Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis for a portion of the Oronogo Duenweg Mining Belt Site Jasper County, Missouri Prepared by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VII 901 N. 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101 August 2000 Executive Summary Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis for a portion of the Oronogo Duenweg Mining Belt Site Jasper County, Missouri Purpose The purpose of this engineering evaluation/ cost analysis ( EE/ CA) is to screen and evaluate removal action alternatives for controlling releases of contaminants in the Oronogo Duenweg Mining Belt Site ( Site) in Jasper County, Missouri. The Missouri Department of Transportation ( MDOT) has completed plans to construct a four lane highway through the Site from 7th Street near Duenweg, Missouri, to Business 71 Highway near Carterville, Missouri, through a portion of the Site containing mining wastes contaminated with cadmium, lead, and zinc. At the request of the community, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and MDOT are proposing to use approximately 588,000 cubic yards of metals contaminated mining wastes for fill in the highway construction. This EE/ CA evaluates alternatives to cleanup of the mining wastes in the vicinity of the proposed highway.

Scope and Objective of the Removal Action The objective of this non time critical removal action at the Site is to mitigate the threat to public health or welfare or the environment resulting from surface release of metals contaminated material from the mining waste piles. The removal action will address the release of material associated with identified aquatic and terrestrial risk and potential future human health risk in the vicinity of the proposed highway construction. This removal action is an interim ( early) action for cleanup simultaneous to construction of the proposed highway. A remedial investigation has been completed and a feasibility study ( FS) will be completed in approximately 12 to 18 months to determine appropriate cleanup alternatives for the remainder of the Site.

Removal Alternatives Assessment The following two removal alternative are carried through and assessed in this EE/ CA.

Capping Under this alternative, approximately 140 acres containing approximately 588,000 cubic yards of mining wastes would be regraded to reduce the slopes and promote adequate drainage of the areas. The wastes would be capped with one foot of soil cover to prevent direct exposure to the wastes and establish vegetative cover. Storm water runoff controls and dust suppression would be required during grading operations to ensure metals are not released to areas surrounding the piles. Approximately 1613 cubic yards of soil would be require to cover each acre for a total of 225,820 cubic yards. The soil would be obtained from the area surrounding the waste piles and ii would contain less than 240 ppm lead and 25 ppm cadmium. Since the waste would be left in place and subject to disturbance during future development that will likely occur in the area, institutional controls would be required to regulate development of the area. Total cost of the alternative is estimated at $ 2,831,737 with an annual operation and maintenance cost of $ 379,500 for 30 years. Total cost estimated for this alternative is $ 3,211,237.

Excavation and On site Disposal Under this alternative, the same 140 acres and 588,000 cubic yards of wastes addressed under the capping alternative would be excavated and hauled into the highway corridor and used as fill for the construction of the roadway. The wastes will be handled and placed by MDOT in areas requiring fill and compacted to construction specifications. Additionally, approximately one foot of soil underlying the mining wastes will also be removed along with the wastes. This soil will be used to aid the fill compaction, as well as, remove lead contamination exceeding 500 ppm from the underlying soil. All mining wastes exceeding 1,500 ppm lead exposed in the side slopes of the highway embankment would be covered with one foot of clean soil. MDOT will be required to comply with all storm water runoff requirements and to suppress all fugitive dust. The total cost estimate for this alternative is $ 3,548,313. Since the mining wastes will be removed and disposed of under the highway, no institutional controls or annual operation and maintenance would be required.

Proposed Removal Action The EPA's recommended alternative is excavation of the mining wastes with disposal as construction fill under the highway during construction. This alternative is slightly more costly than capping but better meets the remediation goals than the capping option. The disposal of the wastes under the highway will create a more permanent remedy without reliance on institutional controls. Further, the citizens task forces have voiced a preference for permanent disposal of the wastes instead of capping in place which must be dealt with during future development of the area. The preferred removal action of mining wastes in the vicinity of the highway consists of the following actions:

1. Excavation of the mining waste piles with transport into the highway corridor. 2. Removal of the top 12 inches of soil beneath the excavated waste piles. 3. Incorporation of the mining wastes and underlying soil into the highway construction fill. 4. Implementation of storm water runoff controls during excavation and disposal activities. 5. Dust suppression during excavation and disposal activities. 6. Placement of 12 inches of clean soil cover on all mining waste exceeding 1,500 ppm lead in the highway side slopes. 7 Revegetation of disturbed areas. iii Since the estimated cost of the proposed removal alternative exceeds the statutory limitations, a consistency waiver from the statutory limitation on cost is required to conduct this action.

