Proposed Plan Public Meeting Transcript of …12 cards, too, so if you want them, you can write a question on 13 there if you don't feel like standing up and stating your name. 14

1

CHEROKEE COUNTY

SUPERFUND SITE

OPERABLE UNIT 04 - TREECE SUBSITE

PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

JULY 11, 2016

913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]

2

1

2

3 [Start 6:49 p.m.]

4

5 MR. PRESTON LAW: Okay, let's get started.

6

7 I'm Preston Law, the Acting Section Chief for the Special

8 Emphasis Section that Cherokee County is under. We're here to

9 talk about the proposed plan for the Cherokee County Superfund

10 Site, OU 04. This will be for a ROD Amendment covering the

11 Northwest Tributary, which is an Intermittent Stream, so it'll

12 be in conjunction with the plan that's already going forward

13 with the rest of the Operable Unit.

14

15 We could talk -- I was going to list everybody that is in

16 attendance, but I don't know who some of you are, so we'll just

17 go around the room right quick so we can capture the names for

18 the Court Reporter. So, let's start.

19

20 MR. BOB RICHARDS: Bob Richards with EPA.

21

22 MR. JOSEPH DOW: Joseph Dow with Kansas Department of

23 Health and Environment.

24

25 MR. CHRIS HASE: Chris Hase, Kansas Department of Health


3

1 and Environment.

2

3 MR. TODD CAMPBELL: Todd Campbell, EPA - Region 7.

4

5 MS. KATRINA HIGGINS-COLTRAIN: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain,

6 EPA - Region 6.

7

8 MR. CONRAD BONNEY: Conrad Bonney, EPA - Region 7.

9

10 MR. BRENDAN CORAZZIN: Brendan Corazzin, EPA - Region 7.

11

12 MR. STEVE KEMP: Steve Kemp, EPA - Region 7.

13

14 MR. JEREMY FORD: Jeremy Ford, EPA - Region 7.

15

16 MR. BRIAN STANILA: Brian Stanila, Oklahoma Department of

17 Environmental Quality.

18

19 MR. ZACH PADEN: Zach Paden, Oklahoma Department of

20 Environmental Quality.

21

22 MR. CRAIG KREMAN: Craig Kreman, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma.

23

24 MR. RAMSEY MAULDIN: Ramsey Maulden, Oklahoma Department

25 of Environmental Quality.


4

1

2 MS. ELIZABETH HAGENMAIER: And I'm Liz Hagenmaier with EPA

3 Region 7.

4

5 MR. LAW: So, smaller crowd, I don't know how we are going

6 to do comment wise, but Liz will run through the presentation

7 here. We'll hold questions till the end. If you do have a

8 question or a statement at the end we will call on you. If you

9 can stand up and say your names so the Court Reporter can

10 capture it, then you can ask your question. If we don't have

11 any, we will move on. So we'll get started. There's index

12 cards, too, so if you want them, you can write a question on

13 there if you don't feel like standing up and stating your name.

14

15 MS. HAGENMAIER: Thank you very much.

16

17 My name is Liz Hagenmaier with -- I'm the Project Manager

18 with the EPA - Region 7, working on the Cherokee County

19 Superfund Site. As stated, this is the Public Meeting for

20 presenting the Proposed Plan and Preferred Alternative for the

21 ROD Amendment at Cherokee County, Operable Unit 04, for the

22 Treece Subsite. We'll get started.

23

24 So, just to run through what we're going to present

25 tonight, the purpose of the meeting is first to provide some


5

1 background information about our process and then about -- some

2 background information about the site, and then present the

3 Preferred Alternative for remedial action as it relates to the

4 Intermittent Stream sediment of the northwest tributary of Tar

5 Creek, and most importantly, we are here to solicit public

6 comments on the proposed plan for final decisions.

