Supcriuad Kfcoids Center Si ' lL: l\ :..l/^» -1 -•

Ed Hathaway bKh/^K: C-Z Bl11L°Vely 01 iibR: -^--Mi JUS EPA, Region 1 ~Mail Code SEE 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023

Via e-mail April 15, 2002

Re: Elizabeth Mine. Strafford and Thetford. Vermont Environmental Evaluation and Cost Analysis and Proposed Plan

Dear Ed and Bill: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Evaluation and Cost Analysis and Proposed Plan.

We applaud you for all that you have done over the past two years to address the issues we have raised.

The ten groups represented on the Elizabeth Mine Community Advisory Group (EMCAG) all support the initial phases of EPA's preferred alternative. Eight of the ten groups support the preferred alternative in its entirety. Most of the EMCAG groups support the removal and capping of most or all of TP-3 and hope that creative preservation techniques for preserving a small part of this area in situ (including constructing a roof over a part of the heap leach piles) will be given careful consideration.

We all share an interest in cost containment. We understand that it is likely that the cover over TP-1 will be necessary to prevent the continued contamination of the West Branch of the Ompompanoosuc River (WBOR)—especially the manganese and iron. However, we very much appreciate the flexibility you have built in to the preferred alternative, and understand that the final decision as to whether or not a cover system is necessary ~ and the configuration of the cover system — will not be made until comprehensive modeling and bench scale testing has been conducted.

Citizens for a Sensible Solution and the Strafford Planning Commission representatives support the removal and encapsulation of most of TP-3, surface water diversion, and erosion control. They expressed the hope that testing will demonstrate that the cover over TP-1 and the proposed water treatment systems will not be necessary. These two groups also believe that the cleanup goals are unrealistic, and that the state and EPA should develop a way to waive the Water Quality Standards and allow for a mixing zone in the WBOR.

We also strongly support your proposal to look for onsite sources of common borrow, so that traffic impacts to the community are minimized.

We are attaching copies of recent comments from our technical consultants Richard Downer and Woody Reed.

Again, we thank you for your commitment to hearing and addressing our community's concerns. We look forward to continuing to work with you.

Sincerely,

Roderick Maclay, Chair Elizabeth Mine Community Advisory Group

Cc: Scott Johnstone, Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources Chris Recchia, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation George Desch, Chief, Sites Management Section, Agency of Natural Resources John Schmeltzer, Site Manager, Agency of Natural Resources Emily Wadhams, State Historic Preservation Office Giovanna Pebbles, State Archaeologist Robert Paquin, Senator Leahy's Office Thomas Berry, Senator James Jeffords' Office Dean Corren, Representative Sanders' Office Jim Masland, Vermont Representative

REPORT 7 A NEW GOAL

During the past several months the EPA goal for the Elizabeth Mine has been to eliminate the pollution sources to the maximum degree possible and to then provide "passive" treatment for the remaining contaminated water The latter goal has led to ever increasing complexity and cost for the treatment system, and the latest proposal, in my opinion, will not even function properly on a year round basis here in Vermont I think it is time to step back and redefine our goals, and at the same time accommodate as much as possible of the "compromise" proposals put forward by John Freitag and others

The presently proposed treatment systems are expensive to build and maintain and operate, and their presence on the site will limit public access and recreational potential The GRB's and SAP 5 (or treatment pools as termed by John Freitag ), and likely the rest of the treatment systems, would have to be fenced to restrict public access There would be continued truck traffic for the foreseeable future for the operation and maintenance activities All this will reduce the potential for beneficial uses

I believe our new goal should be a truly "passive" Elizabeth Mine site, without any treatment at all This may not be possible, but should be the first priority of the forthcoming field investigations and design

It is clear that complete removal of TP3 would eliminate the treatment requirements for that portion of the site However, it is also possible that a thorough site investigation could reveal portions of the area that would not contribute to pollution and it is possible that those portions could remain However, it is likely that construction costs would increase significantly if preservation of isolated sites were included

Eliminating treatment for TP1 is actually the more difficult goal It is clear that without an impermeable cover on top of TP1 (to cut off infiltration of rainfall and snowmelt) it will continue to leak contaminated seepage, possibly forever, and require complex treatment forever A cover on TP1, is therefore essential With a proper cover in place the tailings will dram after a number of years, and any seepage will then be essentially groundwater It seems possible, that this groundwater will be "clean" since it flows along the base of the tailings pile and does not come into contact with the contaminated material If that is the case, then a treatment system would not be required for this groundwater It is possible that the present seepage from TP1 diminishes to just this groundwater component during late winter/early spring Sampling of the seepage at that time should reveal the water characteristics If it is truly "clean" water then a long term treatment system would not be required It might still be desirable to install a small simple wetland to catch any eroding sediments, but this wetland could have open water zones to attract birds and become a desirable part of the future site

