page 1 ·· 1cleanairmadison.org/rcra/117 -deposition of schmoller dnr... · 2013-03-04 ·...

·"·

. ·.: .,.,

Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/11/12

1

2

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

4 KATHLEEN McHUGH, and DEANNA

SCHNEIDER, Individually and on behalf

5 of all persons similarly situated,

6 Plaintiffs,

7 vs. CASE NO. 11-CV-724

8 MADISON-KIPP CORPORATION,

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

9 UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY and ABC INSURANCE

10 COMPANIES 1-50,

11 Defendants,

12 and

13 MADISON-KIPP CORPORATION,

14 Cross-Claimant,

15 vs.

16 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY and

17 UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

18

Cross-Claim Defendants,

19

20 (Caption continued)

21 DEPOSITION OF

22 R. MICHAEL SCHMOLLER

23 Madison, Wisconsin

September 11, 2012

24 9:51 a.m. to 3:57 p.m .

25 Kathy A. Halma, RPR

Halma-Jilek Reporting, Inc. Experience Quality Service!

Deposition of R. Michael Schmoller

(414) 271-4466

Case: 3:11-cv-00724-bbc Document #: 117 Filed: 02/13/13 Page 1 of 86

Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/ll/12

1 and 2 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and

COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, 3

Cross-Claim Defendants 4

and 5

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY 6 COMPANY, AMERICAN MOTORISTS

INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOE 7 INSURANCE COMPANIES 1-20, 8 Third-Party Defendants. 9

10 A P PEA R A N C E S 11 THE COLLINS LAW FIRM, P.C, 1770 North

Park Street, Suite 200, Naperville, Illinois, 60563, by 12 MR. SHAWN M. COLLINS, appeared on behalf of the

Plaintiffs. 13

VARGA, BERGER, LEDSKY, HAYES & CASEY,

14 125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1250, Chicago, Illinois, 60606-4473, by MR. NORMAN B. BERGER, appeared on behalf

15 of the Plaintiffs. 16 MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP, 100 East

Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 3300, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 17 53202-4108, by MR. JOHN A. BUSCH, appeared on behalf of

Madison-Kipp Corporation. 18

MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP, One 19 South Pinckney Street, Suite 700, P.O. Box 1806,

Madison, Wisconsin, 53701-1806, by MR. DAVID A. CRASS, 20 appeared on behalf of Madison-Kipp Corporation. 21 TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, 55 West Monroe

Street, Suite 3000, Chicago, Illinois, 60603-5758, by 22 MS. REBECCA L. ROSS, appeared on behalf of Continental

Casualty Company . . 23

MEISSNER, TIERNEY, FISHER & NICHOLS,· 24 S.C., 111 East Kilbourn Avenue, 19th Floor, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, 53202-6622, by MR. MICHAEL J. COHEN, 25 appeared on behalf of United States Fire Insurance

Page 3

1 Company.

2 MR. STEVE TINKER, Assistant Attorney

General, P.O. Box 7857, Mad.ison, Wisconsin, 53707,

3 appeared on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources.

4

5 INDEX

6 R. MICHAEL SCHMOLLER

7 By Mr. Collins ........................................ 6

8 EXHIBITS

9 No. 1 Neighborhood Update; 8-15-12 ................. 25

10 No. 2 Mad.ison-Kipp Vapor Sampling Status Map;

11 8-13-12 ...................................... 25

12 No. 3 2010 Water Table Groundwater PCE Isocontours

13 (ugfl) Map ................................... 37

14 No. 4 DNR Letter to Mad.ison-Kipp; 7-18-94 .......... 58

15 No. 5 Residential Soil Sampling (PCB) Map .......... 92

16 No. 6 Residential Soil Sampling (PAH) Map .......... 92

17 No. 7 Residential Soil Sampling (VOCs and PAH)

18 Exceedances Map .............................. 92

19 No. 8 Residential Soil Sampling (VOCs) Map ......... 99

20 No. 9 2010 Deep Groundwater PCE lsocontours (ug/1)

21 Map ......................................... 101

22 No. 10 Schmoller Letter to Safh; 7-19-12 ........... 122

23 No. 11 Crass Email to Schmoller, 10-13-11;

24 MKDNR001528 ................................. 134

25 No. 12 Tinker Email to Crass, 10-13-11; MK008643 ... 139

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Page 4 ~

No. 13 Email Thread; 10-17/18-11. .................. 146

No. 14 Tinker Email to Sisback; 10-18-11. .......... 151

No. 15 Email Thread; MKDNR000141 to 147 ............ 156

No. 16 Taffora Email to Hagedorn; 9-14-11. ......... 162

No. 17 Schmoller Email; 11-23-11. .................. 168

No. 18 Table 3 - Soil Vapor Analyses Table ......... 185

No. 19 Nauta Letter to Tsoris, 2-11-09;

MKDNR002327 to 2331. ........................ 189

No. 20 Nauta Letter to Schmoller, 2-3-10;

MKDNR003246 to 3249 ......................... 191

No. 21 Email Thread; MKDNR000116 ................... 193

No. 22 Email, 6-15-11; WKDNR001316 ................. 196

No. 23 Email Thread; MKDNR000289 ................... 197

No. 24 Nauta Letter to Schmoller, 7-19-11;

MKDNR003012 to 3014 ......................... 200

No. 25 Kipp Ideas; MKDNR001511. .................... 201

No. 26 Tsoris Memo, 8-25-04; MKDNR001921. .......... 206

No. 27 Schroeder Memo to Caldwell and Crouse,

10-18-94; MK005329 .......................... 210

No. 28 Email Thread; MKDNR000081. .................. 213

(The original transcript was sent to Attorney

Collins.)

(The original exhibits were retained by the court

reporter and attached to the original transcript.

Copies were attached to all ordered copies.)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

R. MICHAEL SCHMOLLER, called as a

witness herein by the Plaintiffs, after having

been first duly sworn, was examined and testified

as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY MR. COLLINS:

Q Would you state your name and spell it for the

record, please.

A

Q

Raymond Michael Schmoller, S-C-H-M-0-L-L-E-R.

Mr. Schmoller, we met before. I'm Shawn Collins.

Norm Berger is with me. We are lawyers for the

plaintiffs in this case. You understand that,

right?

A Yes.

Q Have you have been deposed before?

A Yes.

Q Okay. So you know the basic rules of the

deposition, right?

A Yes.

Q Okay. If you don't understand any of my

questions, just say so and I'll try to ask a

better question.

A Okay.

Q All right? J Halma-Jilek Reporting, Inc. Experience Quality Service! (414) 271-4466

Case: 3:11-cv-00724-bbc Document #: 117 Filed: 02/13/13 Page 2 of 86


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 23

24

25

A

Q A

Yes.

Where are you employed now currently, please?

With the Wisconsin Department of Natural

Page 6

Resources. I'm the Regional Spill Coordinator

the South Central Region out of the Fish Hatchery

Road office.

Q How long have you had that job?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

A I have been the Spill Coordinator since February

of 2010. I have worked out of that office since

1988 in the Remediation Program.

Q How long have you been involved at the

Madison-Kipp site for WDNR?

A Technically February o£2010. When I became the 13

Spill Coordinator, I took over responsibiUty for

the Kipp site.

Q Did you have any involvement in any capacity

before February of 2010 at Madison-Kipp?

A At brief times a number of years prior to that I

14

15

16

17

18

looked at the file and had some interaction with 19

the previous project manager, Dino Tsoris, and we 20

talked about it, but not in a project manager 21

role I didn't, no. 22

Q Dino is D-1-N-0?

A Yes. His real first name is Constantine, but

everyone calls him Dino.

Page 7

23

24

25

Q Can you spell that last name for the reporter? 1

A T-S-0-R-1-S. 2

Q All right. So Mr. Tsoris was your immediate 3

predecessor at Madison-Kipp, right? 4

A Yes. 5

Q Why did you take over for him, do you know? 6

A That was just part of the job assignment when I 7

became the Regional Spill Coordinator. There 8

were certain sites that also site project manager 9

responsibilities came with, and Kipp was one of 10

them. 11

Q As of February 2010 when you got involved at 12

Madison-Kipp, what happened to Tsoris? Was he 13

still involved at Madison-Kipp? 14

A No, Dino at that time left to go work in our 15

Drinking Water Program in our downtown office. 16

Q Do you know why? 17

A No. 18

Q Did it have anything to do with his performance 19

at Madison-Kipp, so far as you know? 20

A No. 21

Q Where is Mr. Tsoris today? Does he still work 22

for DNR? 23

A Yes, he's still in the Drinking Water Program. 24

Q Okay. Did he have a different job title than 25

Deposition ofR. Michael Schmoller

Page 8 ~

you?

A No, no, he was the Regional Spill Coordinator

that preceded me in that position.

Q Okay. Who told you that you were going to be

working out at Madison-Kipp as of February 20 10?

A That would have been my immediate supervisor. At

that time it was Pat McCutchen and he was the one

that would assign the site to me.

Q Okay. What did McCutchen say to you in that

regard about why you were going to be working out

at Madison-Kipp?

A That was just part of the job duties. It was

just kind of a standard transition. I gave us

some sites that I had and took on some new ones.

Q Did you become the Regional Spill Coordinator in

February of 201 0?

A Yes.

Q What was your title before that?

A Hydrogeologist. In the state system we're

hydrogeologists.

Q Okay. Let's talk about your educational

background for just a minute. Where did you go

to college?

A I started in Stevens Point for two years, and

then I got an undergraduate degree in the botany

II I

Page 9 j program through Madison here. Then I got a i graduate degree technically through the Urban and ~ Regional Planning Program, but it was a water

resource emphasis, and that would have been 1981

I got the master's degree. I think '78 is when I

got the BS.

Q With the water resource emphasis?

A Yes, the Urban and Regional Planning Program is

kind or a build-your-own program type or thing.

They didn't have a lot of structure to it at that

time. So you could emphasis what you were

interested in, so we were able to take

engineering classes and geology classes and just

kind of work them into a resource management

planning kind of curriculum.

Q And you got your master's in '78, did you say?

A '81.

Q In '81?

A '78 was my undergrad degree.

Q Okay. Do you have any other educational degrees?

A No.

Q All right. What did you do after you got your

graduate degree? What did you do professionally?

A Within about three months or so of graduation -

Well, I graduated and we traveled for awhile, and

~:


3 (Pages 6 to 9)

(414) 271-4466

Case: 3:11-cv-00724-bbc Document #: 117 Filed: 02/13/13 of 86

Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/11112 Deposition ofR. Michael Schmoller

Page 10 Page 12

1 then in January of '82 is when I started with the 1 work on this site for a certain period of time. ~

2 Department. 2 It was more because we sat in proximity to each i 3 Q DNR? 3 other, so it was just discussions about it, ~ 4 A Department of Natural Resources, yes. 4 but-·

I

5 Q And what were you doing when you started? 5 Q Do you remember any specific issues?

6 A When I first joined, at that time it was called 6 A No. My guess at that point is it probably was

7 the Bureau of Water Resources Management, and 7 probably more related to, you know, groundwater

8 they had a Groundwater Management Section within 8 and where might the groundwater be going and

9 that and we wrote the original groundwater law 9 where the groundwater contamination would be.

10 for Wisconsin and the original Chapter NR140 10 There probably would not have been discussion on

11 Administrative Code for that. I was involved 11 vapors or soils or anything. It probably would

12 with kind of like staff support for the 12 have been groundwater. For the majority of our

13 negotiations that took place for both the code 13 sites groundwater is our focus.

14 and the statute. 14 Q Do you remember, prior to February of 2010, any

15 Q Okay. What did you do next at DNR? 15 specific questions that Mr. Tsoris approached you

16 A I was in that position until about 1988 when I 16 with concerning the Madison-Kipp site?

17 transferred to South Central Region, and there 17 A No, no.

18 you do -- in the regional office you do more site 18 Q Okay. Do you have any professional licenses or

19 specific project management. So I became a 19 certificates?

20 project manager at that point for sites, 20 A No, no.

21 individual sites. 21 Q So in February of 2010 when you took over the

22 Q In 1988? 22 Madison-Kipp site, what did you do, if anything,

23 A Yes. 23 to acquaint yourself with the history of the site

24 Q And you held that position until February of 24 and any work that had been done prior to

25 2010? 25 February 2010, that sort of thing?

Page 11 Page 13

1 A Correct, yes. 1 A I would have reviewed the file, just gone through

2 Q So were you promoted in February of 2010? 2 the existing file to get familiar with what

3 A No, that's a lateral movement. That was not a 3 reports were there, you know, where the

4 promotion. 4 contamination is or isn't, what needs to be done,

5 Q Did you request it? 5 what needed to be done to move the site forward.

6 A Yes, it's one that you interviewed for, yes. 6 Q Did you talk to Dino? I'm talking about, you

7 Q Okay. All right. Now you said that prior to 7 know, about February of 2010 when you took over.

8 February 2010 you had some involvement with the 8 A I'm certain that I did. I don't recall any

9 Madison-Kipp site, right? 9 specific conversations, but that would have been

10 A Um-hum. 10 something I would have done.

11 Q Yes? 11 Q Okay. What was going on at the site at the time

12 A Yes. 12 from DNR's point of view?

13 Q That's one of the other rules. You know what I'm 13 A We had had -- At that point the on-site

14 saying, right? 14 monitoring wells were in place and there were the

15 A Right, yeah. 15 on-site vapor probes that were in place on the

16 Q Just speak with words rather than head nods and 16 east side of the building. Those vapor probes

17 things like that. 17 had showed some fairly high levels at that time,

18 A Yes, I did have some involvement with Kipp prior 18 so-- And in 2010 or so is when we were starting

19 to that. 19 to become more aware for the potential for vapor

20 Q Tell me about that, please. 20 concerns, so when I looked at the site, you know,

21 A You know, they would have been just conversations 21 there were a couple things that stood out. We

22 with Dino related to the site, you know, 22 needed to resolve, you know, where groundwater

23 investigation or whatever. It was not -- It was 23 contamination was going. We only had on-site

24 more of a causal kind of contact. It was not 24 wells at that point, and we needed to resolve how

25 assigned work like by a supervisor, you know, 25 big of an off-site vapor problem we had. Those

4 (Pages 10 to 13)

Halma-Jilek Reporting, Inc. Experience Quality Service! (414) 271-4466


Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/11112

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 14

are the two things that I remember stood out most

in my mind.

Q Before you came to Madison-Kipp, had you ever

dealt with vapor issues on any of your sites?

A No. The type of sites that I dealt with, vapor

typically didn't come up as much of an issue.

Q Okay. So prior to your coming to Madison-Kipp,

you dealt with groundwater problems, right?

A Soil and groundwater, surface water, sediment,

but vapor just wasn't something that I dealt with

a lot.

Q Okay. I understand that. But was most of your

work prior to February 2010 something other than

groundwater problems?

A No, it was-- Prior to 2010 it was primarily

groundwater problems.

Q Primarily groundwater problems, but no vapor

problems, is that right?

A Correct.

Q Prior to February 2010 had you ever looked to see

whether there was a vapor problem at any of your

groundwater sites?

A Very limited, if any. I don't recall requiring

vapor investigations at any of the sites I had

prior to that.

Page 15

Q Okay. Prior to February 2010 had you ever been

trained by DNR or by anybody else in vapor

intrusion, investigations to determine if there's

vapor intrusion, that sort of thing? Any

training at all in that regard?

A About that time, and I can't remember if it was

prior to 2010 or post 2010, the Department was

writing internal guidance on vapor intrusion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

investigations. There were some training 9

sessions on it. We may have discussed it at one 10

of our statewide meetings. So there probably was 11

some limited training associated with it, but it

would not have been a lot because, you know, at

that point the size of the vapor issue in the

state and where we are seeing it I don't think

was familiar to a lot of folks.

Q So February of 2010 you come on board at the

Madison-Kipp site, and one of the ftrst things

you Jearn is that on-site vapor probes have shown

some very high PCE numbers, correct?

A There were some elevated -- There was elevated

PCEs on the east side of the site, yes.

Q Okay. How did you ftgure out how you were going

to react to that, never having dealt with vapor

issues before?

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Page 16

A There's two other people employed by the state, ~ Terry Evanson, who works for our Department in

our downtown office, and Henry Nehls-Lowe, who

works at the State Division of Health, who at

that point had more experience with vapor than I

did. I remember meeting with them and asking -

discussing the site with them asking whether we

needed to start doing sub-slab or indoor air

testing at the homes directly adjacent to the

east side of the plant.

Q Do you remember asking Terry and Henry that when

you came onboard at Madison-Kipp?

A Yes, we had specific discussions regarding that.

Q Okay. What did they tell you?

A They said that based on the levels that we were

seeing in the on-site probes, that sub-slab

testing ofT-site and maybe some additional probe

testing ofT-site was warranted.

Q Okay. The on-site vapor probes that showed the

exceedences, how close were those to the nearest

homes?

A Forty feet. They are right along the property

line, and those lots aren't that big, so it has

to be 40, 50 feet, somewhere in that ballpark.

Q Okay. Do you know prior to February 2010 how

long -- for how long vapor probes had been

showing detections for PCE?

Page 17

A I cannot remember the exact date. I want to say

2007, but I don't remember the date those probes

were put in, for example. I don't recall that

exact date.

Q Did you ever ask anybody in February of 2010 or

thereabouts why it was that there hadn't been any

testing already off-site for vapors?

A Well, you know, there were some ofT-site probes,

and I don't recall exactly when those went in

there. So there was some ofT-site testing, but

when I came onboard what was not done, as I

recall, was any sub-slab or indoor air testing.

Q

I didn't really ask anybody why it hadn't been

done. I just assumed the progress at the site

had not just gotten to that point yet. You know,

work progresses and it was probably the next step

of things to be done.

Okay. All right. Let's set that aside for just

a second. So when you come onboard in February

of 2010, Jet's talk about the hierarchy at DNR,

kind of the up the chain from you and then other

folks at DNR that you are working with at

Madison-Kipp. So who did you report to directly?

I ~


5 (Pages 14 to 17)

(414) 271-4466



Page 18 Page 20 ij

1 A When I first was assigned the site? 1 then the alderperson, Marsha Rummel, and then the

2 Q Yes. 2 state rep for that area has been fairly active.

3 A That would have been Pat McCutchen. 3 Q Taylor?

4 Q Okay. And what was McCutchen's title at that 4 A Yes, Taylor.

5 time? 5 Q Do you know what Hausbeck's professional

6 A He would have been South Central Region 6 background is?

7 Remediation and Redevelopment Team Leader. 7 A I don't know what his specific training is, but

8 Q Okay. And then did he leave that job at some 8 he works for the City County Health Agency, and

9 point? 9 so, you know, public health issues is what he

10 A Yes. Pat retired. 10 deals with, and that's been his involvement with

11 Q Okay. And do you know when? 11 the site.

12 A Within the last two years. 12 Q So Maroney, Stevens, Giesfeldt, in addition to

13 Q Approximately is fme. 13 yourself and Hanefeld, have all been involved on

14 A Yes. 14 matters related to Madison-Kipp in the last

15 Q And who took over for McCutchen? 15 couple years, right?

16 A Linda Hanefeld. 16 A Yes.

17 Q And did she hold the same title? 17 Q Is that unusual, in your experience, that people

18 A Yes. 18 of that seniority at DNR would be involved in a

19 Q So she's the person -- Hanefe1d is the person to 19 site?

20 whom you directly report on matters related to 20 A It does not happen at the majority of my sites,

21 Madison-Kipp, right? 21 but if sites get controversial, then upper levels

22 A Right. 22 of management would become involved.

23 Q Who else at DNR has been involved at Madison-Kipp 23 Q So what got controversial at Madison-Kipp that

24 since you have been involved at Madison-Kipp? 24 got these other folks involved up the chain from

25 A Mark Giesfeldt. He's the Bureau Director for the 25 you?

Page 19 Page 21

1 Remediation and Redevelopment Program. 1 A You know, the citizens around the site are

2 Q Spell the last name, if you would, please. 2 active, and so when their elected representatives

3 A G-I-E-S-F-E-L-D-T. It's either I-E or E-I. I'm 3 get involved, then our administration becomes

4 not sure which one. I can never remember. In 4 more involved.

5 terms of management, another person who has been 5 Q You said controversial. Is that what you meant

6 involved is Pat Stevens, who's the Division 6 with regard to Madison-Kipp? It got

7 Administrator. 7 controversial because the citizens got involved?

8 Q Okay. 8 A That raised the level of awareness of the site.

9 A And I know there's been some involvement with 9 I mean, the site started to get a lot of press

10 Matt Maroney, who I think is the Deputy 10 coverage, and when that happens typically our

11 Secretary. 11 administrators want to know what decisions are

12 Q Okay. 12 being made.

13 A And at the staff level Terry Evanson, who works 13 Q Okay. Did it get controversial for any other '

14 down in our downtown office. 14 reason other than what you have already described

15 Q Okay. Cathy Step has had some involvement with 15 to me?

16 the site, hasn't she? 16 A No, I don't think so.

17 A I think she may have had some meetings. I don't 17 Q Okay. Did any of these folks up the chain from

18 know. Obviously, those aren't meetings that I'm 18 you ever disagree with any approach that you

19 in. I don't know if she met or not. I don't 19 wanted to take at Madison-Kipp?

20 know. 20 A Well, at this point we have not -- Well, we have

21 Q Okay. Who is involved from other agencies? 21 not chosen any remedial actions at the site yet,

22 Government folks we're talking about. 22 so from there perspective there aren't any

23 A Henry Nehls-Lowe at the State Division of Health 23 disagreements because there have not been any

24 has been involved quite a bit. From the city 24 decisions made. There was some internal debate,

25 John Hausbeck has been the primary contact, and 25 I guess, over who to otTer mitigation systems to

6 (Pages 18 to 21)




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 22

and what the criteria should be. There was a

fair amount of internal discussion on that.

Q To your knowledge, did anybody from the

Govemor's Office ever become involved in DNR

decision making related to Madison-Kipp?

A Not that I know of, no.

Q Okay. Well, did you ever hear about anybody from

the Govemor's Office contacting anybody at DNR

making inquiries about what DNR was doing out at

the site?

A I believe there was communication between the

Governor's Office and our administration on the

site. What that was, I don't know.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Q Well, how do you knowwhatyoujust told me? 14

A I think I probably heard it through my supervisor 15

that the Governor's Office -- either the 16

Governor's Office contacted our administration or 17

our administration had contacted the Governor's 18

Office, one way or the other, but I think I

probably heard through Linda that that is what

was going on.

Q Okay. And did Linda tell you anything about the

subject of the contact?

A I don't think she knew, so no. I think she just

knew it occurred.

Page 23

Q So what you were told is there was some contact

between the Govemor's Office and somebody at

DNR, but you don't know who was involved or when

or what they were talking about?

A Correct.

Q Did Linda tell you why she was telling you that?

A I think it was just part of our discussion. I

mean, we talked pretty much daily about this

site, and so I think it just came up as part of

the conversation. It wasn't a specific, you

know, you need to know this type of issue. It

just came up as part of our daily kind of back

and forth on the site.

Q Okay. Approximately how many sites have you been

involved in in your career at DNR? Hundreds?

A Yes.

Q Okay. On how many of those hundreds of sites you

have been involved in at your career at DNR was

there contact between the Govemor's Office and

DNR over what was going on at a site?

A Over the years, a dozen.

Q Okay. So the Govemor's Office contacting DNR

about what's going on at the site is, in your

experience, a pretty rare event, true?

A For the types of sites that I deal with, yes.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25


Q Okay. So to this day you don't know what the

Govemor's Office was talking to DNR about

related to Madison-Kipp, is that right?

A Correct.

Page 24

Q Okay. You mentioned that there was an intemal

debate over to whom to offer mitigation systems,

is that right?

A Yes.

Q What was the debate?

A What sampling requirements we should have to ' offer mitigation systems and what guidance number ~

should we use to make the decision to offer a

mitigation system.

Q Okay. What was the sampling requirements debate?

A The question is, you know, what's the importance

between a sub-slab sample versus an indoor

sample, and which of those should be the deciding

criteria and how many samples do you need to make

a decision whether someone does or does not

qualify or should be offered a mitigation system.

Q The Department is on record as saying that the

sub-slab sample is the most reliable sample,

true?

A That's always been what I have used as the

criteria, yes.

Q I mean, that's --

A I think it's in our guidance, also.

Page 25

Q Okay. And you agree with that, don't you?

A Yes.

Q So how was that debate resolved?

A We decided specifically for this site that we

would use two sub-slab samples as being an

adequate dataset to make a decision whether or

not to offer. We also would be collecting indoor ~ air at each of those times, as well as some I' background samples. ,

(Exhibits 1 and 2 were marked.) ' ~

BY MR. COLLINS: I Q We're going to call the exhibits by your name .,

just to create a record about where the exhibits !

were first marked, okay, just so you understand

why we are doing that. The first one I want to

~.· ask you about is Schmoller No. 1, which is the ~~

Neighborhood Update. Anytime I'm asking you a

question about a document, I want you to look at

the document as much as you need to in order to

answer the question. Okay?

A Okay.

Q I'm not trying to hurry you on any of this.

Okay. So Schmoller No. 1 says a lot of things,


7 (Pages 22 to 25)

(414) 271-4466



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 26

but the thing I want to ask you about is towards

the bottom of the flrst page. It says, "The DNR

is offering mitigation systems where appropriate.

To date, 21 homes have been offered mitigation

systems." Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Okay. By the way, this Neighborhood Update is

about three weeks old. It's dated August 15th.

Is there any update to that number, that number

of homes which have been offered mitigation

systems?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

A I think there are a few more since August. I 12

think the number is probably closer to two dozen 13

now. I can't tell you exactly, but I think there 14

have been some since then. 15

Q Okay. And if you could look at Schmoller No.2, 16

please, which is -- By the way, I have got both 17

of these, 1 and 2, off of your website yesterday, 18

so just so you know where I got them. I'm sure

you are very familiar with these documents,

right?

A Yes.

Q Okay. So the 24 or so homes which have been

offered mitigation systems, can you say at least

generally with reference to Schmoller No. 2 where

Page 27

those two dozen homes are?

A They will lie either on South Marquette Street or

Waubesa Street. Most of them will be on the west

side of South Marquette Street or the east side

ofWaubesa Street. There are some on the other

sides of those roads, but primarily they will be

on properties right adjacent to Kipp.

Q Okay. Within the class area as certified by the

federal court in this case?

A I don't know where that is.

Q Okay. I just wondered if you did. When DNR

offers a mitigation system, what's it reason for

doing so?

A Based on the two sample results we get, we're

finding, you know, PCE either in the sub-slab or

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

the sub-slab and indoor air both. So based on 16

the risk associated with those concentrations or 17

the potential for future risk, we offer 18

mitigation systems. At this site at this point 19

in time we don't know all the vapor sources, so 20

although we may sample somebody, we sample them 21

twice and their concentrations are below our 22

guidance criteria, in a number of cases we're 23

still offering mitigation systems because of the 24

unknown. 25

8 (Pages 26 to 29)


Page 28 ~

t Q

A

Q

Because of the unknown?

Yes. That number could go up. Since we don't

know where all the sources are, we don't know

where this is going to go.

Okay. Are there any homes immediately adjacent

to the Madison-Kipp facility on either Waubesa or

South Marquette to which DNR has declined to

offer vapor mitigation based on test results?

A Not based on test results, no.

Q Okay. Based on any other reason?

A There was one home, I believe it's 138 South

Marquette, that had just a single result from a

sample that was collected by Madison-Kipp's

contractors and they requested a mitigation

system and we said no until we were able to go

out there and get a second sample, you know,

according to our protocol.

Q That's Ms. Chiconne?

A Yes.

Q Okay. So are you saying that the Department was

unwilling to treat a test result generated by

Madison-Kipp's consultant the same way it would

treat a test result generated by the Department's

own consultant?

A No, no.

Page 29

Q Madison-Kipp's consultant had tested the sub-slab

and indoor at 138 South Marquette, right?

A Yes.

Q And it found PCE in at least one of those

locations, right?

A Yes.

Q Sub-slab, right?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now if that had been your contractor, the

Department's contractor that had taken that test

and had found PCE in the sub-slab, Ms. Chiconne,

who owns the home at 138 South Marquette, would

have been offered a vapor mitigation system,

correct?

A No.

Q Explain, please.

A We would have gone back -- Because the

concentration we found in the sub-slab was less

than 6, which is the criteria we are using, we

would have gone back for a second sample prior to

see what that result was, and then make a

mitigation offer based on both results.

Q Okay.

A So yes.

Q So was it because she didn't have two tests

;




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 30

taken?

A Yes.

Q Okay. You are not saying that two tests have to

be taken and one of the two has to be above 6,

are you?

A No.

Q It's just two tests have to be taken?

A There have to be two tests, and we have to ·

Well, the way the criteria is written, two tests,

and they both have to have detectable

concentrations in them. If one of those -· If

one of those results was greater than 6, then we

would be able to make a decision on a single

result, but if it were less than 6, then we need

two results and they both have to have detectable

concentrations. Based on our criteria, then we

would offer a system to that person.

Q Is it correct to say that evecy home in this area

that we're talking about where the test was

conducted by the Department's contractor, evecy

one of those homes has been offered a vapor

mitigation system?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

A Where we have two detectable concentrations or a 23

single one exceeding 6, every one or those I

believe has been offered a system.

Page 31

Q You said you have written criteria. Where can I

find those?

A It's probably -- If it is anywhere, it would be

in some sort of an internal note I would have on

my computer. It's not a memo we wrote up and

routed through like an approval procedure.

Q Okay. Well, it is written, though, right? You

said it was written, right?

A I believe it is. It was something that was a

product of, you know, back and forth discussions

inside the Department and we agreed to it. It's

probably in writing, but where I have it, I'm not

sure I could tell you.

Q Okay. Whether you can fmd it or not, you are

pretty sure what it is, though, right?

A Right. We know it. We just may not have it

written down.

Q Okay. All right. So just so I'm clear, whether

or not a homeowner is offered a vapor mitigation

system does not have to do with whose contractor

is generating the test result, correct?

A Correct.

Q All right. So a vapor mitigation system is

offered to a homeowner if two tests are taken and

both have detectable concentrations, correct?

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Page 32 ~.

A That's the criteria we are using, yes.

Q And another circumstance under which a homeowner ~

would be offered a mitigation system is if one ~

test is taken and it's above 6 parts per billion

by volume, is that correct?

A Correct.

Q All right. Now am I correct that the reason for

the Department's policy at this site is because

you are uncertain of all of the sources of

potential vapor contamination at homes? Is that

true?

A Yes.

Q Were you going to say something more?

A Well, you know, I would say that's one criteria.

I mean, not knowing where all the vapors are ~

originating is a concern because we have a ;

partial remediation system operating, and whether ~~ that will or will not address all the off-site .

migration is a concern. Also, just the number of ~ homes and just the number or homes involved is a

concern because, you know, we have a number of

homes that are right directly adjacent to what we

believe to be the source property. That's a

concern.

Q Now the source property you believe to be

Page 33

Madison-Kipp, right?

A Correct.

Q And you believe that to be the source for all of

the vapor contamination found in the homes on

Waubesa and South Marquette immediately adjacent

to Madison-Kipp, true?

A True.

Q All right. So when you say you have some

uncertainty about the source of the vapor, are

you saying you have some uncertainty about where

on Madison-Kipp's property the vapor is coming

from?

A Correct.

Q Okay. When I say "transport mechanism,"

certainly you have an understanding of that term,

right?

A Yes.

Q All right. Have you figured out what the

transport mechanism for the vapor is?

A I think we believe that the primary mechanism is

soil contamination and then vapor movement

through the unsaturated soil to off-site

locations. It is not clear if the groundwater

contamination is also playing a role as a source

for some of the off-site vapor readings we are


9 (Pages 30 to 33)

(414) 271-4466


Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9111/12 Deposition of R. Michael Schmoller

Page 34 Page 36 I 1 seeing. We have high on-site shallow groundwater 1 A At this point of all the issues that we're ~ 2 contamination, but everywhere we have looked off 2 dealing with at the site? i

3 site we don't see any shallow groundwater 3 Q Yes.

I 4 contamination. So what role groundwater could be 4 A In my mind that is not a high priority, so it

5 as a source is not clear. 5 would be sometime down the road.

6 Q Okay. Well, you can figure that out, that's 6 Q No timetable? Is that fair to say?

7 determinable, isn't it, through testing? 7 A Correct.

8 A I'm not sure what testing you would do to 8 Q All right. Now you did say in answer to a couple

9 distinguish between a soil source versus a 9 questions ago, you did say that you believed that

10 groundwater source at this site. 10 the vapor, at least some of it, may be moving

11 Q Well, let me ask you this then. Are you making 11 laterally through soils?

12 any -- Is the Department, when I say "you" I mean 12 A Yes.

13 the Department, I don't mean to personalize it, 13 Q Okay. From Madison-Kipp's property laterally

14 but is the Department making any effort to 14 through soils to these homes we have been talking

15 determine whether groundwater contamination is 15 about, right?

16 responsible for any of the vapor contamination at 16 A Correct.

17 the homes on Waubesa and South Marquette? 17 Q Now what makes you say that? What makes you

18 A Yes, we have required some investigation along 18 believe that that may be going on?

19 those lines, primarily the off-site shallow 19 A Well, we have historically and recently we have

20 wells. Up and down South Marquette Street we 20 high soil concentrations on site for perc and

21 have three shallow wells. If there were off -- 21 some other parameters. Our understanding of

22 For groundwater to be a vapor source it has to be 22 vapor transport tells us that we know that when

23 shallow groundwater contamination. So if we had 23 you have high soil contamination levels, that

24 shallow groundwater contamination moving off site 24 movement through the unsaturated soil is a

25 to the east beneath the homes on South Marquette 25 primary mechanism for vapor to move. So looking

Page 35 Page 37

1 Street, we would see it in those three monitoring 1 at the closeness of these homes to those high

2 wells, and that would tell us that would at least 2 contamination levels, to me the site

3 have the potential for groundwater to be a 3 characteristics tell me that movement through the

4 source. 4 unsaturated zone is one of the primary mechanisms

5 At this point, all the off-site 5 for getting to these homes, which led to the

6 monitoring wells we have put in, at least for 6 installation of the SVE system as a first cut

7 shallow monitoring, we have found very little 7 remedial action.

8 contamination. I think there's only a single 8 Q Okay. Have you concluded definitively that

9 well to the northeast that has just a trace of 9 that's how the vapor is moving from the

10 perc in it. The three wells on Marquette Street 10 Madison-Kipp site to the homes laterally through

11 all have been non-detect the one or two times 11 soils? Have you concluded that definitively?

12 they have been sampled. So it isn't obvious that 12 A Yes, I think there's enough data that you can

13 groundwater is a source to those homes at this 13 make that definitive conclusion, because if you

14 point. 14 look at the off-site vapor probes that are in

15 Q But you think you have done enough testing to 15 some of these people's yards, they also show

16 determine that? Excuse me. Let me ask you a 16 elevated perc readings. For those to get there,

17 different question. 17 for me the primary mechanism is the unsaturated

18 Do you think you have done enough 18 transport, unsaturated soil transport. I think

19 testing to rule out groundwater as a source of 19 one of the ways we will know for sure is if we

20 vapor contamination in these homes? 20 see changes in the homes along the north side of

21 A No. 21 Marquette Street because of the operation of the

22 Q When do you expect to have an answer, a 22 SVEsystem.

23 definitive answer, about whether groundwater is 23 (Exhibit 3 was marked.)

24 contributing to vapor contamination at the homes 24 BY MR. COLLINS:

25 on Waubesa and South Marquette? 25 Q Schmoller No. 3, I also got that off DNR's

10 (Pages 34 to 37)



Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/11/12 Deposition of R. Michael Schmoller

Page 38 Page 40 ~. 1 website. You recognize that, don't you? 1 contamination. The gradients, the groundwater [ 2 A Yes. 2 gradients there seem to be very strongly ~ 3 Q Okay. Tell me what Schmoller No. 3 is then, 3 downward.

~ 4 please. 4 Q When you are talking about lateral movement, now ~

5 A It's a map that was prepared by the City of 5 you are talking about groundwater?

6 Madison Engineering based on the data available 6 A Yes, I'm talking about groundwater specifically.

7 at the time it was produced, February of 2012, I 7 Q All right.

8 guess, showing an estimate of the extent of the 8 A So whether or not or how far groundwater

9 shallow groundwater contamination at the Kipp 9 contamination exists to the east of Monitoring

10 property. 10 Well Nest 5 isn't certain.

11 Q Okay. Has there been any effort that you are 11 Q Okay. Is it fair to say as to the contamination

12 aware of since this shallow plume was drawn to 12 of shallow groundwater, you don't know what the

13 update it and perhaps draw a more accurate one? 13 extent of the contamination is?

14 A No. 14 A I don't think that's entirely accurate. I think

15 Q Okay. Do you rely on this plume drawing at all 15 we know -- I think we have a good handle on the

16 to make any decisions? 16 on-site distribution of shallow groundwater ~

I 17 A No. Not at this point, no. 17 contamination. I think where probably the

I 18 Q Well, it was up on your website, right? 18 greatest question lies is the area to the east of

19 A Yes. 19 Monitoring Well 5, Monitoring Well Nest 5S, which

20 Q Is it unreliable? 20 is the water table there. That has, I think,

21 A No, I think at the date and time that it was 21 several hundred parts per billion of perc,

22 produced it was a reasonable approximation, as 22 tetrachlorethylene, in it. That well is very

23 good as we could do, of where we thought there 23 close to the property line. So has that shallow

24 was or was not shallow groundwater contamination. 24 groundwater contamination gone off site in an

25 Q Is that still true today? Is it still the best 25 east or southeasterly direction. It seems to be

Page 39 Page 41

1 you can do? 1 that the shallow groundwater now at the site has

2 A Let's see. The northern portion of those 2 either a southern or southeast now component to :

3 contours could be adjusted some, because we do 3 it.

4 have a monitoring well up there to the northeast 4 So whether or not there's contamination ~ 5 of the site now that shows, like I said, a less 5 there that has crossed the property line or not, ~ 6 than a part per billion detect, so the northern 6 we don't know. That's probably the biggest

7 extent probably could be refined some. We have a 7 uncertainty with this map. But we know that we

8 number of geoprobes on the property itself now. 8 don't have it, you know, in the parking lot to ~ ~~

9 Now those are not -- they were taken at the top 9 the east -- to the west of the site where ~

10 of the rock, not exactly at the water table, but 10 Monitoring Well 10 is now. We know we don't have

"

11 those probably could be used to refine the 550 11 it up and down Marquette Street, because we have

12 contours more closely at least for on-site. 12 three wells where it's clean. We know we only ~ 13 Q What's the depth to groundwater of this formation 13 have a low level of contamination to the ~

14 here? 14 northeast, and both Monitoring Wells 4 and 6 have I 15 A It's about 18 feet, roughly. 15 historically shown either non-detect or very

16 Q Okay. So do you believe that there is 16 little. ... ,

17 groundwater contaminated to a concentration of up 17 So I think we have a pretty solid idea

18 to 500 parts per billion in approximately the 18 where the shallow groundwater contamination is or r

19 configuration as shown here on Schmoller 3? 19 is not, other than right directly on that

20 A The area that would be of biggest question to me 20 property line near Monitoring Well Nest 5.

21 would be along the east side. When you look at 21 Q And Monitoring Well Nest 5, those numbers have

22 the 500 oval, the eastern part of that oval would 22 historically been quite high, haven't they?

23 probably be more accurately drawn as a dash line, 23 A Yes, 5 and then the deeper wells at 5 have shown,

24 as an estimate. At this site there does not 24 you know, some high concentrations.

25 appear to be a lot of lateral movement of 25 Q And what are the concentrations currently at


II (Pages 38 to 4I)

(414) 271-4466



Page 42 Page 44

I 1 Monitoring Well Nest 5, the shallow well? 1 If, during the course of subsequent

2 A I believe -- I believe 58 is in the several 2 investigations, we fmd that the vapor that we're ~

3 hundred ·- 300 some parts per billion, I believe, 3 fmding in the sub-slab and in the indoor in some

I 4 for perc. I don't remember the deeper wells. I 4 of these homes is coming off the groundwater,

5 don't know those numbers off the top of my head. 5 that's a source we would address.

6 Q And that contamination, is it fair to say, that 6 Q Well, how do you determine that? If you are

7 you don't know how far that's traveling off site, 7 interested in lrnowing whether that's happening,

8 true? 8 what testing do you do? Is it the geoprobe

9 A I'm not sure that it's traveled off site. 9 testing you just mentioned? I

10 Q Okay. Are you sure it's not? 10 A Yes. If we start reaching the conclusion that we

11 A No. 11 need to address shallow groundwater as a vapor

12 Q Okay. Why not? Why aren't you sure? 12 source, probably the first thing we would do

13 A We have not looked. I mean, to answer that 13 would be geoprobe testing to see is there

14 question what we would need to do at this point, 14 groundwater contamination beneath these homes,

15 I guess, would be to run geoprobes primarily I 15 and we would probably do it in the backyards.

16 guess in the backyards of a number of homes up 16 Q Okay. If shallow groundwater 18 feet below

17 and down Marquette Street there, and at this 17 ground surface -- Well, let me back up.

18 point we haven't done that because I'm not sure 18 If the groundwater formation is 18 feet

19 we need that at this point to answer some of the 19 below the ground, then it's maybe, what, 8 to

20 primary issues we have going on. I mean, if we 20 10 feet below basements? Is that approximately

21 have a vapor problem and that, you know, we're 21 correct?

22 addressing it through an SVE system at this point 22 A Yeah, you figure a 6 or 8-foot basement, and some

23 or mitigation. If it turns out that the SVE 23 of these homes are a little shorter than that.

24 system isn't successful, we will see that. If we 24 Q If you wanted to lrnow that the groundwater

25 do have a groundwater source, then we can move to 25 contamination approximately depicted on Schmoller

Page43 Page 45

1 that point. But in terms of the list of things 1 No. 3 which is on the DNR's website is causing

2 that we're working on at this point, geoprobes in 2 vapor contamination in the homes, you would

3 the backyards of those folks to look for 3 establish a series of geoprobes in and around

I 4 groundwater contamination isn't what we are 4 these folks' homes, correct?

5 doing. It isn't a priority activity at this 5 A Correct.

6 point. 6 Q Do you have any plans to do that?

7 Q Well, I thought you told me a couple answers ago, 7 A No, not right now.

8 though, that you were fairly confident that 8 Q Okay. Do you have any plans to remediate the

9 contamination of the shallow groundwater was not 9 contamination in the shallow groundwater as

10 causing vapor contamination at the homes. Did I 10 approximately depicted on Schmoller No. 3?

11 understand you correctly? 11 A Yes, that is the Department's -- that would be a

12 A I don't know if I said that or I said we don't 12 Department goal for this site.

13 know. 13 Q Okay. Well, what are the plans then to remediate

14 Q Okay. Well, then my question is does it matter 14 the groundwater contamination?

15 to you if the shallow groundwater, which is, 15 A At this point we do not have a specific remedial

16 according to this on the DNR's website, is 16 option chosen to deal with either shallow or deep

17 contaminated very near these homes up to 500 17 groundwater.

18 parts per billion 18 feet below these homes, are 18 Q All right. Well, we will get to deep. If we

19 you saying that it doesn't matter to you if that 19 could just stay on shallow. But is the

20 groundwater contamination is a source of vapor 20 Department even considering a list of specific

21 contamination in these homes? 21 options for cleaning up the shallow groundwater

22 MR. BUSCH: Object to the form of the 22 contamination?

23 question. 23 A Yes. I mean, we have had some initial

24 MR. TINKER: Go ahead and answer. 24 discussions, you know, there was an operating

25 TilE WITNESS: I don't think that's true. 25 ozone system that was addressing shallow

12 (Pages 42 to 45)




Page 46 Page 48

1 groundwater. What the future remedial action 1 have not agreed on any remediation option or

2 will be to deal with the shallow groundwater 2 strategy, correct, for the shallow groundwater, ~ 3 isn't clear. It could be a range of things. It 3 correct? ~

4 could be pumping, although I don't think that 4 A Correct. i 5 will be the option. I think the most likely 5 Q Okay. Neither have you guys agreed on even a

6 alternative is some form of in situ treatment. 6 list of options, correct? ~

7 Q Okay. Tell me what you mean by "in situ 7 A Correct.

8 treatment." 8 Q Have you asked Madison-Kipp to give you its ideas

9 A Injection of one or more chemicals actually into 9 about how this groundwater should be cleaned up?

10 the groundwater to stimulate natural 10 A No, we have not made a formal request along those

11 bioremediation that's occurring. 11 lines.

12 Q Is there any timetable within the Department for 12 Q Okay. Do you expect to?

13 choosing an option for cleaning up the shallow 13 A I don't know if it will be a formal request. I

14 groundwater contamination that we see here in 14 would expect it more to be discussions between

15 Schmoller No. 3? 15 Kipp and the Department as to where are we at,

16 A In discussions with Kipp we have set a 16 maybe submittals of technical memos to review t 17 January 2013 deadline for remedial actions to be 17 things. I don't foresee us sending a letter

18 in place. In our discussions we have asked for 18 saying, "By December 1st give us your list of

19 remedial actions to be operating at that point in 19 remedial options." I

20 time. That would include shallow groundwater. 20 Q Have you ever determined how long that shallow

21 Q That's four months from now? 21 groundwater has been contaminated undemeath the

22 A Yes. 22 Madison-Kipp facility and, to a certain degree,

23 Q Do you expect that deadline to be met? 23 these homes here as depicted on Schmoller 3?

24 A That's the State's intention, yes. 24 A No, no.

25 Q I appreciate that. I'm asking a different 25 Q Does it matter to you?

Page 47 Page 49

1 question now. Apart from intention, do you 1 A In terms of choosing a remedial action, probably

2 expect that deadline to be met? 2 not. In terms of understanding the site, you

3 A Yes. 3 know, to know when things got there would be

4 Q You do? 4 good, but it's not critical.

5 A Yes. 5 Q Do you have even an estimate, even a decade when I 6 Q Okay. Has Madison-Kipp identified for you its 6 this shallow groundwater became contaminated?

