Capping technology used to seal mining pollutants

By Roberta Forsell Stauffer of The Montana Standard - 04/11/2004

When the proposed cleanup plan for Butte Priority Soils comes out later this year, chances are it will not call for much more mine waste removal from the Butte Hill.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

officials have finished reviewing those

previously reclaimed areas and recommend "no further action."

But EPA Project Manager Sara Sparks stressed at the last Citizens' Working Group meeting that the "no further action" designation does not mean nothing more will be done on the Hill.

A more accurate label would be "no different remedy." The agency believes the waste cap technology — basically 18 inches of clean dirt planted with vegetation — will protect human health and the environment over the long run if maintained properly, and it does not intend to order that the caps be torn out and the waste removed.

However, plans are under way to make sure the 175 caps covering roughly 422 acres are doing their job of eliminating human contact with soils high in arsenic, lead and other heavy metals and keeping those contaminants from washing downhill into Silver Bow Creek during rainstorms and snow melts.

Sparks said every cap will be inspected under what's called the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System, or BRES, a method devised to measure the performance of the caps, such as the depth of cover materials, the health of the vegetation, and the extent of any erosion.

Problems found using the BRES will be addressed, Sparks said, before the caps are cleared to enter the long-term operation and maintenance phase. Precise O&M requirements will be spelled out in the final cleanup decision because of how important effective maintenance will be to the success of the selected remedy.

Additional reclamation work might also be ordered under the stormwater part of the cleanup, which is separate from decisions about soils, and further restoration could take place through the state's Natural Resource Damage Program.

Both Sparks and Ron Bertram, EPA's other project manager for Priority Soils, said that even though this cap solution has been granted general approval, they'll still investigate sites where people don't think the caps are appropriate.

"We're still open to receiving comment if someone can identify an individual site that they think needs to be looked at — where they believe that the past response action precludes some type of redevelopment or where they think that the action doesn't protect human health or the environment," Sparks said.

This admission by EPA officials that they have basically accepted the waste cap solution on the Hill was not at all well-received by working group member John Ray.

Ray has filed two formal complaints with the national and regional EPA offices — one alleging a lack of meaningful public participation in the decision-making for Priority Soils and the other accusing the Montana EPA office of failing to incorporate legally mandated future land use considerations in selecting a cleanup remedy.

"What we have is ‘environmental theatre' where the script is already written, the outcome is already determined and the actors are simply playing pre-assigned parts and reading predetermined dialogue," Ray said in his complaint.

He also said that if ever there was a Superfund site where land redevelopment should be made a priority, it's this one, which encompasses most of historic Uptown Butte. He is urging the working group to question EPA's conclusion and explore all possible solutions.

Both Bertram and Sparks contend public input has been regularly sought throughout the 17 years since Priority Soils was named a Superfund site and that back when decisions were made to allow the Atlantic Richfield Co. to install the waste caps, people were told they might be part of the final solution.

"When we were doing these cleanups, we weren't hearing an outcry that what we were doing was wrong," Bertram said.

He added that whenever EPA orders a cleanup action, it must ensure the action taken would be consistent with a final remedy.

"There's no guarantee of course, but obviously the objective is to try to pick remedies that will be blessed as part of the final decision," Bertram said. "Otherwise, PRPs (potentially responsible parties such as Arco) would never agree to follow administrative orders."

The two also take issue with Ray's contention that there's a legal obligation on EPA's part to require redevelopment of sites and they say there's nothing preventing the capped sites from being redeveloped.

"Our obligations are to protect human health and the environment, but to do it within the confines of our laws and regulations," Bertram said. "We have to treat the PRPs like they have legal rights because they do, and cost is one of the considerations. We must consider remedies that are cost-effective. EPA is not a dictator and we cannot just order anything."