichloro reclaimable, remainder
of list went to JCC.
PAGES 121-125, EXH. 21, IB000436, LOG.
Drum tag log for 700900. One hundred five gallons of freon
reclaimable. Everything else, including drums A through E would have
gone to JCC, packed in absorbent material.
PAGES 125-126, EXH. 22, IB000456, LOG.
Drum tag log for 701000. Fifty-five gallons freon reclaimable. No
other material reclaimable.
PAGES 127-136, EXH. 23, IB000460, LOG.
Drum tag log for 701100. Indicates that 3678 gallons total would have
gone to JCC at EC. Not aware of significance of blacked out lines. 55
gallons of freon recoverable. Sludge, waste mix and flushing materials
were primarily methyl ethyl ketone, together with methyl butyl ketone,
toluene, resins and iron oxide. Waste also included oakite 21, a caustic
cleaning solution. Does not know what MNA was, nor febrite. Does not
know which isocyanate is listed or what NMA is. Chlorothene VG was
brand name for 1,1,1 trichloroethane.
PAGES 136-137, EXH. 24, IB000463, LOG.
Drum tag log for 701200. Reasonable to assume that all material
listed went to JCC.
PAGES 137-141, EXH. 25, IB000468, LOG.
Drum tag log for 710200. 55 gallons freon recoverable, remainder
would have gone to JCC in EC. Estane was resin used in magnetic tape
formulation.
PAGES 141-151, EXH. 26, IB000471, LOG.
Drum tag log. Three types of freon recoverable, making total of 160
gallons. Salt water would have been water with high mineral content.
Freon sometimes not recoverable if contaminated with certain chemicals.
Difficult to determine what some of the chemicals were. Waste included
deran aldrite, ferric chloride, tecco-strip cyanide.
PAGES 151-154, EXH. 27, IB000474, LOG.
Drum tag log for 710400. 220 gallons total recoverable, remainder
went to JCC in EC. Waste included sodium chlorite, Baran Aldurite,
chromic sulfuric waste.
PAGES 154-156, EXH. 28, IB000478, LOG.
Drum tag log for 710500. Total recoverable waste was 110 gallons,
remainder sent to JCC EC.
PAGES 156-158, EXH. 29, IB000481, LOG.
Drum tag log, first 2 pages for 710600, page 3 for 710400, 710500,
and 710600 for separate FEC dept. Does not know what hyderthane was.
M-17 was brand name for solvent cleaner.
PAGES 158-161, EXH. 30, IB0001000, DATA SHEET.
FEC Chemical Data Sheet for M-17 indicates chemical composition of
methylene chloride, trichloroethylene and tetrahydrofuran. With
reference to Exh 29, aluminum oxide supplied in barrels of less than 55
gallons capacity. Freon TP 35 was 35 percent ehtynol, 65 percent
trichloromethane. On IB000483 recoverable materials, e.g. alcohols, do
not seem to have been marked; nonreclaimable waste sent to JCC.
PAGES 162-163, EXH. 31, IB000484, REPORT.
Dept referred to would have been maintenance or cleaning, but no idea
what type of waste generated.
PAGES 163-166, EXH. 32, IB000485, LOG.
Drum tag log dated 710106. With exception of 110 gallons reclaimable
freon, would have expected remainder of waste, around 3000 gallons, to
be sent to JCC EC. Waste included flammable liquid, orthochlorophenol
and tetrahydrofuran.
PAGES 166-167, EXH. 33, IB000488, REPORT.
Summary sheet of wastes by division for 710700, 710800, 710900, and
711000. W. Bocim was Warren Bocim.
PAGES 167-176, EXH. 34, IB000489, LOG.
Drum tag log. No way to tell if relevant period. Appears to be 000800
to 000900 but no year given. Reclaimable waste not marked but candidates
for recovery would include trichloroethylene, freon, trichlar, methylene
chloride, and chlorothene solvent. People who could clearly identify
chemicals listed include Warren Bocim and John Martin. If document is
from relevant period nonreclaimable waste would have been sent to JCC
EC. Does not know what pyroforic particles would have been.
PAGES 176-179, EXH. 35, IB000493, LOG.
Drum tag log for 710700. Items with asterisks recovered, remainder
would have been sent to JCC EC. Not clear which isocyanates referred to.
PAGES 179-182, EXH. 36, IB000090, MEMO.
Lab analysis and memo appear to have different dates. Only FEC
document which appears to analyze material sent to JCC. More economical
to wait for full tanker load. Waste ferric chloride would have been
piped direct to waste holding tank. Load had pH of 1.65.
PAGES 182-191, EXH. 37, IB000097, AGREEMENT.
Agreement between JCC EC and FEC Boulder for period 710501 through
720430. Wastes listed include epoxy, various nonreclaimable alcohols,
methylene chloride. Shipping papers indicate date, location and quantity
of waste removed by JCC. JCC notified of contents of shipments via
shipping papers and drum tags, half of which went to JCC and half kept
by FEC. Does not know if JCC was regularly given drum tag logs. Does
not know if detailed information was given to JCC for each shipment.
DEPOSITION 841106 BERNALE, MARK L. VOL. II
PICKEN, CYRUS
PAGES 198-205, EXH. 38, IB000516, NOTES; EXH. 39, IB000120, LETTER;
EXH. 40, IB000117, LETTER.
In a letter to JCC, Bob Baylor of FEC at Boulder states that
toluene/MEK, 1,1,1 Trichloroethane, and ferric chloride were the highest
volume chemicals among wastes shipped to JCC from 690000 to 740000.
Balston, having investigated further, says this may not be true. Cites
reclaiming process and solvent stills that Baylor was not aware of.
PAGES 205-208.
Counsel for FEC claims privilege on notes requested by counsel for
US. Argument results in hearing scheduled before Special Master to
determine privilege and a protective order.
PAGES 208-212, EXH. 41, 319835, MEMO.
Contains a list, given to Hallston in 690400, of chemicals and
quantities generated by FEC at Boulder. Believed to be preliminary to a
disposal agreement between FEC and JCC.
PAGES 212-226, EXH. 42, IB00009295, LETTER; EXH. 43, IB000499
LETTER.
Mr. Balston conducted an investigation to discover names and
quantities of chemicals sent to JCC by FEC at Boulder at request of DCA.
Exhibit contains list of chemicals sent to JCC by FEC at Boulder. FEC
used JCC site from 690000 to 730000. Drum tag logs appear to have been
kept from the late 1960's to the end of 710000. FEC sent a pound of
mercury thermometers and 55 gallon drums of freon to JCC. FEC believed
that freon, cellosolve acetate, and one 55 gallon drum of
trichloroethylene were to be incinerated by JCC, as indicated by JCC.
FEC sent two 55 gallon drums of potassium cyanide to JCC, which FEC
believed were to be acidified in a closed reactor.
PAGES 226-229, EXH. 44, IB000133, BROCHURE.
Mr. Balston does not recall the upper temperature limit of the
incinerator at JCC.
PAGES 229-240, EXH. 45, IB000122, LETTERS; EXH. 46, IB000137-141,
MEMOS.
Notes by H. Weaver of FEC regarding the termination of business
dealings with JCC. Mr. Balston not able to locate termination letter or
speak with Mr. Weaver, who was purchasing agent at the time of
termination. Balston states that documents of Exhibit 46, coupled with
conversations he recalled, indicate circumstances which led FEC to
terminate business with JCC. Discussions with Mr. Wheaton of FEC by
Balston regarding his 730300 trip to JCC revealed little about
termination decision. Balston did not speak with Mr. Crockett of FEC.
PAGES 240-254, EXH. 47, IB0000027, REQUISITIONS; EXH. 48, 313153,
INVOICE.
Requisition indicating shipment of bulk methyl ethyl ketone to JCC
from FEC at Boulder. Discussion about method of determining actual
gallonage of methyl ethyl ketone. Balston believes all documents
necessary to reconstruct gallonage have been produced. 2,000 gallons of
methyl ethyl ketone was shipped to JCC by FEC. Evidence of a blanket
purchase order indicating planned use of JCC. Chemicals involved are
believed to be similar to chemicals named in drum tag logs.
PAGES 254-265, EXH. 49, IB00005580, BILLS OF LADING.
35 drums of cyanide were sent to JCC by FEC at Boulder. 53 drums of
solvents, including methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, and
toluene were sent to JCC by FEC at Boulder. Bill of lading indicating 61
drums of waste, including ferric chloride, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric
acid, and nitric acid. These substances were typical of wastes sent to
JCC in 730000. The pH of the ferric chloride is unknown, but likely to
be around 2. Drums received Dept of Transportation label indicating
corrosive material, but specific pH of material was unknown.
PAGES 265-274, EXH. 49, IB00005580; BILLS OF LADING.
84 drums of waste, including methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl
ketone, toluene, rags, fillers, solids, ink, and sludge, were sent to
JCC by FEC at Boulder. 80 more drums of similar waste went to JCC.
Ferric chloride solution, probably 2500 gallons, was sent to JCC. 235
drums of methyl ethyl ketone were sent to JCC. 60 drums of waste acid,
probably hydrocholoric, sulfuric, and nitric acids, were sent to JCC.
PAGES 274-283, EXH. 50, 22829, LOG.
Drum tag log of waste disposal before FEC began transactions with
JCC. Business dealings with JCC probably began in 690600. Drum tag log
probably typical of FEC at Boulder shipments to JCC in 690000. Evidence
concerning Balston' search for information, including where shipping
papers and drum tag logs were found. Since Balston' list of wastes,
compiled in 820000, more documents had been discovered and produced.
Balston states that shipping papers are better source of required
information than drum tag logs.
PAGES 283-291.
Discussion of plating wastes. A 25 gallon gold cyanide plating bath
was sent to JCC for recovery. An electroplating copper bath generated
copper sulfate and sulfuric acid. These were sent to JCC. Other copper
generated wastes as well as a copper cyanide bath were sent to JCC. The
pH of these materials is not known. Balston gives names of those who
might know the pH. A few copper baths and the chrome bath could be kept
usable, avoiding the need for disposal.
PAGES 291-298, EXH. 51, IB00002527, BILL OF LADING.
