PB99-964401
EPA541-R99-034
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Kennecott South Zone Site
OUs 1,4, 5,10 & Portions of 11 & 17
Copperton, UT
11/3/1998
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
KJENNECOTT SOUTH ZONE SITE
Operable Units 1, 4, 5, 10, portions of 11, and 17
Bingham Creek and Bingham Canyon Area
November, 1998
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202
-------
-------
L THE DECLARATION
A. SITE NAME AND LOCATION:
This decision document covers all or portions of six (6) operable units which are part of
the Kennecott South Zone Site proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List Included
are Bingham Creek (Operable Unit 1), Large Bingham Reservoir (Operable Unit 4)
Anaconda/ARCO/Copperton Tailings (Operable Unit 5), Copperton Soils (Operable Unit 10)
portions of Bingham Canyon Historic Facilities (Operable Unit 11), and Bastian Sink (Operable
Unit 17). The sites are located in unincorporated Salt Lake County, Utah, the City of West
Jordan, and the City of South Jordan, Utah.
B. STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action (no action) for the Bingham
Creek, Large Bingham Reservoir, Anaconda/ARCO/Copperton Tailings, Copperton Soils
portions of Bingham Canyon Historic Facilities and Bastian Sink Operable Units of the Kennecott
South Zone located in Salt Lake County, which was chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as
amended by SARA, and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the administrative record for this
site.
The State of Utah concurs with the selected remedy.
C. DESCRIPTION OF THE RATIONALE FOR NO ACTION
EPA has determined that no further action is required at these operable units For
Bingham Creek, Large Bingham Reservoir, and Anaconda/ARCO Copperton Tailings previous
response actions have eliminated the risks at these sites. For Lower Bingham Creek Copperton
Soils, portions of Bingham Canyon Historic Facilities and Bastian Sink, no action is appropriate
due to lack of risk for current and proposed land uses.
D. DECLARATION STATEMENT
EPA has determined that no further action is required at these operable units in order to
protect human health and the environment. Several cleanup actions were completed under
Removal authorities and these have eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial actions
Because, at some locations, wastes have been left in place, a five year review will be necessary
-------
Max H. Dodson
Assistant Regional Administrator
Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VHI
State Concurrence:
Dianne R. Nielson rjate
Executive Director
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
-------
Q. DECISION SUMMARY
A. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
the Ken nTT T"' ^^ "" °f ^ ^ °f SiX (6) °P6rabIe UnitS which «« part of
he Kenneco t South Zone Site proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List Each of
these operable units are described individually.
1 . Bingham Creek (Operable Unit 1)
a. Bingham Creek Channel: The Bingham Creek Channel consists of the
current and historic channel course of Bingham Creek from the Large Bingham
Reservoir m the foothills of the Oquirrh Mountains on the west to the Brookside
Mobile Home Park in the City of West Jordan on the east, a distance of about 13
miles. The creek course at the Large Bingham Reservoir is located along the
western side of unincorporated Salt Lake County near the town of Copperton,
then travels easterly through the Cities of South Jordan and West Jordan.
The channel transects an eastward, gently-sloping alluvial plain that extends
rrom the foot of the Oquirrh Mountains front to the Jordan River The elevation
ranges from 5300 feet (ASL) at the Large Bingham Reservoir to 4300 feet at the
confluence of the creek with the Jordan River.
The upper part of the creek channel is located on private land used for
farming, mining, and industrial purposes. Portions of the lower part of the creek
channel are located on public lands used for open space and recreation but is
bounded by suburban residential, commercial and industrial development Other
portions of the creek channel are located on privately owned residential property
In some cases, the creek has been rerouted in man-made ditches, channels and
culverts with suburban development occurring on the historic channel.
Bingham Creek is an intermittent, losing stream that flows only during peak
runofFpenods or during major storm events. The channel course over time has
meandered and overflowed during flood events that have been caused by natural
and human-caused events. Historically, the creek has abandoned old channels and
formed new channels spreading contaminated alluvial and waste materials across
broad areas. The principal aquifer under the creek is recharged along the foothills
ot the Oquirrh Mountains and discharges downgradient at the Jordan River
Groundwater (Operable Unit 2) is not being addressed in this decision document
-------
b. Bingham Creek Residential Soils
The Bingham Creek Residential Soils area consists of certain residential
development areas in the floodplain of Bingham Creek. Located in the cities of
South Jordan and West Jordan, numerous residences were built on the floodplain
or over historic channels. Since most of the historic flow of the creek was diverted
by early farmers and ranchers, some creek-borne contaminants were also found
near irrigation ditches. Neighborhoods affected include Jordan View Estates,
Meadow Green, Fahnian Ranchettes, Vista West, Sugar Factory, and Brooks'ide.
Approximately 125 individual residences were addressed as part of three prior
removal actions. Most of these residences were located within 2 blocks of the
creek channel.
c. Lower Bingham Creek
Lower Bingham Creek is the section of the creek between the Brookside
Mobile Home Park on the west and the creek's confluence with the Jordan River
on the east a distance of about a mile. This section is located in the historic Jordan
River floodplain and is relatively flat. The creek courses through industrial and
agricultural lands here. On the west, the creek is buried in a culvert underneath a
light industrial park with associated parking lots. From the industrial park on 1300
W. the creek flows through agricultural and ranch land to an asphalt plant. The
land between the asphalt plant and the Jordan River is used for agriculture
(currently, alfalfa). The creek in this section is a man-made ditch. The nearest
residences are about 2 blocks away. There is a small flow in the creek through this
section originating with some springs at the Brookside Mobile Home Park and
overflows from an irrigation canal near the Jordan River. There is a Brownfields
proposal to use a portion of this land as a recreational corridor with bike paths and
trails.
2. Large Bingham Reservoir (Operable Unit 4)
The Large Bingham Reservoir is located just to the south of the town of
Copperton at the mouth of Bingham Canyon in the Bingham Creek channel It
was built in 1965 by Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. (hereinafter referred to as
Kennecott) to impound Bingham Creek waters and leachate waters from
Kennecott mining operations for recovery of metals and industrial process water.
The original reservoir was unlined and, located in the recharge area for the
principal aquifer, it has been shown to be a major source of groundwater
contamination.
The old reservoir was retired and a new one replaced it. The new reservoir
is lined and is also used for storage of stormwater and process water by Kennecott.
-------
The land use is industrial/mining. The nearest residential community is Copperton,
about K mile to the north. The area is fenced and is not accessible to the general
public. -
3. Anaconda Tailings (Operable Unit 5)
a. Anaconda Tailings
The Anaconda Tailings, also known as Anaconda (ARCO) Tailings
Copperton Tailings, ARCO Copperton Tailings and Utah-Apex Tailings consists
of approximately 3.5 million tons of lead, arsenic, zinc, and silver-bearing fine-
grained sediments covering 41 acres along the south side of Bingham Creek in the
north one-half of Section 16, Township 3 South, Range 2 West It is located
adjacent to Bingham Creek. Erosion, seepage and tailwaters from the tailings
created contamination along Bingham Creek, Bastian Ditch, and into Bastian Sink
and near-by agricultural lands. The land use is industrial/mining and since
remediation occurred, is used for open space. The nearest residential
neighborhood is Copperton, about 3/4 mile away. The site is fenced and is not
accessible to the general public.
b. Bastian Ditch
The Bastian Ditch had its origins in the 1880's when water was diverted
from Bingham Creek near the Oquirrh foothills to the Bastian Sink vicinity The
ditch earned water as far south as Copper Creek. The Ditch originates in the
vicinity of the Anaconda Tailings and roughly follows Utah Highway 111
southward. It was used by farmers to convey water from Bingham Creek and later
the Anaconda Tailings Impoundment to their fields. A recent study of aerial
photographs indicates the ditch system continued southward nearly to Butterfield
Creek. Subsequent sampling showed scattered elevated lead values in the southern
extension of the ditch system. The current land use is industrial and agricultural
The nearest residential neighborhood is Copperton, 3/4 mile away (at northern end
ot the ditch). The ditch, where it exists, is not in use.
4. Copperton Soils (Operable Unit 10)
The town of Copperton is located at the mouth of Bingham Canyon adjacent to
Bingham Creek on the south side of town. The eastern end of the town was built on an
historic tailings deposit, particularly the residences along Copperton Circle The land use
is residential. Lands just to the east of Copperton Circle are industrial/mining land use
-------
5.
Portions of Bingham Canyon Historic Facilities (Operable Unit 1 1)
Bingham Canyon is located on the east flank of the Oquirrh Mountains. Mining of
mineral resources in Bingham Canyon and it tributaries began in 1 863. Open pit mining of
copper ores began in 1903 on the headwaters of the canyon. Today, Bingham Canyon
Mine open pit is about 2 Yz miles across and over '/2 mile deep and is surrounded on the
east, south, and north sides by waste rock dumps. Older mining and milling facilities
which have been documented in historic literature have been buried by the waste rock
dumps or mined away by nearly 100 years of open pit operations.