This approach, would however, require a "compromise" by the EPA and the State of Vermont Even after TP1 is capped, it will continue to dram for a number of years and this seepage will not meet water quality standards at least until the only source is groundwater The condition would be no worse (actually much better since TP3 would be gone) than present and would improve each year until drainage is complete and groundwater is the only seepage The present condition has existed for at least 50 years, it does not seem too much to ask the regulatory agencies for a variance for another 20 years or so to allow the site to clean itself During that period there would be a continuous improvement in water quality

If, however, further investigation shows the groundwater to be unacceptably contaminated then a more complex treatment system would be necessary In my opinion, the EPA has still to propose a viable system for our climate In addition to the "treatment pools" I'm afraid there will also be a large storage pond for winter storage of the flow and only summer time treatment

Sherwood C Reed, P E Principal, E E C

March 22, 2002

Report # 6- Review of Final EE/CA Report - Elizabeth Mine

Introduction

' 2ttended t^9 ms9tinn on March 13, 2002 3nd ^BVS sincs re\"evved t^9 ̂ in

documents presented to the CAG My review focused on EPA's proposals for the "passive" treatment systems The treatment systems and costs presented in the Final Report are the same as presented by the EPA at a meeting on January 23, 2002 My Report # 5 provided detailed comments on those January 23rc' proposals and costs, and it can be found on the Elizabeth Mine Web site In addition, to avoid repetition I have added that Report # 5 as an appendix to this report

This report will first present a summary and conclusions At the end there are detailed technical comments on the report which may be of interest to only the EPA and AD Little In addition, I have become concerned about misstatements of fact and unsupported assumptions which have been circulating recently in the community and a response to some of these is included also

Summary & Conclusions

I have been involved as a Technical Advisor to the CAG since September 2001 I had no pre-conceived position or pomt-of-view when the work commenced and have tried to review the EPA materials in an objective, non-biased, professional manner

When the work commenced, I was convinced, as a long term supporter of "natural systems" that it would be possible for the EPA to develop "passive" systems for the treatment of seepage from both TP3 and TP1/2 However, between September 2001 and November 2001 the EPA changed the proposed treatment systems three times I had serious concerns with each iteration but still was confident a passive system could be feasible for TP3 In January 2002 the EPA presented another revision to the treatment systems, this time with a Semi Passive" component for TP3 and a strong dependence on a unique algae growth in the wetland components In my Report #5, I expressed serious concerns about the ability of these proposed systems to produce the desired water quality results The EPA has now presented their Final EE/CA Report and the proposed treatment systems are the same as presented in January I still have serious reservations regarding the capability of the systems, and the best the EPA can offer, for the TP3 treatment system is " a reasonable possibility of success" (page 3-46 Final EE/CA Report) I don't believe a "reasonable possibility" of success is sufficient When we consider the effort required and the amount of money the State of Vermont is being asked to spend on O&M a more positive level of assurance should be expected

In view of these facts, I must reluctantly conclude that a reliable and cost effective passive treatment system is not possible for TP3, and it will be necessary to remove these tailing piles completely.

I believe the EPA and their expert consultants have done their very best to identify a passive treatment system for TP3 In the four iterations, so far, they have offered almost every combination of passive components available, but there is no positive assurance any of them will work, even after pilot testing It should be noted that the EPA proposed treatment systems would

1

be the same whether all of TP3 is preserved or up to 80 percent removed A treatment system of some kind for TP3 is certainly possible, but it is likely to be much less passive, much more energy intensive and more mechanical with higher costs to build and much more intensive O&M and related costs

I also still have serious concerns regarding the proposed treatment system for TP1/2, and believe a careful pilot study is absolutely necessary to prove the concept and then develop sizing criteria This raises a related concern regarding the EPA timeline Their proposed system includes emergent wetland vegetation and algae, these biotic components require time to become established I am concerned that there is not now sufficient time to set-up and run a proper pilot study over a complete annual cycle if the EPA expects to "begin the cleanup in 2004 " A proper pilot study would be established on the site in late spring, several months allowed for the plants and biota to come to equilibrium, and then pollutant testing commenced in late summer and continuing until the following summer It is not likely that such an effort could commence before the spring of 2003 and be completed before late 2004