Ten 53 gallon containers of waste, including chromic acid, boric
acid, brass and nickel alloy contaminants, were sent to JCC. Discussion
of the qualities of the chrome plating solution used at FEC at Boulder.
Balston does not know how solution was determined to be no longer
effective at any point. Names those who might know. FEC used a nickel
cyanide solution and a zinc cyanide solution. Does not know how wastes
generated from these solutions were classified as shipping documents.
PAGES 298-303, EXH. 52, IB000028-31, BILL OF LADING.
50 pounds of potassium cyanide was sent to JCC by FEC at Boulder.
Further discussion of Exhibit 42. Clarification of some unspecified
substances. Balston suggests that many substances marked "solvents" and
"flammable" came from the IRD manufacturing area, and are consistent
with waste streams already described from that area. Prevalent
substances include methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, and
toluene. Balston recommend cross checking with actual shipping documents
to determine exact nature of wastes.
DEPOSITION 841107 BERNALE, MARK L. FEC VOL. III
PICKEN, CYRUS
PAGES 305-317, EXH. 53, 0050000001, LETTER.
Not aware of any study done by FEC to determine adequacy of treatment
methods described in letter. FEC Boulder first sent waste to JCC in
690600. No FEC Boulder employee visited JCC site until 700700 and 730000
to his knowledge.
PAGES 317-320, EXH. 54, IB000540, LETTERS.
He believes letters from MD Water Pollution Board and Elicot City
Pollution Control to JCC would have been considered by FEC to be
sufficient certification of JCC's waste disposal techniques.
PAGES 320-332, EXH. 55, IB000105, CONTRACTS.
Agreement with JCC in 690000 was prompted by environmental movement
rather than any changes in nature of FEC Boulder operation. Doesn't know
reason for provision requiring return of empty containers to FEC.
Doesn't know reason for provision limiting FEC's duty to notifying JCC
of "general nature and contents" of waste sent. Doesn't know whether FEC
or JCC was responsible for inclusion of that provision.
PAGES 332-342.
Labels on drums sent to JCC from FEC met DOT standards for waste
content identification, but listing of specific chemicals was
inconsistent and sporadic. FEC's concern that labels and drum tag logs
containing the FEC name be returned from JCC was related to possible
reuse of the drums in drum salvage operation. However, FEC clearly knew
that some drums would be buried at the JCC site.
PAGES 342-355, EXH. 56, CONTRACTS; EXH. 57, IB000097, CONTRACTS;
EXH. 58, IB000532, MEMO.
The two agreements continued business arrangement between FEC and
JCC. He knows of no requests from FEC to JCC for advice as to packaging
and labeling of wastes. He knows of no reason why word change was made
to notify JCC of the "specific" rather than "general" nature and content
of wastes. Doesn't know why chemicals list at end of second agreement
indicates greater specificity than earlier agreements. Memo of 710505
was simply to alert purchasing dept of greater specificity requirement.
He knows of no procedural changes resulting from the word change. He
believes that FEC would have complied with existing labeling laws.
PAGES 355-358, EXH. 59, IB000530, MEMO.
Removal of FEC labels from drums was for reasons given earlier,
relating to sale of drums for scrap iron. These were not waste labels
such as are now required by federal regulations. He has no knowledge of
what happened to the labels.
PAGES 358-360, EXH. 60, IB000122, LETTER.
No indication in this or any other document that FEC ever shipped
PCBs to JCC. He believes JCC was not an approved disposer of PCBs.
PAGES 360-362, EXH. 61, IB000011, BILLS OF LADING.
These Bills of Lading were generated during an interim agreement
period not covered by the earlier contracts. Notice of nature and
contents of waste is general and was supplemented by the personal
knowledge of Hjerstad gained in visit to FEC Boulder. The following were
shipped from FEC Boulder to JCC: 75 drums, 4 bags and 27 drums.
PAGES 362-365.
Purpose of Hallston's 690415 visit to FEC Boulder was to verify JCC's
capability to handle FEC's waste, and to provide consulting services to
FEC personnel.
PAGES 365-366, EXH. 62, IB000538, LETTER.
Hallston's recommendation to FEC regarding sewer effluent was
unsolicited.
PAGES 366-370.
Not all bills of lading had attached, detailed lists of chemicals.
"NOI" on some bills of lading indicates degree of specificity of content
description is up to discretion of person preparing the papers.
PAGES 371-374, EXH. 63, IB000543, MEMO.
Special tagging procedure was used on drums containing waste which
required special handling or waste treatment, such as cyanide, fluoride,
reclaimable cleaning solvents, precious metals. Purpose was to assure
safe handling and proper disposal of high hazard or reclaimable
materials. These tags were not supplied to JCC when the waste was
transported.
PAGES 375-379, EXH. 64, IB000303, REPORT.
Budgeted 15,000 dollars in 690000 for JCC. Internal waste monitoring
program was implemented that year.
PAGES 379-382, EXH. 65, IB000236, MEMO.
It is possible that empty drums were shipped to JCC with residues of
unidentified chemicals.
PAGES 383-386, EXH. 66, IB000237, REPORT.
Surplus chemicals sent to JCC were new or unused chemicals FEC could
not otherwise dispose of.
PAGES 386-391, EXH. 67, IB000340, LETTER.
FEC knew of and approved the burial of empty drums at JCC. First sign
that waste was being shipped away from EC site after arrival there was
730000 report. Not aware of whether FEC followed up on suggestion to JCC
that approval be sought from DCA and COE on this.
PAGES 391-404, EXH. 68, IB000345, MEMO; EXH. 69, IB000348, MEMO;
EXH. 70, IB000353, LETTER.
Site visit to JCC in 700700 by Crockett of RECD was first site visit
to JCC by FEC. Crockett's recommendation to pretreat cyanide waste
before shipment to JCC was not followed for cost reasons. FEC's
recommendations that JCC be asked to monitor gases while burning FEC
solvents was not followed up. Admonitions of FEC site environmental
person following Crockett's report were treated as recommendations only.
Method of labeling drums sent to JCC was not changed following
Crockett's visit and report.
PAGES 404-406, EXH. 71, IB000323, REPORT.
FEC was sending about 15,000 gallons per year of concentrated
chemical waste to JCC. Scant monitoring of waste disposal is an area of
concern. After 700707, there was no change in the way JCC bound drums
were labeled.
PAGES 406-412, EXH. 72, IB000285, MEMO; EXH. 73, IB000528, MEMO.
FEC Corporate Instruction of 720113 is similar to that of 800411.
Waste disposal by a contractor was to be evaluated and monitored by FEC
personnel. Compliance at FEC Boulder was by site visit, looking at JCC
trucks that came to FEC plant, documentation about the loads and payment
history. No limits put on wastes sent to JCC following Wheaton's 730000
site visit.
PAGES 412-415, EXH. 74, IB000387, MEMO; EXH. 75, IB000389, MEMO.
Doesn't know whether chemical waste drums used to send waste to JCC
met specifications of 700521 memo.
PAGES 416-420, EXH. 76, IB000401, MINUTES.
Doesn't know whether bill of lading procedure described here was
followed with JCC trucks. Doesn't know whether chemical waste tag
procedure was followed. Procedure for listing tag numbers and describing
contents and filing with bill of lading was followed. Labels used on
drums sent to JCC were similar to the DOT label.
PAGES 420-422, EXH. 77, IB000371, MEMO.
Notification to JCC of the composition of liquid waste was provided
in shipping papers and agreements which included waste materials lists.
PAGES 422-432, EXH. 78, IB000278, MEMO.
Determination of inadequacy of waste handling was with regard to
vendor which preceded JCC. Author of memo, R.W. Wright is lost. Exh 46
indicates JCC was found to be incapable of proper waste disposal.
Believes this was in fall of 730000. Continued shipping wastes to JCC
until early 740000, pending selection of new vendor. Documents in exh
46, and Crockett trip report were bases for rejecting JCC in late
730000.
PAGES 432-433.
Counsel for JCCI puts on record their understanding that the Special
Master's order limiting the nature of questions permitted with regard to
the Lane site of JCCI applies to all depositions and discovery.
PAGES 433-441.
JCC wasn't approved by FEC for PCB disposal. Doesn't know why. No
knowledge of any off site disposal of PCBs from 690000 to 730000.
Refuses to answer several questions regarding PCB disposal, on advice of
counsel. Claims the only PCB's generated at FEC Boulder were in
capacitors.
PAGES 441-445.
There were many labs at Boulder, at least some of which purchased
chemicals. Chemical waste log sheet of 700909 refers to arochlor, which
he believes is Reveling Co's trade name for PCBs.
PAGES 446-453.
FEC policy on PCBs formulated during the time in question permitted
burial of PCBs. Written policy has not been produced in discovery
because no such document was found in the search done by FEC personnel.
Search included documents from Chicago office of FEC. He believes FEC's
PCB's policies were reduced to writing.
PAGES 453-457.
Earlier search was done by FEC as a result of Hallston letter of
811114, exh 39. Doesn't know of any document search done before then,
nor of any communication between DCA and FEC regarding JCC prior to
820804.
PAGES 457-467, EXH. 79, IB000515, MEMO.
Believes date should be 810114 rather than 800114. Believes time
period specified in memo was meant to limit report to JCC records, since
they were only known waste disposal vendor then. Doesn't recall a
specific response to the memo; would be in Baylor file. Counsel will
request production of Baylor file because of perceived importance of
FEC's knowledge of problems at JCC.
PAGES 467-475.
MEK wastes sent to JCC when they reached unacceptable contamination
level. Decision to discard made by management persons, named in exh 47.
No records to his knowledge of any tests or other evaluation methods
used on the MEK.
PAGES 475-476.
Report by Mr. Strong on ruling of Special Master re work product
issue of previous day. No waiver of work product privilege in that
instance, but Balston must provide names of people spoken to.
PAGES 476-480.
Decision in 690000 to seek another disposal vendor other than JCC was
based on concerns of a number of people at FEC. No recollection that
request from Weld County Landfill influenced this decision. Last waste
deposit by FEC at Weld County Landfill was in 690300. First load sent to
JCC in 690600.
PAGES 480-490.