Approved:

________________________ ________________________ Michael J. Sanderson, Director Date Superfund Division iv Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Site Characterization 2 2.1 Site Location 3 2.2 Site History 6 2.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination 6 2.4 Risk Evaluation 7 3.0 Basis for Removal Action 7 4.0 Identification of Removal Actions 8 4.1 Removal Action Scope and Objectives 8 4.2 Statutory Limits on Removal Actions 8 4.3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 8 4.3.1 Chemical Specific 9 4.3.2 Location Specific 9 4.3.3 Action Specific 9 4.4 Determination of ARARs 9 4.4.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) 10 4.4.2 Fugitive Particulate Matter Regulations 10 4.4.3 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act ( SMCRA) 10 4.4.4 Storm Water Requirements ( 10 CSR 20 6.200) 11 4.4.5 RCRA Subtitle D Solid Waste Disposal Regulations 11 4.4.6 Determination of Non ARARs 11 4.4.7 RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Regulations 11 4.4.8 Ground water Requirements 12 4.4.9 Other Criteria to Be Considered 12 5.0 Identification and Initial Screening of Removal Action Alternatives 12 5.1 Stabilization and Treatment 13 5.2 Capping 13 5.3 Excavation and Off site Disposal 13 5.4 Excavation and On site Disposal 13 5.5 Revegetation 13 6.0 Development of Removal Action Alternatives 14 6.1 No Action Alternative 13 6.2 Capping 13 6.3 Excavation and On site Disposal 14 7.0 Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives 15 7.1 Effectiveness 15 7.1.1 Long term Effectiveness 15 7.1.2 Short term Effectiveness 15 7.1.3 Compliance with ARARs 16 7.2 Implementability 16 7.2.1 Technical Feasibility 16 7.2.2 Administrative Feasibility 16 7.2.3 Availability of Services and Materials 17 v 7.2.4 State Acceptance 17 Table of Contents ( continued)

7.2.5 Community Acceptance 17 7.3 Cost 17 8.0 Recommended Removal Action Alternative 17 9.0 Removal Schedule 18 Figure 1  Site Location 4 Figure 2  Proposed Highway Location 5 Table 1  Cost Estimate for Capping Alternative 19 Table 2  Cost Estimate for Excavation and Disposal Alternative 19 References 20 1 Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis for a portion of the Oronogo Duenweg Mining Belt Site Jasper County, Missouri 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this Engineering Evaluation/ Cost analysis ( EE/ CA) is to screen and evaluate removal action alternatives for controlling releases of contaminants in the Oronogo Duenweg Mining Belt Site in Jasper County, Missouri. EPA has been coordinating with the Missouri Department of Transportation ( MDOT) on the construction of a four lane highway through a portion of the Site containing mining wastes contaminated with cadmium, lead, and zinc. The MDOT has completed plans to construct a fourlane highway through the Site from 7th Street near Duenweg, Missouri, to Business 71 Highway near Carterville, Missouri. EPA and MDOT have entered into a Prospective Purchasers Agreement ( PPA) for construction of the highway through the Site. As part of the PPA, MDOT is required to cleanup all mining wastes that fall within the right of way of the highway. Additionally, at the request of the community and EPA, MDOT is proposing to use approximately 588,000 cubic yards of metals contaminated mining wastes for fill in the highway construction. This EE/ CA is largely based on the construction design completed by MDOT. Additional alternatives are evaluated against using the mining wastes as fill for highway construction for cleanup of the wastes in the area to determine the most appropriate cleanup alternative.

The EPA and potentially responsible parties ( PRPs) investigations at the Site have revealed significant heavy metals contamination in the mining wastes, ground water, surface soils, surface water, and sediments. Based on the criteria set forth in Section 300.415( b)( 2) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ( NCP), EPA has determined that the Site poses a threat to public health and the environment and that a removal action is necessary to reduce the threat. EPA and the PRPs are currently conducting a FS to address the mining waste source materials at the Site. The FS is expected to be completed in late 2001. This memorandum documents the need to move forward with an EE/ CA for a non time critical removal action for a portion of the Site in advance of the completion of the FS and Record of Decision ( ROD). Construction of the highway is anticipated to begin prior to completion of EPA's ROD. The decision to proceed with this EE/ CA is consistent with EPA guidance regarding Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model early actions and the long term remedial strategy for this Site.

An EE/ CA is required for all non time critical removal actions, pursuant to Section 300.415( b)( 4) of the NCP, 40 C. F. R. § 300.415( b)( 4). This EE/ CA provides background information on the Site, evaluates removal action alternatives for the Site, describes the removal action alternative that EPA recommends, and explains the rationale for this recommendation. Also, EPA has established an Administrative Record file for the removal action at this site which contains all of the information that EPA has considered or relied on thus far in evaluating removal alternatives. The Administrative Record file is available for public review at the following locations: 2 Joplin Public Library Carl Junction City Hall 300 Main 105 North Main Joplin, Missouri Carl Junction, Missouri Webb City Public Library U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 101 South Liberty 901 N. 5th Street Webb City, Missouri Kansas City, Kansas The EPA has not made a final decision on the removal action to be taken at this site. Publication of this EE/ CA opens a 30 day public comment period on the proposed removal action. EPA encourages the public to comment on the alternatives analyzed in this EE/ CA. Written comments should be submitted to:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII Office of External Programs 901 N. 5th Street Kansas City, KS 66101 ATTN: Hattie Thomas After the close of the public comment period, EPA will issue an Action Memorandum which will present EPA's selected removal action and describe the basis for that selection. In that Action Memorandum, EPA may modify the proposed alternative presented in this EE/ CA or select other removal options, based on public comments or new information. Any comments on this EE/ CA that are received during the comment period will be addressed by EPA in a responsiveness summary, which will be attached to the Action Memorandum.