7 favored choices for cleaning up the shallow 7 A The only firm data we would have would be the

8 groundwater? 8 first time monitoring wells were put in place in

9 A No. 9 the mid 1980s or so. That would be the only firm

10 Q What makes you say that? What makes you expect 10 date that we could attribute it to. i 11 that a shallow groundwater remediation option 11 Q And did those reveal contamination? ~

12 will be in place four months from now? Excuse 12 A Yes.

13 me. You are not talking about a choice having 13 Q Okay. In the mid 1980s? • 14 been made, you are talking about an operating 14 A Yes, I think the first groundwater monitoring was I 15 system in place four months from now, right? 15 done in '85, I believe.

~ 16 A Yes. 16 Q So do you believe the shallow groundwater l 17 Q What makes you think that that is a realistic 17 contamination as depicted on Exhibit 3 has been ~

•i

18 timetable? 18 there approximately three decades?

19 A In terms of the pace of the investigation that's 19 A Yes.

20 occurred at the site through this summer, you 20 Q The dotted lines for the 5 ppb and 50 ppb plumes

21 know, the pace that we expect to see remedial 21 indicate uncertainty about the boundaries of ~ 22 analysis to be done, an option to be chosen, it 22 those plumes, correct?

23 is our expectation that we have an operating 23 A Correct.

24 system by that date. 24 Q And didn't you say earlier that the 500 ppb '

25 Q I gather that the Department and Madison-Kipp 25 plume, or at least part of it, should be dashed,

f•


13 (Pages 46 to 49)

(414) 271-4466



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 50 Page 52 ~

I A

as well?

Yes. Knowing what we know about the groundwater

contamination at the site now, that whole thing

would be configured a little differently, but

certainly where it extends off the property to

the east of there should be dashed because,

again, there's no data off site in that location

to draw a solid line.

Q Okay. All right. So is it fair to say then that

the geographical contours of this plume, how hot

the plume is or how hot these plumes are at least

at this moment irrelevant to the Department's

effort to address vapor contamination in this

neighborhood?

A I'm not sure irrelevant is correct, but it's not

at this point -- At this point it's not the

primary criteria we are using to determine where

there's a vapor problem and where we make

mitigation decisions.

Q Okay. How long do you expect that-- Once an

option is implemented for cleaning up the shallow

groundwater contamination, how long do you expect

it will be before this groundwater is cleaned up

to a level below 5 parts per billion PCE? Do you

have any idea?

Page 51

A It will be a number of years. I couldn't tell

you exactly. It will be years.

Q A number of years can be 2 to 100 or more. Can

you be any more precise than that in terms of an

estimate?

A To reach 5 parts per billion?

Q Under 5, yes.

A Under 5. I think you are talking in a single

digit number of decades, I think.

Q Six, seven, eight, nine decades?

A Yes, that's getting out pretty far. Certainly a

couple of decades.

Q Okay. Are you aware of any-- You have had a lot

of experience with contaminated groundwater

working at DNR, correct?

A Yes.

Q Yes?

A Yes.

Q And so you are aware of the State's laws and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

MR. BUSCH: Object to the form of the

question, lack of foundation, calls for a legal

conclusion.

MR. TINKER: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Can you repeat it

again? I got lost there. The concentrations we

have here in the proximity we have to private

8 homes does it violate --

9 BY MR. COLLINS:

10 Q Any Wisconsin law or regulation of which you are

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

aware?

A Yes.

Q Tell me.

A Chapter NR140 is our Administrative Code that

sets our state groundwater quality standards and

also defines the range of responses when you have

an exceedence to one of those standards. That

would be the administrative rule we would look

to.

Q All right. And NR140 has been in place for how

long, so far as you know?

A Since the mid 1980s.

Q Okay. So Wisconsin law has been violated for

approximately the last three decades at least by

this contamination depicted on Schmoller 3,

correct?

MS. ROSS: Objection.


question, calls for a legal conclusion,

Page 53

5 inconsistent with his prior testimony.

6 BY MR. COLLINS:

7 Q Well, NR140 is something you have dealt with on a

8 regular basis during your almost 25 years at the

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Department, correct?

A Correct.

Q All right. And you have, during your work as a

Department employee, you have made determinations

about whether groundwater contamination in the

State of Wisconsin violated NR140, right?

A That's correct.

Q All right. So I'm asking you to do that here.

My question to you is isn't it true that if this

groundwater contamination, as you have told me,

has likely been there since the middle '80s, if

regulations that relate to groundwater 20 not sooner, if that's true, isn't it also true

contamination, right? 21

A Yes. 22

Q Okay. Does the contamination of groundwater this 23

shallow, this close to homes to this extent 24

violate any Wisconsin laws or regulations? 25

that this-groundwater for at least that period of

time has violated NR140?

A Yes, the groundwater concentrations at the site

have exceeded the standards set in NR140, the

enforcement standards set in NR140.

~

i I

14 (Pages 50 to 53)




Page 54 Page 56 •

1 Q That's violating the law of the State of 1 and how, I'm not certain. At this point in time i 2 Wisconsin, isn't it? 2 we are looking at it it, you know, there needs to i'

3 MR. BUSCH: Object to the form of the 3 be some active measures taken to, you know, to ~ ~

4 question for the reasons previously stated. 4 bring the groundwater into compliance with !:

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, it-- I'm not sure if 5 standards.

6 violation is the correct way to describe it. 6 BY MR. COLLINS:

7 Certainly the concentrations that are there 7 Q Don't you believe this groundwater should have

8 exceed the cleanup standards that are set in that 8 been cleaned up long before now, at least to the I 9 code and kick in the requirements of that code 9 standards in the regulation? ~. 10 for investigation and cleanup. 10 A I don't know if I can say that, because I don't

11 BY MR. COLLINS: 11 know -- you know, as we look at the site today,

12 Q All right. Okay. So why is it that the 12 we see it's a site with a certain size of a ' 13 groundwater hasn't been cleaned up before now? 13 problem to it. If you look at the reports that

14 If the concentration of chemicals for the last 14 were generated back in the early '90s, late '80s, ~

15 three decades have exceeded what is allowed by 15 somewhere in that time frame, those reports did

16 Wisconsin law, why hasn't this been cleaned up 16 not give an indication of the size of the problem I 17 long before now? 17 that we have today. So, you know, the

' 18 A Well, there have been several remedial actions 18 information that was being used to make the

19 taken at the site over the years in terms or 19 decisions for the son actions that were taken,

20 source control activity dealing with contaminated 20 remedial actions, I think they probably thought l 21 soils and operation of the ozone system for about 21 that those were appropriate measures and adequate

~ 22 a four or five year period of time there. So 22 Cor the size of the problem.

23 there have been measures taken to begin to 23 So to say that, you know, there should :

24 address the contamination. The contamination 24 have been more done then, I mean, you can look

25 problem -- The groundwater contamination problem 25 back and say, "Boy, if we had done more back then

~ ~

Page 55 Page 57 ~ ~

1 is sizeable, you know, there's a lot or 1 we would be in better shape now," I'm not sure il'

2 groundwater contamination out there, and it's 2 that anyone knew what we were looking at at that ~ -~

3 going to take some time to figure out how to deal 3 point. So to judge and say, "Oh, it should have • ~ 4 with the shallow with the deep, because you are 4 been done," yes, I can look at it now and say, ; 5 going to have to deal with them together. 5 "Yeah, we have got 3,000 parts per billion, you

I 6 Q I appreciate you have only been on the job two 6 know, it should have been taken care of," but I'm

7 and one-half years, so I realize there's a 7 not sure you can look at the history of the site ~ 8 25-plus-year history of this contamination before 8 and always say that that would have been the ~ 9 you got there. I want to preface the question by 9 conclusion. IC I had this site in 1988, I'm not I

10 saying that. But the Wisconsin laws and 10 sure I would have reached that same conclusion. I 11 regulations you know about relative to 11 Q Wasn't Madison-Kipp told as early as 1994, if not

12 groundwater contamination, they don't just say 12 sooner, to investigate the extent of groundwater ! 13 try, do they? I mean, they say clean it up, 13 contamination and clean it up?

14 don't they? 14 MR. BUSCH: Object to the form, lack of li 15 MR. BUSCH: Object to the form of the 15 foundation.

~ 16 question, calls for a legal conclusion and for a 16 MR. COLLINS: That's a serious 9

17 characterization of the law. 17 objection? Who objected? ~ 18 THE WITNESS: You know, the rule 18 MR. BUSCH: I did. ~

~ 19 requires remedial activities to achieve 19 MR. COLLINS: Is that a serious ~ 20 compliance with the standards, and I believe the 20 objection? ~ 21 term is reasonable period of time. The statute 21 MR. BUSCH: Yes, the way that you ~ 22 has technical and economic feasibility language 22 phrased that question, absolutely. ~ 23 in it. There have been measures taken over the 23 BY MR. COLLINS: i 24 years to begin to address it. You know, what the 24 Q Did you understand my question? ~ 25 logic was behind choosing those actions and where 25 A Can you ask it again?

,, i


15 (Pages 54 to 57)

(414) 271-4466



1

2

3

Page 58

COURT REPORTER: "Wasn't Madison-Kipp 1

told as early as 1994, if not sooner, to 2

investigate the extent of groundwater 3

4 contamination and clean it up?" 4

5 1HE WITNESS: I think the responsible 5

6 party letter was sent in 1994. 6

7 BY MR. COLLINS: 7

8 Q Can you answer my question, please. 8

9 A So the responsible party letter states that, you 9

10 know, there's contamination on the site that you 10

11 need to address. It doesn't state how, this and 11

12 that. 12

13 Q Let's see what it says. 13

14 A Okay. 14

15 (Exhibit 4 was marked.) 15

16 1HE WITNESS: Am I allowed to go back? 16

17 BY MR. COLLINS: 17

18 Q Let's do it this way. Do you want to address one 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of your previous answers? 19

A Yes, I am just -- I think earlier I stated that 20

we had groundwater contamination from the mid 21

1980s associated with this site. 22

Q You did. 23

A I don't think that's a true statement. The 24

groundwater contamination that triggered the 25

Page 59

investigation of the Kipp property was generated

as part of, as you read here, investigation of

the Madison Brass Works, and that work was done

in the early 1990s, not the mid 1980s. I think I

had my dates screwed up there. So anything that

I stated mid 1980s would be incorrect.

Q Is it still correct to say that you don't !mow

how long the shallow groundwater has been

contaminated?

A That's true.

Q Okay. At least since the early '90s?

A Yes.

Q Okay. So at least 20 years?

A Yes.

Q Okay. All right. So we have got Schmoller 4 in

front of us. You have seen this letter before,

right?

A Yes.

Q All right. It's a 1994letter written from DNR

to Madison-Kipp, true?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now in the third paragraph it says to

Madison-Kipp, "As the owner of the property where

a hazardous substance discharge has occurred, you

are required to determine the horizontal and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16 (Pages 58 to 61)


vertical extent of contamination and

Page 60 ~

I cleanup/properly dispose of the contaminants."

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q All right. Now in the paragraph earlier

reference is made to the groundwater being

contaminated, correct?

A Yes.

Q So in Paragraph 3, among other places,

Madison-Kipp is being told by the Department that

you are required to determine the horizontal and

vertical extent of groundwater contamination and

to clean it up. Isn't that fair to say what this

letter is telling Madison-Kipp in 1994?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And then the letter goes on in the fourth

paragraph where the Wisconsin Spill Law is quoted

verbatim under the subparagraph entitled

"Responsibility." It says, "A person who

possesses or controls a hazardous substance which

is discharged or who causes the discharge of a

hazardous substance shall take the actions

necessary to restore the environment to the

extent practicable and minimize the harmful

effects from the discharge to the air, lands or

Page61

waters of the state." Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Isn't it fair to say, then, that in 1994

at least the State of Wisconsin told Madison-Kipp

investigate the extent of the groundwater

contamination and clean it up to state standards?

A Correct.

Q Okay. All right. Now do you believe that if

Madison-Kipp had done what it was told by the

Department to do in 1994, that the groundwater

contamination that we see here depicted and shown

on your website in 20 12 would be as it is?

A I think that, and not being the project manager

in 1994, but if you look at the groundwater

concentration that was found in Monitoring Well 3

at the Brass Works property and you look at the

initial investigations, both son and

groundwater, that were taken on the Kipp

property, the level of response at that time

probably seemed appropriate, because remember, if

you look, I think the concentration in that

monitoring well was like less than 10 parts per

billion, and it was based on groundwater flow

direction. Monitoring Well 3 is not on the Kipp

property, it was on the Madison Brass Works




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page62

property. It was across the street to the west.

So given the, you know, given the flow

direction that was derived at that time, it was,

oh, this looks like this must be coming from

Kipp. That was the conclusion. So the

investigations that were taken through the mid

1990s would have appeared to be an appropriate

response now. So had we known that the

contamination, at least as estimated on Figure 1

here, existed at that time, you know, that

probably would not have been an appropriate

response.

Q When you say Figure 1, you mean Schmoller 3?

A Yes, Exhibit 3. Yes, you could say had we been

more aggressive and taken more action in 1994,

there's some degree of likelihood that the

contamination we see would be less than it is

today.

Q I'm not asking about aggressive. I'm asking

about compliance with the law. Isn't it true

that if in 1994 -- beginning in 1994 Madison-Kipp

complied with the law, that the groundwater

contamination we see depicted in 2012 on

Schmoller 3 would not be that way, at least not

to that extent?

Page 63

MR. BUSCH: Object, lack of foundation,

calls for a legal conclusion.

MR. COHEN: Object to the form of the

question, as well.

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat it again?

COURT REPORTER: ''I'm not asking about

aggressive. I'm asking about compliance with the

law. Isn't it true that if in 1994 -- beginning

in 1994 Madison-Kipp complied with the law, that

the groundwater contamination we see depicted in

2012 on Schmoller 3 would not be that way, at

least not to that extent?"

THE WITNESS: I don't think you can

conclude that there ;.vas not compliance with the

statute or code in 1994 by the actions that were

taken at that time given what we knew about the

nature of the site. If we knew, you know, if we

knew that the site looked like this and those

actions were taken, then you could say, "Well,

you are not doing what the code is requiring of

you." But at the time, you know, you look at the

investigations that occurred early on and what

was shown and then the remedial actions were

taken fairly shortly after that, I think that

there was -- that everybody involved, and if I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Page 64 ~ had been the project manager, I think we probably ~ were complying with the requirements of the code. ~ We were moving ahead at an appropriate pace, ~

given the nature of the site. ~ BY MR. COLLINS:

Q Well, one of the reasons the law requires a

company like Madison-Kipp to determine the

horizontal and vertical extent is so that it can

investigate and fmd out how big of a problem we

have, right?

MR. BUSCH: Object to the form, calls

12 for a legal conclusion.

13 BY MR. COLLINS:

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q Isn't that the purpose of the requirement, to f fmd out how big the problem is really?

A There is a requirement in the code to determine

the vertical and horizontal extent of

contamination.

Q And isn't that just another way of saying, "Let's

fmd out how big a problem we have?"

A Correct.

Q Isn't it true that today, today in 2012, the

Department and Madison-Kipp still do not know the

horizontal and vertical extent of the groundwater

contamination?

Page 65 i A True.

Q Is that acceptable to you?

A No. And we have got, you know, there are in

place plans for additional field investigation

activities to take place to continue to answer

that.

Q When do you expect to know the horizontal and

A

vertical extent of the groundwater contamination

emanating from Madison-Kipp?

We have another phase of the investigation that ~ should be starting this month that will probably ~

Q

take four to six weeks to complete. Those are on

and off-site deep wells that will have a number

of vertical sampling points to them. At that

~ ~ ~l

~ ~

point it's my hope that that data will define the

extent of the contamination to the point that we .,

need it to make remedial decisions.

Okay. So I'm asking you to estimate, as best you

can, when do you think the Department will know

the horizontal and vertical extent of the

groundwater contamination emanating from

Madison-Kipp?

A Okay. For the purposes of making remedial

decisions, by the end of October, mid November,

somewhere in that range.


17 (Pages 62 to 65)

(414) 271-4466



Page 66

1 Q Of this year? 1

2 A Of2012. 2

3 Q Okay. Lefs look at Schmoller No.4, if you 3

4 wouldn't mind again, please, down near the bottom 4

5 the last paragraph that begins on that page. It 5

6 says, "Ifs important that an investigation 6

7 begins at your site as soon as possible. The 7

8 longer contamination is left in the environment, 8

9 the farther it can spread and the more difficult 9

10 and costly it becomes to clean up." Do you see 10

11 that? 11

12 A Yes. 12

13 Q Now this site certainly proves the truth of that, 13

14 doesn't it? 14

15 MR. COHEN: Object to the form. 15

16 MR. BUSCH: Join in the objection. 16

17 THE WITNESS: I don't know if I can 17

18 answer that. I don't know what -- how this -- 18

19 whafs changed from 1994 to now. Our 19

20 understanding has changed, but how much 20

21 contamination has moved, I don't know. 21


23 Q Really, you don't? You don't have any idea? 23

24 A Not at this point, no. 24

25 Q Okay. The investigation that you just told me is 25

Page 67

1 about to be undertaken to determine the 1

2 horizontal and vertical extent of groundwater 2

3 contamination, you just told me about that, 3

4 right? 4

5 A Yes. 5

6 Q It's about to be undertaken, right? 6

7 A Yes. The next phase, yes. 7

8 Q Okay. How long should it have taken to determine 8

9 the horizontal and vertical extent of groundwater 9

10 contamination? 10

11 MS. ROSS: Object to the form. 11


13 Q It shouldn't take 18 years, should it? 13

14 A At most sites we have completed investigations in 14

15 less time than that, yes. 15

16 Q Lefs go back to a little bit ago we were talking 16

17 about the source for the vapor contamination in 17

18 the homes. We talked about lateral migration, we 18

19 talked about the possibility of vapors coming off 19

20 the shallow groundwater plume. Are there any 20

21 other possible sources for vapor contamination in 21

22 and around these homes that you have considered 22

23 other than those two possibilities? 23

24 MR. BUSCH: I object to the form of the 24

25 question. I don't believe that is what his 25


testimony was. You can go ahead and answer.

THE WITNESS: I just don't want to

answer the wrong question.

BY MR. COLLINS:

Page 68

Q Let me ask it again. What possible sources of

vapor contamination in an around these homes have

you considered?

A The primary source we have been looking at is the

Madison-Kipp property. There has been ·- There

was some discussion of the Goodman Center that

lies to the north of the site that was a former

industrial facility. I don't think that's a

likely vapor source given the nature of the

contamination that was there. There is no other

chlorinated -- no other source for chlorinated

vapors that I'm aware of in this several block

area around there.

Q Okay. What transport mechanisms have you

considered for that vapor contamination? One was

lateral migration, right?

A Right.

Q One was a possible vapor coming off the shallow

groundwater plume, right?

A Yes.

Q Have you considered any other possible transport

Page69

mechanisms for the vapor contamination in the

residential area immediately adjacent to

Madison-Kipp?

A No, we have not looked at -- You know, with

vapors there can sometimes be preferential

pathways, utility lines, sewers, that sort of

thing. We have not looked into that. If you

look at the vapor data that we have generated

for, you know, adjacent to the Kipp property and

a block away, as far out as Dixon and Corry

Streets and that, if you had a preferential

pathway, sometimes you will see it because all of

a sudden you will see very high readings on a

line, that sort of thing. The data that we have

generated so far, and we have gotten almost 50

data points now, doesn't indicate that. To me

the data still indicates kind of a widespread

migration pathway as opposed to a unique,

concentrated one. So at this point I have been

primarily thinking -- I have been thinking

primarily soils, soil transport.

Q Do you know where the sewer lines run?

A No.

Q Well, then how could you know whether your

testing would pick up anything happening around

18 (Pages 66 to 69)




Page 70 Page 72 i 1 the sewer lines? 1 preferential pathway? ~

2 A Well, I think if you would look at the -- If you 2 A No.

3 go back to Exhibit 2 -- 3 Q Is it fair to say that as of today the Department

4 Q Yes. 4 does not know all of the potential sources of

5 A -- and you look at the testing to the east side 5 contamination on Madison-Kipp's property?

6 of Marquette Street or the west side of Waubesa 6 A True.

7 Street and then up and down the north and south 7 Q Do you have any plans to investigate in order to

8 side of Fairview, if-- I mean, the sewer lines 8 determine what all those sources are on

9 on Waubesa and Marquette run north/south, so if 9 Madison-Kipp's property?

10 they are a migration pathway, they are taking it 10 A Yes. Well, specific plans, no. As I said, we

11 north and south, not off site. 11 have intentions. I think if you look at the

12 So the only, you know, if you look, 12 homes on Waubesa Street adjacent to the plant, -13 Fairview is where you might see some movement 13 the vapor readings there tend to be just a touch '

14 off, and we have got data points on both the 14 higher than the ones on Marquette Street, and so

15 north and south of that road, and both of those 15 I think there is a source for vapors in that

16 homes, 2902 and 2001, both have detects, but they 16 southwest portion. I think we need to look

17 are not, you know, elevated that would indicate, 17 there. There was, you know, there was a parking

18 oh, they are sitting on some sort of preferential 18 lot there at one time that's now built over, and '

19 path. There again, they are consistent with what 19 so there may be a need to look underneath the

I 20 we see in homes directly adjacent to the site and 20 building there for contamination. We have got a

21 further north and south on Marquette. So at 21 pretty good feel for the soU contamination in f

22 least at this point the data has not told me that 22 the northwest quadrant and along the east side of

23 it looks like there's a preferential path leading 23 the plant, so there may not need to be more work

24 off site. 24 there. There may need to be more work underneath

25 Q Well, preferential path doesn't necessarily mean 25 the plant in other locations, but I wouldn't know ~

Page 71 Page 73 ~

I 1 higher concentrations, does it? 1 where those would be at this point. t

• 2 A I think it would. If you look at -- If you have 2 Q Are there any plans to look comprehensively at

3 just a broad front of transport movement through 3 the property to test the soil, for example,

4 the soils, okay, you are going to get a 4 throughout the property to determine where all " 5 widespread of, you know, relatively uniform 5 the soil contamination is on the property?

6 numbers. If you had a preferential pathway, then 6 A Well, that's -- A lot of that has been done. You ~ 7 you would see something that would diverge from 7 know, we had -- I think it was just slightly over ~

8 that. You would have a straight line going like 8 100 shallow soil borings that were put in place i 9 east, and those numbers would be higher because 9 around all, you know, north, southwest, southeast ~

10 it's preferential. It's moving easier through 10 of the plant to look for soil contamination from !! ~

11 that way, so you would have more mass moving 11 not only chlorinateds, but PCBs and other ~

12 through which would give you greater 12 parameters. I think we have a pretty good I 13 concentrations. We don't see that. The only 13 picture of the soil contamination from zero to

14 place that we saw what looked like maybe some 14 4 feet at the site. I 15 higher concentrations were those homes directly 15 Q You are not talking about the building now, you " 16 adjacent to where Monitoring Well Nest 5 was. 16 are talking about -- ~ ~

17 Q Do you have any plans to investigate whether the 17 A I'm talking about the parking lot and areas •I ~

18 sewer lines are serving as a transport mechanism 18 outside the building perimeter, not inside the ~· 19 for any kind of contamination from Madison-Kipp? 19 building. ~ 20 A Not at this time, no. 20 Q Let's talk about the building for a second. You

21 Q How about utility trenches? Do you have any 21 alluded to it a moment ago, but let's focus on it

22 plans to investigate utility trenches for the 22 now. Do you have any plans to test underneath

23 same reason? 23 the building, for example, in the former location I 24 A No. 24 of the, you know, degreasing pits, for example,

25 Q Do you have any plans to investigate any other 25 or drains? For example, the standard places

I


19 (Pages 70 to 73)

(414) 271-4466


Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/11/12 Deposition ofR. Michael Schmoller

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

historically and where in certain industries

chemicals were poured down drains?

Page 74

A Yes, that will need to be done. We do not have

specific plans. It's something we have talked

about off and on over the months, and I think the

Waubesa Street readings to me have accentuated

the need to do that.

Q Okay.

A Because I don't think we know the source for

those.

Q But you don't have any plans to test underneath

the building, is that right?

A No, that would be -- that investigation would

necessarily have to be underneath the building.

Q Do you have a timetable for testing under the

building?

A No, I don't. Again, over the course of this

coming fall, you know, in the next few months

type of thing we would be talking about, but a

specific time frame, no.

Q In your past work at DNR before you came to the

Madison-Kipp site, did you ever test underneath

buildings, underneath former degreasing pits,

drains, that sort of thing?

A Yes.

Page 75

Q Okay. Didn't you, in fact, in some instances

find very high concentrations of contamination

immediately underneath the building in those

areas?

A Yes, you can.

Q All right. I'm just wondering why there's not

urgency associated with that kind of testing

here.

A I think it -- I think it's just kind of, you

know, again in my mind priorities, where do we

need to get answers. You know, at this point in

time -- I mean, in the months leading up to this

we spent a lot of time on vapor, a lot of time on

soils, a lot of time dealing with PCBs. Now we

are dealing a lot with groundwater, deep

groundwater, trying to get the data so we can

have it and start making remedial options

decisions. As that office work kind of goes on,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

Q

path we're on at this point.

Page 76 ~

Do you think you can determine remedial options

for on site without knowing what's underneath the

building?

A For groundwater we could certainly start making

those decisions, and for vapors we probably would

need -- Underneath the building certainly would

help, because that would tell us if we have

sources that we need to cut off. If there's

contaminated soils underneath the building, you

may not be able to remedial them directly, but

what you could do maybe is cut them off as a

vapor source for off-site migration.

Q So I gather you haven't determined then where the

contamination is entering the groundwater on

site, correct?

A Well, certainly the northeast parking lot area is

a source of groundwater contamination, if you

look at the shallow groundwater and the vertical

distribution down. Clearly the northeast portion

of the site is a significant source of

groundwater contamination. If you look at the

data, you know, those monitoring wells indicate

that most of the impacted groundwater is

occurring in the northeast portion of the site.

Page 77

MR. COLLINS: Okay. Can we take five

2 minutes? Is that okay everybody?

3 MR. BUSCH: Sure.

4 MR. TINKER: Yes.

5 (A recess was taken.)

6 BY MR. COLLINS:

7 Q Mr. Schmoller, isn't it true that underneath an

8 industrial facility like this is one of the most

9 obvious places to look for contamination?

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

A It's certainly a place to look, yes.

Q It's certainly not a place that should be

ignored, correct?

A Correct.

Q Do you know of any reason why an investigation

for contamination underneath the Madison-Kipp

building could not have been undertaken before

today?

choosing remedial options, we can be in the field 19

A A reason why? I can only speak again to the last

couple years. Again, it's the course of events

doing, you know, more vapor source

identification, whether that's underneath the

building or other things that we need to get

done. So I guess it's just how we can -- You

20

21

22

23

know, we've got X number of resources to kind of 24

get things going, and I guess this is just the 25

and where it falls priority wise to get at it in

terms of all the activities taking place, but

there's no reason why it can't be done.

Q Okay. Can you look at Schmoller No. 2, please,

which is the Madison-Kipp vapor sampling status.

Do you see that?

20 (Pages 74 to 77)



Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/ll/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 78

A Yes.

Q Okay. And that, as it states, that's as of

August 13th of 2012. Have there been any other

tests since August 13th of 2012 for vapor

contamination not depicted on this Schmoller

No.2?

A I believe all the locations that have been

sampled show up on here. I think since this map

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

was produced -- You will notice some of the homes 9

on Dixon and Corry Street are triangles, which 10

means to be sampled. I think those samples have 11

been collected and I think we got the results

back. I believe all four of those locations that

are triangles again showed detectable PCE

concentrations in the sub-slab in the 1 to 2

parts per billion range, parts per billion by

volume, and I think in all four of the locations

the indoor air samples were non-detect. There

was a background air sample taken, also, that was

also non-detect. I don't remember what address

that background air sample was taken at. So

there's been an update to that, and there may be

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

a few more operating mitigation systems that have 23

gone in that don't show on here, but I'm not 24

certain of that. 25


Page 80 ~

Q

you know, how to move forward from that point.

Now "by administration," you mean whom? Any of

those folks you mentioned earlier?

A Yes. I would summarize the data and present it

to Mark Giesfeldt, who would then move up the

chain and ask, "What is the agency going to do

here."

Q Do you believe that the folks on the east side of

South Marquette are situated any differently than

the folks on the west side of South Marquette in

terms of concem for vapor exposure?

A Other than just being further away. I mean, the

further away you are, typically the better ofT

you are. But the concentrations that we have

f

seen on the east side of Marquette are similar to ~

many of the concentrations that we see on the ~ west side. There's not be a great difference t. between the two. So it seemed like the risk

associated on this side of Marquette Street is

about the same. Where that may change is

possibly if you get towards the south end of --

the south end of South Marquette Street, you

know, 217, 21, 225. You know, as you get further

away, there may be a change in risk over there,

but I think the homes directly to the east, I

r--------------------------;--------------------------~i ~

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q

A

Q

A

Page 79

Okay. Do you plan any further testing for vapor

at any other home?

Yes. Last week we sent letters to the residents

at the addresses of 102 to either 138 or 142

South Marquette Street, those homes that were

originally sampled by Madison-Kipp's contractor.

We have sent letters to those homeowners asking

for sampling access to get a second sample at

those homes so we can make mitigation decisions

at those, and we have received three or four

positive responses back so far. I don't remember

the exact addresses. But our intention is to try

to catch all of those homes up there.

Okay.

And so we have two results from everybody. From

every location on here that has a dot, we want to

make sure we have got two samples, and then we

can make a mitigation decision.

Q Okay. Any other testing planned? For example,

any further testing in the plan for the east side

of South Marquette?

A No, not at this point. What our administration

would like to do is get all the data in that we

have at this point, all the points, look at it,

think about it and then decide what, if anything,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 81 1d

1 Q

A

Q

A

don't think there's a lot of difference from one

side to the other.

Have any of the families on the east side of

South Marquette Street or further east from

there, say on Dixon or Fairview, been offered

vapor mitigation systems?

Yes.

Because I didn't see any of the -- and maybe I'm

missing something. 1 didn't see any of the green

squares.

Yes. There may now be mitigation systems in

place, I'm trying to remember, like 201, 203,

209, some of those may have, but we have made

offers to at least I believe 201, 203 and 209.

We have made offers. I can't recall the other

homes on Marquette Street, but it would be our

intention that if we have two detectable

concentrations, that those homes on the east side

of Marquette Street, we would offer systems to

those homes.

Q Same criteria as on the west side of South

Marquette?

A Yes.

Q So your decision making criteria is not based on

proximity to the plant, right?

I I I I


21 (Pages 78 to 81)

(414) 271-4466



Page 82 Page 84

1 A Not for the homes or Marquette Street or for the 1 contamination.

2 homes on either side of Waubesa Street. 2 A Correct.

3 Q How about the folks on Dixon? 3 Q That was one of the reasons for the criteria, ,,

4 A That's a decision that's yet to be made. 4 right?

5 Q Okay. Now you said a few moments ago as to the 5 A Correct.

6 folks on the west side -- excuse me -- east side 6 Q Well, that reason is certainly as true for the

7 of South Marquette, that for the moment you 7 folks on the east side of South Marquette as it

8 weren't going to do anymore testing, you were 8 is for the folks on the west side of South

9 going to assemble existing test results and your 9 Marquette, right?

10 administration was going to visit over what to 10 A Correct, but the line of reasoning could be,

11 do, right? 11 look, we know what's on the west side of the

12 A Correct. 12 street, they are closer to the source than these

13 Q Can you enlighten me anymore about what you mean 13 guys are. We don't have, you know, numbers

14 by that, what are the options that are going to 14 exceeding the guidance criteria there. The data

15 be considered, what you will recommend at that 15 we do have on the east side of the street shows

16 meeting, any likely result of that meeting? Can 16 we don't have exceedence of the guidance

17 you enlighten us at all about that? 17 criteria; is there a need to sample. I'm not

18 MS. ROSS: Object to the form. 18 saying that's what the decision is that will be

19 MR. BUSCH: Join in the objection. 19 made, but that could be -- it's certainly one

20 THE WITNESS: I could not predict the 20 option that would be looked at.

21 outcome of the meeting. I think what we will 21 Q Has a plume for the vapor contamination been

22 look at is do we complete the testing of homes on 22 drawn?

23 the east side of South Marquette Street. I mean, 23 A No.

24 there's a number of homes there that have not 24 Q Okay. Have you ever drawn one of those?

25 been tested. 25 A No.

Page 83 Page 85

1 MR. COLLINS: Right. 1 Q Have you asked anybody to draw one here?

2 THE WITNESS: Some of those we may have 2 A No.

3 offered testing to and may not have heard back. 3 Q Is it within your plans that somebody would at

4 Some of them I'm certain we have not offered 4 some point draw, you know, a plume to depict the

5 testing to. So we would look at do we complete 5 geographical boundaries of the vapor

6 the testing for those homes at that location 6 contamination?

7 using the same protocol and testing procedures 7 A Yeah, I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that the -- if

8 that we have used on all the other homes. 8 it would be a plume. I'm not sure vapor is, you

9 BY MR. COLLINS: 9 know, in groundwater. You know, you have a plume

10 Q Well, what would be the alternative to that? If 10 because you have a distribution within the

11 you didn't do that, what would you do? 11 saturated zone. I'm not sure vapor necessarily

12 A I mean, if you look at the results for all the 12 moves that same way that you would have a plume.

13 homes that we have gotten for most all of these 13 Like if you were to, you know, pepper the east

14 homes, you know, the sub-slab concentrations we 14 side of Marquette Street and the west side of

15 are getting have not very often exceeded our 15 Marquette Street with a number of probes, you

16 guidance number and that, so the decision could 16 would actually be able to draw out

17 get made, and I don't want to predict that, look, 17 isoconcentrations. I'm not sure vapor moves that

18 the risk to these folks is low, it's within 18 way. So what you could do is draw a map that

19 acceptable criteria, there's no need to test. 19 shows here's the extent of contamination based on

20 That's a possible outcome. 20 our sampling, here's how far east it's gone, how

21 Q Okay. I thought you said at the top of the 21 far north, south, west. Whether that would be a

22 deposition, though, that one of the reasons for 22 plume map or just an extent of detects might be a

23 the criteria the Department had adopted was 23 more accurate way of describing it.

24 because the Department was unsure of the source 24 Q Do you have any plans to test for vapor

25 on the Madison-Kipp property for the vapor 25 contamination east of -- excuse me -- on the east

22 (Pages 82 to 85)




Page 86 Page 88 ~

1 side of Dixon? 1 Q Has there been any testing for vapor

~ 2 A Not at this time. 2 contamination in the homes to the south of the ~

3 Q How come? 3 plant? I don't see any depicted on here, so I'm I 4 A The decision just hasn't been made yet. 4 assuming not, but I thought I would ask.

5 Q Okay. You don't believe you have reached the 5 A No, we have not gone south of Atwood. " ~ 6 point to the east of the plant where vapor 6 Q How come?

7 contamination emanating from the plant has 7 A At this point it wasn't viewed as a migration

8 stopped, do you? 8 pathway.

9 A We may have, given the readings that we see on 9 Q How come? ~

10 Dixon Street are low. I think all of the detects 10 A There's not a lot of perc-related soil I 11 on Dixon Street were all -- they may all have 11 contamination in the parking lots south of the ~

12 been less than a part per billion by volume for 12 building, and the building ends roughly at 265

13 perc in which case, you know, it seems like you 13 Waubesa, 226 South Marquette. That's roughly

14 are maybe reaching the eastward limit. So it's 14 where the plant ends, maybe 269 and 230, ~ 15 possible that we have. 15 somewhere in there. Then we have the parking ~

~ 16 Q How far east of the facility do you plan to test 16 lots which do not show a lot of soil I~ 17 for vapor contamination? 17 contamination. There's not a lot of shallow ~ 18 A At this point there's no plans to go any further 18 perc-related groundwater contamination there. We

19 than the west side of Dixon Street. 19 have those monitoring well nests on the southeast

20 Q Okay. How about west? How about for the west? 20 and southwest corners, and then you have got all

21 How far to the west do you plan to test? 21 of the utility sewer lines and things underneath

22 A Right now we have that single sample on Corry 22 Atwood that could be interceptors, if it was a

23 Street, and there's no further plans to sample on 23 soil transport. So this wasn't viewed as a

24 Corry Street, either the east side of Corry 24 priority.

25 Street or the west side of Corry Street. So at 25 Also, one of the problems you get

Page 87 Page 89 ~

] 1 this point there's no plans for vapor sampling 1 into -- When you cross the south side of Atwood,

2 any further in either direction. 2 it's a commercial area. We don't know the ~

3 Q All right. Is the administration going to meet 3 history of that. You could take a sub-slab ~ 4 and make a decision about the folks on the west 4 sample at one of those homes there or businesses,

5 side of Waubesa and the east side of Corry 5 get a detect and not be 100 percent certain that ~

6 Street? Are they going to meet about them, too, 6 that detect is related to an activity that took ~ 7 and what to do about them? 7 place at Kipp. When you start getting further ~ 8 A Yes, that would be a management decision. 8 away into commercial areas, there could be other I~ 9 Q Okay. But, I mean, do you expect that will be 9 sources. So getting a positive result there, I[

' 10 addressed in the same meeting as what to do about 10 one, it wouldn't be obvious where it came from, ~ 11 the families on the east side of South Marquette 11 and, second, just what we know of the site and ~ 12 and on Dixon? 12 characteristics at this point it isn't obvious ~ 13 A I would think so. I think the vapor discussion 13 that migration would occur to the south. ~

~ 14 would include all of those aspects. 14 Q So you are not considering doing any testing to

~ 15 Q When is this meeting or decision going to be 15 the south?

16 made? 16 A Not at this point, no. ~

17 A Okay. There's no meetings planned at this point, 17 Q And you don't expect you are ever going to be ~ 18 but I would think within the next 30 days. 18 doing any testing to the south for vapor, ~ 19 Q Okay. Does it start with some kind of submission 19 correct? 11

Pi 20 from you? 20 A It's not something that I had intended to do. ~ 21 A It would be -- Yes, it would start with a meeting 21 Q Okay. Because if the shallow groundwater which ~

22 with myself, my immediate supervisor and probably 22 as we have seen is contaminated were a source of II ~

23 the Bureau Director reach an agreed upon position 23 vapor mitigation to the structures above it, I 24 that would be then taken forward to see whether 24 those structures to the south of the plant could

25 upper levels of management agree or disagree. 25 be threatened by vapor contamination having ~ ~ ~ :''


23 (Pages 86 to 89)

(414) 271-4466



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A

nothing to do with the proximity to soil

contamination, right?

Page 90

1

2

3

4

5

6

Q

Page 92 ~

mitigation work ourselves to pick up the pace of ~

the rate that it was getting done. ~ ~

Do you plan to charge Kipp for this or insist ~

that Kipp pay for these more recently installed ~ vapor mitigation systems?

A It's our intent to pursue cost recovery for the

Well, you know, we do not have that we know, I

don't believe there is otT-site perc groundwater

contamination on the south side of Atwood. You

know, the two monitoring well nests to the south,

the shallow wells there, have shown, you know,

trace to no perc contamination in them. So I'm

not sure there's any data that tells us we have

7 work related to installing the mitigation

8 systems.

9 (Exhibits 5 through 7 were marked.)

got Kipp-related chlorinated contamination in the

shallow groundwater there.

10 BY MR. COLLINS:

11 Q Mr. Schmoller, do you have 5, 6 and 7 there in

Q Have you ever undertaken to determine whether

vapor contamination coming off contaminated

groundwater observes the same boundaries or

different boundaries than the groundwater?

A I have not looked at that in relationship to this

site specifically.

Q Well, with regard to any site. I mean, don't you

know that vapor contamination can move out well

beyond the boundaries of the groundwater

contamination that caused it?

A There are sites where that -- where they have

seen that, but whether that's a universal truth

or not, I'm not sure. That may be specific to

certain locations and sites, and whether the

Page 91

characteristics of this site meet that, I'm not

sure. Again, given, you know, where we know we

have perc-related shallow groundwater

contamination, there is a distance between those

two things.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

Q Well, for the homes where a mitigation system has 6

been installed, who's paid for that installation? 7

A For the homes at 146, 150, 154, 162 and 166 South 8

Marquette Street, those five systems were

installed by contractors for Madison-Kipp.

Q Okay.

A All the remaining mitigation systems were

installed using Department funds.

Q Okay. And the ones that have been offered, but

not yet installed, if they are installed, they

will be installed with Department funds, correct?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Why is that? Why isn't Kipp paying for

that?

A It was a decision that was made back early

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

this-- early in December, January, 21

December 2011, January 2012. We were concerned 22

about the pace at which things were getting done, 23

and so we said -- we made an internal decision to 24

just go ahead and start doing sampling and 25

your hand?

A Yes.

Q Can I go ahead and ask you questions about them?

A Yes.

Q Once again, I got Schmoller 5, 6 and 7 off the

DNR website yesterday. Okay?

A Okay.

Q Before I get into that, do you consider yourself

an expert in vapor intrusion and vapor migration?

A I have limited experience dealing with vapor

issues. I have not had a lot of them. I have

several now, but I have not had the same

experience with vapors that I have had with soil,

sediment, groundwater.

Page 93 ~ Q I'm asking do you consider yourself an expert in

vapor intrusion and migration?

A No.

Q Is there anything that you or anybody else at the

Department has put in writing to explain your

theory of lateral migration of vapor through

soils away from the Kipp property to the

residential areas?

A In writing, no.

Q Okay. Let's look at Schmoller No. 5. So this is

Residential Soil Sampling for PCB, and it

indicates where PCB has been detected in the

green, correct?

A Correct.

Q Is there any update to this? This indicates in

the lower left that it was prepared by DNR on

August 6th of this year, a little more than a

month ago. Any updates since?

A Yes, there's been additional testing. The homes

that show not tested from 206 to 230 on South

Marquette Street?

Q Yes.

A Those homes have been tested, the soils in the

backyards of those homes.

Q Okay.

24 (Pages 90 to 93)




Page 94 Page 96 ~ 1 A There's been a fair amount of additional on-site 1 some of these residences. As that oil ran off,

~

2 testing that doesn't necessarily show on here. 2 the PCBs were carried with it.

3 Q Okay. 3 Q When did you flrst learn about that, what you

4 A I believe we have got the results back from 138 4 just told me?

5 South Marquette Street and 245. I can't remember 5 A The spreading of fluids for dust control, within

6 exactly for PCBs, I can't remember exactly what 6 the last couple of months, I think it's been.

7 the results are and that, but I think the results 7 That was made available to us. The information

8 for those are in house now. 8 about PCBs in the hydraulic fluids has been --

9 Q Okay. And the results for 206 to 230, do you 9 that document has been in our files for quite a

10 recall what those were? 10 number of years.

11 A I believe there were two of those parcels where 11 Q Now you said you thought there was some spraying

12 there were PCBs detected, but I can't recall. 12 to control dust in the northwest corner of the

13 Q Okay. How about for 138 and 245? Did you-- 13 property?

14 A I think 138 there was -- I believe there were not 14 A Northeast and I believe --'

15 PCBs detected there. 245 I don't remember. 15 Q Northeast?

16 Q Okay. How many samples for PCBs are taken at 16 A -- southwest.

17 each home? 17 Q Okay. What would be the closest addresses where

18 A At each residential parcel there were two sample 18 you think the spraying occurred in the northeast?

19 locations, two samples taken at each location, so 19 A It would be 102 through like 154 or 162 South

20 four. 20 Marquette Street. Those properties I think would

21 Q Okay. And why do you believe that's enough to 21 be adjacent to that.

22 characterize the soil of that particular address? 22 Q Okay. I mean, if that's true, then how do you

23 A At this point what we were trying to do is 23 explain all the non-detects in 102 through 134?

24 develop a general understanding of where there is 24 A It's possible that, you know, the runoff would be

25 or is not PCB contamination off site and what 25 irregular going off the site. It wouldn't be a

Page 95 Page 97

1 those concentrations may be, do they exceed our 1 sheet flow, you know, and that so it's possible

2 guidance criteria or not. So given the size of 2 that those parcels just didn't receive oils that

3 these lots, they are not large lots, we felt two 3 had PCBs in them, didn't receive oils at all.

4 locations and two samples at two depths was a 4 It's, you know, it's possible that the materials

5 good level or effort to give us an idea of the 5 that were used for dust control, not all the

6 distribution of PCB concentration in these yards 6 materials used had a PCB content to them.

7 and enough that we could start making decisions 7 Q Do you plan to test for PCBs any further from the

8 whether or not there were remedial measures that 8 plant than what we see depicted on Schmoller 5?