7

8 So, for some background on our Superfund process,

9 authority under CERCLA, also known as the Superfund Law, the

10 products of the clean-up of releases or the threat of releases

11 of hazardous substances at abandoned sites. So the process

12 begins at our site discovery listing on the National Priorities

13 List, and such, and then when it is listed, we perform a

14 remedial investigation, feasibility study, some risk assessments

15 and other studies to then support a Record of Decision, or a

16 ROD.

17

18 So where we are in the process is during the remedial

19 design. We identified fundamental change to our remedy, which

20 we are presenting today, and it requires a ROD Amendment, so

21 here is our fundamental change to the remedy, where we are at

22 the proposed plan that we draft the plan and hold a public

23 comment period, and a public meeting, and then after all of the

24 comments are received and answered, a summary of those responses

25 are attached to the Record of Decision Amendment, the ROD


6

1 Amendment, and then dependent on funding, we will move into a

2 remedial action.

3

4 So, some background on the site: The Cherokee County site

5 is the Kansas portion of the Tri-State Mining District. The

6 site encompasses about 115 square miles. It's been divided into

7 nine Operable Units. This presentation covers the proposed plan

8 over Operable Unit 04, which is called the Treece Subsite, and

9 it covers the mine waste area around the former city of Treece,

10 and as noted here, lead and zinc mining started in the middle

11 1800's and continued for over a century and a half in the

12 district. So, here's a map of the site with the pink-shaded are

13 of the approximate boundaries of the Treece Subsite.

14

15 So the rest of the Operable Units cover other subsites;

16 OU's 01, 05, and 07 cover the Galena Subsite. OU 02 covers

17 Spring River, OU 03, the Baxter Springs area. OU 04 is Treece.

18 OU 06 is the Northern Subsites which include the cities of

19 Badger, Lawton, Waco, and Cresline, and OU 08 is the inactive

20 rail lines within the site, and OU 09 is the main channel of Tar

21 Creek.

22

23 So, the EPA placed this site on the National Priorities

24 List in 1983, and investigations began a couple years later in

25 Galena. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies for


7

1 OU 04 and OU 03 both were performed by the responsible parties

2 in 1993, and a Record of Decision for both OU's was signed in

3 1997. In 2006, a ROD Amendment was signed for OU's 03 and 04,

4 primarily because the 1997 ROD did not address the mine wastes

5 in the Treece Subsite, so only the residential portion of that

6 subsite.

7

8 So both the original ROD and the 2006 ROD Amendment

9 excluded sediments of the media, and specifically for OU 04, the

10 sediments in Tar Creek. The assumption in those Decision

11 documents was to address the sediments in Tar Creek after the

12 source had been removed. But during that Remedial Design, it

13 was identified that it would be more efficient to address and

14 remove the contaminated sediments at the same time that the

15 surrounding mine wastes and contaminated soils, instead of

16 coming back later. So, also intermittent stream sediments like

17 those found in Northwest Tributary of Tar Creek had been

18 addressed at other district sites in Missouri. So the Northwest

19 Tributary of Tar Creek was identified as an intermittent or

20 non-perennial stream, and the sediments in the remaining

21 perennial portion of Tar Creek will be addressed under OU 09

22 called Tar Creek Watershed.

23

24 This map shows the location of the Northwest Tributary as

25 it relates to the rest of the stream. Here in the lighter blue


8

1 highlighting is the Northwest Tributary. To the west of the

2 main channel is Tar Creek, and also west of Treece. The

3 Northwest Tributary converges with the main channel about a mile

4 and a half into Kansas, and just south of Star Road.

5

6 So, in preparation of the Remedial Design and this ROD

7 Amendment, additional sampling was performed by EPA and KDHE in

8 the Northwest Tributary in May of 2015. Thirty-two sediment

9 samples were taken from the Northwest Tributary and analyzed at

10 our lab for site-related contaminants which are lead, zinc, and

11 cadmium. These results were then used into our Streamlined

12 Human Health Risk Assessment.

13

14 So some information on our Human Health Risk Assessments,

15 for human health, lead and soil is typically the greatest threat

16 at a lead mining Superfund Site. A site specific Human Health

17 Risk Assessment is used to evaluate the potential and future

18 risks to humans from site-related contaminants and in this case,

19 the lead, zinc, and cadmium, the Human Health Risk Assessment

20 then informs people about the potential of human health risks,

21 and assists in determining the need to clean up the site.

