Page 1

West Lake/Bridgeton Landfill Community Advisory Group

- Map 29, 2014

Meeting Agenda

Call meeting to order and roll-call of officers present. Doug Clemens, Rhonda Steelman, Vernita Wilson, and Bob Nowlin present. Bill Wilson in audience. Public Officials / Organizations in attendance or represented: Ben Washburn, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator, Region 7 Daniel Gravatt, Environmental Scientist, EPA, Region 7 Jeffrey Field, Redial Project Manager, EPA, Region 7 Mary Peterson, EPA Region 7 Harvey Ferdman, Policy Advisor for Bill Otto Kerry J. DeGregorio, Constituent Advocate, U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt Jo Middleton, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill Jordan Fears, U. S Rep. Ann Wagner Bill Ray, St. Louis County Executive Office Michael Zlatic, PE, Environmental Administrator, St. Louis County Health Ed Smith, Safe Energy Director, Mo Coalition for the Environment Robyn Kiefer,Project Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers Scott Young, US Army Corp of Engineers Kirby Webster, SKEO Solutions Denise Jordan-Izaguirre , ATSDR (CDC) Elizabeth Semkiw, DHSS Lorena Locke, DHSS John Haasis, St. Louis County Health, Solid Waste Program Linda Eaker, Bridgeton City Council Jerry Grimmer, Bridgeton City Council Ferd Fetsch, Bridgeton City Council

Approval of minutes from April CAG meeting Rhonda made a motion to approve, Bob seconded. Motion to approve passed. Introduction and presentations by EPA and ACE representatives Ben Washburn: ball fields remain suitable for use. 3 teams - field analysis, infield, outfield, trench areas Background surveys of 2 areas locally 60,000 data points – soil samples, 100 samples throughout BMAC collected Results coming back 45 days. Denise Jordan-Izaguirre shared that the equipment used for previous analysis was not good enough to detect properly. Dan Gravatt read through questions presented to EPA and gave answers except where question not clear. -Will documents include Latty Ave documents? 1


-CORP is providing technical assistance, to provide team with site conditions. -What happens if the EPA and Corp don’t agree? Other experts may be employed to help come to a resolution. Final resolution is EPA. Region 7 Management makes that decision. -Contingency plan when trench opened up? Health & safety plan in place, air monitoring & health & safety for public. Condition to stop work if unsafe conditions detected. Look on website for those variables. Emergency plans are being put together by St Louis County agencies. -EPA has agreed to place plans on website – within a reasonable amount of time – approx. 5 business days. -EPA is setting up five monitoring locations besides the site. One report generated each week. Cost of remedies exceeded $25 M, Robyn Kiefer: Disciplines used for reviews – isolation work team, 2 civil engineers reviewing documents, biologist reviewing bird mitigation plan, health physicist – health and safety of RIM, look at health impacts. Doug opened up for Q&A: Jerry Grimmer, Councilman Ward 2: Do you have a plan and when can you tell us about a plan to protect citizens? Robyn: Providing work plan, Corp reviews, comments to EPA next week. Dan: Pre-construction work activities plan is on web site – draft. Dawn Chapman: draft work plan and air monitors, protocol doesn’t sound like real time, dust control, dust mitigation, is there any REAL TIME survey so people in area notified immediately of concerns? Will it be up before the work begins? Running long before trench construction begins. Need normal background conditions so they can compare to see results of construction. Instruments – 5 sets working together to do real time measurement continually, others with lower detection limits of beta, gamma, etc. , Harvey: Are there established guidelines for radionuclides in the air? Can you direct us to documents that contain those levels? ATSR has those in the back of the profiles. Ed Smith: Will there be any more actual studies about SSE and radioactive materials beyond what was submitted by EMSI? There must be a work plan to consider the impact of an SSE? Dan: Need to be able to quantify the exposure to people – without having a way to know what this can do, there’s no way to determine the risk. Refer to the “Supplemental to the Supplemental Feasibility Study of the 2008 ROD Decision” for additional info. Ed: How is EPA going to evaluate the real risks that will happen with leachate during the work? Dan: Most recent ground water data shows more around site than known before. More sites doesn’t equate to risk. Other factors like anyone drinking water? Anyone playing in dirt? 2


