PB96-964304
EPA/ROD/R07-96/086
March 1997
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site,
Operable Units 2 and 3,
Jasper County, MO
8/1/1996
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site. Operable Units 2 and 3
Jasper County, Missouri
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared this decision document to
present the selected remedial action for residential yard soils in smelter and mining areas of the
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site located in Jasper County, Missouri. This decision was
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is
based on the Administrative Record for this Site. The Administrative Record file is located in the
following information repositories:
*
1. Joplin Public Library 3. Carl Junction City Hall
3 00 Main 105 North Main
Joplin, Missouri Carl Junction, Missouri
2. Webb City Public Library 4. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
101 South Liberty 726 Minnesota Avenue
Webb City, Missouri Kansas City, Kansas
The EPA has coordinated selection of this remedial action with the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Missouri Department of Health. The State of Missouri
concurs on the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This selected remedy deals with cleanup of contaminated soils in residential yards in areas
of historic smelting operations and in areas contaminated with mining and milling wastes. This
cleanup action is one part of the EPA's overall efforts under Superfund to deal with environmental
contamination resulting from historic mining and smelting operations in Jasper County.
Residential yards contaminated solely from other sources, such as lead-based paint, are not going
-------
to be addressed by this cleanup action, [n the future, additional cleanup actions for the Site will
deal with (1) contaminated ground water and drinking water supplies and (2) mining and milling
wastes in areas other than residential yards. This phased approach to cleanup is being used for
this Site in order to clean up the contamination which poses the greatest health threat first. The
EPA believes that the selected remedy will be consistent with future cleanups that will be done at
the Site.
The major components of selected remedy are:
• Excavation and replacement of residential yard soils
• Construction of a repository for excavated soil
• Sampling of additional residential yard in mining and smelter areas
• Establishing institutional controls for residential and day care center development
• Continuation of the ongoing health education program
• Conducting a phosphate stabilization treatability study
• Phosphate stabilization of yard soils if treatability study results are positive
\
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
element (if phosphate stabilization is proven effective). If phosphate is not utilized to treat soils,
then treatment of principal threats is not otherwise practical and this remedy does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as the principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on the Site above
health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of remedial
action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment.
Dejmis Grams, P.E.
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region VII
Dat
J /,
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
RESIDENTIAL YARD AND MINE WASTE YARD SOILS
OPERABLE UNITS 02 AND 03
ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT SITE
JASPER COUNTY, MISSOURI
Prepared by:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VTJ
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
June 1996
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Site Name, Location, and Description 1
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities 1
3.0 Highlights of Community Participation 2
4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Units 3
5.0 Site Characteristics 4
6.0 Summary of Site Risks 5
7.0 Remedial Action Objectives 5
8,0 Summary of the Alternatives 6
9.0 Evaluation of the Alternatives 6
9.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment 7
9.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) 8
9.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 8
9.4 Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 9
9.5 Implementabiiity 9
9.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 9
9.7 Cost 10
9.8 State Acceptance 10
9.9 Community Acceptance 10
10.0 Description of the Selected Remedy 10
10.1 Excavation and Disposal 11
10.2 Soil Repository 12
10.3 Additional Soil Sampling 12
10.4 Health Education 13
10.5 Phosphate Treatability Study 14
10.6 Phosphate Stabilization 14
10.7 Institutional Controls 15
-------
Table of Contents
(continued)
10.8 Operation and Maintenance 16
10.8.1 Repositories 16
10.8.2 Health Education 17
10.8.3 Monitoring 18
10.9 Five Year Review 18
10.10 Cost 18
11.0 Statutory Determinations
11.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 19
11.2 Attainment of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
of Environmental Laws 20
11.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs 20
11.2.2 Location-Specific ARARs 20
11.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs 20
11.3 Cost-Effectiveness 20
11.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technology to the Maximum Extent Practicable 21
11.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 21
12.0 Documentation of Significant Changes 21
22
Figure 1 Lead Contamination in Surface Soil, Joplin, Missouri
Figure 2 Jasper County Site Map 23
Table 1 Federal Chemical-Specific ARARS 24
Table 2 State Chemical-Specific ARARS 25
Table 3 Federal Location-Specific ARARS 26
Table 4 State Location-Specific ARARS 28
Table 5 Federal Action-Specific ARARS 29
Table 6 State Action-Specific ARARS 31
Table 7 Cost Summary for Excavation and Disposal
with Health Education and Institutional Controls 33
Table 8 Health Education for Jasper County 34
Table 9 Cost Analysis for Phosphate Stabilization 35
Attachment
Responsiveness Summary
1.0 Site Name, Location, and Description
-------
1.0 Site Name, Location, and Description
This Record of Decision (ROD) has been developed by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to select a remedial alternative for the cleanup of residential yard soils
in the Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site in Jasper County, Missouri (commonly known as the
Jasper County Site, herein the "Site"). This ROD is published in accordance with the
requirements of Section 117 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA, also referred to as the Superfund Law), 42 U.S.C. §9617.
Residential yards addressed by this ROD are located within the Jasper County Site, which
is pan of the Tri-State Mining District. The district covers hundreds of square miles in
southwestern Missouri, southeastern Kansas, and northeastern Oklahoma. Mining, milling, and
smelting of lead and zinc ore and concentrates date back to 1850 and continued in the district
until the 1970s. Mining, milling, and smelting activities generated several types of waste
materials, including mine wastes (waste rock, development rock, and overburden); mill wastes
(chat and fine tailings); and smelter-related materials (slag, clinker, flux, and air emissions). The
wastes from mining/milling and smelter operations contain residual metals, particularly lead,
cadmium, and zinc. Approximately nine million tons of mining/milling and smelter wastes remain
on the surface at the Site. Additionally, air emissions from historic smelters resulted in
contaminated soil surrounding the smelters.
The Tri-State district's historic lead and zinc production ranked as one of the highest in
the world, with a total ore production of more than 0.5 billion short tons. The Missouri portion
of the district accounted for more than 0.2 billion short tons of ore, 80 percent of which was
produced in Jasper County. According to the Dames & Moore reports, processing of the ore
resulted in approximately 150 million short tons of wastes, of which approximately 9 million short
tons remain today. The wastes contain residual metals, particularly lead, cadmium, and zinc.
Mining and milling using gravity-separation techniques occurred throughout the region while
smelting lead concentrates was, for the most part, conducted at smelters located in the towns of
Galena, Kansas and Joplin, Missouri. Historically, up to seventeen smelters were located in
Jasper County. By the turn of the century, only the Eagle-Picher smelter in northwest Joplin
remained in operation.
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities
The EPA added the Site to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1990. The NPL is the
EPA's list of sites which have the greatest contamination and pose the greatest threat to human
health and the environment. The Site has been divided into 11 separate areas for investigation
because of its large area, about 270 square miles. In 1991, the EPA began cleanup studies of the
Site with some work being conducted by the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under EPA
oversight. The EPA recently completed studies of the nature and extent of contamination in
residential yards, and an evaluation of different cleanup alternatives. The results of these studies
are described below. Additional studies on groundwater and the mining/milling wastes in areas
other than residential yards are ongoing.
-------
The Missouri Department of Health (MDOH) conducted an exposure study to evaluate
health effects on residents in the Site, titled the Jasper County, Missouri Superfund Site Lead and
Cadmium Exposure Study. The study, which was released in May 1994 concluded that 14
percent of children under the age of seven years in the study area had elevated blood-lead
concentrations. Additionally, the study concluded that the most significant source of
contamination resulting in elevated blood-lead levels was residential yard soils.
Following release of the health study in 1994, the EPA developed an overall strategy to
prioritize cleanup at this Site and the adjacent Cherokee County Superfund Site. Initial work
done under the strategy identified numerous daycare centers and residences as having high soil
lead concentrations at levels requiring immediate cleanup. Therefore, the EPA issued a 'Time-
Critical Removal Action" decision in January 1995 which commenced cleanup of these daycare
centers and residential yards.
The Time-Critical Removal Action included residences where children were observed with
high blood-lead concentrations (above 15 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dl) lead in the blood) or
where soil lead levels exceeded 2500 ppm (the level'which the health agencies believe may cause
blood-lead levels to exceed 15 ug/dl), and daycare centers with soil lead levels above 500 parts
per million (ppm). The EPA performed cleanup at approximately 303 residential yards and seven
daycare centers under this action, which concluded in March 1996. The majority of daycares and
homes identified for cleanup were around the Eagle-Picher smelter in Joplin. Generally, these
residences had the highest levels of lead contamination in their yards. The initial cleanup activities
consisted of excavating and removing soils, replacing the soil with clean backfill, and resodding
the yards.
The selected remedy will follow-up on the residential yard cleanups that have already been
done, by cleaning up the remaining yards at the Site which have lead and cadmium at levels that
present a health threat.
3.0 Highlights of Community Participation
The EPA provided the Proposed Plan and supporting documents in the Administrative
Record file and encouraged public review and comment on the Proposed Plan during the public
comment period. The EPA established the public comment period from May 6 to June 7, 1996.
A public meeting was also held on May 16, at 7:00 p.m. at the North Middle School in Joplin,
Missouri, to present the Proposed Plan, accept written and oral comments, and to answer
questions concerning the Preferred Alternative. At this meeting, representatives from the EPA
and MDNR answered questions about the Site and the remedial alternatives under consideration.
Responses to the comments received during the public comment period are included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this ROD. The decision for this Site is based on the
information contained in the Administrative Record file. The Administrative Record file is located
in the following information repositories:
-------
1. Joplin Public Library 3. Carl Junction City Hall
300 Main 105 North Main
Joplin. Missouri Carl Junction. Missouri
2. Webb City Public Library 4. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
101 South Liberty 726 Minnesota Avenue
Webb City, Missouri Kansas City, Kansas
4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit
The selected remedy deals with cleanup of contaminated soils in residential yards in areas
of historic smelting operations and in areas contaminated with mining and milling wastes. This
cleanup action is one part of the EPA's overall efforts under Superfund to deal with environmental
contamination resulting from historic mining and smelting operations in Jasper County.
