Jennifer Chergo, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wendy Naugle, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Do not cite or quote. Information presented herein is for visual display purposes only and is intended to convey information that is otherwise included in other written documentation.
Record of Decision (ROD) for the Eagle Mine Dated 1993
Record of Decision for the Eagle Mine Dated 1993 TABLE VII ‐ B Contaminant Specific Surface Water ARARs at the Eagle Mine Site The relevant and appropriate chronic surface water standards for contaminants of concern include: Zinc Zinc 106 ug/l (dissolved) 106 ug/l (dissolved) Cadmium 1.1 ug/l (dissolved) Copper 12 ug/l (dissolved) Lead 4.0 ug/l (dissolved) Silver Silver 0.08 ug/l (dissolved) 0.08 ug/l (dissolved) *ARAR= Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements **Note that ARARs don’t include arsenic
Consent Decree for the Eagle Mine Dated 1996 Consent Decree
Consent Decree for the Eagle Mine Dated 1996 • A consent decree is a legal document, lodged with the Court, signed by a Judge • Modified the ROD with regard to ARARs M difi d h ROD i h d ARAR • Required CBS to conduct Biological Monitoring for 10 years 10 years • Required EPA, State and CBS to use the biological data to establish alternative standards to be used in lieu of TVS at the site
The existing remedy does not meet the water quality goals consistently year to year quality goals consistently year to year 4000 3000 solved Zn (ug/l) 2000 Diss 1000 0 Date • Water quality improvement over time • Standards not attained consistently year to year • Note peaks in March/April each year
What happens in the Superfund Process when the Remedy is Complete but Remedy is Complete, but does not meet the remediation goals? On-going g g Operations, Maintenance & Monitoring The Superfund Process has Consent Decree no clear guidance for this situation
What happens in the Superfund Process when the Remedy is Complete, but does not meet the remediation goals? h di i l ? 2 pathways: 1. Additional cleanup would be done under existing Consent Decree, while new CD for O&M is negotiated CD f O&M i ti t d (Agencies path forward prior to the June 2008 WQCC hearing) This pathway has no Community Involvement Involvement 2. Circle back through RI/FS process to develop new alternatives Consent Decree This was the path chosen by the agencies, based on stakeholder requests for q ROD meaningful involvement in the f l l h Amendment process Proposed Instead of a full RI/FS, the term “Focused Plan Feasibility Study” was chosen for a document that would focus just on document that would focus just on water quality ARARs
Focused Feasibility Study Where is remaining contamination coming from? How much remediation is needed to meet water quality standards? li d d Compare alternatives to address remaining sources of metals to attain standards metals to attain standards
Focused Feasibility Study Timeline Preliminary June 2008 CBS Develops CBS List of WQCC adopts Implements “Study Plan” Alternatives new standards Study Plan Plan provided to Approved Begins data Stakeholders for CBS begins to CBS begins to collection for FFS review and write the FFS comment October 2008 April 2010 August 2009 March 2009 Stakeholder EPA issues 5 ‐ Year Stakeholder Agencies Receive Meeting Review Meeting First Draft of FFS Discuss FFS Study Discuss FFS Study FYR strategically ll Discuss data d Comments provided Plan and request conducted early to collected and to CBS 6/10 requiring comments from the document the need Preliminary List of revision stakeholders on the for a more Alterternnatives plan (no comments protective remedy (comments received) received 11/09 received 11/09 after an extension was granted )
Focused Feasibility Study Timeline (continued) Pilot Dewatering Study /FFS Revision Based on comments Agencies Prepare (continued CBS Revised received from Comment/Response from June FFS stakeholders it was Document for FFS determined that 2010) Revised draft sent while CBS revises more data were to the agencies document to address needed to evaluate needed to evaluate 7/2011 / comments remedial alternatives November 2010 July 2013 April 2013 August 2011 Stakeholder Agencies Receive FFS Finalized and Meeting Stakeholder 2 nd Draft of FFS Posted on CDPHE Meeting Meeting Discuss Draft FFS, Discuss Draft FFS Website W b it Comments provided request review and Update Comment/Response to CBS 3/11 comment. Comments provided on document also requiring revision of and additional data posted and provided FFS status, FFS received 11/11 to stakeholders Proposed Plan process explained