A recent Email circulation indicated " there is absolutely no reason for the $400,000 figure suddenly put out by the state " That statement is not correct! The $400,000 per year O&M cost was produced by the professional staff at AD Little It represents the annual O&M costs for treatment if TP3 is preserved I have reviewed these costs very carefully (See the Appendix at the end of this report) and conclude they are valid and were properly derived Cost estimates at this stage of project development are typically expected to be within 20 to 30 percent plus or minus of the actual final costs It has been my experience that the final project costs usually always tend toward the higher limit, so in this case the final costs could be as high as $500,000 per year (for a proposed system that I do not now believe will work)

In a recently circulated memo John Freitag has claimed that if 80% of of TP3 is removed that treatment of the seepage from the remainder "could be accomplished by passive wetlands without the treatment cells " There is no basis for that claim' The EPA experts have proposed the same treatment process whether the entire site is preserved or is 80 percent is removed The difference between the two cases is only a matter of size and cost of the treatment system

In the same memo, John Fnetag also claims that adoption of his proposal "would allow for 80 to 90 percent of the problems with the metals in the water to be solved " That is not true' A simple wetland, by itself, will not handle the complex mixture of metals present in the seepage from either TP3 or TP1/2

Specific Technical Issues for EPA

The success of the proposed SAP's, SRB's, and wetlands depend significantly on steady state flow conditions Assuming TP1 is capped, the major long term source seems to be groundwater and so near steady flow conditions may be possible In the case of TP3 the major source seems to be surface runoff and precipitation This means that in the coldest winter months there may be no flow except during winter thaw periods and at spring snow melt The capability of the TP3 treatment components to respond to these unpredictable events is questioned The "semi passive" alkalinity feeder, for example, is likely to clog up if not kept in motion, so when the next flow event occurs it will not operate properly

If winter flow does occur at either TP3 or TP1/2 the water will have a low temperature and will be exposed to low ambient temperatures The result will be icing in the proposed aeration channels and possibly continuous ice covers on any ponds and wetlands Such an ice cover will drastically reduce the amount of atmospheric oxygen transfer to the under ice water This in turn will affect the expected reactions To overcome these winter problems, it might be possible to significantly

enlarge the holding ponds for winter storage and only operate the treatment systems in the warm months of the year It is not clear why both an ALD and SAP's are required for TP1/2, since both devices are intended to provide alkalinity9 It is also not clear why you propose SAP's for TP1/2 and SRB's for TP3? It would seem that O&M could be simpler if the same device were used at both locations Since you must have SRB's at TP3 then you probably should use them at TP1/2 also

If you put an ALD in TP1, when does limestone media have to be replaced?

The document says that SAP's are flushed every quarter Where does the flushed material go?

Howe Bridge, PA is cited as the source for the assumed 15 year life for SAP's I don't think that is sufficient justification The SAP concept was first presented in the literature in 1994 and it is unlikely that any actual system is much older than seven or eight years

The report describes the successful performance of a SRB in Wyoming under winter conditions I believe an SRB can also function in our Vermont climate, but at a reduced rate I am more concerned about an SRB at TP3 during the winter months with possibly significant periods of no flow The bacteria in the SRB may not respond if allowed to dry out The projected useful life of SRB's is also questioned since none have actually been in service that long

The report postulates oxygenation of SRB effluent in a rock channel "during all seasons," those channel may fill with ice under sever winter conditions

The wetland is expected to remove Both BOD (leaking from the SRB) and manganese However, the oxygen requirements for BOD removal will supersede the oxygen requirements for manganese removal As a result there may be little or no manganese removal until very low BOD concentrations (< 5 mg/L) are achieved

It is clear that the writer of this section does not have any experience with wetland systems or an appreciation of the O&M requirements The proposed system is supposed to contain algae covered rocks for manganese removal In previous comments (see Appendix below) I had indicated that growing plants in the marsh would shade the algae and interfere with their function In responding to that comment, the writer of the final report suggests that the plants could be routinely harvested during the growing season and the litter harvested in the fall of each year Such activity would represent an intolerable and costly maintenance burden and cannot be seriously considered