Residential yards contaminated solely from other sources, such as lead-based paint, are not going
to be addressed by this cleanup action. In the future, additional cleanup actions for the Site will
deal with (1) contaminated ground water and drinking water supplies and (2) mining and milling
.wastes in areas other than residential yards. This phased approach to cleanup is being used for this
Site in order to cleanup the contamination which poses the greatest health threat first. The EPA
believes that the selected remedy will be consistent with future cleanups that will be done at the
Site.
The EPA has established four operable units (OUs) to deal with risks to human health and
the environment caused by metals contamination at the Site. The EPA initiated the first operable
unit (OU 1: Mining and Milling Waste) investigations at the Site in 1991. The responsible parties
entered into an AOC with the EPA to conduct the investigation. OU 1 originally focused on
cleanup of mining and milling wastes to remedy risks posed to the environment. Currently, the RI
and the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) have been completed for OU 1. The Ecological
Risk Assessment (ERA) will be completed in the near future. The FS for OU 1 will be initiated
when the ERA is compete.
OU 2, Residential Yard Soils (yards located in smelter areas), and OU 3, Mine Waste
Yards (yards located in the vicinity of mining and milling wastes), were established after
completion of the MDOH exposure study which documented elevated blood-lead concentration in
children in Jasper County. The focus of these OUs is to reduce exposure of children to heavy
metals at the Site. Since the MDOH study concluded that the most significant cause of high
blood-lead concentrations in children was exposure to contaminated soil, these OUs focus on
cleanup of yard soil. OU2 was established to cleanup residential yards in the smelter areas. OU 3
was establish to cleanup residential yards located on or near mining and milling wastes. Cleanup
in the smelter areas will be conducted by the EPA. The EPA anticipates that cleanup in the
mining areas will be conducted by the PRPs.
-------
OU 4 was established to deal with contaminated private residential water wells identified
during the RI for OU 1. Currently the PRPs are preparing an FS for OU 4 which will analyze
remedial alternatives for a safe drinking water supply to the homes in the mining areas where a
public water supply is not currently available.
The remedial action objective for the OUs 2 and 3 is to cleanup residential yard soils to
prevent current and future human, primarily children, exposure to the contaminated soils. The
selected alternative and the remedial action objective for these OUs are compatible with the
overall objectives for the Site. This ROD supports the overall strategy for addressing
contamination and the release of hazardous substances within the Site that threatens human health
and the environment.
5.0 Site Characteristics
The initial Site investigations focused primarily on identifying contamination associated
with mining and milling wastes. Samples of ground water, surface water, soil, air, and mining and
milling wastes were collected during the investigation. Results indicate that ground water, surface
water, and soils have been contaminated with lead, cadmium, and zinc from mining and milling
wastes. Additionally, the most immediate problems identified, with respect to human health
risks, are due to homes built on mining and milling or smelter wastes or where people are drinking
contaminated ground water from private water wells.
Subsequent investigations that focused on residential soils indicate the most contaminated
residential yard soils are around the Eagle-Picher smelter in northwest Joplin. The contamination
extends predominantly in a southeasterly direction from the smelter to a distance of at least 2Vi
miles as shown on Figure 1. The investigations indicated that lead and cadmium are the principal
contaminants of concern at the Site. The sampling results indicate the highest levels of lead
contamination are within a few city blocks of the smelter and decrease with distance. Homes built
on or near mining wastes lie within the designated areas show on Figure 2.
The RIs performed by the PRPs from 1991 through 1995 focussed primarily on identifying
contamination associated with mining and milling waste piles. Ground water, surface water, soil,
air, and mining and milling wastes were investigated. Results of the investigation indicated the
ground water, surface water, and soils have been contaminated with lead, cadmium, and zinc from
mining and milling wastes. Additionally, the RI indicated that the most immediate problems with
respect to human health were homes built on mining and milling wastes.
In 1994, the PRPs submitted to the EPA the Residential Yard Assessment Report
prepared by Dames & Moore. That report concluded that homes built on or near mining and
milling wastes were less likely to exceed target levels (500 ppm) for lead than those built in
historic smelter areas. Roughly 50 percent of the yards located on mill wastes exceeded target
levels, while yards locate in mill waste transition zones (within 200 feet of mill waste pile) showed
a 25 percent exceedence rate. In contrast approximately 85 percent of the yards surveyed in the
smelter areas exceeded target levels.
-------
During 1995, the EPA sampled approximately 1,250 residential yards within a 3/4 mile
radius of the Eagle-Picher smelter in northwest Joplin. The results of that sampling effort indicate
that 86 percent of those yards had concentrations of lead exceeding 500 ppm. Additional
sampling around the other, more minor, smelters in Jasper County (58 yards sampled) indicate
that approximately 55 percent exceeded 500 ppm lead.
In the fall of 1995, the EPA characterized the extent of the lead contamination around the
Eagle-Picher smelter. The EPA sampled approximately 450 residential yards distributed
throughout the contaminated areas. They determined that the contamination extended
predominantly in a southeasterly direction to a distance of approximately 2/4 miles as shown on
Figure 1. The sampling results indicate the highest levels of lead contamination are within a few
city blocks of the smelter and decrease with distance. The results of residential yard sampling
conducted to date are included in the Administrative Record Addendum.
6.0 Summary of Site Risks
A human health risk assessment was conducted for the Jasper County Site by the MDOH
using data gathered during the environmental studies done at the Site. The risk assessment
evaluated the health threats that the Site would cause if no cleanup work was done. The
contaminants which were determined to be causing risk to human health at the Site are lead and
cadmium. Exposure to lead and cadmium cause adverse systemic (non-cancer) effects. Available
reference doses (the level which does not cause any adverse effects in people) for cadmium were
used to evaluate health effects from exposure to cadmium. The Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model (IEUBK) was used to evaluate health effects from exposure to lead.
The IEUBK predicts that an unacceptable health risk for young children is posed from
exposure to lead at this Site. The model shows that more than 5 percent of the children in both
scenarios (residents and recreational users) would have blood lead levels exceeding 10 ug/dl, with
12 percent of those living on designated area or transition zone soils (near waste piles) and 25
percent of those living on mine/mill wastes predicted to exceed 10 ug/dl. According to EPA
policy, Superfund action to reduce lead exposure should be taken when more than 5 percent of
the children in a population have blood lead levels greater than 10 ug/dl.
In general, both the actual blood-lead data from children who live at the Site and the risk
assessment concludes that health risks may be present for residents at the Site primarily because
of the exposure to lead and cadmium in soils and locally grown produce. The health risks are
most prevalent for children under the age of seven years. If contaminated residential soils and
garden soils are not addressed by cleanup, the lead and cadmium in these soils present
unacceptable risks to human health and welfare.
7.0 Remedial Action Objectives
The remedial action objective (RAO) for residential soils in the Jasper County Site is a
cleanup goal for reducing human health risks. One RAO has been developed for residential soils:
-------
reduce public exposure, and particularly children's exposure, to residential soils with elevated lead
and cadmium concentrations resulting from historic mining and smelting activities
8.0 Description of the Alternatives
Two alternatives were developed to address the RAOs in the FS Report. Additionally, the
No Action Alternative was assessed as required by the NCP, 40 C.F.R. §200.430(e)(6). The No
Action Alternative may be appropriate at some sites where a removal action has already occurred
that mitigates risks to human health and the environment. .Although a time-critical removal action
has already occurred at the Site, residual risks to human health remain at the Site as shown in the
HHRA. The concentrations of metals in residential yard soils remain at levels (for example, lead
concentrations greater than 500 ppm) that present some risk to human health and the
environment, particularly for young children residing at the Site. The two action alternatives, in
addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were Alternative 2, Phosphate Stabilization
with Institutional Controls and Alternative 3, Excavation and Disposal with Health Education and
Institutional Controls.
v
In general, Alternative 2 involved treating contaminated soils with phosphate to reduce
the bioavailability of lead and cadmium to children. Research indicates that treating soils with
phosphate may bind up metals so they are not absorbed into the body when ingested. Additionally,
local ordinances or regulations need to be established to regulate construction of new homes in
contaminated areas. The feasibility study points out that phosphate treatment is a new technology
that appears promising to reduce bioavailability but has not yet been proven effective. Therefore,
a study to determine the effectiveness would be required before the treatment alternative could be
implemented.
Alternative 3 consisted of excavation and removal of contaminated soil, construction of a
repository to dispose of the contaminated soils, replacement of the contaminated soil with clean
soil and revegetating the excavated yards. In addition, a health education program would be
established to inform residents in the Site of the hazards associated with contaminated soils, and
to monitor the blood-lead levels of children. Local ordinances or regulations would also be
established under the excavation alternative to regulate construction of new homes in
contaminated areas.
9.0 Comparative Analysis of the Alternatives
The National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300, requires EPA to evaluate
selected remedial alternatives against nine criteria. A selected alternative must satisfy all nine
criteria before it can be implemented. The first step is to ensure that the selected remedy satisfies
the threshold criteria. The two threshold criteria are overall protection of public health and the
environment and compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
In general, alternatives that do not satisfy these two criteria are rejected and not evaluated further.
-------
The second step is to compare the selected remedy against a set of balancing criteria. The
NCP establishes five balancing criteria which include long-term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction in toxicity. mobility, or volume achieved through treatment; implementability; short-
term effectiveness; and cost. The third and final step is to evaluate the selected, remedy on the
basis of modifying criteria. The two modifying criteria are state and community acceptance.
These final two criteria cannot be evaluated fully until the state and public have commented on the
alternative and their comments have been considered.
