Supcrlund Records Center S i l t : £)'"2i!»«H n.*t

G'lhbK:

EMCAG Meeting

August 22, 2001

EE/CA Preview

And

Site Update

Objectives for Aug EMCAG Meeting

• Present overview of EE/CA o Schedule o Cleanup Options Summary o Format o Highlight key issues

• Regulations that will impact cleanup

• TP 3 preservation • Notification of Impacts to

Wetlands, Floodplains, and Historic Properties

• Truck Traffic

• Site Status o Recent TP 3 assessment o Residential well sampling o Fish and surface water/sediment

sampling o RI/FS Work Plan o(NHPA) 106 process

Schedule for the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA)

• EE/CA is currently under internal review and editing

• Expect to release draft EE/CA to EMCAG for comment by end of September 2001

• Request comments within 30 days, October EMCAG

• Final EE/CA by end of November 2001

Proposed Plan release and 30 day comment period either December 2001 or January 2002

Cleanup Option Summary

All cleanup options include these baseline items:

• Preservation of a portion of TP3 (up to 100%, exact amount to be determined)

• Diversion of surface water away from TP1 and TP2 • Collection of storm water runoff and drainage from TP3 and

treatment with passive systems • Collection of drainage from toe of TP1 and treatment with passive

systems • Stabilization of the steep slope areas of TP1 and TP2 and

backfilling/stabilization of decant pipe

Cleanup Option 2B (multi-barrier cap)

• Consolidation of TP2 into the footprint of TP1 • Re-shaping the slope of TP1 to reduce "steepness" and increase

stability • Placement of an infiltration barrier (double barrier cap) over

consolidated TP1 • Placement of soil and drainage layer to protect the infiltration

barrier and promote vegetation (grass)

Cleanup Option 2C (multi-barrier cap)

• Placement of a reinforcing material on the steep slopes of TP1 and TP2 to maintain the current profile (rip rap, gabions, or concrete)

• Consolidation of a small portion of TP-2 onto TP-1 • Minor re-shaping of TP-1 and TP-2 • Placement of an infiltration barrier (double barrier cap - as in 2B)

overTPl andTP2 • Placement of soil and drainage layer to protect the infiltration

barrier and promote vegetation (grass)

Cleanup Option Summary

Cleanup Option 3B (42 inch ET soil cover)

• Placement of a reinforcing material on the steep slopes of TP1 and TP2 to maintain the current profile (rip rap, gabions, or concrete)

• Consolidation of a small portion of TP-2 onto TP-1 • Minor re-shaping of TP-1 /TP-2 • Placement of a 42 inch thick soil cover over TP1 and TP2 that will

reduce infiltration due to evaporation and plant use (not an infiltration barrier)

Cleanup Option 3C (minimal soil coven 6 inches)

• Placement of a reinforcing material on the steep slopes of TP1 and TP2 to maintain the current profile (rip rap, gabions, or concrete)

• Consolidation of a small portion of TP-2 onto TP-1 • Minor re-shaping of TP-1 /TP-2 • Placement of the least amount of soil over the surface ofTPl and

TP2 that will support long-termvegetation* assumed to be 6 inches (not an infiltration barrier)

Cleanup Option 3D (hardpan barrier layer)

• Placement of a reinforcing material on the steep slopes of TP1 and TP2 to maintain the current profile (rip rap, gabions, or concrete)

• Consolidation of a small portion of TP-2 onto TP-1 • Minor re-shaping of TP-1 /TP-2 • Placement of lime and/or crushed limestone into the tailings to

form a chemical cap to encapsulate areas of TP1 and TP2 • Placement of 18 inches of soil to promote a long-term vegetative

cover • Placement of a drainage net beneath the soil to prevent ponding of

water above the "induced" hardpan

c o o a:

o IO CO

. IO CO

•Tto CD

•fl­10 CD

o o o

£

to 0_

0

CM

CD CM

CM

CD CM

^ CD CD LO

OO CO

CM CM CO 0 T—

CO

c g "a. O

0

S CO

T

00$ co co CM

oo CD CM f*^ O

co oo co en a> ' ­

OO

8 CO CO CM

£ CM CO t>~

10

o> to CD

CO CM CO co co CM

co o co CD o CD

§ CM to OO

oo CM co CO co CM

T—

CO ao o T~

CD

CM O to

co

CO CO CM

S CO IO CO

to V* V* t* **

W <* ** tO to to to to to to

CD CM

o s

CD ao

CD

$

co oo co

CD 00

CM

00

to 03

CD CO

•t CO oo

CD co

IO r-­CM

CO f^CO

CD CO

to to CO

"CD C .g "a.