22

23 As far as the ROD Amendment, the Streamlined Human Health

24 Risk Assessment was performed and found that lead is the primary

25 contaminant of concern for humans at the sight, although other


9

1 metals are present. Humans can be exposed to lead in several

2 ways, because lead is widespread in the environment. A lead

3 specific model was used to look at multiple ways that a human

4 may be exposed and affected by lead, and then again, the

5 sampling results from the supplemental sampling had been used to

6 calculate these risks to humans.

7

8 In young children, specifically young children up to 84

9 months of age, are the most sensitive group when exposed to lead

10 contamination, and young children are generally more affected by

11 lead than older children and adults. The biggest effect to

12 children from lead is the damage to the central nervous system

13 and learning disabilities.

14

15 So the results of our -- continuing on our results of the

16 Site Streamlined Health Risk Assessment, although -- incidental

17 ingestion of sediment was evaluated for both recreational

18 visitors and trespassers, for both children and adults to

19 site-related contaminants. The Streamlined Human Health Risk

20 Assessment indicated that there was no human health risk to zinc

21 and cadmium, but there was a risk to children when exposed to

22 lead levels in the intermittent stream sediments.

23

24 So EPA's Health Protection goal we referenced states that

25 there should be no more than a five percent (5%) chance of


10

1 exceed -- exceeding a blood lead level of 10 micrograms per

2 deciliter in a given child.

3

4 Moving on to our ecological risks, lead, zinc, and cadmium

5 in media are typically the greatest risk to ecological receptors

6 in a lead mining Superfund site, and just like Human Health, a

7 site specific Ecological Risk Assessment is used to evaluate

8 potential and future risks to ecological receptors from

9 site-related contaminants, and then we inform people about

10 potential -- about ecological risks and assist in determining

11 the need to clean up the site.

12

13 The results of the Site Ecological Risk Assessment, the

14 original Ecological Risk Assessment for OU 04 was performed by

15 the responsible parties in 1993, and identified significant

16 risks to both aquatic and terrestrial life. Based on

17 site-specific data, Site-Specific Toxicity Thresholds (SSTT) for

18 individual site-related contaminants were developed in 2009.

19 These SSTT's were used to evaluate the available data on the

20 condition of the aquatic habitat in the district.

21

22 So our proposed plan includes some background data, recent

23 study results and public comment period information. Based on

24 the Human Health Risk Assessment, the clean-up number for lead

25 in the intermittent stream sediments is 500 parts per million,


11

1 and then based on the ecological studies, the clean-up numbers

2 for intermittent stream sediments is 219 parts per million for

3 lead, 2,949 parts per million for zinc, and 17 parts per million

4 for cadmium. And since the ecological clean-up numbers are more

5 stringent, they were selected -- proposed to be selected for our

6 clean-up and would be protective of human health, and finally,

7 the proposed plan states and explains the EPA's preferred

8 alternative.

9

10 So, within the proposed plan, nine criteria were used to

11 analyze and compare the alternatives to the current remedy.

12 They come in three categories; first the threshold criteria,

13 includes protection to human health and the environment and

14 meeting state and Federal laws and requirements, also known as

15 ARAR's. These have to be met. You know, balancing and

16 modifying criteria to exactly that; they balance and modified,

17 but they don't have to be met, but they include long-term

18 effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity mobility,

19 and volume of contaminants through treatment, short-term

20 effectiveness, implementability, costs, state and support agency

21 acceptance, and community acceptance.

22

23 So, this is a comparison of the current remedy to the

24 proposed remedy, and the only change is that we included the

25 contaminated intermittent stream sediments as part of the media


12

1 to be addressed.

2

3 So, the first remedy component would read, "Excavate,

4 consolidate, and/or cap all mine waste, contaminated soil, and

5 contaminated intermittent stream sediments, followed by disposal

6 and capping." Any additional -- the estimated additional costs

7 for including these intermittent stream sediments in the

8 remedial action is about $745,000, which is approximately five

9 percent (5%) of the estimated total costs in the remedial

10 action.