The area where most of the historic mining operations existed is still occupied by
an active mining operation and is zoned industrial/mining. Activities include mineral
exploration, blasting in the pit, hauling of ores and waste rock by trucks and rail, and
maintenance of the facilities. A visitor center is located near the top edge of the'pit, but
the access is through the Lark Gate. Kennecott owns all the water rights in the watershed
(including stormwater runoff, snow melt and leach waters) and uses them for industrial
processing. The mine is fenced and is not accessible by the general public. The nearest
residences to the Bingham Canyon Mine are located in the town of Copperton adjacent to
the Bingham Canyon Gate. Current operational facilities, including, but not limited to, the
Bingham Canyon Mine, the Bingham Canyon Mine Waste Rock Dumps, the Kennecott
Precipitation Plant, and the Copperton Yards are not included in this decision document.
The footprint of the former Proler operation is not included. Groundwater issues
associated with the mine are also not included in this decision document.
6. Bastian Sink (Operable Unit 17)
The Bastian Sink is located in the south central portion of Section 15 and the north
central portion of Section 22, Township 3 South, Range 2 West. It measures 3,000 feet
by 1,200 feet at its maximum extremities, totaling approximately 60 acres. It is'a
topographic low just to the south and east of the Trans Jordan Landfill on State Highway
111. Bastian Sink received waters diverted from Bingham Creek and the Anaconda
Tailings Pond via the Bastian Ditch. The water was used to irrigate farmland in the area.
The water flowing in the Ditch contained considerable tailings sediments probably derived
from flow through the tailings pond.
The current land use is agricultural, but has been zoned for industrial land use.
The nearest residence is in Copperton, approximately 2.5 miles to the west. The area is
fenced and is not accessible to the general public.
-------
B. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
1. Bingham Creek (Operable Unit 1) —
The Bingham Creek Channel is located downstream from the West Mountain
(Bingham) Mining District on the east flank of the Oquirrh Mountains where mining
activities began in 1863. Bingham Creek originates in Bingham Canyon within the
borders of the mining district and trends easterly to the Jordan River. The distance of
Bingham Creek from the Large Bingham Reservoir, located near the mouth of Bingham
Canyon, to the Jordan River is about 13 miles. During the early days of mining wastes
from mining and mineral processing (mine dumps, mill tailings, and smelter slag) were
dumped directly into Bingham Creek or stored adjacent to the creek where they were
subject to erosion and transport to the creek. The mining wastes contained elevated levels
of lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals. Over the years, especially during flood events
these mining and processing wastes washed downstream where they were deposited in the
creek channels and floodpiain. The land through which Bingham Creek trends was
onginally farm land, but with the growth of the Salt Lake City suburbs, several residential
neighborhoods were built along the creek, on floodplains, and over historical creek
channels.
Three removal actions in accordance with Action Memoranda dated May 1991
January 1993, and June 1995, were performed by EPA, ARCO and Kennecott to address
the problems associated with mining wastes in the channel of Bingham Creek and in the
neighborhoods built on the Bingham Creek floodpiain.
a. Bingham Creek Channel
On February 18, 1993, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order
(UAO) for Bmgham Creek Phase II to ARCO (Atlantic Richfield Company) and
Kennecott, Docket No. CERCLA-VHI-93-10. This addressed the contaminated
tailings removal in the Bingham Creek channel as outlined in the Action
Memorandum dated January 28, 1993. Lead values up to 30 000 mg/kg were
found. The removal extended from the Kennecott Large Bingham Reservoir dam
to the downstream side of the Brookside Trailer Park, a channel distance of
approximately nine miles. The work was conducted by ARCO and Kennecott
under the supervision of EPA and UDEQ. In general, wastes in the creek channel
containing over 2,000 mg/kg lead were removed down to three feet or deeper any
remaining contamination was capped, and the creek bed was then recontoured
The excavated wastes were hauled either to the Kennecott Bluewater Repository
or to the Anaconda Tailings.
In the process of cleaning up the creek channel, a number of road crossings
and utility corridors were encountered and cleaned up: West Valley Highway
-------
Crossing, Kern River Gas Transmission Co Pipeline Crossing (under provisions of
Administrative Order on Consent, CERCLA VIII 92-01), 3200 West Street
Crossing, and Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District Water Pipeline
Crossing. A number of historic facilities and waste storage locations were also
encountered and cleaned up: Tailwater Ditches, Bingham Flats, Evaporation Ponds
Canals, Cemetery Pond, Mixed Tails; Robbe Cells, McGregor Precipitation Plant,
New York and Utah Mill, Revere Smelter, Holy Cross Hospital Grounds [now
Paracelsus Jordan Valley Hospital], and the Redwood Road Pond.
The Cities of West Jordan and South Jordan have agreed to supervise long
term management of the site using existing authorities for land use planning,
zoning, and building permits.
b. Bingham Creek Residential Soils:
During Bingham Creek Phase I, in 1991, surface soils contaminated with
mining wastes were excavated and removed from 50 residential properties in West
Jordan which were located within the historic flood plain of Bingham Creek in
accordance with the Action Memorandum dated May 1991. Lead values up to
12,000 mg/kg were found in the soils. Soils with lead concentrations exceeding
2,500 mg/kg were removed and replaced with clean fill. EPA conducted the
removal in conjunction with Kennecott. Kennecott participated by constructing a
mine waste repository (Bluewater Repository) and providing hauling services
from the site to the repository. Their participation was done under the provisions
of an Administrative Order On Consent, Docket No. CERCLA-VT.II-91-11, dated
May 20, 1991. Kennecott also paid EPA a portion of the costs associated with
this action.
Bingham Creek Phase III occurred in 1995-1997 and addressed 75
residential properties in accordance with the Action Memorandum dated June
1995. It provided for the removal of soils which had concentrations in the soil
exceeding 1,100 mg/kg lead and/or 100 mg/kg arsenic. Removal depths in both
actions were as much as 18 inches which was then replaced with clean soil. The
removal took place in areas which were determined to provide a pathway for
exposure to residents. In Phase III, the work was conducted by ARCO under the
provisions of Unilateral Order CERCLA VIH-95-19 dated July 21, 1995, and
amended October 31, 1995. The work was conducted under supervision of EPA
and UDEQ. The contaminated materials were hauled to the Anaconda Tailings.
-------
t^rm CitiCS °^6St J°rdan and South Jordan have a§reed to perform lone
term management of the site using existing authorities for land use planning
zoning, and building permits, ... °'
c. Lower Bingham Creek
mining wastes washed all the way from Bingham Canyon
5EQ Kennecott, and EPA have all confirmed that elevated
nd alon8the creek channel. This area located in the
Jordan River floodplain, is used for agriculture, ranching, and industry There are
no plans to develop this area for residential use. Therefore, the data^onceSn"
he location of rmmng waste contamination were transferred to the City of West
Jordan who w,ll manage this area in the future through land use planning, zoning
and budding perrmt authorities. The city has received a Brownfields Grant to
design a long-term plan for this and nearby areas. swam to
2. Large Bingham Reservoir (Operable Unit 4)
the tn JT f9r 5' KenneCOtVconstructed a. reservoir on Bingham Creek just to the south of
Bin
-------
Adjacent to the Large Bingham Reservoir to the north is the Small Bingham
Reservoir. The original Small Bingham Reservoir was also constructed in 1965 as a mine
waste treatment facility and a sewage lagoon for the town of Copperton The original
reservoir was lined with clay. In 1990, Kennecott took the reservoir out of service
excavated some of the materials, and installed a new reservoir equipped with clay '
geotextile, and HOPE liners with a leak detection system. The performance of this
reservoir is monitored through a Utah Groundwater Permit (UGW 350004).
EPA and Kennecott entered into Administrative Order on Consent CERCLA VIII
92-10 on June 23, 1992 under which Kennecott performed the removal action at the Large
Bingham Reservoir. &
3. Anaconda Tailings (Operable Unit 5)
a. Anaconda Tailings Impoundment
The Anaconda Tailings is located immediately south of Bingham Creek
near the Kennecott Large Bingham Reservoir. The Tailings Site was originally a
tailings pond constructed in 1914 to trap the tailings produced by the Utah Apex
and,Bingham New Haven Mills upstream in Bingham Canyon. Tailings were
sluiced to the site via flumes. The pond allowed most of the tailings to settle out
The water, containing acids, heavy metals, and residual tailings, was then sent back
to Bingham Creek or used by farmers for irrigation.
EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (CERCLA VIII 93-06) with
an effective date of January 25, 1993, to ARCO requiring ARCO to conduct an
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) and complete a removal action at
the Anaconda Tailings Site.
The Anaconda Tailings Removal Action, which occurred from 1993 to
1997, consolidated the lead tailings from a 96-acre parcel to the western end of the
site where they were capped with a HDPE liner, clay, and soils. Also included in
the capped area were the soils excavated from ARCO projects along Bingham
Creek during Phases II and HI. Run-off and run-on controls were installed to
prevent water from entering the site, and to prevent erosion of the cap into
Bingham Creek during storm events. The facility was designed to withstand a
100-year storm event.
ARCO has agreed to perform long-term maintenance of the capped
repository. In addition, Salt Lake County has agreed to use its authorities in land
use planning, zoning, and building permits to insure that the cap integrity is not
compromised.
10
-------
b. Bastian Ditch
The Bastian Ditch was constructed in the 1880's to convey irrigation
waters from Bingham Creek to ranch and farm land south of the creek The ditch
captured tailings that entered the creek upstream of the diversion. When Utah
Apex constructed their tailings impoundment in 1914, the farmers also used the
tailwaters for .rngation. Historical records indicate that the tailwaters were not
free of contamination. Remnants of the ditch could be seen along the south side of
the Anaconda Tailings and on Kennecott lands south of the Anaconda Tailings.