Denise: Has to be exposure to consider risk. Doug: Is there a potential pathway of exposure when that is opened? Dan: We cannot put a number to the risk. Ann Hulce: resident of the Terra San Mobile Home Park: Dirt blows on windows, face, house… Dan: We are installing many air monitors to quantify what is in air. Is it just dust without contaminants, it could still be a nuisance but not have a radiological risk. If it is an unsafe risk, then work will be temporarily stopped until CORP and/or EPA detect that there is no longer a concern. One monitor will be next to the mobile home park. Doug: Will there be measurements for other contaminants Dan: Yes, for benzene, hydrogen sulfide, and others. Doug: CAG request work be covered up. Donna Klocke: Republic has been in violation of the clean water act for last 4 quarters. They have to do one test each quarter. What will be done with the bad water, what will be done to be sure water used while work is done will be handled properly? Is water used to clean equipment? What about waste water disposal? Dan: I recommend that question be referred to MODNR – Solid Waste Rep. EPA regulates water contamination levels for water used in construction activities. Tonya Mason: Back to questions 4 & 11: the question of evacuation plan. Doug: EPA suggested St Louis agencies will be referred to for that. He can request them to speak to us. Tonya: The odors – what do you anticipate for us when you begin digging? Dan: It’s gonna stink. Unearthing a lot of fairly recent waste will smell like a landfill. Get work done expeditiously so stink can be minimized. Doug: There is a request being submitted for the PRP’s to take care of relocation during that process. Bob: The Attorney General issued a lawsuit to relocate people. Is there going to have to be a lawsuit to get this provided again? Is that going to be a part of your plan so we don’t have to go through the Attorney General to sue them? Doug: We are in a gray area. Dan: Can EPA compel the authorities to relocate people? Harvey for Dan: Response to #3, will we have an opportunity to see the comment letters?

3


Dan: Comment letters will be released, who said what, who said same thing, not planning to release the draft messy interaction before combined to be given to PRP’s. Linda Eaker: How long ago was the trench ordered to be done? The EPA is talking to Corp, back and forth, when is anything really going to get done? Would you live here? Are there any cliff notes? Dan: Look at website for updates. There are no hard dates because of concerns when work is done. The stakes are fairly high so we’re trying to be prompt but not doing it in a quick and dirty method that causes more problems. Linda: Have you done this anywhere else? Dan: There are no other locations with the SSE and radioactive contamination. Linda: That’s why we feel the urgency. Doug: Can you explain what a PRP is? Dan: PRP’s are 4 entities – 3 company and DOE of government responsible for the contamination. They were responsible legally for addressing and cleaning up the contaminated area caused by DOE and previous agency involved in the Manhattan Project. The PRP’s contract out to their own company to do the tests. Mary Peterson: New product on web page shows some of the milestones and try to convey activities going on currently and as time goes on, they’ll fall off and new things appear. Website: google EPA region 7 landfill Kirby Pemberton: Maryland Heights people can smell odor, students miss recess. When is the process going to get started? Denise: We have 24/7 air monitoring. The DNR odor alert comes out after recess is over. Ed: Republic reports odor alerts. Jerry: EPA decision-making process. This project should be fast-tracked, be efficiently done, it should be a CORP officer making those decision to get things done. Dan: Work is being planned so that it can happen fairly quickly Debi Disser: When preliminary construction work begins, is the vegetation going to be tested for contamination? Will the vegetation be covered while work is done? Dan: The work plan describes a process for them written in the plan. Plan should include safe storing of dirt dug out. 4


