Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
FORMER UNITED ZINC AND ASSOCIATED SMELTERS
OPERABLE UNIT 01 -- RESIDENTIAL LEAD
PROPOSED PLAN PUBLIC MEETING
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AUGUST 25, 2016
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
2
1
2
3
4 (Start: 6:34 p.m.)
5
6 MR. GENE GUNN: Good evening, and welcome to the Public
7 Meeting for the Former United Zinc site. This is Operable Unit
8 01, as you can see up here, and it is the residential clean-up,
9 so this is the Operable Unit that will address all of those
10 remaining residential yards.
11 I'm going to introduce my team. Don Bahnke is the Project
12 Manager, and let's see who else we have here. Brendan Corazzin,
13 over there, from Public Affairs; Joe Davis, [Indiscernible]
14 that's working down here right now on some of the residential
15 work. Dr. Spencer Williams and he's the Regional Director for
16 ATSDR and works in our offices, and Lieutenant Commander Cory
17 Kokko, back there, and she's a Regional Rep for ATSDR. Let's
18 see, Joe Dom, KDHE, who is here, and also Chris Hase. And then,
19 I wanted to recognize Bill Maness, is that correct, sir? Okay,
20 Bill Manus; he's from Senator Moran's office. And, basically
21 tonight, we've got a court recorder. She'll be recording the
22 meeting as we go. The first thing will be a presentation; Don
23 Bahnke will do that. We'll do that, go through the
24 presentation; if you wouldn't mind holding your questions during
25 the presentation, because we have the court recorder, and then
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
3
1 at the end of the presentation, I'll get up again, and I'll give
2 some instructions about how we'll do the comment period for the
3 meeting. And so, with that, we'll go ahead and get started, and
4 Don, go ahead.
5 MR. DON BAHNKE: Okay. Well, as Gene said, I'm Don
6 Bahnke, and I'm from the Environmental Protection Agency, and I
7 work in the Lead Mining and Special Emphasis Branch. Gene Gunn
8 is my Branch Chief, and I'm the Project Manager for the Former
9 United Zinc site.
10 Let's see. We probably want to go to the next slide.
11 Okay.
12 Tonight, we are here to have a Public Meeting related to
13 the Proposed Plan that we have on public notice right now. It
14 will be on public notice and available for public comment from
15 August 8th, so it's already up on Public Comment, through
16 September 7th, and we are inviting everyone that wants to make a
17 comment, you can comment here during the meeting and we'll get
18 that into the record, and answer your questions not only
19 verbally here, but also in our Summary that we do before making
20 the final decision for the site. We are going to introduce a
21 number of alternatives that we looked at for addressing the
22 contamination that is here at Former United Zinc, and
23 identifying the Preferred Alternative that we think is the best
24 that fits the situation here in Iola, Kansas. And, as I said,
25 we are soliciting public opinion.
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
4
1 So, with that, let's go to the next slide.
2 You wouldn't think to know this today, but Iola, Kansas
3 was the home of a lot of lead smelters back in the early 1900's.
4 This is a photograph given to me by the Allen County Museum
5 over here. I believe this is the former United Zinc location or
6 United Zinc smelter as it looked back in the early 1900's. The
7 next slide will show another smelter that was here in Iola
8 called Lanyon. Lanyon had two smelters on that property, and
9 now today, although none of those buildings are in existence
10 now, but today, here at this particular piece of property
11 sometimes referred to as the IMP Boats property. It is on the
12 west side of town across from the cemetery.
13 In the early 1900's, someone was telling us early --
14 earlier this afternoon, that there was a lot of gas that was
15 found here in Iola, Kansas, and it was made truly available to
16 anyone who wanted it, so this brought in the lead smelters, into
17 town, and they stayed for about twenty years until the -- the
18 gas ran out and it was no longer economical to smelt lead here.
19 So that's a little bit of history, Iola history. I'm sure many
20 of you know this already, but...
21 Okay, next slide.
22 The former smelter locations were -- there were two on the
23 east side of town, and two on the west side. The east side were
24 East Iola Smelter and the United Zinc Smelter, which were kind
25 of on the east edge, and they are kind of along the highway
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
5
1 there as you come in on 56? 54, okay. And then, slightly north
2 of Highway 54, but on the west side, is the IMP Boats property
3 which was the former location of the Lanyon Smelters, Lanyon #1
4 and #2. They smelted lead ore using heat and had smokestacks
5 and stacks released impurities into the air, which subsequently
6 settled down onto residential properties, which is what we have
7 been investigating for -- at EPA for a few years now.
8 Let's see; let's go to the next slide.
9 Superfund is the statute that we are working under, and it
10 has certain requirements that we have to follow in order to
11 address the site, a site of this size, and right now, we're at a
12 point where we need to invite public opinion before we make a
13 final decision for the residential soils that are contaminated
14 here in Iola. So, we've done a Remedial Investigation and a
15 Feasibility Study, and the Proposed Plan was written based on
16 those two documents, and all of those documents are available on
17 the internet for your review should you want to review them and
18 comment. If you are going to do that, I would start with the
19 Proposed Plan. It is a good summary of the history of this
20 site, the investigation that we've taken so far, and also,
21 evaluation of the Alternatives that we've looked at in our
22 Preferred Alternative, all in just a few pages.
23 So, subsequently after we get a Proposed Plan completed,
24 we will finalize that into a Record of Decision (ROD), which
25 will then allow us to move to the other processes, which would
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
6
1 be to design the remedy; in this case, there isn't much to
2 design, but to design the remedy and actually implement that
3 remedy, which we think we could start implementing this remedy
4 about this time next year.
