Superfund Explanation of Significant Differences for the Record of Decision Tar Creek Superfund Site Operable Unit 4 Ottawa County, Oklahoma April 2010


EPA Superfund

Explanation of Significant Differences for
the

Record of Decision:

Tar Creek Superfund Site Operable Unit 4
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
April 2010

-------
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES

I. INTRODUCTION

Site Name and Location:

Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4 - Chat Piles, Other Mine and Mill Waste, and

Smelter Waste

Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Lead and Support Agencies:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Lead Agency

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) - Support Agency

Statute and Regulation that Requires Explanation of Significant Differences
(ESD):

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section
117(c), 42 U.S.C. § 9617(c), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(NCP) at 40 CFR § 300.435(c)(2)(i).

Purpose of ESD:

The purpose of this document, called an Explanation of Significant Differences or ESD, is to
explain significant changes that have occurred in one of the operable unit1 remedies selected to
address contamination at the Tar Creek Superfund Site (the "Site"). Specifically, this ESD says
that EPA will offer relocation to the residents of Treece, Kansas, as part of its remedy for
Operable Unit 4 (OU4) of the Site. This relocation includes both residential and business
properties.

In 2007, Congress provided EPA with an exemption from the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA) for Oklahoma Site residents.2 This
exemption enabled EPA to relocate Oklahoma Site residents at a much lower cost. As explained
in EPA's OU4 Record of Decision3 (ROD) (February 2008) and as explained below, with this

1	The NCP, 40 CFR Section 300.5, defines an operable unit as a discrete action that comprises an incremental step
toward comprehensively addressing site problems. This discrete portion of a remedial response manages migration,
or eliminates or mitigates a release, threat of a release, or pathway of exposure. The cleanup of a site can be divided
into a number of operable units, depending on the complexity of the problems associated with the site.

2	See Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), Public Law 110-114, at Section 3135 (Effective
November 8, 2007).

3	See EPA's Record of Decision, Operable Unit 4, Chat Piles, Other Mine and Mill Waste, and Smelter Waste, Tar
Creek Superfund Site (February 2008) at Section 16.0 (Description of Alternatives).

2

-------
2007 URA exemption, EPA decided that it would make the OU4 remedy more cost-effective if
the Site residents living near the greatest concentration of large chat piles were relocated.
Consequently, EPA's selected remedy documented in the 2008 ROD for OU4 includes voluntary
relocation for these Oklahoma residents.

EPA documented its remedy for OU4 in a February 2008, ROD. As explained in the ROD, piles
of gravel-like milling waste called "chat" are some of the principal sources of lead contamination
on the Site. Chat makes an excellent road construction material, and it has other safe uses as
well when managed according to the criteria provided in the Chat Rule, 40 CFR Part 278, and its
preamble; consequently, as part of the remedy selected in the OU4 ROD, EPA is encouraging
chat sales for safe uses as a cost-effective way to remove chat from the Site.

Supported by requests from the State of Oklahoma, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma and the
community, EPA's goal is to prevent another generation of residents living near the source
materials5 from being exposed to lead contamination. In EPA's July 30, 2007, Proposed Plan for
OU46 our preferred alternative did not include relocation of Site residents because EPA
determined it was not cost effective. Without relocation, EPA decided that the remedial action,
including chat sales, had to be completed in 20 years in order to prevent exposing another
generation.

4 On October 29, 2009, H.R. 2996: Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Action, 2010 became Public Law 111-88. Section 430 of P.L 111-88 exempts EPA relocation of the residents of
Treece, Kansas from the URA.

5 "Source material," as used in the OU4 Record of Decision, means mine and mill waste including chat, fine
tailings, overburden, development rock, smelter waste and other tailings. Source material is generally found in chat
piles, chat bases (the area once occupied by a chat pile), smelter wastes, and tailings ponds.

6 EPA's Proposed Plan for the Site (July 30, 2007) was made available to the public for comment in July 2007. The
Proposed Plan can be found in the information repositories maintained with ODEQ Central Records at the Oklahoma
City Office, at the Miami, Oklahoma, Public Library, and at EPA's offices in Dallas, Texas (document repository
addresses and contact information appear below in this ESD).

-------
material {i.e., the large concentration of chat piles in the core of the Site). EPA determined
relocation of those Oklahoma residents would be cost effective in part because, with the
residents relocated, EPA could extend the remedial action, and allow chat sales to continue for
an additional ten years. This ten-year extension meant that certain planned activities would take
place later in the remedial action, and, when spending happens later, there are savings associated
with the increased value of money over time. In addition, the more chat that is addressed
through chat sales, instead of other more costly cleanup measures, the less expensive the remedy
becomes. Now that Congress has made EPA's relocation of Treece residents exempt from the
URA requirements, EPA determined that it would be cost effective to offer voluntary relocation
to the Treece residents.

In the National Contingency Plan (NCP) at 40 CFR § 300.435(c)(2), EPA has developed an
administrative process which balances the public's continuing need for information about, and
input into, post-ROD remedial action decisions, with EPA's need to move forward expeditiously
with design and implementation of the remedy after fundamental decisions have been made in
the ROD. 55 Fed. Reg. 8666, 8772 (March 8, 1990). After a ROD is issued by EPA, if the
remedial action taken differs significantly from the remedy selected in the ROD, but does not
fundamentally alter the remedy selected in the ROD, EPA notifies the public that an Explanation
of Significant Difference (ESD) is available as part of the administrative record.7 While the
ESD is being prepared and made available to the public, the EPA may proceed with the remedy.8

The authority for the remedial action described in this Explanation of Significant Differences has
been delegated to the Director of the Superfund Division, EPA, Region 6.

Administrative Record:

This ESD will become part of the Administrative Record for Tar Creek OU4. The
Administrative Record is available to the public for review during regular business hours at the
following two locations:

Miami Public Library

7 See 40 CFR § 300.435(c)(2)(i).

8 See A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision
Documents, OSWER Directive 9200.1-23P (July 1999) at p. 7-2.

-------
200 N. Main Street
Miami, Oklahoma 74354
(918) 542-3064

Johnston Public Library
210 West 10th Street
Baxter Springs, KS
(620)856-5591

II. SUMMARY OF SITE HISTORY, CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS,
AND SELECTED REMEDY

Tar Creek Operable Unit 4

Site History

The first ore discoveries and earliest mining operations in Ottawa County, Oklahoma occurred in
the vicinity of Peoria (6 miles east and 1 mile south of Lincolnville) in 1891. The next major ore
discoveries occurred 1.5 miles northeast of Lincolnville near Quapaw in 1902, followed by
discoveries in 1905 near Commerce. The real expansion of zinc and lead mining at the Site
occurred after a major ore discovery in 1914 near the current site of Picher, Oklahoma.