The tailings deposited in the Bastian Ditch were removed by Kennecott and
ARCO on their respective lands. ARCO placed these tailings in the main ARCO
tailings capped repository. Kennecott hauled the tailings from their sections of the
ditch to the Bluewater Repository.
ARCO performed its cleanup of the Bastian Ditch under the provisions of
Unilateral Administrative Order CERCLA VIII 93-06. Kennecott performed its
cleanup under the provisions of Administrative Order on Consent CERCLA VIE
98-09 under which Kennecott agreed to perform response actions at several areas
including a portion of the Bastian Ditch.
4. Copperton Soils (Operable Unit 10)
Historical photographs reveal that the eastern end of the town of Copperton was
built on a tailings deposit. The tailings may have come from the experimental Utah
Copper mill built in 1903, but this is not known for certain. EPA investigated the area in
1994, and determined that this section of town had, in fact, been built on mine wastes but
the concentrations of hazardous substances were low and well beneath action levels for
residential property. EPA determined that no action was required.
5.
Bingham Canyon Historic Facilities (Operable Unit 11)
Mineral resources were discovered in Bingham Canyon in 1863. It was not long
before the canyon and its tributaries were covered with small mining milling and
processing operations. The ores near the surface contained gold, silver, lead zinc and
copper. A wide variety of mineral processing techniques were used by the mills depending
on the requirements of the specific ore. Typically, wastes were simply dumped directly
into the creek or impounded along the banks of the creek.
In 1903, Utah Copper began open pit operations in the Canyon and bought the
mining claims as their pit operations grew. Today, most, but not all, of these historic sites
11
-------
have been subsumed by the pit itself or buried under the Bingham Canyon Mine waste
rock dumps.
In 1993, EPA began compiling a list of the facilities known to have operated in the
canyon. In 1995, Kennecott began to characterize the sites by describing the locations
what was known about the operations there,' and where their wastes were located If the
site was accessible (not buried by waste rock or subsumed by the pit), Kennecott collected
samples to determine what hazardous substances were left by these operations. This
activity was performed under the provisions of the Kennecott/EPA/UDEQ Memorandum
of Understanding signed in September, 1995. The results of the characterization of
historic facilities are in three reports called On-Site Environmental Assessments. EPA and
UDEQ used the results of this study to determine if cleanups were needed.
EPA and UDEQ concluded that each facility in Bingham Canyon fell into one of
several broad categories: (1) facilities whose footprints no longer exist because they have
been mined away by the growing Bingham Pit; (2) facilities whose footprints have been
buned by waste rock from the Bingham Mine or have been buried underneath a current
operating facility; (3) facilities which could be characterized but any contamination found
was consistent with the current land use and did not require cleanup; (4) facilities which
were characterized and required cleanup; (5) facilities which were found not to have
operated and therefore produced no wastes; (6) facilities which were located in areas
which were cleaned up during CERCLA and non-CERCLA cleanups' and (7) current
facilities.
Facilities whose footprints no longer exist because they have been mined away as
the pit grew are:
Utah Apex Mill
Rogers Mill #1 and #2
Boston Consolidated Mill
Stewart #2 Mill
Columbia Copper Mill
Jordan Mill
Spanish Mill
Telegraph Mill
Silver Shield Mill
Bingham Gold
Utah Concentrator
Utah Mill
Brooks Mill
Durrant Mill
Eagan and Bates Mill
What Cheer Mill
12
-------
Murphy Mill
Boston Launder (exact location unknown)
Apex Yard Launder
Ohio Copper Launder
Copper Center Gulch Launder
Main Canyon Launder (exact location unknown)
A Pit Launder (exact location unknown)
Drain Tunnel Launder (exact location unknown)
Ingersoll Gulch Launder
Starless Launder
Copper Placer Launder
Utah Smelter
Winnamuck Smelter
Several of the historic sites were buried by the Bingham Mine Waste Rock Dumps
or current facilities. At these sites, any wastes left by these operations were buried and no
longer accessible for sampling or remediation:
Lead Mine Mill
Utah Copper Mill
Winnamuck Mill
Markham Mill
Walls Mill
Shawmut Mill
Highland Boy Mill
Bingham-New Haven Copper and Gold Mill
Last Chance Mill
New England Gold and Copper Mill
Stewart Mill
Bemis Mill
West Mountain Mining Co. Mil!
Bingham Mining and Milling
Utah Consolidated Gold Mill
Heaston Concentrator Jigs
Massasoit Mill
Bingham New England Mill
Tiewaukee Dump Launder
McGuires Gulch Launder
Galena Gulch Launder
Winnamuck Precipitation Plant
Cuprum Yard Plant
13
-------
Watsons Jig
Darrenugue Jig (mobile facility)
Verona Uranium -
The footprint of a few sites was available for characterization, but the
concentrations of hazardous substances were sufficiently low to present little threat at
their land use. These sites included:
Copperton Dumps
Yampa Smelter
In one case, a facility was found that needed cleanup. This facility, operated by
Proier to process cans for use in precipitation plants, has not been fully cleaned up and is
therefore excluded from this decision document.
One site, the Zinc Concentrator, was investigated and no wastes were found at the
site. It was later learned that the mill facility had been built but never operated.
Several facilities on the comprehensive facility list were cleaned up as a part of the
Bingham Creek Channel cleanup or decommissioned by the Utah Division of Radiation
Control. The facilities required no further action. These facilities were:
Robbe Cells
McGregor Plant
New York and Utah Mill
Revere Smelter
Mixed Tailings
Yellow Cake Plant
Although the mining and ore processing facilities which are still currently active
may have hazardous substances at their locations, these were not systematically
characterized and are therefore excluded from this decision document. This category
includes, but is not limited to, the following facilities in Bingham Canyon:
Bingham Canyon Open Pit Mine
Bingham Canyon Mine Waste Rock Dumps
Barneys Canyon Gold Mine
Copperton Concentrator
Kennecott Precipitation Plant
Truck and rail maintenance shops
Dry Fork Electrowining facility
East-side Collection System
14
-------
Dry Fork Collection System
Bingham Canyon Collection System
Information about the status of each of these historic facilities has been forwarded
to Salt Lake County who has agreed to use its land use planning, zoning, and building
permit authorities to manage the Bingham Canyon historic sites area in the future.
6. Bastian Sink (Operable Unit 17)
The Bastian Sink contains elevated levels of lead and arsenic due to receiving
irrigation waters from Bingham Creek and tail waters from the Anaconda Tailings Water
was conveyed to the area by the Bastian Ditch. There are estimates of 800,000 cubic
yards of lead and arsenic contaminated sediments in the Bastian Sink area This area was
characterized by ARCO under the provisions of the Unilateral Administrative Order for
Anaconda Tailings. Approximately 22% of the area was found to have elevated lead and
arsenic above residential action levels.
Because the current land use of this area is agriculture, and the zoning is industrial
the lead and arsenic do not pose a significant current risk. There are no future plans to
develop this site for residential purposes. The City of South Jordan has agreed to provide
long term management of the site using its land use planning, zoning, and building permit
authorities.
C. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Administrative Record original documents are housed in the EPA Region VHI
Superfund Records Center, and an information repository is available at UDEQ. EPA and
UDEQ also established and maintained a local information repository. Originally the
repository was at the West Jordan Library until it exceeded the storage capacity of the
library. Then it was relocated to West Jordan City Hall.
A site-wide community relations plan was completed in 1991 by UDEQ.
Residents were kept informed via public meetings, neighborhood meetings
individual meetings with impacted homeowners, availability sessions where the residents
could receive information concerning blood leads and soil concentrations letters and fact
sheets. In addition EPA and UDEQ responded to requests for information on real estate
and other related issues via phone, fax, and mail. The proposed plan indicating EPA's and
UDEQ's preferred approach for this area was mailed to all residents impacted by the
various actions, as well as public officials, and the media.
15
-------
EPA and UDEQ worked closely with the Cities of West Jordan and South Jordan
and Salt Lake County to develop protocols for long-term protection of the remedies using
existing local ordinances covering land use planning, zoning, and building permits
Alternative approaches were discussed and documented.
EPA and UDEQ established a site wide Risk Assessment Task Force to provide a
forum by which national and local experts could discuss risk assessment issues and
propose studies to resolve the issues. Citizens of Bingham Creek neighborhoods
contributed home grown vegetables to aid in these studies. One farmer participated in a
study of the uptake of lead and arsenic in wheat grains. Prior to setting a final action level
for residential properties, affected residents were invited to a meeting to discuss several
issues, including land use and uncertainties in risk calculations. Several approaches were
proposed by EPA and UDEQ. The property owners evaluated their options and indicated
which approach they preferred. The final action level for residential properties
incorporated their recommendations.
EPA and UDEQ briefed city, county, state legislative, and congressional officials
as requested.
A public meeting regarding the Proposed Plan with EPA's and UDEQ's preferred
alternative (No further action) was held on May 13, 1998, at West Jordan City Hall A
responsiveness summary to the comments received is provided in Section III.
D. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
The Kennecott South Zone Site, proposed for the National Priorities List is
composed of approximately 13 Operable Units which encompass geographical areas or
med.a-spec.fic issues. This Record of Decision covers 6 Operable Units (or portions
thereof) within the Kennecott South Zone Site.
1. Bingham Creek (Operable Unit 1) includes surface soil contamination within
the channel and flood plain of Bingham Creek;
2. Large Bingham Reservoir (Operable Unit 4) includes the Large Bingham
Reservoir and Small Bingham Reservoir located at the mouth of Bingham Canyon;
3. Anaconda Tailings (Operable Unit 5) includes the surface and near surface
contamination from an historic tailings impoundment of Utah Apex Mill, located upstream
in Bingham Canyon and the Bastian Ditch;
4. Copperton Soils (Operable Unit 10) which includes surface soil contamination
on the east side of the community of Copperton;
16
-------
5. Bingham Canyon Historic Facilities (Operable Unit 11) which includes historic
milling and smelting facilities located in Bingham Canyon; and
6. Bastian Sink (Operable Unit 17) includes the Bastian Sink which received
tailwaters from the Anaconda Tailings Site. ,
Groundwater underneath these areas (Operable Unit 2) will be addressed in a
separate action. Surface contamination, surface impoundments, and other waste piles at
other geographical locations in the Kennecott South Zone have been addressed in separate
actions, including, for example, Butterfield Canyon, Lark, and the South Jordan
Evaporation Ponds.
Also not addressed in this Record of Decision are current mining facilities
including, but not limited to, the Bingham Mine, the Bingham Mine Waste Rock Dumps
(Eastside, Westside, Dry Forks, etc.), Copperton Precipitation Plant, Copperton
Concentrator, and current truck and rail facilities.
The Denver and Rio Grande/Southern Pacific/Union Pacific railroad right of way
between Midvale and Bingham Canyon is specifically excluded from this decision
document. A separate action may be needed, particularly if this line is abandoned.
The former Proler facility located to the east of the Copperton Cemetery on the
banks of Bingham Creek channel is also excluded from this decision document. A
separate action may be needed at this site.
The selected remedy for the Bingham Creek and Canyon facilities (OUs 1, 4, 5, 10
11, and 17 or portions thereof) of the overall Kennecott South Zone is "no further'
action" because the risks to human health and the environment have been eliminated
through previous removal actions, land use/building permit controls, and/or the wastes are
inaccessible and do not pose a risk to human health or the environment.
E. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
1. Known or suspected sources:
Bingham Creek originates in the Oquirrh Mountains where mineral resources were
discovered in 1863. At first, the minerals were retrieved by digging underground shafts
and tunnels. Later, open pit mining techniques were developed and used. The waste rock
generated from the sinking of the tunnels or open pit excavations was disposed of near the
portal or edge of each mine. Although some mining companies shipped their ores outside
the canyon for further processing, others built mineral processing facilities near their
mines. Wastes from the processing, mill tailings and smelter slag were disposed of into
17
-------
the creek itself where they were washed downstream. Wastes were also placed in piles or
impoundments along the banks of the creek where they, too, were subject to erosion and
redeposition downstream. Because of the small particle sizes, mill tailings were
particularly prone to erosion and movement downstream.
a.
Mills
The following table gives details about the mills which were known to have
operated in Bingham Canyon or its tributaries:
HISTORIC MILLS IN BINGHAM CANYON
Name
Lead Mine
Mill
Utah Copper
Company
Mill
Winnamuck
Mill
Markham
Mill
Walls Mill
Shawmut
Mill
Years of
Operation
1882-1896
1904-1910
1877-1913
1893-1917
1874-1911
1900-1902,
1906-1907
Processes
Used
grinding,
smelting
grinding,
gravity
separation
grinding,
gravity
separation,
cyanide
leaching
Milling
Grinding,
gravity
separation
Grinding,
gravity
separation
Ore
Processed
Pb/Au/Ag
Cu
Pb/Au/Ag
Pb
Pb/Ag/Au
Pb/Ag/Au
Volume of
Wastes
produced*
46,667 tons
1 .4 million
tons
122, 500 tons
76,000 tons
11 6,667 tons
8333 tons
Current
Status
Buried by
current
Kennecott
Precipitation
Plant
Partially
buried by
waste rock
Buried by
waste rock
and rail lines
Buried by
waste rock
Buried by
waste rock
Buried by
waste rock
18
-------
Utah Apex
Mill
Grinding,
gravity
separation,
oil flotation
1.421 million
Subsumed by
Rogers Mill
Grinding,
gravity
separation
Pb/Au/Ag/Cu
42,000 tons
Subsumed by
the pit
Boston 1906-1910
Consolidated
Mill
49,739 tons Subsumed by
the pit
Stewart #2
Mill
Grinding,
amalgam-
ation, cyanide
leaching
41,667 tons
Subsumed by
the pit
Highland Boy 1895-1898
Mill
20,900 tons
^—^——^—^——
45,000 tons
Buried by
waste rock
cyanide leach
Grinding,
flotation
Buried by
waste rock
New Haven
Subsumed by
the pit
ore capacity
= 120
tons/day
Copper Mill
Last Chance
36,000 tons
Buned by
waste rock
New England
Gold and
Copper Mill
Grinding,
gravity
separation
Ag/Au/Pb/Cu
Subsumed by
the pit or
buried by
waste rock
ore capacity
= 50 tons/day
Jordan Mill 1879-1900
Grinding,
gravity
separation,
amalgam-
ation, cyanide
61,364 tons
Subsumed by
the pit.
Stewart Mill
Grinding,
amalgam-
ation, cyanide
68,571 tons
Subsumed by
pit, or buried
by dumps
19
-------
Spanish Mill
Telegraph
Mill
Bemis Mill
West
Mountain
Mining
Concentrator
Silver Shield
Mill
Bingham
Mining and
Milling Co
Utah
Consolidated
Gold Mine
Mill
Bingham
Gold Mining
Co
Utah
concentrator
Heaston
Concentrator
Jigs
Massasoit
Mill
Utah Mill
1874-1901
1876-1914
1898-1905
1890-?
1910-1913
1890-?
1897-1905
1895-1896
1874-1876
1896-1910
1893-1911
1874-1876
Grinding,
gravity
separation,
cyanide
Grinding,
cyanide
Grinding,
gravity
separation
grinding,
cyanide leach
Cyanide
leaching
Milling
Milling
Milling
Pb/Zn/Au/Ag
Pb/Au/Ag
Cu
Au/Ag/Cu
Au
Pb/Au/Ag
Pb/Au/Ag
Pb
Pb/Au/Ag
63,333 tons
9 1,200 tons
ore capacity
= 120
tons/day
ore capacity
= 60 tons/day
ore capacity
= 100
tons/day
ore capacity
= 100
tons/day
600 tons
4 127 tons
ore capacity
= 200
tons/day
600 tons
Subsumed by
the pit
Subsumed by
the pit
Buried by the
6 190 truck
shops
Buried by
waste rock
Subsumed by
the pit
Subsumed by
the pit or
buried by
waste rock
Buried by
waste rock
Subsumed by
the pit
Subsumed by
the pit
Buried by
waste rock
Buried by
waste rock
Subsumed by
the pit
20
-------
Brooks Mill
Durrani Mill
Eagan and
Bates Mill
Bingham
New England
Mill
What Cheer
Mill
Murphy Mill
CW Watson
Jig
Darrenugue
J'g
NY and Utah
Mill
1899- 1900
1877-1879
1877-1879
1905-1913
1874-1875
1874
1880
1906
1878-1881
Milling
Grinding,
Amalgam-
ation
Grinding
Milling
Grinding
Grinding,
gravity
separation
gravity
separation
gravity
separation
roast, leach
Pb/Au/Ag
Pb'/Au/Ag
Pb/Ag/Au
Pb/Ag/Au
Pb
Au
Au/Cu
Au/Ag
4 167 tons
4 167 tons
16, 667 tons
48,000 tons
Subsumed by
the pit
Subsumed by
the pit
Subsumed by
the pit
Subsumed by
the pit or
buried by
waste rock
Subsumed by
the pit
Subsumed by
the pit
Buried by
waste rock
Mobile
facility,
Buried by
waste rock
Cleaned up
during BC
Phase II
tion
b. Smelters
The following smelters were known to have operated in or near Bingham Canyon-
Utah Smelter, Winnamuck Smelter, Revere Smelter, and Yampa Smelter.
21
-------
HISTORIC SMELTERS
Site Name
Utah Smelter
Winnamuck
Smelter
Revere Smelter
Yampa Smelter
Years of
Operation
1871-1873
1867-1870
1880-1881
1903- 1910
Ore processed .
Pb/Ag/Au
capacity = 45
tons/day
Pb/Ag capacity
= 30 tons/day
Ag/Pb
Cu capacity =
1 000 tons/day
Process used
smelting, blast
furnaces
smelting,
cupola and
blast furnaces
roasting and
cyanide
leaching
roasting,
reverberatory
and blast
furnaces,
converting
Current status
subsumed by
the Bingham
Pit
Buried by
waste rock
Cleaned up as
part of the
Bingham Creek
Phase II action
Buried by
waste rock
c. Precipitation launders
Precipitation launders also operated in the canyon. Once it was discovered that
copper in solution from mine wastes could be recovered by reaction with scrap iron, many
devices were installed in the canyon to precipitate the copper. Most were built and'
operated during the period 1913 - 1925. Many of the precipitation plants obtained the
iron needed from Hewletts Cannery in Salt Lake City and later from a source in California.