5 Let's see, next slide.
6 Okay, EPA's History of this site. Sometime ago, back in
7 2005, EPA came to Iola and started testing residential
8 properties near the smelter locations, and I think they started
9 with the United Zinc Smelter location and worked their way out,
10 so that -- that in a way is why we call it the Former United
11 Zinc and Associated Smelters site. But all of the smelters
12 contributed to the residential contamination here in Iola.
13 So, we started sampling in 2005. Early on, we noticed
14 that there was considerable lead contamination above a very high
15 level which we called Time Critical, meaning we can't really
16 wait to do a removal or a clean-up of that property, so we have
17 to get in there right away. So, in the same year, in 2005, we
18 started clean-up, as well as continuing with the sampling, and
19 the results that we got from the sampling were used to put the
20 site on the National Priorities List. The National Priorities
21 List is a list of very large complex sites that are too big to
22 do with a single removal action that we've done here in Iola, so
23 -- and it's necessary to put the site on that list to Federal
24 funding in order to complete the clean-up. That listing on the
25 National Priorities List was 2013.
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
7
1 And then, after we were on the National Priorities List,
2 we began an investigation which we call a Remedial
3 Investigation. In this case, the Remedial Investigation amounts
4 to sampling all of the other properties that were not sampled
5 back in 2006 and 2005, and there were approximately -- there is
6 approximately 1,300 or 1,400 of those, and we've sampled about
7 1,000 or so of those, and we are continuing to sample right now.
8 So if you have an interest in having your property sampled and
9 it hasn't already been sampled, see us after the break here.
10 The -- all of the information collected from the sampling
11 was used to create a Remedial Investigation report. That report
12 is also available on the internet, and from the Remedial
13 Investigation report, we also wrote a Feasibility Study which
14 evaluates the contamination, proposes several different
15 alternatives for clean-up, and then uses a set -- a set of
16 criteria in order to choose the best clean-up for a particular
17 community.
18 In all of these -- this is the web address to the -- to
19 all of the documents that we have available; the Proposed Plan,
20 as well as all of the back-up material, we call an
21 Administrative Record, and if you type this in, you will be able
22 to -- it will show you a list of all of those documents with the
23 Proposed Plan on top. So -- and as I said before, the Proposed
24 Plan is available for public comment through September 7th of
25 this year.
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
8
1 So, I think we are ready to go to the next slide. Okay.
2 So, total, and these are approximate numbers because we
3 are continuing to sample even now as we speak, as we get
4 permission from the property owner. Approximately 2,800
5 properties have been sampled; 1,700 of those were sampled in
6 2005 and 2006, and about 1,100 or so were sampled in 2013. Of
7 those, we found properties that were highly contaminated,
8 meaning they are above 800 parts per million (ppm) or
9 milligrams per kilogram, and it can't wait. We have to clean
10 those up right away. So the ones that we've found in 2005 and
11 2006, we cleaned up in 2005 and 2006. There were 129 of those.
12 Following that, we did the Remedial Investigation sampling in
13 2013, and identified another approximately 350 properties that
14 had extremely high or Time Critical high lead of 800 parts per
15 million or greater. We are in the community now cleaning those
16 up, and that's ongoing and probably will be completed sometime
17 maybe about this time next year or so.
18 Next slide.
19 Here is a map showing the contamination that has been
20 found through all of the sampling, both the Remedial
21 Investigation as well as the removal sampling that was done back
22 in 2005 and 2006, and everywhere you see "red" or red
23 crosshatching, those are properties that are above our clean-up
24 goal of 400 parts per million. And, so there is quite a few
25 that is widespread all over town. The orange markings show
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
9
1 properties that are -- that have lead above background level,
2 but aren't above the level that we think it's going to concern
3 enough to do excavation. So, as you can see, if it's at least
4 around here in the main part of the city, it is not red, it's
5 orange. There really aren't very many properties that aren't at
6 the background -- there are a few up here, and I believe up in
7 that green area, which indicates background. That is a -- those
8 are the newer developments so they are not -- the homes are
9 newer. When the homes were built, there was a lot of moving of
10 earth, so if there was any surfacial contamination, it was
11 either diluted or covered over. But for the most part, lead is
12 throughout the city, and I have another copy of that -- of that
13 map on the board here for later if you would like to look at it
14 more closely.
15 I think we are ready for the next slide.
16 EPA likes to divide NPL sites, National Priorities List
17 sites into smaller pieces that makes them easier to address one
18 at a time, so there are three Operable Units (OU) that compose
19 this site, and the first Operable Unit is Operable Unit 00, and
20 those are the properties that are highly contaminated above a
21 level that can't wait, we just can't wait, and that's above 800
22 parts per million. And the second Operable Unit are residential
23 properties that are above 400, which is a risk-based clean-up
24 goal that we plan to use here in Iola, and there are -- let's
25 see, right now -- even though we are continuing to sample, right
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
10
1 now we have approximately 763 properties that are between 400
2 and 800.
3 The third Operable Unit would be the Commercial
4 Properties, meaning the smelter properties that haven't already
5 been redeveloped, and any property that may have had at one time
6 smelter waste disposed on it, or stored on it, that may have
7 some residual contamination. We are going to develop a plan
8 that similar to the one I'm presenting tonight for the
9 Commercial Properties sometime in the not too distant future,
10 say 2019, after we're finished with the residential
11 contamination clean-up.