The following compares the alternatives considered against the nine criteria for remedy
selection and discuss the key advantages or disadvantages of the two alternatives considered.
9.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion provides a final check to assess whether an alternative meets the
requirement that it is protective of human health and the environment. The overall assessment of
protection is based on a composite of factors assessed under the evaluation criteria, especially
long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term effectiveness, and compliance with ARARs.
Protection of human health and the environment is addressed to varying degrees by the
two alternatives. Both provide protection of human health through reducing exposure to metals
in contaminated soils. Phosphate Stabilization (Alternative 2) provides protection by in-situ
treatment that immobilizes lead, and other metals such as cadmium and zinc, to effectively reduce
the bioavailability. However, this conclusion is only supported by laboratory bench scale data. A
treatability study is necessary to determine if the treatment is effective at the Site. Institutional
controls would not be necessary except for future development in residential areas.
Excavation and Disposal (Alternative 3) provides protection by removing the
contaminated soils from the exposure pathway and installation of a soils and sod barrier between
residents and underlying contaminated materials (at depth of 12 inches). This alternative
addresses concerns of exposure through direct contact with soil contaminants or tracking
contaminated yard soil into homes as a source of house dust. This alternative provides for
individual responsibility and community responsibility through the implementation of institutional
controls to address the exposure pathways of local garden produce, household dust, and future
residential development.
In general, permanence of remedial action is greatest for the Alternative 2 with its
essentially complete immobilization of contaminants in the soils, providing the treatability study
supports the laboratory data regarding the bioavailability of the lead. Soil excavation and disposal
also provides permanence through complete removal of contaminated soils at or above 800 ppm
lead concentrations, but this alternative relies on a greater need for institutional controls, which
may be less permanent.
-------
9.2 Compliance With ARARs
This criterion is used to decide how an alternative meets applicable or relevant and
appropriate federal and State requirements, as defined in CERCLA Section 121. Compliance is
judged with respect to chemical-specific, action-specific and location-specific ARARs as well as
appropriate criteria, advisories and guidance.
Both Alternatives 2 and 3 meet federal and State of Missouri ARARs. The chemical- and
location-specific ARARs are identified in Tables 1 through 4. Federal and State action-specific
ARARs are identified in Tables 5 and 6. Both alternatives had the same associated ARARs as the
selected remedy. These ARARs are described in Section 11.2, Attainment of ARARs.
9.3 Long-Term Effectiveness
This criterion addresses the results of a cleanup action in terms of the risk remaining at the
Site after the goals of the cleanup have been met. The primary focus of this evaluation is to
determine the extent and effectiveness of the controls that may be required to manage the risk
posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
The residual risks from contaminants remaining at the Site after remediation is significantly
reduced by the cleanup actions of Alternative 2. The residual risks may be somewhat greater with
Alternative 3, but both alternatives reduce risks. Alternative 2 effectively reduces risks (assuming
the treatability study and long-term monitoring confirms laboratory data) without the significant
institutional controls required by Alternative 3. Alternative 2 reduces risks for homes using
effective engineering controls with soil concentrations of lead at or above 500 ppm lead.
Alternative 3 reduces risk using engineering controls with soil concentrations of lead at or above
800 ppm lead and relies on greater use of institutional controls and public education for
controlling residual risks for residents with soil concentrations below 800 ppm lead.
Excavation of all soils with lead levels greater than 500 ppm was considered but
eliminated due to the large number of residential yards exceeding 500 ppm. The EPA believes
excavating the yards that exceed 800 ppm lead and establishing a health education program is a
more cost effective approach to remediating the contamination than excavating all residential
yards with lead levels greater than 500 ppm given the relatively low risk associated with soil lead
levels between 500 and 800 ppm.
Both alternatives also require the use of institutional controls to reduce residual risks for
the permanent repository and the removal repository. Both alternatives rely on institutional
controls to reduce risks from future development in residential areas. In general, ICs are less
effective than engineering controls at controlling the risk from contamination that remains at the
Site.
-------
9.4 Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion addresses the effects of the alternative during the construction until the
cleanup is completed and the selected level of protection has been achieved. Both Alternatives 2
and 3 are similarly effective in the short-term for protection of the public and remedial action
workers. The excavation and disposal alternatives would require a longer time to implement.
Also, the excavation and disposal alternative involves more risks to remedial action workers due
to more direct exposure to contaminated soil while removing, hauling and disposing of soil.
9.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
This criterion addresses the statutory preference for selecting remedial actions that employ
treatment technologies that permanently and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility or volume of
the contaminants. Alternative 2 would significantly reduce toxicity and mobility for residences
with soils at concentrations of 500 ppm lead or above (assuming the treatability study confirms
the laboratory data). Alternative 3 would significantly reduce mobility for residences with soils at
concentrations of 800 ppm lead or above. Institutional controls would be required to manage
residual risks for residences with less than 800 ppm lead concentrations in the soils under the
excavation alternative. Therefore, Alternative 2, treatment with phosphate, is preferred because it
significantly decreases the toxicity and increases the amount of contamination that is immobilized
at the Site.
9.6 Implementability
This criterion addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing a
cleanup and the availability of various services and materials required during its implementation.
Both Alternatives 2 and 3 are readily implementable. The extent or degree to which the
remediation is applied does vary significantly between the two active response measures,
treatment or excavation, because of the different action levels. The excavation alternative is a
well-developed technology. However, the treatment alternative technology is not well developed.
The treatability study would determine the effectiveness of this effort. Both alternatives are
technically feasible from an engineering perspective, but the level of effort associated with each is
different.
Alternative 3 also relies to a greater extent on institutional controls which to a certain
degree are less effective and more difficult to implement than engineering controls because they
rely on local government entities for long-term implementation and enforcement. In general,
Alternative 2 is more implementable than Alternative 3 because the technology (if effective) is like
typical lawn maintenance and because of the reduced need for institutional controls. When
comparing Alternative 3 (excavation with heavy equipment, backfilling, sodding or seeding,
construction or the repository, and institutional controls), to Alternative 2, phosphate stabilization
is more implementable.
-------
9.7 Cost Effectiveness
This criterion addresses the direct and indirect capital cost of the proposed remedy.
Operation and maintenance costs incurred over the life of the project, as well as present worth
costs, are also evaluated.
Alternative 3 is considered cost effective in that health education and institutional controls
would be used to offset excavation costs for yards below 800 ppm. Alternative 2, if the
treatability study shows reductions in bioavailability, would allow for reducing risk from
contaminated soils without the relatively high costs associated with excavation and disposal.
Therefore, Alternative 2 is more cost effective than Alternative 3.
9.8 State Acceptance
This criteria addresses MDNR's preferences or concerns about the Site remedial action
alternatives. The EPA is the lead Agency and has coordinated all Site activities with MDNR
throughout this project. MDNR, as the EPA's support agency, concurs with the selected remedy.
9.9 Community Acceptance
This criteria reflects EPA's perception of the community's preferences or concerns about
the selected alternative. The EPA held a public comment period on the Proposed Plan from May
6 through June 7, 1996. The EPA received numerous comments from the public. In general, the
community accepted the Proposed Plan. The responsiveness summary, which addresses the
significant comments received from the public during the comment period is included with this
ROD as Attachment 1.
10.0 Description of the Selected Remedy
The EPA's selected remedy is a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3 described above.
Under the cleanup approach selected by EPA, excavation and disposal of contaminated soil from
residential yards is expected to begin in the fall of 1996, beginning with the residential yards that
present the highest risks. At the same time, the EPA will proceed with the additional treatability
studies that are necessary in order to determine if the phosphate treatment can effectively reduce
health risks presented by the contaminated soils. The studies are expected to take approximately
10-14 months to complete. If the studies show that phosphate treatment is effective, the
excavation and disposal cleanup program will be discontinued once the studies are complete, and
the residential yard cleanup will be completed using phosphate treatment. If the studies show that
phosphate treatment will not be effective, then the excavation and disposal program will continue
until cleanup of the residential yards is complete. Health education and institutional controls to
provide proper construction of future residential homes in contaminated areas are also
components of the selected remedy.
10
-------
There are a number of reasons why EPA believes the selected remedy is the best cleanup
approach. Although phosphate treatment costs far less than excavation and disposal, it will be at
least a year before the studies are done which will determine if phosphate treatment will be an
effective cleanup approach. The EPA feels that it is important to begin cleanup of the yards that
present the highest risks as soon as possible, and that cleanup of the highest risk yards should not
be delayed while the additional studies are ongoing. Therefore, the EPA believes the best way to
proceed is to begin with excavation and disposal, and then switch to phosphate treatment if and
when the studies show that it will be effective. This approach begins reducing risks as soon as
possible, yet still allows an opportunity to take advantage of the potential cost savings to be
realized by using phosphate treatment and to meet the NCP preference for treatment.
Additionally, the selected remedy, if phosphate stabilization proves successful, allows more yards
to be cleaned up for the same amount of money, may be less intrusive to affected neighborhoods,
is easier to implement, addresses lead paint contamination in soil, reduces the need for a
repository, and is potentially more protective than excavation alone.
Following is a detailed description of each part of this proposed cleanup: excavation and
disposal, phosphate treatment, health education, and institutional controls.
10.1 Excavation and Disposal
The selected remedy includes excavation of residential yards with soil concentrations that
exceed action levels of 800 ppm lead or 75 ppm cadmium. If a residential yard exceeds the action
level of 800 ppm lead in any portion of the yard, then all soils in the yard exceeding 500 ppm will
be removed. Existing garden soils exceeding 500 ppm lead, even where located in yards that do
not exceed the 800 ppm lead action level, will be removed to reduce the risk associated with
ingestion of vegetables from contaminated gardens. Cleanup activities will begin with the
residential yards that present the highest risks first. To date, very few yards have been identified
that exceed the cadmium action level of 75 ppm. Those that do exceed for cadmium also
significantly exceed for lead.