Following this discovery, there was a major expansion of mining in what became known as the
Picher Mining Field (Picher Field) of Oklahoma and Kansas. By 1918, the Oklahoma section of
the Picher Field was well defined by producing mines, with 230 mills built or under
construction.

Depletion of high-grade ores caused a marked decline in annual production after 1946, and
depressed metal-market prices forced a cessation of most mining activities in 1958. The last
record of significant production from Ottawa County occurred in 1970.

With few exceptions, the crude ore produced at the Site was mined utilizing underground mining
methods. Based on production records maintained by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Mines, a total of 181,048,872 tons of crude ore was produced from the Oklahoma portion of the
District. Milling of this ore produced 8,884,898 tons of zinc concentrates and 1,686,713 tons of
lead concentrates. With the exception of a limited amount of lead concentrates treated at the
Ontario Smelter, all of the concentrates produced from the Site were transported off-Site for the
conversion of the concentrates to metal by smelting.

The wastes from the mining operations were discarded mining and milling tailings. The mill
tailings, locally know as chat, are primarily composed of small chert fragments, intermingled
with sand-sized particles. After the excavated rock was processed and the metal ore extracted,
the mining tailings that remained were deposited into piles that were up to 200 feet in height.
Many of these chat piles remain on the Site, including some piles which are over 100 feet high.
An inventory conducted in 2005 as part of the Remedial Investigation for OU4 identified 83 chat
piles occupying 767 acres with 31 million cubic yards, 243 chat bases (or former piles)

-------
occupying 2079 acres with an estimated 6.7 million cubic yards.

In addition to piles of mining wastes, a large but lesser quantity of floatation pond tailings from
the floatation milling process was produced. Most of the floatation ponds have since evaporated
leaving behind very fine mining waste sediment which remains on the Site. Fine tailings
generated from milling and washing chat are currently found in 63 ponds occupying 820 acres
and total approximately 9 million cubic yards.

Over the years, the mining wastes have been used and continue to be used for a variety of unsafe
purposes including the following: railroad ballast; sandblasting sand; sandbag sand; roadway,
driveway, alleyway, and parking lot aggregate; general fill material in residential areas; and
impact-absorbing material in playgrounds. EPA describes acceptable uses of chat, including use
in hot mix asphalt, in its ROD for OU4 and in the Chat Rule, 40 CFR Part 278.

The Site first came to the attention of the State of Oklahoma and EPA in 1979 when acid mine
drainage began flowing to the Site surface from underground mines through abandoned mine
shafts and boreholes. The Governor of Oklahoma formed the Tar Creek Task Force to
investigate the effects of acid mine drainage on the area's surface and ground water. Based upon
the information discovered by the Tar Creek Task Force, EPA proposed, in July 1981, to add the
Site to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL), 40 CFR Part 300, Appendix B. The NPL
means the list, compiled by EPA pursuant to CERCLA section 105, of uncontrolled hazardous
substance releases in the United States that are priorities for long-term remedial evaluation and
response. The Site was added to the NPL in September 1983.

Contamination

Mining and milling operations have resulted in the accumulation of large volumes of chat and
fine tailings on the Site. These waste materials are found in chat piles, chat bases (a "chat base"
is an area once occupied by a chat pile), haul roads, railroad grades and tailings ponds (a
"tailings pond" is an area where a mill or a chat washing operation has discharged water
contaminated with fine tailings waste) at various locations throughout OU4 of the Site. These
mine and mill wastes contain elevated levels of lead, zinc and cadmium. The media surrounding
these accumulations were also evaluated including soils, surface water and ground water.

Chat is a type of waste tailings produced by the gravity separation milling process once used in
the Tri-State Mining District. Chat consists of coarse gravel intermingled with other material
such as medium to fine sands, silt and clay. The highest concentrations of lead in chat are
generally found in the fine tailings material. A total of 83 chat piles covering a total area of
767.05 acres and with a total volume of 31.32 million cubic yards were identified. The
concentration of cadmium in the chat ranged from 43.1 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) or parts
per million (ppm) to 199.0 mg/kg with an average of 94.0 mg/kg. Lead in these samples ranged
from 210 mg/kg to 4,980 mg/kg with an average concentration of 1,461 mg/kg. Zinc ranged from
10,200 mg/kg to 40,300 mg/kg with an average concentration of 23,790 mg/kg.

A chat base is an area that was once occupied by a chat pile. Chat bases can be covered with

-------
vegetation or are sometimes found bare. There are 243 chat bases identified at the Site, covering
a total area of 2,079.26 acres. The concentration of cadmium in the chat bases ranged from 51.0
mg/kg to 151.0 mg/kg with an average of 96.2 mg/kg; lead concentrations ranged from 650
mg/kg to 3,020 mg/kg with an average concentration of 1,863 mg/kg; and zinc concentrations
ranged from 9,520 mg/kg to 40,300 mg/kg with an average of 33,600 mg/kg.

Two types of fine tailings were identified: 1) fine tailings generated as a waste during washing of
chat, and 2) flotation tailings generated as a waste during the metal extraction process or milling.
A total of 63 tailings ponds covering a total area of 820.47 acres were defined. Based on field
drilling and mapping, it was estimated there were 7.21 million cubic yards of washed fine
tailings and 1.95 million cubic yards of flotation tailings at the Site. The concentration of
cadmium in the washed fine tailings ranged from 10.0 mg/kg to 320.0 mg/kg with an average
concentration of 79.7 mg/kg; lead concentrations ranged from 220 mg/kg to 26,600 mg/kg with
an average concentration of 3,658 mg/kg; and zinc concentrations ranged from 1,730 mg/kg to
70,000 mg/kg with an average concentration of 15,964 mg/kg.

The concentration of cadmium in the flotation tailings ranged from 26.3 mg/kg to 450.0 mg/kg
with an average concentration of 133.0 mg/kg; lead concentrations ranged from 1,130 mg/kg to
17,800 mg/kg with an average concentration of 5,694 mg/kg; and zinc concentrations ranged
from 4,690 mg/kg to 103,000 mg/kg with an average concentration of 29,842 mg/kg. With few
exceptions, flotation tailings contain higher cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations than washed
fine tailings.