co -a­

ao o co

CM CO CD

OO O co

O co

toh-CD

CO o co

oo CD

CM to ao

00 o co

CD CM O to

oo o CO

o oo

— CDin £

O to to­ tO

<* <& V* <* CA- to to «0

*~ <* V* to to

D. 0 CO ^"

0

o> co £P CM

co ^

n eo<*>

CO o CM

en eo 10

IO ^«en

co o CM

T­CO

CO eo

co CM

CM

on CD CO eo

CO 0 CM

CM

IO t

O COtr Q.

c

Q.

O

<*>h­

~ ^™

•to

eo en eo

<»

en en

„

^ Sr

<»

n CM en

if*

IO r-co

-

*CM

to­

o o

^

CM IO eo

»

^f

™

to

CO

~

CM s ~

CM

to

CD CM CO

«0

QL co QL1- 11-

d.i- a.1— 1

QLH

co a. K 1 H

QL 1-

co QLK­1 K­

QLK

co QL K

"5\­

CD CD 00 CM

2 JO

CO

c .g a. O

CO 10" CO

^

CD CD o" co

co" T—

s 10"

CM"

0 ^_r CO

o"

CD T— CN CD CM"

m oO

Q.

"o Q ^~ O CD CM i

«•«

O O

CM C .g ^vL^

O

o 10_ fs^

CD o" £

0 IO CM co" s CM" s

CM IO v

co 10 CD_ i­

**

to T— CD to r-­co CD" to

to CM CD co" CO

CM" v~

< a. CM"

T3

Q

1 a. C0 O

"ms 'o. c^ ^™

c o !S

O

eo IO en* o CM at it*

i IO o I0_ T"

<f>

n ^^ ^fT­CM

O

**

CO eof CM

°l •-•"

40

« CO, irT a> CO CD" to

QL

S o a. 2=

!i t <D > O

(3D > CC CCQ O *­o. :> S X <B

CO 3 3 _j uu D: C t 3 ffl 0 CD O Q •»- CM" co co F CM CM CO co CO

E 5 3 oJ * ­< O Q- Q. Q­(O z o o o

Format of the EE/CA

• EE/CA is an official EPA regulatory document developed to allow for public comment regarding development of the cleanup action for a non-time-critical removal action (NTCRA)

• Specific format and content is required for EE/CA

The EE/CA is a key document in the administrative record and basis for any legal reviews

Less user-friendly for general public than Alternatives Analysis Report (AAR)

Format of the EE/CA

Content of the EE/CA

• Chapter 1: Introduction o Summarizes purpose of

document

o Summarizes site characteristics and extent of contamination (Site Conditions Report, February 2001)

o Presents risk basis for NTCRA (Summary of Preliminary Ecological and Human Health Risk Evaluations, July 2001)

Format of the EE/CA

Chapter 2: Removal Action (NTCRA) Scope and Objectives

o Statutory limits/exemptions

o NTCRA justification

o NTCRA objectives

o Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

• Legal requirements for action • Only specified for on-site

portion of cleanup • ARARs can be waived under

certain conditions

Format of the EE/CA

Chapter 3: Development of Removal Action Alternatives

o Statutory and Policy Considerations

o Assessment of Response Actions and Descriptions of Alternatives (similar to AAR, outcome is consensus cleanup alternatives identified through EMCAG comments on AAR)

10

Chapter 4: Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives

o EE/CA evaluation criteria are Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost

o Effectiveness includes: • Overall protection of human health and

the environment • Compliance with ARARs and other

criteria • Long-term effectiveness • Reduction in toxicity, mobility, or

volume of contaminants through treatment

o Implementability includes: • Technical feasibility • Administrative feasibility • Availability of services and materials • State and Community Acceptance

o Cost • Capital • Post-Removal Site Control (operation

and maintenance)

Format of the EE/C

Chapter 5: Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives

• Compares the five cleanup alternatives in terms of effectiveness, implementability, and cost

• Provides the setting for EPA identification of a preferred option in Proposed Plan (issued with final EE/CA)