2.0 Site Characterization The Site is part of the Tri State Mining District, which covers hundreds of square miles in southwestern Missouri, southeastern Kansas, and northeastern Oklahoma. Mining, milling, and smelting of lead and zinc ore date back to 1850 and continued in the district until the 1970s. The Missouri portion of the district accounted for more than 0.2 billion tons of ore, 80 percent of which was produced in Jasper County. Processing of the ore resulted in approximately 150 million tons of wastes. Mining, milling, and smelting activities generated several types of waste materials including mine wastes ( waste rock, development rock, and overburden), mill wastes ( chat and fine tailings), and smelter related materials ( slag, fugitive dust, and air emissions). Approximately nine million tons of mining/ milling and smelter wastes remain on the surface at the Site and contain residual heavy metals, particularly lead, cadmium, and zinc. These wastes currently contribute metals contamination to surface soils, surface water, and ground water. Additionally, most mining occurred underground at depths up to 400 feet resulting in hundreds of mine shafts, many miles of mine adits, and vast underground voids throughout the Site. These mine openings create conduits for migration of metals contamination into the ground water from the surface. Ground water is used as a source of drinking water in the Site and also recharges up to 70 percent of surface water in local streams. 3 2.1 Site Location The portion of the Site addressed by this EE/ CA is located within the Site, which is part of the Tri State Mining District and is shown on Figure 1. The Site lies within an area bounded on the north by the township line between Townships 29 and 30 North, on the south by the county line between Jasper and Newton Counties, but also including portions of Section 24 Township 27 North Range 34 West and Sections 19 and 20 Township 27 North Range 33 West in Newton County, on the west by the state line between Missouri and Kansas, and on the east by the range line between Ranges 31 and 32 West. The Site encompasses several small to medium size municipalities and the surrounding unincorporated areas. Land use varies from agricultural to urban. Approximately 60,000 people live within the Site boundaries.

The portion of the Site covered by this EE/ CA is approximately the southern half of the Oronogo Duenweg Designated Area. The location of the proposed highway and the area of the Site covered by this EE/ CA is shown in Figure 2. 4 FIGURE 1 5 FIGURE 2 6 2.2 Site History The EPA added the Site to the National Priorities List ( NPL) in 1990. The NPL is the EPA's list of sites which have the greatest contamination and pose the greatest threat to human health and the environment. The Site has been divided into 11 separate designated areas ( DAs) for investigation because of its large area, about 270 square miles. EPA conducted a PRP search to identify mining companies that may be responsible for cleanup of the wastes and contamination at the Site. In 1991, the EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent with a group of nine PRPs to conduct a Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study ( RI/ FS) at seven of the DAs of the Site under EPA oversight. EPA conducted the investigations at the remaining four DAs and completed a human health and ecological risk assessments.

In December 1993, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order ( UAO) to the PRPs to supply bottled water to affected homes. In June 1994, EPA issued a second UAO to the PRPs to conduct additional sampling of private water supply wells and to provide additional bottled water if wells were found to exceed heath based standards. These investigations identified approximately 100 affected homes. Approximately 60 affected homes are currently being supplied bottled water by the PRPs and EPA supplies bottled water to approximately 40 homes. In July 1998, EPA issued a ROD for installation of public water supply systems to replace the bottled water program. Currently, Duenweg, Webb City, and Missouri American Water Company are completing designs for installation of the various systems. Construction of the supply lines are anticipated to begin in 2001.

The Missouri Department of Health ( MDOH) conducted an exposure study to evaluate health effects on residents in the Site. The study, which was released in May 1994, concluded that 14 percent of children under the age of seven years in the study area had elevated blood lead concentrations. Additionally, the study concluded that the most significant source of contamination resulting in elevated blood lead levels was residential yard soils. Following release of the health study in 1994, EPA developed a strategy to prioritize cleanup of residential yards at this Site. Initial work done under the strategy identified numerous daycare centers and residences as having high soil lead concentrations at levels requiring immediate cleanup. Therefore, in January 1995 EPA issued an Action Memorandum for a time critical removal which commenced cleanup of these daycare centers and residential yards. Under the time critical removal action, EPA cleaned up 303 residential yards and seven daycare centers. EPA issued a ROD for cleanup of residential yards in June 1996 to follow the time critical removal action. To date approximately 2,100 additional properties have been remediated.

2.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination Investigations conducted at the Site by EPA and the PRPs showed the primary contaminants of concern are cadmium, lead, and zinc. These contaminants were found in the mining wastes, surface soils, ground water, and surface water at levels causing an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. The following table shows the range of contaminants 7 detected in the various media.