Selected Remedy

The Selected Remedy for Tar Creek Operable Unit 4 (OU4) is Voluntary Relocation, Phased
Consolidation, Chat Sales and On-site Disposal. Based on State, Tribal and community concerns
as well as changes in the cost effectiveness of relocation following the enactment of Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), EPA included relocation in its Selected Remedy
for the Site. As explained above, relocating the residents who are facing the greatest risk of
exposure allowed EPA to extend the timeframe for chat sales to 30 years in its Selected Remedy.

The Selected Remedy addresses source materials, rural residential yard contamination, transition
zone soil contamination, and contamination in water drawn from rural residential wells.
The Selected Remedy utilizes various elements, including the following:

PHASE 1

Phase 1 addressed voluntary relocation of residents, chat sales, and Phase 1 will address source
materials in a manner that will reduce the overall footprint of contamination and reduce the need
for land use restrictions, institutional controls, and operation and maintenance. The following
are

Phase 1 actions:

7

-------
Residents located in Picher, Cardin and Hockerville have been offered the opportunity to
relocate following the procedures and priorities established by the Lead Impacted Communities
Relocation Assistance Trust (LICRAT).

Chat and chat bases from distal areas,9 including associated historic chat covered haul
roads and non-operating railroad grades, will be excavated to the underlying native soil,
transported and released to an on-site chat processor or future processing location located in a
previously contaminated area of the Site, injected into mine workings, or disposed in an on-site
repository.

Transition zone soils (soils around and underneath source materials) will be addressed by
excavation followed by natural soil rebuilding.

Smelter wastes will be excavated and disposed in an on-site repository. Smelter affected
soils will be managed in the same manner as transition zone soils.

Fine tailings will be injected into mine workings or covered in place. The covered fine
tailings may be consolidated to reduce the footprint of the final cover.

Source material in Tar, Lytle, Elm or Beaver Creek or other Site waterways, will be
addressed on a priority basis through either excavation and/or the installation of a flexible
membrane liner, as needed as determined by EPA. As an interim measure, sheet piling, berms,
constructed wetlands, or other engineering controls will be installed for near-stream source
materials to help prevent contamination from migrating to surface water.

An alternative water supply will be provided to any household where mining-related
contaminants in water drawn from rural residential wells exceed 0.015 mg/L for lead for rural
households. Rural households that are within the area that has been designated for relocation
under the Lead Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust (LICRAT) relocation
program, but which do not elect to participate in the relocation program, would be included in
the households eligible for an alternative water supply (estimated two residences).

Rural residential yards that are found to have concentrations of soil lead that exceed 500
ppm will be excavated to a maximum depth of 12 inches, and the excavated area will be
backfilled with clean soil, contoured to promote drainage and revegetated. This includes
residential yards that are identified for relocation. The provisions of the preceding sentence
apply to approximately 4 households, based on the RI sampling. That is, if those eligible for
relocation decide not to relocate, their yards will be remediated.

On-site repositories will be constructed to accept Site source materials for final disposal.
On-site repositories will be closed when they reach capacity or at completion of the remedial
action. Closure will be accomplished by covering the repository with a soil cover, contoured to
promote drainage, and revegetated.

PHASE 2

Phase 2 addresses certain source areas that remain after Phase 1 cleanup activities. These areas
may include chat bases, tailings ponds, unmarketable chat piles and bases, and remaining chat
from distal area consolidation. Chat sales will continue.

The remedy will be reviewed, at a minimum, every five years since hazardous substances

9 "Distal Areas" generally means those areas located outside the high density mining areas and includes rural areas
as shown in Figure 3 of the OU4 ROD.

-------
remain on-site with concentrations that exceed concentration levels that allow for unrestricted
use and unrestricted exposure. The remedy will be reviewed to ensure protection of human
health and the environment. As part of the five-year review, EPA will evaluate the progress of
chat sales. Chat piles and bases remaining after 10 years will be evaluated for commercial
viability. This determination will be made using input from the chat/land owners, appropriate
tribal representatives, and the commercial operators.

Unmarketable chat piles and bases will be excavated, transported and released to an on-
site chat processor or future processing location in a previously contaminated area of the Site,
injected into mine workings, or they will be disposed in an on-site repository.

Abandoned chat haul roads and non-operating railroad grades that are contaminated will
be managed the same as unmarketable chat piles and bases. That is, they will be excavated,
transported to an on-site chat processor, and released to that processor, or they will be disposed
in an on-site repository.

Institutional controls and operation and maintenance activities will be implemented, as
needed as determined by EPA, at repositories and covered, fine tailings ponds.

Environmental monitoring will be conducted, as needed as determined by EPA, to test for
contamination in ambient and near source air, surface water, ground water, and sediment during
remediation activities.

The remedial action that EPA is taking on OU4 conforms to the ROD as described above. As
explained in this document, the significant differences in the remedial action, as described in this
draft ESD, relate to the voluntary relocation of residents of Treece, Kansas. None of these
differences fundamentally change the selected remedy.

Cherokee County Operable Unit 4 - Treece Subsite

The Cherokee County Superfund site is located in the extreme southeast portion of the state of
Kansas and encompasses an area of approximately 115 square miles. EPA divided the Cherokee
County site into seven operable units. The Treece subsite, which covers approximately 11
square miles, is one of the six subsites which make up the Cherokee County, Kansas Superfund
site and is designated as Operable Unit 4 of the Cherokee County site. Operable Unit 4 of the
Cherokee County site is part of the former Picher mining field which is centered near the town of
Picher, Oklahoma. The Picher mining field extended northward from Oklahoma into
southeastern Kansas and was one of the most productive lead and zinc mining areas in the
United States. The Treece subsite is part of the larger Tri-State Mining District which covers
approximately 500 square miles in southeast Kansas, southwest Missouri, and northeast
Oklahoma.

The town of Treece, Kansas is located immediately north of the Oklahoma state line and
approximately V2 mile west of Highway 69. The 2008 population estimate for Treece is 139
individuals, and recent press reports list the population as approximately 100 residents. There
are numerous chat piles and chat bases located within 1/10 of a mile of Treece. Similar to
residents in Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville, residents in Treece are located in areas with
concentrated sources of potential exposure.

-------
Waste at Cherokee County Operable Unit 4 consists of mining waste including development
rock, waste rock, chat and fine grained flotation impoundment tailings. The mine wastes contain
heavy metals at concentrations above natural background soil levels. The metals which are the
contaminants of concern include cadmium, lead, and zinc.

In August 1997, EPA signed a ROD to address the mining waste at two of the Cherokee County
site operable units. The Operable Units addressed in the Cherokee County 1997 ROD were OU-
3 (Baxter Springs subsite) and OU-4 (Treece subsite). An Amended Record of Decision for
OU3 and OU4 of the Cherokee County site was signed by EPA in September 2006.