9 needed to be taken or not. 9 For example, across South Marquette or across

10 Q Have you determined what the transport mechanism 10 Waubesa?

11 was for the PCB found at these homes? 11 A Not at this point, no.

12 A Based on what we know of the history of the site, 12 Q Okay. What do plan to do about those homes that ~ 13 there was a spreading of oils or some other 13 are contaminated with PCBs in the soil? t

~ 14 liquid, industrial liquid, for dust control in 14 A Again, that's a decision similar to how the vapor ~· 15 the northeast portion of the site and also I 15 decisions will be made. We'll have to present I 16 believe in the parking lot that existed towards 16 the data to management, and they must then decide

17 the southwest portion of the site, and that those 17 what remedial measures will be taken, if any. II 18 liquids had PCBs in them because we know from 18 Q Management of what?

~ 19 records that there were various hydraulic fluids 19 A At the Bureau Director or Division Administrator

20 used on the site that had PCB content in them. 20 level. ~

21 We believe those fluids were probably included in 21 Q DNR management?

22 the fluids that were disposed here, and so when 22 A DNR management.

23 those liquids were spread for dust control and 23 Q Have you talked to Madison-Kipp about what should ' 24 such, that it looks like there was runoff from 24 be done for those folks that have PCB

25 the Kipp property to portions of the backyards of 25 contamination in their soil?


25 (Pages 94 to 97)

(414) 271-4466



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

A

Q

A

Q

A

Q

Page 98

We have not had any definitive discussions. We

have expressed we have concerns about those

concentrations in the backyards, but we have not

made any demands for action.

All right. Has Madison-Kipp offered to do

anything for those folks that have PCB

contamination in their soils?

Not at this point.

Who has done the testing for PCBs in those soils?

It would have been a contractor for Madison-Kipp.

Okay. So Madison-Kipp has proposed no

remediation for those families with PCB

contamination in their soil, is that true?

A Right, no ofT-site soil remedial activities have

been proposed.

Q Has Madison-Kipp said that it's not going to do

anything for those folks who have PCB


A To this point we haven't had that definitive a

discussion where we have said, "Do this," and

they have said, "No." That's not happened yet.

Q When do you expect to know whether anything,

either by the Department or Madison-Kipp, is

going to be done for those folks with PCB

contamination?

Page 99

A I think those are decisions that will get made in

the next 30 to 45 days.

Q Okay. What do you think should be done?

A I think you have to look at the soils data, not

just the PCB data.

Q Okay.

A I think you have to look at PAH data, and I think

you have to look at the PCE data, and when I

think you look at those three sets of parameters,

10 then I think there is a -- you can make a

11 reasonable argument that there are some homes

12 that need action. But that's just my opinion,

13 that's not Department position.

14 (Exhibit 8 was marked.)

15 BY MR. COLLINS:

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q Okay. So let me ask you to set aside for a

second No.7. Let me ask you to look at 5, 6 and

8, Mr. Schmoller. Do you have those there?

A Yes.

Q And that's residential soil sampling for PCBs,

which is Schmoller 5, PAH, which is Schmoller 6,

and VOCs, which is Schmoller 8, correct?

A Correct.

Q Okay. And these are all dealing with soil,

right?

26 (Pages 98 to 10 I)

Page 100 ~ ~

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

A

Q

A

Q A

Q A

Q

Yes.

Okay. And for the homes depicted, is it fair to

say that PCBs have been found in most of the --

at most of the addresses tested?

PCBs is probably the minority. I think there's

more non-detected PCBs than detected.

PAH? Most?

Most.

All right. Okay. And VOCs, most, right?

Yes, close.

And you believe, don't you, that all of this

contamination, PCBs, PAHs, VOCs, is coming from

Madison-Kipp, correct?

A The VOCs and PAHs, yes. I think, given what we

know of the site history, at least some portion

of the PAHs and VOCs are coming from

Madison-Kipp.

Q Okay. Do you expect within 30 days that the

Department will have made a decision about what,

if anything, will be done for folks who have this



question.

THE WITNESS: Yes. In talking with my

supervisor, my immediate supervisor, we had hoped

Page 101

Q Ms. Hanefeld?

A Ms. Hanefeld, yes. We had hoped to set up a

4 meeting with the Bureau Director to come to some

5 agreed to approach that we could present to

6 management, and that would be something we would

7 do this month.


9 BY MR. COLLINS:

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q Okay. Schmoller 9 is the deep groundwater plume,

right?

A Correct.

Q I will represent to you I got that off of the DNR

website yesterday, as well. Okay?

A Okay.

Q We talked earlier this morning about the shallow

groundwater. I have some of the same questions

for the deep groundwater. What's the depth to

the deep groundwater, do you know?

A Well, for this map the deepest sampling point

that was used I believe was about 180 feet, I

think 171 feet, Monitoring Well Nest 5.

Q What was the shallowest point?

A It would have been somewhere between 40 and 70

feet.

I ~ .j




Page 102 Page 104 ~ ·~

1 Q So when you use the term "deep groundwater," you 1 A Locations. There may be multiple wells at each ~

2 are talking about something between 40 and 2 location, but five locations, yes. ~ 3 170 feet below ground surface? 3 Q When will those be installed? ~ 4 A I think these results are kind of an amalgamation 4 A Over the course of the next six weeks or so, I i 5 of that, yes. 5 believe. We have agreed to location. It's a r 6 Q Have you ruled out in your own mind the 6 matter of getting the drillers scheduled and

7 possibility that vapor contamination can be 7 completing the fieldwork and getting all the

8 coming off the deep groundwater, especially since 8 testing done.

9 some of it is only 40-feet deep? 9 Q Is it fair to say there is no plan in place to IJ

10 A Yes. Given the characteristics of the site, I 10 clean up the deep groundwater contamination?

11 don't believe the deeper groundwater 11 A Right now, no, there -- at this moment there is

i 12 contamination would be a source of vapor to 12 no plan in place to clean up the deep water

13 homes. 13 contamination. I 14 Q Why is that? 14 Q When do you expect to have such a plan in place?

15 A Again, we're about 18 feet to groundwater, so you 15 A Later this fall, earlier this winter type of a ~

16 would have 20 feet of clean, you know, if you hit 16 thing. ~ 17 contamination at 40 feet, that was your 17 Q Okay. I want to talk to you about what's

18 shallowest, you would have 20 feet of clean 18 happening on site right now. There were plans to ~ ~

19 groundwater lying above that, so you would have 19 install approximately 80 soil borings on site, ~ 20 to move vapor through 20 feet of saturated 20 correct? i 21 material and then up, you know, another 21 A Yes. I 22 20-some-feet of unsaturated material to a home, 22 Q Have those been installed?

23 and I don't think-- I don't think that's what 23 A Yes.

24 happening out here. 24 Q Okay. Has data been generated --

25 Q Is it fair to say that the vertical and lateral 25 A Yes. ~

Page 103 Page 105 I I extent of the deep groundwater contamination has 1 Q -- from those locations? .. 2 not been defmed? 2 A Yes.

3 A True. 3 Q Okay. Has that data been published?

4 Q Is it fair to say that the plumes drawn on 4 A Published, no.

5 Schmoller No. 9 are uncertain in their 5 Q Made publicly available on the website or

6 dimensions? 6 otherwise?

7 A That's true. 7 A It's not gone to the website, no. It's in our \

8 Q Is there any timetable for being able to draw a 8 files, which means it's publicly accessible, but

9 reliable plume for the deep groundwater? 9 it's not gone to the website. ~ 10 A Yes, we have an agreed to land plan with 10 Q Okay. Do you expect to put it up on the website?

~ 11 Madison-Kipp to install four or five -- I believe 11 A I don't know the plans for that. ~ 12 it's five additional monitoring wells or 12 Q Okay. If not you, who decides whether it goes up I

13 multiple-- Let me start over. 13 on the website or not? ~ 14 At five locations we have an agreement 14 A Linda Hanefeld and Mark Giesfeldt would make that t 15 to install multiple sampling locations stratified 15 decision.

16 by depth. We have agreed to five spots where we 16 Q Okay. Can you think of any reason why it

17 would be drilling, sampling and then determining 17 shouldn't go up on the website? ~ 18 where to sample the groundwater at depth. That 18 A Other than just like the sheer volume of it. It ~

19 should go a long ways towards defining the nature 19 may overwhelm people, because it's a lot of data. &! ~

20 and extent of the deep groundwater contamination 20 Q Is it possible for you to tell us just generally ~

21 for remedial decision making. It's my hope that 21 what those -- the results generated at those ~ 22 once that data is in, we can look at it and start 22 locations showed?

I 23 making some specific decisions on remedial 23 A Again, it shows the northeast area to be --

24 possibilities. 24 there's widespread PCE soil contamination in the

25 Q Are you talking about five new off-site wells? 25 northeast quadrant, and it extends down the i :\

·'


27 (Pages 102 to 105)

(414) 271-4466


Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/ll/12 Deposition ofR. Michael Schmoller

Page 106 Page 108 l

1 eastern side of the property. Then there are 1 to any of these residential properties and test

i 2 some lower level detects in the southeast and 2 deeper than you have previously?

3 southwest portions of the site. I think that 3 A Probably not, no, because if you don't find it in i 4 what the data tells us is that the source of the 4 the shallow soils, you are unlikely to find it in

5 PCE contamination in that area was probably 5 the deeper soils and that, so I would -- No, to

6 related to the spreading of these liquids at 6 go back over across the street and say sample at

7 different times, because we see the 7 15 feet--

8 contamination, you know, basically covers that 8 Q I'm not talking about across the street.

9 entire existing parking lot area to -- Our 9 A I'm sorry. Across the property line--

10 sampling focused primarily on the top four feet, 10 Q Yes.

11 but we see PCE contamination at various levels 11 A -- and sample at 15 feet, no, at this point we

12 throughout that region. 12 don't have any plans to do that.

13 Q In soil-- 13 Q Okay. And can you tell us anything about the

14 A In soil. 14 concentrations that were detected in these recent

15 Q --you are talking about? 15 soil borings?

16 A I'm Wking about in soU. 16 A In the off-site soil borings, again, all the

17 Q Let's say with reference to Schmoller 8, just 17 contamination levels we found were less than the

18 because that's soil sampling or VOCs, with 18 direct contact guidance criteria number.

19 reference to Schmoller 8, you said some of these 19 Q I'm talking about the more recent on-site soil

20 80 soil borings were made in the northeast corner 20 borings.

21 of the site, is that right? 21 A There were some locations where there was some

22 A Yes. 22 elevated PCE in the soils, and in some cases

23 Q All right. So how close to the fence line 23 those were the same location where I found

24 separating the property from 102 to 134 are we 24 elevated PCBs and elevated PAH's.

25 talking about? 25 Q When you say "elevated," can you give me any

Page 107 Page 109

1 A Probably within 20 feet or so. 1 better sense? Elevated can mean a lot of

2 Q 20 feet? 2 different things.

3 A Probably maybe just a little further than that, 3 A I can't picture any concentration numbers off the

4 but, yes, 20 feet. 4 top of my head real quickly exceeding the direct

5 Q Did the results of any of that testing make you 5 contact criteria number, which is 30 parts per

6 think that you ought to go back to these 6 million for PCE. We exceeded that in some

7 properties and conduct any other testing? !mean 7 locations.

8 at the homes. 8 Q Parts per million?

9 A Well, we originally ran for VOCs, and then we 9 A Parts per million.

10 went back a second time to pick up the PCBs and 10 Q Okay. And so we have been talking about the

11 PAHs and such. At this point, though, the 11 northeast. You said also some of the soil

12 dataset that we have, no, there isn't any -- I 12 borings were done in the southwest portion of the

13 don't think there's a need to. 13 site?

14 Q Well, specifically with reference to depth, okay, 14 A Yes, where there are parking lots now down to the

15 so if you found PCE contamination in the 15 southeast and stuff west of the building there

16 northeast corner, you know, within 20 feet of 16 were some PCE concentrations detected there,

17 these homes and on Madison-Kipp's site, at what 17 also.

18 depth did you fmd that contamination? 18 Q And in what concentrations? What were the

19 A Mostly in the top four feet. That's where most 19 highest concentrations, can you recall?

20 of the samples were taken. There were a number 20 A I don't remember numerically. They tended to be

21 of locations that went deeper, and we did find 21 a little lower than what we saw in the northeast,

22 some contamination deeper, but the top four feet 22 though.

23 is where the majority of that contamination lies. 23 Q If I wanted to, if I wanted to see those results,

24 Q Okay. But where you found contamination deeper 24 what should I do, send you a FOIA?

25 than that, does it make your think you should go 25 A Make a request through Steve. We have been

28 (Pages 106 to 109)




Page 110 Page 112

~ 1 handling aU those data requests through Steve. 1 screen at about 230 feet. We found low-level PCE ~

2 Q Who paid for that testing? 2 in those wells. I think one well was about 6, ~ 3 A That would have been Madison-Kipp. 3 the other well was in about 20 parts per billion

~ 4 Q And its contractor did the tests? 4 range.

to 5 A Yes. 5 We did the geology. The geology was ;

j

6 Q ARCADIS or some sub of ARCADIS? 6 pretty much as expected. The rocks we expected ~

~ 7 A Yes, mostly ARCADIS. I think they collected the 7 to see we saw. It gives us some indication where ~

8 majority of them, yes. 8 we think, if there's lateral migration off site

9 Q So what else -- Do you plan to do anymore to 9 at depth through the groundwater, that

10 require or request anymore soil borings on the 10 information has been useful to us in that regard.

11 Madison-Kipp site? 11 Q What did you fmd in that regard? Sorry to ~

12 A Not at this time, no, I don't think so. 12 interrupt you.

13 Q Okay. And if you go undemeath the building to 13 A It's not consistent, which is what we expected.

14 test the soils undemeath the building, that will 14 There are layers of rock that move the water

15 be something at some undetermined time in the 15 horizontally better than others, and you can see

16 future, is that right? 16 that in the data. There's a variation in the

17 A Right, yes. 17 concentrations of PCE as you go down, and so it ~ 18 Q Tell us what else, if anything else, has been 18 gives us an indication that there are some depths ~ 19 done in the last few months on site in terms of 19 that would be more of interest than others for

20 environmental investigation. 20 sampling off site to catch what would be the

21 A The two deep borings were installed at Locations 21 primary migration pathways. When we put these

22 3 and 5 to determine -- to look at the nature of 22 next set of wells in, we will be packer testing

23 the groundwater contamination at depth and 23 at different intervals, and that will help us

24 describe geology. Those were done. I'm not sure 24 decide where to place the screens. So if there

25 if you are aware of that work. The two borings, 25 is something going off site, we maximize the

I Page Ill Page 113

1 one in each location, went down to about 230 feet 1 change of detecting it so we know where it's ~ 2 or so. We cored them, so we looked at the 2 going, because it's probably not a uniform, broad ~

~ 3 geology, we looked at the VOC concentrations as 3 front vertically moving off site. It's probably ~ 4 we went down. That work was completed. 4 more -- It's more discrete than that. ~!

~

Q Do you have the results? Q Is this the first testing of this kind that has ~

5 5

~ 6 A Yes, we have the results for those two. 6 ever been done at this site?

7 Q Do you plan to post those, because those aren't 7 A At this site, yes.

8 nearly as voluminous as the soil borings, 8 Q Yes, that's what I mean. '

9 correct? 9 A Yes, correct. ~

10 A Yes. Again, what gets decided to be posted, I'm 10 Q Okay. How long has this kind of testing that you ~ ~

11 not sure what's going to go out there. 11 are talking about, I mean, this has been ~

12 Q What did you find? 12 available for decades, hasn't it? I mean, this I 13 A If you look at both locations, you consistently 13 is not particularly novel technology, driven kind ~ 14 find PCE concentrations down to a depth of about 14 of testing, is it? ~ • 15 180 feet in each location. From 180 to 230 feet 15 A The approach that we're using is called a i 16 -· 16 discrete fracture network approach developed by ! 17 Q This is water now? 17 some folks in Canada, and that's probably been i 18 A This is water. These are aU-- Well, yes, 18 developed and refined in the last ten years or '

' 19 because we started right at the water table and 19 so. A lot of work that's been done in Eastern

20 worked our way down. And so we find PCE 20 Dane County went into defining this approach. So

' 21 concentrations in the core analyses to a depth of 21 although the field techniques that we're using,

22 about 180 feet. From 180 feet to 230 feet we 22 geophysics and stuff have been available for

23 didn't find much. There was concentrations 23 years, using them kind of in this combination to I 24 there, but they were much less. 24 make these types of decisions or analysis is

25 At each location we put a five foot 25 relatively new. It's not brand new. It's been I

M


29 (Pages 110 to 113)

(414) 271-4466


Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/ll/12 Deposition ofR. Michael Schmoller

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q

A

Q

A

Q

A

Page 114

around, but it hasn't been around for decades,

you know.

Well, how long for your work with DNR have you

been drilling wells of this kind for the purpose

of looking at the lithology, geology and trying

to determine the likely movement of groundwater

through it?

With this level of intensity, I will say of

analysis that's done, the last ten years or so.

I mean, we have put in borings to describe

geology, you know, for many years, but the level

of analysis that we are doing here is a little

different, and so that's probably, again,

something that's come about maybe in the last 10

or 12 years, maybe a little longer than that.

What were the range of concentrations? You said

two locations right near 3 and right near 5,

right?

Yes. Anywhere from non-detectable

tetrachloroethylene concentrations up to, in the

core analysis of the rock, maybe several hundred

parts per billion.

What do you mean by "several hundred?" I never

know.

Two to 300. It wasn't 1,000, it wasn't 600.

Page 115

Probably 200 to 300 were the highest readings

that we saw.

Q At what depth?

A It varied. As I recall, the areas where we had

some of the greater concentrations were somewhere

in that 100 to 130-foot range and that, but there

were -- The data is very individualized, and so

you will be going along and you will see nothing

else and then you will have a segment where you

see a, you know, a five-foot interval where you

see a much higher reading. So it's difficult to

characterize specific depths. You have to almost

look at the data to see it.

Q Do you believe this say DNAPL site?

A No, I don't. I don't think there's DNAPL out

there.

Q Whynot?

A If there were DNAPL, given the number of borings

that we have out there that go to the water

table, to the top of bedrock through the water

table to some significant depths, we would have

seen it. You know, we would have seen some

indication of it. The deep borings -- We have

well nests at 3 and 5 that extend down 230 feet.

In neither of those locations did we see any

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Page 116

indications of DNAPL.

Q Do you believe there's any relationship between

the concentrations of, for example, PCE detected

in groundwater and whether or not there's DNAPL

at the site?

A There can be, yes.

Q Okay.

A Yes.

Q So if there have been concentrations at this site

in groundwater detected up to what, in the

thousands of parts per billion, right?

A Yes.

Q 9,000?

A I don't remember what the maximum concentration

was.

Q But several thousands, correct?

A Yes.

Q And you don't believe that those detections

indicate the presence on the site of DNAPL, is

that true?

A True. That's true.

Q Okay. No fmal remedy has been proposed for soil

remediation at the site, correct?

A Correct.

Q Or for soil remediation off site, correct?

Page 117

A Correct.

Q No fmal remedy has been proposed for

groundwater, either shallow or deep, correct?

A Correct.

Q And no fmal remedy has been proposed for

addressing the vapor contamination either on site

or off site, correct?

A Correct.

MR. COLLINS: Would this be a good time

to break for a little bit?

MR. BUSCH: Sure.

MR. COLLINS: I'm sorry. Pardon me.

Let me take a couple more minutes. I have a

14 couple more minutes. Is that okay?

15 THE WITNESS: Sure.

16 BY MR. COLLINS:

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q Has there been recently any hydropunching done on

the site?

A Hydropunching? There's been geoprobes installed,

yes.

Q Tell us about that then. When were they

installed?

A Within the last few months.

Q On site?

A On site. Again, focused largely in the northeast


~ ~

I ~

~

I ~


Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/ll/12 Deposition of R. Michael Schmoller

Page 118 Page 120 ' '

1 portion. There were a number of geoprobes that 1 we're talking about the same thing?

2 were taken down to about a 40-foot depth or so to 2 A If you were to go straight west, like 130, 134, :

3 the top of bedrock, and then at that depth we 3 138 west of there to the edge of the building you

4 took a PCE analysis and that gave us a 4 would see some. There were, again, some fairly

5 distribution of groundwater contamination -- PCE 5 high numbers kind of almost towards the south

6 contamination at the top of rock. There are some 6 central middle of the parking lot, I believe.

7 in the southeast and southwest, also, but 7 There were some elevated numbers.

8 primarily in northeast, and it gave us a 8 Q Again, nearest what addresses?

9 distribution we can see, kind of a layout of the 9 A Okay. That would be, again, west of 134, 138,

10 PCE contamination. 10 but not as far as the building, more towards the

11 Q All on site, right? 11 middle of the parking lot. There were some

12 A All of those were on site. If there were -- If 12 elevated numbers there. Then there were

13 there were any ofT site, and I don't think there 13 concentrations in the, you know, double-digit

14 were, they would be along the bike path. There 14 range or so kind of scattered throughout the

15 may have been some there, but I think the 15 parking lot.

16 majority -- There were not any taken in like 16 Q Okay. Now the elevated concentrations that you ' "<

17 backyards or anything like that. 17 mentioned were found near the northeast comer of

18 Q And you say approximately 40? 18 the building, in other words, west of 114?

19 A I think it was like 28. 19 A Yes.

20 Q Okay. 28. To 40 feet. I'm sorry. 20 Q Do you recall what those concentrations were?

21 A Yes. 21 A It was in the several hundred -- Again, oh, gosh,

22 Q And these results are available in your ftles, is 22 I want to say like 500 to 700 parts per billion.

23 that right? 23 Q At what depths, do you recall?

24 A Yes. 24 A About 43 feet or so.

25 Q Just like the other things we have recently been 25 Q Forty-three?

\

Page 119 Page 121

1 talking about? 1 A Forty, 43 feet, somewhere in there. ~ 2 A Yes. 2 Q You said there were also elevated concentrations r 3 Q Can you generally describe the results? 3 I think in the -- and I'm sorry if I'm ~ 4 A It shows -- You know, again, it kind of shows 4 misspeaking now, but in the vicinity of the

5 what we expected. We see kind of an irregular 5 building near like 130 to 142?

6 pattern. I don't think it's something you could 6 A Right.

7 contour and that, but all of them showed PCE 7 Q And what were those, can you recall? ~ 8 contamination. It showed some elevated numbers 8 A Those were lower. They were in the hundreds of I~ 9 in the -- what would be kind of the northeast 9 parts per billion range, but they were lower than ~ 10 corner of the building. There was some fairly 10 what was up in the corner.

11 high PCE numbers in the groundwater there. 11 Q At the same depth? ~ ~ 12 Q In the comer of the building now, not the 12 A Yes, all in about the same depth. I~

13 property? 13 Q Yes. And you said there were also some elevated i 14 A The building, corner of the building. 14 concentrations kind of in the center of the j

~ 15 Q So that would be nearest what residential 15 property west of 130, 134, 138. What were those

,,

16 addresses, please? 16 concentrations? ~ 17 A It would be kind of directly west of 114 South 17 A Similar to the area directly to the west of that. ~ 18 Marquette Street. 18 Again, several hundred parts per billion. ~ 19 Q Okay. 19 Q And were there geoprobes in the last couple of

20 A And then there's that segment of the building 20 months installed on the southern part of the

21 that has a north/south orientation to it. 21 property, as well?

22 Q All right. 22 A Yes, at the same time that these were done in the

23 A Okay. There was some fairly high PCE groundwater 23 north there were some done in the south. Again,

24 concentrations along that area. 24 those did not show anything but maybe trace

25 Q Near what addresses, please, just so we make sure 25 levels again, but not a lot. I'm trying to I


3 I (Pages 118 to 121)

(414) 271-4466



Page 122

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

remember. If anything. I can't recall the 1

numbers, but they were pretty low. 2

Q Do you recall what the single highest 3

concentration you got was from the geoprobe 4

testing recently conducted?

A I think it was less than 1,000 parts per billion.

I want to say I think it was like 700 something,

if I remember right.

MR. COLLINS: Okay. All right. Good

10 time to take a break?

11 THE WITNESS: Sure.



14 BY MR. COLLINS:

15 Q So before we look at 10, Mr. Schmoller, with

16 regard to this more recent testing, the soil

17 borings and the geoprobes and the new groundwater

18 wells on site?

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A Um-hum. 19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q Have any two or three-dimensional depictions been 20

made, depictions of what this new testing shows? 21

A There have been a couple or rough cross-sections 22

that Madison-Kipp's consultant has drawn at 23

different angles through the site to show the

depth or the contamination and basically the

Page 123

stratigraphy of the site. I think there's two of

them. Those cross-sections would be graphically

the only thing that I know of that's been done.

Q Okay. When you say Kipp's consultant, do you

mean ARCADIS or somebody else?

A ARCADIS, yes.

Q Okay. Are you dealing with a -- any specific

person at ARCADIS primarily, any one or two

people?

A Yes, the project manager is Janine Coda-Trask

(phonetic), and the woman who's doing much of the

groundwater work is Tony Schone. S-C-H-0-N-E, I

think.

Q And do you deal with both those folks?

A ICI call their office, those are primarily the

two people that I speak with, yes.

Q Okay. Have you dealt with anybody who's an

employee of Madison-Kipp in the last two and

one-half years since you came onboard at this

site?

A Mark Meunier.

Q Okay. Anybody else?

A Not on a routine basis, no.

Q How about even on an even once basis? Anybody

you can think of, please.

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32 (Pages 122 to 125)


Page 124 ~

A Yes, there is another Kipp employee that often ~ shows up at our discussions, and I can't think of

his name. I'm drawing a complete blank of the

guy's name. At the last meeting the CEO or

company president was there. I can't think of

his name off the top of my head, either. But if

I have a site access issue or a question or

whatever where I'm calling someone from Kipp,

Mark is the guy that I speak with almost

exclusively.

Q So before we get to the CEO, this other guy whose

name you can't remember, first of all, it's a

man?

A Yes.

Q And do you understand this person to be an

employee of Madison-Kipp?

A Yes.

Q Do you understand him to be senior to, junior to,

same level as Meunier?

A I'm thinking about the same level.

Q No idea?

A No.

Q Do you know the name Reed Coleman?

A I know the name.

Q Have you ever met Mr. Coleman?

A I don't believe so.

Q Has he ever come to any meetings?

A Not that I recall.

Page 125

Q Okay. The CEO that you mentioned, you said came

to a meeting recently?

A Yes.

Q Do you know that person's name?

A No, I don't. That's the only time I met him, and

we were introduced and I don't remember. I'm not

good with names.

Q When was the meeting?

A Within the last couple of weeks.

Q Where was the meeting?

A At Madison-Kipp.

Q Who was there?

A There was quite a few. The guy whose name I

can't remember, and then Leah Ziemba from Michael

Best, Dave Crass was there, Janine Coda, Tony

Schone, Bob Nauta, Steve Tinker, myself, Linda

Hanefeld, John Hausbeck, Evan Husted, who's a DNR

employee. I think there might have been one

other person there, but I can't remember. I

think that's most of the people.

Q What was the purpose of the meeting?

A We have more or less routine meetings every two




Page 126 Page 128 ~

1 weeks or so to talk about technical issues, 1 that there are several chemicals identified ~

2 progress at the site, what field activities are 2 there? For example, ethyl acetate, vinyl ~ 3 going to go next, what those field activities 3 acetate, methyl ethyl ketone, heptane, toluene, ' 4 will be. This particular meeting we had at the 4 ethylbenzene, o-xylene, and there are others. I

t 5 Kipp facility, so we actually walked the 5 A Yes.

6 facility, looked at where some of the monitoring 6 Q Do you see those detections there?

7 wells were, looked at access issues, if there 7 A Yes.

8 were going to be any, and then we were in the 8 Q Along with PCE?

9 conference room there. Typically we meet at the 9 A Correct.

10 South Central Region DNR office, but this meeting 10 Q Have you dedicated any thought or investigative

11 was at the Kipp facility. 11 effort to determining the source of those

12 Q Okay. Apart from consultants, who have you dealt 12 chemicals in Mr. Sahfs sub-slab?

13 with most often representing the company? 13 A Yes, I spoke with Henry Nehls-Lowe and Terry ' 14 A Either Dave Crass or Mark Meunier. 14 Evanson, and also the Department has a contractor '

15 Q Okay. Had you ever, prior to February of 2010, 15 working on the site, SCS/BT2, and I talked with

16 dealt with Mr. Crass on any of your sites? 16 those three people about these results. What you

17 A I don't think so. No, not that I recall. 17 see in the indoor air and sub-slab, other than

18 Q Have you dealt with anybody else from the Michael 18 what we considered to be like a target compound, 1

19 Best Jaw finn since February of 2010 relating to 19 those are things that are often found in the

20 Madison-Kipp? 20 ambient air just in people's homes as a result of

21 A Yes. In one of the early meetings where we 21 whether it be cleaning fluid, degassing off the

22 discussed air testing issues, Timm Speerschneider 22 dyes of your furniture, you know, if someone has

23 from their office attended that meeting. 23 paint in their home, just a general mix of

24 Q You say air testing. What kind of air testing? 24 chemicals that are just found in the ambient

25 A We were just getting into the vapor testing 25 background in people's homes.

Page 127 Page 129 I 1 underneath homes and what the action criteria 1 Q But not in your sub-slab?

I 2 should be for levels of concern, and Timm sat in 2 A Well, you can get both, I guess. If you look,

3 on a meeting where Henry Nehls-Lowe from the 3 the sub-slab has fewer compounds. There are

4 Division of Health explained how the different 4 still some other ones that are there, the MEK,

5 guidance numbers are generated for both sub-slab 5 vinyl acetate, some of those, and ethyl benzene.

6 and indoor air concerns and why those are 6 There's some gasoline constituents or

7 sometimes look different than other air -- 7 potentially, but, again, the results that we

8 ambient air standards for different reasons. 8 were -- that we focused on were the perc results.

9 Q Okay. During any time that you have worked for 9 Q I appreciate that, but these did tum up. By the

10 DNR, did you ever run into a lawyer named Raymond 10 way this is-- Mr. Sahfs is not the only home '

11 Taffora? 11 where you see this phenomenon, right?

I 12 A Not that I recall. I don't recognize that name. 12 A Right.

13 Q All right. Let's look at Schmoller 10, please. 13 Q In other words, multiple chemical detections in

14 So the first page of this is a Jetter that you 14 addition to tetrachloroethylene, right? I 15 sent to a resident named Barry Sahf, right? 15 A Correct, yes.

16 A Um-hum. 16 Q And are you saying as to each of those homes you i 17 Q Yes? 17 think it's something inside the home that got X

1. 18 A Yes. 18 down into the sub-slab?

19 Q Okay. And it describes or it contains the Jab 19 A It's possible, because of the -- If you look, you

20 report which identifies the results of both 20 know, many of these homes the basement floors are ~ 21 sub-slab and indoor testing, correct? 21 not contiguous, they are cracked, they are

~

! 22 A Correct. 22 fissured, they have crawl spaces and that, so

23 Q Now what I wanted to ask you about particularly 23 there's an opportunity to find things in the

24 was the detections both in and under Mr. Sahfs 24 sub-slab other than chemicals that may be

25 home of chemicals in addition to PCE. Do you see 25 migrating from releases at Madison-Kipp.


33 (Pages 126 to 129)

(414) 271-4466



Page 130

1 Q But, I mean, doesn't the Department's own 1

2 guidance say that the reason you are testing the 2

3 sub-slab is so you can factor out what chemicals 3

4 may be in the home? 4

5 A I think what it says or what it says is that it 5

6 helps you to factor out, but, again, it's not an 6

7 absolute thing. When I looked at these results, 7

8 I, particularly specific to the sub-slab, if you 8

9 look at those results, the acetone, the acrolein, 9

10 the MEK, acetates and that, I attribute those 10

11 again to sources or activities other than an 11

12 industrial waste discharge at Kipp. So those 12

13 have not figured into the mitigation decision 13

14 making that we have been making. 14

15 Q Well, I'm happy to mark this as an exhibit and 15

16 show it to you, but this is the Department's own 16

17 guidance on vapor intrusion dated June of 2011, 17

18 and I'm quoting from it. It says, "Sub-slab 18

19 samples are more reliable indicators of potential 19

20 vapor intrusion than indoor samples and are not 20

21 affected by indoor chemical sources." I mean, 21

22 that's the Department's own guidance. 22

23 A I wouldn't agree with that statement absolutely 23

24 because, again, if the floor has cracks in it and 24

25 it allows contaminants to go from sub-slab up, 25

Page 131

1 you can also have contaminants go from the indoor 1

2 air down. So the fact that we find things other 2

3 than compounds that we think are related to 3

4 things migrsting from a facility in my mind 4

5 doesn't automatically trigger that, oh, those 5

6 things must also be coming from the contamination 6

7 source area. 7

8 Q Well, did you do any testing to determine if any 8

9 of these compounds are also found in the vapors 9

10 at Kipp? Soil gas, for example? 10

11 A Well, I can't quote the soU gas numbers off the 11

12 top of my head, but if you look at both the soU 12

13 and groundwater testing that was done, the things 13

14 you see here, vinyl acetate, MEK are not 14

15 ground -- are not soU contaminants. We are not 15

16 seeing sources of those materials on site that 16

17 would say, "Oh, we have things going on, we have 17

18 a source for these things and it's coming off and 18

19 we also have to address it." So at this point, 19

20 given the databases that we have, the conclusion 20

21 I reached about the sub-slab data is that we're 21

22 looking at chlorinated& moving from Kipp, but we 22

23 are not looking at vinyl acetate, MEK or the 23

24 trimethyl benzenes or the ethyl methyl benzenes, 24

25 the other things that slow up in the sub-slab at 25


Page 132

this faciHty. I don't think the data supports

those as being things that are moving along that

way.

Q Okay. In July of 2011 some clients of mine

served a RCRA Notice on Madison-Kipp and your

Department and others, correct, a Notice of

Intent to File Suit, a Notice of Intent to File a

Claim under the Resource Conservation Recovery

Act?

A Yes. I don't know the legal particulars, if

that's filed with the Department or who that gets

filed with, but I know there was an action of

that kind, yes.

Q Okay. And you know that on or about October 20th

of 2011 we did file our federal court lawsuit

which included a RCRA claim, correct?

A I understand that was the case, yes.

Q Okay. Isn't it true that there was communication

between your Department and Madison-Kipp aimed at

possibly filing some kind of legal action that

would preempt my clients from filing their RCRA

claim?

A I don't know of any action that was taken to

preempt a claim.

Q I didn't say that. I didn't say that. Isn't it

Page 133

true that there were discussions prior to

October 20th, 2011 involving your Department

about Madison-Kipp's desire to have the

Department or the State of Wisconsin pursue legal

action that would preempt my clients from filing

a RCRA claim?

MR. TINKER: I'm just going to object to

that question. Basically that would be

conversations between the DNR and our office,

which would be attorney client, as I understand

the question. I believe that's privileged

communication.

MR. COLLINS: Well, not if he was

talking to Madison-Kipp about it. That's not

privileged.

MR. TINKER: You were talking in terms

of the Department. You asked if the Department

was having communications. A referral comes to

our office, so it would be communications between

the DNR and our office. I think that's

privileged. I didn't take it as communication

between Mr. Schmoller and someone else.

BY MR. COLLINS:

Q Okay. Were you involved in any such

communications with anyone from Madison-Kipp?

34 (Pages 130 to 133)




Page 134 Page 136 ~ 1 A 1 I guess that's probably the best I can describe ' No, I was not.

r: 2 Q Okay. Were you aware that such conversations 2 it, not knowing all the legal ins and outs.

~ 3 were taking place? 3 Q Okay. How many conversations did you have with

4 A I know there were conversations between the 4 Mr. Crass on that topic? ~ 5 Department and Kipp relating to possible 5 A Maybe two or three. I 6 lawsuits, but beyond that I don't have any 6 Q Okay. And did you ask him for legal advice?

'-7 specific knowledge. 7 A No.

8 Q Okay. How do you know what you just told me? 8 Q Okay. Do you know why he furnished you the

9 A I probably heard that just through general 9 bullet points that we see in Schmoller 11 here?

10 discussions working on the site. I don't recall 10 A I know we had -· I know I talked to him about it, ij

11 specifically who told -- who would have told me, 11 because I know I went back and looked at the RCRA ~

12 but I understood that to be the case. 12 statutes to try and understand some things, and I I 13 (Exhibit 11 was marked.) 13 know I had some questions about it. I don't know '

14 BY MR. COLLINS: 14 if it was the primary purpose. I think I called • 15 Q I'm going to ask you some questions about 15 him. I don't know if that was the primary reason I 16 Schmoller 11, which is an email. Why don't you 16 for the call or what. I know we talked about

17 tell me when you are ready and I will go ahead 17 this issue and how the state action interrelated ~

18 and ask them. 18 with the citizen suit, and he sent these points E 19 A Okay. 19 back to me to explain or to give some explanation ~

' 20 Q Okay. Are you ready? 20 of how he understands the process to work.

21 A Yes. 21 Q Well, why are you talking with -- I mean, you are ; 22 Q Okay. So this is Schmoller Exhibit 11. It's an 22 the regulator for the company that is his client,

23 October 13, 2011 email from Mr. Crass at Michael 23 right?

24 Best to you, a copy to Mr. Meunier. Beginning in 24 A Um-hum.

25 the second paragraph Mr. Crass says to you, 25 Q Yes?

Page 135 Page 137 I ~·

1 "Also, I understand that you have received 1 A Yes. :

2 allegations that the Department is 'raising' to 2 Q And the Department you work for has lawyers,

3 cut a 'sweetheart' agreement with Kipp so as to 3 correct?

i 4 'cut off rights,' of potential plaintiffs to sue. 4 A Yes.

5 I want to respond to those allegations for your 5 Q I'm sorry. I don't understand why you are

6 consideration,'' and then there follows six bullet 6 talking to Madison-Kipp's lawyer about these

7 points. Do you see that? 7 issues rather than Mr. Tinker or some other

8 A Yes. 8 lawyer who is on your side.

9 Q Okay. Did you and Mr. Crass have any 9 A I think it was just the course of our general ,.,

10 conversations about the possibility of the 10 interaction on the site. For much of the time ~ 11 plaintiffs filing a RCRA claim? 11 that I have worked on this site it wasn't i

12 A We did talk about that. I can remember I went 12 uncommon to talk to the lawyers directly. Since i 13 back and I was looking at the statutes to try and 13 things have been more formalized, more things go ~

14 understand. Not being a lawyer, I didn't 14 through Steve now, Steve Tinker, but when I first ~

15 understand the importance of-- because we were 15 became involved with the site, it was routine I 16 negotiating the scope of work which was going to 16 that I would call Dave or Mark Meunier and talk

17 be part of a legal agreement between the state 17 about issues related to the site and where it was

J. 18 and Kipp, and for some reason there was an 18 going. So the conversation that led to this

19 importance or a difference between it being filed 19 email would have been just part of our normal ~ 20 in state court versus federal court, and I guess 20 day-to-day management of the site.

~ ~

21 I'm still not sure I understand the difference 21 Q You didn't see anything inappropriate about it? ~ 22 why there's an importance between the two. But I 22 A No. Again, the decisions on what lawsuit gets I 23 know there was a discussion of that, and there 23 filed, what court it gets filed in, what the I 24 was a concern on how what we were doing, what 24 legal implications of that are, I mean, that's

25 that -- how that related to the citizen lawsuit. 25 not -- those aren't decisions I make. Those h'

~ ~ ,,


35 (Pages 134 to 137)

(414) 271-4466



Page 138 Page 140 ~

1 aren't issues that I'm responsible for. 1 whether or not the DOJ could bring a state spill I 2 On or about this time we were having a 2 or federal RCRA suit in federal court?

3 series of pubUc meetings, you were at a couple 3 A Okay. I'm a half a step behind here.

4 of them, and, you know, the citizens were asking 4 Q Yes. The email that we have got here --

5 questions. What is this lawsuit, what's going 5 A Oh, this is about-- I'm sorry. I read Murphy

6 on, what are you doing, and I didn't have 6 Oil there. I was going to say-- Okay. No, I'm

7 answers. I was trying to come up with an 7 not even sure -- I'm not sure I can tell you

8 understanding of what this lawsuit meant in terms 8 exactly what that even means. I think it means

9 of where it was going to be filed, what it was 9 that whatever legal action would be associated

10 going to be asking for, etcetera. That's 10 with the Scope of Work that we had been

11 probably how the conversation came up. 11 negotiating for quite a number of months would

12 Q And so you thought the thing to do to get answers 12 not go in federal court, but would be filed in

13 was to go to Madison-Kipp's lawyers, is that 13 state court, I guess is what that means. But,

14 right? 14 you know, where suits get filed is not something

15 A I don't think that's the only place I went. I 15 people come and ask me.

16 think in the conversation with Dave it just came 16 Q I'm not asking you to guess about what anything

17 up. I am pretty sure this email was a result of 17 means. I'm wondering whether were you aware of

18 a phone call that I made to him, if I recall 18 Madison-Kipp asking the State of Wisconsin to sue

19 correctly. It probably was not exclusively about 19 it in or about October of 2011, that Madison-Kipp

20 the lawsuit issue. Again, there's a reference to 20 was asking the State of Wisconsin to bring suit

21 a Scope of Work Draft No.6 which was laying out 21 against Madison-Kipp? Were you aware that that

22 a number of our initial investigation and some 22 was going on?

23 remediation needs. So I know I did have 23 A I knew that there were discussions of a suit.

24 conversations with him about that, and that's why 24 I'm not sure if I knew that -- I know now that

25 he provided these bullet points. 25 there was a request on their part. I don't know

Page 139 Page 141

1 (Exhibit 12 was marked.) 1 if in October of 2011 if I knew that the suit

2 BY MR. COLLINS: 2 that was -- that we were discussing was part of a

3 Q Do you have Schmoller No. 12? 3 request from Madison-Kipp.

4 A Yes. 4 Q Well, how do you Irnow it now?

5 Q Okay. So that's an October 13, 2011 email from 5 A Because it's been talked about since then and I

6 Mr. Tinker to Mr. Crass and another lawyer over 6 have heard about it.

7 at Michael Best, and it says, "Enclosed you will 7 Q What have you heard since then?

8 find decisions from Judge Crabb dismissing a 8 A That there was a request that the Scope of Work

9 civil complaint filed by our office alleging 9 that we have negotiated and the legal framework

10 state and federal environmental law violations 10 that was going to go with it was initiated on a

11 and our attempt to intervene in the US Attorney's 11 request from Madison-Kipp to either our agency or

12 enforcement action. Judge Crabb held that our 12 DOJ or somebody, I'm not exactly sure who and

13 office is limited to bringing statutorily 13 that, but I'm not sure if I knew it in October of

14 authorized enforcement actions, and we were not 14 2011. I just don't recall.

15 statutorily authorized to bring state or federal 15 Q But you heard something along those lines more

16 claims in federal court. It doesn't appear that 16 recently?

17 our office would have jurisdiction to commence a 17 A Well, since then. I mean, that scope of work has

18 state spill or federal RCRA suit in federal 18 been negotiated for a number of months, and I

19 court." Do you see that? 19 have known for more than the last two months.

20 A Yes. 20 When you say "recent," I have probably known for

21 Q So particularly with regard to that last sentence 21 maybe a longer period of time than that, but I

22 now, the possibility that the DOJ would have 22 probably still don't completely understand all

23 jurisdiction to commence a state spill or federal 23 the ins and outs of it at this point.

24 RCRA suit in federal court, were you ever 24 Q Well, did someone tell you that Madison-Kipp had

25 involved in any discussions of those topics about 25 approached the state, either your Department or

36 (Pages 138 to 141)




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 142

the Department of Justice asking that the State 1

of Wisconsin bring a complaint or a lawsuit

against Madison-Kipp?

A Yes, definitely people within the Department told

me that.

Q Who told you that?

A I probably first heard it, I'm going to probably

say, from Mark Giesfeldt, because he would have

been closer to those discussions than I would

have been. That's probably when I first heard

it.

Q Okay. And Mr. Giesfeldt, you identified him

earlier in this deposition, but tell me again.

He's a couple steps up the line from you, isn't

he?

A Yes, he would be two levels up. He's the Bureau

Director for the Remediation Program.

Q Did he tell you that he had been approached by

Madison-Kipp along those lines?

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

A I don't think he personally was. I think he knew 20

the agency was. 21

Q Okay. Were you ever told who at the agency was 22

approached by Madison-Kipp along those lines? 23

A It would have just been someone in upper 24

administration. Specifically who, I don't know 25


Page 144 ~ ~

recollection. I'm sure it was discussed

generally. I'm almost certain no one within the

agency came to me and said "Kipp wants us to sue

them so we can preempt the citizen suit." I

don't think there was ever any discussion that

blunt or straightforward that I can recall.

There may have been a general understanding that

that may have been part of the reason for the

request of the suit, but I don't recall anything

more specific than that.

~

'

Q All right. I'm asking for any communications

that you were involved in or overheard or was

privy to, I'm not asking you to guess about what

other people may have been thinking or doing. I

A

Q

want to know what you know because you were told ~

it or overheard it or something like that. ~

There were no specific statements to me ever made ~

in that regard that I can recall. There were

certainly general discussions where that topic

came up in conversations with probably Mark

Giesfeldt, no one higher than that, I'm sure, or

Linda Hanefeld, my main supervisor, that this

suit was or potentially was rued as part of a

defense against the citizen RCRA suit.