Search for new waste vendor in 690000 done primarily by George
Wilson, whereabouts unknown. Other names mentioned either no longer with
FEC or had limited or no involvement in JCC waste vendor selection.
Doesn't know who the Mr. Barrett is, referred to in Exh 62.
PAGES 490-493.
Boulder explosion referred to in exh 62 was caused by chemicals in
sewage. FEC paid damages to City. Sampling suggested by Hallston at the
time was objectionable because of sensitivity of the issue.
PAGES 494-499.
William Blair was counsel for FEC Boulder. Balston reviewed his legal
file, but refuses to answer questions about it, on advice of counsel.
Millin states his basis for believing attorney client privilege has been
waived on this.
PAGES 499-503.
Aware of only two site inspections of JCC by FEC. Not aware of any
such visit in 710000 or 720000, nor of small pond at JCC which failed
inspection.
PAGES 503-508.
Chemical coordinator Jocim had broad advisory role but not sole
control over waste disposal. Joffs had limited involvement with waste
disposal. Claims that nobody had sole responsibility for off site
disposals.
PAGES 508-516, EXH. 80, IB000274, MEMO.
Believes selection of JCC was based on Hallston's credibility and
documents. No indication of concern about Crockett's negative report on
incinerator following 700000 visit. Not aware of any waste incinerator
at Boulder prior to JCC contract, notwithstanding information in
planning memo. Claims FEC searched for the most advanced disposal Co.
PAGES 516-519, EXH. 81, IB000239, BROCHURE.
Chemical safety committee set up in early days of Boulder site. No
knowledge of individual appointments to committee.
PAGES 519-521.
Doesn't recall ever having spoken to Mr. Crockett.
PAGES 521-527.
Not aware of any visits to JCC other than 700000 visit by Crockett
and 730000 visit by Wheaton and Griswold. Visit in 730000 resulted from
heightened awareness of importance of proper waste handling. Decision to
make visit probably made by Wheaton.
PAGES 527-533.
Crockett was RECD employee. Role of RECD Environmental Services was
to provide guidance to FEC sites on environmental issues, but sites like
Boulder were developing their own expertise at the time in question.
Believes Crockett made JCC visit because he was in the area at the time
and was knowledgeable.
PAGES 533-539, EXH. 83, IB000526, MEMO; EXH. 84, IB000525, MEMO.
FEC counsel objects to questions regarding contract between FEC and
JCC in effect from 710501 to 740000. Amendments to contract were
proposed by FEC on 720815 and 730427. Doesn't know of any others.
Doesn't have any documentation that contract was terminated because of
JCC's failure to perform under terms of contract. Doesn't know whether
termination letter was sent to JCC.
PAGES 539-540.
Believes first indication of lack of incinerator at JCC was from
Wheaton, Griswold trip of 730300. Doesn't believe this information
affected contract extension of 730427 indicated in exh 84.
PAGES 540-544, EXH. 85, IB000371, MEMO.
FEC obtained no approval for JCC from water pollution control
authorities because there was no discharge to waters.
PAGES 544-545, EXH. 86, IB000522, PURCHASE ORDER.
Blair was attorney for FEC and was involved in search for waste
vendor in 690000.
PAGES 546-549.
Questions regarding FEC case strategy meetings in 820000 objected to
by FEC counsel.
PAGES 549-552.
Received no information that EC air pollution officials required JCC
incinerator to stop operating, nor that FEC drums had exploded and
caused fire at JCC in 700000. Can't provide information on number of
gallons of waste sent from FEC to JCC. Discussion between FEC counsel
and insurance company counsel as to whether this constitutes waiver of
right to provide such information at trial.
PAGES 552-556.
Examination by counsel for JCC; discussion of distinction between
JCC, JCCI, and Hallston personally.
PAGES 556-571.
Examination by counsel for Home Insurance Co. Balston was hired by
FEC on 811128 but didn't begin work on JCC investigation until 820800.
Wasn't given any special clearance for his search. No FEC Boulder
organizational charts exist for time period in question.
PAGES 571-573.
No procedure at FEC during time in question for reporting chemical
spills.
PAGES 573-578.
Ammonium sulfate and ammonium chlorite are oxidizers shipped by FEC
to JCC. Probably in solid form when disposed of. No recollection of any
specific procedure for separating oxidizers from other wastes, other
than drum labels. Did not discuss the handling of oxidizers with persons
responsible. Drum tag logs were prepared after the shipments took place.
PAGES 579-583.
Doesn't know whether recoverable wastes were in fact recovered.
Waste tag logs would tell that. Pyroforic particles mentioned in exh 34
were only such materials generated in Boulder.
PAGES 583-589.
He got information on Baylor's earlier investigation of JCC from
talking to manager and from Baylor's file documents. Believes all these
documents were produced in court. The file has been reorganized since
discovery began.
PAGES 589-592.
Didn't find any FEC safety training documents in his search.
PAGES 592-597.
No competitive bidding for waste vendor when JCC was chosen in
690000. Purchasing Dept made decision to hire JCC, but consulted other
depts. Documents in FEC legal file regarding selection of JCC are under
claim of privilege pending ruling of Special Master.
PAGES 597-600.
Rejection of bids from vendors not the same as termination of
contract (see Exh 46). Doesn't consider handwritten note on that
document to mean there was no incinerator at JCC.
PAGES 600-604.
FEC had more than one vendor number for JCC, but all were used in
documents search. No clear distinction between JCC and JCCI.
PAGES 604-610.
Doesn't know regulations for use of NOI and NOIBN acronyms. Confirms
earlier testimony regarding drum tag logs. Drums received at FEC with
raw materials would not have been used to ship waste. Such drums would
have been shipped to JCC for disposal when empty, and may have contained
some residue.
PAGES 620-625, EXH. 87, IB000132, LETTER.
FEC was no longer shipping wastes to JCC at time of this letter;
doesn't know why it was in Boulder files. FEC sent organics to JCC with
understanding they would be disposed of as specified in Exh 43:
organics that could not be incinerated would be buried.
PAGES 615-621, EXH. 88, IB000497, LETTERS.
Joffs' contact with JCC was improper because should have gone through
purchasing.
PAGES 621-624.
Didn't find the seven employee complaints on pollution referred to in
Exh 82. Originals would be in Personnel Dept.
PAGES 624-629.
Shipping papers would reveal whether FEC sent wastes to JCC during
gaps between contracts.
PAGES 629-631.
JCC gave FEC a price quote for disposal of PCBs, apparently
unsolicited.
PAGES 632-634.
FEC relied on expertise of JCC as to cleaning out of FEC drums to be
salvaged.
PAGES 635-637, EXH. 90, IB000142, MEMO WITH ATTACHMENTS.
List of chemical waste buyers (IB000143) doesn't include JCC. No
recollection of where he found the list.
PAGES 637-640, EXH. 91, IB000146, MEMO WITH ATTACHMENTS.
Doesn't know who C.R. Fremont is.
PAGES 640-644, EXH. 92, IB000523, LETTERS.
Believes FEC attorney Blair received replies to these letters to MD
pollution control agencies, based on memo from Blair to Joffs, which is
privileged.
PAGES 644-646, EXH. 93, IB000301, REPORT.
Incinerator referred to was not for use in disposing of chemical
wastes.
PAGES 646-649, EXH. 94, IB000377, REPORT.
Doesn't believe this document discusses chemical wastes at all.
Can't identify handwriting on exh 76.
PAGES 649-652, EXH. 95, IB000283, REPORT.
These guidelines came out soon after corporate instruction 117B.
Doesn't know whether this is a modification of a previously existing
practice.
PAGES 652-657.
Attorneys discuss procedural matters and arrange future meetings.
DEPOSITION 841108 GARRIS, ROBERT JR. CNI VOL. I
PICKEN, CYRUS
PAGES 1-4.
Appearances.
PAGES 5-7.
Index and exhibits. Examination by Mr. Millen pages 8-160; by Mr.
Wilken pages 160-176; by Mr. Cleary pages 176-181; by Mr. Lowry pages
181-222.
PAGES 8-14.
Mr. Garris is FEC representative to testify upon 12 subjects in
Notice to Take Depositions. Did not bring documents as requested.
PAGES 14-18, EXH. 2, BULLETIN; EXH. 3, MEMORANDUM; EXH. 5,
INSTRUCTION; EXH. 6, INSTRUCTION; EXH. 7, PRACTICE; EXH. 8, MANUAL;
EXH. 9, BULLETIN; EXH. 10, POLICY.
FEC provided corporate policies from 660000 through 740000, time
period FEC used JCC site.
PAGES 18-37.
Recaps education and work experience with FEC. Recaps corporate
structure of FEC during period FEC sent wastes to JCC. Four FEC plants
which sent wastes to JCC are Rochester, Lexington , Austin and Boulder.
PAGES 37-55.
Prior to 730000 a manager of special activities or pollution control
was responsible for off site disposal of chemical wastes. Anthony G.
Baily held position when FEC did business with JCC. Provided staff
guidance on environmental matters.
PAGES 56-61.
FEC plants sent pollution control reports to Baily. 660000 through
740000 reports may have been destroyed.
PAGES 61-64.
FEC environmental engineer visited JCC 700000. Have not called
records retention for Baily's files.
PAGES 64-78.
Discussed FEC evaluation of hazardous waste disposal vendors.
Checked permits, insurance certificates, Dunn and Bradstreet for
economic viability.
PAGES 78-93, EXH. 1, IB000233, MANUAL; EXH. 2, BULLETIN; EXH. 3,
MEMO; EXH. 4, IB000528, MEMO; EXH. 7, PRACTICE; EXH. 10, POLICY.
Environmental pollution control policies set forth in EXH. 3, 4 and
10. Waste disposal set forth in EXH. 1, 2 and 7.
PAGES 93-92, EXH. 1, IB000883, MANUAL.
Plant engineering reviewed contractors to see if they had facilities
and technical resources to meet legal requirements for hazardous waste
disposal. Environmental programs made separate reviews at plant's
request.
PAGES 98-103, EXH. 2, BULLETIN.
Solid waste disposal criteria was recommendation, not mandatory.
Stated that no material which could leach into groundwater causing
hazardous conditions should be shipped to landfill. Waste inks were sent
to JCC.