It will be impossible for such an algae system to function under the typical ice and snow cover in the winter months, and those conditions can persist for five months each year If you have to have an algae component, it is obvious that their rock bed should remain unplanted so you get maximum sunlight directly on the algae Therefore, such a system should have an initial typical vegetated marsh zone for BOD removal, then a zone with the algae rocks, then a final vegetated marsh zone for final polishing of suspended solids, etc

Since EPA expects the TP1 treatment system to function year-round I would suggest your experts go back to the drawing boards and look for a more effective manganese removal process, and/or plan for winter storage since the algae are not going to do it for at least five months out of the year There have been articles in the literature about successful use of rock bed subsurface flow wetlands for manganese removal, but oxygen levels were high and organic levels low and I don't think we can reproduce those conditions at the Elizabeth mine

The statement on page 3-45 is quite surprising' If the best the EPA can promise is "a reasonable probability of success" tor treatment at TP3 I think you should bite the bullet and recommend that

all of TP3 be removed as has been recommended by all of your experts It is unprofessional for the EPA to shift a decision on this matter to the State of Vermont on the basis of O&M costs

Appendix

Report # 5 Review Comments: The EPA/ADL Presentation at CAG Meeting January 23, 2002

I u/ac nnohlo tr» oHonrl fho moofmn hi it 1 hgyo royioyyoH thg \ynHon motonol nrocontorj h\/ E

and have exchanged Emails with Ed Hathaway to request additional data and to clarify several issues These data consisting of detailed spreadsheets describing the development of the new O&M costs have been sent to me by ADL

At the meeting, the EPA presented (1) The reports by their experts who had reviewed the EE/CA report and actually visited the site in November 2000, (2) a "new" treatment sequence for TP3 if it is decided to preserve the entire site, or a portion of the site, and (3) revised costs for the entire project, these included a large and rather startling increase in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the TP3 treatment system

The acronyms for the various treatment system components in this project are becoming somewhat confusing and the number seems to grow with each iteration At the end of this report, I've made a list of the acronyms, and some of the other critical technical terms, in current use with a brief description of each

(1) Expert's Review

These individuals included five internationally recognized consultants with significant experience in acid mine drainage (AMD) work, an expert from the U S Geological Survey, and an engineer from a company with experience in constructing and managing corrective action at AMD sites. All of these people have reviewed the draft EE/CA report and inspected the site Their comments can be found in the report "Elizabeth Mine Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Comments and Technical Review Reports," presented at the January 23rd CAG meeting The two Technical Advisors to the CAG had previously reviewed the draft EE/CA report and also offered comments

It is the consensus professional recommendation of all of these qualified reviewers that the tailings piles at TP3 should be removed completely The reason behind this consensus opinion is the presence of the highly acidic seepage containing high concentrations of metals This seepage will be very difficult and expensive to treat However, because of the local interest, options were presented for retention of TP3 and treatment of the seepage There was no consensus by the experts on the proposed treatment (ALD followed by a SAP followed by an aerobic wetland in the draft EE/CA report) The majority believed the proposed system would not perform as intended without excessive operational and maintenance attention and costs I shared those concerns

As a result of these concerns the EPA then tentatively proposed SRB's instead of SAP's Concerns were then expressed because of the high iron and aluminum concentrations in the TP3 seepage A significant amount of these metals might be separated within the SRB, this in turn would result in clogging of the bed resulting in failure and/or requiring very frequent maintenance To overcome these problems, a third iteration of the TP3 treatment sequence has now been proposed, and will be described and discussed below

The fact that we are in the third iteration of a possible treatment sequence should not be taken as a criticism of EPA or ADL Such changes are normal in the development of most engineering

designs and it should be remembered we are still in the conceptual stage on this project However, the fact that we are now at the third iteration is strong evidence of the difficulty of treating the acidic TP3 seepage As noted in my comments below, I still have reservations regarding the ability of this "new" system to perform reliably on a year-round basis here in Vermont It is possible that the system which is finally selected could be even more complex and more expensive Acid mine drainage has been successfully treated at a large number of locations in the U S , with some systems being operated for over 20 years These, however, are mostly coal mining operations and do not contain the very high concentrations of the types of metals present in the TP3 seepage The treatment sequence now proposed for TP3 has not been used at any other site to my knowledge Some of thp components have been in successful use for three to six years (an exception is conventional aerobic wetlands, these have been used for many decades), but there is no experience with the long term period required at TP3 The revised projections to 100 and 200 years, instead of the typical 30 years used at most engineering projects, are valid I cautioned in my first review of the draft EE/CA report that O&M would be required for "generations," apparently the EPA now concurs The rock particles in the TP3 tailings piles have been exposed to the environment for many years already and the seepage is still highly contaminated These rocks will not be "clean" in the near future, contaminated seepage will continue until the acidic tailings piles are almost completely dissolved, or completely covered, or removed

