EMCAG Members and Alternates Present: Deby Botelho, Jim Condict, Linda Cook, Tom Essex, John Freitag, Rod Maclay, Neal Meglathery, Kendall Mix, Sheldon Novick, Gwenda Smith, Scott Stokoe, Bob Walker and Steve Willbanks.
VT State Historic Preservation Office: Judy Ehrlich, Giovanna Pebbles, and Emily Wadhams
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 7:00.

Draft Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA)

Ed Hathaway presented a summary of the draft Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) and a site update. A copy of his presentation materials is attached hereto. The complete draft EE/CA was distributed at the close of the meeting.

Ed indicated that he is seeking consensus comment from the CAG regarding the proposed schedule and on the draft EE/CA.

October 27 Historic Mitigation Working Session

Ed announced that EPA will hold a workshop regarding historic mitigation on Saturday, October 27.

ANR Perspective Regarding Long Term Operation of the Site

George Desch stated that in the interest of keeping long term O&M costs manageable, the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) is leaning toward known technologies. Representatives of ANR are planning to meet with representatives of the Agency of Commerce and Community Development to discuss innovative ways to fund cleanup O&M and historic preservation costs.

George said that he did not yet know where state funding to pay the O&M cost would come from. ANR is not proposing the creation of a dedicated fund, in part because such funds are not secure they can be raided. Ultimately, ANR will enter into a binding agreement with EPA regarding O&M costs, and these costs will become a non-discretionary part of ANR's budget.

Question and Answer Session with EPA and ANR

The audience was given the opportunity to ask questions of EPA and ANR. Questions asked are in italics, responses are in plain font.

Will the town have to pay any of the cleanup costs?
No. The town may contract to assume some of the responsibility for O &M, if it so chooses, but the O&M costs will be borne by the state.

Who pays if the treatment system fails?
Basically, "EPA builds it, and the state owns it", but EPA may remain involved for several years to ensure the treatment systems are effective.

Why do you favor Alternative 2C over 2B?
2B is a good approach, but it involves impacts on historic resources, significant regrading and significant risk of erosion of unoxidized tailings during construction.

Will EPA negotiate regarding borrow source areas and traffic impacts?
EPA will take the lead in identifying and developing borrow source areas adjacent to the site. EPA will meet with the town selectboards regarding road weight limits and traffic routing issues. The contracting process constrains EPA regarding truck route selection.

How many yards of concrete will be required for the wall?
6,500 truck loads.

Is the 30-day comment period sufficient?
If the CAG asks for an extension of the comment period, EPA will accommodate this request, but doing so will move the project schedule back.

How can we comment without more detailed plans?
You are being asked to comment on concepts, so that EPA doesn't spend lots of money on a cleanup design that the community does not accept. During the design phase, EPA will provide more detailed plans for the community's review and comment.

Is the retaining wall for TP1 needed?
We think so, because it is currently eroding heavily, but we will look at this issue in more detail during the design phase.

Aren't the current slopes stable?
The slopes are stable when dry, but not when wet. There is water in the tailings. Approximately 30 feet of the tailings are saturated.

Has Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) been used for tailings before?
We don't know, but it is routinely used for soil stabilization.

What are the chances of getting funding for the cleanup?
Less than 50% for next year.

If EPA doesn't get funding, is the state willing to pay for the construction of diversion channels?
EPA might be able to implement a staggered implementation schedule.

Are the Air Vent and Lord Brook sources of contamination that will require treatment?
We don't know enough about them yet to say. They appear to have chemical, but not biological impacts. These impacts will be addressed in a risk assessment. If an unacceptable risk is found, they will be addressed as part of the Remedial cleanup phase.

I thought that the goal was to achieve Water Quality Standards in the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River. Why are you now talking about the discharge from the wetlands?
We are bound by the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act requires that discharges meet Water Quality Standards.

Sheldon Novick noted his concern regarding possible traffic impacts to the village South Strafford, and his frustration that traffic impacts have not yet been discussed, as this is the primary remaining issue for Strafford residents. Ed responded that he cannot specify borrow pit to be used by the contractor, because if he did so, the price of the borrow material would go through the roof. However, EPA will identify large borrow sources in the area, and this information may give residents a sense of where the borrow will come from. EPA will meet with local selectboards soon to discuss traffic issues in more detail.

Agenda for October 10 Meeting The CAG will consider its comments on the draft EE/CA on October 10th.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:20 PM.

top