 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
Elizabeth Mine Community
Advisory Group
May 28, 2003 Meeting Summary
|
|
EMCAG
Members and Alternates Present: Jim Condict, Linda
Cook, John Freitag, Tom Essex, Neal Meglathery, Gwenda Smith, Scott
Stokoe, Bob Walker, Kelly Welch and Steve Willbanks The meeting began at approximately 7:05. The
Role of the EMCAG A number of members observed that the EMCAG’s activity level is directly related to EPA’s schedule, and that the EMCAG should meet only as often as is needed to stay abreast with cleanup activities. Neal suggested that if EPA is unable to continue moving forward with the cleanup, the EMCAG should explore the possibility of proceeding with the cleanup on its own. John noted that everyone has an interest in accomplishing the slope stabilization and surface water diversion, but that this work is probably too expensive for the community to accomplish without EPA funding. Elizabeth
Mine Documentary Project Discussion
re Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Consultants
Lori Barg is on contract w/ the CHC; Richard Downer is no longer on contract. Dick Magaw and Anne Clift submitted applications when the CHC sought proposals a year or so ago, and so are “pre-qualified”. Fred explained that the CHC is considering hiring Anne and Dick, and is seeking input from the EMCAG regarding this decisions as well as general direction regarding the EMCAG’s technical assistance needs. Fred noted that things are pretty quiet right now, and suggested that the EMCAG and CHC may want to be conservative in spending grant funds now, because it is not certain when additional TAG funds will be available, if ever. A number of EMCAG members said that the primary function that they saw for TAG consultants was to review and summarize (or “translate”) EPA technical reports, offer advice regarding appropriate responses to these documents, and to bring in other experts (on an informal, unpaid basis), as appropriate. Cindy suggested that it might be helpful to retain a consultant who has experience with the Superfund process and who can help the EMCAG understand how various reports and decisions fit into the overall Superfund process. Steve noted that he would like to know what the reports that are tentatively scheduled for completion in early 2004 are intended to accomplish. Linda expressed the opinion that TAG consultants should conduct broad-brush review of technical reports from EPA, and refrain from conducting on-site investigations, original work or day-to-day site monitoring. It was emphasized that TAG consultants do not have site access through EPA, and must obtain landowner permission to work on private property. John stated that he believes that the TAG program was designed specifically for citizen groups that are not PRP’s or government entities, and that Citizens for a Sensible Solution is neither a PRP nor a governmental entity. Others reminded John that CHC was formed with the understanding that it would work to accommodate the full range of perspectives represented on the EMCAG. John said that he believes that this is a critical time and that he felt the need for the geotechnical expertise of Dick Magaw. He noted that Dick has had considerable experience with the Superfund process both as a project engineer and consultant. Some EMCAG members agreed that hiring Dick was a good idea; Scott and others expressed the opinion that Lori’s expertise was sufficient at this point. Tom suggested that Anne Clift might provide the geotechnical expertise needed. Lori stated that she has reviewed the Screening Level Risk Assessment and will review Bob Seal’s geotechnical report. She said that she has sufficient expertise to review the upcoming geotechnical report, and said that she can usually find technical experts to assist her in covering the “holes” in her expertise. Lori said that she believes that TAG money is intended to provide for independent review of EPA consultant findings and advice to EPA on how best to utilize resources to accomplish project goals. She also noted that she is not familiar with the intricacies of the Superfund process. In response to a suggestion that the CHC consider retaining a consultant with expertise in historic preservation, Gwenda stated that EPA is doing a terrific job in documenting the site’s historic features, and that an outside expert is not necessary. The group agreed that TAG consultants would receive their direction from Fred, that Fred would receive his direction from the CHC board as a whole, and that the CHC board would be open to input from the EMCAG. The group discussed the difficulties of individuals contacting TAG consultants themselves. It was agreed that communication with TAG consultants would flow through Fred. Draft
EMCAG letter re draft MOA Redevelopment
Initiative Update
|
|||
Page last updated: 1/20/2004
webmaster
The Center for Environmental Health Sciences at Dartmouth, © 2001
Site designed by Peter Ostendorp '03