Media Lead Cadmium Zinc Surface Water 0.001  0.002 ppm 0.002  0.004 ppm 0.005  0.489 ppm Ground Water 0.001  0.29 ppm 0.001  0.22 ppm 0.005  21.8 ppm Smelter Area Soil 45  10,000 ppm 5  150 ppm 600  20,000 ppm Mined Area Soil 20  39,000 ppm 1  288 ppm 57  45,400 ppm Stream Sediment 15  242 ppm 1  68 ppm 103  4,810 ppm Mining Wastes 22  24,100 ppm 4  644 ppm 466  71,500 ppm 2.4 Risk Evaluation The EPA conducted a human health risk assessment ( HHRA) which determined that young children living on or near mining wastes or in the smelter zone were at risk of elevated blood lead levels and associated adverse health effects. The HHRA determined that children under the age of seven years should not reside on, or become exposed to soil with more than 500 parts per million lead. Additionally, the investigations conducted at the Site identified people living in over 100 residences were consuming shallow ground water with cadmium, lead, and zinc exceeding the health based levels.

The ecological risk assessment ( ERA) identified a significant risk to aquatic organisms living in the local streams. The ERA also identified significant risk to terrestrial organisms living near mining waste areas.

3.0 Basis for Removal Action To justify conducting a removal action, EPA must determine that the site poses a threat to public health or welfare or the environment, based on consideration of the eight factors listed at Section 300.415 ( b)( 2) of the NCP, 40 CFR § 300.415 ( b)( 2). If, based on those factors, EPA determines that a threat exists, a removal action is justified in order to abate, prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances. EPA has evaluated these factors and determined that a removal action is justified.

Although human exposure to metals contamination in this portion of the Site is relatively low since the area is sparsely populated, and the HHRA did not identify a risk to trespassers, the potential risk to future residents is high. It is anticipated that once construction of the highway is completed, development of the area is highly likely. Since Jasper County currently does not have planning and zoning regulations established for the area, it is probable that people will build residences on contaminated mining wastes and soils in the vicinity of the new roadway. 8 9 In addition, the ERA has identified a significant risk to aquatic and terrestrial organisms living at the Site. The mining wastes are the source of the risk due to high metals concentrations. Cleanup actions are required to remove the risk to the environment.

4.0 Identification of Removal Actions 4.1 Removal Action Scope and Objectives The objective of this non time critical removal action at the Site is to mitigate the threat to public health or welfare or the environment resulting from surface release of metals contaminated material from the mining waste piles. The removal action will address the release of material associated with identified aquatic and terrestrial risk and potential future human health risk in the vicinity of the proposed highway construction. This removal action is an interim ( early) action for cleanup simultaneous to construction of the proposed highway. A remedial investigation has been completed and FS will be completed in approximately 12 to 18 months to determine appropriate cleanup alternatives for the remainder of the mining waste piles at the Site.

4.2 Statutory Limits on Removal Actions Section 300.415( b)( 5) of the NCP, 40 CFR § 300.415( b)( 5), stipulates that the cost and duration of a removal action conducted by EPA is limited to $ 2 million and 12 months, unless an exemption to these limits is obtained. Section 104( b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA) provides for two types of exemptions to these statutory removal limits: 1) the " emergency" waiver; and 2) the " consistency" waiver. The " emergency" waiver provides additional funding or extends the removal action time, when continued response actions are immediately required to prevent, limit, or mitigate an immediate risk to public health or welfare or the environment. The " consistency" waiver provides an exemption to the statutory funding limits or extends the removal action time to implement a removal action that is otherwise appropriate and consistent with the final response action to be taken. In this EE/ CA, one of the factors considered in the evaluation of each removal alternative is whether the removal can be completed within the statutory limits, or whether the removal could qualify for an exemption from the limits.

4.3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Section 300.415 ( i) of the NCP provides that fund financed removal actions under CERCLA Section 104 shall, to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation, attain applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements ( ARARs) under federal or state environmental or facility siting laws. Other advisories, criteria, or guidance may be considered for a particular site. 10 Under CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, a requirement may be either " applicable" or " relevant and appropriate" to a specific removal action, but not both. Applicable requirements are those public and environmental health and welfare requirements, criteria, and/ or standards promulgated under federal or state law that address specific circumstances or scenarios at a CERCLA site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those public and environmental health and welfare requirements, criteria, and/ or standards promulgated under federal or state law that, while not applicable to a specific site's circumstances or scenarios, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to the circumstances of the release or the response action and are well suited to the site.

In addition to applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, EPA and the state may identify other advisories, criteria, or guidance to be considered for a particular release. The " to be considered" category consists of advisories, guidance, or criteria developed by EPA, other federal agencies, or the state that may be useful in developing CERCLA remedies.

ARARs are categorized into three main groups: chemical, location, and action specific. Each group is defined below:

4.3.1 Chemical Specific Requirements that set technology or risk based concentrations/ limits in various media. This group can also be used to determine discharge limits, treatment standards, and disposal requirements for removal activities. Chemical specific ARARs are also used in evaluating the effectiveness of removal alternatives.

4.3.2 Location Specific Requirements that provide a basis for assessing the restrictions during the formulation and evaluation of potential location specific remedies. Removal action alternatives may be restricted by federal and state laws concerning proximity of sensitive human populations and environments.

4.3.3 Action Specific These requirements are activated during the consideration of removal alternatives. Action specific requirements govern such categories as air emissions, treatment residues, and offsite disposal policies.

The ARARs for the proposed removal action for the federal site are discussed in detail later in this EE/ CA.