The EPA estimates that approximately 2,400 residential yards contain soil exceeding 800
ppm lead. Figure 1 shows the approximate extent of soil contamination in the Eagle-Picher
smelter area exceeding 800 ppm lead. Additional sampling is required to define the extent of soil
contamination and the number of residential yards affected by mining areas shown on Figure 2.
Excavation would be conducted in yards in the smelter zone and near mining waste where the
highest recorded sample for the yard exceeds 800 ppm lead.
This alternative involves the removal of soil to a maximum depth of 12 inches in affected
areas of a selected yard, replacing the soil with clean topsoil, and restoring the lawn. Soil will be
excavated using hand tools and light weight excavation equipment. If soils at a depth of one foot
exceed 1,500 ppm lead, a physical barrier consisting of a heavy plastic mesh will be placed over
the soil prior to backfilling to alert home owners to the contamination remaining at depth in the
event of any future digging or construction. Clean fill (less than 240 ppm lead, and 25 ppm
cadmium which are the levels established by the MDOH as acceptable for any use) and topsoil
11
-------
will be used to replace soil removed during excavation, raising the soil to its original grade. After
topsoil has been replaced, the yard will be seeded or sodded, as appropriate in consideration of
the home owners' preferences.
Residential yards identified as containing vegetable gardens during the remedial design will
have clean soil supplied for the re-construction of existing gardens to a depth of 18 to 24 inches
or until soil in the excavation was 500 ppm lead or less. All gardens with soils over 500 ppm lead
and 75 ppm cadmium will be addressed. Any residents who create a new, or expand an original
vegetable garden after EPA's cleanup action is complete will supply their own clean soil for a
raised bed. A conservative estimate of the number of residential properties that will require
garden soil is 260.
10.2 Soil Repository
The selected remedy requires construction of an on-site repository. Approximately
500,000 cubic yards of soil will require disposal covering approximately 65 acres. The exact
location of the repository, which will be determined by EPA and MDNR, is dependent on the
cooperation of existing landowners. It is anticipated that the repository will be constructed in the
corridor of the proposed Highway 71 Bypass, on the east side of the Site between Duenweg and
Carterville. The EPA is coordinating with the Missouri Highway and Transportation Department
(MHTD) on the location and construction requirements for the repository. The repository will be
constructed so that the highway can be placed over the top of the repository, thus greatly
reducing not only human exposure to the pile, but the need for long-term operation and
maintenance of the pile. In the event the highway is routed such that it does not cover the pile,
the MHTD has stated they will use soil from the pile as fill or cover material within the highway
corridor. The EPA will construct the disposal facility, and MDNR will be responsible for any
long-term operation and maintenance that may be required.
10.3 Additional Soil Sampling
As stated above, the EPA has not yet fully identified all residential yards that require
cleanup. An extensive sampling program will be conducted to identify all residential yards, parks,
school play grounds, and other areas frequented by children that exceed 500 ppm lead and 75
ppm cadmium as a result of mining, milling and smelting activities. The sampling will be
conducted in all identified smelter and mining areas. Where possible, residential yards, parks, and
play grounds that contain transported mining wastes or transported contaminated soil will also be
identified and sampled. However, the EPA anticipates it will be very difficult to identify all areas
where transported mining wastes have been placed. The potential scope of the problem of
identifying transported mining wastes eliminates the consideration of any organized,
comprehensive sampling effort to identify transported wastes.
12
-------
10.4 Health Education
Health education for the community and medical professionals in the area is needed to
reduce and treat exposures that could potentially cause adverse health effects. An active
educational program will be conducted in cooperation with the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), iVfDNR, MDOH. and the Jasper County and Joplin City Health
Departments.
Professional educational seminars will be held to guide the physician or medical
professional through the diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of illness in people, especially
children, exposed to heavy metals. Annual professional education is needed to maintain an
adequate level of awareness among the medical professionals about the contaminants in the area
and to provide updates about the most current therapies or treatment regimens.
Community education will occur on a variety of levels including local school districts,
Technical Assistance Groups, Community Advisory Groups, Lamaze and pre-natal groups,
hospital birthing centers, scouting programs, or other groups that request educational materials.
These organizations will allow information regarding risk and sources of lead exposure to be
disseminated to the community.
Equipment is needed for the enhancement of the environmental assessment capabilities and
to assist in the removal of possible indoor dust contaminants. In order to perform adequate
environmental assessments in the home, an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrophotometer will be
supplied to the local health departments. Also, high efficiency particulate vacuum (HEPAVAC)
cleaners will be supplied to the local health departments allow properly trained individuals to
reduce the levels of lead dust in residences.
Extensive education on the potential health effects of eating vegetables grown in
contaminated soils will be provided. Residents will be advised against raising vegetables in
contaminated soils. They will be encouraged to grow vegetables only in raised beds with
uncontaminated soils and to thoroughly wash any vegetables consumed. Additional information
related to garden vegetables will require negligible additional effort and expense.
In addition to the health education program, an early childhood blood-lead screening
program is included in the Selected Remedy. The screening program is to monitor and assess the
effectiveness of the cleanup. Such monitoring will measure the success of the various
components of the Selected Remedy including, excavation of yards at or above 800 ppm lead in
the soil, phosphate treatment of yards at or above 500 ppm, and the health education program.
Frequent blood-lead screening during and shortly after implementation of the remedy will alert the
EPA and the State to a potential remedy failure. Screening will continue during operation and
maintenance (O&M) to provide a measure of the continued effectiveness of the remedy for the
required five year reviews. Completion of the remedy and initiation of O&M will be after the
remedy has achieve the RAO and the remedial design, and is operational and functional as
determined by EPA and the State.
13
-------
To date. ATSDR has worked closely with the MDOH. and the Jasper County and Joplin
Health Departments and has funded to the Jasper County Health Department to provide child
blood-lead screening and health education activities as described above. The EPA and ATSDR
will continue to work with these state and local agencies to provide blood-lead screening and
health education to deal with the risks associated with soil contamination below 800 ppm, interior
dust and lead-based paint, and future vegetable gardening. ATSDR has established funds to
conduct these activities for approximately two more years (through 1998). The EPA will
supplement these funds to insure the activities are conducted until one year after the remedy is
determined to be operational and functional. The EPA anticipates approximately five years will
be required after initiation of the remedial action to make that determination. Continued health
education activities after that time will be funded by the State of Missouri as part of the Operation
and Maintenance. The EPA and MDNR, in consultation with ATSDR and MDOH, will assess
the scope of health education if phosphate stabilization is implemented.
10.5 Phosphate Treatability Study
The EPA will initiate a treatability study to determine the effectiveness of phosphate
stabilization on reducing the bioavailability of lead. Assuming the results of the study show a
reduction of the bioavailability to levels protective of human health (particularly for young
children as demonstrated by the EEUBK model), all residential yards and areas highly accessible to
children (parks and playgrounds) with lead concentrations in the soil exceeding 500 ppm lead will
be treated with phosphate.
The treatability study consists of an initial bench scale and bioavailability test to determine
the effect that phosphate addition to soils under ideal laboratory conditions has on reducing the
bioavailability of lead in soils at the Site. The second part of the study, assuming initial findings
are positive, entails testing of field application methods and rates to lower the metals
bioavailability in the soil. The field test plot will be located on vacant land in the smelter area that
exhibits typical contamination of the area.
The bioavailabilty test will be conducted using the Swine Model developed by the EPA,
and conducted by the University of Missouri. The EPA will evaluate the success of phosphate
stabilization using the EEUBK model and the bioavailability number generated from the treatability
study to calculate a new "safe level" number for soil that has been treated with phosphate. All
soils between 500 ppm and the newly calculated Site specific "safe level" will be stabilized with
phosphate. All residential soils exceeding the "safe level" for lead will be excavated. The public
and additional EPA entities (laboratories, Headquarters, lead work groups, etc.) will be provided
with the opportunity to evaluate and comment on the phosphate treatability study results before
switching to this remedial method of cleanup.
10.6 Phosphate Stabilization
The EPA estimates that approximately 5,000 residential yards contain soil that exceeds
500 ppm lead. Approximately 2,000 to 2,500 yards are in the range of 500 ppm to 800 ppm lead.
14
-------
Additional sampling, as described above, is required to define the extent of soil contamination
exceeding 500 ppm lead and to identify the number of residential yards affected by mining and
milling wastes. The stabilization action would be conducted in yards where the highest recorded
sample exceeds 500 ppm lead in the smelter zone and in yards that are situated on or near mining
waste.
Assuming the treatability studies demonstrate that Site-specific application of phosphate
reduces bioavailability of lead in soils, then the phosphate treatment cleanup option will diminish
the need for a Site-specific health education program since all residential yards with lead
concentrations exceeding 500 ppm will be cleaned up. Also, only a small soil repository is
necessary for the immediate excavation needs. Thus, long-term operation and maintenance of the
soil repository will be significantly reduced if the phosphate treatment is implemented.
A long-term monitoring program will be instituted if phosphate stabilization is utilized to
assess the effectiveness of the treatment. The program will continue blood-lead monitoring for
children six years and younger. Initially the blood-lead monitoring will measure the effectiveness
of the remedy and determine if it is operational andiunctional. Once the remedial action goal has
been achieved, the blood-lead monitoring will become part of the five-year review process for this
Site to ensure effectiveness and permanence of the remedy.
Additionally, soil chemistry monitoring will be conducted to assess the effects of natural
weathering on the newly formed lead-phosphate minerals from phosphate treatment. Monitoring
results on the soil collected as part of operation and maintenance will be assessed during each
five-year review to ensure the effectiveness and permanence of the remedy.
The soil repository constructed as part of the Time-Critical Removal Action will also be
treated with phosphate to reduce the bioavailability of the lead-contaminated soils in the top 12
inches of the pile. This treatment will be performed to reduce the availability of heavy metals to
plants and animals living on the repository.
