EMCAG Members and Alternates Present: Deby Botelho, Jim Condict, Linda Cook, Tom Essex, John Freitag, Rod Maclay, Neal Meglathery, Sheldon Novick, Gwenda Smith, Bob Walker and Steve Willbanks. VT Agency of Natural Resources: George Desch and Mike Young EPA: Ed Hathaway and Bill Lovely
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Scott Acone and Stephen Umbrell
A.D. Little, Inc: Scot Foster, Jeremy Picard, Claudia Nissley, Francisco Silva and Paul White
Strafford Technical Advisor: Sally Mansur
Copperas Hill Coalition: Kathy Hardy, Fred Moody
Technical Assistance Grant: Richard Downer and Woody Reed
Facilitator: Cindy Cook, Adamant Accord

The meeting began at approximately 7:05.

Elizabeth Mine Website

Nancy Serrell and Peter Ostendorp presented the draft website. EMCAG members should get comments and edits to Cindy Cook by the end of the day on October 31. Cindy suggested that the EMCAG develop a procedure for adding new material to the website at its November 14th meeting. The group applauded Peter and Nancy for the work they have done.

EPA Update and Discussion with EPA and ANR

Ed Hathaway presented a brief status update, including a table with reduced truck volume estimates. A copy of Ed's update is attached hereto. Ed also summarized the 6pm meeting with local residents regarding truck traffic. EPA will continue to explore ways to reduce traffic impacts to the community, including the possibility of using material from the site and increasing the size of the trucks used, to reduce the number of trucks needed. He observed that in order to get material on-site, a quarry will be needed.

Bill Lovely summarized the 6pm geotechnical meeting, in which engineers discussed the stability of the existing slopes and the amount of regrading needed. He reiterated that he understands that truck traffic is a significant concern, and that EPA will work to minimize truck impacts on the community.

The Wall and Cover System
EPA is considering several options that would reduce truck traffic including eliminating the proposed wall on the north side of TP-1, and regrading the slopes, if necessary, instead. This would reduce truck traffic by an estimated 6,544 trucks.

EPA is also working to minimize the cover thickness, because this would lead to a further reduction in truck traffic. The pros and cons of using crushed rock (hopefully from on-site) as the final cover material were discussed. Gwenda Smith stated that an unvegetated surface would be more in keeping with the historic "look" of the site. A number of Mine Road area residents indicated that they strongly prefer the aesthetics and increased future use options of a grassy cover. Ed noted that both vegetated and "armored" covers are consistent with EPA's cover system guidelines, and that the community's vision for site reuse is likely to drive the decision regarding the final cover surface.

Ed noted that he has received peer review from a number of western mine remediation experts, and that the cover design proposed is that used at western mining sites.

TP-3
Bob Walker noted that both Richard Downer and Woody Reed recommended the removal of TP-3, based on environmental criteria. Ed responded that EPA has an obligation to avoid impacts to historic resources if it is possible to do so. George Desch indicated that he is very interested in keeping long-term Operations and Maintenance costs as low as possible, and therefore would like to keep the possibility of regrading part of TP-3 open. In response to a question from Gwenda Smith about the possibility of conducting archaeological work (also known as "data recovery") on TP-3 before regrading it, Claudia Nissley explained that archaeological work is very expensive; a typical excavation involves at most 5 to 20% of a site. Sheldon indicated that it would be very helpful to have the State Historic Preservation Officer and a community-hired historic preservation expert involved in discussions regarding TP-3, and observed that he thought it unlikely that EPA would spend an additional $3 million to remove an historic feature of national significance. Ed concluded this discussion by noting that the State of Vermont has an important role in decision making regarding TP-3. If the state develops a consensus opinion that TP-3 should be removed, EPA has no choice but to remove it.

The meeting was recessed briefly, and the ANR and EPA representatives and EPA consultants left the meeting.

September Meeting Summaries

The EMCAG approved the September 12 and September 26 meeting summaries.

Draft Comment Letter re Draft EE/CA

A draft letter to EPA regarding the draft Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) was reviewed and discussed. CAG representatives wanted more time to consider what comments they would like to make. Linda Cook suggested that the group develop a list of questions that it will address at the November 14th EMCAG meeting. Bob and others indicated that it would be helpful to have representatives of the VT Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and the State Historic Preservation Office attend the November 14th meeting to discuss the State's position regarding TP-3.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 PM.

top