transcript of proceedings - former united zinc and ...11 zinc and associated smelters site. but all...

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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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,


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


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?


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 --


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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?


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


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.


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.


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


barcode: *30304969*barcodetext: 30304969

transcript of proceedings - former united zinc and ...11 zinc and associated smelters site. but all...

Documents