10.7 Institutional Controls
The EPA and the State will work closely with the local communities to establish
institutional controls (ICs) to guide future residential development in lead-contaminated areas.
EPA and the State anticipate that ICs will be implemented under the authority of the local
governments. ICs are required for both excavation and phosphate stabilization cleanup activities.
ICs are required to prevent exposure of children to unacceptable levels of lead in the soil
in future residential developments. Under the selected remedy, only existing residential
yards/gardens will be subject to cleanup. The ICs may include zoning restrictions, long term
zoning plans, special building codes, health ordinances covering construction of residential homes,
or deed restrictions depending on the desires of the community and local authorities. ICs for
future residential development may require soil sampling, excavation, capping or even phosphate
15
-------
stabilization (if effective) prior to construction of new residential dwellings, daycare centers,
schools, and parks. Commercial and industrial development need not be subject to ICs because
the exposure to contaminated soils at these settings is not an unacceptable human health risk.
Additionally, the EPA and the State will work with local governments to establish a long-
term repository for the purpose of disposing lead-contaminated soil excavated from areas of new
residential development. The EPA will develop the area for a long-term repository during the
remedial action implementation. The EPA and the State anticipate that a long-term repository for
future development may not be necessary in the event that local governments and the community
prefer capping or phosphate stabilization (if effective) as opposed to excavation. Regardless of
the location selected for the long-term repository, unless the MDNR grants an exemption to
dispose the soil in an existing landfill as a Special Waste, the repository must be constructed on
land with existing mining wastes. Additionally, the soil must be deposited on top of the mining
wastes to comply with policy established under the Corrective Action Management Rule
(CAMU). The CAMU allows exemptions to the requirements of the Resource, Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Otherwise, the repository would be subject to the requirements of
RCRA, including meeting land disposal restrictions,' closure, and post closure requirements.
10.8 Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance (O&M) of the selected remedy consists of three main
components. Each is described below. Detailed descriptions of each O&M activity will be
developed in the O&M Plan which will be prepared as part of the Remedial Design. Each O&M
activity will be evaluated as part of the five-year review program and may be modified as
appropriate after each five-year review as agreed to by the EPA and MDNR with consultation
from ATSDR and MDOH.
10.8.1 Repositories
An O&M program will be established to maintain the repositories constructed at the Site
for disposal of contaminated soil. Repositories requiring O&M include the removal action
repository, the remedial action repository and the long-term repository for future development (if
established). O&M of the repositories may include monitoring for erosion, providing access to
the repository, proper grading, and other requirements for landfill operations, etc.
O&M of the remedial action repository will be conducted until such time that the
repository is covered by the proposed Highway 71 Bypass. The O&M program for the removal
repository is required for the expected life of such repositories.
The EPA will coordinate with MDNR and the local governments to provide for the long-
term repository that will be operated for ten years following the completion of the remedial
action. The ten year period will allow for development of other options. The MDNR is
financially responsible, as part of the O&M for the Site, to ensure that the repository is properly
operated and maintained for the ten year period. It is anticipated, however, that the MDNR may
16
-------
contract with a local government, i.e., city or county, or a private entity to operate and maintain
the repository. Several options exist to provide for a long-term repository. These include
establishing a user fee to maintain a formal repository, disposing contaminated soil as cover in
existing landfills, or disposing contaminated soil on appropriate land currently covered with
mining wastes and zoned industrial/commercial as use for fill before development. The exact
details and design of the long-term repository will be completed as part of the remedial design and
Operation and Maintenance Plan.
The EPA will perform O&M at all repositories during implementation of the selected
remedy and for one year after completion of the remedy when the remedy becomes operational
and functional. The State will assume responsibility for O&M after that period. It is anticipated
that the State will contract with local governments or other interested parties to actually perform
O&M tasks, such as erosion control and landfill operations, etc., on the repositories.
10.8.2 Health Education
The O&M program will include the continuation of health education and blood-lead
monitoring. Medical professionals and the greater child-care community (for example, schools
and day cares) will need routine education to maintain awareness of the health risks that remain
after completion of the Selected Remedy. O&M will include providing educational materials and
seminars and other such activities. Whether excavation or phosphate stabilization is used, low
levels of lead will remain in the soil (800 to 500 ppm lead or less). The O&M program for health
education will continue to reduce the risks associated with the contamination remaining in the
soil. Abbreviated educational activities are likely for lower lead levels (500 ppm or less) and will
be possible if phosphate stabilization is used. Detailed health education activities will be defined
in the Operation and Maintenance Plan. The program will be modified as necessary, with
consultation with ATSDR and MDNR during the five-year review process and after completion
of the remedial action.
In addition to health education, the O&M program will include maintenance of the
HEPAVAC and the XRF equipment as well as a training program for individuals to operate such
equipment. The O&M program will also include blood lead screening. The current screening
program maintained by ATSDR may be modified as necessary during and after implementation of
the remedy. Initial monitoring will be useful to assist in the determination that the remedial action
objective and the remedial design have been achieved. Later, the O&M program will use the
blood-lead monitoring data to assist in determining long-term effectiveness and permanence of the
Selected Remedy.
The EPA will supplement the funds that have already been provided by ATSDR to insure
the activities are conducted until one year after the remedy is determined to be operational and
functional. The EPA anticipates approximately five years will be required after initiation of the
17
-------
remedial action to make the determination. Continued health education activities after that time
will be funded by the State of Missouri as part of the O&M The State will assure that health
education and blood-lead monitoring are in place, reliable, and will remain in place after initiation
of O&M as required by the NCP, 40 C.F.R. Section 300.5 10(c)(l).
10.8.3 Monitoring
The O&M responsibilities include a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the
institutional controls for future residential development. Also, if phosphate stabilization is used
as a cleanup action, a soil chemistry monitoring program will be established to ensure the
phosphate minerals remain stable.
The monitoring program will provide annual reports to the EPA detailing the continuation
of the health education program, any residential development in areas of concern, and soil
chemistry data associated with the phosphate stabilization. Monitoring requirements will be
assessed during the five-year review process and may be modified or reduced as appropriate based
on data collected as part of the reviews. Any modification to the monitoring requirements will be
agreed to by the EPA and MDNR with consultation from ATSDR and MDOH.
10.9 Five-Year Review
A five-year review is required at sites where contamination remains above health-based
criteria. The review will be conducted in accordance with Section 121© of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
§962 l(c), as amended, and applicable guidance and in a manner to assure the continued
protection of the public health and environment.
The five-year review of the remedial action will be conducted to ensure that the remedy
implemented is effective and accomplishes the goals of the remedial action. The review will
include an assessment of the reduction in blood-lead levels in children in the areas of concern. The
review also includes a review of the institutional controls at the Site area, i.e. the enforcement of
the controls on new residential construction, and further bioavailability and soil chemistry
analyses.
10.10 Cost
The Remedial Alternative, without phosphate stabilization of yards after completion of the
treatability study, is expected to cost $28,600,000, as shown on Table 7. This is based on the
estimate of $10,000 per home for excavation, backfilling and sod/seeding. The overall cost
includes $960,000 for construction of the permanent repository. Annual O&M, including health
education (shown in Table 8) and monitoring of institutional controls, is $112,600. Costs for
phosphate stabilization, as shown on Table 9, range from $3,366,000 to $24,366,000 depending
on the method determined to be most effective for field application. The methods under
consideration range from simply spreading phosphate fertilizer on the lawn by hand to rototilling
the phosphate into the top six to ten inches of the soil. O&M costs for stabilization for the first
18 '
-------
five years, which include soil chemistry monitoring along with blood-lead monitoring of children
less than seven years of age, is $105,000. .Annual O&M after the first five years would consist of
ICs, monitoring, of soil chemistry monitoring, and repository maintenance, and would cost
approximately S50.000.
Therefore, the overall costs for the proposed alternative cannot be accurately determined
until completion of the treatability study. Maximum cost is stated for excavation. If the
treatability study shows significant reduction in bioavailability with surface application methods,
the cost could be as low as S6 million to $7 million, depending on the number of yards excavated
before completion of the treatability study, which is expected to take 12 to 18 months to
complete. .Annual O&M is also dependent on whether phosphate stabilization is proven effective.
11.0 Statutory Determinations
Under its legal authority, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake
remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of human health and the environment. In
addition. Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory requirements and
preferences. These specify that when complete, the selected remedial action for this Site must
comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards established under
federal and state environmental laws, unless a statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedy
also must be cost effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes
a preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following
sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
11.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy will protect human health and the environment by achieving the RAO
through a combination of engineering measures and institutional controls. Existing human health
risks due to potential lead exposure from soils will be reduced by remediating residential yards
situated in smelter areas and on or near mining wastes with lead levels that exceed health based
action levels. Future risks to human health will be reduced by implementation of institutional
controls that will ensure proper construction of residential dwellings on soils or mine wastes with
contaminant levels in excess of health-based levels. Implementation of a health education
program will help to further reduce the risk of exposure to contaminated soil as well as other
sources of lead, such as interior dust and lead-based paint.
There are no short-term threats associated with implementation of the remedy that cannot
be readily controlled. In addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.
19
-------
11.2 Attainment of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements of
Environmental Laws (ARARS)
The selected remedy will comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate chemical-,
action-, and location-specific ARARs, discussed below. Compliance with ARARs is required of
the selected remedy unless a waiver of an ARAR is justified. No ARARs waivers are needed for
this remedy. ARARs for the selected remedy are identified and categorized as either "Applicable"
or ''Relevant and Appropriate" in Table 1 through 6. These tables also describe the requirements
for each ARAR.