The "New" Treatment Process for TP3

This new treatment sequence has been developed to solve perceived problems with the earlier proposals Both the SAP's and SRB's are in some ways similar to a filter bed The water passes down through the media and biochemical transformations occur which then permit the settling and separation of metals in the unit or in subsequent components In the case of TP3 seepage, the water has very high concentrations of aluminum and iron, and may also contain significant dissolved oxygen These factors could allow the precipitation of aluminum and iron inside the SRB resulting in unacceptable clogging The EPA consultants now believe it will be necessary to remove the iron and aluminum prior to the SRB, so we now have a SPAD (Semi Passive Alkalinity Doser), a mixing channel, and a settling pond ahead of the SRB unit As the name implies the SPAD is semi-passive and uses a water wheel to drive the feed mechanism for adding an alkaline substance to the water The increase in alkalinity allows the iron and aluminum precipitation reactions to begin, the mixing channel, probably lined with coarse rocks to induce turbulence, insures high oxygen levels in the water so the iron and aluminum can oxidize, precipitate, and settle out in the settling pond This reduces the SRB clogging potential considerably, and the water then passes through the SRB for removal of copper, lead, zinc and cadmium Effluent from the SRB then runs down an aeration channel to the wetland The purpose of this rock lined aeration channel is to increase the oxygen content of the water before it enters the wetland The final component is the aerobic wetlands The wetlands are planned for BOD and manganese removal with a "combination of rock filters and algae mats " Details were not provided on the configuration of these features but it is indicated that manganese oxidation will occur by contact with algal mats of leptothnx discophora algae In accordance with federal and Vermont standards the water at the end of the treatment system discharge pipe, prior to any mixing or dilution in a stream, would be the point of compliance monitoring The cost estimates provide an allowance for sampling and testing

It is indicated that all of these components are in use at ADM sites elsewhere For example, a list is given of 19 sites where the SRB unit is in use Scanning the list indicates that 17 of these systems are pilot scale, or even smaller "bench" scale units The one full scale application, at a mine in Missouri, designed for lead and zinc removal, has been in operation for up to 5 years We have a much more severe winter climate than Missouri so extrapolations are not possible A pilot test of the entire proposed treatment process at the Elizabeth Mine would be absolutely essential

prior to final design

I am still concerned about the impact of our winter conditions on the proposed system, both on performance and on the ability to function at all The design cannot assume that Global Warming will convert our climate to the equivalent of Pennsylvania's or Missouri, if the system is expected to run continuously throughout the winter it must contend with worst case conditions Based on 42 years of record at the Lebanon, NH airport, the coldest winter in the Upper Valley occurred in 1970, the average January temperature was 18°F, in February 21 °F, and in March 31 °F The extreme temperature in January was - 28°F Under these conditions, with three continuous months of sub-freezing weather, ice will certainly form on all of the ponds, on the wetlands, and nn tho mivinn onrl anrottnn ^honnalc The totfor pro rpQct1 QMcr*ontiKlo fn i/^inn onH a lr\nn nonr»rl r\f w w v tS\l £2 M M M i w M V W W I M Srf^rf I w t b M b b W k*l I U l ^ r ^ > h W M M W ^ h h > I W h U V *£ 1^ Wt -̂ %^ *£ f* V M M w

sub freezing weather could result in creation of an ice glacier and subsequent overflow from the channels It is also unclear how the algae in the wetland can perform their intended function at expected winter temperatures and under an ice or snow cover on the wetland since either ice or snow cover on these wetlands will occur every winter, and the algae require exposure to sunlight to function It is true that a deep snow pack will act as an insulating barrier and retard freezing The ground in my front yard will remain unfrozen if we get an early snowfall in November and the snow persists and accumulates all winter That, however, is not the typical case We more often have a cold December and no snow until January The most reasonable solution for TP3 treatment might be to design this system for seasonal operations, say from early April to late November, with the seepage being stored in the holding pond during the colder months