In what conversations did that come up, please? I r-------------------------------------------r-----------------------------------------_,~

Page 145 ~ 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 143

if I knew at that time. I'm not sure if I know 1

now if it was the Secretary's Office or the 2

Deputy Secretary or Division. It could have been 3

any one of those three. 4

Q Okay. So what were you told, if anything, about 5

why Madison-Kipp approached the state to sue it? 6

A I don't recall specifically what that discussion 7

would have been. I remember being told that Kipp 8

requested the suit, but whether that was a 9

defense against the citizen suit or that was for

insurance purposes or what, I don't know.

Q Mr. Schrnoller, were you ever told specifically or

generally that Madison-Kipp approached the State

of Wisconsin asking the state to sue it to

preempt or stop the local citizens from bringing

their federal lawsuit?

A I do not recall anyone telling me that

specifically. No, I cannot recall that.

Q Okay. I don't want to get hung up on the word

"specifically." Specifically or generally did

anybody ever tell you that that had happened?

And I don't even mean back then in October of

20 11, I mean at any time did anybody ever tell

you that that had happened?

A I will say -- I will give you an honest

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A Just in -- Again, it would have been in general ·~

day-to-day discussions about the site.

Q Okay. And who were the other folks besides ~ yourself who were involved in those discussions? ~

A That would have been, again, would have been Mark ~ Giesfeldt or Linda Hanefeld. ~

~ Q Giesfeldt was or is still the Bureau Director, is

it?

A Right, and Linda would have been my immediate

supervisor.

Q Okay. How about Pat Stevens? Was he involved in

any of those conversations?

A I never had a conversation with Pat Stevens about

it ever.

Q Did you ever hear that Pat Stevens might have

been involved in conversations about

Madison-Kipp's request to be sued by the state to

preempt the citizens from filing their lawsuit?

Did you ever hear that Stevens had been involved

in those conversations?

A No, I don't think it ever became that it was ever

that specific of a reference. I think upper

management was approached. I don't remember it

being any more specific references than that.

Q Okay. When you say "upper management," who are


37 (Pages 142 to 145)

(414) 271-4466



1

2

3

you talking about?

A Division administrator levels or above.

Q So what people?

Page 146

4 A Pat Stevens is the Division Administrator. Cathy

5 Step is Secretary.


7 BY MR. COLLINS:

8 Q Do you recall-- I'm sorry, Mr. Schmoller. I'm

9 not trying to rush you. Let me know when you are

ready to answer questions.

A Okay. I have read it.

Q I will represent to you-- We talked earlier in

this deposition about our having served a 90-day

notice. Do you recall you and I talked briefly

about that?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall discussion of some citizens having

served a 90-day notice. Do you recall discussion

back in 2011 of that having happened?

A Yes, I knew -- we knew that the suit had been or

the notice had been filed.

Q Okay. And you knew that it was the citizens'

intent to file a RCRA complaint in federal court

as early as October 20th, 2011, correct?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 A I don't remember the specific dates involved, but 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 147

I knew the 90-day notice was filed with the

intent that as soon as the 90 days was up, there

would be a suit of some nature filed.

Q Do you recall discussion within the Department in

October of 2011 that if a lawsuit were going to

be filed to preempt the citizens filing their

suit, that it would have to be done before

October 20th? Do you recall that discussion?

A Specific discussions, no. I don't recall

specific discussions. I understand the issue, I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

know it was talked about, but who or when I don't 11

remember. 12

Q Okay. So let's look at Schmoller 13, please. I

want to look at the ftrst email in time, which is

the lowest one. It"s about the middle of the

page. It's0ctober17,2011at10:17a.m. Do

you see that?

A Yes.

Q And Mr. Tinker writes, "We met with

administration this morning, and it was decided

to proceed with a state spill complaint

(attached) rather than a federal hazardous waste

enforcement action. We will hold off on filing

the complaint to give the DNR a chance to decide

how it wants to proceed. We are assuming that

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38 (Pages 146 to 149)


Page 148

Wednesday remains a deadline for the filing of

the state complaint. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now in that last sentence there you see

reference to Wednesday, right?

A Yes.

Q And you can tell from elsewhere in that email

that the Wednesday there is Wednesday,

October 19th, correct? Do you see reference

above it to Tuesday, October 18th?

A Yes.

Q Wednesday would be the 19th, right?

A If that's the Wednesday that the sentence refers

to, yes.

Q And that would be the day before -- The 90-day

notice given by the citizens would be

October 20th, right?

A I don't know those dates.

Q Okay. Now the email above it then goes from

Mr. Crass to Mr. Tinker and others, Leah Ziemba

and Thomas J. Dawson. Do you know who that is?

A Yes.

Q Who is that?

A Tom works at the Department of Justice. I

believe he's Steve's supervisor.

Q Do you see Mr. Crass saying to Mr. Tinker,

"Steve, I'm in meetings in Chicago today. We

Page 149

will be in touch with Pat Stevens to discuss our

request for an administrative order. Do you have

time tomorrow morning that I could set a call

with you." Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Okay. All right. Now do you have any doubt that

the Pat Stevens identified there is the Pat

Stevens you identified earlier about three levels

above you in the DNR organization? Do you have

any doubt that's who that is?

A I believe that's who that refers to.

Q You don't know any other Pat Stevens at DNR, do

you?

A No.

Q What"s his title again?

A Division Administrator.

Q And you had heard from some of your subsequent

conversations that Mr. Stevens had perhaps been

involved in discussions about Madison-Kipp"s

request that the state sue it, correct?

A I knew there were people in upper levels of

management that were involved.

Q And you believed one of those was Stevens?




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A

Q

That's a possibiUty.

Why do you say that?

Page 150

A Because he's in upper level management. He has

had involvement with the site.

Q Okay.

A But I don't have any firsthand knowledge of that.

Q Okay. Did you hear anybody back in October of

2011, around this time depicted in these emails,

did you hear anybody say "We shouldn't be doing

this?"

A Not that I can recall. No, I don't recall anyone

saying "Don't do this."

Q Did you ever hear anybody say at any time,

October 2011 or later, did you ever hear anybody

say that we shouldn't be suing Kipp just because

it asked us to in order to stop these citizens

from filing their lawsuit?

A I don't recall anybody saying that. I'm not

aware -- Of the people that I would have routine

contact with at the site, I'm not aware that

anyone was thinking that, that this suit was

being filed exclusively for the purpose of

preempting a citizen suit.

Q In your years at DNR, have you ever been involved

in or heard of a situation like this where a

Page 151

company being regulated by DNR asks DNR or the

state to sue it to block citizens from suing the

company themselves? Have you ever heard about

that ever happening before?

A No, no.

Q Have you ever been involved in anything like that

before?

A No.

MR. COLLINS: Okay. Why don't we-- The

food is here. Why don't we take just a couple

minutes, if anybody wants to grab food.

(A recess was taken.)

(Exhibit 14 was marked.)

BY MR. COLLINS:

Q So this is a short one. Schmoller Exhibit 14 is

an email dated October 18, 2011 from Mr. Tinker

to a Steven Sisbach and Patrick Stevens, and it

says "John Busch told me that their pian was for

Dave Crass to contact Pat. Busch was going to

call Crass." Do you see that, Mr. Schmoller?

A Yes.

Q Okay. So one of the people to whom this email

went was Steven Sisbach. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Who is Sisbach, please?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Page 152 ~ E

A Sisbach works for the Department in our Central ~

Office in Environmental Enforcement. ~

Q Do you believe that Sisbach was one of the people ;

at DNR involved in discussions concerning

Madison-Kipp's request that the state sue it?

A I don't know what discussions Steve had with who

about that.

Q Okay. Did you ever hear that Steve was involved

in those discussions, that Mr. Sisbach was?

A It would make sense that Steve would be involved

in any enforcement, because that's his program

area of responsibility, but the details of that I

don't know.

Q Okay. Have you ever talked to Mr. Sisbach about

Madison-Kipp? c

A I think we had a few discussions where Kipp came ~

up, yes. •

When did you start having these discussions with Q Mr. Sisbach? ~

A The specific dates I don't know. I don't know

when that would have been. It would have been

the fall of 2011 when these emails were going

back and forth. I'm not certain.

Q Okay. So what did you guys talk about, you and

Mr. Sisbach?

Page 153 .

~ A

Q

I probably would have provided him some

background on the site itself, some technical

background, because Steve historically was not

involved with the site that I'm aware of. I

probably was giving him information as to

contamination, you know, where are we at with the

site, where we think we want to go in terms of

future investigation or cleanup. But beyond

that, I don't -- I would not have been talking

enforcement strategy with him. I don't think

that's the type of thing Steve and I would have

talked about.

What I'm interested in is the best of your

recollection about what you guys were talking

about or communicating about, so let me start

with this. I assume, based on everything you

told me at this point, that Mr. Sisbach would

have contacted you rather than you him initially,

correct? He would have reached out to you, isn't

that the way it would have worked?

A I don't remember if he called me or if we sat in

on a meeting where we both were present and he

was being updated on just kind of the status of

the site. I'm guessing. I shouldn't do that.

The majority of our communications would have

~

~ I


39 (Pages 150 to 153)

(414) 271-4466



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

been in a meeting, not by phone.

Q Okay. I'm talking about Madison-Kipp

conversations now.

A Correct.

Page 154

Q And those are the ones you are telling me about?

A Right. I would think most of my communications

with Steve would have been a part of meetings of

DNR employees talking about the site and where is

it going, what are we going to do.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Page 156 ~

negotiating, you know, the legal end of things,

the negotiations that were going on.

Q Okay. And you still don't have an agreed Scope

of Work, right?

A No, there's not an agreed Scope of Work. In

fact, it's -- because many of the things that

were in the original Scope of Work that we

drafted are done. You know, those things have

been completed and we have kind of moved on to

Q Do you remember Sisbach being in Madison-Kipp

related meetings in the fall of 20 11?

10 some of these other things, so, yes, we do not

11 have a Scope of Work, because as we have been

A I remember having some where Steve was present, 12 coming up with tasks, we have been completing

yes. 13 them.

Q And what were the subjects of those meetings? 14 (Exhibit 15 was marked.)

A Probably one was what do we want to see done at

the site.

15 BY MR. COLLINS:

16 Q Fifteen, please. You should have Schmoller 15.

Q Yes.

A And, two, what's the best way to move forward to

get that done. Steve's role would have been,

well, do we issue an order, do we file a lawsuit.

That's his specialty, is enforcement. That's the

kind of decisions that they make. That's what he

would be looking at. So that would have been his

role in any meeting like that.

Q Do you remember anything specific he said or

Page 155

asked during any of those meetings? I'm talking

about Mr. Sisbach now.

A No.

Q Okay. Did anything happen in the fall of 2011

that made the DNR or anybody else at the state,

to your knowledge, more interested in suing

Madison-Kipp than they had been previously?

A No.

Q I mean, can you think of any reason other than

the citizens' seiVice of their 90-day notice of

intent to me a federal lawsuit that was the

catalyst for all of this discussion within DNR

and the state about possibly suing Madison-Kipp?

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

A I don't-- I'm not-- I'm not certain that the 14

filing of the citizen suit was the catalyst for 15

the discussion for the state lawsuit. I think 16

the main reason behind the state lawsuit was to 17

provide some legal framework for the scope of 18

work we were negotiating. We were spending a lot 19

of time trying to come up with, at that point in 20

time, anyhow, as detailed a Scope of Work as we 21

could for soil, soil vapor and groundwater 22

investigation. The question was what do you hook 23

that to to make it an enforceable document. In

my mind that was the primary reason for

24

25

Do you?

A Yes.

Q Okay. All right. The Bate stamps are down in

the lower right. You know that, right? Lower

than that (indicating).

A Yes.

Q All right. So on Schmoller 15 with the Bate

stamps 144 and 145, I want to refer you to an

email that Mr. Crass sends to Mr. Tinker. It

starts at the bottom of 144. Do you see it?

A Yes.

Q It carries over to 145. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Page 157

Q Do you see there that, among other things, Mr.

Crass is suggesting revisions to the draft

complaint. Excuse me. This is Mr. Crass

suggesting to Mr. Tinker revisions to the draft

complaint. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Do you know what complaint he's talking about?

A I think that was a draft of, again, whatever

legal instrument it was that would be the handle

to enforce the Scope of Work that we were

negotiating at the time at the technical level.

Q Were you in agreement with the state suing

Madison-Kipp in the fall of 2011?

A What I wanted and I agreed with is coming up with

a legal hammer to make the Scope of Work an

enforceable document.

Q Whatever legal hammers the state had in the fall

of 2011 it had had for many years previous,

correct?

A Whatever authority we were going to base our

October 2011 legal instrument on were laws that

40 (Pages 154 to 157)




Page 158 Page 160 ~

I were in place for some period of time. 1 taken a number of years to get done. Would it

~ 2 Q The Spill Law, for example, has been around for 2 have been a little faster, probably. I can't say

3 decades, hasn't it? 3 for certain. But I do know that in the two years I 4 A Yes. 4 or so that I have had it, I felt that an

5 Q It's cited by the state to Madison-Kipp in that 5 enforceable timeline was important to keep things

6 1994 responsible party Jetter, correct? 6 on task.

7 A Correct. 7 Q Okay. All right. Have you been involved in

8 Q So that enforcement power under that law has 8 discussions with anybody other than Mr. Tinker or

9 always been around, correct? 9 any other lawyer for the state in which that

10 A Correct. 10 person told you why it is that the state has yet

11 Q Do you know why the state waited until the fall 11 to sue Madison-Kipp. Could? You just say yes or

12 of 20 11 to start talking about using its 12 no right now?

13 enforcement power and possibly suing 13 MR. TINKER: I think you can answer yes I 14 Madison-Kipp? 14 or no whether you had discussions. What those

15 A The only part of that discussion I would have 15 discussions are will be the next question.

' 16 been in is for the first 14 years or so of the 16 BY MR. COLLINS:

17 site history everything has been done kind of 17 Q Why don't we take them one at a time. So have ~ 18 across the table, handshake, go do it, da-da-da, 18 you been involved in any discussions like that? ~ 19 and there had been delays over the years for 19 A Okay. Just give me the question again.

20 things getting done. I think my interest in it 20 Q Sure. Have you been involved in any discussions

21 was to have an enforceable timeline so we weren't 21 with anyone other than Mr. Tinker or any other

22 getting delays and reports being written, 22 lawyer for the State of Wisconsin where someone

23 fieldwork being done, whatever. So what may have 23 conveyed to you why it was that the State of

24 worked through the initial years of the site, 24 Illinois -- excuse me -- State of Wisconsin has

25 kind of an informal arrangement, I wanted it to 25 not sued Madison-Kipp?

Page 159 Page 161

1 be formal so we had some way of saying, "You 1 A Have not sued Madison-Kipp. No, in that I do not ~ 2 missed a deadline and we have got the authority 2 recall any discussions -- The only person that I

3 to do something." 3 possibly could have talked to about that with

4 Q Do you think the way of the state doing business 4 would have been Dino Tsoris, Constantine Tsoris,

I 5 with Madison-Kipp before you showed up actually 5 about why there was not an enforcement action

6 worked? Do you think that informal handshake 6 taken earlier in the site history, but I don't --

7 relationship worked? 7 I think by the time I got the site I think I

f 8 A If you look back, there was a lot of 8 viewed that as kind of a water, you know, over

9 investigative work and remediation work that was 9 the dam type of thing, and what decisions were

10 accomplished during those first 14 years or so. 10 made were made. I don't recall asking anybody or ~ 11 Certainly you could argue that it could have been 11 anybody telling me why there were no enforcement I 12 done maybe quicker, that there were delays in 12 actions taken in the early history of the site. ~

13 there. I think there was some frustrations on 13 Q Okay. So now you mentioned Mr. Tsoris' name. ~ ' 14 the Agency's part at the rate at which things got 14 Let me just put a question on the record so we ~ ~

15 done at different times and that, so if in 1995 15 have it so we're outside the realm of guesswork. ~ 16 we would have had a formal agreement with 16 Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Tsoris ~ 17 specific dates, maybe things would have gone 17 at any time about why the state has not taken

~ 18 quicker, although I don't-- I'm not 100 percent 18 enforcement action against Madison-Kipp? I 19 convinced of that, because even if we would have 19 A None that I can recall.

20 had a formal agreement with specific dates, once 20 Q Okay. The state just a couple of months ago i

21 we got in the investigation and we started seeing 21 served an NOV, Notice of Violation, on

22 the size of the problem, we could have missed the 22 Madison-Kipp, correct? i 23 vapor issue. 23 A Yes. ~ 24 Once we started seeing the size of the 24 Q Okay. To your knowledge has the state previous ~ 25 soil and groundwater problem, it still would have 25 to this one Notice of Violation ever served

~


41 (Pages 158 to 161)

(414) 271-4466



Page 162 Page 164 • ~ 1 Madison-Kipp with any other Notice of Violation 1 when it was some statements that Madison-Kipp had ~ 2 relating to PCE contamination at or emanating 2 gone to the Governor's Office about them working I 3 from the Madison-Kipp site? 3 with the state and what we were requiring them to

4 A I don't think there have been past NOVs. The NOV 4 do at the site. I don't believe I ever knew that

5 that was relatively recent was associated with 5 they had gone to the Governor's Office in

6 PCBs, not PCE. 6 relationship to trying -· for the state to take

7 Q I understand that. I'm sorry. Let me ask that 7 any action to try and preempt the citizen suit

8 question again. Has the Department of Natural 8 type of thing. I think there were issues raised

9 Resources or the State of Wisconsin issued any 9 at the Governor's Office about what we were

10 NOV to Madison-Kipp ever for any aspect of the 10 asking them to do, how much we wanted them to do,

11 PCE or VOC contamination? 11 you know, why isn't the site done, that sort of

12 A I don't think so. 12 thing.

13 (Exhibit 16 was marked.) 13 Q Why do you think that? You said you think that.

14 BY MR. COLLINS: 14 Why do you think that?

15 Q Okay. All right. So Schmoller 16 is a two-page 15 A I believe I have heard that conversation or I

16 document. It's got my name up in the upper, 16 have heard people relate to that, that that had

17 left-hand comer of the first page because this 17 occurred.

18 is printed off my computer. These two pages are 18 Q Somebody told you that?

19 part of a subpoena response I got from the 19 A Yes, I believe I heard that.

20 Govemor's Office. They emailed it to me, and so 20 Q Who told you that?

21 when I printed it off my computer, my name shows 21 A Again, that would have been someone like either a

22 up on it. We have got two pages. We have got an 22 Linda Hanefeld or a Mark Giesfeldt, because they

23 email from a lawyer named Raymond Taffora to 23 would have been the ones who would have heard

24 Brian K. Hagedom, who I don't know what he is 24 about such a meeting or such a contact, and they

25 today, but at least was at the time the Chief 25 would have told me just as a matter of course of

Page 163 Page 165

1 Legal Counsel to the Govemor. 1 day-to-day discussions about the site.

2 Mr. Taffora writes to Mr. Hagedom, he 2 Q I don't know what would have told you means.

3 says, "Brian, This is one of the matters I'd like 3 What I want to know is did Hanefeld or Giesfeldt

4 to talk about with you. Can you call me sometime 4 or anybody tell you that Madison-Kipp had gone to

5 today on it." Attached is a Madison-Kipp 5 the Govemor's Office concemed about or

6 Corporation Background which Mr. Taffora sends to 6 complaining about how much work the Department

7 Mr. Hagedom. You are free to read any and all 7 was requiring it to do out at the site?

8 of it. I want to direct your attention to the 8 A Yes, I did hear a concern like that.

9 last bullet point. That's the one I want to ask 9 Q Okay. Who told you that?

10 you about. It says-- Well, the last bullet 10 A It would have been either Linda or Mark. I don't

11 point says, "MKC would prefer to spend its 11 recall who.

12 resources defending allegations against the State 12 Q When did Linda or Mark -- And by "Linda" you mean

13 of Wisconsin and restoring the environment than 13 Hanefeld and Mark Giesfeldt?

14 paying out-of-state plaintiffs' counsel given 14 A Yes.

15 that the federal statute provides for the 15 Q When did Linda or Mark tell you that?

16 plaintiffs' attempted recovery of their fees and 16 A I could not recall specific dates.

17 costs." Do you see that? 17 Q Well, I assume it was while you were-- it was

18 A Yes. 18 February 2010 or later, right?

19 Q Have you ever heard, I don't just mean back in 19 A Yes, during my tenure as project manager.

20 the fall of 2011, but then or any time since that 20 Q Okay. Can you tell me a year when you would have

21 the Govemor's Office had anything to do with the 21 heard that?

22 possibility that the state might ftle a complaint 22 A I could not narrow it down more than either 2011

23 against Madison-Kipp? Did you ever hear about 23 or 2012.

24 any Govemor's Office involvement in that? 24 Q Okay. And what else did they tell you about

25 A I'm sure I have heard -- I heard at some point 25 that?

42 (Pages 162 to 165)




Page 166 Page 168

1 A Nothing that I recall. 1 involved with the DOJ or not?

2 Q Did it sound to you like Madison-Kipp was 2 A Not that I know of.

3 complaining about something that you were 3 (Exhibit 17 was marked.)

4 requiring Madison-Kipp to do or insisting that 4 BY MR. COLLINS:

5 Madison-Kipp do? 5 Q Before you look at that, can I ask you a couple

6 A That would have been -- Yes, because ultimately 6 more questions on the topic we were just on.

7 most of the requests that the Department was 7 A I'm sorry. What was that?

8 making of Kipp for investigation or cleanup would 8 Q Before we get into this Schmoller 17, can I

9 have originated with me, so it would have been a 9 follow up on the area we were just talking about.

10 complaint about-- Well, again, you know, I don't 10 A Sure.

11 solely dictate, you know, what the data is he 11 Q Okay. All right. So you told me Hanefeld or

12 asks for, so it probably would have been a more 12 Giesfeldt came to you and told you certain

13 general complaint of what the Remediation and 13 things. Did you ever hear from anyone else that

14 Redevelopment Program is asking of Kipp. A lot 14 Madison-Kipp had gone to the Governor's Office

15 of the ideas would have originated with things 15 complaining about any behavior or decision of

16 that I was thinking about. 16 DNR? ;

17 Q Okay. So what was DNR asking or requiring of 17 A Related to Kipp or just in general? I'm sorry.

18 Kipp that caused Kipp to go to the Governor's 18 Q Relating to Kipp, yes.

19 Office and complain, at least according to what 19 A Not that I recall, no. I 20 you were being told by Hanefeld or Giesfeldt? 20 Q Whatever Hanefeld or Giesfeldt told you, was it

21 A That I don't know. I don't think the discussions 21 verbal as opposed to in writing?

22 ever got that specific. 22 A Yes, it would have been just in discussions, yes.

23 Q Well, did they tell you why they were relating 23 Q In all of your experience with DNR, had you ever

24 this to you? 24 been told by a superior that a company whose

25 A Just as part of, hey, this is what I heard. 25 contamination problem you were overseeing on

Page 167 Page 169

1 Q All right. 1 behalf of the people of the state had gone to the ~

2 A You know, it's just background information. 2 Governor's Office complaining about decisions you

3 Q Okay. But did you ever ask them, you know, what 3 were making? Had that ever happened to you

4 am I supposed to -- how am I supposed to 4 before?

5 interpret that? Did you ever ask whoever told 5 A It may have happened in relation to certain

6 you this, Hanefeld or Giesfeldt, what am I 6 Superfund sites, because those were bigger

7 supposed to make of the fact that somebody has 7 efforts. We were asking a lot of companies to do

8 gone to the Governor's Office over decisions I'm 8 things.

9 making? 9 Q Respectfully, I'm not asking you about -- A lot ~ 10 A No, because it wouldn't have made any difference 10 of things may have happened. If you can tell me

11 to me. I know I didn't ask that. 11 for sure that it ever happened before, I'd like ~

12 Q Well, how did you feel about the fact that 12 you to tell me that, rather than speculate about ~

13 Madison-Kipp was going to the Governor's Office 13 possibilities. ~ ~

14 complaining, evidently, about things you were 14 A I cannot recall a specific incident where it's ~ 15 insisting that it do? 15 happened. 1

16 A You take it in stride. It wasn't something that 16 Q How long have you been with the Department?

17 I really thought a whole lot about. 17 Since '88, right?

I 18 Q Okay. You told me earlier you had never had 18 A I started in '82.

19 contact with Mr. Taffora. That's the gentleman 19 Q We're coming up on 30 years?

20 that wrote this email, Schmoller 16. You told me 20 A Yes.

21 that, right, you never had contact with him, 21 Q So as far as you can recall today, Madison-Kipp ~

22 correct? 22 is the first time where a company went to the

23 A I don't recognize the name or the person. 23 Governor's Office complaining about decisions you

24 Q I was going to ask you you don't even recognize 24 were making on an investigation and cleanup site,

25 the name whether he was somebody formerly 25 is that right?


43 (Pages 166 to 169)

(414) 271-4466



Page 170 Page 172 1 1 MR. BUSCH: Object to the form of the 1 Q Okay. And who is Jeffrey Carroll, please? .,

2 question. Go ahead and answer, if you can. 2 A He works in Personnel, Employee Assistance.

3 THE WITNESS: In terms of specific 3 Q Okay. So among other things in this email you

4 instances I recall, this is the only one that I 4 are telling these folks, this is the first

5 can recall. I can't say this is the first time, 5 paragraph now, "However, for me, there is now a

6 because it may have happened and I just don't 6 bad stress with the job. It comes from the lack

7 remember. 7 of confidence in my methods and requirements

8 BY MR. COLLINS: 8 shown by administration, the guys who on our

9 Q Okay. Well, if you can recall any other specific 9 sidelines."

10 instances, please tell me. 10 Then the next paragraph down there's

11 A Okay. 11 another sentence which says, "!, too, would like

12 Q Can you? 12 to see more getting done. So it seems that I may

13 A Not right now, no. 13 not be the best person to fulfill the

14 Q So as of today, that's the only one you can 14 Department's expectations." Do you see that?

15 recall in 30 years working at DNR? 15 A Um-hum.

16 A Yes. 16 Q And then you go on in the last paragraph to say,

17 Q Okay. Let's look at Schmoller 17, please. 17 "! completely understand if Administration wishes

18 Schmoller 17 is an email which I believe you 18 to make some assignment changes." Okay. What

19 wrote, but I'm going to ask you that in a second, 19 are you talking about there, Mr. Schmoller? Why

20 and sent to various folks on November 23, 2011. 20 did you write this email with specific reference

21 The subject is a couple of sites, one of them 21 to Kipp?

22 being Kipp. First of all, is this something you 22 A Okay. At that time-- Well, the email-- you

23 wrote? 23 know, the email relates both to Kipp and

24 A Yes. 24 Hechimovich.

25 Q Okay. So Mike is you, is that right? 25 Q Yes, it says that.

Page 171 Page 173

1 A Yes, I wrote this. 1 A There was -- I had a lot of problems with how the

2 Q Okay. Okay. Now you told me before-- So I'm 2 agency was dealing with the Hechimovich site, and

3 looking at who you wrote it to now, and you have 3 actually I no longer project manage that site.

4 previously identified Mr. Giesfeldt and 4 But at the Kipp site I was -- I'm trying to

5 Ms. Hanefeld. 5 remember. This was at the time when we were

6 A Yes. 6 talking a lot about off-site vapor issues, where

7 Q Okay. So let me ask you who the other folks are 7 to sample, who to sample, should the agency be

8 then, please. Who is Suzanne Bangert? 8 out sampling. Towards the end of2011 there was '

9 A Suzanne Bangert is the Assistant Division 9 a lot of frustration on my part at the pace at

10 Administrator for Environmental Standards. 10 which work was being done, and one of the tasks

11 Q So she assists who? 11 that I thought needed to get done a lot faster

12 A She would be -- She would report directly to Pat 12 than was getting done was sampling in sub-slabs

13 Stevens. 13 of people's homes for vapor. We had indications

14 Q Okay. And Eileen Pierce? 14 that we had off-site problems, and, you know, we

15 A At that time Eileen Pierce was the -- I think 15 are dealing PCE, a carcinogen, and all that sort

16 they call them media heads or whatever. But in 16 of thing. Things weren't getting done. I didn't

17 the South Central Region she would have been the 17 think I was getting the support from the

18 supervisor overseeing the Solid Waste, Air 18 administration. We had talked about setting,

19 Remediation and Redevelopment Programs. She 19 okay, we're going to set an absolute deadline.

20 would have been Linda Hanefeld's immediate 20 You have got this date to get this work done, and

21 supervisor in the region. 21 if you don't do it, we're going to do it sort of

22 Q Okay. And who is Mark Gordon, please? 22 thing. Well, there were -- that wasn't

23 A Mark Gordon is a Section Chief in the Remediation 23 happening.

24 and Redevelopment Program in the Central Office 24 So things were getting drawn out and

25 downtown. He reports to Mark Giesfeldt. 25 drawn out and drawn out. So I just said, "This

44 (Pages 170 to 173)




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 174

is crazy. We have got to make a decision. We

need to get these samples collected. They are

not getting collected." That's when I had made a

strong pitch for screw it, let's just us, the

agency, go out and take these samples so we can

get it done and we will cost recover later.

There was a lot of internal resistance.

Let's give Kipp one more chance to get this done.

There was a couple of tense meetings in December

of 2011 that we had with Kipp. They weren't very

productive; they weren't very satisfYing. So I

was making the argument give me some money so I

can go out and do it. There was a lot of

pressure from the citizens. They are calling up

and saying, "What are you doing. You know

there's vapor here, why aren't you sampling. You

know there's stuff in my backyard, why aren't you

digging it up," etcetera, etcetera.

So this email and that was kind of a --

it was one of those culmination emails in that

there -- It was in November. It was, hey, I just

can't deal with this anymore. If administration

wants to be involved with the site, then

administration has to make timely decisions on

the site. This vapor stuff just wasn't getting

Page 175

decided.

I wrote this in November. We didn't get

our contract with our consultant to do the work

until sometime in the 2012. So even after this

memo there was still a several month lag period

in there of getting things done and that. So

this was just a frustration on my part of, hey,

look, I know my job, let me do it. That's what

it was.

Q So it's fair to say then at some point before you

wrote this email on November 23rd of 2011 you

became dissatisfied with the progress in testing

for vapor contamination at the homes immediately

adjacent to Madison-Kipp, correct?

A Yes.

Q All right. You wanted to see it go faster,

right?

A I thought we had an obligation to start providing

the homeowners with information on a more timely

basis.

Q So I assume then one of the things you did before

November 23rd of 2011 was you went to

Madison-Kipp and you said, "I want you guys to do

this testing because I think it's important,"

essentially, is that true? Did you say that to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A

Q A


Page 176 f Madison-Kipp?

There were meetings along those lines where we

expressed what we wanted done, yes.

So what did Madison-Kipp say?

There was not an immediate response. There was a

long time, and I'm trying to remember the exact

time frames, but we identified a number of homes

where we wanted vapor testing done, and we wanted

it done by an X date. Well, that date had come

and gone and the access agreements hadn't even

been formalized yet, you know, so there was a

period of time for that. It took a long time to

get access. Then it took a long time to do the

sampling. I mean, we were months beyond the

dates that we wanted to get things done. Some of

this occurs after November and that, but leading

up to that there was just-- I can't remember

exactly what happened before November, this

November date, and what happened after, but there

was just a pace of events and the pressure from

the -- There was a lot of pressure from citizens

at that time to get things done.

' ~ ~

I

Q Well, what I'm wondering specifically, not with

regard to Madison-Kipp, the company, and its

representatives, whether their lawyers or

Page 177

consultants, whatever, did you ask Madison-Kipp

in 2011 to do testing for vapor or more testing

for vapor in the residential area and

Madison-Kipp told you either no or that it didn't

want to do it as quickly as you wanted it done?

A I think it was a little bit of both, no and if we

Q A

Q

A

are going to do it, it isn't going to happen as •

quick as you want it. If I remember right, we !l sampled the vapor in four or five homes, four or ~

~

five of the homes that were directly adjacent to '

Madison-Kipp and put vapor probes in the yards, ~

one to the north and one to the south of those ~

homes, and those vapor probes came back with very ~ low detects. I think there was a conclusion ~

reached on Kipp's part that, well, that's the ~

extent of the vapor problem. We didn't think I that was the case. ~

' ! You didn't agree with Madison-Kipp? ~

Correct.

Okay.

So I think there were technical disagreements

over how big of a vapor issue there was out

there, and I think that led to disagreements over

what work needed to be done and it led to

disagreements over the timeline over which that

, " ~ re

~


45 (Pages 174 to 177)

(414) 271-4466



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

Page 178

work would have occurred. 1

Q Okay. So when Madison-Kipp took that position, 2

you said, "I'm going to tiy to find the money 3

within the Department and we will just do this 4

ourselves." Is that essentially correct? 5

A Right. When I reached the conclusion, I just 6

said, "Look, it isn't happening and so we just 7

need to go do it." I think we originally -- I 8

think I originally made that proposal in December 9

of2011, January of2012. Somewhere in there I 10

made the proposal that we do that. There was 11

some other meetings, both internally and with 12

Kipp, and things got a little delayed. Again, I 13

don't think we signed that contract until almost

spring.

Q Well, if we look back at your email here,

Schmoller No. 17, this is, obviously, before

December of 2011?

A Right.

Q And you are talking about a bad stress on the job

and a lack of confidence, I'm not quoting now,

but what I take from it is a lack of confidence

that your superiors have in the way that you want

to do things. Am I essentially correct?

A Yes.

Page 179

Q All right. Well, what is the administration

saying to you in 2011 regarding Kipp that causes

you to have a bad stress and to offer to resign?

MR. COHEN: Objection to the extent it

mischaracterizes the exhibit.

MR. BUSCH: Join.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7 THE WITNESS: Well, yes, I guess I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

8 wasn't going to resign. I wanted to get off the

9 sites.

10 BY MR. COLLINS:

11 Q Well, resign your position with oversight on

12 Kipp.

13 A As project manager, yes.

14 Q Okay.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A I think in the summer months of 2011 we were

negotiating a Scope of Work, which was kind of a 16

long and kind of a tedious process. As we got 17

into the fall, again, this just wasn't -- there 18

wasn't progress being made at the site. My 19

thinking at that time, as I can recall it, was at 20

the project manager level there's only so much 21

influence you can wield, and at some point a 22

division administrator or somebody up the ladder 23

needs to say, ''Yes, this is the Department's 24

position, this is what we want," and I wasn't 25

46 (Pages 178 to 181)


Page 180 i) ~

getting that. I was getting more questions than

I was getting support, and I think, as you can

read from the email, there were other things

going on, but I think I just reached the point

where I said, you lmow what, if you don't think I

can do this, you lmow, I don't want to be the guy

in the way. Find somebody who's more than happy

to let somebody else control the site, because I

hate that as a project manager. You can assign

it to somebody who would be more than happy to

let it dog along. If that's what administration

wants, fine. That was my feeling at the time

that I wrote this memo.

Q So you were feeling when you wrote the memo that

the administration just wanted the Madison-Kipp

site investigation, including the off-site

investigation, to just "dog along," to use your

term?

A That was my interpretation. That was my feeling

at the time.

Q What were you hearing from administration that

made you think that?

A Maybe not so much hearing things as delays in

making decisions or supporting decisions I was

making. I think more than anything else as it

Page 181

related -- I think as it related a lot to vapor

at that time. I think there was -- there was a

lot of questioning of why are you asking for

this, why do you need this, is this really

important. I think there wss some stuff-- there

may have been some stuff related to deep

groundwater at that time and that, but --

Q Who was asking you those questions? Who in

administration was asking you those questions

about whether, you know, this vapor testing that

you want to do at these family homes was

necessary?

A I think it would have come to me through the

Bureau Director level. Now whether there were

concerns above him expressed to him that he was

relaying, I can't answer.

Q Are you talking about Giesfeldt?

A Yes.

Q Did he tell you this? Did he ask you these

questions, why is this necessary?

A Yes, at that point in time there was a lot of why

are you doing this. Why do you need this. It

was always are you sure, are you sure, you know,

and it's just like, you lmow, at that point in my

life right then and there I just said screw this.

i 1i ~




1

2

3

4

5

6

Page 182

Q Look, I understand that. Now what I'm wondering

is what did you think was really going on. Why

were you getting that resistance to your mind?

MR. BUSCH: Object to the form.

THE WITNESS: I don't know if I have an

answer for that. I guess maybe that was part of

7 the frustration, because to me it was so obvious.

8 I guess I don't know why people were hesitant to

9 ask for the things that I was pushing for.

10 BY MR. COLLINS:

Q Well, these aren't stupid people, right?

A No.

Q Giesfeldt, others, Hanefeld, they are not stupid

people, right?

A Right.

Q They are pretty smart, capable people, right?

A Yes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Page 184

testing in and among these families' homes?

A No, no, because I think once the contract got in

place, the pace of that work we were in control

of. Actually, the pace of the work around some

of the other areas in terms of soil and

groundwater has gone more smoothly in the last,

you know, several months, number of months, so I

probably have not given that issue a whole lot of

thought, no.

MS. ROSS: When you get a chance, can we

take a break?

MR. COLLINS: I'm sony. How about

13 right now.

14 MS. ROSS: That would be great.


16 BY MR. COLLINS:

17

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q So you must have come to some conclusion in your 18

Q Do you know when the potential for vapor

migration from the Madison-Kipp site into the

residential areas should have been seriously

considered?

own mind about why you were getting all these 19

questions and this resistance, didn't you? 20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

A At that stage at that point I'm not sure I was

thinking through it that far, to be honest. It

was more, look, you guys aren't letting me do

what I want to do, I don't need it. I'm not sure

I took the analysis any further than that.

Page 183

Q Okay. Well, you did hear at some point, because

you just told me so, you heard from either

Hanefeld or Giesfeldt that Madison-Kipp had gone

to the Governor's Office complaining about

something that DNR wanted it to do, right?

A Yes.

Q Well, did you connect the dots at all? When you

heard that, did it make you think that maybe some

political pressure is being brought to bear in

Madison-Kipp's favor, and that's why this thing

isn't moving along as quickly as it should?

that.

MS. ROSS: Object to the form.

MR. COLLINS: I'm asking if you thought

MR. BUSCH: I'll join in the objection.

THE WITNESS: I don't remember making

17 that connection that defmitively as you are

18 asking. Obviously, at that point in time it

19 probably crossed through my mind, but, no, I

20 didn't think of it in that regards, no.

21 BY MR. COLLINS:

22 Q Well, how about at any time? How about since up

23 through today? Did you ever try to determine

24

25

what it was that was accounting for the

resistance that you were getting to the vapor

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

A There were vapor probes placed on the east side

of the site near Monitoring Well Nest 5, and

those probes came up with some significant

readings in them. That would have been somewhere

in the early to mid 2000s. It was 2005,

Page 185

possibly. I can't remember the exact date when

the first data from those were generated.

Q Let me give you --

A Do you have the table?

Q Yes.

A I can picture the table, but I can't picture the

7 dates.

8 MR. COLLINS: Okay. We will see if we

9 are talking about the same table.


11 BY MR. COLLINS:

12 Q So this is Schmoller 18, and this is Table 3,

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Soil Vapor Analyses. Do you see that,

Mr. Schmoller?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Is this the table you were thinking of?

A Yes.

Q Okay. So what this shows is for three

parameters, the middle one of which is PCE, true?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Testing done for vapor at various

locations at various times. Yes?

A Yes.

Q Okay. The initial testing, at least according to

this exhibit, Schmoller 18, was in February of


4 7 (Pages 182 to 185)

(414) 271-4466



Page 186 Page 188 ~

I 1 '05, correct? 1 homes, and then wherever it leads you from there. ij

2 A Yes. 2 Q So, for example, if we look at the PCE parameter, i 3 Q Okay. And then ran out to September of '09, and 3 the tetrachloroethylene, in September of-- I 4 that's the last test results shown on this 4 Excuse me. In 2008 you see numbers in the triple

5 exhibit. Can you tell us, if we go across the 5 digits and a couple even over 1,000 parts per

6 top from left to right, can you tell us where the 6 billion by volume, right?

7 probe locations are? There are, I think, nine 7 A Yes.

8 probe locations indicated across the top. So 8 Q And that's in somebody's yard, correct?

9 starting with VP-1N, please. 9 A Correct.

10 A VP-1N and 2N and VP-1S and 2S are nested next to 10 Q Okay. And if you look at the vapor probes, 1N,

11 each other. The N wells are in one location, the 11 2N, 1S, 2S, those are on Madison-Kipp's property,

12 S wells are in another location right along the 12 but very near the boundary line between

13 eastern property line of Madison-Kipp near 13 Madison-Kipp's property and these homes, correct?

14 Monitoring Well 5, I think just a little south of 14 A Correct.

15 Monitoring Well 5. The vapor probes, the 1 and 15 Q Now how far away would you say? How far are the

16 2, represent different depths of monitoring in 16 vapor probes 1N, 2N, lS, 2S, how far away are

17 the soil. 17 they from somebody's yard?

18 Q Okay. 18 A Oh, within a few feet.

19 A And they would represent vapor concentrations on 19 Q By "a few feet" you mean 5, 10?

20 the Kipp property near the property line between 20 A Five to 10. There's a fence line, and they are

21 Madison-Kipp and the residences directly to the 21 right up against the fence line.

22 east. The 150 Sand D, the 154 Sand D and the 22 Q From 2005 to 2009, we're looking at just PCE now,

23 162 S and D are residential addresses. 23 a few feet away from people's homes you have

24 Q Yes. 24 vapor concentrations, PCE vapor concentrations,

25 A 150 South Marquette Street, 154 South Marquette 25 in the tens of thousands of parts per billion by

Page 187 Page 189

1 Street and 162 South Marquette Street. These 1 volume, correct?

2 would be probes in the backyards of those 2 A Correct.

3 residences again adjacent to Monitoring Well Nest 3 Q I mean, just, you know, you have got one at

4 5. You can see, you know, there's on-site 4 almost 52,000 parts per billion by volume in

5 sampling from '05 to '07 or '06, and then the 5 February of '05 PCE at vapor probe 1S, correct?

6 off-site wells were put in place. The detection 6 A Correct.

7 levels for the first year or so were pretty high, 7 Q Just a few feet away from a house, right?

8 so you really couldn't seeing anything, less than 8 A A few feet away from the property line.

9 250, and some of those are some pretty high 9 Q Pardon me. Excuse me. Yes, from the property

10 detection levels. But as soon as there was some 10 line. Okay. All right. So now isn't it true

11 refinement either in the sampling or the lab 11 that this data, these test results we see on

12 technique, I'm not sure which at that point, we 12 Schmoller 18, was among the data that you saw

13 got lower detection levels, and then you were 13 that made you say, "We need to get out and test

14 able to see concentrations showing up in the 14 some sub-slabs in this neighborhood?"

15 vapor probes actually in the yards. These would 15 A Yes, these table results were something I was

16 be in the backyards of those three residences 16 looking at at the time.

17 which would put them within, you know, 20, 17 Q Okay. So now all these data were -- By the wey,

18 25 feet or so of the house, roughly. 18 who generated this chart? It's Schmoller 18,

19 Q Okay. 19 this table.

20 A And so looking at that data, that would indicate 20 A This would have been done by Kipp's contractor

21 to you, particularly for the tetrachloroethylene 21 who at that time I believe was Bob Nauta.

22 results for the residential properties, looking 22 (Exhibit 19 was marked.)

23 at data tells you that there's high enough 23 BY MR. COLLINS:

24 concentrations being seen in those probes to 24 Q All right. So Schmoller 19 is a February 11,

25 warrant sub-slab sampling underneath those three 25 20091etter from Mr. Nauta, who you just

48 (Pages 186 to 189)




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Page 190

mentioned, to your predecessor at the Department,

Mr. Tsoris, correct? Dino, right?

A Yes.

Q So it's written in February of 2009, and if we go

back to Schmoller 18, which is the chart with the

data on it, the test results generated in the

couple of quarters before February of '09, if we

look at PCE, included results-- Well, there's

one 1,900 parts per billion by volume, there's an

1, 100 parts per billion by volume and several in

the triple digits of parts per billion by volume

at the homes, right? I mean, on these families'

properties, right?

A Yes.

Q Okay. So if we could turn to the Schmoller 19

now, we're back to Mr. Nauta's letter to your

predecessor, the second to the last page. It's

Page 4 of the letter. Under the Conclusions and

Recommendations it says, "Due to low VOC

detection levels in off-site soil vapor wells,

RSV -- that's Mr. Nauta's company -- recommends

no further sampling and proper abandonment of

these wells. However, RSV recommends continued

monitoring of on-site soil vapor wells for

potential changes in VOC concentration trends."

Page 191

Do you see that conclusion and recommendation?

A Yes.

Q Now I realize this is a year before your time,

but you would have disagreed with that, correct?

A Yes, I would have.

Q Do you see anything about the data in Schmoller

18 that supports that recommendation that

Mr. Nauta is making on behalf of MKC in February

of2009?

A It's hard-- You know, it's hard for me to kind

of think about what Bob was thinking at that

point. Why he made the conclusion he did, I

13 can't answer. I guess I don't know.


15 BY MR. COLLINS:

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q You have Schmoller 20 there, right?

A Yes.

Q And now this is a February 3, 2010 letter from

Nauta to you, right?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Pretty early in your tenure, right?

A Yes.

Q Okay. So if we go to the second to the last

page, it's the Summary and Recommendations.