4.4 Determination of ARARs The following are the ARARs for this removal action. The response alternatives described and evaluated in this EE/ CA would comply with all of these ARARs. 11 4.4.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS)

The NAAQS under the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. § 7401 et. seq., 40 CFR Part 250, and 10 CSR 10 6.010, establish ambient air quality standards for emissions of lead and particulate matter. The removal action will involve significant amounts of regrading and movement of tailings, which could cause the airborne release of both lead and particulate matter. Because the site is not considered a " major source" under the Clean Air Act, the NAAQS are not applicable. However, they are relevant and appropriate during on site construction activities.

4.4.2 Fugitive Particulate Matter Regulations The Fugitive Particulate Matter Regulations, 10 CSR 10 6.170, provide restrictions on releases of particulate matter to ambient air. These regulations will be applicable to any fugitive emissions of particulate matter which occur as a result of on site construction activities.

4.4.3 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act ( SMCRA)

The SMCRA governs activities associated with coal exploration and mining. Because the standards and regulations promulgated under SMCRA are intended for active coal mines, they are not applicable to actions at the site. However, certain surface mining standards found in 30 CFR Part 816 are relevant and appropriate because they address circumstances that are similar to those found at the site. The requirements will be complied with by each of the alternatives.

Sediment Control Measures ( § 816.45)

The SMCRA requires that sediment control measures be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize erosion and prevent additional sediment from entering the stream flow of adjacent watercourses. The removal action will involve runoff diversion designed to control sedimentation. Accordingly, this portion of the SMCRA regulations will be complied with:

Siltation Structures ( § 816.46)

The SMCRA requires that when siltation structures such as sedimentation ponds are used, they must contain spillways and be designed to ( 1) provide adequate sediment storage volume; ( 2) contain or treat 10 year, 24 hour precipitation events; and ( 3) provide a non clogging dewatering device adequate to maintain detention time. Any erosion control basins constructed as part of drainage improvement efforts will be constructed in compliance with these requirements. 12 Grading Requirements ( § 816.102)

The SMCRA requires that disturbed mining areas be graded to minimize water pollution and erosion, eliminate high walls and depressions, prevent slides, and achieve original contour. The proposed removal actions involve significant amounts of regrading, which will be done in compliance with these performance standards to the extent practicable.

Revegetation ( § 816.111)

The SMCRA requires that on regraded areas and all mining disturbed areas, a vegetative cover must be established which is comprised of native species, capable of stabilizing surface soil from erosion, permanent, and capable of self regeneration. A vegetative cover will be established at the site which satisfies these requirements.

4.4.4 Storm Water Requirements ( 10 CSR 20 6.200)

The state of Missouri has promulgated regulations that are applicable to storm water discharges associated with areas where industrial activity, including mining, has taken place in the past and significant materials remain and are exposed to storm water. The substantive requirements of the storm water program must be complied with at the site so long as runoff from the site comes into contact with the tailings. Once a vegetative cover has been established which prevents runoff from coming into contact with the tailings, these requirements will have been met.

4.4.5 RCRA Subtitle D Solid Waste Disposal Regulations The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Subtitle D program ( 40 CFR Part 257), as well as the state of Missouri Solid Waste Management Law and Regulation, regulates the management of nonhazardous solid waste. 40 CFR Part 257 establishes requirements for maintenance of a facility at which solid wastes are disposed. The tailings at the site are solid wastes and thus these regulations are applicable for the removal action. The regulations require that the facility be maintained to prevent a wash out of solid waste and that the public not be allowed uncontrolled access to the facility. These requirements will be complied with by the removal action since slope stabilization, long term maintenance, and access control are key elements of all of the proposed alternatives.

4.4.6 Determination of Non ARARs The EPA has analyzed a number of other state and federal laws and determined that they are not ARARs with respect to this removal action. Following is a brief discussion of the basis for EPA's determination that certain laws are not ARARs. 13 4.4.7 RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Regulations The tailings at the site are the result of mineral extraction and benediction activities, and are therefore excluded from regulation as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C ( 40 CFR Part 260, et. seq.) pursuant to RCRA § 3001( b)( 3)( A)( iii). The Subtitle C requirements are therefore not applicable requirements. In addition, the RCRA hazardous waste requirements, including closure requirements, are not relevant and appropriate with respect to this removal action.

4.4.8 Ground Water Requirements Ground water cleanup is beyond the scope of this removal action, and thus Maximum Contaminant Levels under the Safe Drinking Water Act are not ARARs for this removal action. Similarly, ground water monitoring is not part of the removal action either. State requirements for well drilling and well construction are not ARARs for this action.

4.4.9 Other Criteria to Be Considered Finally, in addition to applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, EPA and the state may identify other advisories, criteria, or guidance " to be considered" for a particular release or response action. Following are the " to be considered" criteria and guidance for this removal action.

State of Missouri Metallic Minerals Act This law only regulates closure of active metallic minerals mining operations. Thus, it is not an ARAR for closure of abandoned mine lands such as the site. However, the closure standards and criteria under the Metallic Minerals Act will be reviewed and considered during design of the removal action.

