Jennifer Chergo, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wendy Naugle, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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Do not cite or quote.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 106 ug/l (dissolved) Zinc 106 ug/l (dissolved) Cadmium 1.1 ug/l (dissolved) Copper 12 ug/l (dissolved) Lead 4.0 ug/l (dissolved) Silver 0.08 ug/l (dissolved)

*ARAR= Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements **Note that ARARs don’t include arsenic

Silver 0.08 ug/l (dissolved)

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 M difi d h ROD i h d ARAR

• Modified the ROD with regard to ARARs
• 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

4000

quality goals consistently year to year

3000 2000 solved Zn (ug/l) 1000 Diss 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 h di i l ? meet the remediation goals?

2 pathways: 1. Additional cleanup would be done under existing Consent Decree, while CD f O&M i ti t d new CD for O&M is negotiated (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 This was the path chosen by the agencies, based on stakeholder requests for f l l h

ROD Consent Decree

q meaningful involvement in the process Instead of a full RI/FS, the term “Focused Feasibility Study” was chosen for a document that would focus just on

Proposed Plan Amendment

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

li d d quality standards?

 Compare alternatives to address remaining sources of

metals to attain standards metals to attain standards

Focused Feasibility Study Timeline

June 2008 WQCC adopts new standards CBS Develops “Study Plan”

Plan provided to Stakeholders for

CBS Implements Study Plan

Begins data

Preliminary List of Alternatives Approved

CBS begins to review and comment collection for FFS CBS begins to write the FFS April 2010 August 2009 March 2009 October 2008

EPA issues 5‐Year Review

ll

Stakeholder Meeting

Discuss FFS Study

Stakeholder Meeting

d

Agencies Receive First Draft of FFS

FYR strategically conducted early to document the need for a more protective remedy Discuss FFS Study Plan and request comments from the stakeholders on the plan (no comments received) Discuss data collected and Preliminary List of Alterternnatives (comments received 11/09 Comments provided to CBS 6/10 requiring revision received 11/09 after an extension was granted )

Focused Feasibility Study Timeline (continued)

Pilot Dewatering Study /FFS Revision (continued from June 2010) CBS Revised FFS

Revised draft sent to the agencies / Based on comments received from stakeholders it was determined that more data were needed to evaluate

Agencies Prepare Comment/Response Document for FFS

while CBS revises document to address 7/2011 needed to evaluate remedial alternatives comments July 2013 April 2013 August 2011 November 2010

Agencies Receive 2nd Draft of FFS

Stakeholder Meeting

Discuss Draft FFS

Stakeholder Meeting FFS Finalized and Posted on CDPHE W b it Comments provided to CBS 3/11 requiring revision of FFS

Discuss Draft FFS, request review and

• comment. Comments

and additional data received 11/11

Meeting Update provided on FFS status, Proposed Website

Comment/Response document also posted and provided to stakeholders

Plan process explained

Focused Feasibility Study Timeline (continued)

Comments received on Draft Proposed l f Agencies inform (continued from July 2013) Administrative Record Preparation Plan from EPA

EPA requests revision to the Proposed Plan, requests additional discussion for

Agencies inform CBS and Stakeholders about delay to address arsenic

discussion for arsenic CBS provides additional arsenic data collected by Golder August 2014 May 2014 March 2014 September 2013

CDPHE prepares Draft Proposed

ROD Milestone Meeting

EPA peer‐review of

CDPHE & EPA review arsenic d t b itt d Agencies determine that dditi l

Plan

Sent to EPA for review on 9/24/13

EPA peer review of draft Proposed Plan

data submitted in 2013 Annual Report

EPA determines need for FFS

additional sampling for arsenic will be needed

Request that CBS addendum to complete Administrative Record for arsenic q conduct sampling in March/April 2015

Arsenic in surface water

• Arsenic was not identified as a Contaminant of

Arsenic in surface water

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

S li b i O b f h i

Arsenic in surface water (continued)