The major components of the selected remedy for Baxter Springs and Treece include the
following actions,

• Excavate, consolidate, and/or cap all surficial mine waste followed by disposal
and capping.

• Utilize subaqueous mine waste disposal to the maximum extent practicable.

• Encourage source reduction via responsible chat sales before and during remedy
implementation.

• Adopt Institutional Controls for future development specified in an earlier ROD

EPA anticipates that these actions will take eight to ten years to implement. With respect to the
release in Cherokee County, this time frame is consistent with the goal described in the Tar
Creek OU4 ROD which is to prevent another generation of residents living near the source
materials from being exposed.

The residents of Treece, however, remain very close to the release in Ottawa County. The huge
Ottawa County Oklahoma chat piles will remain an attractive nuisance to children and
adolescents for up to 30 years because the Tar Creek OU4 ROD calls for chat sales to proceed
over a period of about 30 years. Consequently, EPA will be permanently relocating Treece
residents (on a voluntary basis). As explained in the OU4 ROD, relocation of the residents will
enable EPA to extend the remedial action, and allow chat sales to continue for an additional ten
years, making this aspect of the remedy cost effective.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AND THE
BASIS FOR THE DIFFERENCES:

The purpose of this ESD is to explain that there have been significant changes in the remedial
action selected for OU4 of the Tar Creek Site, and to provide the reasons that these changes were
made.

In 2007, Congress provided EPA with an exemption from the Uniform Relocation and Real

-------
Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA) for Oklahoma Site residents.10 This exemption
enabled EPA to relocate Oklahoma Site residents at a much lower cost. As explained in EPA's
OU4 Record of Decision 11 (ROD) (February 2008) and as explained above,12 with this URA
exemption, EPA decided that it would make the OU4 remedy more cost-effective if the Site
residents living near the greatest concentration of large chat piles were relocated. Consequently,
EPA's selected remedy documented in the 2008 ROD for OU4 includes voluntary relocation for
these Oklahoma residents.

The residents of Treece, Kansas also live near this concentration of large chat piles, and now
Congress has provided EPA with an exemption from the URA for the relocation of Treece
residents.13 Consequently, EPA has decided that it is cost effective to also offer Treece residents
the opportunity to relocate. Relocation for Treece will also be voluntary because EPA
understands that some residents may wish to remain in their homes for a period of time. Once
residents are relocated, EPA has decided that the vacated homes in Treece will be demolished so
that others do not move into the area. Depending on the number of residents who participate in
the voluntary relocation, municipal services such as water and sewer service may not be readily
available to residents who remain. KDHE will file an Environmental Use Control (EUC) as
authorized in Kansas Statute Annotated (K.S.A.) 65-1, 221 through 65-1, 235 on property
acquired by the Treece Relocation Assistance Trust. The EUCs are an institutional control that
is a legal means of restricting or prohibiting human activity and property use to prevent or reduce
exposure to contamination and will be compatible with the remedy selected in the ROD. The
anticipated EUC includes preventing future occupancy of the property. The State will be the
responsible agency for implementation and enforcement of this institutional control.

The following elements define the voluntary relocation component for Treece:

• Relocation assistance shall be provided as outlined by the State of Kansas, and authorized in
Kansas Statute Annotated (K.S.A.) 49-511 through 517. A public trust created by the State
of Kansas, K.S.A. 49-512, shall administer relocation assistance. The trust shall also hold
and dispose of acquired property.

• The Kansas Department of Health and the Environment (KDHE) will fund the trust using
money provided by EPA through a cooperative agreement with KDHE.

• The estimated number of properties being considered for the trust buyout program is
approximately 77. Residential and business properties are included.

10 See Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), Public Law 110-114, at Section 3135 (Effective
November 8, 2007).

11 See EPA's Record of Decision, Operable Unit 4, Chat Piles, Other Mine and Mill Waste, and Smelter Waste, Tar
Creek Superfund Site (February 2008) at Section 16.0 (Description of Alternatives).

12 See Section I (Introduction)

13 On October 29, 2009, H.R. 2996: Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Action, 2010 became Public Law 111-88. Section 430 of P.L 111-88 exempts EPA relocation of the residents of
Treece, Kansas from the Uniform Relocation Act requirements.

-------
•	Structures that remain after residents have been relocated will be removed or demolished and
disposed by the public trust.

•	EPA will not acquire property under this relocation program. Final disposition of the
properties will be determined by the Kansas public trust.

•	The estimated cost to EPA will be approximately $3,500,000, itemized as follows:

Property replacement

$2

:,657,770

Moving expenses

$

74,000

Family rent compensation

$

72,000

Business rent compensation

$

24,000

Demolition costs

$

265,000

Contracting costs

$

100,000

Subtotal

$3

,192,770

5% Contingency

$

159,639

KDHE Agency Costs

$

147,591

Total

$3

,500,000

Note: The projected cost is based on an order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimate that is
expected to be within +50 or -30 percent of the actual project cost.

This change increases the revised total estimated cost of the OU4 ROD by approximately
two percent, as follows:

Activity

Alternative 5

ESD

Total

Voluntary Relocation

569

77

646

Present Worth

$167,288,000

$3,500,000

$170,788,000

Note: The projected cost is based on an order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimate that is
expected to be within +50 or -30 percent of the actual project cost.

IV.	SUPPORT AGENCY COMMENTS

A letter of concurrence from the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment is included
as Attachment A.

V.	PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

Although a formal comment period is not required when issuing an ESD, EPA issued the ESD in
draft form to allow for public review and comment. Written comments were accepted between

12

-------
February 12, 2010 and March 15, 2010. In addition, EPA held a formal public meeting on
March 8, 2010, to present the ESD to the public. A responsiveness summary documenting EPA's
responses to questions and comments raised during the comment period are included as
Attachment B.

As required by the NCP, EPA will publish a notice of availability and a brief description of this
ESD in a major local newspaper of general circulation following the signing of this ESD,

In accordance with Section 117(d) with CERCLA and Section 300.825(a) of the NCP, this ESD will
become part of the Site's Administrative Record which is available for public review at the locations
identified previously in this document.