There's a portion of that on the latter half of

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


Page 192 ~

that page I want to direct your attention to. In '•

fact, the last paragraph on that page. One of

the sentences reads, "Because of the historical

soil vapor analyses, we recommend a reduction in

sampling. Based on the history of the

residential locations, we recommend that sampling

at those locations be discontinued and the probes

removed." Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So Mr. Nauta was recommending to you that the

Department and Kipp shut down any further vapor

investigation in the neighborhood, right? I A That's what his recommendation there is, I think, ~

Q yes. ~

And subsequent to this for the homes on Waubesa 11

and South Marquette immediately adjacent to the

plant, isn't it true that PCE vapor has been

found at every home tested?

A Yes, most every home on South Marquette and

Waubesa Street whose property is adjacent to Kipp

that we have tested, yes. I don't think there's

been any non-detects. I think all of them had

either in the sub-slab or indoor air or both on

properties adjacent to Kipp that were sampled.

Q Okay. So I gather you told-- I gather you told

Page 193

Mr. Nauta that you didn't agree, right?

A Yes.

Q Y au wanted to keep going, right?

A This would have been early in our discussions,

but, yes, that's the point where we were starting

to have disagreements over which path the site

needed to take.

(Exhibit 21 was marked.)

BY MR. COLLINS:

Q Okay. Do you have 21 in front of you?

A Yes.

Q Okay. I want to -- It's a one-pager. It's some

emails. The one I want to direct you to is kind

of the one in the middle there. It's from

yourself to Theresa Evanson, a copy to Eileen

Pierce.

A Urn-hum.

Q It's dated August 13, 2010. "On Friday morning I

met with Mark Meunier of Kipp and Bob Nauta,

their consultant, about possible air issues at

homes adjacent to the Kipp east property

boundary. There are three homes of concern based

on current soil probe data. We have been

discussing this issue with Kipp for several

months now. At the meeting we agreed to move


49 (Pages 190 to 193)

(414) 271-4466



Page 194 Page 196 m

1 f01ward with sub-slab sampling units in all three 1 disagreement over what the data was telling us, I I 2 homes in question. Two samples will be collected 2 and lacking an enforcement tool to set dates or •

3 from each probe over a 60-day time period. Based 3 whatever, you can see the time period it took to ~ 4 on the analytical results, we will decide what 4 get the work done.

5 the next action should be. Kipp is hesitant to 5 Q You believed you were dealing with a potential

6 move forward with this work. They wanted an 6 public health issue here, right?

7 extended time frame to do the work. I said no,'" 7 A Yes.

8 and then it goes on. So is it fair to say, at 8 (Exhibit 22 was marked.)

9 this time we're in August of 2010, you have seen 9 BY MR. COLLINS:

10 the vapor results literally on the properties of 10 Q Do you have 22, Mr. Schmoller?

11 a few of these homes on South Marquette Street 11 A Yes.

12 and also on Kipp property immediately adjacent to 12 Q Twenty-two is an email from Nauta to you and also

13 those homes, and you are concerned about vapor 13 Mr. Meunier at Madison-Kipp. Do you see that?

14 migration actually getting to these homes, 14 A Yes.

15 correct? 15 Q All right. And the subject is soil gas.

16 A Correct. 16 Mr. Nauta says, on June 15th of 2011, "!think we

17 Q And you want sub-slab testing, right? 17 have pretty well defined the northern and

18 A Yes. 18 southern extents of the soil vapors. The

19 Q And you have been talking -- Come August 13, you 19 detection level is .1 ppb. 202 South Marquette

20 and your folks at DNR have been discussing that 20 came in at .3 ppb of PCE, and 142 came in at 1.8

21 issue with Kipp and advising Kipp of your view of 21 ppb. Tricholoroethane and the various forms of

22 things for several months, correct? 22 dichloroethene were all non-detect at both

23 A Yes. 23 locations." Do you see that?

24 Q And isn't it fair to say that Kipp was resisting 24 A Yes.

25 doing that testing? 25 Q Okay. The conclusion expressed there by

Page 195 Page 197

1 A Yes, there were some delays going on there. 1 Mr. Nauta, that is, that we have pretty well

2 Q Why were they resisting? At least what were they 2 defined the northern and southern extent of the

3 saying? What were they offering as a reason for 3 soil vapors, that was inaccurate, wasn't it?

4 their resistance? 4 A Correct, yes.

5 A As I recall -- I'm not -- Their argument back, as 5 Q Because, in fact, the PCE vapor was found in the

6 I recall it, was that they were not convinced 6 same residential area both north and south of

7 that we were going to be finding -- the data that 7 where he said the northern and southern extent

8 existed convinced them that, one, we would find 8 were, correct?

9 concentrations under the sub-slab on that. I 9 A Correct.

10 think they disagreed with our interpretation of 10 Q Okay. Did you-- Well, you've had extensive

11 the data in terms of what it meant for possible 11 dealings with Mr. Nauta. In fact, you still do,

12 sub-slab data. Then they also -- there's also, 12 correct?

13 if you look in our -- in the guidance or 13 A Yes.

14 somewhere along the line there was always this 14 Q Okay. Did you ever come to not trust his

15 discussion of kind of 100 feet being a rule of 15 conclusions and recommendations about vapor

16 thumb for vapor migration for chlorinated&. 16 contamination and how far it might have gotten

17 Q 100 feet from where? 17 and where it might be found?

18 A From a source area. I know that was pointed out 18 A I disagreed with his conclusions. I don't

19 a couple times saying, "Look, you know, we're 19 think -- Distrust is not a good word on that. I

20 pushing that limit, and, you know, we just don't 20 think disagree is probably better.

21 think you are going to find it there, so why do 21 (Exhibit 23 was marked.)

22 we need to do it." Our position was, "Geez, the 22 BY MR. COLLINS:

23 data looks to us like there could be something 23 Q Do you have 23 there, Mr. Schmoller?

24 going on, so you need to do it." So there was 24 A Yes.

25 like I guess I would say a professional 25 Q Okay. The larger email is one that you write to

50 (Pages 194 to 197)




Page 198 Page 200 ~,

1 John Hausbeck, Henry Nehls-Lowe, Theresa Evanson 1 A Right. ~ 2 and some other folks, Jessica Maloney and Brynn 2 Q Okay. You would not have said in the middle of ~ 3 Bemis. Its subject is confirmation soil samples 3 2011 that the extent of the soil vapor impacts in ~

4 at 150, 154 and 162 South Marquette, right? 4 the residential area had been defmed to that 1 5 A Yes. 5 point, correct?

6 Q Now those homes, 150, 154 and 162, are homes that 6 A Yes, I think in June of2011 my thinking was

7 were -- that show up on Schmoller 18, right? 7 probably that we had a bigger problem than those

8 A Yes. 8 number of homes.

I 9 Q Okay. So you say, "!just spoke with Bob. He 9 (Exhibit 24 was marked.)

10 verbally gave me the following PCE soil results 10 BY MR. COLLINS:

11 for the confirmation samples taken in the 11 Q So this is another letter from Mr. Nauta to you. :

12 backyards of these three residences. Remember, 12 This one is dated July 19th of 2011. On the

13 these soils were treated in 2005 when the soils 13 third page we have got his conclusions.

14 along the east side of the building near Well 14 Mr. Nauta is saying to you, "The extent of soil

15 Nest 5 were treated by chemical oxidation. All 15 vapor impacts appears to be defmed to the north

16 of the samples were collected June 7 from a 1 to 16 and south of the properties on the west side of

17 2 foot depth in the locations near the previous 17 South Marquette Street. Radon systems have been ~

18 November 2002 soil sampling." Now are we -- 18 installed in the basements of five properties

19 We're talking here about soil contamination, 19 removing PCE vapors from beneath the basement and

20 right? 20 discharging them to the atmosphere." Do you see '

21 A Correct. 21 that?

22 Q Okay. Do you know why there was a six-year lag, 22 A Yes.

23 a six-year passage of time between the 2005 23 Q All right. So Mr. Nauta's conclusion expressed

24 treatment of the soils and this testing that you 24 in the letter that the extent of soil vapor

25 are describing in this email? 25 impacts appears to be defined to the north and

Page 199 Page 201 ~ ~

1 A I can't speak specifically to that, being the 1 south of the properties on the west side of South I 2 project manager, so why there were no 2 Marquette Street was inaccurate at the time he

3 confirmation samples collected after the 3 expressed it, correct? l

4 treatment, because there were confirmation 4 A Yes, we would not have agreed to that.

5 samples, post-treatment samples, collected on 5 Q Okay. And you didn't, right?

6 site. Why there were none collected off site, 6 A Right.

7 I'm not sure. 7 Q In fact, in the last sentence of the letter says, '

8 Q Okay. Is it fair to say that by the time you are 8 "No further soil sampling or remediation is

9 writing this email, which is, you know, the 9 anticipated at this time." Do you see that? ~ r, 10 middle of 2011, that from the evidence you were 10 A Yes.

I 11 seeing, from the data you were seeing, you were 11 Q And you didn't agree with that at that time,

12 concerned that you had a significantly more 12 either, did you? ~ ~

13 extensive vapor contamination problem than had 13 A No, we would have been looking for more. 1' •'

14 been previously discussed and addressed? Is that 14 (Exhibit 25 was marked.) ~;

i 15 true? 15 BY MR. COLLINS: ~

16 A Vapor problem? 16 Q 1\venty-five is a document entitled, "Kipp Ideas." ~ 17 Q Yes. Weren't-- 17 Do you see that? ~

18 A I'm sure by that time I was convinced that the 18 A Yes. ~ 19 vapor problem was bigger than those three to five 19 Q Do you know who wrote that?

20 homes directly adjacent to it. In June of 2011 20 A I did.

21 what I exactly had envisioned of it, I'm not 21 Q Okay. And there's no date on it. We did get it ~ 22 sure. 22 from the DNR documents, just so you know, but do i 23 Q Okay. So this is one of the reasons why you keep 23 you know when you wrote it or what prompted you

24 testing until you run out of vapor, right, to 24 to write it? ' 25 fmd out how far its gone? Is that correct? 25 A I do things like this to kind of just pull my own

~ !i


51 (Pages 198 to 201)

(414) 271-4466


Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneidervs. Madison-Kipp 9/11/12 Deposition ofR. Michael Schmoller

Page 202 Page204 ~ ~

~ 1 ideas together, and I will type them up and then 1 A Yes. I ~ 2 I will save them on my computer and I will go 2 Q And then you go on to say, "Need to defme extent

3 back and look at them periodically, because when 3 of problem, remediate to the extent practical and

4 you have a site like this, there's lots of moving 4 deal with health issues, environment and health

5 parts and I do this a lot just to kind of keep on 5 requirements." You are talking with specific

6 topic. 6 reference to the vapor contamination there,

7 Q Okay. So among the things you say in the Kipp 7 right?

8 Idea document is vapor results indicate new, 8 A Yes.

9 larger problem. After earlier tests thought we 9 Q And you are concerned about how far into the

10 had seen limit of vapor problem. June email. 10 residential area it may have spread, right?

11 Not true. Northern most results seem to indicate 11 A You know, how far has it spread and also I was--

12 a separate source, maybe part of old sewer line 12 my fear was that we didn't want to get into the

13 issue. These are not really new requests. Goes 13 decision making where we relied on mitigation

14 back to our earlier requests for a perimeter soil 14 alone, that we wanted to remediate the source of

15 gas survey. Do you see that? 15 the problem. As an agency we have two

16 A Yes. 16 responsibilities, public health protection and

17 Q Do you see the reference there to "maybe part of 17 restore the environment. So that note to me is

18 old sewer line issue?" 18 to keep pounding it in my head that we just can't

19 A Yes. 19 put 100 mitigation systems around Kipp and say we

20 Q When we talked a couple of hours ago, I think 20 did the job. That's what that is all about.

21 your testimony was essentially you have no plans 21 Q Okay. Because the 100 mitigation systems are, so

22 to pursue the possibility that this sewer line is 22 to speak, treating the symptoms and not getting

23 a conduit for contamination, right? 23 at the -- what's causing it, right?

24 A Correct. 24 A Contamination avoidance as opposed to

25 Q So did you change your mind since you wrote this? 25 remediation.

Page 203 Page 205

1 A No. What this-- You know, our earlier 1 Q Okay. A reference in the frrst paragraph is made

2 discussions were focused a lot like on sewers 2 to a perimeter soil gas survey. Do you see that?

3 under Waubesa Street, Fairview, Marquette or 3 A Yes.

4 wherever. This sewer line is the one that runs 4 Q That was never done, was it?

5 east/west on the Kipp property along the north 5 A No, we had asked for it and it was denied and not

6 end of the property there, and this one was 6 done.

7 identified early on in some of the earlier 7 Q Denied by whom?

8 reports where contamination may have gotten into 8 A Kipp.

9 that sewer and discharged towards the northeast 9 Q Okay. Did they tell you why?

10 end of the Kipp property. The vapor results that 10 A Bob had made the argument that he didn't think it

11 indicate a new, larger problem, those are vapor 11 was -- it was cost effective or worthwhile to do,

12 results from right where the sewer line 12 and the thinking, as was expressed to us, was

13 discharged in that area. So we were getting some 13 that the vapor issue just didn't warrant that

14 real high vapor readings up there on some probes 14 level of investigation.

15 on the Kipp property, and so there was some 15 Q Okay. You believe even today that it did, right?

16 thought that this sewer line, because there was 16 A Yes, I think if we had done that back then, we

17 some real high soil readings along that sewer 17 might have been further ahead.

18 line, also, and so that's what that one is about. 18 Q Okay. Do you !mow when the Department began to

19 So this line kind of falls in a little different 19 be concerned about the possibility of vapor

20 category than some of the municipal lines that 20 migration from the Madison-Kipp site to off-site

21 we're talking about off site. 21 locations?

22 Q Okay. About two-thirds of the way down this 22 A It would have been -- Let me get my dates all

23 document you see there's a paragraph that begins, 23 straight. You know, when I first got the site it

24 "Mitigation alone is not acceptable." Do you see 24 took me several months to get up to speed, so the

25 that? 25 earliest it would have been would have been mid

52 (Pages 202 to 205)




1

2

3

4

5

6

Page 206

to latter part of 2010, maybe into 2011,

somewhere in there when I started looking at the

data and having conversations with Terry Evanson

and Henry Nehls·Lowe saying, "Does this on-site

vapor data and these vapor probes in the

backyards indicate a big enough problem that we

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 should be doing sub-slab sampling," and their 7

8 answer at that time was yes, so it was at the 8

9 time those discussions were taking place. 9

10 Q Do you !mow if concem for the potential for 10

11 vapor migration off the Madison-Kipp site 11

12 predated your involvement at the site? 12

13 A I don't know. 13

14 (Exhibit 26 was marked.) 14


16 Q Okay. So Schmoller 26 is a memorandum which your 16

17 predecessor, Mr. Tsoris, wrote to the file dated 17

18 August 25, 2004. He's describing a communication 18

19 he had with Mr. Nauta. In the second paragraph 19

20 he says, "I stated that the proposed remedial 20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A

Q

A

Q

action activities need to move forward in a

timely manner. In particular, the soil vapor

probes need to be installed to evaluate the

potential for vapor migration. Robert Nauta

stated that he's planning to contact Madison-Kipp

Page 207

and he will call me with an update. I stated

that if I do not hear from him or representatives

of Madison-Kipp, I would send a letter to the

company referencing the delay in responding to

the necessary remedial actions." Do you see

that?

Yes.

Okay. So you believe from reading this here that

Mr. Tsoris is concemed about the possibility for

off-site vapor migration, right?

Yes.

Now if we go back to Schmoller 18 for just a

second, that's the table with the data on it. Do

you see that?

A Yes.

Q All right. Now that data generation starts in

February of '05, which is about half-a-year after

Mr. Tsoris writes this memo, correct?

A Yes.

Q All right. You can see again, if we just look at

PCE in February of '05 and the results generated

on the company's site, there's 51,800 parts per

billion by volume PCE, right?

A Yes.

Q Now you would say that clearly creates a concem,

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A

Q


Page 208 i ~ especially since the result is generated five

feet or so from a family's yard, that that result

validates a concem for the potential for vapor

migration, right?

Yes, I would say that.

All right. How quickly after those numbers were

generated in testing a few feet from people's

homes in February of '05 should someone have been

testing the sub-slabs of those homes just a few

~

I ~

feet further away? ,.

A Based on today's understanding of vapor issues, ~ that would happen within a period of, you know, a ~

few weeks to a couple months type of thing. ~

Whatever it would take to get -- to meet with the ~

RP, arrange for their contractor to get access t and connect the samples and that. In February of ~

'051 don't know what the thought process would ~ have been. I don't know, whether it would be ~ Dino and the other people within the agency, what .~ their understanding of vapor issues and migration ~ and risks, you know, seven years ago I don't know

what our level of understanding was at that

point. In today's time we would be out there in

a couple months looking at the sub-slab.

Q Okay. By the way, had you ever seen Mr. Tsoris'

Page 209

memo, Schmoller 26, before today?

Probably in reviewing the file when I got it I A ~ probably saw it. Did I read it in detail, ~ ~ probably not, just given the size of it. Usually ~ when you get a file you focus more on the reports ~ than the memos. ~~

Q

A

Does reading this memo and your testimony to this

point in the deposition today refresh your

recollection as to whether you have ever spoken

to Mr. Tsoris about the possibility of vapor

migration from the Madison-Kipp site?

Again, yes, I don't recall any specific

discussions with Dlno during the transition

period. So, no, I don't remember any.

Q One of the things earlier you mentioned that you

did when you first came on the Madison-Kipp site

in February of 2010 is you reviewed the file. I

think you said it took a little while, right?

A Yes, that's standard. You try to do that.

Q It's a big file, but is it fair to say, based on

your review of the file to things that happened

prior to February of 2010 and then things that

happened since, based on your immediate and

direct experience with Madison-Kipp, that there

is a history at this site of Madison-Kipp

I ~ ~

I


53 (Pages 206 to 209)

(414) 271-4466



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Page 210

delaying and dragging its feet on addressing 1

potentially serious environmental problems? 2

A I think as an agency we have had concerns about 3

the pace at which things have gotten done in the 4

past. Again, I think that's some of the 5

reasoning why we were doing the Scope of Work, 6

legal instrument discussions to get enforceable

time lines in place.

Q So, I mean, is the answer to my question yes?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And as we have seen a couple examples of,

7

8

9

10

12 there were numerous times that you have seen in

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13 the file prior to February 2010 and numerous

14 experiences you have had since with Madison-Kipp

15 where its consultant, Mr. Nauta, was recommending

16 that no further work should be done when you

17 believed strongly to the contrary?

18 A That's correct.


20 BY MR. COLLINS:

21 Q All right. So Schmoller 27 is a half-a-page

22 document dated October 18, 1994 from Jack

23 Schroeder to Tom Caldwell and Lyle Crouse

24 regarding analytical results from soil borings.

25 So you know, this was produced to us by

Page 211

Madison-Kipp. That's why it's got the MK Bates

number in the lower comer. Have you ever seen

1

2 this before today? 3

A No, I do not believe so. 4

Q Okay. Have you heard of the consultant Dames & 5

Moore who's referenced in this? 6

A Yes. 7

Q Okay. Do you know who the Dames & Moore guy was 8

at the Madison-Kipp site in the 1990s? 9

A I believe it would have been Bob Nauta. 10

Q Okay. Do you know do these names, the to and the 11

from mare those names, any of them, familiar to

you?

12

13


Page 212 ~ ~

enough investigation to support the theory to the ,I

I DNR that the source of contamination is from off

site so that our cost for investigation is held

to a minimum. I will keep you updated as the

investigation progresses," and then it goes on.

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Did you ever hear, did you ever learn that

Madison-Kipp had a goal of conducting just enough

investigation to be able to say to DNR that the

source of contamination was somewhere off site?

A I think this is the first time I have seen that

statement in writing.

Q Well, let's just not talk about in writing. I

mean, did you ever, from your review of the file,

you know, concerning events predating

February 2010 and then from your direct

experience since, did you ever get the impression

that Madison-Kipp was trying to attribute

inaccurately the contamination problem to someone

other than itself?


question, if you are referencing this document.

TIIE WITNESS: No, I don't think in

reviewing the me I came to a conclusion that

Page 213

they were trying to -- that Kipp was trying to

make someone else -- show someone else

responsible for the contamination. I don't think

that was-- I don't see that as a goal of the

work being done.

BY MR. COLLINS:

Q I'm talking about your own experience, as well.

Not just something you saw from the file, but

your own experience, as well.

A No, no. In dealing with the site I have never -

I have not thought that the goal of Kipp was to

attribute the contamination to a separate,

unknown off-site source.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A I think I have seen the name Jack Schroeder on

some company documents in our waste file, our

waste management file. Caldwell and Crouse I

don't know.


Q Okay. There is reference in the document to a

person named Lenz, L-E-N-Z. Does that name mean

anything to you?

A That's also a name I have seen in the waste file,

but I don't think I know him.

Q Okay. In the last paragraph of this

three-paragraph document Mr. Schroeder writes, "I

reminded D & M that our goal is to conduct just

54 (Pages 210 to 213)

15 BY MR. COLLINS:

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q Schmoller 28 is a one-page document from DNR

files. That's why it has the Bate staple it

does. It's a couple of emails. The one I wanted

to focus on was the one from you to Theresa

Evanson, Tuesday, AprilS, 2011 at 11:18 a.m.

You say to Ms. Evanson, "Okay. Was just

reviewing the site data now. Not sure how Kipp

can make the claim that they are not the source

of PCE in the sub-slab. There sure seems to be a

preponderance of soil data, locational data and



Kathleen McHngh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/11/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 13 14

15 16

17 18

19 20

21 22 23

24 25

A

Q

A

Q

A

Page 214

historical land use data that points to them as a

source." Ms. Evanson then writes back to you

that same day, "I really think their denial of

the source of PCE was mostly a diversionary

tactic. We will see what they come in with

tomorrow." Do you see that?

Yes.

Okay. So do you recall Madison-Kipp claiming at

any time that it was not the source of PCE vapors

found in the sub-slab of one or more homes in the

neighborhood inunediately adjacent to

Madison-Kipp?

I don't recall that being a point of disagreement

or controversy with Kipp. I don't remember them

seriously making an argument that the vapors

we're seeing -- At that point that would have

been the homes directly adjacent to Monitoring

Well Nest 5, I think. I don't remember them

making a serious argument that they were not the

source of those.

Okay.

It seemed to me that the disagreement we always

were having is how far could these vapors -- how

big of a vapor issue could be out there, not they

are not the source. I don't remember that being

Page 215

a big point.

MR. COLLINS: Okay. Everybody, again, I

apologize. It's right about 4:00 o'clock. I do

have to leave, there's something involving my

daughter, and I just ask you to trust me that I

have to go.

MR. BUSCH: Go. All right. Should we

just communicate via email about resuming this?

Can we do that?

MR. TINKER: I understand. How much do

you have left?

MR. COLLINS: Off the record.

(A discussion was had off the record.)

COURT REPORTER: Gentlemen, it's

necessary that I have your orders on the record.

Thank you.

MR. COLLINS: Full size.

MR. BUSCH: I will take an electronic

version and a mini.

MR. COLLINS: We will, too, want it

electronically.

MR. COHEN: Electronic and mini.

MS. ROSS: Electronic and mini, as well.

MR. TINKER: Same.

COURT REPORTER: Would you like the

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


exhibits attached and scanned, as well?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. BUSCH: Yes. Thank you.

MS. ROSS: Please.

MR. COHEN: Yes.

MR. TINKER: Same.

Page216

(At 3:57 p.m. the deposition adjourned.)

Sf ATE OF WISCONSIN I MILWAUKEE COUN'IY I

I, KATHY A. HALMA, Registered

Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the

State of Wisconsin, do hereby certij'y that the

Page 217

deposition of R. MICHAEL SCHMOLLER, was taken before me

at the Law Offices of Whyte, Hirschboeck & Dudek, S.C.,

One East Main Street, Suite 300, Madison, Wisconsin, ,

on the 11th day of September, 2012, commencing at 9:51

in the forenoon.

That it was taken at the instance of the

Plaintiffs upon verbal interrogatories.

That said statement was taken to be used

in an action now pending in the UNITED SfATES DISfRICT

COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISfRICT OF WISCONSIN, in which

KATHLEEN MCHUGH, et al., are the Plaintiffs and

MADISON-KIPP, et al., are the Defendants and

MADISON-KIPP CORPORATION is the Cross-Claimant and

CONTINENTAL CASUAL1Y COMPANY, et al., are the

Cross-Complainants and LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUAL1Y

COMPANY are the Third-Party Defendants.

APPEARANCES

THE COLLINS LAW FIRM, P.C, 1770 North

Park Street, Suite 200, Naperville, Illinois, 60563, by

MR. SHAWN M. COLLINS, appeared on behalf of the

Plaintiffs.


55 (Pages 214 to 217)

(414) 271-4466



Page218 i 1 VARGA, BERGER, LEDSKY, HAYES & CASEY, I

125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1250, Chicago, Illinois, I 2 60606-4473, by MR. NORMAN B. BERGER, appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs. i 3

I MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP, 100 East 4 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 3300, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

53202-4108, by MR. JOHN A. BUSCH, appeared on behalf of 5 Madison-Kipp Corporation. 6 MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP, One

South Pinckney Street, Suite 700, P.O. Box 1806, 7 Madison, Wisconsin, 53701-1806, by MR. DAVID A. CRASS,

appeared on behalf of Madison-Kipp Corporation. 8

TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, 55 West Momoe 9 Street, Suite 3000, Chicago, Illinois, 60603-5758, by

MS. REBECCA L. ROSS, appeared on behalf of Continental 10 Casualty Company. 11 MEISSNER, TIERNEY, FISHER & NICHOLS,

S.C., 111 East Kilbourn Avenue, 19th Floor, Milwaukee, 12 Wisconsin, 53202-6622, by MR. MICHAEL J. COHEN,

appeared on behalf of United States Fire Insurance 13 Company. 14 MR. STEVE TINKER, Assistant Attorney

General, P.O. Box 7857, Madison, Wisconsin, 53707, 15 appeared on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources. 16 17 That said deponent, before examination, 18 was sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and 19 nothing but the truth relative to said cause. 20 That the foregoing is a full, true and 21 correct record of all the proceedings had in the matter 22 of the taking of said deposition, as reflected by my 23 original machine shorthand notes taken at said time and 24 place. 25

Page 219

1 2

3 Notary Public in and

4 for the State of Wisconsin

5 6

Dated this 22nd day of September, 2012, 7

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

56 (Pages 218 to 219)




Page 220

A 65:5 77:21 administrators allows 130:25 218:7,9,12,15

abandonment 98:14 126:2,3 21:11 alluded 73:21 appears 200:15

190:22 130:11 206:21 adopted 83:23 alternative 46:6 200:25

ABC 1:9 activity 43:5 advice 136:6 83:10 appreciate

able 9:12 28:15 54:20 89:6 advising 194:21 amalgamation 46:25 55:6

30:13 76:11 addition 20:12 agencies 19:21 102:4 129:9

85:16 103:8 127:25 129:14 agency20:8 ambient 127:8 approach 21:18

187:14 212:10 additional16: 17 80:6 141:11 128:20,24 101:5 113:15

absolute 130:7 65:4 93:19 142:21,22 AMERICAN 2:6 113:16,20

173:19 94:1 103:12 144:3 173:2,7 amount22:2 approached

absolutely 57:22 address 32: 18 174:5 204:15 94:1 12:15 141:25

130:23 44:5,11 50: 13 208:19 210:3 analyses 4:6 142:18,23

accentuated 54:24 55:24 Agency's 159:14 111:21 185:13 143:6,13

74:6 58:11,18 78:20 aggressive 62: 15 192:4 145:23

acceptable 65:2 94:22 131:19 62:19 63:7 analysis 47:22 appropriate 26:3

83: 19 203:24 addressed 87: 10 ago 36:9 43:7 113:24 114:9 56:21 61:20

access79:8 199:14 67:16 73:21 114:12,21 62:7,11 64:3

124:7 126:7 addresses 79:4 82:5 93:18 118:4 182:25 approval31:6

176:10,13 79:12 96:17 161:20 202:20 analytical 194:4 approximately

208:15 100:4 119:16 208:21 210:24 18:13 23:14

accessible 105:8 119:25 120:8 agree 25:3 87:25 angles 122:24 39: 18 44:20,25

accomplished 186:23 130:23 177:18 answer 25:22 45:10 49:18

159:10 addressing 193:1 201:11 35:22,23 36:8 52:24 104: 19

accounting 42:22 45:25 agreed 31: 11 42: 13,19 43:24 118:18

183:24 117:6 210:1 48:1,5 87:23 58:8 65:5 approximation

accurate 38:13 adequate 25:8 101:5 103:10 66:18 68:1,3 38:22

40:14 85:23 56:21 103:16 104:5 146:10 160:13 April213:20

accurately adjacent 16:9 156:3,5 157:18 170:2 181:16 ARCADIS 110:6

39:23 27:7 28:5 193:25 201:4 182:6 191:13 110:6,7 123:5

acetate 128:2,3 32:22 33:5 agreement 206:8 210:9 123:6,8

129:5 131:14 69:2,9 70:20 103:14 135:3 answers 43:7 area 20:2 27:8

131:23 71:16 72:12 135:17 157:16 58:19 75:11 30:18 39:20

acetates 130:10 96:21 175:14 159:16,20 138:7,12 40:18 68:17

acetone 130:9 177:10 187:3 agreements anticipated 69:2 76:17

achieve 55: 19 192:16,20,24 176:10 201:9 89:2 105:23

acquaint 12:23 193:21 194:12 ahead43:24 anybody 15:2 106:5,9 119:24

acrolein 130:9 199:20 214:11 52:4 64:3 68:1 17:7,15 22:3,7 121:17 131:7

Act 132:9 214:17 91:25 92:14 22:8 85:1 93:4 152:12 168:9

action 37:7 46:1 adjourned 216:7 134: 17 170:2 123:17,22,24 177:3 195:18

49:1 62:15 adjusted 39:3 205:17 126:18 143:21 197:6 200:4

98:4 99:12 administration aimed 132:19 143:23 150:7,9 203:13 204:10

127:1 132:12 21:3 22:12,17 air 16:8 17:14 150:13,14,18 areas 73: 17 75:4

132:20,23 22:18 79:22 25:10 27:16 151:11 155:5 89:8 93:8

133:5 136:17 80:2 82:10 60:25 78:18,19 160:8 161:10 115:4 184:5,19

139:12 140:9 87:3 142:25 78:21 126:22 161: 11 165:4 argue 159:11

147:23 161:5 147:20 172:8 126:24,24 anymore 82:8 argument 99: 11

161:18 164:7 172:17 173:18 127:6,7,8 82:13 110:9,10 174:12 195:5

194:5 206:21 174:22,24 128:17,20 174:22 205:10 214:15

217:14 179:1180:11 131:2 171:18 Anytime 25:19 214:19

actions 21:21 180:15,21 192:23 193:20 Apart47:1 arrange 208:15

46:17,19 54:18 181:9 al217:16,17,19 126:12 arrangement

55:25 56:19,20 administrative alderperson apologize 215:3 158:25

60:22 63:15,19 10:11 52:14,18 20:1 appear 39:25 aside 17:20

63:23 139:14 149:4 allegations 139:16 99:16

161:12 207:5 administrator 135:2,5 163:12 appeared 2:12 asked46:18

active 20:2 21:2 19:797:19 alleging 139:9 2:14,17,20,22 48:8 85:1

56:3 146:2,4 149:18 allowed 54:15 2:25 3:3 62:7 133:17 150:16

activities 55:19 171:10 179:23 58:16 217:24 218:2,4 155:1 205:5



Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneider vs. Madison-Kipp 9/Il/12 Deposition ofR. Michael Schmoller

Page 221

asking 16:6,7,11 Atwood 88:5,22 backyards 42: 16 80:8 81:14 190:9,10,11 25:19 46:25 89:1 90:5 43:3 44:15 86:5 90:4 94:4 207:23 53:16 62:19,19 August 26:8,12 93:24 95:25 94:11,14,21 bioremediation 63:6,7 65: 18 78:3,4 93: 17 98:3 118:17 95:16,21 96:14 46:11 79:7 93:1 193:18 194:9 187:2,16 100:11 101:21 bit 19:24 67:16 138:4,10 194:19 206:18 198:12 206:6 102:11 103:11 117:10 177:6 140:16,18,20 authority bad 172:6 104:5 115:14 blank 124:3 142:1 143:14 157:24 159:2 178:20 179:3 116:2,18 120:6 block68:16 144:11,13 authorized ballpark 16:24 125:1 133:11 69:10 151:2 161:10 164:10 139:14,15 Bangert 171:8,9 148:25 149:13 blunt 144:6 166:14,17 automatically Barry 127:15 152:3 164:4,15 Bob 125:19 169:7,9 181:3 131:5 base 157:24 164:19 170:18 189:21 191:11 181:8,9 183:13 available 38:6 based 16:15 189:21 205:15 193:19 198:9 183:18 96:7 105:5 27:14,16 28:8 207:8 211:4,10 205:10 211:10

asks 151:1 113:12,22 28:9,10 29:22 believed 36:9 borings 73:8 166:12 118:22 30:16 38:6 149:25 196:5 104:19 106:20

aspect 162:10 Avenue 2:16,24 61:23 81:24 210:17 108:15,16,20 aspects 87:14 218:4,11 85:19 95:12 Bemis 198:3 109:12 110:10 assemble 82:9 avoidance 153:16 192:5 beneath 34:25 110:21,25 assign 8:8 180:9 204:24 193:22 194:3 44:14 200:19 111:8 114:10 assigned 11:25 aware 13:19 208: 11 209:20 benzene 129:5 115:18,23

18:1 38:12 51:13,19 209:23 benzenes 131:24 122:17 210:24 assignment 7:7 52:1168:16 basement 44:22 131:24 botany8:25

172:18 110:25 134:2 129:20 200:19 Berger 2:13,14 bottom26:2 Assistance 140:17,21 basements 5:12 218:1,2 66:4 157:1

172:2 150:19,20 44:20 200: 18 best 2:16,18 boundaries Assistant 3:2 153:4 basic 5:18 38:25 65:18 49:21 85:5

171:9 218:14 awareness 21 :8 basically 106:8 125:18 126:19 90:14,15,20 assists 171: 11 awhile9:25 122:25 133:8 134:24 136:1 boundary associated a.m 1:24 147:16 basis 53:8 139:7 153:13 188: 12 193:22

15:12 27:17 213:20 123:23,24 154:18 172:13 Box2:19 3:2 58:22 75:7 175:20 218:3,6 218:6,14 80:19 140:9 B Bate 156:19,23 better 5:23 57:1 Boy56:25 162:5 B2:14 3:8 218:2 213:17 80:13 109:1 brand 113:25

assume 153:16 back23:12 Bates211:1 112:15 197:20 Brass 59:3 61:16 165:17 175:21 29:17,20 31:10 bear 183:9 beyond 90:20 61:25

assumed 17:16 44:17 56:14,25 bedrock 115:20 134:6 153:8 break 117:10 assuming 88:4 56:25 58:16 118:3 176:14 122:10 184:11

147:25 67:16 70:3 began 205: 18 big 13:25 16:23 Brian 162:24 atmosphere 78:1379:11 beginning 62:21 64:9,15,20 163:3

200:20 83:3 91:20 63:8 134:24 177:22 206:6 brie£6:18 attached 4:24 94:4 107:6,10 begins 66:5,7 209:20 214:24 briefly 146: 14

4:25 147:22 108:6 135:13 203:23 215:1 bring56:4 163:5 216:1 136:11,19 behalf 1:4 2:12 bigger 169:6 139:15 140:1

attempt 139:11 143:22 146:19 2:14,17,20,22 199:19 200:7 140:20 142:2 attempted 150:7 152:23 2:25 3:3 169:1 biggest 39:20 bringing 139:13

163:16 159:8 163:19 191:8 217:24 41:6 143:15 attended 126:23 177:13 178:16 218:2,4,7,9,12 bike 118:14 broad 71:3 113:2 attention 163:8 190:5,16 195:5 218:15 billion 32:4 39:6 brought 183:9

192:1 202:3,14 behavior 168:15 39:18 40:21 Brynn 198:2 attorney 3:2 205:16 207:12 believe 22: 11 42:3 43:18 BS9:6

4:21 133:10 214:2 28:11 30:25 50:24 51:6 building 13: 16 218:14 background 31:9 32:23,25 57:5 61:23 72:20 73:15,18

Attorney's 8:22 20:6 33:3,20 36: 18 78:16,16 86:12 73:19,20,23 139:11 25:11 78:19,21 39:16 42:2,2,3 112:3 114:22 74:12,14,16

attribute 49:10 128:25 153:2,3 49:15,16 55:20 116:11 120:22 75:3,22 76:4,7 130:10 212:19 163:6 167:2 56:7 61:8 121:9,18 122:6 76:10 77:16 213:12 backyard 174:17 67:25 78:7,13 188:6,25 189:4 88:12,12




Page 222

109:15 110:13 173:15 certificates 136:18 143:10 123:10 110:14 119:10 care 57:6 12:19 144:4,24 code 10:11,13 119:12,14,14 career 23:15,18 certified 27:8 150:23 155:15 52:14 54:9,9 119:20 120:3 carried 96:2 certify 217:5 164:7 63:15,20 64:2 120:10,18 carries 157:3 cetera 138:10 citizens 21: 1, 7 64:16 121:5 198:14 Carroll172: 1 174:18,18 138:4 143:15 COHEN2:24

buildings 74:23 case 1:7 5:13 chain 17:23 145:18 146:17 63:3 66:15 build-your-own 27:9 86:13 20:2421:17 146:22 147:6 179:4 215:22

9:9 132:17 134:12 80:6 148:16 150:16 216:5 218:12 built 72:18 177:17 chance 147:24 151:2 155:10 Coleman 124:23 bullet 135:6 cases27:23 174:8 184:10 174:14 176:21 124:25

136:9 138:25 108:22 change 80:20,24 city 19:24 20:8 collected 28:13 163:9,10 CASEY2:13 113: 1 202:25 38:5 78:12 110:7

Bureau 10:7 218:1 changed 66: 19 civil139:9 17 4:2,3 194:2 18:25 87:23 Casualty 1:8,16 66:20 claim 132:8,16 198:16 199:3,5 97:19 101:4 1:16 2:2,2,5,22 changes 37:20 132:22,24 199:6 142:16 145:7 217:19,20 172:18 190:25 133:6 135:11 collecting 25:9 181:14 218:10 Chapter 10:10 213:23 college 8:23

Busch2:17 catalyst 155:12 52:14 claiming 214:8 Collins 2:11,12 43:22 52:1 155:15 characteristics claims 139:16 3:7 4:22 5:7,11 53:3 54:3 catch 79:13 37:3 89:12 class 27:8 25:13 37:24 55:15 57:14,18 112:20 91:1 102:10 classes 9:13,13 52:9 53:6 57:21 63:1 category 203:20 characteriza ti •.. clean41:12 54:11 56:6 64:11 66:16 Cathy 19:15 55:17 55:13 57:13 57:16,19,23 67:24 77:3 146:4 characterize 58:4 60:13 58:7,17 64:5 82:19 100:22 causalll :24 94:22 115:12 61:6 66:10 64:13 66:22 117:11 151:18 cause218:19 charge92:3 102:16,18 67:12 68:4 151:19 170:1 caused 90:21 chart 189:18 104:10,12 77:1,6 83:1,9 179:6 182:4 166:18 190:5 cleaned 48:9 92:10 99:15 183:15 212:22 causes 60:21 chemical129: 13 50:23 54:13,16 101:9 117:9,12 215:7,18 216:3 179:2 130:21 198:15 56:8 117:16 122:9 218:4 causing 43:10 chemicals 46:9 cleaning 45:21 122:14 133:13

business 159:4 45:1 204:23 54:14 74:2 46:13 47:7 133:23 134:14 businesses 89:4 center 68:10 127:25 128:1 50:21 128:21 139:2 146:7

121:14 128:12,24 cleanup 54:8,10 151:9,14 c central6:5 129:24 130:3 153:8 166:8 156:15 160:16

C2:10 217:22 10:17 18:6 Chicago 2:14,21 169:24 162:14 168:4 Caldwell4: 18 120:6 126:10 149:2 218:1,9 cleanup/prop ... 170:8 179:10

210:23 211:16 152:1 171:17 Chiconne 28:18 60:2 182:10 183:13 call25: 14 171:24 29:11 clear 31:18 183:21 184:12

123:15 136: 16 CEO 124:4,11 Chief 162:25 33:23 34:5 184:16 185:8 137:16 138:18 125:4 171:23 46:3 185: 11 189:23 149:5 151:20 certain 7:9 12:1 chlorinated clearly 76:20 191:15 193:9 163:4 171:16 13:8 40:10 68:15,15 90:10 207:25 196:9 197:22 207:1 48:22 56:1,12 chlorinateds client 133:10 200:10 201:15

called 5:2 10:6 74:1 78:25 73: 11 131:22 136:22 206:15 210:20 113:15 136:14 83:4 89:5 195:16 clients 132:4,21 213:6,15 215:2 153:21 90:25 144:2 choice 47:13 133:5 215:12,17,20

calling 124:8 152:23 155:14 choices 4 7:7 close 16:20 216:2 217:23 174:14 160:3 168:12 choosing 46:13 40:23 51:24 217:24

calls 6:25 52:2 169:5 49:1 55:25 100:10 106:23 COLUMBIA 1:16 53:4 55:16 certainly 33:15 75:19 closely 39: 12 2:2 63:2 64:11 50:5 51:11 chosen 21:21 closeness 37:1 combination

Canada 113:17 54:7 66:13 45:16 47:22 closer 26: 13 113:23 capable 182:16 76:5,7,17 circumstance 84:12 142:9 come 14:6 15:17 capacity 6: 16 77:10,11 84:6 32:2 closest 96: 17 17:21 86:3 Caption 1:20 84:19 144:19 cited 158:5 Coda 125:18 88:6,9 101:4 carcinogen 159:11 citizen 135:25 Coda-Trask 114:14 125:2



Kathleen McHugh and Deanna Schneidervs. Madison-Kipp 9/11112 Deposition of R. Michael Schmoller

Page 223

138:7 140:15 148:2 157:7,9 concern 32:16 93:1 44:25 45:2,9 144:25 155:20 157:11 163:22 32:19,21,24 consideration 45:14,22 46:14 176:9 181:13 166:10,13 80:11 127:2 135:6 49:11,17 50:3 182:18 194:19 complete 65:12 135:24 165:8 considered 50:13,22 51:21 197:14 214:5 82:22 83:5 193:22 206:10 67:22 68:7,19 51:23 52:25

comes 133:18 124:3 207:25 208:3 68:25 82:15 53: 13,18 54:24 172:6 completed concerned 91:22 128:18 184:20 54:24,25 55:2

coming 14:7 67:14 111:4 165:5 194:13 considering 55:8,12 57:13 33:11 44:4 156:9 199: 12 204:9 45:20 89:14 58:4,10,21,25 62:4 67:19 completely 205:19 207:9 consistent 60:1,12 61:6 68:22 74:18 141:22 172:17 concerning 70:19 112:13 61:11 62:9,17 90:13 100:12 completing 12:16 152:4 consistently 62:23 63:10 100:16 102:8 104:7 156:12 212:16 111:13 64:18,25 65:8 131:6,18 compliance concerns 13:20 Constantine 65: 16,21 66:8 156:12 157:18 55:20 56:4 98:2 127:6 6:24 161:4 66:21 67:3,10 169:19 62:20 63:7,14 181:15 210:3 constituents 67:17,21 68:6

commence complied 62:22 conclude 63: 14 129:6 68:14,19 69:1 139:17,23 63:9 concluded 37:8 consultant 71:19 72:5,20

commencing complying 64:2 37:11 28:22,24 29:1 72:21 73:5,10 217:9 component 41:2 conclusion 122:23 123:4 73:13 75:2

commercial compound 37:13 44:10 175:3 193:20 76:15,18,22 89:2,8 128:18 52:3 53:4 210:15 211:5 77:9,15 78:5

communicate compounds 55:16 57:9,10 consultants 84:1,21 85:6 215:8 129:3 131:3,9 62:5 63:2 126:12 177:1 85:19,25 86:7

communicating comprehensiv ... 64:12 131:20 contact 11:24 86:17 88:2,11 153:15 73:2 177:14 178:6 19:25 22:23 88:17,18 89:25

communication computer31:5 182:18 191:1 23:1,19 108:18 90:2,5,8, 10,13 22:11 132:18 162:18,21 191:12 196:25 109:5 150:20 90:19,21 91:4 133:12,21 202:2 200:23 212:25 151:19 164:24 94:25 97:25 206:18 concentrated conclusions 167:19,21 98:7,13,18,25

communicati ... 69:19 190:18 197:15 206:25 100:12,21 133:18,19,25 concentration 197:18 200:13 contacted 22: 17 102:7,12,17 144:11 153:25 29:18 39:17 conduct 107:7 22:18 153:18 103:1,20 154:6 54:14 61:15,21 211:25 contacting 22:8 104:10,13

companies 1:10 95:6 109:3 conducted 23:22 105:24 106:5,8 2:7 169:7 116:14 122:4 30:20 122:5 contains 127: 19 106:11 107:15

company 1:8,9 190:25 conducting contaminants 107:18,22,23 1:16,16,17 2:2 concentrations 212:9 60:2 130:25 107:24 108:17 2:2,6,6,22 3:1 27:17,22 30:11 conduit 202:23 131:1,15 110:23 117:6 64:7 124:5 30:16,23 31:25 conference contaminated 118:5,6,10 126:13 136:22 36:20 41:24,25 126:9 39:17 43:17 119:8 122:25 151:1,3 168:24 52:6 53:23 confidence 48:21 49:6 131:6 153:6 169:22 176:24 54:7 71:1,13 172:7 178:21 51:14 54:20 162:2,11 190:21 207:4 71:15 75:2 178:22 59:9 60:7 168:25 175:13 211:15 217:19 78:15 80:14,16 confident 43:8 76:10 89:22 197:16 198:19 217:21218:10 81:18 83:14 configuration 90:13 97:13 199:13 202:23 218:13 95:1 98:3 39:19 contamination 203:8 204:6,24

company's 108:14 109:16 configured 50:4 12:9 13:4,23 212:2,11,20 207:22 109:18,19 confirmation 32:10 33:4,21 213:3,12

complain 111:3,14,21,23 198:3,11 199:3 33:24 34:2,4 content 95:20 166:19 112:17 114:16 199:4 34:15,16,23,24 97:6

complaining 114:20 115:5 connect 183:7 35:8,20,24 contiguous 165:6 166:3 116:3,9 119:24 208:16 36:23 37:2 129:21 167:14 168:15 120:13,16,20 connection 38:9,24 40:1,9 Continental1:8 169:2,23 183:4 121:2,14,16 183:17 40:11,13,17,24 1:16 2:2,22

complaint 139:9 186:19 187:14 Conservation 41:4,13,18 217:19 218:9 142:2 146:23 187:24 188:24 132:8 42:6 43:4,9,10 continue 65:5 147:21,24 188:24 195:9 consider 92:19 43:20,21 44:14 continued 1:20