EPA/ OSWER Interim Guidance on Soil Cleanup Levels The EPA/ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response ( OSWER) Revised Interim Guidance Concerning Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites, OSWER Directive # 9355.4 12, provides guidance on the procedures for determining appropriate soil cleanup levels. The MDOH has also established guidance on " Any Use Soil Levels." Since the issue of direct soil exposure is being addressed by this action, the removal action will be consistent with these guidance documents.

5.0 Identification and Initial Screening of Removal Action Alternatives This EE/ CA identifies and evaluates removal action alternatives to mitigate problems 14 associated with human health and ecological risks from mining waste piles at the Site. As stated previously, this removal action will not address ground water which may be contaminated as a result of releases from the site, nor contaminated sediment previously deposited in the local streams. These releases will be addressed, if necessary, in a future remedial action. Screening alternatives are summarized below.

5.1 Stabilization and Treatment Several technologies exist to reduce the mobilization and/ or toxicity of the metals contamination of concern. This alternative could include pozalonic stabilization with cement to solidify the mining waste pile, or treatment with phosphate to reduce the metals toxicity. This alternative is considered to be significantly more costly than other effective alternatives and is not retained for further consideration.

5.2 Capping This alternative involves covering the mining wastes in place with a suitable clay/ soil cap. The mining waste piles would be graded to improve slope stability and promote proper drainage. The piles would then be covered with 12 to 18 inches of topsoil to establish vegetation. Capping and establishment of vegetative growth has been demonstrated to reduce infiltration and migration of metals. This alternative will be retained for father consideration and development.

5.3 Excavation and Off site Disposal This alternative would involve excavation of the mining waste piles with transportation off site to an approved disposal facility. A significant amount of the wastes would likely require treatment prior to disposal, and the costs associated with treatment are considered high given the amount of wastes to be addressed. Therefore, this alternative will not be retained for further consideration under this action.

5.4 Excavation and On site Disposal This alternative would involve excavation of the mining wastes with transport to a central on site location for consolidation and disposal. Actual disposal of the wastes would be in a maintained repository structure. For purpose of this action, consolidation into the highway fill is considered a repository. This alternative is considered highly protective and permanent, and is retained for further consideration.

5.5 Revegetation This alternative would involve regrading the mining waste piles to improve slope stability and promote proper drainage. Then biosolids, such as composted waste water treatment plant sludges or animal wastes, would be mixed into the surface of the waste piles to promote the 15 establishment of vegetation. Establishment of vegetative growth has been shown to reduce the runoff and migration of metals to acceptable levels. However, this technology has not been proven to reduce the toxicity of metals or reduce the risk of direct exposure. Since the area surrounding the highway will likely be developed, this alternative is not retained for further consideration.

6.0 Development of Removal Action Alternatives Following are descriptions of the removal action alternatives carried forward for consideration for cleanup of the mining wastes in the area of the proposed highway along with a cost estimate for each alternative.

6.1 No Action Alternative The NCP, 40 C. F. R. § 200.430( e)( 6) requires that the No Action alternative be assessed for all sites when selecting a cleanup alternative. The mining waste have been documented to be a source of release of heavy metals which are causing an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. The No Action alternative will not be considered further because EPA has determined that a threat to human health and the environment exists at the Site as a result of the presence of the mining waste piles.

6.2 Capping Under this alternative, approximately 140 acres containing approximately 588,000 cubic yards of mining wastes would be re graded to reduce the slopes and promote adequate drainage of the areas. The wastes would be capped with one foot of soil cover to prevent direct exposure to the wastes and establish vegetative cover. Storm water runoff controls and dust suppression would be required during grading operations to ensure metals are not released to areas surrounding the piles. Approximately 1,613 cubic yards of soil would be require to cover each acre, for a total of 225,820 cubic yards. The soil would be obtained from the area surrounding the waste piles, and would contain less than 240 ppm lead and 25 ppm cadmium. Since the waste would be left in place and subject to disturbance during future development that will likely occur in the area, institutional controls would be required to regulate development of the area. Total cost of the alternative is estimated at $ 2,831,737 with an annual operation and maintenance cost of $ 264,500 for 30 years. Total cost estimated for this alternative is $ 2,726,880. A detailed cost estimate is provide in Table 1.

6.3 Excavation and On site Disposal Under this alternative, the same 140 acres and 588,000 cubic yards of wastes addressed under the capping alternative would be excavated and hauled into the highway corridor and used as fill for the construction of the roadway. The wastes will be handled and placed by MDOT in areas requiring fill and compacted to construction specifications. Additionally, approximately one 16 foot of soil underlying the mining wastes will also be removed along with the wastes. This soil will be used to aid the fill compaction, as well as, remove lead contamination exceeding 500 ppm from the underlying soil. All mining wastes exceeding 1,500 ppm lead exposed in the side slopes of the highway embankment would be covered with one foot of clean soil. MDOT will be required to comply all with storm water runoff requirements and to suppress all fugitive dust. The total cost estimate for this alternative is $ 3,548,313. Since the mining wastes will be removed and disposed of under the highway, no institutional controls or annual operation and maintenance would be required. A detailed cost estimate for this alternative is presented in Table 2.