• EE/CA will not include a recommended option; that will be in the Proposed Plan

12

Key Issues in EE/CA

Several key issues have been identified to date:

• Certain regulations will control the acceptability and design of the cleanup alternatives

o National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

• Requires EPA to avoid impact, if possible, and minimize adverse effects if not

• Mitigation of adverse effects to be detailed in MOA

• Human health and environmental risks are basis for adverse effect

• Alternatives will comply with NHPA

13

Key Issues in EE/CA

o EPA and Vermont surface water discharge regulations (NPDES)

• Any discharge from the passive treatment systems must meet VTWQS (numerical) and EPA ambient water quality criteria at point of compliance (Copperas Brook)

• Passive systems will be designed to meet this requirement

14

Key Issues in EE/CA

o EPA and Vermont Wetlands and Floodplain Regulations

• There will be impacts to wetlands and floodplains within the area from the North Cut to just below TP 1

• These impacts are unavoidable

• Passive treatment systems and channel design will mitigate these impacts

• Additional mitigation may be necessary

15

Key Issues in EE/CA

o VT Solid Waste Regulations (may apply since mining waste is included in scope of regulations, however, mining waste is also subject to an exemption)

• Design requirements for closure specified in regulations

• Cover over waste material • Grading requirements (5%) • Certain cover designs

• TP 3 will not meet these requirements, if applicable

• Closure grade is also an issue for all cleanup alternatives (truck traffic for additional fill)

• Cover design for Cleanup Alternative 3C does not meet the cover requirements

• Cover design for Cleanup Alternative 3D may not meet these requirements

16

Key Issues in EE/CA

TP 3 Preservation o All of TP 3 will be preserved unless:

• design investigations reveal that slopes are unstable or some material represents human health threat; or

• VTANR will not accept maintenance responsibility

o Three preservation options will be presented in EE/CA

o All of run-off from TP 3 will be collected and treated in passive treatment systems

o VTANR acceptance of TP 3 is conditioned upon further review of cost information

o SHPO opinion will also be requested with respect to TP 3 preservation

17

Truck Traffic o Estimated truck counts and potential

traffic routes will be presented in EE/CA

o Truck routes and numbers will not be known until contract is awarded and all design and road issues are resolved

o Design will focus on finding on-site or nearby sources of construction materials, such as topsoil and common borrow

18

Update of Site Status

Sampling

o Residential well sampling will re-start September

o Monthly for remainder of year

o Fish sampling and additional fish abundance surveys to be performed by EPA and ANR in early September 2001

o Surface water and sediment sampling will occur with fish sampling

19

Update of Site Status

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Work Plan is being completed

o RI/FS Work Plan should be ready for EMCAG review in October 2001

NHPA 106 process o EPA is ready to begin consultation

meetings to discuss mitigation of potential adverse effect

o May be best to wait until future land use issues are better defined

o MOA needs to be completed soon after Action Memorandum (February 2002)

o EMCAG input requested

20

Update of Site Status

Recent (8/10/2001) TP 3 Assessment o A recent site visit was conducted to

gain a better understanding of TP 3 o New map has been developed based

on this visit o Map will be included in EE/CA

21

TP-3 Mapping and Assessment

TP-3 was examined in detail to develop a better understanding of the remaining historic features and the nature of environmental issues

Reconnaissance Activities:

• Historic features located and identified • Sequence of events/deposits • Copperas vs. copper production wastes • Environmental concerns identified • Acid-generation potential, as a function of

sulfide concentrations

22

TP-3 Mapping and Assessment (cont)

Initial Conclusions:

Historic features include: • Copperas production remains from early to

mid/late 1800's: -"Heap leach" piles -Stone foundations -Wooden structures — copperas liquor holding pond and troughs?

• Later (1880's and 1890's) copper production remains (from Tyson operations):

-Shafts and manway -Waste sulfide piles superimposed over Copperas works -"Upper" adit -"Cobbing" shed

23

TP-3 Mapping and Assessment (cont)

Environmental/Design Assessment:

• Portions of TP-3 contain high concentrations of "fresh" metal sulfides (pyrrhotite and chalcopyrite)

• The sulfide minerals are actively decaying through oxidation at the ground surface, releasing metals and generating acid-conditions in the runoff water

• Secondary "salts" of iron and copper sulfate form routinely during summer months - significant contribution to metals loading and acid generation