12 I think we are ready for the next slide.
13 Part of the Remedial Investigation is the Human Health
14 Risk Assessment (HHRA). This is a risk assessment, very
15 technical and scientific, that evaluates the risk of the
16 contamination that we found here in Iola. It's used to evaluate
17 the future risks to humans from the site-related contaminants,
18 and it informs people about the health risks, and assists in
19 determining the need for the clean-up of a site. That -- it is
20 actually Appendix 2 to the Remedial Investigation Report if you
21 have a chance to look at that. And, another Human Health Risk
22 Assessment .
23 MR. GUNN: Next one?
24 MR. BAHNKE: Yes.
25 Okay, based on the Risk Assessment for Human Health, lead
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
11
1 is the primary contaminant of concern for people at the site.
2 Arsenic is also showing up, but where we have high arsenic, or
3 high lead, high arsenic, then we also have high lead, so we are
4 focusing really on lead contamination. However, if there is
5 some place that has high arsenic and the lead is involved, we'll
6 -- we'll clean that up too. I'm getting a little ahead of
7 myself there.
8 So lead is the primary concern here at the Former United
9 Zinc Site, and because lead is used widespread in different
10 types of paint and people can be exposed by other different --
11 by different exposure routes, we use a special model, since the
12 damage to -- or the effects of lead, the health effects of lead
13 are so well-known, that we use a special model to calculate a
14 safe lead level for a particular community. That model is
15 called IEUBK Model, and we use that model in this case, too.
16 Let's see, the results --
17 I think we need to go to the next slide.
18 Okay, the levels of lead that we look at, in particular,
19 are those levels that might affect or adversely affect children
20 84 months or younger; 84 months is seven years or younger, and
21 they are typically the most sensitive to any kind of lead
22 contamination. Their nervous systems are still developing, and
23 if they have -- are exposed to lead, it could affect their
24 nervous system, their developing nervous system, and cause
25 learning disabilities and permanent loss of IQ points.
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
12
1 Next one, yes.
2 How would a child be exposed to the lead in the
3 environment? It would be through incidental ingestion of small
4 microscopic soil particles that might be on your hands. They
5 would put their hands in their mouth, and maybe eating
6 vegetables that are locally grown, that aren't washed very well;
7 just very tiny particles that have lead on them, can actually
8 elevate a blood lead level above the -- our target range of 10
9 micrograms per deciliter. The Human Health Risk also found that
10 any soil above 400 parts per million, or milligrams per
11 kilogram, poses a risk to children 84 months or younger. That
12 was a completing of the Risk Assessment.
13 Next slide.
14 EPA has a Health Protection Goal of making sure that no
15 child has more than a five (5) percent chance of getting an
16 elevated blood lead level of 10 micrograms per deciliter (µg/L)
17 or more by living in his dwelling environment. So, based on
18 that concept, as well as the Human Health Risk Assessment data,
19 and the IEUBK lead model, we calculated it as a level -- a
20 clean-up level of -- for Former United Zinc at 400 parts per
21 million. So anyone, any property that has 400 parts per million
22 away from the foundation, not near the foundation where it could
23 be caused by flaking paint, every property of 400 qualifies for
24 clean-up.
25 I think we are ready for the next one.
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
13
1 We also did, similar to the Human Health Risk Assessment,
2 we did an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA), which is the risk to
3 other living things other than humans, and lead, zinc, and
4 cadmium were the primary hazardous things, or influencing
5 things, of -- of the ecology, whether it is plants or animals
6 or bugs. It -- the lead and zinc, and cadmium do have an effect
7 on the plant life and wildlife. We don't have a site-specific
8 clean-up goal for the ecology here, and I suspect we will choose
9 something related to the Ecological Risk Assessment when we do
10 Operable Unit 02, which is the Commercial Properties or former
11 smelter properties, which is sometime in the future.
12 Next slide.
13 I've already -- Ecological Clean-up Goals have not --
14 okay.
15 So, the Proposed Plan contains a summary of all of the
16 background information that we have from the Remedial
17 Investigation Study, and also it summarizes the Feasibility
18 Study that was also done for Iola, and then it presents the
19 options that we suggest , that we looked at, and it suggested an
20 option for the Former United Zinc Site. Like I said, based on
21 the Human Health Risk Assessment, the clean-up goal for this
22 site is 400 parts per million. Only residential-type sites
23 qualify for that. So, a residential-type site is either a
24 residence or some other property that is used by children
25 frequently, like a playground, schools, childcare, and other
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
14
1 property types like that, that type of use. The Proposed Plan
2 will state the Preferred Alternative for Operable Unit 01, which
3 is residential properties. Okay.
4 Our method of evaluating the alternatives that we do
5 consider is evaluated according to nine specific criteria. The
6 criteria are in three types of groups. The first and most
7 important criteria are the threshold criteria which is -- is
8 protective of Human Health and the Environment, and it meets the
9 State and Federal requirements, as well. We call those ARARs.
10 The other two are balancing and modifying criteria, which do
11 just that; balance and modify the remedy based on a number of
12 factors, implementability, cost, State acceptance, community
13 acceptance, and it is one of the reasons we are here tonight, is
14 to get your comments on whether or not you think this is a good
15 approach to cleaning up the lead contamination in Iola.
16 Next.
17 There are three Alternatives that we evaluated; a "No
18 Action" Alternative, and the second Alternative, an excavation
19 and disposal, followed by health education and institutional
20 controls, or the third Alternative, which is a modification of
21 the second Alternative, which is excavation or a phosphate
22 treatment for the lower-contaminated properties, followed by
23 revegetating the property, of course, and health education and
24 institutional controls. Then, we go through each Alternative.