Page 224

190:23 120:17 121:10 costly 66: 10 127:1 214:1 contour 119:7 162:17 211:2 costs 163:17 critical49:4 databases contours 39:3 corners 88:20 counsel163: 1 cross 89:1 131:20

39:12 50:10 Corporation 1:8 163:14 crossed 41:5 dataset 25:8 contract 175:3 1:13 2:17,20 County20:8 183:19 107:12

178:14 184:2 163:6 217:18 113:20 217:2 Cross-Claim date 17:3,4,6 contractor 29:9 218:5,7 couple 13:21 1:18 2:3 26:4 38:21

29:10 30:20 correct 11: 1 20:15 36:8 Cross-Claimant 47:24 49:10 31:20 79:6 14:19 15:20 43:7 51:12 1:14 217:18 173:20 176:9,9 98:10 110:4 23:5 24:4 29:8 77:19 96:6 Cross-Compla ••. 176:19 185:1 128:14 189:20 29:14 30:18 117:13,14 217:20 201:21 208:15 31:21,22,25 121:19 122:22 cross-sections dated26:8

contractors 32:5,6,7 33:2 125:12 138:3 122:22 123:2 130:17 151:16 28:14 91:10 33:13 36:7,16 142:14 151:10 Crouse4:18 193:18 200:12

contrary 210:17 44:21 45:4,5 161:20 168:5 210:23 211:16 206:17 210:22 contributing 48:2,3,4,6, 7 170:21 174:9 culmination 219:6

35:24 49:22,23 50:15 188:5 190:7 174:20 dates59:5 control54:20 51:15 53:1,9 195: 19 202:20 current 193:23 146:25 148:18

95:14,23 96:5 53:10,15 54:6 208:13,24 currently 6:2 152:20 159:17 96:12 97:5 59:7,21 60:7 210:11 213:18 41:25 159:20 165:16 180:8 184:3 61:7 64:21 course44:1 curriculum 9:15 176:15 185:7

controls 60:20 76:16 77:12,13 74:17 77:19 cut 37:6 76:9,12 196:2 205:22 controversial 82: 12 84:2,5 104:4 137:9 135:3,4 daughter 215:5

20:21,23 21:5 84:10 89:19 164:25 Dave 125:18 21:7,13 91:16,17 93:13 court 1:1 4:23 D 126:14 137:16

controversy 93:14 99:22,23 27:9 58: 1 63:6 D 3:5 186:22,22 138:16 151:19 214:14 100:13 101:12 132:15 135:20 186:23 211:25 DAVID2:19

conversation 104:20 111:9 135:20 137:23 daily 23:8,12 218:7 23:10 137:18 113:9 116:16 139:16,19,24 dam 161:9 Dawson 148:21 138:11,16 116:23,24,25 140:2,12,13 Dames 211:5,8 day24:1 148:15 145:13 161:16 117: 1,3,4,7,8 146:23 215:14 Dane 113:20 214:3 217:9 164:15 127:21,22 215:25 217:15 dash39:23 219:6

conversations 128:9 129:15 coverage 21: 10 dashed 49:25 days 87:18 99:2 11:21 13:9 132:6,16 137:3 covers 106:8 50:6 100:18 147:2 133:9 134:2,4 146:24 148:9 Crabb 139:8,12 data 37:12 38:6 day-to-day 135:10 136:3 149:22 153:19 cracked 129:21 49:7 50:7 137:20 145:2 138:24 144:20 154:4 157:23 cracks 130:24 65:15 69:8,14 165:1 144:25 145: 12 158:6,7,9,10 Crass 2:19 3:23 69:16,17 70:14 da-da-da 158:18 145:16,20 161:22 167:22 3:25 125:18 70:22 75:16 deadline 46: 17 149:20 154:3 175:14 177:19 126:14,16 76:23 79:23 46:23 47:2 206:3 178:5,24 134:23,25 80:4 84:14 148:1 159:2

conveyed 185:20 186:1 135:9 136:4 90:9 97:16 173:19 160:23 188:8,9,13,14 139:6 148:20 99:4,5,7,8 deal23:25 45: 16

convinced 189:1,2,5,6 149:1 151:19 103:22 104:24 46:2 55:3,5 159:19 195:6,8 190:2 191:4 151:20 156:25 105:3,19 106:4 123:14 174:22 199:18 194:15,16,22 157:6,7 218:7 110:1 112:16 204:4

Coordinator 6:4 197:4,8,9,12 crawl129:22 115:7,13 dealing 36:2 6:8,14 7:8 8:2 198:21 199:25 crazy 174:1 131:21 132:1 54:20 75:14,15 8:15 200:5 201:3 create 25:15 166:11 185:2 92:21 99:24

copies 4:25,25 202:24 207:18 creates 207:25 187:20,23 123:7 173:2,15 copy 134:24 210:18 218:21 criteria 22: 1 189:11,12,17 196:5 213:10

193:15 correctly 43: 11 24:18,25 27:23 190:6 191:6 dealings 197: 11 core 111:21 138:19 29:19 30:9,16 193:23 195:7 deals20:10

114:21 Corry69:10 31:1 32:1,14 195:11,12,23 dealt 14:4,5,8 cored 111:2 78:10 86:22,24 50:17 81:21,24 196:1 199:11 14:10 15:24 corner 96:12 86:24,25 87:5 83:19,23 84:3 206:3,5 207:13 53:7 123:17

106:20 107:16 cost 92:6 174:6 84:14,17 95:2 207:16 213:22 126:12,16,18 119:10,12,14 205:11 212:3 108:18 109:5 213:25,25 DEANNA 1:4




Page 225

debate 21:24 108:2,5 148:24 152:1 detect 39:6 89:5 digging 174:18 24:6,9,14 25:5 deepest 101:20 162:8 165:6 89:6 digit 51:9

decade49:5 Defendants 1: 11 166:7 169:16 detectable 30:10 digits 188:5 decades 49:18 1:18 2:3,8 178:4 190:1 30:15,23 31:25 190:11

51:9,10,12 217:17,21 192:11 205:18 78:14 81:17 dimensions 52:24 54:15 defending 218:15 detected 93:12 103:6 113:12 114:1 163:12 Department's 94:12,15 100:6 Dino 6:20,23,25 158:3 defense 143:10 28:23 29:10 108:14 109:16 7:15 11:22

December 48: 18 144:24 30:20 32:8 116:3,10 13:6 161:4 91:21,22 174:9 define 65:15 45:11 50:12 detecting 113:1 190:2 208: 19 178:9,18 204:2 130:1,16,22 detection 187:6 209:13

decide 79:25 defined 103:2 172:14 179:24 187:10,13 direct 108:18 97:16 112:24 196:17 197:2 depict85:4 190:20 196:19 109:4 163:8 147:24 194:4 200:4,15,25 depicted 44:25 detections 17:2 192:1 193:13

decided 25:6 defines 52:16 45:10 48:23 116:18 127:24 209:24 212:17 111:10 147:20 defining 103:19 49:17 52:25 128:6 129:13 direction 40:25 175:1 113:20 61:11 62:23 detects 70:16 61:24 62:3

decides 105:12 definitely 142:4 63:10 78:5 85:22 86:10 87:2 deciding 24:17 definitive 35:23 88:3 97:8 106:2 177:14 directly 16:9 decision 22:5 37:13 98:1,19 100:2 150:8 determinable 17:25 18:20

24:12,19 25:8 definitively 37:8 depictions 34:7 32:22 41:19 30:13 79:18 37:11 183:17 122:20,21 determinations 70:20 71:15 81:24 82:4 degassing deponent 53:12 76:11 80:25 83:16 84:18 128:21 218:17 determine 15:3 119:17 121:17 86:4 87:4,8,15 de greasing deposed 5:16 34:15 35:16 137:12 171:12 91:20,24 97:14 73:24 74:23 deposition 1:21 44:6 50:17 177:10 186:21 100:19 103:21 degree 8:25 9:2 5:19 83:22 59:25 60:11 199:20 214:17 105:15 130:13 9:5,19,23 142:13 146:13 64:7,16 67:1,8 Director 18:25 168:15 174:1 48:22 62:16 209:8 216:7 72:8 73:4 76:2 87:23 97:19 204:13 degrees 9:20 217:6 218:22 90:12 110:22 101:4 142:17

decisions 21: 11 delay207:4 depth39:13 114:6 131:8 145:7 181:14 21:24 38:16 delayed 178:13 101:18 103:16 183:23 disagree 21: 18 50:19 56:19 delaying 210: 1 103:18 107:14 determined 87:25 197:20 65: 17,24 75:18 delays 158:19 107:18 110:23 48:20 76:14 disagreed 191:4 76:6 79:9 95:7 158:22 159:12 111:14,21 95:10 195:10 197:18 97:15 99:1 180:23 195:1 112:9 115:3 determining disagreement 103:23 113:24 demands 98:4 118:2,3 121:11 103:17 128:11 196:1 214:13 137:22,25 denial214:3 121:12 122:25 develop 94:24 214:22 139:8 154:22 denied 205:5,7 198:17 developed disagreements 161:9 167:8 Department 3:3 depths95:4 113:16,18 21:23 177:21 169:2,23 6:3 10:2,4 15:7 112:18 115:12 dichloroethene 177:23,25 174:24 180:24 16:2 24:21 115:21 120:23 196:22 193:6 180:24 28:20 31:11 186:16 dictate 166: 11 discharge 59:24

declined 28:7 34:12,13,14 Deputy 19:10 difference 80: 17 60:21,25 dedicated 45:12,20 46:12 143:3 81:1 135:19,21 130:12

128:10 47:25 48:15 derived 62:3 167:10 discharged deep 3:20 45:16 53:9,12 60:10 describe 54:6 different 7:25 60:21 203:9,13

45:18 55:4 61:10 64:23 110:24 114:10 35:17 46:25 discharging 65:13 75:15 65:19 72:3 119:3 136:1 90:15 106:7 200:20 101:10,18,19 83:23,24 91:13 described 21: 14 109:2 112:23 discontinued 102:1,8,9 91:16 93:5 describes 114:13 122:24 192:7 103:1,9,20 98:23 99:13 127:19 127:4,7,8 discrete 113:4 104:10,12 100:19 128:14 describing 85:23 159:15 186:16 113:16 110:21 115:23 132:6,11,19 198:25 206:18 203:19 discuss 149:3 117:3 181:6 133:2,4,17,17 desire 133:3 differently 50:4 discussed 15: 10

deeper 41:23 134:5 135:2 detail209:3 80:9 126:22 144: 1 42:4 102:11 137:2 141:25 detailed 155:21 difficult 66:9 199:14 107:21,22,24 142:1,4 147:4 details 152:12 115:11 discussing 16:7




Page 226

141:2 193:24 116:1,4,19 double-digit 191:21 193:4 70:17 108:22 194:20 DNR3:14 7:23 120:13 203:7 108:24,24,25

discussion 10:3,15 15:2 doubt 149:8,12 easier 71: 10 109:1 119:8 12:10 22:2 17:22,24 18:23 downtown 7:16 east 2:16,24 120:7,12,16 23:7 68:10 20:18 22:4,8,9 16:3 19:14 13:16 15:22 121:2,13 87:13 98:20 23:3,15,18,20 171:25 16:10 27:4 email3:23,25 135:23 143:7 23:22 24:2 downward 40:3 34:25 39:21 4: 1 ,2,3,4,5, 11 144:5 146:17 26:2 27:11 dozen23:21 40:9,18,25 4:12,13,20 146:18 147:4,8 28:7 51:15 26:13 27:1 41:9 50:6 70:5 134:16,23 155:12,16 59:19 74:21 draft 138:21 71:9 72:22 137:19 138:17 158:15 195:15 92:17 93:16 157:6,8,12 79:20 80:8,15 139:5 140:4 215:13 97:21,22 drafted 156:8 80:25 81:3,4 147:14 148:7

discussions 12:3 101:13 114:3 dragging 210: 1 81:18 82:6,23 148:19 151:16 16:13 31:10 125:20 126:10 drains 73:25 84:7,15 85:13 151:22 156:25 45:24 46:16,18 127:10 133:9 74:2,24 85:20,25,25 162:23 167:20 48:14 98:1 133:20 147:24 draw 38: 13 50:8 86:6,16,24 170:18 172:3 124:2 133:1 149:11,14 85:1,4, 16,18 87:5,11 184:21 172:20,22,23 134:10 139:25 150:24 151:1,1 103:8 186:22 193:21 174:19 175:11 140:23 142:9 152:4 154:8 drawing 38:15 198:14 217:8 178:16 180:3 144:19 145:2,4 155:5,12 124:3 218:3,11 196:12 197:25 147:9,10 166:17 168:16 drawn38:12 eastern 39:22 198:25 199:9 149:21 152:4,6 168:23 170:15 39:23 84:22,24 106:1 113:19 202:10 215:8 152:9,16,18 183:5 194:20 103:4 122:23 186:13 emailed 162:20 160:8,14,15,18 201:22 212:2 173:24,25,25 eastward 86: 14 emails 150:8 160:20 161:2 212:10 213:16 drillers 104:6 east/west 203:5 152:22 174:20 165:1 166:21 DNR's 13:12 drilling 103:17 economic 55:22 193:13 213:18 168:22 193:4 37:25 43:16 114:4 edge 120:3 emanating 65:9 203:2 206:9 45:1 Drinking 7: 16 educational 65:21 86:7 209:13 210:7 document 25:20 7:24 8:21 9:20 162:2

dismissing 25:21 96:9 Drive 2:14 218:1 effective 205:11 emphasis9:4,7 139:8 155:24 157:20 driven 113:13 effects 60:25 9:11

dispose 60:2 162:16 201:16 Dudek217:7 effort 34:14 employed 6:2 disposed 95:22 202:8 203:23 Due 190:19 38:11 50:13 16:1 dissatisfied 210:22 211:18 duly5:4 95:5 128:11 employee 53: 12

175:12 211:24 212:23 dust 95:14,23 efforts 169:7 123:18 124:1 distance 91 :4 213:16 96:5,12 97:5 eight 51:10 124:16 125:21 distinguish 34:9 documents duties 8:12 Eileen 171:14 172:2 distribution 26:20 201:22 dyes 128:22 171:15 193:15 employees

40:16 76:20 211:15 D-1-N-0 6:23 either 19:3 154:8 85:10 95:6 DOE2:6 22:16 27:2,15 Enclosed 139:7 118:5,9 dog 180:11,17 E 28:6 41:2,15 ends88:12,14

DISTRICT 1: 1,2 doing 10:5 16:8 E2:10,10 3:5,8 45:16 79:4 enforce 157:14 217:14,15 22:9 25:17 217:22,22 82:2 86:24 enforceable

Distrust 197:19 27:13 43:5 earlier49:24 87:2 98:23 155:24 157:20 diverge 71:7 63:20 75:20 58:20 60:5 117:3,6 124:6 158:21 160:5 diversionary 89:14,18 91:25 80:3 101:16 126:14 141:11 210:7

214:4 114:12 123:11 104:15 142:13 141:25 164:21 enforcement division 16:4 135:24 138:6 146:12 149:10 165:10,22 53:25 139:12

19:6,23 97:19 144:14 150:9 161:6 167:18 177:4 183:2 139:14 147:23 127:4 143:3 159:4 174:15 202:9,14 203:1 187:11 192:23 152:2,11 146:2,4 149:18 181:22 194:25 203:7 209:15 201:12 153:10 154:21 171:9 179:23 206:7 210:6 earliest 205:25 elected 21:2 158:8,13 161:5

Dixon69:10 DOJ 139:22 early 56:14 electronic 161:11,18 78:10 81:5 140:1 141:12 57:11 58:2 215:18,22,23 196:2 82:3 86:1,10 168:1 59:4,11 63:22 electronically engineering 86:11,19 87:12 dot 79:16 91:20,21 215:21 9:13 38:6

DNAPL 115:14 dots 183:7 126:21 146:24 elevated 15:21 enlighten 82:13 115:15,18 dotted 49:20 161:12 184:25 15:21 37:16 82:17




Page 227

entering 76:15 examined 5:4 50:20,22 65:7 fact75:1 131:2 14:13,20 15:1 entire 106:9 example 17:5 87:9 89:17 156:6 167:7,12 15:17 16:25 entirely 40: 14 73:3,23,24,25 98:22 100:18 192:2 197:5,11 17:7,21 38:7 entitled 60: 18 79:19 97:9 104:14 105:10 201:7 126:15,19

201:16 116:3 128:2 expectation factor 130:3,6 165: 18 185:25 environment 131:10 158:2 47:23 fair 22:2 36:6 189:5,24 190:4

60:23 66:8 188:2 expectations 40:11 42:6 190:7 191:8,18 163:13 204:4 examples 172:14 50:9 60:13 207:17,21 204:17 210:11 expected 112:6 61:3 72:3 94:1 208:8,16

environmental exceed 54:8 112:6,13 119:5 100:2 102:25 209:17,22 110:20 13.9:10 95:1 experience 16:5 103:4 104:9 210:13 212:17 152:2 171:10 Exceedances 20:17 23:24 175:10 194:8 federal27:9 210:2 3:18 51:14 92:21,24 194:24 199:8 132:15 135:20

envisioned exceeded 53:24 168:23 209:24 209:20 139:10,15,16 199:21 54:15 83:15 212:18 213:7,9 fairly 13:17 20:2 139:18,18,23

especially 102:8 109:6 experiences 43:8 63:24 139:24 140:2,2 208:1 exceedence 210:14 119:10,23 140:12 143:16

essentially 52:17 84:16 expert 92:20 120:4 146:23 147:22 175:25 178:5 exceedences 93:1 Fairview 70:8,13 155:11 163:15 178:24 202:21 16:20 explain 29:16 81:5 203:3 feel72:21

establish 45:3 exceeding 30:24 93:5 96:23 fall 74:18 104:15 167:12 estimate 38:8 84:14 109:4 136:19 152:22 154:11 feeling 180:12

39:24 49:5 exclusively explained 127:4 155:4 157:17 180:14,19 51:5 65:18 124:10 138:19 explanation 157:21158:11 fees 163:16

estimated 62:9 150:22 136:19 163:20 179:18 feet 16:22,24 et 138:10 174:18 excuse 35: 16 exposure 80:11 falls 77:20 39:15 43:18

174:18 217:16 47:12 82:6 expressed 98:2 203:19 44:16,18,20 217:17,19 85:25 157:7 176:3 181:15 familiar 13:2 73:14 101:21

ethyl128:2,3 160:24 188:4 196:25 200:23 15:16 26:20 101:22,25 129:5 131:24 189:9 201:3 205:12 211:12 102:3,15,16,17

ethylbenzene exhibit 37:23 extend 115:24 families 81:3 102:18,20 128:4 49:17 58:15 extended 194:7 87:11 98:12 106:10 107:1,2

evaluate 206:23 62:14 70:3 extends 50:5 184:1 190:12 107:4,16,19,22 Evan 125:20 99:14 101:8 105:25 family 181:11 108:7,11 111:1 Evanson 16:2 122:13 130:15 extensive family's 208:2 111:15,15,22

19:13 128:14 134:13,22 197:10 199:13 far 7:20 40:8 111:22,22 193:15 198:1 139:1 146:6 extent 38:8 39:7 42:7 51:11 112:1 115:24 206:3 213:20 151:13,15 40:13 51:24 52:21 69:10,15 118:20 120:24 213:21 214:2 156:14 162:13 57:12 58:3 79: 11 85:20,21 121:1 187:18

event23:24 168:3 179:5 60:1,12,24 86:16,21 188:18,19,23 events 77: 19 185:10,25 61:5 62:25 120:10 169:21 189:7,8 195:15

176:20 212:16 186:5 189:22 63:12 64:8,17 182:22 188:15 195:17 208:2,7 everybody 63:25 191:14 193:8 64:24 65:8,16 188:15,16 208:10 210:1

77:2 79:15 196:8 197:21 65:20 67:2,9 197:16 199:25 felt 95:3 160:4 215:2 200:9 201:14 85:19,22 103:1 204:9,11 fence 106:23

evidence 199:10 206:14 210:19 103:20 177:16 214:23 188:20,21 evidently 213:14 179:4 197:2,7 farther 66:9 fewer 129:3

167:14 exhibits 4:23 200:3,14,24 faster 160:2 field 65:4 75: 19 exact 17:3,6 25:12,14,15 204:2,3 173:11 175:16 113:21 126:2,3

79:12 176:6 92:9 216:1 extents 196: 18 favor 183:10 fieldwork 104:7 185:1 existed 62:10 E-1 19:3 favored 47:7 158:23

exactly 17: 11 95:16 195:8 fear204:12 Fifteen 156:16 26:14 39:10 existing 13:2 F feasibility 55:22 figure 15:23 51:2 94:6,6 82:9 106:9 facility 28:6 February 6:8,13 34:6 44:22 140:8 141:12 exists40:9 48:22 68:12 6:17 7:12 8:5 55:3 62:9,13 176:18 199:21 expect 35:22 77:8 86:16 8:16 10:24 figured 33: 18

examination 5:6 46:23 47:2,10 126:5,6,11 11:2,8 12:14 130:13 218:17 47:21 48:12,14 131:4 132:1 12:21,25 13:7 file 6:19 13:1,2




Page 228

132:7,7,15 209:16 212:12 66:15 67:11,24 frustration geographical 146:23 154:20 firsthand 150:6 82:18 100:22 173:9 175:7 50:10 85:5 155:11 163:22 Fish6:5 170:1 182:4 182:7 geology 9:13 206:17 209:2,5 FISHER2:23 183:12 212:22 frustrations 110:24 111:3 209:17,20,21 218:11 formal48: 10,13 159:13 112:5,5 114:5 210:13 211:15 fissured 129:22 159:1,16,20 fuli111172: 13 114:11 211:16,21 five 54:22 77:1 formalized full215: 17 geophysics 212:15,25 91:9 103:11,12 137:13 176:11 218:20 113:22 213:8 103:14,16,25 formation 39:13 funds 91:13,16 geoprobe 44:8

filed 132:11,12 104:2 111:25 44:18 furnished 136:8 44:13 122:4 135:19 137:23 177:9,10 former 68: 11 furniture 128:22 geoprobes 39:8 137:23 138:9 188:20 199:19 73:23 74:23 further 70:21 42:15 43:2 139:9 140:12 200:18 208:1 formerly 167:25 79:1,20 80:12 45:3 117:19 140:14 144:23 five-foot 115:10 forms 196:21 80:13,23 81:4 118:1 121:19 146:21 147:1,3 floor2:24 forth23:13 86:18,23 87:2 122:17 147:6 150:22 130:24 218:11 31:10 152:23 89:7 97:7 getting 37:5

illes 96:9 105:8 floors 129:20 Forty 16:22 107:3 182:25 51:11 83:15 118:22 213:17 flow41:1,2 121:1 190:22 192:11 89:7,9 91:23

filing 132:20,21 61:23 62:2 Forty-three 201:8 205:17 92:2 104:6,7 133:5 135:11 97:1 120:25 208:10 210:16 126:25 158:20 145:18 147:6 fluid 128:21 forward 13:5 future 27:18 158:22 172:12 147:23 148:1 fluids 95:19,21 80:1 87:24 46:1 110:16 173:12,16,17 150:17 155:15 95:22 96:5,8 154:18 194:1,6 153:8 173:24 174:3

final116:22 focus 12:13 206:21 174:25 175:6 117:2,5 73:21 209:5 found 29:4,11 G 180:1,1,2

find 31:2,14 213:19 29:18 33:4 gas 131:10,11 182:3,19 44:2 64:9,15 focused 106:10 35:7 61:15 196:15 202:15 183:25 194:14 64:20 75:2 117:25 129:8 95:11 100:3 205:2 203:13 204:22 107:18,21 203:2 107:15,24 gasoline 129:6 Giesfeldt 18:25 108:3,4 111:12 FOIA 109:24 108:17,23 gather47:25 20:12 80:5 111:14,20,23 folks 15:16 112:1 120:17 76:14 192:25 105:14 142:8 112:11 129:23 17:24 19:22 128:19,24 192:25 142:12 144:21 131:2 139:8 20:24 21:17 131:9 192:18 Geez 195:22 145:6,7 164:22 178:3 180:7 43:3 45:4 80:3 197:5,17 general3:2 165:3,13 195:8,21 80:8,10 82:3,6 214:10 94:24 128:23 166:20 167:6 199:25 83: 18 84:7,8 foundation 52:2 134:9 137:9 168:12,20

finding 27:15 87:4 97:24 57:15 63:1 144:7,19 145:1 171:4,25 44:3 195:7 98:6,17,24 four46:21 47:12 166:13 168:17 181:17 182:13

fine 18:13 100:20 113:17 47:15 54:22 218:14 183:3 180:12 123:14 145:3 65: 12 78: 13,17 generally 26:25 give 48:8,18

Fire 1:9,17 2:25 170:20 171:7 79:10 94:20 105:20 119:3 56:16 71:12 218:12 172:4 194:20 103:11 106:10 143:13,20 95:5 108:25

firm 2:11 49:7,9 198:2 107:19,22 144:2 136:19 143:25 126:19 217:23 follow 168:9 177:9,9 generated 28:21 147:24 160:19

first 5:4 6:24 following 198: 10 fourth 60:16 28:23 56:14 174:8,12 185:3 10:6 15:18 follows 5:5 fracture 113: 16 59:1 69:8,15 given 62:2,2 18:1 25:16,17 135:6 frame 56:15 104:24 105:21 63:16 64:4 26:2 37:6 food 151:10,11 74:20 194:7 127:5 185:2 68:13 86:9 44:12 49:8,14 foot 111:25 frames 176:7 189:18 190:6 91:2 95:2 96:3 113:5 198:17 framework 207:21 208:1,7 100:14 102:10 124:12 127:14 foregoing 141:9 155:18 generating 115:18 131:20 137:14 142:7 218:20 free 163:7 31:21 148:16 163:14 142:10 147:14 forenoon 217:10 Friday 193: 18 generation 184:8 209:4 158:16 159:10 foresee 48: 17 FRIEDRICH 207:16 gives 112:7,18 162:17 169:22 form 43:22 46:6 2:16,18 218:3 gentleman giving 153:5 170:5,22 172:4 52:1 53:3 54:3 218:6 167:19 go 7:15 8:22 185:2 187:7 55:15 57:14 front 59:16 71:3 Gentlemen 28:2,4,15 205:1,23 63:3 64:11 113:3 193:10 215:14 43:24 52:4




Page 229

58:16 67:16 good38:23 45:14,17,21 152:24 153:14 harmful60:24 68:1 70:3 40:15 49:4 46:1,2,10,14 172:8 175:23 Hatchery6:5 86:18 91:25 72:21 73:12 46:20 47:8,11 182:23 hate 180:9 92:14 103:19 95:5 117:9 48:2,9,21 49:6 guy's 124:4 Hausbeck 19:25 105:17 107:6 122:9 125:10 49: 14,16 50:2 G-1-E-S-F-E-L-••• 125:20 198: 1 107:25 108:6 197:19 50:22,23 51:14 19:3 Hausbeck's 20:5 110:13 111:11 Goodman 68: 10 51:20,23 52:15 HAYES2:13 112:17 115:19 Gordon 171:22 53:13,18,21,23 H 218:1 120:2 126:3 171:23 54:13,25 55:2 H3:8 hazardous 59:24 130:25 131:1 gosh 120:21 55:12 56:4,7 Hagedorn4:4 60:20,22 134:17 137:13 gotten 17:17 57:12 58:3,21 162:24 163:2,7 147:22 138:13 140:12 69:15 83:13 58:25 59:8 half 140:3 head 11:16 42:5 141:10 153:7 197:16 203:8 60:6,12 61:5 191:25 109:4 124:6 158:18 166:18 210:4 61:10,14,18,23 half-a-page 131:12 204:18 170:2 172:16 Government 62:22 63:10 210:21 heads 171:16 174:5,13 19:22 64:24 65:8,21 half-a-year health 16:4 175:16 178:8 Governor 163: 1 67:2,9,20 207:17 19:23 20:8,9 186:5 190:4 Governor's 22:4 68:23 75: 15,16 Halma 1:25 127:4 196:6 191:23 202:2 22:8,12,16,17 76:5,15,18,19 217:3 204:4,4,16 204:2 207:12 22:18 23:2,19 76:22,24 85:9 hammer 157:19 hear22:7 215:6,7 23:22 24:2 88:18 89:21 hammers 145:15,19

goal45:12 162:20 163:21 90:4,11,14,15 157:21 150:7,9,13,14 211:25 212:9 163:24 164:2,5 90:20 91:3 hand92:12 152:8 163:23 213:4,11 164:9 165:5 92:25 101:10 handle 40:15 165:8 168:13

goes60:16 166:18 167:8 101:17,18,19 157:13 183:1 207:2 75:18 105:12 167:13 168:14 102:1,8,11,15 handling 110: 1 212:8 148:19 194:8 169:2,23 183:4 102:19 103:1,9 handshake heard 22:15,20 202:13 212:5 grab 151:11 103:18,20 158:18 159:6 83:3 134:9

going 8:4,10 gradients 40: 1,2 104:10 110:23 Hanefeld 18:16 141:6,7,15 12:8 13:11,23 graduate 9:2,23 112:9 114:6 18:19 20:13 142:7,10 15:23 22:21 graduated 9:25 116:4,10 117:3 101:2,3 105:14 149:19 150:25 23:20,23 25: 14 graduation 9:24 118:5 119:11 125:20 144:22 151:3 163:19 28:4 32:13 graphically 119:23 122:17 145:6 164:22 163:25,25 36:18 42:20 123:2 123:12 131:13 165:3,13 164:15,16,19 55:3,5 71:4,8 great80:17 155:22 159:25 166:20 167:6 164:23 165:21 75:25 80:6 184:14 181:7 184:6 168:11,20 166:25 183:2,8 82:8,9,10,14 greater 30:12 guess 12:6 21:25 171:5 182:13 211:5 87:3,6,15 71:12 115:5 38:8 42:15,16 183:3 hearing 180:21 89:17 96:25 greatest 40: 18 75:23,25 129:2 Hanefeld's 180:23 98:16,24 green81:9 93:13 135:20 136:1 171:20 Hechimovich 111:11 112:25 ground 44:17,19 140:13,16 happen 20:20 172:24 173:2 113:2 115:8 102:3 131:15 144:13 179:7 155:4 177:7 held 10:24 126:3,8 131:17 groundwater 182:6,8 191:13 208:12 139:12 212:3 133:7 134:15 3:12,20 10:8,9 195:25 happened 7:13 help 76:8 112:23 135:16 137:18 12:7 ,8,9, 12,13 guessing 153:24 98:21 143:21 helps 130:6 138:5,9,10 13:22 14:8,9 guesswork 143:24 146:19 Henry 16:3,11 140:6,22 14:14,16,17,22 161:15 169:3,5,10,11 19:23 127:3 141:10 142:7 33:23 34:1,3,4 guidance 15:8 169:15 170:6 128:13 198:1 147:5 151:19 34:10,15,22,23 24:11 25:2 176:18,19 206:4 152:22 154:9,9 34:24 35:3,13 27:23 83:16 209:21,23 heptane 128:3 156:2 157:24 35:19,23 38:9 84:14,16 95:2 happening 44:7 hesitant 182:8 167:13,24 38:24 39: 13,17 108:18 127:5 69:25 102:24 194:5 170:19 173:19 40: 1 ,5,6,8, 12 130:2,17,22 104:18 151:4 hey 166:25 173:21 177:7,7 40:16,24 41:1 195:13 173:23 178:7 174:21 175:7 178:3 179:8 41:18 42:25 guy 124:9,11 happens 21:10 hierarchy 17:22 180:4 182:2 43:4,9,15,20 125:16 180:6 happy 130:15 high 13:17 193:3 195:1,7 44:4,11,14,16 211:8 180:7,10 15:20 34:1 195:21,24 44:18,24 45:9 guys 48:5 84:13 hard 191:10,10 36:4,20,23




Page 230

37:1 41:22,24 83:8,13,14 124:21 202:8 69:16 70:17 installed 91:7 69:13 75:2 88:2 89:4 91:6 ideas 4: 16 48:8 76:23 116:19 91:10,13,15,15 119:11,23 91:8 93:19,23 166:15 201:16 187:20 202:8 91:1692:4 120:5 187:7,9 93:24 95:11 202:1 202:11 203:11 104:3,22 187:23 203:14 97:12 99:11 identification 206:6 110:21 117:19 203:17 100:2 102:13 75:21 indicated 186:8 117:22 121:20

higher 71: 1, 9, 15 107:8,17 127:1 identified 47:6 indicates 69:17 200: 18 206:23 72:14115:11 128:20,25 128:1 142:12 93:12,15 installing 92:7 144:21 129:16,20 149:9,10 171:4 indicating instance 217: 11

highest 109: 19 173:13 175:13 176:7 203:7 156:21 instances 7 5: 1 115:1 122:3 176:7 177:9,10 identifies indication 56:16 170:4,10

Hirschboeck 177:13 181:11 127:20 112:7,18 instrument 217:7 184:1 188:1,13 ignored 77:12 115:23 157:13,25

historical192:3 188:23 190:12 Illinois 2: 11, 14 indications 210:7 214:1 192:15 193:21 2:21 160:24 116:1 173:13 insurance 1:9,9

historically 193:22 194:2 217:23 218:1,9 indicators 1:17 2:6,7,25 36:19 41:15,22 194:11,13,14 immediate 7:3 130:19 143:11 218:12 74:1 153:3 198:6,6 199:20 8:6 87:22 individual10:21 intended 89:20

history 12:23 200:8 208:8,9 100:25 145:9 individualized intensity 114:8 55:8 57:7 89:3 214:10,17 171:20 176:5 115:7 intent 92:6 95: 12 100:15 honest 143:25 209:23 Individually 1:4 132:7,7 146:23 158:17 161:6 182:22 immediately indoor 16:8 147:2 155:11 161:12 192:5 hook 155:23 28:5 33:5 69:2 17:14 24:16 intention 46:24 209:25 hope 65:15 75:3 175:13 25:9 27:16 47:1 79:12

hit 102:16 103:21 192:16 194:12 29:2 44:3 81:17 hold 18:17 hoped 100:25 214:11 78:18 127:6,21 intentions 72:11

147:23 101:3 impacted 76:24 128:17 130:20 interaction 6: 19 home28:11 horizontal59:25 impacts 200:3 130:21 131:1 137:10

29:12 30:18 60: 11 64:8,17 200:15,25 192:23 interceptors 79:2 94:17 64:24 65:7,20 implemented industrial 58: 12 88:22 102:22 127:25 67:2,9 50:21 77:8 95:14 interest 112:19 128:23 129:10 horizontally implications 130:12 158:20 129:17 130:4 112:15 137:24 industries 74:1 interested 9: 12 192:18,19 hot 50:10,11 importance influence 44:7 153:13

homeowner hours 202:20 24:15 135:15 179:22 155:6 31:19,24 32:2 house94:8 135:19,22 informal158:25 internal15:8

homeowners 187:18 189:7 important 66:6 159:6 21:24 22:2 79:7 175:19 HUGH217:16 160:5 175:24 information 24:5 31:4

homes 16:9,21 hundred 40:21 181:5 56:18 96:7 91:24 174:7 26:4,10,23 42:3 114:21,23 impression 112:10 153:5 internally 27:1 28:5 120:21 121:18 212:18 167:2 175:19 178:12 30:21 32:10,20 hundreds 23:15 inaccurate initial45:23 interpret 167:5 32:20,22 33:4 23:17 121:8 197:3 201:2 61:17 138:22 interpretation 34:17,25 35:13 hung 143:19 inaccurately 158:24 185:24 180:19 195:10 35:20,24 36:14 hurry25:24 212:20 initially 153:18 interrelated 37:1,5,10,20 Husted 125:20 inappropriate initiated 141:10 136:17 42:16 43:10,17 hydraulic 95:19 137:21 Injection 46:9 interrogatories 43: 18,21 44:4 96:8 incident 169:14 inquiries 22:9 217:12 44:14,23 45:2 Hydrogeologist include 46:20 ins 136:2 141:23 interrupt 112:12 45:4 48:23 8:19 87:14 inside 31: 11 interval115: 10 51:24 52:8 hydrogeologists included 95:21 73: 18 129: 17 intervals 112:23 67:18,22 68:6 8:20 132: 16 190:8 insist92:3 intervene 70:16,20 71:15 hydropunching including insisting 166:4 139:11 72:12 78:9 117:17,19 180:16 167:15 interviewed 79:5,9,13 inconsistent install103: 11 11:6 80:25 81:16,18 I 53:5 103:15 104:19 introduced 81:20 82:1,2 idea41:17 50:25 incorrect 59:6 installation 37:6 125:9 82:22,24 83:6 66:23 95:5 indicate 49:21 91:7 intrusion 15:3,4




Page 231

15:8 92:20 issue 14:6 15:14 K 194:5,12,21,21 80:23 83:14 93:2 130:17,20 23:11 124:7 K 162:24 194:24 201:16 84:11,13 85:4

investigate 136:17 138:20 KATHLEEN 1:4 202:7 203:5,10 85:9,9,13 57:12 58:3 147:10 154:20 217:16 203:15 204:19 86:13 89:2,11 61:5 64:9 159:23 177:22 Kathy 1:25 205:8 213:1,11 90:3,3,6,7,19 71:17,22,25 184:8 193:24 217:3 213:22 214:14 91:2,2 95:12 72:7 194:21 196:6 keep 160:5 Kipp's 123:4 95:18 96:24

investigation 202:13,18 193:3 199:23 177:15 189:20 97:1,4 98:22 11:23 34:18 205: 13 214:24 202:5 204:18 Kipp-related 100:15 101:19 47:19 54:10 issued 162:9 212:4 90:10 102:16,21 59:1,2 65:4,10 issues 12:5 14:4 ketone 128:3 knew 22:24,25 105:11 106:8 66:6,25 74:13 15:25 20:9 kick54:9 57:2 63:16,17 107:16 113:1 77:14 110:20 36:1 42:20 Kilbourn 2:24 63:18 140:23 114:2,11,24 138:22 153:8 92:22 126:1,7 218:11 140:24 141:1 115:10,22 155:23 159:21 126:22 137:7 kind 8:13 9:9,14 141:13 142:20 119:4 120:13 166:8 169:24 137:17 138:1 9:15 10:12 143:1 146:20 123:3 124:23 180:16,17 164:8 173:6 11:24 17:23 146:20,22 124:24 125:7 192:12 205:14 193:20 204:4 23:12 69:17 147:1 149:23 128:22 129:20 212:1,3,5,10 208:11,20 71:19 75:7,9 164:4 132:10,12,14

investigations I-E 19:3 75: 18,24 87: 19 know5:18 7:6 132:23 134:4,8 14:24 15:3,9 102:4 113:5,10 7:17,20 11:13 135:23 136:8 44:2 61:17 J 11:21,22,25 136:10,10,11 113:13,23 62:6 63:22 J 2:24 148:21 114:4 118:9 12:7 13:3,7,20 136:13,13,15 67:14 218:12 119:4,5,9,17 13:22 15:13 136: 16 138:4

investigative Jack210:22 120:5,14 16:25 17:10,17 138:23 140:14 128:10 159:9 211:14 121:14 126:24 18:11 19:9,18 140:24,25

involved 6: 11 Janine 123:10 132:13,20 19:19,20 20:5 141:4 142:25 7:12,14 10:11 125:18 153:23 154:22 20:7,9 21:1,11 143:1,11 18:23,24 19:6 January 10:1 156:9 158:17 22:6,13,14 144:15,15 19:21,24 20:13 46:17 91:21,22 158:25 161:8 23:3,11,11 146:9 147:11 20:18,22,24 178:10 174:19 179:16 24:1,15 26:19 148:18,21 21:3,4,7 22:4 Jeffrey 172:1 179:17 191:10 27:10,15,20 149:14 152:6 23:3,15,18 Jessica 198:2 193:13 195:15 28:3,3,16 152:13,20,20 32:20 63:25 job 6:7 7:7,25 201:25 202:5 31:10,16 32:14 153:6 156:1,8 133:24 137:15 8:12 18:8 55:6 203:19 32:21 36:22 156:20 157:11 139:25 144:12 172:6 175:8 Kipp 4:16 6:15 37:19 40:12,15 158: 11 160:3 145:4,11,16,19 178:20 204:20 7:10 11:18 41:6,7,8,10,12 161:8 162:24 146:25 149:21 John2:6,17 27:7 38:9 41:24 42:5,7 164:11 165:2,3 149:24 150:24 19:25 125:20 46:16 48:15 42:21 43:12,13 166:10,11,21 151:6 152:4,8 151:18 198:1 59:1 61:18,24 44:24 45:24 167:2,3,11 152:10 153:4 218:4 62:5 69:9 89:7 47:21 48:13 168:2 172:23 160:7,18,20 join66:16 82:19 91:18 92:3,4 49:3,3 50:2 173:14 174:15 168:1 174:23 179:6 183:15 93:7 95:25 52:21 55:1,11 174:17 175:8

involvement joined 10:6 124:1,8 126:5 55:18,24 56:2 176:11 180:5,6 6: 16 11:8,18 judge 57:3 139:8 126: 11 130: 12 56:3,10,11,11 181:10,23,24 19:9,15 20:10 139:12 131:10,22 56:17,23 57:6 182:5,8 184:7 150:4 163:24 July 132:4 134:5 135:3,18 58:10 59:7 184:17 187:4 206:12 200:12 143:8 144:3 62:2,10 63:17 187:17 189:3

involving 133:2 June 130:17 150:15 152:16 63:21 64:23 191:10,13 215:4 196:16 198:16 166:8,14,18,18 65:3,7,19 195:18,19,20

irregular 96:25 199:20 200:6 168:17,18 66:17,18,21 198:22 199:9 119:5 202:10 170:22 172:21 69:4,9,22,24 201:19,22,23

irrelevant 50:12 junior 124:18 172:23 173:4 70:12,17 71:5 203: 1 204:11 50:15 jurisdiction 174:8,10 72:4,17,25 205:18,23

isoconcentrat ••. 139:17,23 178: 13 179:2 73:7,9,24 74:9 206:10,13 85:17 Justice 142:1 179:12 186:20 74:18 75:10,11 208:12,17,18

lsocontours 148:24 192:11,20,24 75:20,24 76:23 208:21,21 3:12,20 193:19,21,24 77:14 80:1,23 210:25 211:8




Page 232

211:11,17,22 162:23 114:8,11 48:6,18 73:2,10 76:19 212:16 lawyers 5: 12 124:19,20 literally 194: 10 76:22 77:9,10

knowing 32: 15 137:2,12 150:3 157:15 lithology 114:5 77:23 79:24 44:7 50:2 76:3 138:13 176:25 179:21 181:14 little 35:7 41: 16 82:22 83:5,12 136:2 layers 112:14 196:19 205:14 44:23 50:4 83:17 84:11

knowledge 22:3 laying 138:21 208:22 67:16 93:17 93:10 99:4,7,8 134:7 150:6 layout 118:9 levels 13:17 107:3 109:21 99:9,17 103:22 155:6 161:24 Leader 18:7 16:15 20:21 114:12,15 110:22 111:13

known62:8 leading 70:23 36:23 37:2 117:10 160:2 115:13 122:15 141:19,20 75:12 176:16 87:25 106:11 177:6 178:13 127:7,13 129:2

leads 188:1 108:17 121:25 186:14 203:19 129:19 130:9 L Leah 125:17 127:2 142:16 209:18 131:12 147:13

L2:22 218:9 148:20 146:2 149:10 LLP 2: 16,18,21 147:14 159:8 lab 127:19 learn 15: 19 96:3 149:23 187:7 218:3,6,8 168:5 170: 17