PAGES 103-106, EXH. 3, MEMO.
Suggested methods and programs to meet FEC's overall objective toward
the environment. Kept records about recycled materials.
PAGES 106-112, EXH. 4, IB000528, MEMO; EXH. 5, MEMO; EXH. 6, MEMO.
FEC plants were to identify potentially hazardous materials for
disposal by contractors. Environmental impact assessments did not
include disposal of chemicals. EXH. 7 relates to flammability hazard
rather than waste product. Discuss PCB disposal policy.
PAGES 112-119, EXH. 7, MEMO.
Discussed incineration of trash and sanitary landfills for garbage.
JCC was not a sanitary landfill, took chemical wastes. JCC took waste
inks, solvents and unprecipitated plating wastes. Reference to
monitoring disposal contractors about once a year. Discuss
responsibility for elimination hazardous conditions prior to disposal.
PAGES 119-122, EXH. 8, MANUAL; EXH. 9, BULLETIN; EXH. 10, POLICY.
Managers held department meetings to make employees aware of company
policies regarding the environment. Assisted government and industry in
developing solutions to environmental problems including cleanup of
chemical disposal sites.
PAGES 122-124.
Discussion of whether FEC tried to determine potential problems at
JCC and what FEC shipped to JCC.
PAGES 124-129, EXH. 11, IB000515, MEMO.
Late 700000 started list of every waste disposal solvent recycler FEC
ever used. Wanted to know what happened to FEC hazardous waste. JCC was
on the list. Central National Insurance Co requested production of list
and documents pertaining to JCC.
PAGES 129-134, EXH. 12, IA000112, MEMO; EXH. 13, IB000371, MEMO.
Liquid wastes memo was advisory, not mandatory. Disposal contract to
include new approval if contractor changes method or location of
disposal.
PAGES 134-139, EXH. 14, IB000171, POLICY; EXH. 15, IB000155,
STANDARD; EXH. 16, IB000153, STANDARD.
Chemical control coordinator at each plant was not responsible for
controlling disposal of chemical waste. Discussed facilities standards
and manufacturing standards.
PAGES 139-141, EXH. 17, IA000051, MANUAL.
Discussion about old procedures including corporate practice manual.
Not aware of other indexes to manual other than safety index.
PAGES 141-146, EXH. 18, IB000345, MEMORANDUM; EXH. 19, IB000336,
REPORT.
Trip reports to JCC. Has no knowledge of approval of specific
disposal methods at contractors sites.
PAGES 146-150, EXH. 20, IB000353, MEMO; EXH. 21, IB000355, MEMO.
Memos about JCC and JCCI. Not aware of list showing FEC approved
chemical waste disposal facilities prior to 740000. After 740000 there
was a list and JCC not on the list.
PAGES 150-157, EXH. 22, IB000301, REPORT; EXH. 23, IB000276, REPORT;
EXH. 24, IB000323, REPORT.
Boulder pollution control reports. No provision for approval of
chemical disposal facilities. Has no information about corporate
facilities practice concerning chemical waste disposal.
PAGES 157-160.
Discussion of production of documents by FEC. Question if everything
has been produced.
PAGES 160-164, EXH. 25, IB000173, GUIDE.
Does not know if records retension guide for period FEC did business
with JCC still exists and were produced.
PAGES 164-170, EXH. 26, IB000501, MEMO; EXH. 27, IB000503,
ATTACHMENT; EXH. 28, IB000504, MEMO.
Discussion about destruction of documents and records retention.
Explained the meaning of FEC confidential, personal and confidential,
and internal use only.
PAGES 171-172, EXH. 29, IB000122, LETTER.
Does not recall reasons for termination of business with JCC.
PAGES 172-174, EXH. 30, IB000146, BULLETIN; EXH. 31, IB000270,
BULLETIN.
Chemical safety bulletin appears to be a draft, not issued in final
form. Does not know of directives requiring tags on chemical wastes.
PAGES 174-176, EXH. 32, IB000356, PRACTICE; EXH. 5, MEMO.
Has not used directives on records destruction. Does not know if
directives existed in relevant time frame.
PAGES 176-181, EXH. 4, INSTRUCTION, EXH. 7, PRACTICE.
Monitoring of disposal contractors adopted 720113, compliance
mandatory. Corporate instruction was mandatory. Bulletins and procedures
could be either advisory or mandatory. Corporate facilities practices
were mandatory.
PAGES 181-189, EXH. 12, IA000112, MEMO; EXH. 20, IB000353, MEMO.
Discussed procedure whereby employees initialed documents they saw.
Any FEC employee may send memos with a distribution list. Discussed
generic numbering system for FEC departments.
PAGES 189-195, EXH. 33, IB000292, REPORT.
Agrees that existing technology can clean effluents to air and water
and limiting factor is cost. Industrial hygienist is job category in
FEC. FEC had pollution specialist who maintained resource file on
abatement equipment, economics and legislation. Informed the locations
by field visits and meetings.
PAGES 195-199, EXH. 34, IB000328, MEMO; EXH. 35, IB000329, REPORT.
Locations produced semiannual pollution control reports. Could not
find Boulder Pollution Control Report 8.
PAGES 199-201, EXH. 36, IB000172, POLICY.
Corporate policies were not revised on a regular basis.
PAGES 201-204, EXH. 37, IB000236, MEMO.
Environmental engineer did not constantly monitor contractor's
chemical disposal sites after site visits. May have watched for reports
about JCC.
PAGES 204-205.
Discussed definition of waste. Prior to existence of DCA, don't know
if hazardous meant DOT hazardous or other meaning as per RCRA.
Definition of waste depends on point in time.
PAGES 205-206.
Became aware of JCC when investigating vendors FEC used to recycle
and dispose chemicals. Originated investigation before any contact with
DCA about JCC.
PAGES 206-209.
No policy of examining past shipments of waste to determine if
something should be done by FEC. Responsibility ended when waste turned
over to disposal vendor.
PAGES 209-211, EXH. 38, IB000105, CONTRACT.
Corporate legal and purchasing put together guidelines for contracts
for vendor services.
PAGES 211-216, EXH. 39, IB000348, MEMO.
After FEC environmental engineer took trip to JCC in 700000 and made
recommendations, it is up to Boulder to implement recommendations if
they agree with them.
PAGES 216-220.
Discussed speak ups where employee can ask a question of management
without self identification. Does not know if there were speak ups about
chemical waste disposal.
PAGES 220-224.
Does not know about JCC insurance coverage.
DEPOSITION 841112 REARDON, KERRY DCA
MANNING, G. STEPHEN
PAGES 1-4.
A Listing of Appearances, Index, Exhibits.
PAGES 5-8.
Reserved right to recall deponent due to late arrival of technical
studies and documents, especially the E and E studies and the ground
water hydrology studies.
PAGES 8-14.
Established academic credentials and employment by DCA as geologist
in 790900 on uncontrolled site program. After Frankes Subcommittee
Report received in 791000 organized list of sites in Region 7, developed
files on these sites and investigated their problems. Involved in
preliminary evaluation of numerous sites including Copper's Chemical Co
in EC. On site visits in response to their risk and priority. Stated JCC
site possibly on Frankes survey.
PAGES 14-18.
Worked as site project officer at key Super Fund sites over several
years. These sites named as Aidex Corp site in IA, Ellisville site in MO
and JCC site in EC. Provided responsibility and recommendations as site
project officer. No recall of statements on these sites as imminent
endangerment. Confirmed present status as site project officer on JCC
case as full time.
PAGES 18-22.
Described organization of Regional Super Fund office. Denied being
expert but does evaluate other experts opinions.
PAGES 22-24.
Began work as site project officer sometime in 800000 on JCC case.
No on-scene JCC coordinator, assigned only in emergency.
PAGES 25-35, EXH. 1, FEDERAL REGISTER.
Discussion of assignment of on-scene coordinators as directed in
National Contingency Plan (NCP). Deponent denied ever recommending JCC
site be cited as public health emergency site.
PAGES 35-49.
Discussion of levels of decision making from Regional office to
headquarters in Washington. Final guidance is NCP. Noted sites at
Ellisville and Aidex inspected for contamination and hazardous
conditions due to spillage and broken drums. Also other site
investigated sooner than JCC due to priority. These were noted as dioxin
sites in eastern MO. Aris list is a preliminary assessment of
contaminated sites, Regional and National.
PAGES 50-57.
Discussion of mitre ranking system and types of release leading to
Super Fund action.
PAGE 57.
Stated first upgradient monitoring wells installed at JCC, within
1982, as part of E and E study.
PAGES 58-75.
Continued in depth questioning on application of agency policies,
guidelines and regulations that would initiate remedial action by DCA.
PAGES 75-77.
Objection entered to questioning, as deponent not to be considered
expert in rendering decisions on remedy endangerment or legal
definitions in NCP. Deponent not considered as proper witness. Proper
witness to be located. Right reserved to get ruling from Special Master
for additional questioning.
PAGES 77-79.
Deponent confirmed involvement in advice and recommendation process
regarding remedy selection using cost effective methods. Stated
questions used to determine DCA approach to remedial solution.
PAGES 80-81.
Witness stated agency policy does not require most cost effective
remedy. Other considerations and parties involved affect that choice.
PAGES 81-84.
Discussion on criteria and planning used to determine enforcement
action.
PAGES 85-87.
Objection again stated that witness is not a policy maker, decision
maker, attorney, or an expert witness. Witness stated that no judgments
or actions or her work sites were inconsistent with NCP.
PAGE 88.
Witness stated all costs and contracts carefully documented to
support all actions taken under plan. Unaware of any guidance or policy
documents to qualify consistency with NCP.
PAGES 89-91.
Established that witness began work on JCC site in 800000, it was
determined there was a release of hazardous substances from the site.
Witness confirmed that was established in 790000. Monitoring wells ahd
been installed, samples collected and evidence revealed release of
contaminants to the ground water. Witness stated no upgradient wells at
that time but contamination determined by association. Also additional
monitoring needed to determine direction, pathway and possible remedy.
PAGE 92.
Witness stated evaluation is not complete at this time and so no
evaluation of pathways completed.
PAGE 92-99.
Witness instructed not to answer questions by defense attorney.