There are some uncertainties as to the exact location of many of these sites in the Bingham
Canyon area. In 1926, the total shipments for wet precipitation from all sources amounted
to 3.79 million pounds and the gross copper content amounted to 1.989 million pounds.
Waters from acid mine drainage were treated to recover the copper and the spent
waters were discharged into Bingham Creek. The treatment served only to remove
copper, not other metals. Two secondary uranium recovery plants took minewaters
previously stripped of their copper to recover uranium. These spent waters were also
discharged to Bingham Creek.
22
-------
PRECIPITATION LAUNDERS
Name
Boston Mine
Apex Yard
Ohio Copper
Mine
Ute Copper
Tiewaukee
Dump
McGuires Gulch
Galena Gulch
Years of
Operation
1913 -?
1916-?
1920s- 193 7
1925-1927
1919-1927?
1922- 1927?
Process
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Product
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Current Status
location
unknown
subsumed by pit
J r
The launder was
in the shaft of
the mine, the
discharge was
sent to Mascotte
Tunnel at Lark.
The mine has
been subsumed
by the pit.
(Mascotte
Tunnel
discharges are
not addressed in
this decision
document.)
Buried by waste
rock
Buried by waste
rock
The upper
portion of the
gulch is buried
by waste rock;
the lower
portion has been
subsumed by the
Pit.
23
-------
Copper Center
Gulch
Main Canyon
A Pit
Drain Tunnel
Ingersoll Gulch
Starless
McGregor Plant
Robbe Cells
Winnamuck
Copper Placer
1921-1927?
1922- 1929?
1923 - 1929?
1923- 1929?
1922- 1929?
?
1933-1936
1936-1958
1892 -?
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Precipitation
cells using scrap
iron
Precipitation
cells using scrap
iron
Precipitation
launder using
scrap iron
Treated waters
from the Starless
Mine
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
„
Subsumed by the
pit
Location
unknown
subsumed by the
pit
Location
unknown
Subsumed by the
pit
Subsumed by the
pit
Buried by a later
operation called
Robbe Cells,
area was cleaned
up during
Bingham Creek
Phase II.
Cleaned up
during Bingham
Creek Phase H.
Buried by waste
rock
Subsumed by
Bingham Pit
24
-------
Cuprum Yard
Verona Uranium
Mill
Yellow Cake
Plant
1927-7
1969-1973
1960s- 1989
Precipitation
plant using scrap
iron
Ion exchange,
solvent
extraction
Ion exchange
Cu
Uranium oxide
Uranium oxide
One portion has
been subsumed
by the pit; the
other portion is
buried by waste
rock
Plant
decommissioned
in 1983, site
now mostly
buried by waste
rock
cleaned up in
1995
d.
Minor sources
2.
The pattern of distribution indicates that mining wastes from these upstream
sources were the prime contributors of lead and arsenic to the channel and floodplairi of
Bingham Creek. Minor airborne sources could contribute small amounts of these metals
including use of lead arsenate pesticides, fallout from use of leaded fuels and fallout from
smelters not located in Bingham Canyon.
e. Sources specific to Anaconda Tailings
The sources of the contamination at Anaconda Tailings, the Bastian Ditch and the
Bastian Sink are the Utah Apex Mill, the Bingham-New Haven Mill, their successors and
other mills upstream of the Utah Apex Mill's flume. The Anaconda Tailings was formerly
a tailings impoundment designed to contain the tailings from the Utah Apex and Bingham-
New Haven Mills and coincidentally also the tailings of all of the mills upstream of the
Utah Apex Mill's flume. After passing through the impoundment, waters from the mills
were discharged back to Bingham Creek, or diverted via the Bastian Ditch southward for
irrigation use purposes. Historic records suggest that the tailwaters, even after passing
through the impoundment settling basins were still contaminated with tailings The Bastian
Sink, a topographic low near Bingham Creek, was apparently used as a catchment basin
tor tailwater overflows.
Groundwater:
The lead and arsenic present in tailings deposited downstream from Bingham Canyon is
generally not very leachable. Although the principal aquifer underneath this area is contaminated
25
-------
with sulfates, acid, and metals, the source of the groundwater contamination is related to leakages
of acid leachates produced by oxidation of metallic sulfides. Metal sulfides are still present at
depth in the Anaconda Tailings. For this reason, the Anaconda Tailings were capped with HDPE
clay and soils to prevent water and oxygen from penetrating into the sulfides. Without water and'
oxygen, the production of acid leachates is prevented and the wastes do not mobilize to
groundwater.
The contaminants of concern and principal threats at the Large Bingham Reservoir include
lead and arsenic, but also highly acidic waters and a variety of other metals. The acidic waters
were produced through oxidation of pyritic minerals in waste rock dumps. In later years,
Kennecott collected most of the waters for copper recovery. Excess waters were stored'in the
Large Bingham Reservoir. These waters leaked through the sides of the Large Bingham
Reservoir into the groundwater producing an acidic plume of groundwater elevated in acid,
sulfates and metals. The original reservoir was taken out of service in 1991 and replaced with a
lined facility.
The groundwater contamination is being addressed in a separate action.
3. Contaminants of concern
The contaminants of concern and principal threats at Bingham Creek, Anaconda Tailings
Bastian Sink, Copperton Soils, and Bingham Canyon were lead and arsenic, both of which are
components of mill tailings and smelter emissions. The majority of contamination was in the
form of various metallic salts found in soils at varying depths along the Bingham Creek drainage
as it departs Kennecott property and travels east to the Jordan River that courses north to the
Great Salt Lake. These metals have been detected in groundwater along with acid and sulfate
and surface water and plants have also been shown to contain lesser amounts of the metal
contaminants. The metals were present in soils at potentially toxic concentrations, were mobile in
the surface soils from mostly surface water erosion, but also from minor airborne transport and
posed both non-cancer and cancer risks. The risk-driver was soil-lead, which primarily poses
adverse risks to normal neurologic development in young children when over-exposure occurs
Lead and arsenic also have some (quite uncertain) carcinogenic potential, but the risks of these
adverse cancer effects are relatively low and would be addressed (to less than 10E-4 to 10E-6) by
the remediation of the relatively greater neurologic risks posed by excess exposures to soil-lead'
this confidence is due to repeated findings of statistically significant correlations of arsenic levels
with lead levels, where arsenic was present at about 4% the level of lead in soils
26
-------
4. Volumes and concentrations of contaminants, extent of contamination.
Specific details about the site characteristics for each area are given below:
AREA
Bingham Creek
Phase I (OU 1)
(Residential
soils)
Bingham Creek
Phase2(OUl)
(Channel)
Bingham Creek
PhaseS (GUI)
(Residential
soils)
Lower Bingham
Creek (OU1)
Large Bingham
Reservoir (OU4)
Anaconda
Tailings (OU5)
ACTION
Removal of
contaminated
surface soils
Removal or
capping of
contaminated
soils, sediments,
tailings
Removal of
contaminated
surface soils
no action taken
Removal of
contaminated
sludges, tailings,
and subsoil, new
reservoir
constructed with
triple lining with
leak detection
Consolidation of
tailings into a
capped
repository
LAND USE
residential
recreational,
open space,
industrial,
residential
residential
Current land use
is industrial and
agricultural.
Future land use
is the same, also
recreational and
open space.
Industrial/mining
Industrial
ACTION
LEVEL
2500 ppm Pb in
soils (interim)
2000 ppm Pb in
soils (final)
1 1 00 ppm in
soils (final)
No action level
no action level,
1000 ppm lead
was used as
guide
2000 ppm Pb in
tailings
DEPTH OF
EXCAVATION
Maximum 12 -
1 8 inches,
tapering upward
near trees or
buildings
Maximum 3 feet
required. Actual
depths
sometimes
exceeded 20 feet
Maximum 18
inches.
No excavation
20-30 feet
excavated
Height of
tailings in the
repository was
40 feet.
27
-------
Bastian Ditch
(OU5)
Copperton Soils
(OU 10)
Historic
Bingham
Canyon Facilities
(OU11,
portions)
Bastian Sink
(OU 17)
Removal of
contaminated
ditch sediments
No action taken
No action taken
No action taken
Industrial/open
space
Residential ,
Industrial/mining
Current land use
is agricultural.
Future land use
is agricultural,
open space,
recreation or
municipal waste
disposal
2000 ppm Pb in
sediments
No action level,
1 1 00 ppm lead
used as guide
No action level
No action level
Maximum 3 feet
No excavation
needed, highest
lead value was
less than 300
ppm
No excavation,
historic sites are
largely
inaccessible.