11

12 The public comment period started on Saturday, July 9th,

13 and will run until Monday, August 9th, 2016. The Administrative

14 Record File, which includes the Proposed Plan, and the documents

15 used to support our preferred alternative is available for

16 review at this web address, or at our Regional -- our EPA -

17 Region 7 Record Center in Lenexa, Kansas.

18

19 So, we will begin with our call for questions.

20

21 MR. LAW: Any questions? There we go. Yeah, go ahead and

22 state your name and --

23

24 MR. STANILA: I one question. Brian Stanila, Oklahoma

25 Department of Environmental Quality.


13

1

2 We were driving around the site today, and just kind of --

3 around Star Road. There's a -- several wetlands along that area

4 along Star Road. Were you guys going to be looking at the

5 sediments in those wetlands, or kind of just leaving those be?

6

7 MS. HAGENMAIER: To clarify, are you talking north of Star

8 Road or south of Star Road?

9

10 MR. STANILA: They are north of Star Road.

11

12 MS. HAGENMAIER: Okay, so north of Star Road would be

13 addressed, sediment would be, you know, draining that area,

14 excavating any contaminated sediments, and restoring with

15 wetland plants, as well.

16

17 MR. STANILA: Is there any sample data that shows those

18 wetlands are contaminated now or --

19

20 MS. HAGENMAIER: I would have to check the record, but I

21 think there might be, yeah.

22

23 MR. STANILA: Okay, that was just something that as I was

24 passing by, I thought --

25


14

1 MS. HAGENMAIER: Absolutely.

2

3 MR. STANILA: Okay.

4

5 MR. LAW: Yes?

6

7 MR. FORD: What is the impact --

8

9 MR. LAW: Can you come up? We need a microphone so we can

10 catch it for the Court Reporter.

11

12 MR. FORD: What is the impact of the aquatic life?

13

14 MS. HAGENMAIER: The site-related contaminants?

15

16 MR. FORD: Yes.

17

18 MS. HAGENMAIER: The level that we find there? That it's

19 toxic and it makes the pond and the intermittent stream devoid

20 of aquatic life.

21

22 MR. RICHARDS: This is Bob Richards with the EPA.

23

24 You had a link to the, I think the Administrative Record

25 File, and if you -- is there a site that you can go to that then


15

1 you can click through, because that's a pretty long address

2 there.

3

4 MS. HAGENMAIER: So, actually, if just Google "Cherokee

5 County EPA," it pulls up to a website that says like -- the web

6 address is something like cumulis.epa.gov. When you go to that,

7 it is the actual site profile page for the site, and then within

8 that, there is a link to the right that says "Administrative

9 Records," as well as "Additional Documents and Reports."

10 Between those two links, it will take you to the ROD Amendment

11 Administrative Record.

12

13 MR. RICHARDS: Thank you.

14

15 MS. HAGENMAIER: Thank you.

16

17 MR. LAW: Any other questions? Going once, twice --

18

19 MS. HAGENMAIER: My contact information, as well as our

20 Community Engagement Specialist is sitting over there with his

21 hand up, yes. Thank you, Brendan.

22

23 Public comments are to be submitted to him. Thank you.

24

25 [End: 7:07 p.m.]


16

1

2

3

4

5

6 NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE

7

8 I, SANDRA L. HEDGES, do certify that there came before me,

9 at the Community Center Building located at 1101 East Avenue,

10 Baxter Springs, Kansas 66713, the above-referenced parties,

11 that the proceedings were translated and proofread, and the

12 above transcript of proceedings is a true and accurate

13 transcript of my notes as taken at the time of said event. I

14 further certify that I am neither attorney nor counsel for nor

15 related nor employed by any of the parties to the action in

16 which this examination is taken; further, that I am not a

17 relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the

18 parties hereto or financially interested in this action.

19

20 Dated this 17th day of July, 2016.

21

22

23 SANDRA L. HEDGES, Notary

24

25