Witness allowed to state in her opinion enough data had been collected
to form a basis for an analysis and determination but no final decision
on matter as yet.
PAGES 99-104, EXH. 2, HRS 1 MITRE, 770825.
Witness identified document as a mitre scoring or hazard site ranking
work sheet for the JCC site prepared by her on 820729 with an overall
score of 5.78. Information on back of document supports the score
calculated for that site. Score not that critical, merely comparison on
scale to other sites in country. A score of 8 to 28 would place it on
national priority list of uncontrolled hazardous substances sites.
Witness stated she had done several mitre scorings and both Aidex and
Ellisville are higher and on national priority list. She does not feel
scoring is a good determinant as to whether a site presents
endangerment. Deponent stated validity of determination is questionable
only in her opinion, not as an expert in mitre modeling. JCC site not
viewed by govt as emergency to human health and emergency.
PAGES 104-108.
Discussion of legal procedures to be followed in deponents continuing
testimony.
DEPOSITION 841107 HALLSTON, NORMAN B. JCC VOL. VII
NOBLE, DANIEL
PAGES 1-10, EXH. 178, 319337, MEMO.
Continuation of Mr. Hallston's deposition. He considered fly ash
desirable because it made the reaction product of various alkaline or
acid metal finishing wastes structurally stable. In the early to mid
seventies, the state of MD dept of natural resources started requiring
landfills to be covered. In addition, capped landfills must have a grass
grown on top of them. To cover a landfill containing metal hydroxide
sludges, the sludges needed to be solidified prior to adding a soil
cover. JCC either paid for the fly ash or received it free from the
utilities. He claims JCC was not successful in the bid to dispose of the
Grand Avenue plant fly ash. He claims inclusion of fly ash to the EC
site did not start until 760000 or 770000. In exh 178, pickle liquor is
interchangeable with the term sulfuric acid. He doesn't recall what the
volume of fly ash brought to the EC site was. He recalls ratios for fly
ash and pickle liquor were from one to one to one to three. Fly ash was
also mixed with the reaction products in the basins. This reaction was
slower and had less bearing strength than the pickle liquor mixture. He
claims both the fly ash combinations and a clay cover were relatively
impermeable.
PAGES 11-13, EXH. 179, 320094 AND 95, LETTER.
Hallston had discussions with MDNR about the strength of pickle
liquor fly ash versus a clay cap. Starting in 700000, 710000, 720000,
730000, and 740000 state officials cited limitations at JCC site, and
later put further restrictions on what could be disposed of at JCC. Exh
79 states that flood plain locations for solid waste disposal would not
be approved for disposal of any hazardous waste, like JCC site. An
operating license was not granted JCC partly because part of EC site was
below the 100 year flood frequency level. Took periodic samples from the
production well on his property, and shared this information with state
officials. Intended to close facility around 760100 but lacked MDNR
approval.
PAGES 14-17, EXH. 180, 322488, LETTER; EXH. 181, 322487, MEMO.
He says the general thrust of the 751230 meeting involved the DCA and
the MDNR attempting to get JCC out of business. At the meeting, Joe
Eigner wanted to know what went into Basin 1, and he asked that no more
materials other than RUMCO pickle liquor be accepted at the EC site.
Sometime in 760000, JCC stopped accepting wastes with the exception of
pickle liquor, fly ash and lime. Lime or fly ash, which was not
considered an objectionable waste, was used as neutralizing agents for
the pickle liquor. He believes that no more drums were accepted after
760000. He interpreted that the demands made on JCC would require
closure of the site as it is now operating. However, there was a plan to
continue using the site as a temporary storage and recycle facility.
PAGES 18-25, EXH. 182, 015255, LETTER; EXH. 183, U01986, LETTER;
EXH. 184, CO12431, LETTER; EXH. 185, M0000166, LETTER.
He viewed exh 180 as an order to terminate and limit EC activities.
He claims that JCC was not discharging the liquid phase of the reaction
product that was occluded to the metal hydroxide. In a letter from
regulatory officials, exh 184, it was recommended that JCC take ground
water leachates and inject them into the EC sewer system. Hallston
thought this would be futile since the wastes would eventually end up in
the river. JCC's own study showed that JCC had 99 percent plus recovery
of metals; three other local waste water treatment plants had less than
30 percent metal recovery. The study also showed that JCC's levels of
metals in the leachate and reaction product met all the drinking and
irrigation standards at the time except for sulfates. The DCA was
assuming that leachates were being discharged to the river through the
ground water. He doesn't believe that JCC was discharging organics
through the ground water. The only organics placed in the lagoon would
have been in the solid phase of the unclean drums.
PAGES 26-31, EXH. 186, U02070, LETTER; EXH. 187, 015232, MEMO.
Exh 186 is a letter from Joe Bugner claiming that no progress has
been made concerning the EC plant referring to Hallston's 751200
commitments pertaining to operations. Hallston claims that eventually
all of his commitments were fulfilled. DCA was active in JCC's
discussions with state at that time. Claims was asked only to collect
leachate from reaction product in EC.
PAGES 32-37, EXH. 188, 015228, MEMO; EXH. 189, 005578, MEMO; EXH.
190, U02150, LETTER; EXH. 191, 005161, LETTER.
Exh 190 is an abatement order that refers to discharges into a
state's waters without a proper NPDES permit or approvals issued by the
agency. Hallston claims the order couldn't refer to the St. Louis site.
At the EC site, the evaporation rate in the area is greater than the
rainfall, and the permeability of gypsum is known to be fairly high.
This is why the discharge at the EC site is considered minimal.
Klamathe, JCC's neighbor, never complained about the water quality in
its well. In 760713, Fitzpatrick and MDNR only required capping off the
KC site for the closure. Talks about Eileen Cross.
PAGES 38-45, EXH. 192, C013375, MEMO.
The EC site closure plan involved finding an alternate site and
relocating the landfill to this other location. The plan also involved
raising the level above the 100 year flood frequency and using the fly
ash and pickle liquor or fly ash and reaction product to form a firm
structural base for either cover. No monies had been put in reserve by
JCC to fund the closure of the site. A report was made by JCC to compare
the EC site with other waste water treatment plants in the area.
PAGES 46-55, EXH. 193, 320082, MEMO; EXH. 194, 005561, LETTER.
He says 1569 pounds of arsenic and 6347 pounds of copper were
discharged from the EC waste water treatment plant every year. This
waste flows by the EC site. The COE was included in the closure
discussions.
PAGES 56-64, EXH. 195, 000737, LETTER; EXH. 196, U02222, LETTER;
EXH. 197, U02225, LETTER.
Exh 195 is a letter from the MD Clean Water Commission in which
Hallston's request to continue the waste plus waste process method with
the metal finishing wastes is shown. JCC was operating the site in
accordance with their MDNR agreements in late 760000.
PAGES 65-72, EXH. 198, 317856, MEMO; EXH. 199, 317800, MEMO; EXH.
200, U02267, LETTER; EXH 201, 006323, MEMO; EXH. 202, 006374, MEMO.
The reaction product from pickle liquor and lime or fly ash was
buried. Unneutralized pickle liquor was not buried. Exh 198 is a
memorandum referring to overflows from Basin 1 through Basin 5. There
had been some acid problems in Basin 5. The actual flow was from Basin 6
through Basin 5 and then the flow continued on to Basin 1. Basin 6 was
the acid equalization basin in which the pickle liquor was kept. The
effect of placing all the unneutralized acids in other basins would be
an increase in the solubility of other heavy metals that remained in the
heavy metal hydroxide sludges. Acid level checks were made of the
reaction product every hour or every other hour by plant personnel.
Eventually Basin 5 was solidified in an alkaline state. The sludge in
Basin 5, which was a neutralization byproduct, was not pumpable.
PAGES 73-76.
Hallston tentatively agreed to close the site down by 790400 which
was two years later than the original closure date. The delay was due to
the time it took to perfect the solidification process. No discussions
occurred at this time with DCA or MDNR concerning solidification
requirements. Guidelines were more concerned with a cap than a seal. The
existing metal hydroxide sludges plus the ash and liquor provided a seal
for the lagoons. Odendahl had no objections or observations to the
ongoing activities at the site at that time. An exact timetable for
closing was worked out between JCC and MDNR.
PAGES 77-79, EXH. 203, U02295, LETTER; EXH. 204, M0000308, LETTER.
Drawings and samples relating to the closure plan were submitted to
the State. Mr. Roberts was impressed that there was no side leakage
during an inspection. JCC dug down until there was no more loose
material in an effort to make a stable landfill. This sometimes required
digging more than 4 or 5 feet. A 5 inch asphalt cover was to be placed
over the area proposed as a parking lot. This cover was to protect the
fly ash liquor aggregate from breaking up due to the friction of tires.
PAGES 80-85, EXH. 205, 006404, MEMO; EXH. 206, U02361, REPORT; EXH.
207, 000891, REPORT.
COE agreed to let JCC give up part of their closure agreement in the
permit of 1960 to go to 745 so that the area riverward of the raised
area could be raised to 740. A meeting with MDNR on 771116 resolved all
disputes MD had with JCC with respect to closing the site.
PAGES 86-90, EXH. 208, U01247, LETTER; EXH. 209, 0090030829, LETTER.
He feels that at the time the MDNR felt that sealing the top of the
site would prevent future environmental harm from the site. The process
and tank storage area required a fence. Planting vegetation was the
final procedure.
PAGES 91-94, EXH. 210, M0000354, LETTER; EXH. 211, 000673, LETTER.
Claims was written authorization from COE to fill site. COE figures
on impact of JCC facility indicate less than 1 inch change in river
level, and less than 100 feet upstream. JCC used 1 foot of clay instead
of the 2 feet called for by MDNR in closing site. Lagoons were
stabilized to satisfaction of MDNR. MDNR never finally approved adequacy
of closure after its completion in 790000.
PAGES 95-103, EXH. 212, 005467, LETTER; EXH. 213, M0000400, LETTER;
EXH. 214, U02496, LETTER.
Prior to a letter from Lloyd Benter dated 781121, Hallston had not
had any discussions with the DCA about closure. He claims that he never
received a notice from the DCA to stop the closure acitivity.