No excavation
For those areas which required cleanup, site characteristics of the areas prior to the
cleanup are summarized below:
AREA
Bingham Creek
Phase 1 (OU1)
Bingham Creek
Phase2(OUl)
Bingham Creek
Phase3(OUl)
Large Bingham
Reservoir (OU4)
Contaminated
area
52 residences
9 linear miles of
creek channel
84 residences
80 acres
Volumes
removed or
addressed
74,000 cy
1, 048,000 cy
1 00,000 cy
2,660,000 cy
Maximum Pb
17,000 ppm
4 1,600 ppm
16,000 ppm
3, 150 ppm
Maximum As
630 ppm
471 ppm
28
-------
Anaconda Tails
(OU5)
Bastian Ditch
(Kennecott)
(OU5)
Bastian Ditch
(ARCO) (OU5)
96 acres
1/4 linear mile
1 linear mile
-1, 530,000 cy
5,850 cy
3 9,000 cy
31,800ppm
28,000 ppm
20,307 ppm
2,230 ppm
1,100 ppm
Site characteristics of the areas where no action was needed are given below:
AREA
Lower Bingham
Creek (portion
ofOUl)
Copperton Soils
(OU 10)
Historic
Bingham
Canyon facilities
(OU11)
Contaminated
area
~23 acres
none
original
locations spread
over an 11,000
acre area
Approximate
volume
36,600 cy
none
Original
production
records indicate
in excess of
3, 8 14,000 tons
Lead distribution
Surface:
34% above 2000
ppm lead
median - 1400
ppm
average- 1801
ppm
All lead values
were lower than
253 ppm lead,
significantly
lower than the
Bingham Creek
final action level
of 11 00 ppm
lead
unknown -
original wastes
are inaccessible
for study
Land Use
agricultural and
industrial
residential
industrial/mining
29
-------
Bastian Sink
(OU 17)
~30 acres
48,400 cy
r
Surface:
22% above 2000
ppm
median = 897
ppm
average =1347
ppm
Depth = 1 foot
or less
agricultural
5. Migration pathways.
At mills, the ore is crushed and ground into small particle sizes and the economic minerals
are separated out via flotation, leaching, or gravity separation. The non-economic particles are
typically slurried to the nearest water body or tailings pond. The particle sizes are of a range
easily transported by water. The tailings were washed downstream and then were deposited in
the flpodplain downstream as the waters receded. At some locations, the layer of tailings was
thin; in other locations near the channel, the tailings could be 20 feet thick. Agricultural practices
along the creek mixed the tailings into the soils. Residential neighborhoods were built on the
Bingham Creek floodplain. Because of the small size of the tailings particles, resuspension and
remobilization during flood events or rainstorms was a distinct possibility. Although the upper
portions of the creek passes through industrial and agricultural land, the channel in these areas
was cleaned up also because of the possibility that these wastes could move into downstream
neighborhoods.
F. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
1. Data and Studies used for estimating risk.
Parties involved with this site generated some of the most comprehensive, efficient,
and cost-beneficial data associated with a Superfund risk evaluation. Risk managers
recognized the value of early and focused involvement of stakeholders and risk assessors,
and initial working committees were established that proved quite successful: (1) the Risk
Assessment Task Force; and (2) the Ecological Technical Assistance Group. Members
had relevant scientific expertise, avoided excessive legal and policy biases, and fully
represented science issues for the involved parties. Local, regional, and national experts
participated in these committees.
The Risk Assessment Task Force recommended that the following studies and data
collection be performed to be used in EPA decisions at these sites:
(1) nature and extent of contamination; (2) fate and transport of the contaminants from
their source areas to where they were ultimately found; (3) geochemical speciation of the
metal salts; (4) determination of the bioavailability of lead and arsenic using the juvenile
30
-------
swine model; (5) garden vegetable uptake of co-located metals (both greenhouse and in-
situ studies were performed); (6) an extensive blood lead and urine arsenic study of
exposed, potentially exposed, and background children living in the area along with
appropriate statistics; (7) a study of the soil/household dust relationship in the area- (8)
statistics involving exposure frequency and duration at the site; and (9) a comparison of
several model predictions with actual distributions.
The IEUBK (Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic) Model was used with the
site specific data to develop a PRO (Preliminary Remediation Goal) of 1100 - 1300 ppm
lead in soil. The model predicted that this concentration range of lead in soil would yield
<5% of exposed children with 10 ug/dL or greater blood lead levels. EPA's risk
management goal dictates that cleanups should result in <5% of exposed children with
blood lead exceeding 10 ug/dL. The exact concentration of lead in soils and/or dust at any
site will vary depending on site specific conditions. In the case of Bingham Creek the
soils contained lead species such as lead phosphates which were less bioavailable in the
juvenile swine studies than assumed by the default value in the model. RMEs (Reasonable
Maximum Exposures) and Central Tendency Analyses were used in the model
calculations. Model results also revealed that the major exposure pathway for young
children at the site was soil ingestion, largely resulting from mouthing behavior Lead was
not detectable in the municipal water supply and ingestion of lead from homegrown
vegetables was also a minor pathway. For more detail, refer to the Bingham Creek Phase
III Endangerment Assessment.
The PRO range of 1100 ppm - 1300 ppm of lead in soils was presented to a
delegation of Bingham Creek residents. The reasons for the uncertainties were explained
(b.oavailabihty uncertainty, soil/dust variability, etc.). The residents preferred the more
conservative value given the uncertainty. Residents were also asked if action levels for
different land uses should be developed. They indicated that all of the land be considered
residential since the vacant and industrial lands were surrounded by residential property
They did not want the residential character of their neighborhoods to change.
The results of these studies, models, and public input were used to set a final
action level of 1100 ppm lead in soils for residential land use. Vacant lands within the
residential neighborhoods were considered to be residential. Vacant lands outside the
residential area were evaluated on the basis of their current and future land use The 2000
ppm lead level previously used in the removals at open space, recreational, and industrial
lands at this site was considered to be sufficiently protective for these land uses A
preliminary calculation performed recently with newer information and models confirms
that this level is protective for these land uses.
Arsenic was also identified as a contaminant of concern at these sites EPA
discovered that there was a strong relationship between the lead concentrations and the
arsenic concentrations in the soils with arsenic levels about 4% of the lead concentrations
31
-------
A few urine arsenic samples from the juvenile swine study (used primarily for lead
bioavailability) provided an estimate of arsenic bioavailability. Based on this and other site
specific conditions, a PRO (Preliminary Remediation Goal) of 100 ppm arsenic was
calculated. Again, the acceptable risk range for potential carcinogens in the National
Contingency Plan is 10E-4 to IOE-6. The action level set for arsenic at the Bingham
Creek residential sites was 100 ppm arsenic which is below the 10E-4 risk level. The
actual cleanup achieved levels significantly lower than this because the risk driver was
lead. Note that 4% of the lead action level of 1100 ppm Pb is 44 ppm arsenic. Other
contaminants (e.g. cadmium) were present at low levels below any risk-based
concentrations in soils.
2. Environmental Evaluation
The majority of this site had land uses that provided relatively little habitat for
wildlife where meaningful contact with hazardous contaminants would occur. Thus, a
qualitative ecological risk evaluation was performed by the EPA Region VTJ3 site
toxicologist in the Phase III Endangerment Assessment. Because the Bingham Creek
Phase I and Phase III areas and land-use were largely residential with limited opportunities
for exposure to wildlife, there were no specific sampling or monitoring on ecological
receptors. Kennecott did conduct a site-wide ecological risk assessment for those areas of
the larger Kennecott South Zone and North Zone which had substantial wildlife habitat.
Although those studies included both phytotoxicity and uptake estimations, the
information is not relevant to the portion of the site included in this decision document.
Although wildlife occasionally visit the area, the land is not primarily wildlife habitat. The
area is located in suburban cities near Salt Lake City. Bingham Creek is normally dry
except following storm events. The creek serves mainly as a drainage ditch and does not
support aquatic life. Aquatic impacts in the Jordan River are possible following storm
events or floods. The Jordan River is not covered in this decision document and impacts
there were not evaluated. Thus, EPA concludes that there are no actual or threatened
releases from these OUs that pose a present or potential future threat to the environment
within the coverage of this document.
3. Rationale for the no action decision
The no action decision for the OUs covered in this decision document is based on
four considerations: (1) at some OUs, the removal actions were designed to achieve final
remedial cleanup goals; (2) at one OU, initial studies revealed that the concentrations of
contaminants were not high enough to pose a risk to health; (3) in several locations, the
land use was not residential currently or anticipated to be residential and there is little
exposure; or (4) at one OU, the waste locations were not accessible to the public or
workers.
32
-------
There were three OUs at which removal actions were designed to accomplish both
short term and long term remediation goals. This was done primarily to avoid the need for
remobilization and thus reduce costs. At Bingham Creek (OU 1), before initiation of the
last removal action, there were extensive risk assessment and risk management activities to
determine a final action level of 1100 ppm lead. The work included excavation of
contaminated soils down to a maximum of 18 inches, replacement with clean soils, and
revegetation. The purpose of this action was to break the exposure pathway to young
children playing in their yards. The affected cities agreed voluntarily to use their land use
and building permit authorities to prevent disturbance of any underlying contamination. In
addition, contamination remaining in Bingham Creek channel itself was removed down to
a depth of at least 3 feet, with remaining material capped under clean fill. This was done
not only to protect occasional visitors from direct contact with the wastes, but also
prevent downstream migration of the materials into residential neighborhoods during
storm conditions. A major goal of this project was to prevent any possible
recontamination of residential soils in the watershed. A final action level of 2000 ppm lead
was based on a recreational and open space land use. At Large Bingham Reservoir
(OU4), all contaminated sludges, tailings, and underlying soils were removed from the
site. The reservoir was then reconstructed using a triple lining system with leak detection.