• Copperas leach piles lack fresh sulfides, but still contain some metals and acid-generation-potential

• Greatest acid-generation-potential is from hand-cobbed ore/waste located in upper portion of TP-3

• Low acid-generation-potential rock remains in southern and northern portions of TP-3

Design Data Needs: Detailed sampling over entire TP-3 area to map and quantify acid generation and metals contribution potential

24

o o .a

Figure 1-1 - Location Map - Elizabeth Mine, South Stratford, VT Ito

CDCD

o o o

o o o uf

o —'

Figure ES-1 Site Location Map and Extent of Contamination

o oFigure 1-20 - Lines of Evidence of Ecological Impacts,

Elizabeth Mine, South Stratford, VT

w s

JS D- at n> 5 3 & 3 LU <U W 5 CO TO W

J l l Q D B

o —'

60m

Elizabeth Mine and Vicinity One-Half Meter Topographic Contours

1ripnds Incc'or.

60m

Elizabeth Mine and Vicinity One-Half Meter Topographic Contours

|- ] L

Originals in color.

w C5

=r.

I33ft ll':; .iV V'*"$&£•«;

.•i'l'ii*.

Jl'ii'-Mw'.'ij.•t*Lr'. X'i'.­

cro

5' o

en r­

2.o"

o i -o-s r - * IS. i~r 2S *

0)

"c o o

o o cc

O ^ in CD

m CO

•* in CO

^i ­in CO

CD CM

i CO

I

u

1—

CO CL

" CM

en CM

CNJ

en CM

o en

T—

inff\ CU CO

CM CM CD O

CL CJ5 if)

CO c o "o. O

o £ CO

•"3"

te­

oo CM CO CO CO CM

«>

CO CO CM fS.

o

«*

co CO CO en en

<»

CO

CO CO CM

te­

jr; CM CO N­

<«•

m en in CO

<&

CO

CO CO CM

te-

CO o CO en o en

<*

CO s CMin co

w

00 CM CO CO CO CM

W

T— CD co CD ^

w-

I CM O

*»

CO

CO CO CM

<»

en CD in CO

<e

§

CD

>

CD CO

£CL o CO

0 CO oc CL

CM

.0 a. O

T_

.0

Q.O

o en CO

••3­

«9­

O

CO

•"3­

^

en CO ••3-

§CO

if>

CO

CM J"

^

en CM

CM co

**

T™

co en oo

~

CO CO CO

1

te-

CO CO CO en

^

^

en CO

§CO

«3­

CO o CM

CM

^

^

CM

CO

O co

*&

o> coin CO

en

^

te en S CO

«>

in en in CD

<»

COi ­co o CO

<e-

CD 0 CM

CM ••3­

«

co

00 en

** T"

00

o o

»

CO CO

CMin CO

««•

CD

CMin co

«»

en 00••a­

§CO

•e/>

CO o CM

CM

^

«»

in CM

CO

T—

•ee-

CM en en COt-. CM

«

1 0in

<»

CO

CM Oin

«»

en co

§CO

«e-

CD o CM ••a-CM

«»

inin co o co

«»

in CD CM en

«»

T—1

CL 1-

co CLh­

_ "Q

1-CL 1-

co a.i­

_

"o1­Q.h-

CO CL 1-

"co o QL

1­

CO CL H­

1_L

^ H

CL CO CL1­

~m o

CO

J2

CO c .0 a. 0

cn

in" CO _.

T-

cn en en o CO 1 * CO

00

00 m" "*** CM

CM

O_

CO T

O

1 CVJ

CM"

(0 « o o o (0DC Q.•o CO

a. CO O "5 CO

CO

0 o CM

«-• CO 0 O "co 'Q. co O

Q.*3 » C C

S' _ {

CM C o "5. O

° c _o "5. O

P> \ >

O

r-CD o" <»

CO

55 O)CO CM en"

COCM

oin CM co" en CM" •5­

co o •r-

m" o

Z

O CM

CMin co"in T-

«•

( CO

f T—CM o"

m CO

m en in" CO en" €«•

CD CO

CM" en t--"

O CO

in CM en co" CO

CM" •w-

CO

co in" en CD_

5

QCO

«d.

CO

CL s0 tB CL =:

•S I

^ I §CD > O> (0 C as o £ m x IP _j UJ DC »­ CM «

§ c c o o

ts :? •? Q. Q. Q. O O O