I also have concerns about the summer performance of the proposed wetland It is not quite the same as the typical constructed cattail marsh used at many coal mine AMD sites The wetland is to have rock cobbles on the bottom, presumably to provide the surfaces for the algae to attach and grow, and at least three species of plants will be planted However, the algae require exposure to sunlight and if the plants grow and multiply they will shade the water surface, and without sunlight the algae will die These aquatic plants also die back each fall, if the litter is not harvested, and removed, it may smother the algae Apparently the algae mat for manganese removal is being proposed since the familiar cattail marsh is not too effective for removal of this metal I have no personal experience with using algal mats, but am aware they have been demonstrated in Florida and California and achieved excellent removals of phosphorus and metals Those systems incorporated frequent algae harvesting because if the algal cell is allowed to die and decompose there is a release of substances back into the water Algae harvesting would not be feasible at Elizabeth Mine Algae also require nutrients (IB nitrogen, phosphorus, etc) to grow and function Such nutrients are not normally present in the AMD waste flow, but may leak in sufficient quantities from the SRB component

Another proposed wetland function is removal of BOD, because the SRB will leak organic material as BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) The concentration may be significant for three to six months and stabilize at 10 mg/L according to the EPA handouts A 10 mg/L BOD concentration is already below typical discharge standards in Vermont so it is unclear why the wetland is needed for this purpose In my experience, a wetland system will discharge from 6 to 8 mg/L BOD as a "background" level due to the decomposition of natural organic materials present in the wetland

The title "Aerobic Wetland" may also be a misnomer The term "aerobic" implies the presence of oxygen It has been my experience, that in constructed wetlands with water depths of one foot or more, only the water very near the surface has any oxygen, the bulk of the water in the wetland is essentially devoid of oxygen (or "anoxic") If the water depth is limited to a few inches the entire depth may be "aerobic " In the winter time, after ice forms, even the surface layer of water in the deeper wetland is essentially devoid of oxygen, except near the front end where the water enters The "new" treatment sequence proposes the use of an aeration channel ahead of the wetland in order to increase the dissolved oxygen in the water entering the wetland It has been my

experience, with wetland systems elsewhere that such oxygen will be rapidly utilized near the front end of the wetland and will not contribute to aerobic conditions in the remainder of the wetland

In summary, I still have reservations about the ability of the "new" TP3 treatment system to provide all of the intended treatment responses and to even function effectively in the Vermont winter I believe the most prudent choice may be to completely remove the tailings piles at TP3 However, if it is decided to preserve all or part of TP3 I also believe a functional treatment system can be developed after pilot testing Such a system will be very complex and very expensive to operate as evidenced by the increasing cost estimates presented so far by the EPA Cost Estimates

The most recent cost estimates for operation and maintenance of a TP3 treatment system have risen dramatically Sufficient details were not given at the January 23rc' presentation so it seemed desirable to review the estimating data and procedures carefully to be absolutely sure the numbers were valid I asked the EPA for such data and it was immediately provided by ADL It consists of a massive (>5000K) multi paged spread sheet This spread sheet contains a preliminary sizing of the various treatment components, made by the consultant engineers, estimates of the materials and labor and costs required for construction and estimates of costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) A one page summary of O&M costs was also provided and a hard copy of this is now on file at the Copperas Hill Coalition (Kathy Hardy) I have reviewed all of these these data and conclude that the projected costs are valid and realistic and were developed using standard procedures It must also be remembered that we are still in the conceptual design stage and any cost estimate at this point is at best valid to within about 20 percent of the real costs It is likely that as we get closer to the final design these costs will continue to change and are likely to get even higher As an example of the estimating procedure I have presented below more detailed values from the ADL spread sheet to demonstrate where one of the summary costs presented by EPA came from The O & M (called PRSC costs by EPA & ADL) include two major components, the actual annual costs that occur every year and recurring costs that occur on a less frequent schedule In the latter category, for example, would be replacement of the media in the SRB A more realistic replacement schedule of 10 years has now been adopted in the ADL estimate The original, somewhat optimistic schedules ranged from 15 to 25 years, but there was no actual experience to back up those estimates I objected to that in my original review and believe the 10 year cycle is more realistic Another major change from the draft EE/CA report is the assumed life cycle cost period As with most conventional engineering designs the draft report assumed a 30 year period In my review at the time, I indicated the O&M costs would continue for generations EPA now agrees and has assumed a period of at least 100 years for costing purposes This means that the recurring costs will be repeated 10 times over the 100 year period instead of just once with the 30 year assumption

The actual estimated annual costs, assuming a non-hazardous sludge, for TP3, include