PAGES 104-109, EXH. 215, U02541, LETTER; EXH. 216, M0000413, LETTER.
Exh 216 is a letter to Jones from Hallston requesting the DCA to
comment on whether the closure effort should be shut down. In exh 215,
Camin accepts on behalf of the DCA Hallston's invitation to make a study
of the site. The study was mainly a comprehensive ground water
monitoring study.
PAGES 110-114, EXH. 217, 006463, MEMO; EXH. 218, U02610, LETTER.
MDNR filed a lawsuit against JCC for not meeting the closure
deadline. He claims the deadline was not met because a strike at ECPL
disrupted the availability of fly ash and the COE took too long for
formal approval. All the basins were excavated to at least 5 feet and
perhaps to twelve feet. In basin number 1, Bunker C oil that was put in
years ago migrated to the surface and was difficult to cap and retain.
PAGES 115-118, EXH. 219, U19223, MEMO.
Drums would make the in situ mixing fall. He claims when JCC came
across drums while mixing they left the drums in the basins. He didn't
notice any odors that related to volatile organic compounds. The DCA
found vinyl chloride in their ground water evaluation. He claims the
type of customers JCC had never used vinyl chloride. JCC's intended
method of handling chlorinated hydrocarbons prior to the early seventies
was to incinerate them. After this time, they would either be recalled
or brought to a reclamation firm with an incinerator. Some chlorinated
hydrocarbons were brought to Romulus, Michigan. The only chlorinated
hydrocarbons that went into the basins were those that were occluded to
the drum itself.
PAGES 119-127, EXH. 220, M0000539, LETTER; EXH. 221, 006431, MEMO;
EXH. 222, 006426, MEMO.
Findings of an DCA ground water survey showed that their previous
concerns about heavy metal contamination of ground water were over
conservative. To check a landfill, the operator would see if it would
properly take the weight of a crane. The upper layers had permeability
levels of ten to the minus seventh or ten to the minus sixth. Hallston
visited the site several time a week while it was being filled.
DEPOSITION 841108 HALLSTON, NORMAN B. VOL. VIII
NOBLE, DANIEL J.
PAGES 5-12, EXH. 223, 0090029238-29239, MEMO; EXH. 224, U04135-4146,
LETTER.
Determination of contents of water flow from JCC. JCC received
toluene, trichloroethylene stopped possible deposit into water basins
760000. Preliminary hydrological investigations indicated above
substances reaching MD River. Concentrations higher inland, lower
riverward. Run off puddles from lagoons, riverward.
PAGES 12-18, EXH. 225, 005299, MEMO; EXH. 226, 000850-853, REPORT.
Vegetation stress occurred over twenty year period. Hallston
attributed to neighbor producing herbicides. Had been trees along JCC
property lines. Hallston claims riverward trees growing fine. Oregon
City Testing Lab gave JCC information on the properties of lab produced
pickle liquor, fly ash and fly ash sludges. Also drilled at random to
test the cover for strength. The cover was made using this data.
PAGES 18-24, EXH. 228, U02731, LETTER.
Ray Leonard through surface exploration for JCC concluded JCC needed
a penetration pavement over stabilized fly ash, a weatherproof seal, and
a wearing course. Suggested materials and amounts to use. JCC fulfilled
minimum requirements. Closure of site substantially completed 791204.
DCA did not direct stoppage of closure activity.
PAGES 24-29, EXH. 229, U02368-2395, REPORT.
Report of 760700 disclosed effect of JCC processes on environment.
JCC effluent of heavy metal contaminants was .108 pounds per day in
their filtrate, which went directly into river via ground water.
Hallston feels that JCC over estimated the amount. No discussion with
Dan Fitzpatrick, DNR, about this report. Did discuss with Wilbur
McCutchen.
PAGES 29-32, EXH. 227, 0090029088, LETTER.
Lois Jacoby, DCA, wrote 791213 to inform JCC that their ground water
presents a significant potential human health hazard. She identified
vinyl chloride, dichloroethylene, trichorethylene, toluene, benzene and
2 chloroethylvinyl ether in letter of 790828. Hallston claims that water
in whole area was nonpotable, naturally. So he thought that JCC further
wastes were irrelevant.
PAGES 32-41, EXH. 230, 0090029085-087, LETTER; EXH. 231, 0090029084,
LETTER; EXH. 232, U02739, LETTER.
Hallston answered Jacobs' letter by saying that since the water was
naturally nonpotable JCC should not waste money cleaning their chems.
from it, except where the ground water runs into the MD River. Hallston
agrees that JCC responsible here. ECPL, Klamathe, and a landfill
operated by City of EC MD may also be responsible. Accepted waste
believed to be Salolen from Klamathe.
PAGES 42-48, EXH. 112, PROPOSAL, EXH. 113, LETTER.
Questioning by Perrier, attorney for FMC. Standard format letters to
General Dynamics, Convair division and Beech Aircraft as to proposed
waste disposal. Attached were certificates of insurance, 300,000 dollars
of liability coverage. In letters JCC claims to meet all federal, state
and local pollution laws.
PAGES 48-58.
600000 through 650000 Hallston did insurance purchasing himself.
From 650000 on Benson Egan, Lou Bardsly, Ed Fagel, Sidney Franck, Chuck
Walsh, Lloyd Benter, Roy Gillette, and Tom Gain purchased insurance for
JCC and JCCI. Hallston only reviewed the level at which liability should
lay. 600000-840000 Hallston did business with Mann Kline Insurance Co,
Herb McPhersons, and an independent broker, Gent.
PAGES 58-62.
JCC carried 3 types of insurance: liability, comprehensive,
workmen's comp. JCCI and JCC carry same amount liability insurance, as
far as Hallston knows.
PAGES 63-67.
Hallston stated that JCC took in toxic materials to transform them
into nontoxic materials. Materials were put into basins and some burned.
JCC and Bureau of Mines were the principal developers of the state of
the art processes used. JCC never put wastes into sewer system or other
outside systems.
PAGES 67-74, EXH. 233, BROCHURE.
Between 610000 and 790000 JCC received wastes at increasing rates,
continually. In 790000 closure of the site was completed. Closure
process included stabilizing sludges within basins so that they were
structurally sound and could support heavy equipment and also a topping
of clay, a sealant in part, and a seed bed for a pasture grass for
ground cover, though seed never used.
PAGES 74-80.
The clay was to come from Blue River basin rechannelization project.
The Army Corps of Engineers made it available. DNR approved clay. But
PCB found at site, so last foot of clay never put at JCC. Even without
last foot the closure exceeded JCC expectations. Extensive documentation
of JCC Army Corps of Engineers communications in past exhibits.
DEPOSITION 841113 REARDON, KERRY DCA VOL. II
MANITON, G. STEPHEN
PAGES 112-119, EXH. 3, POSITION DESCRIPTION.
FMC's aim in taking this deposition is to identify individuals
familiar with the govt's investigation of the JCC site. Reardon
summarizes her duties as project officer for JCC site, has participated
in process of developing remedial plans. Reardon's supervisor is Katie
Biggs, chief of the Super Fund section in Region VII Office.
PAGES 120-126.
Reardon initially worked for Chet McPhersons, then Ron Bouchlee, then
Tim Foli, then Kathy Boggs. Boggs' supervisor is Robert Darby, Chief of
Waste Management. Boggs and Darby involved in evaluating endangerment at
JCC site. Also involved are Dave Wettnert, division director, and Marvin
Jay, regional administrator.
PAGES 127-134.
Discussion regarding document production of records concerning the
prioritization of JCC site. FMC counsel requests site assessment
produced by Reardon and Steve Sisk in 800600, listing contaminants in
JCC groundwater monitoring wells.
PAGES 135-137, EXH. 4, U19244, REPORT.
Reardon verifies that the report was sent from Wil McCutcheon to
Robert Darby, 102783. All data from DCA laboratories was transmitted to
Darby. Darby's supervisor is Dave Wettnert.
PAGES 138-143.
Wettnert is responsible for the allocation of technical resources for
Region VII. Wettnert's supervisor is Marvin Jay, regional administrator.
Jay succeeded John Franke, Franke succeeded Kay Carol. Disclosed that
records were not kept of briefings.
PAGES 144-150.
Govt counsel refuses to produce site assessment document claiming
privilege under work product. Reardon describes Mr. Jay's job
responsibilities.
PAGES 151-156.
Reardon describes hierarchy at Super Fund office. Cherie Patteson
tracks status of all enforcement actions. Gene Lucind is director of the
Office of Wage Programs Enforcement. Request is made for documents
concerning briefings between Lucind and Wettnert, and memos from
Reardon. Discussion of Lucind's involvement in JCC, and coordination of
efforts between DCA and DOJ.
PAGES 157-159.
John Chey, chem engineer, assists Reardon. Boris Finley compiles cost
data associated with site.
PAGES 160-166, EXH. 5, BN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.
Govt's counsel refuses to produce memo concerning briefing of Gene
Lucinde, privileged under work product and attorney client. FMC counsel
requests any documents relating to a data transmission protocol, and to
Lucind's role in JCC case.
PAGES 166-169.
Mr. Kenneth S. Ritchie was the previous project officer at JCC;
helped develop the first site study plan; made recommendations for
further investigations. Project officer 790000 to mid 800000.
PAGES 169-175, EXH. 6, U00448, MEMO.
Steve Sisk is a hydrologist who installed the initial 9 wells at JCC
site. Reardon verifies that memo concerns plans for installation of 5
wells. Does not know if a sample was taken from the Mo. River Highway
291 Bridge.
Reardon assumes Sisk believed that contaminants from JCC were
discharging into the Mo River. Memo dated 790409 is from Sisk to Darby.
PAGES 176-181.
Reardon made recommendations regarding surface contamination,
migration off site, discharge onto surface areas from storage tanks on
the property, and discharge to the MD River. Harry Gimbale is a
technician with Environmental Services Division. Bill Ketter is chief of
the emergency planning and response branch and supervises DCA staff at
JCC site, and is contracting officer for E and E personnel.
PAGES 181-184.
Dennis Devlen former regional liaison for Region VII was succeeded by
Frank Rusto then Cheryl Patteson. Devlin assisted in formulating the
technical aspects of the govt's complaint.