11.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs
The chemical-specific ARARs are identified and discussed in this section. The elements of
concern in residential soils are lead and cadmium. There are no federal or state applicable,
relevant or appropriate requirements that pertain to these metals in soil. However, the EPA has
identified other criteria and guidance that will be considered in implementation of the selected
remedy, as identified in Tables 1 and 2, item C, "To be Considered".
11.2.2 Location Specific ARARs
The location-specific ARARs that will be attained by this remedial action are based on the
location of the site and the effect of the hazardous substances on the environment. The response
actions undertaken by the selected remedy will attain the location-specific ARARs for historic
preservation, archeological areas, and endangered species. These three location specific ARARs
are identified in Table 3, items Al through A3.
The location-specific ARARs for the established removal repository will be attained by the
selected remedy . These ARARs are identified in Table 3, items A4 through A8, Bl and Table 4,
Al.
11.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs
The action-specific ARARs are based on activities and technologies to be implemented at
the site. The cleanup activities taken to develop the soil repositories will attain the action-specific
ARARs identified in Table 5 and in Table 6, item B2. The excavation and disposal activities
undertaken by the selected remedy will attain the action-specific ARARs identified in Table 6,
item Al.
11.3 Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it will provide overall effectiveness
proportional to its costs. The selected remedy will achieve the remedial action objective, and thus
effectively reduce unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, at an estimated cost of
$29.8 million, if phosphate stabilization is not utilized. The selected remedy is the least expensive
20 '
-------
remedy that is protective of human health and the environment and complies with ARARs.
Although phosphate stabilization is less costly, it is not yet a proven technology. Excavation of
contaminated soil is required, until the phosphate stabilization is proven protective of human
health.
11.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technology (or
Resource Recovery Technologies) to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and
treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for this remedial action. The
cleanup of residential yards in smelter areas and on or near mining wastes with contamination
above health-based levels will permanently eliminate risk to children who live in such residences.
The other actions which are part of the selected remedy, institutional controls and health
education, are not as permanent as the engineering actions, but will still provide a high degree of
long-term effectiveness.
\
11.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy effectively reduces risks through a combination of engineering and
institutional controls, and includes treatment technology to the maximum extent possible. The
treatment technology must be proven effective through treatability studies, however, before it can
be utilized. The principal current human health threat posed by the Site is exposure to
contaminated soils in residential yards. If proven effective, phosphate stabilization will reduce the
risk of exposure by significantly reducing the bioavailability of the metals in the soil, allowing
them to be left in place. Thus, the phosphate stabilization component of the selected remedy
employs treatment to reduce mobility of the contaminants and satisfies the statutory preference
for treatment as a principal element of the cleanup. However, if phosphate stabilization is not
used, then the statutory preference for treatment will not be met.
12.0 Documentation of Significant Changes
There are no significant changes in the selected remedy from the remedy proposed in the
Proposed Plan.
21
-------
LEAD CONTAMINATION IN SURFACE SOIL
JOPLIN, MISSOURI
Approximate extent of lead contamination at 800 ppm.
Figure 1
N
I
-------
Jasper
County ~
Newton
County
Legend:
Mined Areas
City Limits
Railroad Trades
Stream
0 Neck/AJbo
@ Snap
(T) Oronogo/Duenweg
0 Iron Gates
(§) Joplin
0 BeHeville/Chem. Plant
Q Thorns
(T) Klondike
0 Conjunction
0 Waco
C") Iron Gates Extension
2 MILES
SCALE
2 MU.ES 4 MILES
FEET
Jasper County Site Map
OAs 1-10 and DA4
Extension Area
Site Characterization
Jaiper County, Missouri
, PttMUMJ CMtfWUTIOII
rn|Ki ««
Figure 2
-------
TABLE 1
FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS
A. Applicable
Requirements
B. Relevant and
Appropriate
C. To Re Considered
I. Human Health Risk
Assessment
Report (I IHRA)
2. EPA Revised Interim Soil
Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites
and RCRA Corrective Action
Facilities
3 EPA Strategy for Reducing
Lead Exposures
4 Soil Lead Contamination Health
Consultation
5. ATSDR MDOII 1994 Health
Study
6. EPA Strategy for Response
Actions in the Tri-Statc Mining
District
Citations
None
None
"Area-Wide Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Jasper County Superfund Site, Jasper County,
Missouri" - prepared by Missouri Department of
Health (MDOII), October 23. 1995.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Directive 9355 4-1 2, July 14, 1994
EPA, February 21, 1991
Agency Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
(.ATSDR), prepared by Dcnise Jordan-Izaguirre,
April8. 1995
"Jasper County Missouri Superfund Site Lead and
Cadmium Exposure Studv: Report to ATSDR" -
May 4, 1994.
"Proposed Strategy for Response Actions in the
Oronogo-Ducmveg Mining Bell Site, Jasper Countv,
Missouri and Cherokee County. Kansas"
Prerequisite
Evaluates baseline health risk due to current site
exposures and established contaminant levels in
environmental media at the site for the protection of
public health.
Establishes screening levels for lead in soil for
residential land use, describes development of site-
specific preliminary remediation goals, and describes a
plan for soil lead cleanup at CERCLA sites
Presents a strategy to reduce lead exposure,
particularly to young children.
Removal of contaminated soils.
Evaluates health of young children to current site
exposures.
Presents a strategy to reduce human health exposure
risks from mining and smelting wastes.
Requirement
The risk assessment approach using this data should be
used in determining cleanup levels because ARARs are not
available for contaminants in soils.
This guidance recommends using the EPA Integrated
Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model (IEUBK) on a site-
specific basis to assist in developing cleanup goals.
The strategy was developed to reduce lead exposure to the
greatest extent possible. Goals of the strategy are to 1 )
significantly reduce the incidence above 10 ug Pb'dl in
children; and 2) reduce the amount of lead introduced into
the environment.
l^ad in soil appears to be responsible for blood lead levels
in children increasing above background Recommends
exposure to lead in soil be reduced.
Recommends exposure to lead contaminated soil in area be
reduced.
Recommends specific response actions I'or these sites to
reduce human health risks.
24
-------
TABLE 2
STATE CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS
A Applicable
Requirements
B Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
C To Be Considered
1 . Missouri Department of Health "Anv-
Use Soil Levels"
Citation
None
None
19 MO CSR 20-9.020 (proposed)
Prerequisite
Recommends baseline levels for lead and
cadmium in soil for residential or "anv-
use" land use.
Requirement
Recommends cleanup levels lor residential
soils be established at 240 ppm for lead
and 28 ppm for cadmium 1 lowcver,
extensive site specific data and analysis as
described in the HI ERA, supersede the
applicability of these levels
25
-------
TABLE 3
FEDERAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS
A Applicable
Requirements
1 . Historic project owned or
controlled hy a Federal Agency
2. Site within an area where action
may cause irreparahlc harm, loss.
or destruction of artifacts.
3. Site located in area ofcritical
habitat upon which endangered or
threatened species depend.
4 Site located within a floodplain
- JWI removal repository.
S. Wetlands located in and around
the JWI removal repository.
6. Structures in waterways in and
around the JWI removal
repositorv.
Citation
National Historic Preservation Act: 16 U.S.C.
470. et. seq; 40 C.F.R §6.301. 36 C.F.R. Tart
800.
.-\rcheological and Historic Preservation Act;
16 U.S.C. 469. 40 C.F.R .6.301.
Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C.
1531-1543; 50 C.F.R Parts 17.401.40
C.F.R. 6.302 Federal Migralorv Bird Act. 16
U.S.C. 703-712.
Protection of Floodplains, Executive Order
1 1988; 40 C.F.R. Part 6, Appendix A
Protection of Wetlands; Executive Order
1 1990; 40 C.F.R. Part 6. Appendix A.
Rivers & Harbors Act. 33 C.F.R. §§ 320-330.
Prerequisite
Property within areas of the Site is included
in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places.
Property within areas of the site contains
historical and archacologic data
Determination of the presence of
endangered or threatened species.
Remedial action will take place within a
100-year floodplain.
Remedial actions may affect wetlands.
Placement of structures in waterways is
restricted to preapproval of the 1 '.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
Requirement
The remedial alternatives will be designed to minimize the efl'ect on
historic landmarks.
The remedial alternative will be designed to minimize the efTect on
historical and archcological data.
The remedial alternatives will be designed to conserve endangered or
threatened species and their habitat, including consultation with the
Department of Interior if such areas are affected
The remedial action will be designed to avoid adversely impacting the
floodplain in and around the JWI removal repository to ensure that the
action's planning and budget reflects consideration of the Hood hazatds
and floodplain management.
The remedial action will be designed to avoid adverselv impacting
wetlands wherever possible including minimizing wetlands destruction
and preserving wetland values.
1 lie remedial action will comply with these requirement
26
-------
7. Waters in and around Ilic JWI
removal repository .
8. Area containing fish and
wildlife habitat in and around Ihe
J\V I removal repository
B. Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement
1 100-year lloodplain
C. To He Considered
Clean Water Act, (Section 40-4 Permits)
Dredge or Fill Substantive Requirements, 33
U.SC. § 1 25 1-1 376. 40 Cl; R. §§230.231.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980,
16 U.S.C §§ 2901 elseq.. 50 C.F.R Part 83
and 16U.S.C- §661.elseq. Federal
Migrator,' Bird Act, 16 U.S.C.§703.
Location Standard for I lazardous Waste
Facilities- RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6901; 40 C.F.R.
264.IX(b).
None
Capping, dike stabilization construction of
berms and levees, and disposal of
contaminated soil, waste material or
dredged material are examples of activities
that may involve a discharge of dredge or
fill material
Activity affecting wildlife and non-game
fish.
RCRA hazardous waste treatment and -
disposal.
Four conditions must be satisfied before dredge and fill is an allowable
alternative:
1 . There must be not practical alternative.