Labor for system operation $36,972 Lime purchase for SPAD 3,733

Sludge management labor 5,688 Misc sludge management costs 2,370 Road & parking maintenance 2,370 Sampling 14,220 Sludge disposal 10,665

$101,330 per year

The recurring costs occur on a ten year cycle, the present worth of these costs is determined and then distributed as an equivalent annual amount These annualized amounts are

Wetland draining and replacementSRB drainage rockSRB organic materialSRB-pipingSRB hnerSRB -excavation to rebuildHolding pond dredgingSRB sludge disposal

$10,586 425

1,316 1,322

4,424 2,370

113,586 18.971

$153,000 per year

When you add these two sets of costs, the total is $254,330 which is the same as the summary value for the complete preservation of TP3 with a non-hazardous sludge, presented by EPA at the November CAG meeting The annual O&M costs for a hazardous sludge were $400,000 At this stage, I think it would be conservative and prudent to assume that the sludge requiring disposal would be hazardous Hopefully, information would come from a pilot test to define sludge characteristics

In summary, I believe these cost estimates are reliable for this stage of conceptual planning, and were derived using appropriate methods

Sherwood C Reed, P E Principal E E C

8

GLOSSARY

AEROBIC WETLAND A constructed marsh with growing plants For most coal mine systems this is often a simple cattail marsh For TP3 a rock substrate to support algae, and plants are proposed These wetlands are used for final polishing of the water Some kind of wetland is a likely component for both TP1/TP2 and TP3

ALD Anoxic Limestone Dram A deep trench, filled with limestone The trench is covered with a clay cap to prevent the entrance of oxygen, hence the term "anoxic " seepage enters through one wall of the trench and passes out the other During the time the water is in the trench it acquires alkalinity from the dissolving limestone This alkalinity permits metal precipitation at a later stage An ALD may be used in the treatment sequence for TP1/TP2

ALKALINITY An alkaline water contains carbonates or hydroxides, highly alkaline waters are called "hard" and can precipitate deposits on your teapots and cooking vessels Water softeners are used to remove this alkalinity from hard waters Acidic mine waters tend to have very little alkalinity and this prevents the precipitation reactions that allow metals removal It is typically necessary to add alkalinity to such waters to allow treatment

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand A laboratory test of water quality An indicator of the amount of degradable organic material in the water

LEPTOTHRIX DISCOPHORA ALGAE A species of algae which attaches to surfaces on the bottom of streams Has been shown to be very effective for removal of some metals Requires sunlight, and nutrients to live and function

SAP Successive Alkalinity Producing system A shallow pond containing a layer of limestone on the bottom overlain by a layer of compost, with underdram pipes located in the limestone layer The mine water passes down through these layers where biochemical reactions increase the alkalinity and prepare conditions for precipitation of metals in the next treatment unit (typically the wetland) The underdram pipes also are used to flush the bed periodically The SAP is a possible treatment concept for TP1/TP2

SPAD Semi Passive Alkalinity Doser This is a tank containing limestone chips or pebbles, or some other alkaline chemical An attached water wheel drives the feed mechanism so the dose of chemical is compatible with the amount of water flowing by The purpose is to provide sufficient alkalinity to permit the removal of iron and aluminum in a settling pond A possible treatment unit for TP3

SRB Sulfate Reducing Bacteria bioreactors The SRB is similar to the SAP in that water flows downward through the media But in this case the media largely consists of high strength organic material, such as raw cattle manure which contains sulfates The bed is devoid of oxygen and the

biochemical reactions produce metal sulfides which then settle out. Wood chips, alfalfa hay, and other organic materials have also been used. Limestone gravel is usually included in the mixture to improve permeability and provide a supplemental source of alkalinity. The SRB is susceptible to plugging if high concentrations of iron or aluminum are present in the water. An SRB is now proposed forTPS, after the iron and aluminum have been removed.

10

March 23, 2002

Elizabeth Mine EE/CA Review

Richard N. Downer

Re: Review of the Final EE/CA Report

Opinion:

It is still my opinion that future operation and maintenance (O&M) costs can best be reduced by covering the tailings, cutting off seepage and by stabilizing the slopes. I continue to advocate for a cap or cover over TP-1 and TP-2 to reduce future infiltration, seepage and pore water buildup which could contribute to the global instability of the mass.

It was in October 2001 and still is my considered opinion that reducing or eliminating the drainage from TP-3 will reduce the O & M costs. Sherwood Reed has independently and quite eloquently laid out numerous chemical, biological and hydrological reasons for removing all of TP-3.