25 The "No Action" Alternative, we always evaluate "no
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
15
1 action," which in this case would be stopping our clean-up at
2 800 parts per million, and considering the clean-up complete,
3 and continuing to monitor every five years to see if our
4 decision to not clean up any further was a good one. We mainly
5 evaluate this Alternative just for the purposes of comparison to
6 the other two, just to see what it would be, but it is used for
7 comparison purposes. That is why we do this.
8 Alternative 2 -- Alternative 2 which happens to be the
9 Alternative that we're looking at choosing, is excavation and
10 disposal, with health education and institutional controls. It
11 is basically what we're doing right now with the greater than
12 800 properties; excavating the yard, backfilling with clean
13 soil, and re-establishing the grass. The health education would
14 be needed because we're still going to leave anything below 400
15 parts per million in place, so we need -- so health education is
16 important, because there still would be lead in the environment.
17 That education could include blood lead screening fairs or -- I
18 have it written down here. We have several examples here:
19 blood lead monitoring, distribute preventative literature, and
20 community education meetings. For example, institutional
21 controls could be establishing a registry of soil sampling
22 results that the County and City might manage, or builder --
23 builder education programs, possible deed restrictions. And,
24 our Feasibility Study did estimate the cost for this at $19.7
25 million. It is considered, based on our criteria, acceptable,
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
16
1 because it does address the risk and meets the nine criteria.
2 Alternative 3, the same as Alternative 2 except for the
3 lower-level contaminated properties, which would be properties
4 that just have 400 to 572 parts per million, we would do
5 treatment, instead of actually digging it up and hauling it
6 away. The treatment would involve bringing phosphoric acid to
7 the property, mixing it up with a rototiller to get this acid in
8 contact with the soil, and followed by two or three weeks of
9 time to let the acid react with the soil, followed returning the
10 pH to a normal level by adding lime and rototilling that in, and
11 re-establishing grass; kind of a complicated process. The
12 reason we could do that would be that phosphate treatment
13 reduces the bio-availability of lead in the soil, making it
14 possible to leave the soil that is contaminated there in the
15 yard, without digging it up, and it would still be safe since
16 the soil particles can be swallowed and would not be brought
17 into the bloodstream by the intestines. It would be followed by
18 the same health education and institutional controls that I
19 mentioned earlier. The capital costs are considerably larger at
20 $36 million. That Alternative is considered acceptable because
21 it does reduce the risk below a hazardous level. That isn't
22 the Alternative that we've selected, however, but we did
23 consider it.
24 Next, we have -- Alternative No. 3 isn't quite as
25 favorable because the treatment that I've described isn't proven
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
17
1 -- it hasn't been proven that it stays non-bio-available. It
2 does reduce the bio-availability, but as we've seen in certain
3 cases where that process can reverse on its own with -- over
4 time, so we would have to monitor the effectiveness every five
5 years in order to make sure that the reduction in
6 bio-availability is permanent, and it is more costly than
7 Alternative No. 2 by several million dollars.
8 So, the Alternative that we're selecting is on the next
9 slide. Like I told you before, Alternative No. 2 is the
10 Preferred Alternative where properties that have elevated lead
11 levels of 400 and above away from the foundation, not around the
12 drip-zone at all, that doesn't count, although we will clean up
13 the drip-zone if we need to, all of those properties will
14 qualify, and we will backfill with clean soil and re-establish
15 the yard for the homeowner, and we are going to plan some health
16 education and institutional controls for the site that will
17 address any remaining residual risks to children under 84 months
18 and younger.
19 Let's see, next.
20 So, this Proposed Plan is available for Public Comment
21 until September 7th, and you can read the Plan, in detail, with
22 all of the back-up documents at this website here.
23 Next.
24 So, I guess we are into the Public Comment or Question
25 phase, and would you like to describe that?
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
18
1 MR. GUNN: Thank you for being patient while we went
2 through the presentation and presented the remedy. We are going
3 to open up the floor for questions now.
4 What I would ask is that the court recorder needs to
5 capture your name and your question, and so one at a time and I
6 will try to recognize you as you want to ask the questions. We
7 have some microphones we can -- I think we can get them to you.
8 They are in the middle of the tables here. They are only on the
9 first three tables. We didn't know how many people were going
10 to be here, so anyway, we will facilitate you getting to one of
11 these microphones wherever you are coming from, so the court
12 recorder can record this. We have to have -- since this is an
13 official public meeting, we have to have a transcript of it.
14 We will close after the question and answer session, and
15 then we will have an availability session where we will be
16 available, I think the Kansas Health and Environment will be
17 available, and we will be available around the room, so you can
18 ask us any questions you would like to ask.
19 So, with that, I'm going to open it up for questions, and
20 we will take the first question.
21 Yes, sir? Please --
22 MR. JOHN COX: That site that you were referring to, it's
23 about this long, can you --
24 MR. BAHNKE: Which site is that?
25 MR. COX: The website that you --
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
19
1 MR. BAHNKE: Oh, the website. What literature do you
2 have? He needs the address.
3 MR. GUNN: Oh, yeah.
4 MR. COX: Okay, thank you.
5 MR. GUNN: What was your name again, sir?
6 MR. COX: John Cox. C-o-x.
7 MR. GUNN: Okay, C-o-x.
8 Any other questions? Yes, ma'am.
9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: [Inaudible]
10 MR. GUNN: Would you please identify yourself?
11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you put lime in there [Inaudible]
12
13 MR. GUNN: I think the question was, if you use ag lime,
14 agricultural lime, or lime like that, can you use that on the
15 soil?