187:11 212:8 187:10,13 local143: 15 175:8 178:7,16 lack 52:2 57:14 leave 18:8 215:4 190:20 location 50:7 182:1,23 188:2

63:1 172:6 led 37:5 137:18 licenses 12:18 73:23 79:16 188:10 190:8 178:21,22 177:23,24 lie 27:2 83:6 94:19 195:13,19

lacking 196:2 LEDSKY2:13 lies 40:18 68:11 104:2,5 108:23 202:3 207:20 ladder 179:23 218:1 107:23 111:1,15,25 looked6:19 lag 175:5 198:22 left 7:15 66:8 life 181:25 186:11,12 13:20 14:20 land 103:10 93:16 186:6 likelihood 62: 16 locational 34:2 42:13

214:1 215:11 limit 86:14 213:25 63:18 69:4,7 lands60:25 left-hand 162:17 195:20 202:10 locations 29:5 71:14 84:20 language 55:22 legal52:2 53:4 limited 14:23 33:23 72:25 90:16 111:2,3 large 95:3 55:16 63:2 15:12 92:21 78:7,13,17 126:6,7 130:7 largely 117:25 64:12 132:10 139:13 90:25 94:19 136:11 larger 197:25 132:20 133:4 Linda 18:16 95:4103:14,15 looking 36:25

202:9 203: 11 135:17 136:2,6 22:20,22 23:6 104:1,2 105:1 56:2 57:2 68:8 late 56:14 137:24 140:9 105:14 125:19 105:22 107:21 114:5 131:22 lateral11:3 141:9 155:18 144:22 145:6,9 108:21 109:7 131:23 135:13

39:25 40:4 156:1 157:13 164:22 165:10 110:21 111:13 154:23 171:3 67:18 68:20 157:19,21,25 165:12,12,15 114:17 115:25 187:20,22 93:6 102:25 163:1 210:7 171:20 185:22 186:7,8 188:22 189:16 112:8 Lenz 211:19 line 16:23 39:23 192:6,7 196:23 201:13 206:2

laterally 36: 11 letter 3:14,22 40:23 41:5,20 198:17 205:21 208:24 36:13 37:10 4:7,9,14 48:17 50:8 69:14 logic 55:25 looks 62:4 70:23

law 2:11 10:9 58:6,9 59:16 71:8 84:10 long6:7,1117:1 95:24 195:23 52: 10,23 54: 1 59:19 60:14,16 106:23 108:9 17:1 48:20 lost 52:6 54:16 55:17 127:14 158:6 142:14 186:13 50:20,22 52:21 lot 9:10 14:11 60: 17 62:20,22 189:25 190: 16 186:20 188:12 54:17 56:8 15:13,16 21:9 63:8,9 64:6 190:18 191:18 188:20,21 59:8 67:8 25:25 39:25 126:19 139:10 200:11,24 189:8,10 103:19 113:10 41:8 51:13 158:2,8 217:7 201:7 207:3 195:14 202:12 114:3 169:16 55:1 72:18 217:23 letters 79:3,7 202:18,22 176:6,12,13 73:6,17 75:13

laws 51: 19,25 letting 182:23 203:4,12,16,18 179:17 75:13,14,15 55:10 157:25 let's8:2117:20 203:19 longer66:8 76:17 81:1

lawsuit 132: 15 17:22 39:2 lines34:19 114:15 141:21 88:10,16,17 135:25 137:22 58:13,18 64: 19 48:11 49:20 173:3 92:22 95:16 138:5,8,20 66:3 67:16 69:6,22 70:1,8 look 25:20 26:16 105:19-106:9 142:2 143:16 73:20,21 93:10 71:18 88:21 37:14 39:21 109:1 113:19 145:18 147:5 106:17 127:13 141:15 142:19 43:3 52:18 120:6,11,15 150:17 154:20 147:13 170:17 142:23 176:2 56: 11' 13,24 121:25 155:19 155:11,16,17 174:4,8 212:14 203:20 210:8 57:4,7 61:14 159:8 166:14

lawsuits 134:6 level19: 13 21:8 liquid95:14,14 61:16,2163:21 167:17 169:7,9 lawyer 127:10 41:13 50:24 liquids 95: 18,23 66:3 69:8 70:2 173:1,6,9,11

135:14 137:6,8 61:1995:5 106:6 70:5,12 71:2 174:7,13 139:6 160:9,22 97:20 106:2 list 43: 1 45:20 72:11,16,19 176:21 181:1,3




Page 233

181:21 184:8 124:16 125:14 180:25 183:16 35:10,25 37:21 143:23 155:9 202:5 203:2 126:20 129:25 191:8 204:13 41:1142:17 163:19 165:12

lots 16:23 88: 11 132:5,19 214:15,19 70:6,9,21 176:14 188:19 88: 16 95:3,3 133:14,25 Maloney 198:2 72:14 79:5,21 189:3 190:12 109: 14 202:4 140:18,19,21 man 124:13 80:9,10,15,19 210:9 211:19

low41: 13 83:18 141:3,11,24 manage 173:3 80:22 81:4,16 212:15 86:10 122:2 142:3,19,23 management 81:19,22 82:1 means78:11 177:14 190:19 143:6,13 9:14 10:7,8,19 82:7,23 84:7,9 105:8 140:8,8

lower93:16 152:15 154:2 19:5 20:22 85:14,15 87:11 140:13,17 106:2 109:21 154:10 155:7 87:8,25 97:16 88:13 91:9 165:2 121:8,9 156:20 155:13 157:17 97:18,21,22 93:21 94:5 meant 21:5 156:20 187:13 158:5,14 159:5 101:6 137:20 96:20 97:9 138:8 195:11 211:2 160:11,25 145:23,25 119:18 186:25 measures 54:23

lowest 147:15 161:1,18,22 149:24 150:3 186:25 187:1 55:23 56:3,21 low-level112: 1 162:1,3,10 211:16 192:16,19 95:8 97:17 LUMBERMENS 163:5,23 164:1 manager 6:20,21 194:11 196:19 mechanism

2:5 217:20 165:4 166:2,4 7:9 10:20 198:4 200:17 33:14,19,20 lying 102:19 166:5 167:13 61:13 64:1 201:2 203:3 36:25 37:17 Lyle 210:23 168:14 169:21 123:10 165:19 Marsha20:1 71:18 95:10 L-E-N-Z 211:19 175:14,23 179:13,21 mass71:11 mechanisms

176:1,4,24 180:9 199:2 master's 9:5,16 37:4 68:18 M 177:1,4,11,18 manner 206:22 material102:21 69:1

M 2: 12 211:25 178:2 180:15 map 3:10,13,15 102:22 media 171:16 217:24 183:3 184:18 3:16,18,19,21 materials 97:4,6 meet87:3,6

machine 218:23 186:13,21 38:5 41:7 78:8 131:16 91:1 126:9 Madison 1:23 196: 13 205:20 85:18,22 Matt 19:10 208:14

2:19 3:2 9:1 206:11,25 101:20 matter 43:14,19 meeting 16:6 38:6 59:3 207:3 209:11 mare211:12 48:25 104:6 82:16,16,21 61:25217:8 209:16,24,25 mark 18:25 80:5 164:25 218:21 87:10,15,21 218:7,14 210:14 211:1,9 105:14 123:21 matters 18:20 101:4 124:4

Madison-Kipp 212:9,19 214:8 124:9 126:14 20:14 163:3 125:5,11,13,24 1:8,13 2:17,20 214:12 217:17 130:15 137:16 maximize 126:4,10,23 3:10,14 6:12 217:18 218:5,7 142:8 144:20 112:25 127:3 153:22 6:17 7:4,13,14 Madison-Kipp's 145:5 164:22 maximum 154:1,24 7:20 8:5,11 28:13,22 29:1 165:10,12,13 116:14 164:24 193:25 11:9 12:16,22 33:11 36:13 165:15 171:22 MC217:16 meetings 15: 11 14:3,7 15:18 72:5,9 79:6 171:23,25 McCutchen 8:7 19:17,18 87:17 16:12 17:25 107:17 122:23 193:19 8:9 18:3,15 125:2,25 18:21,23,24 133:3 137:6 marked 25: 12 McCutchen's 126:21 138:3 20:14,23 21:6 138:13 145:17 25:16 37:23 18:4 149:2 154:7,11 21:19 22:5 149:21 152:5 58:15 92:9 McHUGH 1:4 154:14 155:1 24:3 28:6 33:1 183:10 188:11 99:14 101:8 mean21:9 23:8 174:9 176:2 33:6 37:10 188:13 122:13 134:13 25:1 32:15 178:12 47:6,25 48:8 main 144:22 139:1 146:6 34:12,13 42:13 MEISSNER 2:23 48:22 57:11 155:17 217:8 151:13 156:14 42:20 45:23 218:11 58: 1 59:20,23 majority 12:12 162: 13 168:3 46:7 55:13 MEK 129:4 60:10,14 61:4 20:20 107:23 185:10 189:22 56:24 62:13 130:10 131:14 61:9 62:21 110:8 118: 16 191:14 193:8 70:8,25 75:12 131:23 63:9 64:7,23 153:25 196:8 197:21 80:2,12 82:13 memo4:17,18 65:9,22 68:9 making 22:5,9 200:9 201:14 82:23 83:12 31:5 175:5 69:3 71:19 34:11,14 65:23 206:14 210:19 87:9 90:18 180:13,14 74:22 77:15,24 75:17 76:5 213:14 96:22 107:7 207:18 209:1,7 83:25 91:10 81:24 95:7 Maroney 19: 10 109:1 113:8,11 memorandum 97:23 98:5,10 103:21,23 20:12 113:12 114:10 206:16 98:11,16,23 130:14,14 Marquette 27:2 114:23 123:5 memos48:16 100:13,17 166:8 167:9 27:4 28:7,12 130:1,21 209:6 103:11 110:3 169:3,24 29:2,12 33:5 136:21 137:24 mentioned 24:5 110:11123:18 174:12 180:24 34:17,20,25 141:17 143:22 44:9 80:3




Page 234

120:17 125:4 215:23 moments 82:5 multiple 103:13 nearly 111:8 161:13 190:1 minimize 60:24 money 174:12 103:15 104:1 necessarily 209:15 minimum212:4 178:3 129:13 70:25 74:14

met 5:11 19:19 minority 100:5 monitoring municipal 85:11 94:2 46:23 47:2 minute8:22 13:14 35:1,6,7 203:20 necessary 60:23 124:25 125:8 minutes 77:2 39:4 40:9,19 Murphy 140:5 181:12,20 147:19 193:19 117:13,14 40:19 41:10,14 MUTUAL2:5 207:5 215:15

methods 172:7 151:11 41:20,21 42:1 217:20 need23:11 methyl128:3 mischaracteri ••• 49:8,14 61:15 24:18 25:21

131:24 179:5 61:22,24 71:16 N 30:14 42:14,19 Meunier 123:21 missed 159:2,22 76:23 88:19 N2:10 3:5 44:11 58:11

124:19 126:14 missing 81:9 90:6 101:22 186:11 217:22 65:17 72:16,19 134:24 137:16 miss peaking 103:12 126:6 name 5:8 6:24 72:23,24 74:3 193:19 196:13 121:4 184:22 186:14 7:1 19:2 25:14 74:7 75:11,22

Michael1:22 mitigation 186:15,16 124:3,4,6,12 76:7,9 83:19 2:16,18,24 3:6 21:25 24:6,11 187:3 190:24 124:23,24 84:17 99:12 5:2,10 125:17 24: 13,20 26:3 214:17 125:7,16 107:13 174:2 126:18 134:23 26:4,10,24 Monroe2:21 127:12 161:13 178:8 181:4,22 139:7 217:6 27:12,19,24 218:8 162:16,21 182:24 189:13 218:3,6,12 28:8,14 29:13 month65:11 167:23,25 195:22,24

mid49:9,13 29:22 30:22 93:18 101:7 211:14,19,21 204:2 206:21 52:22 58:21 31:19,23 32:3 175:5 named 127:10 206:23 59:4,6 62:6 42:23 50:19 months9:24 127:15 162:23 needed 13:5,22 65:24 184:25 78:23 79:9,18 46:21 4 7:12,15 211:19 13:24 16:8 205:25 81:6,11 89:23 74:5,18 75:12 names 125:10 95:9 173:11

middle 53:19 91:6,12 92:1,5 96:6 110:19 211:11,12 177:24 193:7 120:6,11 92:7 130:13 117:23 121:20 Naperville 2:11 needs 13:4 56:2 147:15 185:19 203:24 204:13 140:11 141:18 217:23 138:23 179:24 193:14 199:10 204:19,21 141:19 161:20 narrow 165:22 negotiated 200:2 mix 128:23 176:14 179:15 natural3:3 6:3 141:9,18

migrating MK211:1 184:7,7 193:25 10:4 46:10 negotiating 129:25 131:4 MKC 163:11 194:22 205:24 162:8 218:15 135:16 140:11

migration 32: 19 191:8 208:13,24 nature 63:17 155:19 156:1 67:18 68:20 MKDNR000081 Moore 211:6,8 64:4 68:13 157:15 179:16 69:18 70:10 4:20 morning 101:16 103:19 110:22 negotiations 76:13 88:7 MKDNR000116 147:20 149:5 147:3 10:13 156:2 89:13 92:20 4:11 193:18 Nauta4:7,9,14 Nehls-Lowe 16:3 93:2,6 112:8 MKDNR000141 MOTORISTS 2:6 125: 19 189:21 19:23 127:3 112:21 184:18 4:3 move 13:5 36:25 189:25 191:8 128: 13 198: 1 194:14 195:16 MKDNR000289 42:25 80:1,5 191:19 192:10 206:4 205:20 206: 11 4:13 90:19 102:20 193:1,19 neighborhood 206:24 207: 10 MKDNR001511 112:14 154:18 196:12,16 3:9 25: 19 26:7 208:4,20 4:16 193:25 194:6 197:1,11 50:14 189:14 209:11 MKDNR001528 206:21 200:11,14 192:12 214:11

Mike 170:25 3:24 moved66:21 206:19,24 neither 48:5 million 109:6,8 MKDNR001921 156:9 210:15 211:10 115:25

109:9 4:17 movement 11:3 Nauta's 190: 16 Nest 40:10,19 Milwaukee 2:16 MKDNR002327 33:21 36:24 190:21 200:23 41:20,21 42:1

2:24 217:2 4:8 37:3 39:25 near41:20 71:16 101:22 218:4,11 219:7 MKDNR003012 40:4 70:13 43:17 66:4 184:22 187:3

mind 14:2 36:4 4:15 71:3 114:6 114:17,17 198:15 214:18 66:4 75:10 MKDNR003246 moves85:12,17 119:25 120:17 nested 186:10 102:6 131:4 4:10 moving 34:24 121:5 184:22 nests 88: 19 90:6 155:25 182:3 MK005329 4: 19 36:10 37:9 186:13,20 115:24 182:19 183:19 MK008643 3:25 64:3 71:10,11 188:12 198:14 network 113:16 202:25 moment 50:12 113:3 131:22 198:17 never 15:24 19:4

mine 132:4 73:21 82:7 132:2 183: 11 nearest 16:20 114:23 145:13 mini 215:19,22 104:11 202:4 119:15 120:8 167:18,21




Page 235

205:4 213:10 155:10 161:21 obligation 169:2,23 79:1,14,19 new 8:14 103:25 161:25 162:1 175:18 171:24 183:4 82:5 83:21

113:25,25 NOV 161:21 observes 90: 14 Offices 217:7 84:24 86:5,20 122:17,21 162:4,10 obvious 35: 12 off-site 13:25 87:9,17,19 202:8,13 novelll3: 13 77:9 89:10,12 16:17,18 17:9 89:21 91:11,14 203:11 November 65:24 182:7 17:10,12 32:18 91:18 92:17,18

NICHOLS2:23 170:20 174:21 obviously 19: 18 33:22,25 34:19 93:10,25 94:3 218:11 175:2,11,22 178:17 183:18 35:5 37:14 94:9,13,16,21

nine 51:10 176:16,18,19 occur89:13 65:13 76:13 96:17,22 97:12 186:7 198:18 occurred 22:25 90:4 98:14 98: 11 99:3,6

nods 11:16 NOVs 162:4 47:20 59:24 103:25 108:16 99:16,24 100:2 non-detect NR140 10:10 63:22 96:18 173:6,14 100:9,18

35:1141:15 52:14,20 53:7 164:17 178:1 180:16 187:6 101:10,14,15 78:18,20 53:14,22,24,25 occurring 46: 11 190:20 205:20 104:17,24 196:22 number6:18 76:25 207:10 213:13 105:3,10,12,16

non-detectable 24:11 26:9,9 occurs 176:16 oh57:3 62:4 107:14,24 114:19 26:13 27:23 October 65:24 70:18 120:21 108:13 109:10

non-detected 28:2 32:19,20 132:14 133:2 131:5,17 140:5 110:13 113:10 100:6 32:21 39:8 134:23 139:5 188:18 116:7,22

non-detects 42:16 51:1,3,9 140:19 141:1 oil 96:1 140:6 117:14 118:20 96:23 192:22 65:13 75:24 141:13 143:22 oils 95:13 97:2,3 119:19,23

Norm5:12 82:24 83:16 146:24 147:5,8 okay 5:18,21,24 120:9,16 122:9 normal137: 19 85:15 96:10 147:16 148:9 7:25 8:4,9,21 123:4,7,17,22 NORMAN2:14 107:20 108:18 148:10,17 9:20 10:15 125:4 126: 12

218:2 109:5 115:18 150:7,14 11:7 12:18 126:15 127:9 north 2: 11 37:20 118: 1 138:22 151:16 157:25 13:11 14:7,12 127:19 132:4

68:11 70:7,11 140:11 141:18 210:22 15:1,23 16:14 132:14,18 70: 15,21 73:9 160:1 176:7 offer 21:25 24:6 16:19,25 17:20 133:24 134:2,8 85:21 121:23 184:7 200:8 24:11,12 25:9 18:4,8,11 19:8 134:19,20,22 177:12 197:6 211:2 27:18 28:8 19:12,15,21 135:9 136:3,6 200:15,25 numbers 15:20 29:22 30:17 21:13,17 22:7 136:8 139:5 203:5 217:23 41:21 42:5 81:19 179:3 22:22 23:14,17 140:3,6 142:12

northeast 35:9 71:6,9 84:13 offered 24:20 23:22 24: 1,5 142:22 143:5 39:4 41:14 109:3 119:8,11 26:4,10,24 24: 14 25:3,16 143:19 145:3 76:17,20,25 120:5,7,12 29:13 30:21,25 25:22,23,25 145:11,25 95:15 96:14,15 122:2 127:5 31:19,24 32:3 26:7,16,23 146:11,22 96: 18 105:23 131:11 188:4 81:5 83:3,4 27:8,11 28:5 147:13 148:4 105:25 106:20 208:6 91:14 98:5 28:10,20 29:9 148:19 149:8 107:16 109:11 numerically offering 26:3 29:23 30:3 150:5,7 151:9 109:21 117:25 109:20 27:24 195:3 31:7,14,18 151:22 152:8 118:8 119:9 numerous offers 27:12 33:14 34:6 152:14,24 120:17 203:9 210:12,13 81:14,15 36:13 37:8 154:2 155:4

northern 39:2,6 office 6:6,9 7:16 38:3,11,15 156:3,19 160:7 196:17 197:2,7 0 10:18 16:3 39:16 40:11 160:19 161:13 202:11 object 43:22 19: 14 22:4,8 42:10,12 43:14 161:20,24

northwest 72:22 52: 1 53:3 54:3 22:12,16,17,19 44:16 45:8,13 162:15 165:9 96:12 55:15 57:14 23:2,19,22 46:7 47:6 48:5 165:20,24

north/ south 63: 1,3 64: 11 24:2 75:18 48:12 49:13 166:17 167:3 70:9 119:21 66:15 67:11,24 123:15 126:10 50:9,20 51:13 167:18 168:11

Notary 217:4 82:18 100:22 126:23 133:9 51:23 52:5,23 170:9,11,17,25 219:3 133:7 170:1 133:19,20 54:12 58:14 171:2,2,7,14

note 31:4 182:4 183:12 139:9,13,17 59:11,13,15,22 171:22 172:1,3 204:17 212:22 143:2 152:2 60:16 61:3,8 172:18,22

notes218:23 objected 57: 17 162:20 163:21 65:18,23 66:3 173:19 177:20 notice 78:9 objection 53:2 163:24 164:2,5 66:25 67:8 178:2 179:14

132:5,6,7 57:17,20 66:16 164:9 165:5 68:18 71:4 183:1 185:8,16 146:14,18,21 82:19 179:4 166:19 167:8 74:8 75:1 77:1 185: 18,21,24 147:1 148:16 183:15 167:13 168:14 77:2,23 78:2 186:3,18




Page 236

187:19 188:10 75:19 76:2 162:17 190:17 40:21 42:3 119:7,11,23 189:10,17 82:14 190:18 191:24 43:18 50:24 127:25 128:8 190:15 191:21 order 25:21 72:7 192:1,2 200:13 51:6 57:5 162:2,6,11 191:23 192:25 149:4 150:16 pages 162:18,22 61:22 78: 16,16 173:15 185:19 193:10,12 154:20 PAH3:16,17 109:5,8,9 188:2,22,24 196:25 197:10 ordered 4:25 99:7,21 100:7 112:3 114:22 189:5 190:8 197:14,25 orders 215: 15 PAHs 100:12,14 116: 11 120:22 192:17 196:20 198:9,22 199:8 organization 100:16 107:11 121:9,18 122:6 197:5 198:10 199:23 200:2 149:11 PAH's 108:24 188:5,25 189:4 200:19 207:21 201:5,21 202:7 orientation paid91:7 110:2 190:9,10,11 207:23 213:24 203:22 204:21 119:21 paint 128:23 202:5 207:22 214:4,9 205:1,9,15,18 original4:21,23 paragraph 59:22 party 58:6,9 PCEs 15:22 206:16 207:8 4:24 10:9,10 60:5,9,17 66:5 158:6 pending 217:14 208:25 210:11 156:7 218:23 134:25 172:5 passage 198:23 people 16:1 211:5,8,11,18 originally 79:6 172:10,16 Pat 8:7 18:3,10 20:17 105:19 211:23 212:8 107:9 178:8,9 192:2 203:23 19:6 145:11,13 123:9,16 213:21 214:8 originated 166:9 205:1 206: 19 145:15 146:4 125:23 128: 16 214:21 215:2 166:15 211:23 149:3,9,9,14 140:15 142:4

old 26:8 202:12 originating parameter 188:2 151:19 171:12 144:14 146:3 202:18 32:16 parameters path 70:19,23 149:23 150:19

onboard 15:17 ought 107:6 36:21 73:12 70:25 76:1 151:22 152:3 16:12 17:13,21 outcome 82:21 99:9 185:19 118: 14 193:6 164:16 169:1 123:19 83:20 parcel94: 18 pathway 69:12 182:8,11,14,16

once 50:20 outs 136:2 parcels 94:11 69:18 70:10 208:19 92:16 103:22 141:23 97:2 71:6 72:1 88:8 people's 37:15 123:24 159:20 outside 73:18 Pardon 117:12 pathways 69:6 128:20,25 159:24 184:2 161:15 189:9 112:21 173:13 188:23

ones 8:14 72:14 out-of-state Park2:11 Patrick 151: 17 208:7 91:14 129:4 163:14 217:23 pattern 119:6 pepper 85:13 154:5 164:23 oval39:22,22 parking 41:8 pay92:4 perc 35:10 36:20

one-half55:7 overheard 72:17 73:17 paying 91: 18 37:16 40:21 123:19 144:12,16 76:17 88:11,15 163:14 42:4 86:13

one-page 213:16 overseeing 95:16 106:9 PCB3:15 93:11 90:4,8 129:8 one-pager 168:25 171:18 109:14 120:6 93:12 94:25 percent 89:5

193:12 oversight 120:11,15 95:6,11,20 159:18 on-site 13:13,15 179:11 part 7:7 8:12 97:6,24 98:6 perc-related

13:23 15:19 overwhelm 23:7,9,12 39:6 98:12,17,24 88:10,18 91:3 16:16,19 34:1 105:19 39:22 49:25 99:5 performance 39:12 40:16 owner59:23 59:2 86:12 PCBs 73:11 7:19 94:1 108:19 owns29:12 121:20 135:17 75:14 94:6,12 perimeter 73:18 187:4 190:24 oxidation 137:19 140:25 94:15,16 95:18 202:14 205:2 206:4 198:15 141:2 144:8,23 96:2,8 97:3,7 period 12:1

operating 32:17 ozone45:25 154:7 158:15 97:13 98:9 53:21 54:22 45:24 46:19 54:21 159:14 162:19 99:20 100:3,5 55:21 141:21 47:14,23 78:23 o'clock 215:3 166:25 173:9 100:6,12 158:1 175:5

operation 37:21 o-xylene 128:4 175:7 177:15 107:10 108:24 176:12 194:3 54:21 182:6 202:12 162:6 196:3 208: 12

opinion 99: 12 p 202: 17 206: 1 PCE3:12,20 209:14 opportunity P2:10,10 217:22 partial32: 17 15:20 17:2 periodically

129:23 217:22 particular 94:22 27:15 29:4,11 202:3 opposed 69:18 pace47:19,21 126:4 206:22 50:24 78:14 person 18:19,19

168:21 204:24 64:3 91:23 particularly 99:8 105:24 19:530:17 option 45:16 92:1 173:9 113:13 127:23 106:5,11 60:19 123:8

46:5,13 47:11 176:20 184:3,4 130:8 139:21 107:15 108:22 124:15 125:22 47:22 48:1 210:4 187:21 109:6,16 160:10 161:2 50:21 84:20 packer 112:22 particulars 111:14,20 167:23 172:13

options 45:21 page 26:2 66:5 132:10 112:1,17116:3 211:19 48:6,19 75:17 127:14 147:16 parts 32:4 39:18 118:4,5,10 personalize




Page 237

34:13 plans 45:6,8,13 155:20 163:9 potential 13: 19 73:12 112:6 personally 65:4 71:17,22 163:11,25 27:18 32:10 122:2 138:17

142:20 71:25 72:7,10 175: 10 179:22 35:3 72:4 182:16 187:7,9 Personnel172:2 73:2,22 74:4 180:4 181:21 130:19 135:4 191:21 196:17 persons 1:5 74:11 85:3,24 181:24 182:21 184: 17 190:25 197:1 person's 125:7 86: 18,23 87: 1 183:1,18 196:5 206:10 previous 6:20 perspective 104:18 105:11 187:12 191:12 206:24 208:3 58:19 157:22

21:22 108:12 202:21 193:5 200:5 potentially 161:24 198:17 phase65:10 plant 16:10 208:23 209:8 129:7 144:23 previously 54:4

67:7 72:12,23,25 214:13,16 210:2 108:2 155:7 phenomenon 73:10 81:25 215:1 pounding 171:4 199:14

129:11 86:6,7 88:3,14 pointed 195:18 204:18 primarily 14: 15 phone 138:18 89:24 97:8 points 65:14 poured 74:2 14:17 27:6

154:1 192:17 69:16 70:14 power 158:8,13 34:19 42:15 phonetic 123:11 playing 33:24 79:24 135:7 ppb 49:20,20,24 69:20,21 phrased 57:22 please 5:9 6:2 136:9,18 196:19,20,21 106:10 118:8 pick 69:25 92:1 11:20 19:2 138:25 214:1 practicable 123:8,15

107:10 26:17 29:16 policy 32:8 60:24 primary 19:25 picture 73:13 38:4 58:8 66:4 political183:9 practical204:3 33:20 36:25

109:3 185:6,6 77:23 119:16 portion 39:2 preceded 8:3 37:4,17 42:20 Pierce 171:14,15 119:25 123:25 72:16 76:20,25 precise 51:4 50:17 68:8

193:16 127:13 144:25 95:15,17 predated 206: 12 112:21 136:14 Pinckney 2: 19 147:13 151:25 100:15 109:12 predating 136:15 155:25

218:6 156:16 170:10 118:1 191:25 212:16 printed 162:18 pitch 174:4 170:17 171:8 portions 95:25 predecessor 7:4 162:21 pits 73:24 74:23 171:22 172:1 106:3 190:1,17 prior 6:18 11:7 place 10:13 186:9 216:4 position 8:3 206:17 11:18 12:14,24

13:14,15 46:18 plume 38:12,15 10:16,24 87:23 predict 82:20 14:7,13,15,20 47:12,15 49:8 49:25 50:10,11 99:13 178:2 83:17 14:25 15:1,7 52:20 65:4,5 67:20 68:23 179:11,25 preempt 132:21 16:25 29:20 71:14 73:8 84:21 85:4,8,9 195:22 132:24 133:5 53:5 126:15 77:10,11,21 85:12,22 positive 79: 11 143:15 144:4 133:1 209:22 81:12 89:7 101:10 103:9 89:9 145:18 147:6 210:13 104:9,12,14 plumes 49:20,22 possesses 60:20 164:7 priorities 7 5: 10 112:24 134:3 50:11 103:4 possibilities preempting priority 36:4 138:15 158:1 point 8:24 10:20 67:23 103:24 150:23 43:5 77:20 184:3 187:6 12:6 13:12,13 169:13 preface 55:9 88:24 206:9 210:8 13:24 15:14 possibility 6 7: 19 prefer 163:11 private 52:7 218:24 16:5 17:17 102:7 135:10 preferential privileged

placed 184:21 18:9 21:20 139:22 150: 1 69:5,11 70:18 133:11,15,21 places60:9 27:19 35:5,14 163:22 202:22 70:23,25 71:6 privy 144:13

73:25 77:9 36:1 38:17 205: 19 207:9 71:10 72:1 probably 12:6,7 plaintiffs 1:6 42:14,18,19,22 209:10 prepared 38:5 12:10,11 15:11

2:12,15 5:3,13 43:1,2,6 45:15 possible 66:7 93:16 17:18 22:15,20 135:4,11 46:19 50:16,16 67:21 68:5,22 preponderance 26:13 31:3,12 163:14,16 56:1 57:3 68:25 83:20 213:25 39:7,11,23 217:12,16,24 65:15,16 66:24 86:15 96:24 presence 116: 19 40:17 41:6 218:2 69:19 70:22 97:1,4 105:20 present 80:4 44:12,15 49:1

plan 79:1,20 73:1 75:11 129:19 134:5 97:15 101:5 56:20 61:20 86:16,21 92:3 76: 1 79:22,24 193:20 195:11 153:22 154:12 62:11 64:1 97:7,12 103:10 80: 1 85:4 86:6 possibly 80:21 president 124:5 65:11 76:6 104:9,12,14 86:18 87:1,17 132:20 155:13 press21:9 87:22 95:21 110:9 111:7 88:7 89:12,16 158:13 161:3 pressure 174:14 100:5 106:5 151:18 94:23 97:11 185:1 176:20,21 107:1,3 108:3

planned 79: 19 98:8,19 101:20 post 15:7 111:7 183:9 113:2,3,17 87:17 101:23 107:11 posted 111:10 pretty 23:8,24 114:13 115:1

planning 9:3,8 108:11 131:19 post-treatment 31:15 41:17 134:9 136:1 9:15 206:25 141:23 153:17 199:5 51:11 72:21 138:11,19




Page 238

142:7,7,10 9:9 19:1 provided 138:25 194:2 210:9 read 59:2 140:5 144:20 153:1,5 142:17 152:11 153:1 212:23 146:11 163:7 154:15 160:2 166:14 171:24 provides 163: 15 questioning 180:3 209:3 166:12 183: 19 Programs providing 181:3 reading 115: 11 184:8 197:20 171:19 175:18 questions 5:22 207:8 209:7 200:7 209:2,3 progress 17: 16 proximity 12:2 12:15 36:9 readings 33:25 209:4 126:2 175: 12 52:7 81:25 92:14 101:17 37:16 69:13

probe 16:17 179:19 90:1 134:15 136:13 72:13 74:6 186:7,8 189:5 progresses public20:9 138:5 146:10 86:9 115:1 193:23 194:3 17:18 212:5 138:3 196:6 168:6 180:1 184:24 203:14

probes 13:15,16 project 6:20,21 204:16 217:4 181:8,9,20 203:17 15:19 16:16,19 7:9 10:19,20 219:3 182:20 reads 192:3 17:1,4,10 61:1364:1 publicly 105:5,8 quick 177:8 ready 134:17,20 37:14 85:15 123:10 165:19 published 105:3 quicker 159:12 146:10 177:11,13 173:3 179: 13 105:4 159:18 real6:24 109:4 184:21,23 179:21 180:9 pull201:25 quickly 109:4 203:14,17 186:15 187:2 199:2 pumping 46:4 177:5 183:11 realistic 4 7: 17 187:15,24 promoted 11 :2 purpose 64: 14 208:6 realize 55:7 188:10,16 promotion 11:4 114:4 125:24 quite 19:24 191:3 192:7 203:14 prompted 136:14 150:22 41:22 96:9 really 17:15 206:5,23 201:23 purposes 65:23 125:16 140:11 64:15 66:23

problem 13:25 proper 190:22 143:11 quote 131:11 167:17 181:4 14:21 42:21 properties 27:7 pursue 92:6 quoted 60: 17 182:2 187:8 50:18 54:25,25 96:20 107:7 133:4 202:22 quoting 130:18 202:13 214:3 56: 13,16,22 108:1 187:22 pushing 182:9 178:21 realm 161:15 64:9,15,20 190: 13 192:24 195:20 reason 21: 14 159:22,25 194:10 200:16 put 17:5 35:6 R 27:12 28:10 168:25 177:16 200:18 201:1 49:8 73:8 93:5 R 1:22 2:10 3:6 32:7 71:23 199:13,16,19 property 16:22 105:10 111:25 5:2 217:6,22 77:14,18,22 200:7 202:9,10 32:23,25 33:11 112:21 114:10 Radon 200: 17 84:6 105:16 203:11 204:3 36:13 38:10 161:14 177:11 raised 21:8 130:2 135:18 204:15 206:6 39:8 40:23 187:6,17 164:8 136:15 144:8 212:20 41:5,20 50:5 204:19 raising 135:2 155:9,17,25

problems 14:8 59:1,23 61:16 P.C2:11 217:23 ran96:1 107:9 195:3 14:14,16,17,18 61:19,25 62:1 p.m 1:24 216:7 186:3 reasonable 88:25 173:1,14 68:9 69:9 72:5 P.02:19 3:2 range 46:3 52:16 38:22 55:21 210:2 72:9 73:3,4,5 218:6,14 65:25 78:16 99:11

procedure 31:6 83:25 93:7 112:4 114:16 reasoning 84:10 procedures 83:7 95:25 96:13 Q 115:6 120:14 210:6 proceed 147:21 106:1,24 108:9 quadrant 72:22 121:9 reasons 54:4

147:25 119:13 121:15 105:25 rare 23:24 64:6 83:22 proceedings 5:1 121:21 186:13 qualify 24:20 rate 92:2 159:14 84:3 127:8

218:21 186:20,20 quality 52:15 Raymond 5: 10 199:23 process 136:20 188:11,13 quarters 190:7 127:10 162:23 REBECCA 2:22

179:17 208:17 189:8,9 192:20 question 5:23 RCRA 132:5,16 218:9 produced 38:7 193:21 194:12 24:15 25:20,22 132:21 133:6 recall13:8 14:23

38:22 78:9 203:5,6,10,15 35:17 39:20 135: 11 136: 11 17:5,11,14 210:25 proposal178:9 40:18 42:14 139:18,24 81:15 94:10,12

product 31:10 178:11 43:14,23 47:1 140:2 144:24 109:19 115:4 productive proposed 98:11 52:2 53:4,17 146:23 120:20,23

174:11 98:15 116:22 54:4 55:9,16 reach 51:6 87:23 121:7 122:1,3 professional 117:2,5 206:20 57:22,24 58:8 reached 57:10 125:3 126:17

12:18 20:5 protection 63:4 67:25 86:5 131:21 127:12 134:10 195:25 217:4 204:16 68:3 100:23 153:19 177:15 138:18 141:14

professionally protocol28: 17 124:7 133:8,11 178:6 180:4 143:7,17,18 9:23 83:7 155:23 160:15 reaching 44: 10 144:6,9,18

program 6:10 proves 66:13 160:19 161:14 86:14 146:8,14,17,18 7:16,24 9:1,3,8 provide 155:18 162:8 170:2 react 15:24 147:4,8,9




Page 239

150:11,11,18 referencing relaying 181:16 rep20:2 192:6 197:6 161:2,10,19 207:4 212:23 releases 129:25 repeat 52:5 63:5 200:4 204: 10 165:11,16 referral133: 18 reliable 24:22 report 17:25 residents 79:3 166:1 168:19 refers 148:13 103:9 130: 19 18:20 127:20 resign 179:3,8 169:14,21 149:13 relied 204:13 171:12 179:11 170:4,5,9,15 refine 39:11 rely38:15 reporter 4:24 resistance 174:7 179:20 195:5,6 refined 39:7 remaining 91: 12 7:1 58:1 63:6 182:3,20 209:12 214:8 113:18 remains 148: 1 215:14,25 183:25 195:4 214:13 refinement remedial21 :21 217:4 resisting 194:24

receive 97:2,3 187:11 37:7 45:15 reports 13:3 195:2 received 79: 10 reflected 218:22 46:1,17,19 56:13,15 resolve 13:22,24

135:1 refresh 209:8 47:21 48:19 158:22 171:25 resolved 25:5 recess 77:5 regard 8:10 15:5 49:1 54:18 203:8 209:5 resource 9:4,7

122:12 151:12 21:6 90:18 55:19 56:20 represent 9:14 132:8 184:15 112:10,11 63:23 65:17,23 101:13 146:12 resources 3:3

recognize 38:1 122:16 139:21 75:17,19 76:2 186:16,19 6:4 10:4,7 127:12 167:23 144:18 176:24 76:11 95:8 representatives 75:24 162:9 167:24 regarding 16:13 97:17 98:14 21:2 176:25 163:12 218:15

recollection 179:2 210:24 103:21,23 207:2 Respectfully 144:1 153:14 regards 183:20 206:20 207:5 representing 169:9 209:9 region 6:5 10:17 remediate 45:8 126:13 respond 135:5

recommend 18:6 106:12 45:13 204:3,14 request 11:5 responding 82:15 192:4,6 126:10 171:17 remediation 48:10,13 207:4

recommendat .•• 171:21 6:10 18:7 19:1 109:25 110:10 response 61: 19 191:1,7 192:13 regional6:4 7:8 32:17 47:11 140:25 141:3,8 62:8,12 162:19

recommendat .•. 8:2,15 9:3,8 48:1 98:12 141:11 144:9 176:5 190:19 191:24 10:18 116:23,25 145:17 149:4 responses 52:16 197:15 Registered 138:23 142:17 149:22 152:5 79:11

recommending 217:3 159:9 166:13 requested 28: 14 responsibilities 192:10 210:15 regular 53:8 171:19,23 143:9 7:10 204:16

recommends regulated 151: 1 201:8 204:25 requests 110:1 responsibility 190:21,23 regulation 52: 10 remedy 116:22 166:7 202:13 6:14 60:19

record 5:9 24:21 56:9 117:2,5 202:14 152:12 25:15 161:14 regulations remember 12:5 require 110:10 responsible 215:12,13,15 51:20,25 55:11 12:14 14:1 required 34:18 34:16 58:5,9 218:21 regulator 136:22 15:6 16:6,11 59:25 60:11 138:1 158:6

records 95:19 relate 51:20 17:3,4 19:4 requirement 213:3 recover 174:6 164:16 42:4 61:20 64:14,16 restore 60:23 recovery 92:6 related 11:22 78:20 79:11 requirements 204:17

132:8 163: 16 12:7 18:20 81:12 94:5,6 24:10,14 54:9 restoring 163:13 Redevelopment 20:14 22:5 94:15 109:20 64:2 172:7 result 28:12,21

18:7 19:1 24:3 89:6 92:7 116:14 122:1,8 204:5 28:23 29:21 166:14 171:19 106:6 131:3 124:12 125:9 requires 55:19 30:14 31:21 171:24 135:25 137:17 125:17,22 64:6 82:16 89:9

reduction 192:4 154:11 168:17 135: 12 143:8 requiring 14:23 128:20 138:17 Reed 124:23 181:1,1,6 145:23 146:25 63:20 164:3 208:1,2 refer 156:24 relates 172:23 147:12 153:21 165:7 166:4,17 results 27:14 reference 26:25 relating 126:19 154:10,12,25 residences 96: 1 28:8,9 29:22

60:6 106:17,19 134:5 162:2 170:7 173:5 186:21 187:3 30:12,15 78:12 107:14 138:20 166:23 168:18 176:6,17 177:8 187:16 198:12 79:15 82:9 145:22 148:5,9 relation 169:5 183:16 185: 1 resident 127:15 83:12 94:4,7,7 172:20 202:17 relationship 198:12 209:14 residential3: 15 94:9 102:4 204:6 205:1 90:16 116:2 214:14,18,25 3:16,17,19 105:21 107:5 211:18 159:7 164:6 reminded 69:2 93:8,11 109:23 111:5,6

referenced relative 55: 11 211:25 94:18 99:20 118:22 119:3 211:6 218:19 removed 192:8 108:1 119:15 127:20 128:16

references relatively 71:5 removing 177:3 184:19 129:7,8 130:7 145:24 113:25 162:5 200:19 186:23 187:22 130:9 186:4




Page 240

187:22 189:11 148:5,12,17 125:25 137:15 176:14 187:5 106:17,19 189:15 190:6,8 149:8 154:6 150:19 187:11,25 122:15 127:13 194:4,10 156:4,19,20,20 RP208:15 190:22 192:5,6 133:22 134:16 198: 10 202:8 156:23 160:7 RPR 1:25 194:1 198:18 134:22 136:9 202:11 203:10 160:12 162:15 RSV 190:21,23 201:8 206:7 139:3 143:12 203:12 207:21 165:18 167:1 rule 35: 19 52: 18 SANDERS2:21 146:8 147:13 210:24 167:21 168:11 55:18 195:15 218:8 151:15,20

resuming 215:8 169:17,25 ruled 102:6 sat 12:2 127:2 156:16,23 retained 4:23 170:13,25 rules 5:18 11:13 153:21 162:15 167:20 retired 18:10 175:16,17 Rummel20:1 satisfying 168:8 170: 17 reveal49: 11 177:8 178:6,19 run 42:15 69:22 174:11 170:18 172:19 review 48: 16 179:1 181:25 70:9 127:10 saturated 85:11 178:17 185:12

209:21 212:15 182:11,14,15 199:24 102:20 185:14,25 reviewed 13:1 182:16 183:5 runof£95:24 save 202:2 189:12,18,24

209:17 184:13 186:6 96:24 saw71:14 190:5,15 191:6 reviewing 209:2 186:12 188:6 runs203:4 109:21 112:7 191:16 196:10

212:25 213:22 188:21 189:7 rush 146:9 115:2 189:12 197:23 198:7 revisions 157:6 189:10,24 209:3 213:8 206:16 207:12

157:8 190:2,12,13 s saying 11: 14 209:1 210:21 right5:14,19,25 191:16,19,21 S2:10 3:8 24:21 28:20 213:16 217:6

7:3,4 9:22 11:7 192:12 193:1,3 186:12,22,22 30:3 33:10 SCHNEIDER 1:4 11:9,14,15 194: 17 196:6 186:23 217:22 43:19 48:18 Schone 123: 12 14:8,18 16:22 196:15 198:4,7 Safb.3:22 55:10 64:19 125:19 17:20 18:21,22 198:20 199:24 Sahf 127:15 84:18 129:16 Schroeder 4:18 20:15 24:3,7 200:1,23 201:5 Sahfs 127:24 149:1 150:12 210:23 211:14 26:21 27:7 201:6 202:23 128:12 129:10 150:18 159:1 211:24 29:2,5,7 31:7,8 203: 12 204:7 sample24:16,17 174:15 179:2 scope 135:16 31:15,16,18,23 204:10,23 24:22,22 27:14 195:3,19 138:21 140:10 32:7,22 33:1,8 205:15 207:10 27:21,21 28:13 200: 14 206:4 141:8,17 33:16,18 36:8 207:16,20,23 28:16 29:20 says 25:25 26:2 155:18,21 36:15 38:18 208:4,6 209:18 78:19,21 79:8 58:13 59:22 156:3,5,7,11 40:7 41:19 210:21 215:3,7 84:17 86:22,23 60:19 66:6 157:14,19 45:7,18 47:15 rights 135:4 89:4 94:18 130:5,5,18 179:16 210:6 50:9 51:21 risk 27:17,18 103:18 108:6 134:25 139:7 screen 112:1 52:20 53:11,14 80: 18,24 83:18 108:11173:7,7 151:18 163:3 screens 112:24 53:16 54:12 risks 208:21 sampled 35:12 163:10,11 screw 174:4 59:15,17,19 road6:6 36:5 78:8,11 79:6 172:11,25 181:25 60:5 61:8 70:15 177:9 192:24 190:19 196:16 screwed 59:5 64:10 67:4,6 roads27:6 samples 24:18 201:7 206:20 SCS/BT2 128:15 68:20,21,23 Robert 206:24 25:7,11 78:11 scanned 216: 1 second 17:21 74:12 75:6 rock 39:10 78:18 79:17 scattered 28:16 29:20 81:2582:11 112:14 114:21 94: 16,19 95:4 120:14 73:20 79:8 83:1 84:4,9 118:6 107:20 130:19 scheduled 104:6 89:11 99:17 86:22 87:3 rocks 112:6 130:20 174:2,5 Schmoller 1:22 107:10 134:25 90:2 98:5,14 role 6:22 33:24 194:2 198:3,11 3:6,22,23 4:5,9 170: 19 190: 17 99:25 100:9,9 34:4 154:19,24 198: 16 199:3,5 4:14 5:2,10,11 191:23 206:19 101:11 104:11 room 126:9 199:5 208:16 25:18,25 26:16 207:13 104:18 106:21 ROSS 2:22 53:2 sampling3:10 26:25 37:25 Secretary 19: 11 106:23 110:16 67:1182:18 3:15,16,17,19 38:3 39:19 143:3 146:5 110:17 111:19 183:12 184:10 24:10,14 65:14 44:25 45:10 Secretary's 114:17,17,18 184:14 215:23 77:24 79:8 46:15 48:23 143:2 116:11 118:11 216:4 218:9 85:20 87:1 52:25 59:15 Section 10:8 118:23 119:22 rough 122:22 91:25 93:11 62:13,24 63:11 171:23 121:6 122:8,9 roughly 39:15 99:20 101:20 66:3 77:7,23 sediment 14:9 127:13,15 88:12,13 103:15,17 78:5 92:11,16 92:25 129:11,12,14 187:18 106:10,18 93:10 97:8 see 14:20 26:5 136:23 138:14 routed31:6 112:20 173:8 99:18,21,21,22 29:21 34:3 144:11 145:9 routine 123:23 173:12 174:16 101:10 103:5 35:1 37:20