VI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The significant changes to the remedial action include the addition of provisions that call for:

1)	the voluntary relocation of the residents of Treece, Kansas, including both residential and
business properties;

2)	the demolition and disposal of structures (approximately 77) vacated by residents who
relocate;

3)	an estimated increase in the cost of the remedy for OU4 of approximately $3,500,000

The remedy selected in the 2008 OU4 ROD remains fundamentally unaltered and the statutory
determinations made in the ROD still apply:

The Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal
and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, is
cost effective, and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

High concentrations of lead are addressed under the Selected Remedy; however, the
concentrations of lead are not so high as to be several orders of magnitude above levels that
allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. Therefore, the lead is not considered to be a
principal threat under the NCP; consequently, there is no expectation under the NCP that the lead
be treated.

Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining
on-site above levels that allow for unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review
will be conducted within five years after initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the
remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment.

Samuel Coleman, P.E.

13

Date

-------
Director

Superfund Division

14

-------
Attachment A - Concurrence Letter

15

-------
Attachment B - Responsiveness Summary

16

-------
Summary and Response to Specific Legal and Technical Questions on the
Explanation of Significant Differences

Tar Creek Superfund Site Operable Unit 4 Ottawa County, Oklahoma February
2010

Comment 1: We believe you are doing what you think is best for the Superfund site in the way
of returning the area to a safe environmental location. What is the future plan to maintain it?
How large of an area does the buyout cover?

Response: Once residents are relocated, EPA has decided that the vacated homes in Treece will
be demolished so that others do not move into the area. The Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE) will file an Environmental Use Control (EUC) as authorized in Kansas
Statute Annotated (K.S.A.) 65-1, 221 through 65-1, 235 on property acquired by the Treece
Relocation Assistance (TRA) Trust. The EUCs are institutional controls that are legal means for
restricting or prohibiting human activity and property use to prevent or reduce exposure to
contamination. The EUCs will be consistent with the remedy selected in the Record of Decision
(ROD). The anticipated EUCs include provisions that will prevent the property from being
occupied in the future.

EPA will not acquire property under this relocation program. Final disposition of the properties
will be determined by the TRA Trust.

Comment 2: The Tar Creek OU4 Record of Decision shows a cost of $137,000,000 for the
cleanup and $3,500,000 to replace the lives of residents. The numbers do not add up and is a
waste of money.

Response: The Selected Remedy described in the OU4 Record of Decision (ROD) is cost-
effective because the remedy's costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness (see 40 CFR
§300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D)). This determination was made by evaluating the overall effectiveness of
various remedial alternatives that satisfied the threshold criteria described in the National
Contingency Plan (i.e., that are protective of human health and the environment and comply with
all Federal and any more stringent State ARARs). Overall effectiveness was evaluated by
assessing three of the five balancing criteria in combination (long-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment; and short-term
effectiveness). The overall effectiveness of each alternative was then compared to each
alternative's costs to determine cost-effectiveness. The relationship of the overall effectiveness of
the Selected Remedy described in the ROD was determined to be proportional to its costs and,
consequently, that remedy was found to represent a reasonable value for the money to be spent.
As explained in section 20.3 (Cost-Effectiveness) of the ROD, the selected remedy is also the
least expensive of the action alternatives, comparing present values.

Comment 3: If the $3,500,000 is not enough to complete the buyout, can EPA get additional
money?

-------
Response: The $3,500,000 is an estimate for the cost of the relocation. EPA Superfund cost
estimates are expected to be accurate within a range of +50 to -30 percent. If costs increase,
EPA will reevaluate the situation and take appropriate action within its statutory and regulatory
authority.

Comment 4: The intent of the Treece Relocation Project is to ensure Kansas residents affected
by the former mining operations near Picher, Oklahoma and Treece, Kansas are reclocated due
to contamination concerns from the on-going remediation efforts and remaining chat piles. In
addition, the loss of infrastructure associated with the Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville,

Oklahoma relocation project will greatly limit services to residents in the community of Treece,
Kansas. The boundaries of the Treece relocation area should not be limited to the Treece city
limits. KDHE believes the buyout area boundaries should be determined by the Treece
Relocation Assistance Trust and defined in the Trust's yet to be finalized business rules. Affected
properties will be prioritized for funding prior to program implementation.

Response: On October 29, 2009, H.R. 2996: Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Action, 2010 became Public Law 111-88. Section 430(a) of
the Public Law states: "As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the
"Administrator") is encouraged to consider all appropriate criteria relating to the buyout and
relocation of residents of properties in Treece, Kansas, that are subject to risk relating to, and
that may endanger the health of occupants as a result of risks posed by chat (as defined in section
278.1(b) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act)."

Comment 5 a: Setting aside the wisdom of EPA's decision to offer voluntary relocation to the
residence of Treece, Kansas, it is not clear from the ESD why EPA has chosen to include this
element within the remedy for OU4 at Tar Creek. None of the individuals to whom the voluntary
relocation will be offered live within the boundaries of the Tar Creek Superfund Site. As set
forth in the very first sentence of the ROD, "[t]he Tar Creek Superfund Site is located in Ottawa
County, Oklahoma." But none of these individuals live in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Instead,
they all apparently live within the boundaries of a wholly separate site, the Cherokee County
Superfund Site.

Response: Following the procedures in the National Contingency Plan, this ESD adds the
residents of Treece to Operable Unit 4 (OU4) of the Tar Creek Superfund Site. So, while it is
true that these residents were not originally part of the Site, they are now. With this ESD, EPA
is expanding the definition of the Site to include Treece residents. Treece is within one mile of
some of the biggest Tar Creek Superfund Site chat piles. Treece is also part of the Cherokee
County Superfund Site, and EPA has conducted response actions in Treece to address the threats
posed by contamination located in Kansas.

Comment 5 b: Because the residents of Treece, Kansas do not live within the boundaries of the

-------
Tar Creek Site, EPA does not have sufficient data and information within its Administrative
Record to support its decision to include this action within the Tar Creek remedy. The Tar Creek
OU4 Remedial Investigation did not gather or develop data relating to these residents or their
properties. Nor did the Tar Creek OU4 Feasibility Study consider the cost effectiveness of
offering voluntary relocation to residents of Treece, Kansas.

Despite these deficiencies, the ESD concludes, with no analysis or support, that "relocation of
the residents will enable EPA to extend the remedial action and allow chat sales to continue for
an additional 10 years, making this aspect of the remedy cost effective." It is not clear, and EPA
fails to explain, how the voluntary relocation of residents of Treece, Kansas will impact the
remedy for Tar Creek OU4. EPA did not consider the costs, let alone cost effectiveness, of
relocating residents of Treece, Kansas when it analyzed the cost effectiveness of the Tar Creek
OU4 remedy. In addition, EPA has already determined that the relocation of residents of Picher
and Cardin alone, without relocating the residents of Treece, made the Tar Creek OU4 remedy
cost effective. No apparent additional cost effectiveness will be provided by relocating the
residents of Treece, Kansas, and EPA provides no information or data supporting its conclusion
to the contrary.