16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, to bring it down, will that do
17 any good --
18 MR. GUNN: It does provide -- I will explain this a little
19 bit, okay? That has a preference to take out some chemicals,
20 and if you have lime, calcium is the element that we're talking
21 about here, if you have a lot of calcium in your system, when
22 you ingest the lead, your system will preferentially take up the
23 calcium. So, it provides sort of a masking of the lead, but it
24 is not long-lasting, if that is the way to put it. So, it
25 assumes the lime is gone, the calcium is gone, you will again be
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
20
1 taking up the lead from the soil.
2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you put it on every year, will it
3 help?
4 MR. GUNN: It can't hurt anything to put on the lime, if
5 that is what your question is, yeah. It does provide some
6 protection, but it can be temporary.
7 LCDR KOKKO: It would help us if --
8 MR. GUNN: Please identify yourself.
9 LCDR KOKKO: This is Cory Kokko. I work the ATSDR, the
10 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. We are a
11 sister agency to CBC, and we do a lot of health stuff.
12 If you eat a diet that is rich in calcium and Vitamin C,
13 that also provides the same health benefits of keeping that lead
14 from up-taking into your system.
15 MR. GUNN: Thank you.
16 Any other questions?
17 Yes, ma'am? Please identify yourself.
18 MS. PATRICIA FAIL: My name is Patricia Fail. Fail, like
19 you fail a test.
20 MR. GUNN: He is going to bring the microphone to you.
21 MS. FAIL: I had two questions. One, is have you
22 established exposure levels for pets, and the second one is if
23 you use the option where you treat with the phosphoric acid,
24 does that then become phosphate that is available for plant
25 uptake, because some our soils are really depleted in phosphate.
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
21
1 MR. GUNN: I can answer the second questions, and it does
2 grow plants very well after it has been treated with the
3 phosphoric acid and stabilized.
4 How about the first part?
5 MR. BAHNKE: I don't know about pets. Pets -- we haven't
6 really looked into pets and -- I don't think it is really a
7 concern for pets at all, no.
8 MR. GUNN: We will -- we will answer that probably as part
9 of the Official Record.
10 MS. FAIL: Okay.
11 MR. GUNN: We will find out.
12 Yes, ma'am?
13 MS. CYNTHIA JACOBSON: My name is Cynthia Jacobson, and is
14 this map anywhere available? I couldn't find it on the site
15 when I went and looked.
16 MR. BAHNKE: It is on the website.
17 MS. JACOBSON: Oh, okay.
18 MR. BAHNKE: It might be a little tough to find.
19 MS. JACOBSON: Okay.
20 MR. BAHNKE: It is in there.
21 MS. JACOBSON: Okay, because I didn't know if there was a
22 list of specific properties that had been tested already --
23 MR. BAHNKE: No, we don't publish a list like that.
24 MS. JACOBSON: Okay.
25 MR. BAHNKE: Yeah, we put that up and it doesn't identify
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
22
1 anybody specifically, but it is one of the figures in the
2 Remedial Investigation Report. I do have a number here, it is
3 called Plate 14, labeled as Plate 14.
4 MS. JACOBSON: Thank you.5 MR. GUNN: But there aren't any addresses on it. It is6 just a --
7 MR. BAHNKE: No.8 MR. GUNN: -- diagram.9 Other questions?
10 Yes, sir?
11 MR. RICHARD LUKIN: My name is Richard Lukin.12 Up until now, is it correct that the properties that have
13 been involved have -- have all been voluntary to where they
14 allow you to come in and do the testing?
15 MR. GUNN: Yes.16 MR. LUKIN: Will it ever be a point to where if it looks17 dangerous enough that it would not be voluntary, or does it
18 always have to be at their -- their behest?
19 MR. GUNN: I will answer this one. 20 Our general rule is, is that we will sample all of the
21 properties, so we will know whether there is a contamination
22 problem on the property or not. We haven't made a decision --
23 we will try to get everybody that has contamination to have
24 their property remediated. That will be -- and we will be
25 somewhat aggressive about that to some extent. You know, we
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
23
1 will visit you several times to ask you whether you would like
2 to have your property cleaned up, but we don't generally force
3 people to have their property cleaned up.
4 MR. LUKIN: How many more remain in Iola to be tested?
5 MR. BAHNKE: I believe it is about 250 or so. We got most
6 everybody to agree to sampling. It's been a really good
7 response here.
8 MR. GUNN: Other questions?
9 Yes, ma'am.
10 MS. FAIL: Patricia Fail again.
11 How many of the properties that have been tested and are
12 above the cut-off limit, remain to be remediated?
13 MR. BAHNKE: Well, there are -- there's a batch of 350
14 properties that are being worked on right now that are above
15 800. I think there's -- Joe Davis, do you know?
16 MR. JOE DAVIS: We've cleaned up about 125 of those --
17 MR. BAHNKE: About 125 --
18 MR. DAVIS: -- so, you know, we're about at the halfway
19 point of those properties that are above 800 parts per million.
20 MR. BAHNKE: And of those -- not including those, but the
21 ones that we know that are between 400 and 800, that is as well
22 as these 250 or 300 properties that we haven't sampled yet, and
23 haven't -- about half of those, total, there would be -- it is
24 in the Proposed Plan, it would be about 900 properties that will
25 be between 400 and 800 that we will need to do under this remedy
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
24
1 here. Yes, it is quite a number of properties.
2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: About half.
3 MR. BAHNKE: Yeah, about half.
4 MR. GUNN: Okay, you were first, sir.
5 MR. VINCE KOONTZ [phonetic]: Vince Koontz.
6 Could you give us some kind of historical background
7 leading up to the first initial excavation, so that was around
8 2005?
9 MR. BAHNKE: 2005.
10 MR. KOONTZ: And then, in other words, what is it that
11 spurred that excavation process, and then why is there a
12 ten-year gap between that point and today?