In addition to the leak detection system, downgradient monitoring wells were also
installed. The continued integrity of the reservoir is covered under a state groundwater
permit which requires any leaks to be repaired. The primary goal of this project was to
prevent any future contamination of groundwater associated with this reservoir. At
Anaconda Tailings (ARCO Copperton Tailings, OUS), the tailings ponds were capped
with clay, geotextile liners, and soil to prevent infiltration of meteoric water into the
tailings. In addition the exterior of the capped repository was armored with rip rap, with
runoff and run on controls. The design of this remedy was to prevent any direct contact
with the waste by visitors, workers, and wildlife, to prevent any future migration of
contaminants to groundwater and to prevent any off-site migration associated with a 100-
year storm event. Maintenance of the facility is provided by the property owner, and Salt
Lake County is using its land use and building controls authorities to prevent disturbance
of the repository. At these areas, no further action is needed because the exposure
pathways and potential future exposure pathways have been virtually eliminated.
At one operable unit, Copperton Soils (OU 10), a residential area, studies revealed
that the concentrations of contaminants were not sufficiently elevated to pose a risk to
children. The highest lead contamination found in soils at this site was 253 ppm lead, well
beneath any level of concern.
At two locations. Lower Bingham Creek (a small portion of OU 1), and Bastian
Sink (OU 17), the land use is agricultural. For several reasons (unrelated to
contamination) these two areas are not attractive for future residential development. No
action was needed at these locations because exposure is very low and limited to episodic
visits by adults. In addition, average lead values for these areas are beneath 2000 ppm
33
-------
lead, the action level used for recreation and open space areas of the Bingham Creek
channel.
At one OU, Bingham Canyon Historic Facilities (OU 11), most of the facilities are
inaccessible to workers and visitors. This is in an area of active mining operations and the
older historic facilities have either been mined away by the open pit or have been buried by
waste rock from the newer mining activities. If wastes still exist in these locations, they
are not accessible and there are no exposure pathways. Where wastes remain at
concentrations of concern, they were specifically excluded from this no action decision
document.
4. Previous actions taken at the site to reduce unacceptable risks.
Previous response actions were taken in order to reduce or eliminate risks
at the site. No action was taken at certain areas where there was little risk, based on
present and future anticipated land use. The objectives of the response actions are
described below:
AREA
NATURE OF RESPONSE
RATIONALE
Bingham Creek
Phase 1 (OU1)
1. Removal of surface soils in
Bingham Creek residential areas
and neighborhood parks with lead
exceeding 2500 ppm down to a
maximum depth of 18 inches. This
was an interim emergency response.
2. Aid the city in development of
special conditions for building in
this area and provide the city with
details of waste locations.
1. A. Prevent exposures of children
to unacceptable levels of lead via
inadvertent ingestion of soils by
children sticking dirty toys or hands
into their mouths. Note: this interim
action was taken to remove the most
contaminated soils while scientific
studies were launched to determine
the final action level.
B. Prevent exposure of children and
adults to lead via ingestion of
homegrown produce grown in
contaminated soils.
2. Prevent recontamination of
surface soils during construction of
new buildings at the site.
34
-------
Bingham Creek
Phase 2 (OU1)
1. Removal of surface soils in
Bingham Creek channel with lead
exceeding 2000 ppm down to a.
depth of 3 feet. This was an
emergency response, but also :
designed to be a final action.
2. Erosion controls added to
protect the remedy.
3. Aid city in the development of
building permit conditions and
provide details of waste locations.
1. A. Prevent exposures of children
to unacceptable levels of lead via
inadvertent ingestion of soils due to
children putting dirty hands or toys
into their mouths. This area has
some recreational use by people in
nearby residential neighborhoods.
B. Prevent mobilization of
contaminated soils into downstream
neighborhoods during storm events.
2. Protect the cap from erosion
during storm events.
3. Prevent exposures due to
additional development along the
channel.
Bingham Creek
Phase 3 (OU1)
1. Removal of surface soils in
Bingham Creek residential areas
and neighborhood parks with lead
exceeding 1100 ppm down to a
maximum depth of 18 inches. This
was a final response. All
properties originally slated for
Bingham Creek Phase 1 but not
remediated due to access refusal
were also remediated. There were
no access refusals during this final
phase.
2. Aid city in the development of
special conditions for building in
this area to the city and provide
details of waste locations
1. A. Prevent exposures of children
to unacceptable levels of lead via
inadvertent ingestion of soils by
children sticking dirty toys or hands
into their mouths.
B. Prevent exposure of children and
adults to lead via ingestion of
homegrown produce grown in
contaminated soils.
2. Prevent recontamination of
surface soils during construction of
new buildings at the site.
35
-------
Lower Bingham
Creek (portion
of OU 1)
No action taken. Data on waste
locations were provided to the city
for possible use in redevelopment
planning for the area.
The location is in the Jordan River
floodplain and is currently
agricultural and industrial. This is a
Brownfields Site. There is no
current risk due to the land use. The
city is developing a master plan for
this area to ensure that any future
development does not increase
exposure to the waste.
Large Bingham
Reservoir (OU4)
Water drained from reservoir and
sludges, tailings, and contaminated
subsoils were removed. A new
facility was built using a triple lined
system (clay and two HOPE liners
with a leak detection between the
two HDPE layers). On-going
monitoring of leaks is required
under provisions of a state
groundwater permit.
This action was taken to eliminate a
source of groundwater
contamination and to prevent a
recurrence of leaks to groundwater.
Anaconda
Tailings (OU5)
1. Tailings were consolidated into
one area of the site and capped with
HDPE, clay, and soil. The action
level was 2000 ppm lead.
2. Rip-rap protects the upgradient
sides of the cap.
3. Run-on and run-off controls
were installed surrounding the cap.
1. A. Capping of the waste
prevents direct exposure of the
wastes to humans and wildlife thus
minimizing risk.
B. Capping of the waste with
impervious liners prevents
groundwater contamination and
potential health impacts to
downgradient well owners.
2. Reduces the potential for
migration of the waste downstream
during flood events.
3. Protects the cap from erosion
during rain events.
36
-------
Bastian Ditch
(portion of OU5)
1. All of the tailings were removed
from the ditch on ARCO property
and on Kennecott property
downgradient to the Randolph
Peterson Gate. The action level
was 2000 ppm (industrial land use)
1. A. Prevent direct exposure of the
wastes to humans and wildlife.
B. Prevents recontamination of
previously cleaned up sites
downgradient of the ditch.
Copperton Soils
(OU 10)
No action taken
Although historic tailings were
located toward the east side of
Copperton, no action was needed
because the concentrations of lead
were well beneath any health
concern.
Historic
Bingham Canyon
Facilities (OU
11)(except
those specifically
excluded from
this decision)
No action taken
Wastes remaining in Bingham
Canyon by historic facilities are no
longer accessible, and present no
risk to human health or the
environment. The wastes are either
subsumed by the pit (mined away),
buried by the current Kennecott
waste rock dumps, or buried by
current Kennecott support facilities.
The migration potential for wastes at
these sites is low. Note: the total
wastes produced at these historic
facilities is on the order of 3.8
million tons. The current waste rock
dump which buries these sites is
about 3.5 billion tons. Wastes from
historic sites, if buried, represent
0.1% of the total waste at the site.
37
-------
Bastian Sink
(OU 17)
No action was taken. The data will
be provided to the owners and the
county for use if the land use .
changes in the future.
There is no current risk at the site
because the land use is agricultural.
Ideas for future land use include
continued agricultural use, expansion
of the nearby Trans Jordan Landfill,
industrial use and open space. There
are no plans to use this area for
residential purposes due to its
location near waste storage and
disposal facilities. Special conditions
on building permits will prevent
exposures if the land use should
change in the future. Unlike
Bingham Creek, the migration
potential is low.
5.
Five Year Review Issues:
Several of the areas covered in this Record of Decision are subject to the 5-year
review process because there are wastes left in place. The issues for consideration are as
follows:
AREA
Bingham Creek (OU1)
Anaconda Tailings
(OU5)
Bastian Ditch (portion of
OU5)
5-YEAR REVIEW ISSUES
Wastes are left on a few properties. The wastes exist underneath a
soil cap. Construction activities on these properties with wastes
may require special conditions in building permits administered by
the cities. Is this concept continuing to work? Have residents
installed gardens in inappropriate locations? Are further
institutional controls needed for this? Are erosion controls in the
creek channel working? Has land use changed in lower Bingham
Creek?
Wastes are left in place underneath a cap composed of HDPE, clay
and soil and are protected by runoff and run-on controls. This
property is not suitable for development. Does the cap remain
protective?
Most of the wastes have been removed to repositories. The only
wastes remaining are under State Hwy 1 1 1 under road base and
asphalt. Do these conditions still remain?
38
-------
Bastian Sink (OU 17)
Wastes exist at the surface on about 30 acres of the 145 acres
surveyed; most of the wastes are confined to the top foot. Current
land use is agricultural.- Special conditions in building permits
administered by the county are required for any change in land use.
Has the land use changed? Is it compatible with the pattern of
existing contamination?