Focused Feasibility Study Timeline (continued) Comments received on Draft Proposed Agencies inform Agencies inform Plan from EPA l f CBS and (continued Administrative EPA requests Stakeholders from July Record revision to the about delay to Proposed Plan, 2013) Preparation address arsenic requests additional discussion for discussion for CBS provides arsenic additional arsenic data collected by Golder September 2013 August 2014 May 2014 March 2014 ROD Milestone CDPHE prepares CDPHE & EPA Agencies Meeting review arsenic determine that Draft Proposed EPA peer review of EPA peer ‐ review of data submitted d t b itt d additional dditi l Plan draft Proposed Plan in 2013 Annual sampling for Sent to EPA for Report arsenic will be review on 9/24/13 needed EPA determines need for FFS Request that CBS q addendum to conduct sampling in complete March/April 2015 Administrative Record for arsenic
Arsenic in surface water Arsenic in surface water • Arsenic was not identified as a Contaminant of Concern in the 1993 Record of Decision because it was not detected in surface water at the site • In 2011 the stakeholders requested that arsenic be In 2011 the stakeholders requested that arsenic be added to the Surface Water Monitoring Plan with a PQL of 0.075 ug/l • Initially CBS declined to conduct the sampling so • Initially CBS declined to conduct the sampling, so CDPHE requested EPA sampling. EPA lab could not meet the PQL of 0.075 ug/l • In 2012 CBS agreed to sampling at the WQCD approved PQL of 0.6 ug/l
Arsenic in surface water (continued) • Sampling began in October 2012 as part of the routine S li b i O b f h i monitoring at the site, same locations and frequency as routine monitoring • Data are submitted to the agencies and to the stakeholders as part of the Annual Reports, received in March each year and posted on the internet (also March each year and posted on the internet (also included in the Eagle Mine database, which is also provided to the stakeholders each year) • First full year data set was 2013, received in March 2014 Fi f ll d i d i M h
Arsenic in surface water (continued) Arsenic in surface water (continued) Arsenic in Eagle River 1.0000 0.9000 0.8000 10/18/12 0.7000 3/12/13 3/22/13 Arsenic (ug/l) 0.6000 4/5/13 0.5000 4/19/13 5/3/13 0.4000 9/30/13 0.3000 3/20/14 4/3/14 0.2000 4/17/14 0 1000 0.1000 DL DL std 0.0000 E ‐ 3 E ‐ 10 E ‐ 12A E ‐ 15 E ‐ 22 Sample Location Downstream Upstream
Arsenic in surface water (continued) Arsenic in Eagle River & Tributaries 3.5000 3.0000 10/18/12 2.5000 3/12/13 3/22/13 Arsenic (ug/l) 2.0000 4/5/13 4/19/13 1.5000 5/3/13 9/30/13 3/20/14 1.0000 4/3/14 4/17/14 0.5000 std td DL 0.0000 E ‐ 3 E ‐ 10 E ‐ 12A E ‐ 15 E ‐ 22 T ‐ 10 T ‐ 18 Sample Location Cross Creek Rock Creek Upstream Downstream
Arsenic Next Steps Arsenic –Next Steps • CBS currently preparing a list of additional samples to y p p g p collect in March/April timeframe • CBS will prepare an addendum to the Focused Feasibility Study for arsenic Feasibility Study for arsenic • What are the sources of arsenic to surface water? • Will the proposed alternatives reduce arsenic? • Are other alternatives needed? A h l i d d
Oth Other issues regarding WQS i di WQS • Fundamental premise of the FFS is a series of calculations p comparing the existing water quality to the WQS • If the WQS change before the Proposed Plan/ROD amendment are finalized the FFS calculations would need amendment are finalized, the FFS calculations would need to be revised for those parameters and segments where the standards were changed • At the time that the proposals were due for the June 2014 A h i h h l d f h hearing (January 2014) the agencies were not in possession of the CBS arsenic data (it was received in March 2014) so we ( 4) did not know that the Proposed Plan would be delayed because of arsenic
Future changes to WQS • In order for Superfund to change the WQS in the future, there would need to be a demonstration that the standards are not protective i • If standards are changed because the water quality has improved beyond what is required by a protective standard – p y q y p this punishes CBS for improving the water quality and could be a disincentive to further improvement
How is success determined? d d? • The goal of the cleanup is a healthy biological • The goal of the cleanup is a healthy biological community • Once the remedy consistently attains the water quality standards (at some point in the future after the additional remediation has been implemented and is fully operational), then biological data will be used to u y ope a o a ), e b o og ca da a be used o measure the success of the cleanup
Recommend
More recommend