13 MR. BAHNKE: Well, the -- I believe -- I believe this is
14 true -- the State of Kansas had done some sort of evaluation
15 themselves, and thought that this might be a good area to look
16 at, so -- and that was in 2005, and so we mobilized and did some
17 sampling. We noticed we needed to do a clean-up. We cleaned up
18 all of the properties that we could find during our sampling,
19 and we sampled about 1,700 or 1,800 properties, and when we
20 reached at about 1,700 or 1,800 properties, our removal program
21 hit a limit of $2,000,000, which automatically means they need
22 to stop and hand it over to the remedial program and put it on
23 the National Priorities List. There was some effort to find
24 some responsible parties to do the work. We weren't successful
25 at that. So -- and all of that took time, and so we started to
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
25
1 put the site on the National Priorities List. Did that in 2013,
2 and started investigating again right away.
3 MR. GUNN: Getting a site on the National Priorities List
4 is not a trivial process. It is a lengthy process that you have
5 to go through. You have to have a really good idea about the
6 scope and those kinds of things, and then we developed a
7 package, and then it gets -- where we are basically, and if it
8 scores above 28.5, it can qualify for the National Priorities
9 List, and that did take some time.
10 Yes, ma'am?
11 MS. SHARON BOAN: Sharon Boan.
12 How do you decide who gets excavated and who uses the
13 phosphate?
14 MR. BAHNKE: Well, phosphate is something we thought we
15 might try, but we've decided against it. So, we're going to
16 excavate everything that's above 400.
17 MR. GUNN: I can add a little bit to that.
18 We've tried phosphates in a couple -- at a couple of other
19 sites, not this one, tried experiments with it. We tried it at
20 the Omaha Lead site and we tried it at the -- one of the Duenweg
21 sites which is over in Jasper County, Missouri. We tried plots
22 there with it. What we can't illustrate with it is that is it
23 long-lasting. We do get a reduction of bio-availability, about
24 40 percent, around there, which is really good, and so those low
25 levels of soil contamination will be not available as long as
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
26
1 the phosphate is there, but as soon as the phosphate is
2 consumed, then what we don't know is whether the material will
3 become bio-available again. And so, until that is proven, we
4 can't really implement it anywhere because it would require a
5 lot of monitoring and so on as time goes by.
6 A couple of problems, you know, your yard, when we
7 rototill the acid in, there will be clods there. There is no
8 way you can process it to the point that you can get the acid in
9 contact with every single molecule of lead that is there. That
10 is one of the issues that's there. The other one is that we --
11 we -- it is very difficult and expensive to prove that you
12 actually produce pyromorphite, which is where you're headed
13 there. It is a very stable lead mineral. It doesn't degrade,
14 and it is not bio-available. So, that is the droll of the
15 phosphate treatment is to create pyromorphite. But to prove
16 that you have created pyromorphite is very difficult, and so
17 we've shied away from this remedy over time. It is not that we
18 have given up on it completely, but we've not really implemented
19 it anywhere in this region as a clean-up, only on test plots so
20 far.
21 Yes, ma'am?
22 REVEREND LINDA WHITWORTH-REED: My name is Linda
23 Whitworth-Reed.
24 I'm the pastor at the Presbyterian Church, and currently
25 your crews are working on the yard that the church owns for the
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
27
1 pastor to live in, the manse. And I've been very pleased and
2 happy with all of the crews there, their professionalism,
3 they've consulted with me several times before beginning,
4 they've left my sidewalks in good condition. When they've
5 brought equipment in, they've put board over it so that things
6 are not damaged. They've been very attentive and very careful,
7 and of course, we have yet to get the sod in, but now is not --
8 we need to wait for it to be a little cooler. But I've been
9 very pleased to learn that the church, the Presbyterian Church
10 was one of the sites done in 2006, because we have a little
11 playground in the back for kids, and I thank you for being in
12 our community and being so proactive in helping us solve this
13 problem, because it affects not only us but future generations.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. GUNN: Thank you.
16 Joe?
17 MR. WHITE: Yeah, just thank you. We try to get the crews
18 out there to do the best job we can and do this for our
19 contractors.
20 MR. GUNN: Other questions? Ms. Fail?
21 MS. FAIL: Can I amend my earlier question?
22 MR. GUNN: Sure.
23 MS. FAIL: This is Patricia Fail.
24 I asked an earlier question about the effect on pets or
25 limits -- of blood lead level limits for health and safety of
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
28
1 pets. I think we should add livestock and poultry. I do know
2 that birds are extremely sensitive to lead.
3 MR. GUNN: Yes, that's right, and we will check. We will
4 follow-up on that.
5 MS. FAIL: Thanks.
6 MR. GUNN: Any other questions?
7 Yes, sir.
8 MR. DAVID TOLAND: David Toland.
9 I'm -- I realize this is about the residential properties
10 tonight, but I'm curious about the timeline for clean-up of the
11 actual United Zinc site on East Street, both because it's
12 basically an unsecured, uncovered area, and I don't know whether
13 contaminants are able to blow from that to other properties that
14 maybe have just been cleaned up, but also because it's an
15 important development site for our community, and we've had
16 multiple opportunities that were scuttled because of the
17 contaminants at that site for building and development there.
18 So I'm wondering about the timeframe or the feasibility study to
19 be completed on the site.