Page 241

39:2 42:24 207:3 45:16,19,21,25 87:5,5,11 89:1 102:10 104:18 44:13 46:14 sending 48: 17 46:2,13,20 90:5 106:1 104:19 106:3 47:21 56:12 sends 156:25 47:7,11 48:2 137:8 184:21 106:21 107:17 58:13 60:3 163:6 48:20 49:6,16 198:14 200:16 109:13 110:11 61: 1' 11 62: 17 senior 124: 18 50:21 51:24 201:1 110:19 112:8 62:23 63:10 seniority 20:18 55:4 59:8 sidelines 172:9 112:20,25 66:10 69:12,13 sense 109:1 67:20 68:22 sides 27:6 113:3,6,7 70:13,20 71:7 152:10 73:8 76:19 signed 178:14 115:14 116:5,9 71:13 77:25 sent 4:21 58:6 88:17 89:21 significant 116:19,23,25 80:16 81:8,9 79:3,7 127:15 90:7,11 91:3 76:21 115:21 117:6,7,18,24 86:9 87:24 136:18 170:20 101:16 108:4 184:23 117:25 118:11 88:3 97:8 sentence 139:21 117:3 significantly 118:12,13 106:7,11 148:4,13 shallowest 199:12 122:18,24 109:23 112:7 172:11 201:7 101:23 102:18 similar 80: 15 123:1,20 124:7 112:15 115:8 sentences 192:3 shape 57:1 97:14 121:17 126:2 128:15 115:10,11,13 separate 202:12 Shawn 2:12 5:11 similarly 1:5 131:16 134:10 115:25 118:9 213:12 217:24 single 28:12 137:10,11,15 119:5 120:4 separating sheer 105:18 30:13,24 35:8 137:17,20 127:25 128:6 106:24 sheet97:1 51:8 86:22 145:2 150:4,20 128:17 129:11 September 1:23 short 151:15 122:3 153:2,4,7,24 131:14 135:7 186:3 188:3 shorter 44:23 Sisbach 151:17 154:8,16 136:9 137:21 217:9 219:6 shorthand 151:23,25 158:17,24 139:19 147:17 series45:3 218:23 152:1,3,9,14 161:6,7,12 148:2,4,9 138:3 shortly 63:24 152:19,25 162:3 164:4,11 149:1,6 151:20 serious 57:16,19 show 37:15 78:8 153:17 154:10 165:1,7 169:24 151:23 154:15 210:2 214:19 78:24 88:16 155:2 173:2,3,4 157:1,3,5,9 seriously 184: 19 93:20 94:2 Sisback4:2 174:23,25 163:17 172:12 214:15 121:24 122:24 site 6:12,15 7:9 179: 19 180:8 172:14 175:16 served 132:5 130:16 198:7 8:8 10:18 11:9 180:16 184:18 185:8,13 187:4 146:13,18 213:2 11:22 12:1,16 184:22 193:6 187:14 188:4 161:21,25 showed 13: 17 12:22,23 13:5 199:6,6 202:4 189:11 191:1,6 service 155:10 16:19 78:14 13:11,20 15:18 203:21 205:20 192:8 196:3,13 serving 71: 18 105:22 119:7,8 15:22 16:7 205:23 206: 11 196:23 200:20 sessions 15:10 159:5 17:16 18:1 206:12 207:22 201:9,17 set 17:20 46:16 showing 17:2 19:16 20:11,19 209:11,16,25 202:15,17 53:24,25 54:8 38:8 187:14 21:1,8,9,21 211:9 212:3,11 203:23,24 99:16 101:3 shown 15:19 22:10,13 23:9 213:10,22 205:2 207:5,14 112:22 149:5 39:19 41:15,23 23: 13,20,23 sites7:9 8:14 207:20 212:6 173:19 196:2 61:11 63:23 25:6 27:19 10:20,21 12:13 213:4 214:5,6 sets 52:15 99:9 90:7 172:8 32:8 34:3,10 14:4,5,22,24

seeing 15:15 setting 173:18 186:4 34:24 36:2,20 20:20,21 23:14 16:16 34:1 seven 51:10 shows39:5 37:2,10 39:5 23:17,25 67:14 131:16 159:21 208:21 84:15 85:19 39:24 40:24 90:22,25 159:24 187:8 sewer69:22 105:23 119:4,4 41:1,9 42:7,9 126:16 169:6 199:11,11 70:1,8 71:18 122:21 124:2 45:12 47:20 170:21179:9 214:16 88:21 202:12 162:21 185:18 49:2 50:3,7 sitting 70:18

seen 59:16 202:18,22 shut 192:11 53:23 54:19 situ46:6,7 80:15 89:22 203:4,9,12,16 side 13:16 15:22 56:11,12 57:7 situated 1:5 90:23 115:22 203:17 16:10 27:4,4 57:9 58:10,22 80:9 115:22 187:24 sewers69:6 37:20 39:21 63:17,18 64:4 situation 150:25 194:9 202:10 203:2 70:5,6,8 72:22 66:7,13 68:11 six51:10 65:12 208:25 210:11 shallow 34: 1 ,3 79:20 80:8,10 70:11,20,24 104:4 135:6 210:12 211:2 34:19,21,23,24 80:15,17,19 73:14 74:22 six-year 198:22 211:14,21 35:7 38:9,12 81:2,3,18,21 76:3,16,21,25 198:23 212:12 38:24 40:12,16 82:2,6,6,23 89:1190:17,18 size 15:14 56:12

segment 115:9 40:23 41:1,18 84:7,8,11,15 91:1 94:25 56:16,22 95:2 119:20 42:1 43:9,15 85:14,14 86:1 95:12,15,17,20 159:22,24

send 109:24 44:11,16 45:9 86:19,24,25 96:25 100:15 209:4 215:17




Page 242

sizeable 55:1 188:8,17 91:8 93:20 169:12 15:15 16:1,4 slightly 73:7 soon 66:7 14 7:2 94:5 96:19 speed 205:24 19:23 20:2 slow 131:25 187:10 97:9 119:17 Speerschneider 52:15 53:14 smart 182:16 sooner 53:20 120:5 121:23 126:22 54:1 58:11 smoothly 184:6 57:12 58:2 126:10 171:17 spell5:8 7: 1 61:1,4,6 133:4 soil3: 15, 16,17 sorry 108:9 177:12 186:14 19:2 135:17,20

3:19 4:6 14:9 112:11 117:12 186:25,25 spend 163:11 136:17 139:10 33:21,22 34:9 118:20 121:3 187:1 192:16 spending 155: 19 139:15,18,23 36:20,23,24 137:5 140:5 192:19 194:11 spent 75:13 140:1,13,18,20 37:18 56:19 146:8 162:7 196:19 197:6 spill6:4,8, 14 7:8 141:25 142:1 61:17 69:21 168:7,17 198:4 200:16 8:2,15 60:17 143:6,13,14 72:21 73:3,5,8 184:12 200:17 201:1,1 139:18,23 145:17 147:21 73:10,13 88:10 sort 12:25 15:4 218:1,6 140:1 147:21 148:2 149:22 88: 16,23 90: 1 31:4 69:6,14 southeast 41:2 158:2 151:2 152:5 92:24 93:11 70:18 74:24 73:9 88:19 spoke 128: 13 155:5,13,16,17 94:22 97:13,25 164:11 173:15 106:2 109:15 198:9 157:16,21 98:13,14 99:20 173:21 118:7 spoken 209:9 158:5,11 159:4 99:24 104:19 sound 166:2 southeasterly spots 103:16 160:9,10,22,23 105:24 106:13 source 32:23,25 40:25 spraying 96: 11 160:24 161:17 106:14,16,18 33:3,9,24 34:5 southern 41:2 96:18 161:20,24 106:20 108:15 34:9,10,22 121:20 196:18 spread66:9 162:9 163:12 108:16,19 35:4,13,19 197:2,7 95:23 204:10 163:22 164:3,6 109:11 110:10 42:25 43:20 southwest 72: 16 204:11 169:1 217:1,5 111:8 116:22 44:5,12 54:20 73:9 88:20 spreading 95:13 219:4 116:25 122:16 67:17 68:8,13 95:17 96:16 96:5 106:6 stated54:4 131:10,11,12 68:15 72:15 106:3 109:12 spring 178: 15 58:20 59:6 131:15 155:22 74:9 75:20 118:7 squares 81:10 206:20,25 155:22 159:25 76: 13,18,21 spaces 129:22 staff 10:12 207:1 184:5 185:13 83:24 84:12 speak 11:16 19:13 statement 58:24 186:17 190:20 89:22 102:12 77:18 123:16 stage 182:21 130:23 212:13 190:24 192:4 106:4 128:11 124:9 199:1 stamps 156:19 217:13 193:23 196:15 131:7,18 204:22 156:24 statements 196:18 197:3 195:18 202: 12 specialty 154:21 standard 8: 13 144:17 164:1 198:3,10,18,19 204:14 212:2 specific 10: 19 73:25 209:19 states 1: 1,9, 17 200:3,14,24 212:11 213:13 12:5,15 13:9 standards 52:15 2:25 58:9 78:2 201:8 202:14 213:23 214:2,4 16:13 20:7 52:17 53:24,25 217:14 218:12 203: 17 205:2 214:9,20,25 23:10 45:15,20 54:8 55:20 statewide 15:11 206:22 210:24 sources 27:20 72:10 74:4,20 56:5,9 61:6 State's 46:24 213:25 28:3 32:9 90:24 103:23 127:8 171:10 51:19

soils 12:11 67:21 68:5 115:12 123:7 staple 213: 17 status3:10 36:11,14 37:11 72:4,8 76:9 130:8 134:7 start 16:8 44:10 77:24 153:23 54:21 69:21 89:9 130:11,21 144:10,17 75:17 76:5 statute 10:14 71:4 75:14 131:16 145:22,24 87:19,21 89:7 55:21 63:15 76:10 93:7,23 south2:14,19 146:25 147:9 91:25 95:7 163:15 98:7,9,18 99:4 6:5 10:17 18:6 147:10 152:20 103:13,22 statutes 135:13 100:21 108:4,5 27:2,4 28:7,11 154:25 159:17 152:18 153:15 136:12 108:22 110:14 29:2,12 33:5 159:20 165:16 158:12 175:18 statutorily 198:13,13,24 34:17,20,25 166:22 169:14 started 8:24 139:13,15

solely 166:11 35:25 70:7,11 170:3,9 172:20 10:1,5 21:9 stay45:19 solid41:17 50:8 70:15,21 79:5 204:5 209:12 111:19 159:21 step 17: 18 19: 15

171:18 79:21 80:9,10 specifically 25:6 159:24 169:18 140:3 146:5 somebody 23:2 80:21,22,22 40:6 90:17 206:2 steps 142:14

27:21 85:3 81:4,21 82:7 107:14 134:11 starting 13:18 Steve 3:2 109:25 123:5 141:12 82:23 84:7,8 142:25 143:7 65:11 186:9 110:1 125:19 164:18 167:7 85:21 87:11 143:12,18,20 193:5 137:14,14 167:25 179:23 88:2,5,11' 13 143:20 176:23 starts 157:1 149:2 152:6,8 180:7,8,10 89:1,13,15,18 199:1 207:16 152:10 153:3

some body's 89:24 90:5,6 speculate state 5:8 8: 19 153:11 154:7




Page 243

154:12 218:14 structures 89:23 139:24 140:2 surface 14:9 174:5 178:22 Steven 151:17 89:24 140:20,23 44:17 102:3 184:11 193:7

151:23 stuff 109:15 141:1 143:9,10 survey 202:15 208:14 215:18 Stevens 8:24 113:22 174:17 144:4,9,23,24 205:2 taken29:10

19:6 20:12 174:25 181:5,6 146:20 147:3,7 Suzanne 171:8,9 30:1,4,7 31:24 145:11,13,15 stupid 182:11 150:21,23 SVE37:6,22 32:4 39:9 145:19 146:4 182:13 155:15 164:7 42:22,23 54:19,23 55:23 149:3,9,10,14 sub 110:6 Suite 2: 11 , 14, 16 sweetheart 56:3,19 57:6 149:20,25 subject 22:23 2:19,21 217:8 135:3 61:18 62:6,15 151:17 171:13 170:21 196:15 217:23 218:1,4 sworn5:4 63:16,19,24

Steve's 148:25 198:3 218:6,9 218:18 67:8 77:5 154:19 subjects 154: 14 suits 140:14 symptoms 78:19,21 87:24

stimulate 46:10 submission summarize 80:4 204:22 94: 16,19 95:9 stood 13:21 14: 1 87:19 Summary system8:19 97:17 107:20 stop 143:15 submittals 191:24 24:13,20 27:12 118:2,16

150:16 48:16 summer47:20 28:15 29:13 122:12 132:23 stopped 86:8 subparagraph 179:15 30:17,22,25 151:12 160:1 straight 71:8 60:18 Superfund 169:6 31:20,23 32:3 161:6,12,17

120:2 205:23 subpoena superior 168:24 32:17 37:6,22 184:15 198:11 straightforward 162:19 superiors 42:22,24 45:25 217:6,11,13

144:6 subsequent 44: 1 178:23 47:15,24 54:21 218:23 strategy 48:2 149:19 192:15 supervisor 8:6 91:6 talk 8:21 13:6

153:10 substance 59:24 11:25 22:15 systems 21:25 17:22 73:20 stratified 60:20,22 87:22 100:25 24:6,11 26:3,5 104:17 126:1

103:15 sub-slab 16:8,16 100:25 144:22 26:11,24 27:19 135:12 137:12 stratigraphy 17:14 24:16,22 145:10 148:25 27:24 78:23 137:16 152:24

123:1 25:7 27:15,16 171:18,21 81:6,11,19 163:4 212:14 street 2:11,19 29:1,7,11,18 support 10:12 91:9,12 92:5,8 talked 6:21 23:8

2:21 27:2,3,4,5 44:3 78:15 173:17 180:2 200:17 204:19 67:18,19 74:4 34:20 35:1,10 83:14 89:3 212:1 204:21 97:23 101:16 37:21 41:11 127:5,21 supporting S-C-H-M-0-L-... 128:15 136:10 42:17 62:1 128:12,17 180:24 5:10 136:16 141:5 70:6,7 72:12 129: 1 ,3, 18,24 supports 132:1 S-C-H-0-N-E 146:12,14 72:14 74:6 130:3,8,18,25 191:7 123:12 147:11152:14 78:10 79:5 131:21,25 supposed 167:4 s.c 2:24 217:7 153:12 161:3 80:19,22 81:4 187:25 192:23 167:4,7 218:11 173:18 202:20 81:16,19 82:1 194:1,17 195:9 sure 19:4 26:19 talking 13:6 82:2,23 84: 12 195:12 206:7 31:13,15 34:8 T 19:22 23:4 84:15 85:14,15 208:24 213:24 37:19 42:9,10 T3:8 24:2 30:19 86:10,11,19,23 214:10 42:12,18 50:15 table 3:12 4:6,6 36: 14 40:4,5,6 86:24,25,25 sub-slabs 173:12 54:5 57:1,7,10 39:10 40:20 47:13,14 51:8 87:6 91:9 189:14 208:9 77:3 79:17 111:19 115:20 67:16 73:15,16 93:21 94:5 successful42:24 85:7,7,8,11,17 115:21 158:18 73:17 74:19 96:20 108:6,8 sudden 69: 13 90:9,24 91:2 185:4,6,9,12 100:24 102:2 119:18 186:25 sue 135:4 110:24 111:11 185:16 189:15 103:25 106:15 187:1,1 192:20 140:18 143:6 117:11,15 189:19 207:13 106:16,25 194:11 200:17 143:14 144:3 119:25 122: 11 tactic 214:5 108:8,19 201:2 203:3 149:22 151:2 135:21 138:17 Taffora4:4 109:10 113:11 217:8,23 218:6 152:5 160:11 140:7,7,24 127:11 162:23 119:1 120:1 218:9 sued 145:17 141:12,13 163:2,6 167:19 133:14,16

Streets 69: 11 160:25 161:1 143:1 144:1,21 take 7:6 9:12 136:21 137:6 stress 172:6 suggesting 160:20 163:25 21:1955:3 146:1 153:9,14

178:20 179:3 157:6,8 168:10 169:11 60:22 65:5,12 154:2,8 155:1 stride 167:16 suing 150:15 181:23,23 67:13 77:1 157:11 158:12 strong 174:4 151:2 155:6,13 182:21,24 89:3 117:13 168:9 172:19 strongly 40:2 157:16 158:13 187: 12 199:7 122:10 133:21 173:6 178:20

210:17 suit 132:7 199:18,22 151:10 160:17 181:17 185:9 structure 9: 10 136:18 139:18 213:22,24 164:6 167:16 194:19 198:19




Page 244

203:21 204:5 77:21 80:11 tetrachloroet ••• 40:15,17,20 191:11 192:13 213:7 110:19 133:16 114:20 129: 14 41:17 43:25 192:21,22

target 128:18 138:8 153:7 187:21 188:3 46:4,5 47:17 195:10,21 task 160:6 170:3 184:5 Thank215:16 49:14 51:8,9 196:16 197:19 tasks 156:12 195:11 216:3 56:20 58:5,20 197:20 200:6

173:10 Terry 16:2,11 theory93:6 58:24 59:4 202:20 205: 10 Taylor 20:3,4 19:13 128: 13 212:1 61:13,21 63:13 205:16 209:18 Team 18:7 206:3 thereabouts 63:24 64:1 210:3,5 211:14 technical48: 16 test 28:8,9,21 17:8 65:19 68:12 211:22 212:12

55:22 126:1 28:23 29:10 Theresa 193:15 70:2 71:2 212:24 213:3 153:2 157:15 30:19 31:21 198:1 213:19 72:11,15,16 214:3,18 177:21 32:4 73:3,22 thing 9:9 12:25 73:7,12 74:5,9 thinking 69:20

technically 6:13 74:11,22 82:9 15:4 26:1 75:9,9 76:2 69:20 124:20 9:2 83:19 85:24 44:12 50:3 78:8,11,12,17 144:14 150:21

technique 86:16,21 97:7 69:7,14 74:19 79:25 80:25 166:16 179:20 187:12 108:1 110:14 74:24 104:16 81:1 82:21 182:22 185:16

techniques 186:4 189: 11 120:1 123:3 86:10 87:13,13 191:11 200:6 113:21 189: 13 190:6 130:7 138:12 87:18 94:7,14 205:12

technology tested29:1 153:11 161:9 96:6,18,20 third 59:22 113:13 82:25 93:20,23 164:8,12 99: 1,3,4,7,7,9 200:13

tedious 179: 17 100:4 192:18 173:16,22 99:10 100:5,14 Third-Party 2:8 tellll:20 16:14 192:21 183:10 208:13 101:22 102:4 217:21

22:22 23:6 testified 5:4 things 11: 17 102:23,23 Thomas 148:21 26:14 31:13 testify 218:18 13:21 14:1 105:16 106:3 thought 38:23 35:2 37:3 38:3 testimony 53:5 15:18 17:19 107:6,13,25 43:7 56:20 46:7 51:1 68:1 202:21 25:25 43:1 110:7,12 112:2 83:21 88:4 52:13 76:8 209:7 46:3 48:17 112:8 115:15 96:11 128:10 105:20 108:13 testing 16:9,17 49:3 75:22,25 118:13,15,19 138:12 167:17 110:18 117:21 16:18 17:9,12 88:21 91:5,23 119:6 121:3 173:11 175:18 134:17 140:7 17:14 34:7,8 109:2 118:25 122:6,7 123:1 183: 13 184:9 141:24 142:13 35:15,19 44:8 128:19 129:23 123:13,25 202:9 203:16 142:18 143:21 44:9,13 69:25 131:2,4,6,13 124:2,5 125:21 208:17 213:11 143:23 148:7 70:5 74:15 131:17,18,25 125:23 126:17 thousands 165:4,15,20,24 75:7 79:1,19 132:2 136:12 129:17 130:5 116:11,16 166:23 169:10 79:20 82:8,22 137:13,13 131:3 132:1 188:25 169:12 170:10 83:3,5,6, 7 88: 1 156: 1,6,8, 10 133:20 136:14 Thread 4: 1,3, 11 181: 19 186:5,6 89:14,18 93:19 157:5 158:20 137:9 138:15 4:13,20 205:9 94:2 98:9 159:14,17 138:16 140:8 threatened

telling 23:6 104:8 107:5,7 160:5 166:15 142:20,20 89:25 60:14 143:17 110:2 112:22 167:14 168:13 144:5 145:21 three 9:24 26:8 154:5 161:11 113:5,10,14 169:8,10 172:3 145:22 152:16 34:2135:1,10 172:4 196:1 122:5,16,21 173:16,24 153:7,10 154:6 41:12 49:18

tells 36:22 90:9 126:22,24,24 175:6,21 155:9,16 52:24 54:15 106:4 187:23 126:25 127:21 176:15,22 157:12 158:20 79:10 99:9

ten 113:18 130:2 131:8,13 178:13,24 159:4,6,13 128: 16 136:5 114:9 175:12,24 180:3,23 182:9 160:13 161:7,7 143:4 149:10

tend 72:13 176:8 177:2,2 194:22 201:25 162:4,12 164:8 185:18 187:16 tended 109:20 181:10 184:1 202:7 209:15 164: 13, 13,14 187:25 193:22 tens 188:25 185:21,24 209:21,22 166:21 171:15 194:1 198:12 tense 174:9 194:17,25 210:4 173:17 175:24 199:19 tenure 165:19 198:24 199:24 think 9:5 15:15 177:6,14,16,21 three-dimensi ...

191:21 208:7,9 19:10,17 21:16 177:23 178:8,9 122:20 term33:15 tests 29:25 30:3 22:15,19,24,24 178:14 179:15 three-paragraph

55:21 102:1 30:7,8,9 31:24 23:7,9 25:2 180:2,4,5,22 211:24 180:18 78:4 110:4 26: 12, 13,14 180:25 181:1,2 thumb 195:16

terms 19:5 43:1 202:9 33:20 35:8,15 181:5,13 182:2 TIERNEY 2:23 47:19 49:1,2 tetrachloreth ••• 35:18 37:12,18 183:8,20 184:2 218:11 51:4 54:19 40:22 38:2140:14,14 186:7,14 time 7:15 8:7




Page 245

9:11 10:6 12:1 133:7,16 137:7 touch 72:13 199:15 202:11 204:15 13:11,17 15:6 137:14 139:6 149:3 218:20 two-page 162: 15 18:5 27:20 147:19 148:20 trace 35:9 90:8 trust 197:14 two-thirds 38:7,21 46:20 149: 1 15 1 : 16 121:24 215:5 203:22 49:8 53:22 156:25 157:8 trained 15:2 truth66:13 type 9:9 14:5 54:22 55:3,21 160:8,13,21 training 15:5,9 90:23 218:18 23:11 74:19 56:1,15 61:19 215:10,24 15:12 20:7 218:18,19 104:15 153:11 62:3,10 63:16 216:6 218:14 transcript 4:21 try 5:22 55: 13 161:9 164:8 63:21 67:15 title 7:25 8:18 4:24 5:1 79:12 135:13 202:1 208:13 71:20 72:18 18:4,17 149:17 transferred 136:12 164:7 types23:25 74:20 75:12,13 today7:22 10:17 178:3 183:23 113:24 75:13,14 86:2 38:25 56: 11' 17 transition 8: 13 209:19 typically 14:6 107:10 110:12 62:18 64:22,22 209:13 trying 25:24 21:10 80:13 110:15 117:9 72:3 77:17 transport 33: 14 75:16 81:12 126:9 121:22 122:10 149:2 162:25 33:19 36:22 94:23 114:5 T-S-0-R-1-S 7:2 125:8 127:9 163:5 169:21 37:18,18 68:18 121:25 138:7 137:10 138:2 170:14 183:23 68:25 69:21 146:9 155:20 u 141:21 143:1 205:15 209:1,8 71:3,18 88:23 164:6 173:4 ug/13: 13,20 143:23 147:14 211:3 95:10 176:6 212:19 ultimately 166:6 149:5 150:8,13 today's 208:11 traveled 9:25 213:1,1 Um-hum 11:10 155:20,21 208:23 42:9 Tsoris4:7,17 122:19 127:16 157:15 158:1 told8:4 22:14 traveling 42:7 6:20 7:3,13,22 136:24 172:15 160:17 161:7 23:1 43:7 treat 28:21,23 12:15 161:4,4 193:17 161:17 162:25 53:18 57:11 treated 198:13 161:13,16 uncertain 32:9 163:20 169:22 58:2 60:10 198:15 190:2 206: 17 103:5 170:5 171:15 61:4,9 66:25 treating 204:22 207:9,18 uncertainty 172:22 173:5 67:3 70:22 treatment 46:6 208:25 209:10 33:9,10 41:7 176:6,7,12,12 96:4 134:8,11 46:8 198:24 Tuesday 148: 10 49:21 176:13,22 134:11 142:4,6 199:4 213:20 uncommon 179:20 180: 12 142:22 143:5,8 trenches 71:21 turn 129:9 137:12 180:20 181:2,7 143:12 144:15 71:22 190:15 undergrad 9: 19 181:21 183:18 151:18 153:17 trends 190:25 turns42:23 undergraduate 183:22 189:16 160:10 164:18 triangles 78: 10 Twenty-five 8:25 189:21 191:3 164:20,25 78:14 201:16 underneath 194:3,7,9 165:2,9 166:20 Tricholoroeth ... Twenty-two 48:21 72:19,24 196:3 198:23 167:5,18,20 196:21 196:12 73:22 74:11,14 199:8,18 201:2 168:11,12,20 trigger 131:5 twice27:22 74:22,23 75:3 201:9,11 206:8 168:24 171:2 triggered 58:25 two 8:24 14:1 75:21 76:3,7 206:9 208:23 177:4 183:2 trimethyl 16:1 18:12 76:10 77:7,15 210:8 212:12 192:25,25 131:24 25:7 26:13 88:21 110:13 214:9 218:23 toluene 128:3 triple 188:4 27:1,14 29:25 110:14 127:1

timeline 158:21 Tom 148:24 190:11 30:3,4,7,8,9,15 187:25 160:5 177:25 210:23 TROUTMAN 30:23 31:24 understand 5:13

timely 174:24 tomorrow 149:5 2:21 218:8 35:11 55:6 5:21 14:12 175:19 206:22 214:6 true 23:24 24:23 67:23 79:15,17 25:16 43:11

times6:18 Tony 123:12 32:11 33:6,7 80:18 81:17 57:24 124:15 25:10 35:11 125:18 38:25 42:8 90:6 91:5 124:18 132:17 106:7 159:15 tool196:2 43·:25 53:17,20 94:11,18,19 133:10 135:1 185:22 195: 19 top 39:9 42:5 53:20 58:24 95:3,4,4 135:14,15,21 210:12 83:21106:10 59:10,20 62:20 110:21,25 136:12 137:5

timetable 36:6 107:19,22 63:8 64:22 111:6 114:17 141:22 147:10 46:12 47:18 109:4 115:20 65:1 72:6 77:7 114:25 122:20 162:7 172:17 74:15 103:8 118:3,6 124:6 84:6 96:22 123:1,8,16,18 182:1215:10

Timm 126:22 131:12 186:6,8 98:13 103:3,7 125:25 135:22 understanding 127:2 topic 136:4 116:20,21,21 136:5 141:19 33:15 36:21

Tinker 3:2,25 144:19 168:6 132:18 133:1 142:16 154:18 49:2 66:20 4:2 43:24 52:4 202:6 175:25 185:19 160:3 162:18 94:24 138:8 77:4 125:19 topics 139:25 189:10 192:17 162:22 194:2 144:7 208:11




Page 246

208:20,22 17:1 27:20 17:9 32:15 190:10,11 7:24 9:3,7 10:7 understands 28:8 29:13 67:19 68:16 207:23 14:9 39:10

136:20 30:21 31:19,23 69:5 72:15 voluminous 40:20 104:12 understood 32:10 33:4,9 76:6 92:24 111:8 111:17,18,19

134:12 33:11,19,21,25 131:9 196:18 VP-lN 186:9,10 112:14 115:19 undertaken 67:1 34:16,22 35:20 197:3 200:19 VP-18 186:10 115:20 161:8

67:6 77:16 35:24 36:10,22 214:9,15,23 vs 1:7,15 waters 61:1 90:12 36:25 37:9,14 VARGA2:13 Waubesa 27:3,5

undetermined 42:21 43:10,20 218:1 w 28:6 33:5 110:15 44:2,11 45:2 variation 112:16 Wacker2:14 34:17 35:25

uniform 71:5 50:13,18 67:17 varied 115:4 218:1 70:6,9 72:12 113:2 67:21 68:6,13 various 95:19 waited 158:11 74:6 82:2 87:5

unique 69: 18 68:19,22 69:1 106:11 170:20 walked 126:5 88:13 97:10 United 1:1,9,17 69:8 72:13 185:21,22 want 17:3 21:11 192:15,20

2:25 217:14 75:13,20 76:13 196:21 25:17,20 26:1 203:3 218:12 77:24 78:4 verbal168:21 55:9 58:18 way 22: 19 26:7

units 194:1 79:1 80:11 217:12 68:2 79:16 26:17 28:22 universal90:23 81:6 83:25 verbally 198: 10 83:17 104:17 30:9 54:6 unknown27:25 84:21 85:5,8 verbatim 60:18 120:22 122:7 57:21 58:18

28:1 213:13 85:11,17,24 version 215: 19 135:5 143: 19 62:24 63:11 unreliable 38:20 86:6,17 87:1 versus 24: 16 144:15 147:14 64:19 71:11 unsaturated 87:13 88:1 34:9 135:20 153:7 154:15 85:12,18,23

33:22 36:24 89: 18,23,25 vertical60: 1,12 156:24 163:8,9 111:20 129:10 37:4,17,18 90:13,19 92:5 64:8,17,24 165:3 175:23 132:3 153:20 102:22 92:20,20,21 65:8,14,20 177:5,8 178:23 154:18 159:1,4

unsure 83:24 93:2,6 97:14 67:2,9 76:19 179:25 180:6 178:23 180:7 unusual20: 17 102:7,12,20 102:25 181:11182:24 189:17 203:22 unwilling 28:21 117:6 126:25 vertically 113:3 192:1 193:12 208:25 update 3:9 130:17,20 vicinity 121:4 193:13 194:17 ways37:19

25:19 26:7,9 155:22 159:23 view 13:12 204:12 215:20 103:19 38:13 78:22 173:6,13 194:21 wanted 21: 19 WDNR6:12 93:15 207:1 174:16,25 viewed 88:7,23 44:24 109:23 website 26:18

updated 153:23 175:13 176:8 161:8 109:23 127:23 38:1,18 43:16 212:4 177:2,3,9,11 vinyl128:2 157:18 158:25 45:161:12

updates 93: 18 177:13,16,22 129:5 131:14 164:10 175:16 92:17 101:14 upper20:21 181:1,10 131:23 176:3,8,8,15 105:5, 7,9, 10

87:25 142:24 183:25 184:17 violate 51:25 177:5 179:8 105:13,17 145:22,25 184:21 185:13 52:8 180:15 183:5 Wednesday 149:23 150:3 185:21 186:15 violated 52:23 193:3 194:6 148: 1 ,5,8,8, 12 162:16 186:19 187:15 53:14,22 204:14 213:18 148:13

Urban9:2,8 188:10,16,24 violating 54:1 wants 144:3 week79:3 urgency 75:7 188:24 189:5 violation 54:6 147:25 151:11 weeks26:8 use 24:12 25:7 190:20,24 161:21,25 174:23 180:12 65:12 104:4

102:1 180:17 192:4,11,17 162:1 warrant 187:25 125:12 126:1 214:1 194:10,13 violations 205:13 208:13

useful112: 10 195:16 197:5 139:10 warranted 16:18 wells 13: 14,24 Usually 209:4 197:15 199:13 visit 82:10 wasn't 14:10 34:20,21 35:2 utility 69:6 199:16,19,24 voc 111:3 23:10 57:11 35:6,10 41:12

71:21,22 88:21 200:3,15,24 162:11 190:19 58: 1 88:7,23 41:14,23 42:4 202:8,10 190:25 114:25,25 49:8 65:13

v 203:10,11,14 V0Cs3:17,19 137:11 167:16 76:23 90:7 validates 208:3 204:6 205: 13 99:22 100:9,12 173:22 174:25 103:12,25 vapor 3:10 4:6 205: 19 206:5,5 100:14,16 179:8,18,19,25 104:1 112:2,22

13:15,16,19,25 206:11,22,24 106:18 107:9 197:3 114:4 122:18 14:4,5,10,17 207:10 208:3 volume32:5 waste 130: 12 126:7 186:11 14:21,24 15:2 208:11,20 78:17 86:12 147:22 171:18 186:12 187:6 15:4,8,14,19 209:10 214:24 105: 18 188:6 211:15,16,21 190:20,23,24 15:24 16:5,19 vapors 12: 11 189:1,4 190:9 water 3:12 7:16 went 17:11




Page 247

107:10,21 218:14,15 works 16:2,4 157:22 158:16 1013:21 111:1,4 113:20 219:4,7 19:13 20:8 158:19,24 102 79:4 96: 19 135:12 136:11 wise 77:20 59:3 61:16,25 159:10 160:1,3 96:23 106:24 138:15 151:23 wishes 172: 17 148:24 152:1 169:19 170:15 111:23 3:23 169:22 175:22 witness5:3 172:2 208:21 134:13,16,22

weren't 82:8 43:25 52:5 worthwhile yesterday 26: 18 136:9 189:24 158:21 173:16 54:5 55:18 205:11 92:17 101:14 llth217:9 174:10,11 58:5,16 63:5 wouldn't 66:4 11-CV-724 1:7 199:17 63:13 66:17 72:25 89:10 z 11-23-114:5

west 2:21 27:3 68:2 82:20 96:25 130:23 zero 73:13 11:18213:20 41:9 62:1 70:6 83:2 100:24 167:10 Ziemba 125:17 1112:24 218:11 80:10,17 81:21 117:15 122:11 write 172:20 148:20 114119:17 82:6 84:8,11 170:3 179:7 197:25 201:24 zone 37:4 85:11 120:18 85:14,2186:19 182:5 183:16 writes 14 7: 19 12 3:25 114:15 86:20,20,21,25 212:24 163:2 207:18 0 139:1,3 87:4 109:15 WKDNR001316 211:24 214:2 05 186:1 187:5 122 3:22 119:17 120:2,3 4:12 writing 15:8 189:5 207:17 1252:14 218:1 120:9,18 woman 123:11 31:12 93:5,9 207:21 208:8 12502:14 218:1 121:15,17 wondered 27: 11 168:21 199:9 208:17 13 4:1 134:23 200:16 201:1 wondering 75:6 212:13,14 06 187:5 139:5 146:6 218:8 140:17 176:23 written 30:9 07187:5 147:13 193:18

WESTERN 1:2 182:1 31:1,7,8,17 09 186:3 190:7 194:19 217:15 word 143:19 59:19 158:22 13th 78:3,4

We'll97: 15 197:19 190:4 1 130 120:2 121:5 we're 8:19 19:22 words 11:16 wrong68:3 13:9 25:12,18 121:15

25:14 27:14,23 120:18 129:13 wrote 10:9 31:5 25:25 26:18 130-foot 115:6 30:19 36:1 work 7:15,22 167:20 170:19 62:9,13 78:15 134 3:24 96:23 42:21 43:2 9:14 11:25 170:23 171:1,3 186:15 196:19 106:24 120:2,9 44:2 76:1 12:1,24 14:13 175:2,11 198:16 121:15 102:15 113:15 17:18 53:11 180:13,14 lN 188:10,16 138 28: 11 29:2 113:21 120:1 59:3 72:23,24 201:19,23 18188:11,16 29:12 79:4 131:21 161:15 74:21 75:18 202:25 206: 17 189:5 94:4,13,14 169:19 173:19 92:1,7 110:25 lst48:18 120:3,9 121:15 173:21 188:22 111:4 113:19 X 1,000 114:25 1393:25 190:16 194:9 114:3 123:12 X 3:5,8 75:24 122:6 188:5 14 4:2 151:13,15 195:19 198:19 135:16 136:20 176:9 1,100190:10 158:16 159:10 203:21 214:16 137:2 138:21 1,900 190:9 14279:4121:5

we've75:24 140:10 141:8 y 1-20 2:7 196:20 Whyte217:7 141:17 155:19 yard 188:8,17 1-50 1:10 144156:24 widespread 155:21 156:4,5 208:2 1.8 196:20 157:1

69:17 71:5 156:7,11 yards 37:15 95:6 103:22 41:10 145 156:24 105:24 157:14,19 177:11 187:15 44:20 61:22 157:3

wield 179:22 159:9,9 165:6 yeah 11:15 114:14 122:13 1464:1 91:8 winter 104:15 173:10,20 44:22 57:5 122:15 127:13 1474:3 Wisconsin 1:2 175:3 177:24 85:7 188:19,20 15 4:3 108:7,11

1:23 2:16,16 178:1 179:16 year 54:22 66: 1 10-13-113:23 156:14,16,23 2:19,24 3:2,3 184:3,4 194:6 93:17 165:20 3:25 15th26:8 6:3 10:10 194:7 196:4 187:7 191:3 10-17/18-11 196:16 51:25 52:10,23 210:6,16 213:5 years 6:18 8:24 4:1 150 91:8 186:22 53:14 54:2,16 worked6:9 18:12 20:15 10-18-114:2 186:25 198:4,6 55:10 60:17 111:20 127:9 23:21 51:1,2,3 10-18-94 4:19 1514:2 61:4 133:4 137:11 153:20 53:8 54:19 10:17 147:16 15491:8 96:19 140:18,20 158:24 159:6,7 55:7,24 59:13 100 2:16 51:3 186:22,25 142:2 143:14 working 8:5,10 67:13 77:19 73:8 89:5 198:4,6 160:22,24 17:24 43:2 96:10 113:18 115:6 159:18 1564:3 162:9 163:13 51:15 128:15 113:23 114:9 195:15,17 16 4:4 162:13,15 217:1,5,8,15 134:10 164:2 114:11,15 204:19,21 167:20 218:4,4,7,12 170:15 123:19 150:24 218:3 1624:4 91:8




Page 248

96: 19 186:23 186:16 198:17 157:22,25 213:16 69:15 187:1 198:4,6 2N 186:10 158:12 163:20 290270:16 500 39:18,22

16691:8 188:11,16 165:22 170:20 43:17 49:24 168 4:5 28 186:10 173:8 174:10 3 120:22 174:5 147:16 188:11,16 175:11,22 3 3:12 4:6 37:23 51,800 207:22

168:3,8 170:17 2-11-09 4:7 177:2 178:10 37:25 38:3 52,000 189:4 170:18 178:17 2-3-104:9 178:18 179:2 39:19 45:1,10 53202-4108

170102:3 204:9 59:13 179:15 196:16 46:15 48:23 2:17 218:4 171101:22 102:16,18,20 199:10,20 49:17 52:25 53202-6622 17702:11 107: 1,2,4, 16 200:3,6,12 60:9 61:15,24 2:24 218:12

217:23 112:3 187:17 206:1 213:20 62:13,14,24 53701-1806 184:6 39:15 191:14,16 2012 1:23 38:7 63:11 110:22 2:19 218:7

43:18 44:16,18 20th 132:14 61:12 62:23 114:17 115:24 537073:2 67:13 102:15 133:2 146:24 63:11 64:22 185:12 191:18 218:14 151:16 185:10 147:8 148:17 66:2 78:3,4 196:20 55 2:21 218:8 185:12,25 20-some-feet 91:22 165:23 3,00057:5 55039:11 189:12,18 102:22 175:4 178:10 3:57 1:24 216:7 58 3:14 190:5 191:7 200 2:11 4: 15 217:9 219:6 30 87: 18 99:2 198:7 207:12 115:1217:23 2013 46:17 100:18 109:5 6 210:22 2000s 184:25 202 196:19 169:19 170:15 63:7,16 29:19

18th 148:10 200170:16 20381:12,14 300 42:3 114:25 30:4,12,14,24 180 101:21 2002198:18 206 4: 17 93:20 115:1217:8 32:4 41:14

111:15,15,22 2004206:18 94:9 3000 2:21 218:9 44:22 92:11,16 111:22 2005184:25 209 81:13,14 30144:15 99:17,21 112:2

1806 2:19 218:6 188:22 198:13 214:11 26:4 32494:10 138:21 185 4:6 198:23 80:23 193:8,10 3300 2:16 218:4 6th93:17 1894:8 200717:4 2104:19 37 3:13 6-15-114:12 19 4:7 189:22,24 2008 188:4 213 4:20 60-day 194:3

190:15 2009188:22 217 80:23 4 600114:25 19th 2:24 148:9 189:25 190:4 224:12 196:8,10 43:14 41:14 60563 2:11

148:12 200:12 191:9 22nd219:6 58:15 59:15 217:23 218:11 2014:16 81:12 225 80:23 66:3 73:14 60603-5758

1914:10 81:14 226 88:13 190:18 2:21 218:9 1934:11 2010 3:12,20 234:13 170:20 4:00215:3 60606-4473 1964:12 6:9,13,17 7:12 197:21,23 40 16:24 101:24 2:14218:2 1974:13 8:5,16 10:25 23rd 175:11,22 102:2,17 1980s49:9,13 11:2,8 12:14 230 88:14 93:20 118:18,20 7

52:22 58:22 12:21,25 13:7 94:9 111:1,15 40-feet 102:9 73:1792:9,11 59:4,6 13:18 14:13,15 111:22 112:1 40-foot 118:2 92:16 99:17

19819:4 14:20 15:1,7,7 115:24 43 120:24 121: 1 198:16 1988 6:10 10:16 15:17 16:25 23314:8 4599:2 7-18-94 3:14

10:22 57:9 17:7,22 126:15 24 4: 14 26:23 7-19-114:14 1990s 59:4 62:7 126:19 165:18 200:9 5 7-19-12 3:22

211:9 191:18 193:18 245 94:5,13,15 53:15 40:10,19 70101:24 199457:11 58:2 194:9 206:1 253:9,114:16 41:20,21,23,23 7002:19 120:22

58:6 59:19 209:17,22 53:8 187:18 42:1 49:20 122:7 218:6 60:14 61:3,10 210:13 212:17 201:14 206:18 50:24 51:6,7,8 789:5,16,19 61:14 62:15,21 201191:22 25-plus-year 71:16 92:9,11 7857 3:2 218:14 62:21 63:8,9 130:17 132:4 55:8 92:16 93:10 63:15 66:19 132:15 133:2 250187:9 97:8 99:17,21 8 158:6 210:22 134:23 139:5 26 4:17 206:14 101:22 110:22 83:19 44:19

1995 159:15 140:19 141:1 206:16 209:1 114:17 115:24 99:14,18,22 141:14 143:23 265 88:12 184:22 186:14 106:17,19

2 146:19,24 269 88:14 186:15 187:4 8-foot 44:22 23:10 25:12 147:5,16 150:8 274:18 210:19 188:19 198:15 8-13-12 3:11

26:16,18,25 150:14 151:16 210:21 213:20 214:18 8-15-12 3:9 51:3 70:3 152:22 154:11 284:20 118:19 58 40:19 42:2 8-25-04 4:17 77:23 78:6,15 155:4 157:17 118:20 213:14 50 16:24 49:20 80 104:19




Page 249

106:20 80s 53:19 56:14 819:17,18 82 10:1 169:18 8549:15 88 169:17

9 93:20 101:8,10

103:5 9,000 116: 13 9-14-114:4 9:511:24 217:9 90 147:2 90s56:14 59:11 90-day 146:13

146:18 147:1 148:15 155:10

92 3:15,16,18 99 3:19



(414) 271-4466


page 1 ·· 1cleanairmadison.org/rcra/117 -deposition of schmoller dnr... · 2013-03-04 ·...

Documents