My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-09-25_PERMIT FILE - M2009076 (42)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2009076
>
2009-09-25_PERMIT FILE - M2009076 (42)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:55:47 PM
Creation date
9/28/2009 3:07:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2009076
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
9/25/2009
Doc Name
EPA Superfund Record of Decision
From
Venture Resources
To
DRMS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
THAT EPA CLEAN UP THE SITE. THESE REQUIREMENTS DO NOT PERMIT THE AGENCY TO ABANDON A SITE THAT <br />POSES A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT OR TO LOWER ITS CLEANUP STANDARDS. <br />THE OTHER EIGHT CRITERIA THAT EPA CONSIDERS IN CHOOSING A REMEDY INCLUDE COMPLIANCE WITH ARABS; <br />UCTION OF MOBILITY, TOXICITY, OR VOLUME OF CONTAMINANTS; SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS; LONG-TERM <br />FECTIVENESS; IMPLEMENTABILITY; COST; STATE ACCEPTANCE; AND OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH <br />AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THESE CRITERIA ARE DISCUSSED IN THE ROD. <br />COMMENT: SEVERAL RESIDENTS, INCLUDING OWNERS OF TWO OF THE FIVE MINING PROPERTIES, SAID THAT <br />EPA'S ACTIONS DO NOT TAKE PROPERTY OWNERS' RIGHTS INTO ACCOUNT, TIE UP THEIR PROPERTIES FOR LONG <br />PERIODS OF TIME, HAVE NO REGARD FOR THE HARDSHIPS THAT THE PROCESS CREATES FOR THEM, AND INVOLVE <br />THEM IN LEGAL AND BUREAUCRATIC ISSUES THAT PUT THEIR LIVES AS WELL AS THEIR PROPERTIES ON HOLD. <br />ONE OF THE OWNERS ALLEGED THAT EPA STAFF HAVE TRESPASSED ON HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION, <br />HAVE NOT PROPERLY INFORMED HIS FAMILY OF THE AGENCY'S PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY, AND HAVE NOT SHOWN <br />CONCERN FOR THEM OR FOR THEIR RIGHTS. ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER SAID THAT EPA STAFF, PARTICULARLY <br />AT THE GREGORY TAILINGS PROJECT, WOULD NOT CLEAN UP THE AREA AFTER THEY WERE FINISHED WITH THEIR <br />WORK AND DID NOT FOLLOW EPA RULES FOR MANAGING A HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE. <br />EPA'S RESPONSE: EPA OBTAINED A SIGNED ACCESS AGREEMENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER IN QUESTION <br />BEFORE GOING ONTO THE PROPERTY. EPA HAS PROVIDED PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF ITS ACTIVITIES IN THE <br />PAST AND WILL PROVIDE ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITH INFORMATION AND DIRECT NOTIFICATION OF ALL AGENCY <br />ACTIVITIES IN THE FUTURE. EPA STAFF RECOGNIZE THE BURDENS ASSOCIATED WITH BEING A PART OF THE <br />SUPERFUND PROCESS AND ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE WITH PROPERTY OWNERS IN <br />THE FUTURE TO RESOLVE AS MANY ISSUES AS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LAWS AND <br />REGULATIONS UNDER WHICH THE AGENCY MUST OPERATE. <br />COMMENT: SEVERAL COMMENTERS HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COSTS OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE FOR <br />THE CLEAR CREEK/CENTRAL CITY SITE AND ASKED IF EPA IS UNDER PRESSURE TO SPEND A SPECIFIC AMOUNT <br />OF MONEY BY A GIVEN DATE, REGARDLESS OF NEEDS OR ACCOMPLISHMENTS. IN A SIMILAR VEIN, COMMENTERS <br />LLENGED THE MOTIVATION OF BOTH EPA AND ITS CONTRACTORS SUGGESTING THAT THE WORK WAS BEING <br />WE ONLY TO MAINTAIN JOBS AND PROFITS AND NOT TO ACCOMPLISH NECESSARY TASKS. <br />EPA'S RESPONSE: BUDGETS ARE ALLOCATED TO EACH SITE BASED ON THE NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THAT <br />SITE. EPA APPROVES EACH WORK ASSIGNMENT TO BE PERFORMED BY ITS CONTRACTORS ON AN "AS NEEDED" <br />BASIS. EPA STAFF ARE ASSIGNED TO PROJECTS AS NEEDED AND AS STAFF ARE AVAILABLE. THE SUPERFUND <br />LEGISLATION WAS INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH VERY SPECIFIC GOALS. EPA AND ITS CONTRACTORS HAVE MET <br />BOTH THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE LAW IN CARRYING OUT THE REQUIRED WORK AT THIS SITE. <br />COMMENT: ONE PROPERTY OWNER EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME AVAILABLE TO HIM <br />TO COMMENT ON SPA'S WORK ON OPERABLE UNIT NO. TWO AND TO PROVIDE A PROPOSAL TO EPA FOR CLEANUP <br />OF HIS PROPERTY. THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTED THAT EPA HAS REQUESTED HIS IDEAS AND <br />COMMENTS, YET THE AGENCY DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION FOR HIM TO PREPARE A CLEANUP <br />PROPOSAL. OTHER COMMENTERS ASKED HOW EPA COULD EVALUATE PROPOSALS IN TWO WEEKS, EVEN IF THE <br />PROPERTY OWNERS WERE ABLE TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS WITHIN THE TIME-FRAME OF THE COMMENT PERIOD. <br />EPA'S RESPONSE: EPA EXTENDED THE COMMENT PERIOD FOR TEN DAYS, THROUGH DECEMBER 18, TO ALLOW <br />MORE TIME FOR COMMUNITY COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PLAN. EPA ALSO DELAYED MAKING A DECISION ON THE <br />OPERABLE UNIT UNTIL MARCH 1988 TO PROVIDE FOR A THOROUGH REVIEW OF ALL TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS. EPA STAFF AGREED TO ACCEPT ANY COMMENTS UP UNTIL THE REMEDY WAS SELECTED. IN <br />ADDITION, EPA STAFF AGREED TO REVIEW ALL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EACH PROPERTY WITH THE <br />PROPERTY OWNERS, AS REQUESTED. EPA HAS PROVIDED THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH ALL OF THE TECHNICAL <br />INFORMATION THAT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. <br />COMMENT: MANY CITIZENS COMMENTED ON THE REMOVAL ACTION THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE GREGORY TAILINGS <br />IN THE SPRING OF 1987. COMMENTERS RAISED SEVERAL ISSUES ABOUT THE ACTION, INCLUDING THE COST OF <br />THE ACTION RELATIVE TO WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED; THE FACT THAT A TEMPORARY SOLUTION RATHER THAN A <br />AWRMANENT SOLUTION WAS CARRIED OUT; THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN EPA'S ORIGINAL STATEMENT THAT THE <br />RRECTIVE ACTION WOULD LAST FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AND THE CURRENT STATEMENT THAT THE SOLUTION <br />WAS DESIGNED ONLY AS A SHORT-TERM REMEDY; THE FACT THAT SOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED AS <br />INAPPROPRIATE, SUCH AS CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL, ARE NOW BEING CONSIDERED; AND THE <br />CONCERN OF RESIDENTS THAT WORK WAS BEING PERFORMED AT THE GREGORY TAILINGS ONLY BECAUSE EPA <br />WANTED TO TAKE ACTION OF SOME KIND AND THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION HAD THE FUNDING TO DO SO.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.