G. DESCRIPTION OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
EPA has determined that no further action is required at these operable units. For
Bingham Creek, Anaconda Tailings, Bastian Ditch and Large Bingham Reservoir, previous
response actions have eliminated the risks at these sites. For Bastian Sink, Copperton Soils,
Lower Bingham Creek and portions of Bingham Canyon Historic Facilities, no action is
appropriate due to lack of risk associated with current land uses.
H. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The selected remedy documented in this Record of Decision is the same as the preferred
alternative presented in the Proposed Plan. There were no significant changes.
39
-------
-------
ID. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION: -
The Proposed Plan explaining EPA's and UDEQ's preferred remedy for these portions of
the Kennecott South Zone was mailed to affected residents, public officials and media on May 1,
1998. An advertisement concerning the public meeting and the public comment period was
carried by the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News on May 6, 1998. The public meeting was
held on May 13, 1998, at West Jordan City Hall. Comments on EPA's and UDEQ's Proposed
Plan could be given orally at the public meeting or by writing to EPA. The public comment
period started on May 5, 1998, and closed on June 5, 1998.
ORAL COMMENTS DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING:
The public meeting agenda had four parts: (1) Introductions of EPA, BOR, UDEQ, City
of West Jordan, and Kennecott staff; (2) slide show and summary of cleanup activities and the
proposed alternative; (3) questions from the audience; and (4) the formal receipt of oral
comments.
There were no oral comments made during the formal comment section of the public
meeting.
WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO EPA:
One written comment was received by EPA during the public comment period.
COMMENTER: James L. Warlaumont, Esq.
Appel and Warlaumont
1100 Boston Building
9 Exchange Place
S alt Lake City, UT 84111
(Attorney for four families in Abeyta, et al. vs. ARCO, et al.
Civil Case #960901485CV)
DATE: June 5, 1998, received by EPA June 8, 1998
Mr. Warlaumont submitted some sampling data associated with JV-8 (3065 W 8600 S,
West Jordan), JV-10 (Candido Abeyta's former property, address not given) and JV-14 (2947 W
8600 S, West Jordan).
Responsiveness Summary
-------
He pointed out that the results indicate that "there are still many areas on these properties
where concentrations of minerals exceed the levels described on page 7 of the flyer [Proposed
Plan]." Page 7 refers to a final cleanup level of 1 lOOmg/kg lead in soil.
He requested that this information "be considered as part of the final remedy selection
process".
EPA RESPONSE:
The goal of the Bingham Creek residential Soil cleanup activities was to prevent the
exposure of residents and their children to unsafe amounts of lead and arsenic. EPA focused on
the top 6 inches of residential yards as the area where people were most likely to be exposed to
the contaminants in the soil. In designated garden areas, EPA focused on the top 18 inches to
allow for tilling of the soil. The specific goal of this cleanup was to bring the average
concentration within each exposure unit to beneath the action level of 1100 ppm lead in the
surface soils. The use of averages allowed EPA and the individual property owners some
flexibility in the design of the cleanup protocol for each property.
A complete removal of surface contamination requires removal of all trees, shrubs,
flowerbeds, fences and structures. Because the objective was to achieve the average
concentration within the yard, the homeowner could choose to save trees, shrubbery, decorative
walls, and other structures. EPA prepared detailed design drawings of the yards which depicted
all structures, tress, gardens, etc., in the yard. No construction work was begun on any property
until the homeowner and EPA agreed on which plants and structures would be saved and which
would be replaced. The drawings were altered to reflect these decision. The final designs were
approved in writing by each homeowner prior to implementation of the work.
In order to save the plants and structures designated by the homeowners, EPA often had
to use hand tools to carefully remove contaminated soils from around these items. However, it
was not possible to remove all the contamination without risking either killing the plants or
undermining the retained structures. Therefore, it was anticipated that some higher levels of
contamination would exist around those plants and structures although the average soil
concentration in the total yard would be at safe levels.
The new sampling data submitted to EPA indicates several spots where the concentrations
exceeded EPA's action level. This is not necessarily inconsistent with the cleanup objectives if
these samples were collected in the areas where the homeowners requested that the trees or walls
be saved. The maps showing sampling locations submitted along with the Commenter's data did
not show the location of these trees or walls. Therefore, EPA requested additional information
from the Commenter concerning the exact location of the samples relative to these plants and/or
structures. On July 24, 1998, the Commenter answered that the locations of these structures or
plants relative to the sampling locations were not available.
-------
The scale of the property maps and sampling locations submitted by the Commenter did
not permit a precise comparison of EPA's design drawings to these maps, but some rough
approximations could be made. EPA then evaluated the data submitted to determine whether
these results were consistent with (1) the goal of the removal action and (2) the specific individual
designs.
The goal of the removal action was to cut off the exposure route to the residents. While
EPA removed up to 18 inches in some locations, only 6 inches is needed to cut off the exposure
route, particularly in sodded lawn areas. The Commenter's data containing sampling results from
0-6 inches, 6-12 inches, 12-18 inches, and 18-24 inches. In presenting the statistics for these data,
the Commenter then presented tables in which the results from all depths were used. When this
technique is used, all of the yards had lead values in excess of EPA's final action level of 1100
ppm lead. However, EPA did not address any soils at the 18-24 inch depth and in some yards did
not address soils beneath 12 inches. When the Commenter's data from the crucial top 6 inches
alone are averaged, the story is different. In the top 6 inches, JV-8 contained an average of 761
ppm lead; JV-10 contained an average of 49 ppm lead; and JV-14 contained an average of 1557
ppm lead. Only in the yard of JV-14 did the top 6 inches of soil apparently average above the
1100 final action level. This assumes that representative sampling was conducted by the
Commenter. Further examination of the sampling map of JV-14 revealed that many of the
commenter's samples appeared to have been collected at or near plants or structures retained at
the owner's request. When these samples were deleted from the data set, the average lead level at
JV-14 dropped to 201 ppm lead.
In a more detailed examination, of the 10 sample locations at JV-8, two yielded samples
above action levels at the surface. Both of these two locations were near or at plants and
structures retained at the owner's request. Of the 8 sample locations at JV-10, none of the
samples exceeded action levels at the surface. Of the 10 sample locations at JV-14, five yielded
samples above the action levels at the surface. All five of these locations were near or at plants
and structures retained at the owner's request. EPA concludes that the overall goal of the
removal action to prevent exposure of the residents to unsafe levels of lead was achieved.
Next, EPA examined the Commenter's data to see if the results were consistent with the
original designs for these properties. In general, the original design for these properties called for
removal of the top 12 inches and replacement with clean soils. For JV-8, of the 10 samples, five
contained lead levels above the action level. Two of the five were near plants retained at the
owner's request; the other three were underneath gravel and road base. These results are
consistent with the design. For JV-10, of the 8 samples, five contained lead levels above the
action level. Of these five, one was near a plant retained at the owner's request; one was
underneath a gravel driveway; and two were close to or underneath the owner's house. One
sample was located, according to the Commenter's map, in a garden area. This garden is not
shown at all on the original detailed design drawings and must have been installed by the property
owner following the removal action. Furthermore, the original design drawing shows a third shed
located on JV-10, and the current drawing from the commenter shows that the shallow samples
-------
were collected in the vicinity of the shed that is no longer present. Also, soil from the crawl space
on JV-10 was removed to allow placement of a thin concrete cover (shot-crete). It is EPA's
understanding from the discussions with the original owner, that the owner removed some of the
concrete cover that EPA installed in the crawl space. For JV-14, of the 10 samples, nine
contained lead levels above the action level in the top 12 inches. Of these nine samples, seven
were collected at or near plants retained at the owner's request; and the other two were near
structures also retained at the owner's request.
EPA concludes that the sampling data submitted by the Commenter are consistent with the
original designs for these properties. It is clear that the garden at JV-10 was installed sometime
after the removal action was done because it is not shown on the original design. Because EPA
anticipated that in garden areas, the residents might till the ground, EPA excavated these areas
down to 18 inches and took care to note these areas on the design drawings. The situation is
complicated by the fact that property ownership has changed since the original remediation and
that a structure appears to have been removed and may have exposed some soil that could not be
accessed during the removal action. It is not clear whether the old property owner installed the
garden with full knowledge or new property owner installed the garden without this knowledge.
An attempt was made to clarify this situation by a visit to this property. No garden area could be
found. No action was taken.
Although these types of situations are inevitable, it is EPA's view that any disturbance of
the remedy is the ultimate responsibility of the homeowner. It may be necessary for a homeowner
to dig through the clean fill and bring up contaminated soils; however, it is also the responsibility
of the owner to replace the lead contaminated soil and clean cover or remove the newly exposed
contaminated soil to the locally permitted solid waste landfill. It is also the owners' responsibility
to inform any new owner that contamination does exist underneath the fill. In this case, the
homeowner should contact EPA or UDEQ to ascertain what he can do to protect his family from
the contamination caused by the disturbance of the remedy. In this case, the contamination is
beneath 6 inches, but root vegetables may penetrate into the contaminated zone and require
washing before ingestion.
EPA is making one addition in the decision document based on this comment. EPA will
recommend that during the 5 year review EPA determine if installation of gardens in inappropriate
places is a common occurrence and worthy of development of additional institutional controls.
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
±
>- 0 0
0 O 0
001.2
*
£00)0
*. a'" '"
& 0 C
££"o
E03S
0 O O
0£.£o
o
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
------- |