I listened intently at the March 13, 2002 meeting for new technical questions from the audience. I heard many procedural questions , but only two of a technical nature: "Will the passive treatment systems work?" And, "Are the costs as given justified?"

In his Final EE/CA Review (Report#6), Sherwood Reed has said he believes the O &M costs as they relate to the passive treatment systems are reasonable. I have reviewed the materials given out by EPA at the March 13, 2002 meeting and have reached similar conclusions relative to the construction costs.

Background for Cost Estimates:

Nearly all engineering cost estimates are based on the actual costs of building recent similar projects. The only better estimate is a bid price. A bid is the price for which a Contractor is actually willing to build the project. In effect, a bid is the Contractor's estimate, well padded to cover his risk.

EPA has used R. S. Means Construction Cost Data, 2001 to calculate their estimate. R. S. Means data is recognized by construction professionals throughout the U.S. as a primary source of average project cost data. The materials and labor costs are updated annually using actual bid data from all across the U.S. Therefore, I feel the methodology followed by EPA for arriving at the construction cost estimates for the Elizabeth Mine Remediation is consistent with good engineering practice.

1

However, project cost estimates can be in error for one of the following reasons: 1. The estimated quantities of earth to be moved are either too small or too

large. 2. The unit costs of each item are either too small or too large. 3. The math is incorrect, i.e., quantities multiplied times the unit costs or

additions. 4. Certain items were overlooked or left out of the estimate.

Estimated Quantities I have carefully studied the project, cost estimate for Allemaiive 2C (Appendix 2C). I do not have the maps and data to check the actual quantities of materials shown in the presentations. I was, however, able to determine whether the dimensions were of the right order of magnitude.

The estimated dimensions and volumes for the Clean Trench Needed for Diversion Channels, for the Contaminated Water Trench at TP-3, and for the Slope Regrading all seem reasonable.

The number of truck loads for earth moving are based on the productivity of common, large, over-the-road dump trucks with 3 or 4 axles, usually having a 12 cubic yard capacity.

Unit Costs Local truck hauling is estimated to cost $66.417 hour. Independently using the 2000 edition of R. 5. Means and adjusting to values to the year 2001,1 computed the hourly cost of a 12 yd truck to be $63.40.

The cost of an 1 lyd scrapper is estimated to cost $2.247 yd. I would have estimated the cost at $2.477 yd.

Loaded gravel is estimated at $9.007 yd. I would have estimated it at $9.84.

100 mil Very Low Density Polymetric Liner is variously estimated to cost $2.98 to $3.397 square foot. I would have estimated the cost at $2.137 sf. 60 mil Very Low density Polymetric Liner is estimated to cost $0.717 square foot. I would have estimated the cost at $1.387 sf.

Math I checked several calculations and found no errors, probably because the estimates were prepared using a spread sheet program.

Missing Items I found no obvious missing items. I would have increased the Contingency from 10% to 15%.

Opinion

Given the unknowns and the risk involved in executing this project, I find the project cost

2

estimates to be reasonable. Would a Contractor have arrived at a different number? "Yes." Would it have been 20% higher or lower, probably not. TP-3 after Total Removal

What would TP-3 look like after total removal? With the intent being to remove all toxic waste, EPA will undoubtedly want to clean the waste piles down to the bedrock. The area can then either be left devoid of all soil or a thin layer of top soil and grass can be placed over the area. With some top soil, in a few years the area would naturally revert back to a mix of brambles, bushes and small trees.

Project Phasing

It has always been my opinion that the Elizabeth Mine Closure would end up as a phased project. The first year EPA needs to do extensive and comprehensive geotechnical, hydrologic, chemical and biological testing. The seeps need to be monitored over a full year and the data correlated with available long-term hydrologic sequences. We are all well aware of the recent drought conditions and that we should not base our designs on such limited data. I project it will be two years before the actual design phase begins.

As Sherwood Reed has suggested, the pilot passive treatment studies should run over at least one winter. I suspect at least two full years will have elapsed before EPA and the State are satisfied with the design of the passive treatment systems.

It is reasonable to assume that good seepage and runoff data will ultimately dictate the parameters of the final capping designs. I think it is reasonable to assume that the capping of TP-1 and TP-2 will not begin until the diversion ditches are in place and the issue of TP-3 has been completely resolved. My crystal ball says capping will not begin before the Spring of 2006.

Respectfully,

Richard N. Downer, P.E.