Response: EPA's February 20, 2008, ROD for OU4 addressed Ottawa County, Oklahoma, and
our decision to undertake voluntary relocation in Ottawa County was supported by requests from
the State of Oklahoma, the Quapaw Tribe and the community, EPA's goal is to prevent another
generation of residents living near the Tar Creek source materials from being exposed to lead
contamination. In EPA's July 30, 2007, Proposed Plan for OU4 our preferred alternative did not
include relocation of Site residents because EPA determined it was not cost effective. Without
relocation, EPA decided that the remedial action, including chat sales, had to be completed in 20
years in order to prevent exposing another generation.

On November 8, 2007, however, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA),
Public Law 110-114, became law. Section 3135 of WRDA is specific to Ottawa County,
Oklahoma and it exempted relocation of the Site residents from the Uniform Relocation Act
(URA) and its costs. With the cost savings provided by WRDA, EPA decided that it would be
cost-effective to relocate the Oklahoma residents on the Site who live near the large
concentrations of contaminant source material (i.e., the large concentration of chat piles in the
core of the Site). EPA decided relocation of those Oklahoma residents would be cost effective
because, with the residents relocated, EPA could extend the remedial action, and allow chat sales
to continue for an additional ten years. This ten-year extension meant that certain planned
activities would take place later in the remedial action, and, when spending happens later, there
are savings associated with the increased value of money over time. In addition, the more chat
that is addressed through chat sales, instead of other more costly cleanup measures, the less
expensive the remedy becomes.

For some time, the State of Kansas and the community of Treece had been urging EPA to
provide voluntary relocation to the residents of Treece. On October 29, 2009, H.R. 2996:
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Action, 2010

-------
became Public Law 111-88. Section 430 of P L 111-88 exempts EPA relocation of the residents
of Treece, Kansas from the Uniform Relocation Act requirements. Now that Congress has made
EPA's relocation of Treece residents exempt from the URA requirements, EPA decided that it
would be cost effective to offer voluntary relocation to the Treece residents. Treece residents are
located at approximately the same distance as Picher residents from the Tar Creek Superfund
Site chat piles and fine tailings deposits, so it made sense to offer voluntary relocation, now that
it was cost effective as explained in the ESD.

After a ROD is issued by EPA, if the remedial action taken differs significantly from the remedy
selected in the ROD, but does not fundamentally alter the remedy selected in the ROD, EPA
notifies the public that an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) is available as part of the
administrative record. While the ESD is being prepared and made available to the public, the
EPA may proceed with the remedy.

EPA's decision to offer voluntary relocation to the residents of Treece is not a fundamental
change to the ROD. As described above, EPA's OU4 ROD already explained why relocation of
certain Ottawa County residents under a congressionally-provided exemption from the URA was
cost-effective and consistent with the NCP. Now we are taking essentially the same remedial
decision with respect to the residents of Treece. Since this remedial decision regarding Treece
residents was essentially the same as the decision regarding Ottawa County residents, there was
no need to expend EPA resources to gather additional data. The cost-effectiveness of this action
is documented in the ESD, which is based on the reasoning in the ROD which follows the NCP
process. This action differs significantly from the remedy described in the OU4 ROD, but it
does not fundamentally alter the remedy.

Comment 5 c: In addition, EPA has not explained how it determined the particular properties
eligible for relocation, where those properties are located, or whether any of those properties
have

been the subject of previous removal and/or remediation activity within the Treece Subsite of the
Cherokee County Superfund Site. For example, residential property remediation at the Treece
Subsite was completed in 2000 by responsible parties pursuant to a consent decree. Non-
residential remedial activities will be conducted by responsible parties pursuant to a second
consent decree entered in 2009. EPA has offered no information or explanation supporting
additional expenditure on property that has previously been determined to be remediated, much
less why such expenditures should be attributed to the Tar Creek Site.

Response: On October 29, 2009, H.R. 2996: Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Action, 2010 became Public Law 111-88. Section 430(a) of
the Public Law states: "As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the
"Administrator") is encouraged to consider all appropriate criteria relating to the buyout and
relocation of residents of properties in Treece, Kansas, that are subject to risk relating to, and
that may endanger the health of occupants as a result of risks posed by, chat (as defined in
section 278.1(b) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of

-------
this Act))." In addition, Relocation assistance shall be provided as outlined by the State of
Kansas, and authorized in Kansas Statute Annotated (K.S.A.) 49-511 through 517. As explained
above in the immediately preceding response, EPA selected the residents of Treece for relocation
when it became cost-effective to do so, based on the Congressional exemption from the URA.
While remedial actions taken under the Cherokee County Superfund Site ROD address certain
risks associated with the release of hazardous substances in Kansas, the likelihood of exposure to
hazardous substance contamination in the nearby Tar Creek Superfund Site remained a threat.
The voluntary relocation action described in the ESD will help eliminate this exposure threat.

Under the National Contingency Plan, a site includes the areal extent of contamination and all
suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination necessary for implementation of the
response action. It makes sense to include Treece as part of the Tar Creek Superfund Site
response because the release of lead and other metals in chat and fine tailings located on the Tar
Creek Superfund Site is the contamination of concern and Treece, which is in close proximity, is
an area where the likelihood of exposure makes a response action necessary.

Comment 6: I am in favor of the offering to buy out residents of Treece, Kansas due to the life
threatening and life-quality diminishing aspects from the mining operations. I have worked with
families living in the Picher-Cardin area and feel we cannot ethically turn our backs on these
other victims, and other generations.

Response: Comment noted.

Comment 7: With the recognition by EPA and the state of Kansas that there is little difference
in conditions from Picher, Oklahoma and Treece, Kansas, with residents facing both the risk of
subsidence and environmental exposures, it is a real relief that this action is being taken at this
time, to offer the opportunity of voluntary buy-outs to residents. Residents in Picher fought and
struggled to have a chance at buy-out, while the residents merely a mile away were saying little
and wondering if anyone was connecting the dots that would ever include or even notice them.

I would like to commend the EPA for the genuine efforts made at the public meeting last week
for Treece residents to answer all the questions asked by the citizens about how the buy-out
would proceed. All of the staff from both EPA regions as well as the states' environmental
departments were professional and showed a great deal of respect for each attendee. This effort
will be protective of human health and should be included in the OU4 efforts.

Response: Comment noted.