2. Discharge of dredged or fill material must not cause a violation ol
State water quality standards, violate applicable toxic ellluent standards.
jeopardize threatened or endangered species or injure » marine
sanctuary.
3. No discharge shall be permitted that will cause or contribute to
significant degradation of the water.
4 Appropriate steps to minimi/e adverse effects must be taken.
Determine long- and short-term eflects on physical, chemical, and
biological components of the aquatic ecosystem.
Remedial action will conserve and promote conservation of non-game
fish and wildlife and their habitats.
Facility located in a 1 00 year floodplain must be designed, constructed.
operated, and maintained to prevent washout during any 100 year 24
hour flood.
27
-------
TABLE 4
STATE LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS
A. Applicable
Requirements
I . Wildlife Code of Missouri for areas in .mil
around the J\VI removal repository
B. Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
C. To Be Considered
Citation
3C.S.R. § 10-4 III
None.
None.
Prerequisite
Determination of the presence of endangered or
threatened species
Requirement
Provides for regulation of nongame wildlife and
threatened and endangered species, and places
restrictions on actions affecting protected
species.
28
-------
TABLE 5
FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Citation
Prerequisite
Requirement
A Applicable
Requirements
1 Disposal of Solid Waste in
the Permanent Repository
and closure oCthe Removal
Repository at J\VI.
Subtitle D ofRCRA, Section 1008, Section
4001, et seq.. 42 U.S.C §6941, et seq.
State or Regional Solid Waste Plans and
implementing federal and state regulations to
control disposal of solid waste. The yard soils
disposed in the repository' may not exhibit the
toxicity characteristic and therefore, are not
hazardous waste. However, these soils are solid
waste.
Contaminated residential soils will be
consolidated from yards throughout the site.
The disposal of this waste material should he in
accordance with regulated solid waste
management practices.
2 Disposal of Hazardous
Waste in the Permanent
Repository
Subtitle C of RCRA. Section 3001 et seq.. 42
U..S.C. §6921. el seq. and implementing
regulations at 40 C.K.R. §261.4.
RCRA provides an exclusion from regulation as
a hazardous waste the mining waste generated
from the extraction, beneficiation and
processing of ores and minerals even if such
wastes may be characteristic hazardous wastes.
Such mining wastes may be excavated from
residential yards. If so, it is excluded from
regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA
Subtitle C.
Residential yard soils may be consolidated in
the permanent repository as solid wastes if they
are mining wastes, such as chat. The repository
is not a RCRA regulated hazardous waste
management unit.
Disposal of Hazardous
Waste in the Permanent
Repository and Designation
as a Corrective Action
Management Unit
(CAMU).
Subtitle C of RCRA, Section 3001 et seq.. 42
U.S.C. §6921. et seq. and implementing
regulations at 40 C.F.R. Subpart S, Correction
action for solid waste management units and
temporary units. 40 C.F.R. §264.522
RCRA defines Corrective Action Management
Units (CAMUs) to be used in connection with
implementing remedial measures for corrective
action under RCRA or at Superfund sites.
Generally, a CAMU is used for consolidation or
placement of remediation wastes within the
contaminated areas at the facility. Placement
of wastes in a CAMU does not constitute land
disposal of hazardous waste and does not
constitute creation of a unit subject to minimum
technology requirements.
The RCRA requirements of Subtitle C are not
applicable to the disposal of residential yard
soils in the repository. Residential yard soils
contaminated from smelter fall out are not
excluded from regulation tinder the RCRA
exclusion for extraction, beneficitaioh and
mineral processing. Therefore, yard soils
exhibiting a RCRA toxicity characteristic would
be regulated under Subtitle C ofRCRA
However, because of the CAMU regulation,
these residential soils are remediation wastes
and may be disposed without triggering RCRA
disposal requirements. The remedial action
will comply with the requirements of the
CAMU rule.
B. Relevant and .Appropriate
Requirements
29
-------
1 NPDF.S Storm Water
Discharge for Permanent
Repository.
2 Transportation of excavated
soils
C To Be Considered
4()C.r.R. Part 122. § 122.26
DOT Hazardous Material Transportation
Regulations. 4') C 1 K Parts 107. 171-177
None
Kstahlishes permitting process and discharge
regulations for stortn water
Regulates transportation of hazardous wastes.
Required management of repository where
waste materials come into contact with storm
water. Also required during construction of the
repository.
Relevant and appropriate for the excavation
oil-site disposal regulations would not apply.
30
-------
TABLE 6
STATE ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
A Applicable
Requirements
1 . Ambient Air conservation 1 .aw, anil
Restrictions of I'artiailale Matter to the
.Ambient Air Beyond the Premises of Origin.
B. Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
2. Missouri Clean Water l.a\v.
NPPKS Storm Water
Discharge for Pennanent
Repository.
C. To He Considered
Citation
Revised Statutes ol Missouri, chapter 643 and
Missouri Code nf Stale Regulations. 10 C.S.R.
Part 10 and IOCS R § 10-6 170
Missouri Water Pollution Control Regulations,
10 C.S.R Part 20
atld
Storniwater Regulations. 10 C.S.R Part 20-
f, 200
Prerequisite
Requires thai reasonable measures be used to
prevent paniculate emissions from leaving the
premises. Also, sets ambient air quality
standards for a number of air constituents.
Regulates the discharge of constituents from
any point source, including stormwater, to
surface waters of the stale. Provides for
maintenance and protection of public health and
aquatic life uses ofsurface \valer and
groundwater.
Establishes permitting process and discharge
regulations for storm water. A state permit will
not be required because the repository will be
conducted on-sile, however, substantive
requirements of the storm water controls will be
required.
Requirement
Recommend that excavation ol yard soils or
tilling of yards in treatment alternative be
handled in such a manner at lo control fugitive
emissions, such as use of a water sprav during
excavation, tilling or transportation. May be
used in monitoring ambient air quality during
implementation for lead and other participates.
Required management of repository where
waste materials come into contact with storm
water Also required during construction of the
repository.
Remedial actions will use "I3est Management
Practices" for land disturbance as including
practices o( procedures that reduce the amount
of soil available for transport in accordance with
this Missouri regulation.
31
-------
1 Siting ofthe Permanent Repository and
Closure ofthe Removal Repository.
RCRA Hazardous Waste Program as
Implemented by the State of Missouri through
its Hazardous Waste Program:
40CF.R. Section 264 14
40C.F.R. Section 264.15
40 C 1 R Section 264 IS (a) and (b); IOC.S.R.
25.7-264(l)(N)I.A.
40C.F.R. Section 264.37
40 C.F.R. Section 264.55, 264.56; 10 C.S.R.
25-7.264 (2)(D)
40 C.F.R. Section 264 111
40 C.F.R. Section 264 116; 10 C.S.R. 25-
7.264(2X0)3
40 C.F.R. Section 264 118
40 C.F.R. Section 264.310
Security
General Inspection Requirements
Locations Standards
Arrangements with Local Authorities
Contingency Plan
Closure Performance Standard
Survey Plant/Deed Notice
Post-closure Plan
Closure and Post-closure Care
The RCRA regulation of remediation wastes
will be in accordance with the CAMU rule as
discussed above under Federal Action-Specific
ARARs. The inclusion ofthe State of Missouri
Hazardous Waste Program regulations will be
considered during the remedial design of the
permanent repository and the closure design of
the removal repository
2. Registry of Confirmed
Abandoned or Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Sites.
Revised Statutes of Missouri,
Section 260.440.
Allows the state to list unremediated residential
properties with soil contamination that exhibits
the toxicity characteristic and is a hazardous
waste.
The State may not list residential properties
under either alternative unless access for
remediation is necessary in some cases (e.g.
young children reside at the property).
•3 Metallic Minerals Waste
Management Law.
Revised Statutes of Missouri,
Sections 444 350 to 444.380 and 444.362.
Requires a closure plan for capping mine and
mill wastes and requires a designation for future
use of such land.
May be considered for remedial action taken at
the removal repository and lor the permanent
repository which will be essentially a cap of
existing mine wastes.
32
-------
TABLE 7
COST SUMMARY FOR EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL
WITH HEALTH EDUCATION AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
WORK ITEM
REMEDIAL DESIGN
1 Contaminant Assessment
2. Repository Design
3. Yard Cleanup Design
TOTAT DPSTON POSTS
RESIDENTIAL YARD EXCAVATION
1. Mobilization
2. Property Access
3. Material Movement
(excavation, transport, backfill)
4. Post Cleanup Reports
5. Repository Site preparation
6. Material Placement in Repository
7. Repository Vegetative Cover
Snhfntnl
Onntintjpnrif1'; ( = 10% nfsiihtntnl")
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
1 . O&M of Time Critical Removal Repository
2. O&Mof Remedial Action Repository
3. Health Education Activities (from Table 2) for
first year including purchase of XRF and HEP A VAC
4, Monitoring of Institutional Controls
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
2.400
•
2,400
2,400
2,400
65 acres
400,000 cv
65 acres
ASSUMED
UNIT
PRICE
$450
$90,000
$50.000
$50,000
$50
$10,000
$400
$4000/acre
$1.20
$2000/acre
TOTAL EST.
