Emery & Garrett Groundwater, Inc.
24 Common Street 3rd Floor
Waterville, Maine 04901-6611
Phone: (207) 87Z-0613 email: eggime@eggi.com Fax: (207) 872-0626

TO: Paul Gibbons
FROM: Peter Garrett
DATE: July 22, zoos

RE: Town of Thomaston oversight of Dragon Products Company, Inc.
[handwritten note: For zoning board of appeals meeting]

Thank you for asking me, on behalf of the Town of Thomaston, to help you evaluate the issue of whether it is reasonable for the Town to charge Dragon Products for consulting services related to the enforcement of their building permit. I understand that such services would involve review of Dragon's recent proposed change in the manufacturing process at the cement factory, and its probable consequences on several aspects of environmental quality in the vicinity of the plant.

My resume is appended. My particular qualifications for the task include the following:

• 30+ years of experience as a geologist, hydrogeologist and environmental professional
• formerly State's hazardous waste hydrogeologist
• Author of many articles and reports and some books on groundwater issues.
• 14 years as vice-president of Emery and Garrett Groundwater, Inc., managing all projects in Maine
• EGGI was recognized as #1 by the Maine DEP's Solid Waste Unit for its capabilities for hydrogeological analysis of landfills, in 1992 review of Statements of Qualifications
• Consultant to several towns on technical matters such as has been presented by Dragon.

I have briefly perused the facility's files in respect to solid waste at DEP offices in Augusta, and have also reviewed State of Maine regulations in regard to Site Location of Development, and , the Thomaston Town Ordinance Chapter 7, concerning land use and development. I have made the following findings:

1. DEP manages the Dragon facility in Thomaston under three separate regulatory umbrellas, namely solid waste, site location and air permitting. I am not qualified to review the air permitting files. Also, the full site location files were not available to me because the DEP project manager is currently away on vacation. However, I did make a cursory review of DEP's solid waste management files on the facility, now being overseen by DEP's project manager Carla Hopkins, She gave me a stack of files at least 2 1/2 feet tall, and commented that there may be more available in archives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 2 Garrett to Gibbons.
Town of Thomaston Oversite of Dragon Products Company, Inc
7/22/03

2. Ms. Hopkins is the third project manager in about four years. Her major task to date appears to have been to bring the facility under some kind of regulatory control, using a Schedule of Compliance, as a regulatory instrument.

3. DFP currently bas no regulatory control over the solid waste aspect of Dragon's operations, because the clinker and the Cement kiln dust (CKD) piles are not strictly landfills, as the material will be used again. I understand that Dragon or one of its predecessors submitted a landfill licnce application in the early 90s, though it has not been acted upon because of the above-mentioned state of affairs.

4. The Schedule of Compliance will lead, after a period of about five years, towards a Solid. Waste Storage Permit. The first version of this Schedule was completed on January 4, 2001. The latest draft dated October 24, 2002 is still in review with DEP management.

After they complete their review, it will require additional review by the Attorney General before the DEP Commissioner can sign it. Perhaps this slow pace of regulatory control is to be expected at this facility, and particularly at this time when the proposed process changes. To me, however, it indicates the need for some Town oversight of the regulatory process, so that the Town's interests related to public heath, safety and welfare and the abatement of nuisances is taken into full consideration, especially at this time of change in the industrial process.

5. Ms. Hopkins was clear that she thought it was a good idea for the Town to pay attention to what was happening under their own jurisdiction and that they should do so using paid consultants. I also note that in Article II, under General Standards of Performance, of the Thomaston Ordinances Chapter 9, such employment of an independent recognized consultant, if considered necessary by the Town, to assure compliance with all requirements related to the public health, safety and welfare, and the abatement of nuisances, is encouraged. I further understand that under Town Ordinances the applicant is expected to deposit the estimated costs of such studies with the Town of Thomaston prior to the study being undertaken.

You may be interested to know that the Towns of Norridgewock and Jay in Maine, each with large industrial facilities within their jurisdiction, have ordinances that call for an environmental reserve fund to be set up with a balance of up to $1,000,000, with annual fees to be paid by industrial facilities, some of them based on per ton emissions.

6. Groundwater at the Dragon facility is monitored routinely twice per year in a group of monitoring wells located around the clinker and CKD piles. But, sometimes in the past, the pH of the growndwater at the CKD pile has had a pH exceeding 12.5. This limit is significant because fluids with a pH greater then 12.5 is considered a "hazardous waste" or "hazardous substance" under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act. Currently this water is pumped into the kiln in the wet process. What will happen to this water when the dry process is operational?

7. Groundwater quality results are submitted to DEP twice per year with a summary report submitted annually. This summary report has only been reviewed twice to my knowledge, in 1999 and 2002. An Environmental Monitoring Plan had been submitted to

---------------------------

Page 3 Garrett to Gibbons

Town of Thomaston Oversite of Dragon Products Company, Inc 7/22/03

DEP in 1999 and had received some comments from DEP's hydrogeologist, and later resubmitted in July 2002. However, DEP still has not approved that plan, presumably due to the press of other business. This "press of other business" is another reason why the Town of Thomaston's Code Enforcement Officer may wish to employ independent consultants to answer to him.

8. DEP inspections of the facility, the most recent of which was February 2001, noted six violations. I am not aware that all of these violations have been corrected. Perhaps they are covered under the Schedule of Compliance. However, this is another reason for the

Town of Thomaston to have some independent oversight of the environmental compliance of the facility.

9. I understand that DEP has chosen not to review the process change fmm a wet to a dry process at the facltiry under Site Location of Development because the change will not involve an expansion of the facility greater than 30,000 square feet, and thus fits as an exemption. However, l have concerns that the current pumping of 80 gallons per minute (gpm) out of Quarry #5 into the cement kiln under the wet process will be terminated.

This may involve the release of leachate from the CKD pile with pH close to or exceeding the 12.5 threshold (See # 6 above). It may also involve the flooding of parts of the large quarry, or the redirection of quarry waters elsewhere on the landscape. As the application now stands, I don't see where this issue would be evaluated by the State. Thus, it would be wise to review changes under the Town Ordinance.

10. I noticed in the DEP file that on February 7, 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a regulatory determination of "Cement Kiln Dust Final Rule" in the Federal Register (Volume 60 Number 25). Amongst other things, the determination found that

"the primary environmental concerns to be addressed through additional controls are documented damages to groundwater and potable water supplies, and potential human health risks from inhalation of airborne CKD and injection via food chain pathways".

The EPA stated its intent to use various authorities under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to address the relevant pathways of potential contaminant releases from CKD.

11. Very recently the Company has applied for and received a license for Agronomic use of cement kiln dust. I don't understand; given my merely cursory review of DEP files, how the granting of such a license and EPA's determination about cement kiln dust can be equated.

In summary, the Town of Thomaston has reasonable cause to exercise its powers to employ an independent recogrized consultant to review hydrogeological and other environmentall conditions in regard to the building permit. If asked to serve the Town in such a capacity I will do so in a cooperative manner as has been the modus operandi of my company in the past.

Peter Garrett
Emery & Garrett Groundwater, Inc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

END