7.0 Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives This section evaluates and compares the two proposed removal action alternatives for cleanup of the mining waste piles near the proposed highway. Both proposed alternatives are evaluated for their effectiveness, implementability, and the costs associated with implementation. Each alternative is compared to a set of criteria to assess the appropriateness of the alternative and determine which alternative best meets the criteria.

7.1 Effectiveness The effectiveness of an alternative refers to its ability to meet the objectives of the removal action. Specifically, the effectiveness of an alternative refers to it its ability to protect human health and the environment in both the long and short term.

7.1.1 Long term Effectiveness Both the alternatives are considered to have long term effectiveness. The excavation and disposal alternative is more effective in reducing the risk of long term exposure since the capping alternative relies on institutional control to ensure the piles will not be disturbed in the future. Under the excavation and disposal alternative, the wastes will be removed and placed for permanent disposal under the highway.

7.1.2 Short term Effectiveness Implementation of either alternative may result in short term risks to workers and local residents from exposure to airborne lead laden particulates. This may occur during excavation or grading of the mining wastes. In addition to posing short term health risks, fugitive dust from removal activities could also have adverse effects on the environment. Engineering controls, such as application of water for dust suppression during field activities, would be implemented as needed to prevent a threat to the community and uncontaminated areas ( e. g., nearby vegetated areas). Storm water runoff controls will be utilized to protect surrounding soil from contaminated sediment migration off the piles and protect local waterways during construction. 17 7.1.3 Compliance with ARARs Pursuant to Section 300.415( i) of the NCP, on site removal actions conducted under CERCLA are required to comply with those requirements of other federal and state environmental and siting laws that are ARARs to the circumstances found at the Site, to the extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation. Applicable requirements are those public and environmental health and welfare requirements, criteria, and/ or standards that address specific circumstances or scenarios at a CERCLA site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those public and environmental health and welfare requirements, criteria, and/ or standards promulgated under federal or state law that, while not applicable to a specific site's circumstances or scenarios, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to the circumstances of the release or response action and are well suited to the site. Both alternatives will equally achieve compliance with all identified ARARs.

7.2 Implementability The implementability criterion addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing the alternatives and the availability of various services and materials required during its implementation.

7.2.1 Technical Feasibility Both alternatives are considered fully technically feasible. The proposed alternatives have been successfully implemented at a number of sites that exhibited similar conditions as the Site. No construction or operational problems have been reported or noted. Both of the alternatives face difficulties posed by climate conditions. During winter, achieving soil compaction would be difficult due to freezing ambient temperatures. Successful planting or seeding would also likely be limited to periods of relatively moderate temperature in spring and fall. Sudden downpours of precipitation may also affect the implementation of the alternatives. However, storm water runoff can readily be accomplished. It is anticipated that either remedy could be constructed within one year.

7.2.2 Administrative Feasibility No permits or easements would be required for either alternative. MDOT is required to obtain right of way for the highway construction which is considered highly feasible. However, the excavation and disposal alternative is considered to be more administratively feasible since the capping alternative relies on institutional controls. This area of the Site lies in an unincorporated area of Jasper County. Further, Jasper County currently does not have county planning and zoning making the establishment on institutional controls difficult at best. Without the controls in place to regulate future use of the area, the capping alternative may not be protective. 18 7.2.3 Availability of Services and Materials Personnel and materials to construct each alternative are readily available. Standard excavating equipment and operators would be used to construct either alternative.

7.2.4 State Acceptance The MDNR has participated in the review of the draft of this EE/ CA and is in agreement with the concepts proposed. Additionally, MDNR has attended past meeting regarding construction of the highway, and has previously voiced support for the highway project, as well as, utilizing as much mining wastes as possible for highway construction fill. MDNR prefers the excavation and disposal alternative over the capping alternative.

7.2.5 Community Acceptance The EPA, MDNR, and MDOT have met with the public on several occasions to discuss the construction of the proposed highway and the use of mining wastes for fill in its construction. These issues have been discussed at several meeting held by two citizen's Task Force Committees ( the Jasper and Newton County Environmental Task Force, and the Rangeline Bi pass Task Force). To date these citizens groups have voiced strong support for using mining wastes as fill for construction of the highway instead of using clean soil fill. The Task Forces believe that use of the mining wastes for fill would significantly speed up environmental restoration of the area, and create a more permanent remedy.

A complete evaluation of community acceptance of the proposed alternative will be evaluated at the close of the public comment period on this EE/ CA. A responsiveness summary will be attached to the Action Memorandum containing EPA's selected removal action.

7.3 Cost The estimated costs of construction of the principal technology associated with each alternative was discussed previously. Reviewers should be aware that costs for work to be performed under a specific alternative are estimates and may be higher than standard industry cost because of the premium labor and equipment rates associated with hazardous waste site work that may require specialized equipment and worker health and safety training. Since the estimated costs for both alternatives are over $ 2,000,000, a consistency waiver will be required to conduct this action as a non time critical removal.