Dawn: The technician said that the sodium-Iodide was the same as the machine used on the buggy. Without getting soil samples for the background, how can that be verified? Don: The EPA wants to establish background levels of radiation so they can be compared. Are we going to use these levels? Why are we establishing new backgrounds? FUSRAP is still using some of the other backgrounds. Dan: Ben will follow up on this. Ed: Has CORP approved vegetation removal plan? Bio-accumulation that sets up? We keep finding more areas of radioactive materials at the landfill. There’s legitimate concern about using a brush hog or other equipment to stir this up. Is the CORP going to look over the vegetation removal plan? The GCP plan was posted one week and work started the next. Will the community have a chance to address the plan? Dan: No vegetation cleaning has been approved yet for this work. It was proposed to use the same method as the GCP method. Mary Peterson: The process of removing vegetation will follow the method previously used. Robyn: We will look at this. Harvey: What is the definition of background? What is this related to RIM and where the RIM will be allowed to be built? What defines RIM related to the trench? Dan: Defining background is difficult and not the same process for e very site. RIM was defined in 2008, what was concentration for complete RAD removal? Dawn: When background is established, was it established at Westlake? Ed: Where were samples taken during the remedial plan for Westlake? Were they within the boundaries? Where? Dan: This is referenced in work plan or the report for the feasibility study, or in the remedial investigation. Denise: Typically done off-site. Wendy and Joe Lumetta: Can we get a comparable figure on what is a background number? Can we receive a background level that will be comparable to a non-atomic city? Dan: Backgrounds change over time – buildings, local kinds of rock. 1979 studies may be exactly same. How usable are those figures? Wendy: Since we are not in the mountains, since granite is a gamma radiation emitter, can we be provided with a non-atomic number? Doug: Is background just dirt levels or gamma rays included?

5


: Dan: It has to be a specifically constructed study. Here it should compare to background levels here. Doug: North County is polluted, but not from natural processes. Why has Westlake sat for 40 years without being cleaned up when it has some of the same stuff? Ed: EPA used control site for BMAC, why not use a control site for Westlake? Dan: Look up how process done and get back to me. Dawn: Machinery same used here as on buggy. Kriss Avery: If you have to adjust background number, can that be documented? Can the background be marked for use? Dan: Background is important to compare – what you’re used to, what is naturally there, what is the source of the contaminants? What contribution of the contaminants comes from other sources than the landfill? Debi: If soil levels come back higher, what method are you going to use? 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 - what plan are you going to go to if you find that contamination? Dan: Once we get results, then go from there. Dan Finnie: Was a clear path found? Additional work needs to be done. There’s no plan B to be sure that the barrier was going in. It appears to date that there is no clear path. Are we presupposing a clear path will be found and what are we basing that on? Dan: Just because we don’t have all the data, doesn’t mean that a clear path won’t be found. If we find a location in or near where we plan to start the barrier, we need to make sure that decision is made properly. The Attorney General’s settlement says that a barrier will be constructed. It doesn’t say where or how. A clean area has to be found for the barrier to be built. Daniel Finnie, Attorney: The AG gave the order, but doesn’t have the scientific background. If you cannot find a clear path, will you go ahead and build a wall if it’s not clear? Dan: AG probably had source to provide scientific information. Joe Maddux: There was a series of value given for background, and that background value is very important. Dan: There is a bigger variation in true background and the true value. There might be a lesser variation where the RIM stops. Dawn: Are you doing any other off-site testing? The soil samples around the above ground fire should be tested. Dirt was moved twice with grading. Dan: More recent off-site soil sampling data --

6


Harvey: The question related to testing surfaces -Dan:

Provide you with soil sampling from 2007?

Rhonda – motion to close. Bob seconded it. Meeting Closed. 60 in attendance

7

Cag meeting minutes 5 29 2014  
Cag meeting minutes 5 29 2014  
Advertisement