Elizabeth Mine Community Advisory Group Meeting

Barrett Hall, South Strafford, VT

January 27, 2005

Meeting Summary

Approved : June 29, 2005

 

Attendees:

EMCAG Members and Alternates Present: Deby Botelho, Jim Condict, Linda Cook, Tom Essex, John Freitag, Neal Meglathery, Gwenda Smith, Scott Stokoe, Bob Walker and Steve Willbanks

VT Agency of Natural Resources: George Desch and John Schmeltzer

EPA:  Ed Hathaway, Pam Harting-Barrat and Mary Jane O’Donnell

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Scott Acone

URS: Jason Clere and Marcel Guay

ATSDR: Gary Perlman and Kate Robbins

Copperas Hill Coalition: Lori Barg, Anne Clift, Pat Parenteau, Dick McGaw, and Fred Moody

Adamant Accord: Cindy Cook, Facilitator

 

EPA Site Update

A copy of Ed’s presentation is attached.

In response to a question, Ed and Scott noted that they have spent approximately $1 million on the site this year.

 

John Freitag underscored that the focus of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is on areas that will not be addressed by the NTCRA cleanup.  The NTCRA has already been subject to public comment.

 

Public Involvement Process

Ed asked for input regarding the extent to which the EMCAG wants to be involved in the FI/FS process.  He noted that under the standard EPA public involvement process, the public has one 30-day opportunity for public comment.  He put forth a project schedule that provides three opportunities for comment:

  1. informally before the draft reports are produced,
  2. after the draft reports are produced, and
  3. the formal comment period after the reports are issued.

 

The EMCAG agreed that having informal technical meetings with the TAG advisors was a good idea, and agreed to hold Technical Advisory Committee and EMCAG meetings on March 31, or a bit thereafter, if such a meeting is deemed to be needed after the TAG advisors meet with EPA.

 

Summary of Dick McGaw’s Work for the Strafford Historical Society

Dick McGaw described his analysis regarding TP-3.  He noted that the West Branch is basic, and that this balances the acidity of the Acid Mine Drainage from TP-3.  He would like to have the water in the West Branch mix with outflow from Copperas Brook sooner, so that the benefits of dilution are achieved.  He also suggested that the clean water from above TP-3 be diverted so as to reduce erosion of TP-3.

 

Dick will produce and distribute a written summary of his work.

 

Strafford Planning Commission Proposal to Change Mine Zoning

Planning Commission Chair Jim Condict described the Elizabeth Mine Historic and Conservation District proposed by the Strafford Planning Commission which is proposed for approximately 320 acres in Strafford.  The district would address the site’s limited ability to support development, and would preclude residential development.

 

EMCAG members suggested that the Town of Strafford coordinate its efforts with the Town of Thetford, since the site straddles the town line.  Ed offered to work with the Town on this proposal, including mapping assistance, and noted that EPA will produce maps that depict the extent of groundwater contamination as part of the Remedial Investigation.  Ed also suggested that the Planning Commission work with the Historical Society to ensure that site boundaries and definitions are used consistently.  Linda Cook asked that property owners within the district be notified and given an opportunity to comment on this proposal.  Jim noted that it will be 6 to 12 months before a vote regarding the creation of the district.  He asked that people submit their comments in writing to the Strafford Planning Commission.

 

Strafford Town Meeting Article Regarding the Mine
Marie Ricketts read an article about a Superfund out west that involves significant health threats to young children.  She also read a petition that Citizens for a Sensible Solution will put before Strafford voters at Town Meeting.  This petition is worded as follows:
 
Be it resolved that the citizens of the Town of Strafford call upon the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to postpone further action through the current Superfund program at the Elizabeth Mine Site until such time as Superfund sites where there is an immediate threat to human health are remediated.  We further ask the EPA and the State of Vermont to pursue more cost effective mean, such a those used at similar mine sites, to address the remaining moderate environmental concerns at the Elizabeth Mine Site.
 

Deby Botelho objected to the characterizations of the Elizabeth Mine as a site without human health impacts.  She noted that she has three children and that she worries about their exposure to the site every day.

 

Ed noted that the high levels of lead and cadmium found recently are likely to result in the site being classified as one having human health impacts.

 

In response to questions, Mary Jane and Ed described the system that EPA uses nationally to prioritize funding decisions.  Mary Jane noted that it is EPA’s policy to fund sites with human health threats before funding sites that do not entail human health threats.   Mary Jane noted that for a variety or reasons, sites with human health threats may not be ready for funding in any given funding cycle.  She stated that she does not know of any Superfund sites in Region 1 with known human health threats that are ready for funding that have not been funded.

 

Updating the EMCAG website

The EMCAG authorized Cindy to send materials to Dartmouth, so that the EMCAG website can be updated.  Cindy will check with the EMCAG before posting materials that may be controversial.  Linda asked that the site not advertise the existence of the mine buildings.  Bob noted that he would like to see photos and maps of this summer’s work posted on the site.

 

 

 

ATSDR Comments

Gary Perlman stated that he has reviewed the lead testing data and that ATSDR supports remediation to get lead to safe levels.  He recommends reducing exposure pathways.  ATSDR does not make specific recommendations as to how to reduce exposure.

 

 Scott Stokoe asked if there might be additional surprises, like the high lead levels.  Ed noted that the Human Health Risk Assessment is an attempt to identify human health risks, but that one can always get surprises.  Jason described the process that URS used to look at historical information regarding manufacturing processes used at the site.  This information provides clues as to the location and nature of pollutants at the site (e.g. residuals from explosives storage areas and PCB’s from transformers).

 

Neal recommended that signs be posted warning of the high levels of lead contamination present.  Ed noted that signage will be posted as part of the Remedial Action.

 

Review of May 12 Meeting Summary

The May 12, 2004 meeting summary was reviewed and approved.

 

Election of Officers

The following officers were elected unanimously for terms beginning immediately, and running through June 11, 2005:

John Freitag, Chair,

Tom Essex, Vice Chair,

Gwenda Smith, Secretary, and

Deby Botelho, Treasurer.

 

Neal agreed that he would be willing to serve as vice chair starting in June.

 

Next Meeting Date

The next EMCAG tentative meeting was set for March 31.  It was agreed that an assessment regarding the need for a meeting will be made after the TAG advisors meet with EPA in early to mid March.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45PM.