8.0 Recommended Removal Action Alternative The EPA's recommended alternative is excavation of the mining wastes with disposal as construction fill under the highway during construction. This alternative is slightly more costly 19 than capping but better meets the remediation goals than the capping option. The disposal of the wastes under the highway will create a more permanent remedy without reliance on institutional controls. Further, the citizens task forces have voiced a preference for permanent disposal of the wastes instead of capping in place where they must be dealt with during future development of the area. Therefore, the following alternative is proposed for the removal of mining wastes in the vicinity of the highway:

1. Excavation of the mining waste piles with transport into the highway corridor. 2. Removal of the top 12 inches of soil beneath the excavated waste piles. 3. Incorporation of the mining wastes and underlying soil into the highway construction fill. 4. Implementation of storm water runoff controls during excavation and disposal activities. 5. Dust suppression during excavation and disposal activities. 6. Placement of 12 inches of clean soil cover on all mining waste exceeding 1,500 ppm lead in the highway side slopes. 7. Revegetation of disturbed areas.

9.0 Removal Schedule If the excavation and capping alternative proposed in this EE/ CA is selected as the removal action, based on public comment, construction of the action is expected to begin in the Summer 2001. MDOT anticipates letting the contracts for bid in early Spring, awarding the contracts for construction in early Summer, and initiating the action by mid Summer 2001. EPA and MDOT anticipate the construction will be completed in less than 12 months. 20 Table 1 Cost Estimate for Capping Alternative Item Description Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Capital Costs Grading 2,500 / acre 140 acres 350,000 Soil Cover 9.00 / yard 225,820 yard 2,032,380 Storm water Control and Dust Suppression 500 / acre 140 acres 70,000 Institutional Control 10,000 10,000 Subtotal Direct Capital Costs 2,462,380 Indirect Costs Construction Management  5% of direct capital costs 123,119 Engineering Design  5% of direct capital costs 123,119 Contingency  5% 123,119 Subtotal Indirect Costs 369,357 Total Estimated Capital Costs 2,831,737 Operation & Maintenance Estimate Annual Monitoring of Caps 1,000 30 years 30,000 Annual Repair of Caps 5,000 30 years 150,000 Administration of institutional controls 5,000 10 yrs. 50,000 Subtotal O& M Costs 230,000 Contingency  15% ( c) 34,500 Total Estimated O& M Costs 264,500 Total Cost for Capping Alternative 2,726,880 Table 2 Cost Estimate for Excavation and Disposal Alternative Item Description Total Cost Capital Costs Excavation of Mining Wastes and Underlying Soil 3,000,000 Transportation and Disposal of Wastes and Soil 475,000 Storm water Control and Dust Suppression 42,863 Seeding 30,350 Total Cost for Capping Alternative 3,548,213 21 References 1. Dames & Moore, " Final Remedial Investigation Report, Neck/ Alba, Oronogo Duenweg, Joplin, Thoms, Carl Junction, and Waco Designated Areas, Jasper County Site, Jasper County Missouri, " October 31, 1995.

2. Missouri Department of Health, " Human Health Risk Assessment for the Oronogo Duenweg Mining Belt Site, Jasper County, Missouri".

3. Black & Veatch Special Project Corp., " Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment ( ERA), Jasper County, Missouri" December 1997.

4. U. S. EPA, " Record of Decision, Residential and Mine Waste Yard Soils, Operable Units 02 and 03, Oronogo Duenweg Mining Belt Site, Jasper County, Missouri", June 1996.

5. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, " Record of Decision, Ground Water Operable Unit 4, Jasper County Superfund Site, Jasper County, Missouri", July 1998.

6. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSWER Publication , " Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities", July 14, 1994.

7. Code of Federal Regulations, Protection of Environment 40, Part 1 to 51, July 1, 1987.

8. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency OWSER Publication 9203.1 03, " Guidance on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model ( SACM) under CERCLA and the NCP" ( July 7, 1992), PB93 963252.

9. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSWER Publication 9360.0 12FS, " Exemptions from the Statutory Limits on Removal Actions" ( November 1990), PB91 921304/ CCE.

10. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 U. S. C. § § 9601 9675 ( 1992). Engineering Evaluation / Cost Estimate for a portion of the Oronogo Duenweg Mining Belt Site Jasper County, Missouri Prepared by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VII 901 N. 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101 August, 2000 REVISED 8/ 8/ 00 DLR SUPR: FFSE: DOOLAN: DLR: 7596: 8/ 4/ 00: G:\ FFSE\ EE CA FFSE CNSL CNSL FFSE FFSE OEP SUPR Doolan Stoy Cozad Buchholz Gunn Thomas Sanderson CONCURRENCES REMAIN VALID......................................................................


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 72513]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23215]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4734-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4734-DR), dated August 31, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 2, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 31, 2023.

    Charlotte County for Individual Assistance and debris removal
[Category A] and permanent work [Categories C-G] (already designated
for emergency protective measures, [Category B], including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    Hillsborough County for Individual Assistance (already
designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], including
direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    Baker, Duval, and Nassau Counties for debris removal [Category
A] and permanent work [Categories C-G] (already designated for
emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    Gilchrist, Jefferson, Manatee, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties
for permanent work [Categories C-G] (already designated for
Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and
emergency protective measures, [Categories A and B], including
direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23215 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P