• Sampling began in October 2012 as part of the routine

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) Fi f ll d i d i M h

• First full year data set was 2013, received in March 2014

Arsenic in surface water (continued) Arsenic in surface water (continued)

1.0000

Arsenic in Eagle River

0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 10/18/12 3/12/13 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 Arsenic (ug/l) 3/22/13 4/5/13 4/19/13 5/3/13 0 1000 0.2000 0.3000 9/30/13 3/20/14 4/3/14 4/17/14 DL 0.0000 0.1000 E‐ 3 E‐10 E‐12A E‐15 E‐22 Sample Location DL std

Upstream Downstream

Arsenic in surface water (continued)

3.5000

Arsenic in Eagle River & Tributaries

2.5000 3.0000 10/18/12 3/12/13 1.5000 2.0000 Arsenic (ug/l) 3/22/13 4/5/13 4/19/13 5/3/13 0.5000 1.0000 9/30/13 3/20/14 4/3/14 4/17/14 td 0.0000 E‐ 3 E‐10 E‐12A E‐15 E‐22 T‐10 T‐18 Sample Location std DL

Rock Creek Cross Creek Upstream Downstream

Arsenic Next Steps

• CBS currently preparing a list of additional samples to

Arsenic –Next Steps

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?

A h l i d d

• Are other alternatives needed?

Oth i di WQS

• Fundamental premise of the FFS is a series of calculations

Other issues regarding WQS

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 A h i h h l d f h

• At the time that the proposals were due for the June 2014

hearing (January 2014) the agencies were not in possession

• f 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 i are not protective

• 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

d d?

• The goal of the cleanup is a healthy biological

How is success determined?

• 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

I i d b k h ld

R d “ i f l” i l i h l i f ddi i l

Issues raised by stakeholders

• Requested “meaningful” involvement in the selection of additional

remediation

• The agencies have provided multiple opportunities that go above

and beyond the requirements of the standard Superfund process to and beyond the requirements of the standard Superfund process to provide input on the Study Plan for the FFS, the Preliminary List of Alternatives, and the Draft Focused Feasibility Study

• Additional opportunity for input will occur when the Proposed

Additional opportunity for input will occur when the Proposed Plan is released

• Requested assessment of arsenic in surface water
• Sampling was conducted and it was determined that arsenic is

p g present at the site and must be addressed

k h ld ( d)

• Requested audits of the Pipeline and Conveyance System and the

Stakeholder issues (continued)

Water Treatment Plant

• Audits were conducted and many improvements resulted, most

notably a marked improvement in daily inspections and routine i i maintenance operations

• Requested a Call‐down system for spills/releases at the site
• The Emergency call‐down list was created and is updated,

maintained and distributed by ERWSD maintained and distributed by ERWSD

• Requested a revised Emergency Response Plan
• A Revised ERP was developed, reviewed by stakeholders, revised

based on comments received posted on the internet and is being based on comments received, posted on the internet and is being implemented by CBS

• Requested that the agencies address issues associated with iron and

manganese, particularly in the context of releases or incidents. g , p y

• Incorporated into the ERP, so that notification to downstream

users would occur for incidents that could affect Fe, Mn in the river

Although remediation conducted at the Site has resulted in significant Although remediation conducted at the Site has resulted in significant improvement in water quality and reduction in risk to human health and the environment, this condition is wholly dependent upon continued

• peration of the existing remedy, including drawdown from the mine

pool and treatment at the water treatment plant pool and treatment at the water treatment plant.

Additional remediation is necessary to attain water quality standards and there are no plans for delisting of the site.

Project Contacts:

• U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Leslie Sims Federal Project Manager (303) 312‐6224 sims.leslie@epa.gov p g Jennifer Chergo Community Involvement (303) 312‐6601 chergo.jennifer@epa.gov Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Wendy Naugle State Project Manager State Project Manager (303) 692‐3394 wendy.naugle@state.co.us Warren Smith Community Involvement ( ) 6 (303) 692‐3373 warren.smith@state.co.us