20 MR. BAHNKE: We will start working on the commercial
21 properties, and the site that you mentioned is one of them, we
22 will start working on that when we are done or close to being
23 done with the residential clean-up, which is a little more
24 important right now. We'll start working on that in say 2019,
25 the feasibility study say a year after that, so -- and having
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
29
1 said that, and not having looked at any of the data or anything,
2 I don't know if after we do a cleanup, which is likely to be a
3 cap, I don't know exactly what the property use would be for
4 that, for restrictions, or being restricted. I haven't looked
5 into it that far. We will work with the community to see if we
6 can accommodate that redevelopment plan at that time.
7 MR. TOLAND: You're Don Bahnke, right?
8 MR. BAHNKE: Yes.
9 MR. TOLAND: I've talked to you before, and --
10 MR. BAHNKE: We have.
11 MR. TOLAND: And so when we talked in 2014, the projection
12 was that that feasibility study would be done in 2014. Now
13 we're talking five years later, and I'm not trying to put you on
14 the spot, but I, you know, the original supermarket site for
15 those who are local, was that site, G&W Foods had it under
16 contract. We've had other commercial opportunities that have
17 come along and, you know, what I think I am just looking for is,
18 is a firmer timeline so that we can plan.
19 MR. BAHNKE: You know, it is very hard for us at EPA to
20 give firm timelines. I wouldn't even -- it would be really hard
21 to even come up with a prediction because there are so many
22 factors involved and my best -- my best guess is 2019 or 2020.
23 That's about the best I can tell you on that.
24 MR. GUNN: Let me add to that a little bit.
25 You know, we would be willing -- if you would get a
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
30
1 development project then we would certainly be willing to work
2 with the developer on that property. If you want to give us,
3 you know, the contact information for them if they showed -- if
4 you have somebody that, you know, showed interest. We tried to
5 do that with the former Meijer, you know, and so on. They
6 decided not to do it, you know, and so we would have worked with
7 them to develop the property if they were willing to hang in
8 there. So, -- and we still would be willing to do that with
9 anybody that comes in to try to develop the property, so.
10 MR. TOLAND: Well, just for the record, the -- when --
11 when we had those conversations, I had -- there was an attorney
12 from EPA who said that if we turned over a spade of dirt on that
13 site, she would put me in jail, and that was -- there was no
14 willingness to work with -- with us on that project, and we were
15 told to wait until the feasibility was -- the feasibility study
16 was done, and it's gone on and on and on, and now it will be
17 five years from that original projection on when it would be
18 completed, so, you know, there's a fair amount of frustration
19 that we're feeling on this end about, you know, EPA's
20 willingness to work with us on that particular site.
21 MR. GUNN: Well, Mr. Toland, that isn't the way I remember
22 that conversation. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't
23 remember anybody threatening anybody with jail, but --
24 MR. TOLAND: I do.
25 MR. GUNN: Okay.
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
31
1 MR. TOLAND: You don't forget those things.
2 MR. GUNN: All right, it's in the record. We won't
3 threaten you in the future, and you can contact me, if you --
4 and we can talk about development of the property. There is no
5 reason that we -- you know, in the future if a person is willing
6 to do the work the right way on the site, they can develop
7 something that is non-residential, that we will -- on the
8 development of that property.
9 Any other questions?
10 Yes, sir?
11 MR. GARY HOFFMEIER: Gary Hoffmeier.
12 In that area Mr. Toland was talking about, they built the
13 doctors' office over -- out there, and he also capped it, and as
14 I understand it, don't they have test holes they have put there
15 for testing that soil?
16 MR. GUNN: I wasn't involved in the clean-up of that
17 particular property, but I know -- I know it was redeveloped,
18 but the fact that that whole eastern side over there has been
19 redeveloped to some extent --
20 MR. HOFFMEIER: But as I understand it, what I was after
21 on that, the doctors' office is responsible for the testing of
22 it every five years. They have to pay for that. It is nothing
23 that EPA takes care of.
24 MR. GUNN: We'll get back to you on the record. I don't
25 know the answer to that, sir.
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
32
1 MR. BAHNKE: I believe that -- that site is under the
2 Kansas Voluntary Clean-Up Program, and is separate from the
3 Superfund site itself. So, I believe your best information
4 might come from the State of Kansas people that are here
5 tonight.
6 MR. HOFFMEIER: What I was after is on the property he was
7 just talking about earlier, whether or not that will be the same
8 thing on that area. I mean, that property was all tied
9 together.
10 MR. GUNN: That is what I was talking about. If there's
11 possibilities to develop properties --
12 MR. HOFFMEIER: Okay.
13 MR. GUNN: -- as long as they're willing to do the
14 necessary things in order protect the human health and the
15 environment, and they do it.
16 Ma'am?
17 MS. DEBORAH SMAIL: My name is Deborah Smail, and our home
18 is on the list to be done coming up pretty quickly. We've had
19 one meeting with the people that came through and I was very
20 impressed just with the way that she mentioned earlier.
21 However, they did mention something, and maybe you can clarify
22 it a little bit more for me, but after the work is done on our
23 property then we will receive some kind of certification that
24 proves that the land has been reclaimed or restored, and then
25 that the future sale of the property that here in town may
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
33
1 someday require this for other properties coming down the pipe,
2 do you know anything about that, or what they were saying,
3 because I wasn't clear on that that day.
4 MR. GUNN: Yeah, I can't answer the first part of that.
5 Joe, do you --
6 MR. WHITE: Yeah, well, it is not a certificate, but there
7 is a database with all of the homes that have been sampled and
8 that are going to be cleaned up and are being cleaned up now,
9 and that database will be, you know, available and turned over a
10 copy to the City and the County, whoever is managing that. I
11 know we -- we have a version that we've created for -- and
12 that's going to be a place where, in the future, realtors are
13 probably going to go look when houses -- in transactions of
14 houses occur, to go out and look to see if this has been
15 remediated or if they ever had a problem to begin with. So it's
16 probably going to be down the road something that's going to be
17 looked at, just with the history of the area.
