Laserfiche WebLink
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.