Comment 8: Nothing was said about the dust that keeps coming into Treece from the work
being done west of town.

Response: EPA continues to work with the construction contractors to ensure that the roads are
wetted on a regular basis to prevent dust emissions. As part of an air monitoring program, EPA
Region 7 has set up air monitoring equipment in the Treece area and the sampling results are

-------
provided to the residents during meetings with the community. The results from the air monitors
show that the concentration of lead in the air is below the lead standard of 0.15 micrograms per
cubic meter.

Comment 9: EPA has not adequately discussed the results from the blood lead testing that was
conducted by EPA.

Response: Representatives from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) were in Treece in September 2009 doing blood lead testing. ATSDR tested 73 people
who live in Treece. Fifty-seven of those tested were seven years and older and 16 were children
that were six years of age and younger.

The results showed that there was one child who had what is considered to be an elevated blood
lead level. Since this was a screening test, ATSDR contacted the child's parents and asked that
the child be taken in for a more accurate test than the finger prick that was done in September
2009. The Centers for Disease Control says that blood lead concentrations of 10 micrograms per
deciliter are associated with adverse health effects in children. Based on the blood testing
conducted, two children were found to have blood lead levels of between five to 10 micrograms
per deciliter.

Comment 10: A commenter noted that there has been nothing done to repair their property.
The commenter noted problems with their foundation, water under the house, mold under and
inside the house since their yard was cleaned up.

Response: EPA worked closely with the homeowners to address problems after their yard was
cleaned up. If a yard was recently cleaned up, the owner should contact EPA to discuss the
owner's concerns.

Comment 11: Treece, Kansas should have been bought out at the same time as Picher,
Oklahoma. When Picher, OK was bought out it put a hardship on everyone in Treece. The
commenter does not understand why Treece was not bought out at the same time. What is the
reason?

Response: In August 1997, EPA Region 7 signed a Record of Decision (ROD) to address the
mining waste at two of the Cherokee County site operable units. The Operable Units addressed
in the Cherokee County 1997 ROD were OU-3 (Baxter Springs subsite) and OU-4 (Treece
subsite). An Amended Record of Decision for OU3 and OU4 of the Cherokee County site was
signed by EPA Region 7 in September 2006. Relocation of Treece residents was not determined
to be necessary as part of the Treece subsite cleanup.

When EPA Region 6 requested comments on the Proposed Plan of Action for Tar Creek
Operable Unit 4, EPA received no comments concerning buying out residents in Treece, Kansas.

Based on concerns from the citizens of Treece, Kansas, representatives from EPA visited the

-------
Treece and Picher area in August 2009. On October 29, 2009, H.R. 2996: Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Action, 2010 became Public Law
111-88. Section 430(a) of the Public Law states: "As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in
this section as the "Administrator") is encouraged to consider all appropriate criteria relating to
the buyout and relocation of residents of properties in Treece, Kansas, that are subject to risk
relating to, and that may endanger the health of occupants as a result of risks posed by chat.

EPA has considered all appropriate criteria and issued the Draft ESD to offer relocation to the
residents of Treece, Kansas, as part of its remedy for Tar Creek Operable Unit 4.

Comment 12: A commenter states "This is Stupid" with additional tax dollars at work. When
this (the buyout) was going on in Picher, the EPA never cared what the people wanted or
thought. Residents sat in years of meetings and never listened. So why does EPA have an
interest in what the community thinks now? Another commenter says that EPA did not care
about their comments during several years of meetings and wonders why EPA cares about
receiving comment now. The commenter notes that EPA ruined properties.

Response: When EPA was developing the Selected Remedy described in the Tar Creek
Superfund Site ROD, the public participation requirements of CERCLA Subsection
113(k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117, 42 U.S.C. Subsection 9613(k)(2)(B)(iv) and Section 9617, were met
during the remedy selection process. A Community Involvement Plan was prepared in February
1997. This plan describes the community involvement activities that the EPA has undertaken,
and will continue to undertake, during the remedial activities planned for the Site.

A Fact Sheet was distributed to the community in January 2004 to announce the beginning of the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The Fact Sheet informed the public of the
completion of an Administrative Order on Consent with DOI and two mining companies to
implement the RI/FS for Operable Unit 4. EPA held a meeting on March 25, 2004, to discuss
the RI/FS with the community.

The RI/FS and Proposed Plan for the Site were made available to the public in July 2007. These
documents can be found in the Administrative Record File for the Proposed Plan and in the
information repositories maintained with the ODEQ Central Records at the Oklahoma City
Office, at the Miami Public Library, and at EPA's offices in Dallas, Texas. The notice of the
availability of these documents was published in the Miami News Record on July 28, 2007. The
initial notice announced a 30-day public comment period ending August 30, 2007, but EPA
extended that comment period an additional 32 days, until October 1, 2007, at the request of the
ODEQ.

EPA held a public meeting regarding the Proposed Plan on August 28, 2007, at Picher-Cardin
High School. At this meeting, representatives from EPA answered questions about the Site and
the remedial alternatives outlined in the Proposed Plan. EPA response to the comments received
during the public comment period for the Proposed Plan is included in the Responsiveness

23

-------
Summary (Part 3), which is part of the ROD.

EPA also awarded a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) to the Local Environmental Action
Demanded (LEAD) group in May 2001. The $50,000 grant was used by LEAD to hire a
technical advisor and conduct community outreach.

Although EPA was not required by law to do so, EPA has published this draft ESD and
requested public comments before going final. This demonstrates EPA's commitment to
community involvement in its decisions.

Comment 13: If people decide not to move, are they going to be supplied with all utilities or
have to live by lamps, since phone service and cable will not be put back in?

Response: Utility options are not known at this time; however, KDHE is still investigating
utility alternatives. More definitive answers should be available prior to the relocation
application process.

Comment 14: A commenter thinks that all cleanup should be stopped until the Town of Treece
has been bought out and all the residents have moved out. All EPA is doing is stirring up dust
and making it hard to breathe.

Response: The State's general permits require that fugitive dusts and runoff be controlled in a
fashion so that dusts do not leave the property line or the boundary of the construction activity.
These regulations exist and apply independent of EPA's actions. In addition, the ROD calls for
the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as appropriate. BMPs are broadly
defined by EPA under Section 304 of the Clean Water Act (including its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR § 122.44(k)) as schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of
water of the U.S. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and
practices to control industrial site runoff, spillage or leaks, or drainage from raw material storage
piles, erosion controls, dust suppression methods, or air monitoring as needed as determined by
EPA for verification purpose. In general, BMPs components include:

• Controlling process water to avoid discharge to surface water during and up to a 25-year
storm event.