18 MS. SMAIL: That's what I was thinking for other property
19 owners whose land may or may not be having something done with
20 it, it may be something they need to know.
21 MR. GUNN: You'll get a letter from us when your property
22 is finished --
23 MS. SMAIL: Uh-huh.
24 MR. GUNN: It has an as-built drawing associated with it,
25 what we did basically, what was left in place, and then a letter
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
34
1 with that. So that -- that does come to you as a result of the
2 clean-up, or when we are finished with the clean-up.
3 MS. SMAIL: Thank you.
4 MR. GUNN: Any other questions?
5 Yes, sir?
6 MR. CARL SLAUGH: Carl Slaugh.
7 You've addressed a little bit about where this was going
8 to be in the future, possibly mandatory, and what future impact
9 that would have on the properties that do not allow the
10 voluntary clean-up. On the areas where you've had clean-up like
11 you mentioned Omaha, has that been an outcome? Has there been
12 some kind of a list which shows which ones were -- which
13 properties were cleaned up, which ones were above 800 parts per
14 million, which did not allow the clean-up?
15 MR. GUNN: That's Don's site.
16 MR. BAHNKE: Yes, there's a registry up in Omaha that
17 shows the results of everybody's test for lead and it is kind of
18 part of the real estate transaction habits now, that, "Okay,
19 you're selling this house. You know, it was in the Superfund
20 Site at one time. Let's see your "clean letter" or the results
21 letter." Real estate agents know about this and just
22 automatically assist with getting that to the prospective buyer.
23 MR. SLAUGH: So there hasn't been any effort on other
24 sites to require a homeowner to clean it up at their own expense
25 if they did not allow the EPA to do it?
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
35
1 MR. GUNN: That's correct. What you said is correct. We
2 have not forced clean-up on properties. Now, we've encouraged
3 it and -- you know, encouraged it a lot, and basically, saying,
4 "Look, we're going to have to put in -- since you're in control
5 on your property, and that there will be a deed notice there
6 that says that there is lead of concern on your property," that
7 would be with your deed, in the Recorder's Office, so, you know,
8 we would prefer that you would let us, you know, not have to put
9 that deed notice on your property and clean it up, and remove
10 that from your property.
11 I don't think we've worked out the institutional control
12 here.
13 MR. BAHNKE: No, no.
14 MR. GUNN: Okay, so then as of right now you don't have
15 anybody that is set up to house a list like we have in Omaha.
16 They've got, you know, a pretty good infrastructure there, and
17 I'm sure you do too, either the Health Department or Planning
18 Commission, or, you know, some entity that would be willing to
19 house that institutional control as to which properties have
20 been addressed, so there's a convenient way to find out as
21 properties are transferred whether it's been cleaned up or not.
22 Okay, going once, twice -- yes, ma'am.
23 MS. JOANNE MICHAEL: JoAnne Michael.
24 That property on East Street, and then on over to the
25 doctors' office, if that ground is covered with asphalt, are you
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
36
1 saying that -- that that has to be checked every five years?
2 Does the lead come up through it? What are they rechecking?
3 MR. GUNN: Just to be --
4 MS. MICHAEL: Wouldn't you be safe if you're covered with
5 asphalt or concrete?
6 MR. GUNN: Yes, but what we're saying is that we want to
7 make sure that the asphalt is still there. That would be the
8 extent of that five-year review, basically would be to go in and
9 see that the site has not changed basically.
10 MS. MICHAEL: Oh, okay.
11 MR. GUNN: All right, I don't see any hands, so -- yes,
12 ma'am.
13 MS. MARTHA DAY: I'm just wondering what you're doing with
14 the contaminated soil that you are taking away.
15 MR. BAHNKE: It goes to a landfill nearby which is Allen
16 County Landfill -- yes, Allen County Landfill.
17 MS. DAY: Is it covered up?
18 MR. BAHNKE: And then it is covered up. Right.
19 MR. GUNN: Any other questions?
20 All right, seeing none, I am going to declare this meeting
21 closed, and thank you all very much for coming, and the good
22 questions that you asked. There will be a transcript of this
23 meeting. It will be part of the record, and in that transcript,
24 the questions that we weren't able to answer tonight will be
25 answered as part of that transcript.
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
37
1 Thank you all very much.
2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you want us to sign in?3 MR. GUNN: We do. There were a few people that came in4 late. If you wouldn't mind signing up on one of the sign-in
5 sheets as you go out, and we are going to have an Availability
6 Session now that the meeting is closing, so if you have
7 questions for the Health Department -- I mean the ATSDR or KDHE
8 or us, we will be here and take your questions.
9 Thank you very much.
10
11
12 [End: 7:38 p.m.]
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE
2 I, SANDRA L. HEDGES, do certify that there came before me,
3 at the Iola Public Library located at 218 East Madison Avenue,
4 Iola, Kansas 66749, the above-referenced parties, that the
5 proceedings were translated and proofread, and the above
6 transcript of proceedings is a true and accurate transcript of
7 my notes as taken at the time of said event. I further certify
8 that I am neither attorney nor counsel for nor related nor
9 employed by any of the parties to the action in which this
10 examination is taken; further, that I am not a relative or
11 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties
12 hereto or financially interested in this action.
13
14 Dated this 26th day of August, 2016.
15
38
913-327-7400 TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC. [email protected]
barcode: *30304969*barcodetext: 30304969