PAGES 184-190, EXH. 7, M0000712, MEMO.
Memo discusses visit to JCC site by Reardon and Devlin, and meeting
at DOJ. Reardon discusses reasons for the one year delay between filing
of the lawsuit and the site investigation. Believed danger was possibly
significant but not immediate.
PAGES 191-197, EXH. 8, 0120000507, REPORT.
810000 E and E report was to advise DCA of the cost of possible
remedies for the JCC site. A cost estimate was prepared for a worst case
scenario. Reardon will not testify concerning feasibility studies
currently being undertaken by the govt.
PAGES 197-202.
Reardon and FMC counsel discuss the basis for the DCA's claim that an
imminent and substantial danger existed at JCC site at the time the
lawsuit was filed. Reardon did not recommend a need for a "fix" at the
time and does not know if Chet McPhersons or Mr. Rendley made such a
recommendation.
PAGES 203-206.
Reardon describes division of responsibilities between DCA and state
of Maryland for investigation and study of JCC site.
PAGES 207-208, EXH. 9, U02498, MEMO.
Reardon is not familiar with the content of the memo, dated 781218
from Robert M. Roberton to Jim Obentahl, which is a record of a phone
conference. It states that Region VII solid waste staff recommended that
DCA enforcement not proceed with the site monitoring program. Reardon
not aware of any such advisement to DCA enforcement by Region VII Staff
or State of Mo.
DEPOSITION 841113 STONETOWN, HENRY MANN CTA
HALL, MARGARET
PAGES 1-6.
Title pages, attorneys listing, index of examiners, index of exh.
PAGES 7-17.
Topic is Greensboro and Richmond facilities. Stanfords is senior
engineer for CTA Technologies Inc. Is admin coordinator of chemical
engineering process group in Richmond VA, is not supervisor. From 590000
to 620000 manufacturing engineer for Western Electric Nike program. In
printed circuit manufacturing ever since. From 590000 to 760000 at
Greensboro NC and 760000 to present Richmond VA.
PAGES 17-18.
CTA files motion to quash testimony about Winston Salem, the billing
location for Greensboro plant.
PAGES 18-25.
Standfield reviewed documents related to business and waste
management activities at Greensboro, which have been supplied to the
government. Also talked with people who were at Greensboro and gives
their names, former and current titles and current locations. Nine
people named.
PAGES 25-28.
Greensboro plant generated spent ammonium persulfate. From 710000 to
760000 did business with JCC, which acted as a scavenger.
PAGES 29-33.
Ammonium persulfate is an etchant used in circuit board manufacture,
done at Greensboro. Two buildings at Greensboro generated spent ammonium
sulfate, which was collected in one of two 25,000 gallon holding pits.
When Greensboro shop shut down due to business decline, documents were
disposed of. Purchasing records were archived.
PAGES 33-39.
Larsfield names 15 people with management or purchasing
responsibility for disposal of waste from Greensboro through 760000.
PAGES 39-45.
Larsfield visited JCC Lane with two CTA people, talked with JCC
president and one other, and determined JCC was doing legitimate
business and CTA would deal with them. This was in summer, 710000.
Discussed using Lancey process to reclaim copper, assumed that's what
JCC would do. Not aware of waste being sent anywhere except Lane.
PAGES 45-49, EXH. 1, 317110, INVOICE.
CTA Greensboro disposed of 3,600 gallons amonium persulfate with JCC
on 750530. Letter K is on JCC invoice, but discussion all agree other
testimony says waste may not have been sent permanently to EC.
PAGES 49-51, EXH. 1, 317110, INVOICE.
In 750000 used continuous ammonium persulfate regeneration system,
which reduced amount of spent etchant. Other waste was electroless
copper, cleaners and cleaner conditioners. Generated 200 to 400 gallons
a week or biweekly. Maybe 10,000 gallons ammonium persulfate per month.
Filled about one 4,000 or 4,500 gallon tanker per week.
PAGES 51-56.
Alkaline cleaners with surfactants or detergents produced at about
200 to 400 gallons weekly or biweekly. CAPER system used in 750000 to
regenerate etchant. In years 710000 thru 740000 generated about 9,000
gallons a week spent ammonium persulfate. Fresh ammonium persulfate was
about two pounds crystals dissolved per gallon; solution ratio used
from 710000 to 760000. Small amounts of sulfuric acid in ammonium
persulfate solution.
PAGES 56-58.
In the CAPER system pH controlled at two by adding copper carbonate
to the amonium persulfate. Alkaline cleaners would tend to neutralize
solutions, especially when placed in holding pits. Part of CAPER started
in 720000, system expansion completed in 760000. If not on CAPER pH not
controlled, pH may have been at one.
PAGES 56-64.
JCC the only scavenger CTA used to transport spent ammonium
persulfate during 710000 to 760000. CTA had contract with JCC. Ralph
Patterson, buyer, would be familiar with contract, which cannot be
located. Chemical analysis performed on spent amonium persulfate,
Larsfield aware of copper concentration of two to three and a half
ounces per gallon.
PAGES 64-67.
Larsfield does not know if ammonium persulfate is classified
hazardous under the RCRA Act. Is not familiar with Title 49 regulations
of the Dept of Transportation. Refer to interrogatory 820928, Question
8, a tabular summary of Document Numbers 316831 to 317363. Summary shows
243,110 pounds wastes sent to JCC EC. Footnote three gives conversion
factor of 10 pounds per gallon because waste is heavier than water, so
24,311 gallons of ammonium persulfate sent to EC.
PAGES 67-71, EXH. 2, 008375, INVOICE.
JCC invoice dated 750530, indicates 3,600 gallons ammonium persulfate
sent to JCC EC. Converted figure indicates 23,520 pounds, which CTA
asserts is probably accurate. Individuals Larsfield talked with at
Greensboro understood waste sent to Lane. CTA attorney interrupts to
object numerous times, obfuscates govt fact finding, narrows scope of
questioning.
PAGES 71-75, EXH. 3, 008389, INVOICE.
Pipefitters at Greensboro loading docks were signers of bills of
lading to confirm actual shipments. Greensboro shops personnel cannot
confirm or deny that waste was shipped to JCC EC. According to attached
bill of lading, 4,300 gallons was sent to EC site.
PAGES 75-79, EXH. 4, 102515, INVOICE; EXH. 5, 102232, INVOICE; EXH.
6, 102503, INVOICE.
Freight costs higher than waste disposal costs. When asked why, CTA
objects as argumentative. Doesn't know if CTA took bids from other
scavengers, or if chemical waste disposal was discussed at corporate or
regional level. No environmental engineer in the contemporary sense
employed by CTA.
PAGES 79-83.
Questions by CTA. 25,000 gallon pits at Greensboro diluted by unknown
amounts water. Etching catalyst of secret formula provided by FMC in
solution. Saw permits at JCC Lane allowing site operation, thinks they
were state documents. Deep well injection was discussed for disposal of
effluent after copper removal at JCC Lane. JCC Lane indicated had deep
wells and permits from Indiana to use them.
PAGE 83.
Not aware JCC had EC site, no indication by JCC to CTA that waste
might be shipped to EC. Exh No 1 stationery has JCC at top with Lane IN
address, nothing said JCC of IL.
PAGES 84-85.
Questions by Govt. Doesn't know what IN regulatory agency gave
approval for Lane site, how often water diluted holding pits contents,
what permits for deep injection wells said or if waste sent to Lane
would remain there. CTA can't find copy of JCC contract. Ralph
Patterson, CTA purchasing dept would know more about contract.
PAGES 86-88.
Richmond facility etches copper circuit boards in same manner as
Greensboro. Richmond disposed ammonium persulfate waste with JCC in
750000 and 760000.
PAGES 88-90.
Larsfield names those he spoke with to prepare for this deposition
who knew of or involved with waste disposal from Richmond plant.
PAGES 90-93.
JCC was not only scavenger CTA Richmond used in 750000 to 760000.
Ammonium persulfate waste composition same at Richmond as at Greensboro
except copper percentage. Doesn't know copper percentage or know who
could tell copper percentage. Some CTA waste shipped by rail, although
JCC may have transported it. No indication waste went anywhere but Lane.
Not sure if CTA Richmond had contract with JCC Lane, Al Charlett,
assistant buyer at Richmond, would know more.
PAGES 93-96, EXH. 7, C013884, NOTES.
Not aware of JCC disposing of any waste other than ammonium
persulfate and or electroless copper, as at Greensboro.
PAGES 96-100, EXH. 8, C013884, LAB ANALYSIS.
CTA lab shows pH 1.75 on waste sent to JCC. Govt wants to ask
questions now and later about contracts between JCC and Greensboro
works. CTA attorney wants questions asked today only. Larsfield is asked
if water's specific gravity is 8.1 pounds per gallon; answers 8.3. Says
copper would raise specific gravity of spent ammonium persulfate to 10
pounds per gallon.
PAGES 100-102.
CTA asks questions. CTA Richmond stopped use ammonium persulfate for
etchant in summer 760000, didn't use JCC thereafter for that waste. JCC
solicited other business from Richmond, but no business done. At this
time Richmond facility was owned by Western Electric.
PAGES 102-106.
Questions by JCC. The factory and plant organization was responsible
for waste disposal from 710000 to 760000. More than one in charge of
Greensboro facility, but remembers Hudson Hoyle. Ed St Amand in charge
of chemical waste.
PAGES 106-110.
Larsfield's dept provided facilities and instructions to be sure of
correct chemical operation of equipment in printed circuit board
manufacture. Interacted with factory planning and process engineering
departments as to off site disposal of waste. Doubts there were written
procedures for off site disposal. Any existing procedures would be for
employee safety on Greensboro site. Written procedures would be kept
where people perform those duties and where people wrote procedures.
Title of corporate person Greensboro responsible to was assistant
administrative officer, or director, located in Burlington NC.
PAGES 110-112.
Interacted with CTA corporate engineering group which designed built
waste treatment plant at Greensboro 710000 to 760000 time frame. Some
communication with CTA group relative to waste disposal because
Larsfield aware JCC used by other Western Electric plants.
PAGES 112-115.