• Constructing berms around mill ponds or surface impoundments capable of retaining water
without seepage.

• Developing contingency measures and response plans to address releases from source water,
process water, sediment and storm water.

• Controlling storm water runoff within the process areas, controlling soil erosion on-site, and
controlling drainage.

• Containment of stockpiles of chat to prevent spread of contaminated material.

• Dust mitigation to minimize dust generated from the processing of chat and on-site haul
roads to include wetting, mist curtains, and foam blankets.

-------
• Air monitoring during chat processing, as needed as determined by EPA, to confirm air
quality and effectiveness of dust mitigation.

• Controlling releases from trucks hauling raw and/or processed chat off-site to prevent
fugitive dust and off-site tracking of contaminated soil to include covering truck loads of chat
with tarps and washing trucks prior to leaving the site and entering public roads to prevent
tracking

• Decontamination of personnel and equipment

• Access controls like fences and gates.

Comment 15: A commenter wrote that people need to know that if they remain in their home
that rural water could cost each household approximately $1800 for a meter. Also, the sewer
system may not work properly causing each homeowner to need a septic system. Rural Water
District #3 will require an easement from each property owner to be filed at the Court House.
Sections 11 and 12 will have to be annexed into Rural Water District #3. All abandoned meters
and lines will have to be isolated from good lines to prevent cross contamination.

Response: EPA appreciates the information provided by the commenter. Utility options are not
known at this time; however KDHE is still investigating utility alternatives. More definitive
answers should be available prior to the application process.

Summary and Response to Specific Questions on Relocation and Operation of
the Treece Relocation Assistance Trust

Comment 1: When the appraisals start, if property owners do not agree with the offer for the
property, will there be a procedure for discussion between the trust, appraiser, and property
owners?

Response: According to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), property
values used for the purposes of the relocation efforts will be based on an amount equal to the
average cost of comparable housing elsewhere in Cherokee County. The business rules have not
been finalized, but KDHE anticipates the Treece Relocation Assistance (TRA) Trust will solicit
appraisals prepared based on comparisons from different communities in Cherokee County.

The TRA Trust business rules have not been finalized, but by using multiple property appraisals
for eligible property, KDHE does not anticipate including provisions for using an arbitrator
during relocation negotiations.

Once the TRA Trust is established, a public meeting will be scheduled to introduce the trust
members and allow residents to ask questions and voice their opinions and concerns.

Comment 2: If we decide to move our home, how far will you move it? Also, some cities will
only allow you to move into a mobile home park. I do not live in a mobile home park and do not
want to move into one.

-------
Response: According to the KDHE, owners of mobile homes will have the option of moving
their homes; however, according to KDHE the cost paid by the TRA Trust cannot exceed the
value of the property.

Comment 3: If a person does not accept the buyout offer will there still be sewer and water?

Response: Utility options are not known at this time; however KDHE is still investigating
utility alternatives. More definite answers should be available prior to the application process.

Comment 4: Does a person have to be paid before they move to another place, or do they have
to stay in our residence in Treece, Kansas before receiving a buyout?

Response: KDHE says that occupied residences will take first priority, but all homes will be
considered. A home unoccupied for an extended period of time may essentially be considered a
storage structure.

Comment 5: How will the buyout work if one person owns the land and another person owns
the property?

Response: KDHE says appraisals will be considered for the house and the land; however,
KDHE says the total value will not exceed an amount normally provided for similar property
with only one owner. KDHE says both parties involved may receive assistance; however the
prioritization for payment has not been finalized. The TRA Trust will evaluate these scenarios
on a case-by-case basis.

Comment 6: A commenter's son has asthma. Will children be the first to be relocated under
the buyout?

Response: KDHE says residents living in their homes continuously since March 13, 2006, will
have first priority. Upon development of the TRA Trust, additional prioritization may be
determined for categories such as, but not limited to properties served by city utilities, properties
within a certain distance of the city limits, etc.,

Comment 7: A commenter was disappointed that nothing was mentioned about persons who
are renting properties in and around Treece.

Response: KDHE says that renters who have resided in their Treece homes since March 13,
2006, and who can produce a valid rental contract or other proof of rental arrangement relocation
will be included in the relocation efforts. The trust shall provide assistance in an amount equal
to the average cost of 12 months' rent for comparable housing elsewhere in the county.
Individuals also may receive no more than $1,000 for moving expenses.

Comment 8: Nothing was mentioned about when residents (owners and renters) will be

-------
informed about relocating. People need to know this so they can be prepared and start locating a
new residence. No timeline for any of these items were mentioned.

Response: To facilitate the relocation of the citizens of Treece, Governor Mark Parkinson has
appointed five Kansans to the TRA Trust that is charged with administering the relocation
assistance. The TRA Trust will make the final decisions regarding the buyout procedure for
Treece. The governor's appointments are subject to Senate confirmation.

The EPA has budgeted $3.5 million for the buyout. Under Superfund law, the State must provide
$350,000, which is ten percent, in matching funds. The Governor has included the ten percent
match in his Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal. The $350,000 in state assistance must be
approved by the legislature.

To make sure the Trust members have the information they will need once they are in position,
EPA and the Kansas Department of Health and Ecology (KDHE) are working together to gather
information.

KDHE is taking surveys to develop a list of the people that want to be bought out. KDHE is
working toward completion of appraisals by late spring or summer. Until the Trustees are
confirmed, and the legislature provides matching funds, there can be no certainty as to when the
buyout process will be complete.

Comment 9: If people live in Picher, Oklahoma and then move to Treece, Kansas after they get
bought out in Picher, are they going to get bought out again?

Response: According to the KDHE, the answer is yes, but they will be the in the last group
considered if they were not a resident on March 13, 2006. The TRA Trust will establish the
rules which will address this issue.

Comment 10: If a resident decides to take their mobile home, and the land is bought, does the
money go to the mortgage company or to the land owner?

Response: The TRA Trust, which is not in place yet, will determine the final rules associated
with the buyout. One of the decisions the trust will have to make is how to deal with properties
when money is still owed to a mortgage company.

Comment 11: Are the appraisers going to start at one end of town and go to the other end of
town all at once or little by little doing an appraisal here and there?

Response: KDHE says that, although a final plan for conducting the appraisals has not been
developed, it is hoped that appraisals of all properties will occur at one time. Conducting the
appraisals at one time would result in a cost savings since appraisers would not have to visit the
area several times. Also, conducting the appraisals at one time would accelerate the buyout
process, according to KDHE.

-------