Did not talk with anyone at CTA to okay use of JCC. Ted Binkley or Ed
St Amind talked with person within their company but at another location
who did business with JCC. To start business with JCC, had to clear with
authorities through purchasing dept for cost approval. Decision at
Greensboro plant manager, Hal Wheatly, level or less.
PAGES 115-120.
When Larsfield visited JCC Lane site, sensitive to be sure JCC had
approvals from govt. Recalls seeing a document approving deep well
injection of waste. Met Hallston. Looked at site to sense quality of
operation. Ammonium persulfate only waste discussed. No company policy
or procedure said need to investigate financial wherewithal of waste
disposal co.
PAGES 120-122.
During 710000 to 760000 no company procedure, to monitor off site
disposal. Never went back to JCC site, never saw correspondence from JCC
since original agreement.
PAGES 123-125.
Lloyd Cheney reported to maintenance dept chief Neal Ray. Larsfield
uncertain, but they were probably responsible for off site waste
disposal from Richmond plant. Process engineers involved to some extent,
names given, current whereabouts discussed.
PAGES 125-127.
During 750000 to 760000 no new policies for off site waste handling
known to Larsfield. Bob Ridor may know more. Larsfield speculates JCC
chosen to handle Richmond waste because Greensboro use was okay. No one
from Richmond made on site visit to JCC. Richmond did not monitor waste
after sent to JCC.
PAGES 127-129.
CTA answer to Special Master interrogatory refers to disposal of
ammonium persulfate at JCC EC which originated from Greensboro.
Larsfield unaware of St Louis site, including when he reviewed materials
in preparation for testimony. Larsfield began working at Richmond 760700
at same time use of alkaline etchant began to be used instead of
ammonium persulfate. Discontinued JCC use. Unfamiliar with several
names.
PAGES 129-130.
If in 760000 there were any new corporate policies about the handling
of off site chemical waste, Steve Eliot or Tim Melthas might be familiar
with them.
PAGES 130-132.
Home Insurance Co speaks to record regarding CTA motion to quash
insurance co notice to take deposition. Says he believes insurance and
CTA have found a method of dissolving the dispute. CTA will present same
witnesses in answer to insurance co deposition notice as to govt notice.
So insurance co will participate in govt deposition to get needed
information. If information obtained is not satisfactory, they will deal
with deficiency later.
PAGES 132-133.
Special insurance policy issues will not be covered in depositions
yet because of Special Master's parameters. CTA has not had time to
produce documents requested by insurance co. CTA is prepared to have
witnesses testify about policies, procedures for storage, handling of
wastes, but haven't had time to find records.
PAGES 133-136.
CTA says insurance company deposition notice too broad, should be
quashed, outside scope outlined by Special Master, wants a more
reasonable notice following Special Master's. Insurance Co recognizes
that notice is broad, could handle by having Special Master rule on
question by question basis. Understands also that questions outside of
time frame of plant's involvement or matters pertaining to JCCI Lane
plant, except transshipment matters. Insurance Co won't inquire into
these areas.
PAGES 136-140.
Questions by Home Insurance Co. Discussion of Western Electric CTA
hierarchy. Plant mgr reported to vice president located in MA.
Larsfield doesn't know what the vice president's specific
responsibilities might have been, or his name. Several shops at
Greensboro, but one plant and manager, Ted Wheatly. Some Greensboro
engineers reported directly to Mr. Deaver in Richmond.
PAGES 140-142.
Hierarchy was, works manager above directors above plant managers.
Hal Wheatly reported to Al Brett. Richmond plant manager was promoted to
director sometime in 730000 to 760000. Under plant managers were
assistant managers, then department chiefs, then section chiefs, which
are first line supervisors like foremen.
PAGES 142-144.
Pipefitters were responsible for what was pumped into delivery
trucks. They signed bills of lading. Purchasing and traffic (scheduling
deliveries) are departments. Larsfield can't provide a name of someone
who would have an organizational chart from this time frame.
PAGES 144-147.
Competitive bids taken at time JCC selected to take ammonium
persulfate. Larsfield never saw a bid guideline. Purchasing dept relied
on engineering to come up with prospective suppliers or buyers. Only
guidleness in choice of JCC were verbal. Larsfield should be certain JCC
had govt permits. Other bid was from Rollins Paton of NJ, who said they
would incinerate waste. Decision to use JCC based on cost.
PAGES 148-151.
There were written shop operating instructions for employee safe
handling of ammonium persulfate, kept probably by maintenance
supervisor, Walt Restick. Ammonium persulfate bought in crystalline
form, 50 pound bags and later in 250 pound drums. Crystals mixed with
water, employees required to wear gloves and face shield.
PAGES 151-154.
Holding pits had sheds built over them so co would not have to pay to
haul away rainwater. Safety meetings held for employees, probably held
about ammonium persulfate. Larsfield says he had seen document comparing
JCC costs to other bidders.
PAGES 154-159, EXH. 9, W003214, MEMO.
Exh nine is cost analysis of two waste disposal Co, including JCC.
No consideration given to environmental dangers in the analysis.
Decision as to which waste Co was used strictly at the plant level.
Western Electric imposed no specifications on JCC as to disposal
methods, except that it be within the law. Saw laboratory on JCC Lane
visit, but doesn't remember much.
PAGES 159-162.
Lancey process, add sodium hydroxide to spent ammonium persulfate
enough to raise pH to nine; heat to 150 degrees Farenheit, then copper
oxide can be scraped from tank bottom and sold. This brought solution to
less than 10 parts copper per million, Larsfield's secondhand
information was that the city of Greensboro would permit this waste in
their sewer.
PAGES 162-168.
Al St Alirt would know more about Greensboro sewage permit. CAPER
salts are an ammoniated salt created by cooling an etchant down. This
process used at Greensboro. Salts may have been sold to citrus growers
to replenish copper deficient soil. CAPER system use started in 720000,
reduced amount of spent ammonium persulfate to be disposed.
PAGES 169-172.
Bill Whitefort sold wastes from Greensboro plant. Waste treatment
plant at Western Electric depended upon a metal blanket to filter metals
out of waste solutions. Surfactants, detergents, destroyed that blanket,
filter.
PAGES 172-179.
Larsfield describes process by which he prepared for this
interrogatory. His search for documents mostly at Richmond plant.
Greensboro documents destroyed in ordinary course of business.
Documents gathered into one place by the time Larsfield got to them.
Kept scratch pad notes when talking with people who had relevant
information.
PAGES 179-181.
Discuss Larsfield visit to JCC Lane plant. Did not talk about
incinerating ammonium persulfate with Hallston. Didn't recall seeing
vessels where copper would be reclaimed. Deep well was not defined by
Hallston, whether natural or man made or its location. Doesn't know
acreage of Lane site.
PAGES 181-184.
Doesn't know if anyone from Richmond plant visited JCC Lane site.
Solvents and acids disposed off site by Richmond and Greensboro but not
with JCC. No knowledge why JCC not selected for these wastes.
PAGES 184-190, EXH. 10, 0090032401, LETTER; EXH. 11, 0090032398,
LETTER; EXH. 12, 0090032297, LETTER; EXH. 13, 0090032357, LETTER.
In 750000 Richmond needed to dispose of trichloroethane, methylene
chloride and a rubbery polymer. Rob Murdocke contacted by JCC to dispose
of waste other than ammonium persulfate. Western Electric identified
potential other wastes in correspondence and sent samples of same to JCC
including methylene chloride sludge, TCE sludge, electroless copper and
ammonium sulfate.
PAGES 191-193, EXH. 14, 0090032347, LETTER; EXH. 15, 0090032279,
LETTER.
Hallston proposed to dispose of copper waste solutions for 24 cents
per gallon including shuttle and all freight. Later bid to dispose of
methylene chloride and 1,1,1 trichloroethane at 46 dollars per drum.
Also asked to be exclusive waste recipient during contract period.
PAGES 193-195, EXH. 16, 0090032249, CONTRACT.
Contract between JCC and Western Electric Richmond signed by C F
Gipple, of purchasing dept. Contract does not pertain to solvents
methylene chloride and 1,1,1 trichloroethane.
PAGES 195-197, EXH. 17, 0090032409, CONTRACT.
Exh 17 very similar to exh 16 and bears the signature of Charles W.
Walsh Jr of JCC. But it does not have rough copy handwritten on it as
does exh 16. Larsfield suggests that Al Charlott may know more about
these documents and why JCC not chosen to dispose of methylene chloride
and trichloroethane.
PAGES 198-200, EXH. 18, 0090032880, NOTES; EXH. 17, 0090032409,
CONTRACT.
Larsfield identifies handwriting on exhibit 18, which he doesn't know
if it is a memo of a meeting of those individuals, Hallston and Western
Electric representatives, on 740103. Doesn't know if contaminated acid
wastes mentioned in exh 17 were shipped to JCC.
PAGES 201-204.
Doesn't know who would know if wastes actually shipped to JCC or
where the log (if it exists) kept by pipefitters who loaded wastes is
kept. Asked if Western Electric has ever had a corporate policy to keep
track of waste wherever it was sent. CTA attorney objects, but insurance
attorney says Special Master allows questions about any later corporate
policy to track previously shipped wastes. Larsfield unaware of such a
policy, if it's in effect.
PAGES 204-206.
Questions by FMC. Western Electric used packets of catalyst provided
by FMC when mixing ammonium persulfate solution. Western Electric did
not know chemical makeup of catalyst, it was a secret FMC formula.
Gives names of people from FMC and those at Western Electric with whom
they met.
PAGES 206-210.
FMC catalyst used at Greensboro from 740000 until its closing.
Probably also used at Richmond. In each 250 pound drum of ammonium
persulfate crystals came a packet of catalyst that weighed ounces.
Catalyst was mixed with solution and Larsfield uncertain how catalyst
came out, was disposed of. The only time catalyst added to solution was
when new 250 pound drum of crystals mixed, it was not replenished.
PAGES 210-212.
Questions by Govt. Can't verify that electroless copper plating
solution was sent to JCC by Richmond plant, not sure contract fulfilled.
Doesn't know content of copper plating bath solution, but no sulfuric
acid. Doesn't know if contaminated acid wastes in exh 17 were sent to
JCC.
d. Doesn't kno