COST FOR ITEM
$1,080.000
$90.000
$50,000
•SI 2!0_QQO
$50,000
$120.000
$24,000,000
$960,000
$260,000
$480,000
$130,000
i;7fi ooo ooo
<$? 600 000
$28.600,000
$5,000
$10,000
$77,600
$20,000
$112,600
33
-------
TABLE 8
HEALTH EDUCATION FOR JASPER COUNTY
WORK ITEM
Initial Purchase of Equipment (XRF, HEPAVAC)
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Annual maintenance of equipment
Educational material
Personnel and facility for blood lead screening
Professional education
ANNUAL O&M
TOTAL FOR FIRST YEAR
ESTIMATED COST
$17,000
$2,800
$10,000
$61,000
$3,800
$77,600
$94,600
34
-------
TABLE 9
COST ANALYSIS FOR PHOSPHATE STABILIZATION
WORK ITEM
DESIGN
1 . Remedial Design
2. Residential Yard Sampling
TOTAL DESIGN
PHOSPHATE STABILIZATION
1 . Treatability Study
2. Mobilization/Demobilization
3 . Phosphate Stabilization
(includes lawn restoration)
Subtotal
Contingencies (20% of subtotal)
TOTAL PHOSPHATE
STABILIZATION
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
1 . Annual O&M of Repositories
2. Annual Soil Chemistry'
Monitoring
3 . Annual Blood-Lead Monitoring
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M
(excluding treatabilitv studv)
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
1
4000 resident, yards
1
1
5000 residential vards
5 samples
ASSUMED UNIT
PRICE
$50.000
$450
$300,000
$5,000
$500 to $4,000
$1000
$35,000
TOTAL EST. COST
$50.000
$1,800.000
$2.250.000
$300.000
$5,000
$2,500,000 to
$20.000,000
$2,805,000 to
$20.305.000
$561,000 to
$4,061,000
$3,366,000 to
$24.366,000
$10.000
$5.000
$35.000
$50,000
35
-------
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RESIDENTIAL YARD SOILS
OPERABLE UNITS 2 AND 3
ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT SITE
JASPER COUNTY MISSOURI
Introduction
This Responsiveness summary has been prepared in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) 40 CFR § 300.430(0- This document provides the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) response to all significant comments received on the Proposed Plan
from the public during the 30-day comment period.
On May 6. 1996, the EPA released the Proposed Plan and Administrative Record File
containing the Remedial Investigation, Human Health Risk assessment, Feasibility Study, and
other pertinent documents for public review and comment. The Proposed Plan discussed the
EPA's proposed action to address residential yard soils contaminated with lead and cadmium.
The public comment period was open from May 6 to June 7, 1996. The EPA held a public
meeting on May 16 at the North Middle School in Joplin, Missouri to present the Proposed Plan
and discuss results of investigations and feasibility study. A copy of the transcript from the
public meeting is included in the Administrative Record File.
Comments Received from the Public and Responses
The following comments were received in writing during the comment period or verbally
during the public meeting.
Two questions were received from the City of Carterville concerning the soil
repository. These were whether the repository would contaminate ground water, and how
the repository would be finished.
The repository will be constructed to cover existing mining and milling wastes. It will be
graded and vegetated to prevent erosion of soil from the pile. Additionally, the EPA and the
Missouri Highway and Transportation Department (MHTD) are coordinating to route the
proposed highway 71 bi-pass over the pile or to use the soil pile for fill in the right-of-way.
Remedial investigations at the site indicate that lead and other metals in mining and milling
wastes and surface soils do not leach into ground water if surface runoff is controlled.
The Carterville Special Road District asked for more specific information of how
the repository will be maintained until it is covered by the highway 71 bi-pass.
-------
The repository will be maintained for one year after completion of the cleanup by the
EPA. After the first year of maintenance, the repository w'ill be maintained by the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). The repository will be constructed with proper
runoff controls that prevent soils from migrating from the pile. In the case that the highway 71
bi-pass does not cover the pile, the MHTD has informed the EPA of their intention is to use the
soil from the pile as fill or cover material for the construction of the bi-pass. Thus most, if not all
of the pile would be removed and placed in the bi-pass right-of-way.
The City of Joplin raised several concerns regarding the long-term repository.
These concern pertained primarily to who will maintain and is responsible for the
repository.
The EPA will design and prepare the site(s) for the long-term repository. The MDNR is
financially responsible, as part of the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) for the site, to ensure
that the repository is properly operated and maintained. It is anticipated, however, that the
MDNR may contract with a local government, i.e., city or county, or a private entity to operate
and maintain the repository. Several options exist fo provide for a long-term repository,. These
include establishing a user fee, disposing contaminated soil as cover in existing landfills, or
disposing contaminated soil on appropriate land currently covered with mining wastes and zoned
industrial/commercial as use for fill before development. The exact details and design of the
long-term repository will be completed as part of the remedial design and Operation and
Maintenance Plan and will be coordinated by the EPA with the MDNR and local governments.
Regardless of the location selected for the long-term repository, unless the MDNR grants
an exemption to dispose the soil in an existing landfill as a Special Waste, the repository must be
constructed on land with existing mining wastes. Additionally, the soil must be deposited on top
of the mining wastes to comply with policy established under the Corrective Action Management
Rule (CAMU). The CAMU allows exemptions to the requirements of the Resource,
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Otherwise, the repository would be subject to the
requirements of RCRA, including meeting land disposal restrictions, closure, and post closure
requirements.
Costs associated with the long-term repository in the Proposed Plan are only estimates.
The EPA does not anticipate that the long-term repository will be extensively utilized.
Therefore, the cost estimate for O&M is not significant. Actual costs will be developed during
the design phase of the project. Actual O&M cost will be developed in the O&M Plan.
Several citizens wrote to express their concern that the cleanup proceed as quickly
as possible and that their particular yards be remediated soon.
The EPA is anticipating that remediation activities will begin in early fall of 1996.
Cleanup will begin at yards with the highest health risk first, i.e., those that contain the highest
level of contamination, and continue to yards that present the least health risk. Yards that contain
soil with lead levels exceeding 800 parts per million (ppm) will be excavated unless the
-------
treatability study proves that addition of phosphate will reduce the toxicity of lead in soil. If
phosphate stabilization proves effective, the EPA will switch from excavation to treatment of
yard soils and all soils exceeding 500 ppm will be treated.
Several citizens expressed their concern regarding the effectiveness of health
education. Some stated they did not believe health education could reduce blood lead
concentrations in children possibly resulting from yard soil containing up to 800 ppm lead,
assuming phosphate treatment is not used as a cleanup method.
The EPA believes that health education can be an effective tool at reducing blood-lead
concentrations in children if extensive programs are implemented and maintained.. Regardless,
the selected remedial action includes monitoring of blood-lead levels in children on a continuing
basis. If during the five year reviews conduced for the site, the EPA determines that overall
blood-lead concentrations have not decreased to acceptable levels, the EPA will reassess the
remedy and will take further action to reduce blood-lead concentration. These actions may
include additional excavation or treatment technologies to lower action levels.
\
The EPA, in cooperation with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), the Missouri Department of Health (MDOH), and the Jasper County and Joplin
Health departments will make ever effort to implement an effective health education program.
The health education program will reach as many parents as possible in the affected areas, and,
physicians within the county.
Both the Jasper County and Joplin Health departments expressed concern that the
funding for health education specified in the Proposed Plan may not be adequate to
support activities necessary to protect human health. They also stated that a trust fund
should be established to provide money for the program into the future.
The cost presented in the Proposed Plan and Record of Decision are only estimates of
what the activities will cost, not the exact amount of funds that will be spent on health education.
The EPA will coordinate with the ATSDR, MDOH and the Jasper County and Joplin Health
departments to design an effective health education program that includes appropriate child
blood-lead monitoring. The EPA will ensure that adequate funding is provided for the program
until the remedy is effective at reducing exposure of children to lead and cadmium contamination
in the soil. Effectiveness of the remedy may be measured by reduction in blood-lead
concentrations in children. The State of Missouri will ensure adequate funding for the health
education thereafter. Funding will be adjusted as appropriate to accomplish the goals of the
program.
With respect to establishing a trust fund, the EPA believes that the Superfund Trust Fund
is already established to provide money for remedial actions. Separate trust funds created on a
site-by-site basis are unnecessary. The appropriate mechanism for the EPA to assist the State and
local health agencies in carrying out health education, is a cooperative agreement between the
EPA and the State or local government. The cooperative agreement allows the EPA to fund
-------
health education during implementation of the remedial design and remedial action. In
accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) regulations, the EPA will continue to
fund the health education program for at least one year after the remedy is determined to be
operational and functional. After that time, the State is responsible for operating and maintaining
and thus, funding, the health education program. When appropriate, the EPA may agree to
extensions of the one year period for continued Federal funding of operation and maintenance
prior to the State taking responsibility for O&M. The EPA is considering such extensions for
this site if the remedy is not yet operational and functional at the conclusion of the one year
period.
The EPA is also considering the possibility of using funds obtained from potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) to implement the health education program. Certain funds may be
obtained and placed in special accounts earmarked for site-specific response. If feasible, a trust
fund may be created from such private parties' money. However, the EPA is considering such a
trust fund very carefully because the trustee, beneficiaries and uses of the trust fund money must
be carefully identified and specified.
Both the Jasper County and Joplin Health departments express concern about
liability and maintenance of HEPAVACS proposed to be housed in the health departments.
The EPA included issuing HEPAVACs to the health departments in response to requests
from the departments, ATSDR, and MDOH early in the feasibility study process. The EPA will
work with the health department during development of the health education program to decide
where the HEPAVACs will be housed and who will maintain them. The EPA anticipates the
Jasper County Health Department will receive the unit for use by individual citizens on a site
wide basis. The EPA will ensure, and fund, the health department to receive proper training on
maintenance of the units and proper disposal of the dust collected in them. It is anticipated that
disposal of dust will occur at the repositories established for the remedial action. If proper
procedures are followed, minimal, if any, liability will be incurred by the department.
One citizen asked about the actual effect on the health of children of having high
blood-lead levels. She questioned if the EPA has assessed such things as IQ levels,
increased illnesses, birth defects, cancers, etc.
Consultation with ATSDR and MDOH suggests that it is very difficult to obtain reliable
results on effects to the population by measuring the items in question. One tool the EPA has
available to measure the effects of lead contamination on a population is blood-lead levels. The
exposure study conducted by the MDOH and ATSDR released in 1994 concluded that the most
significant cause of elevated blood-lead levels in children was exposure to lead contaminated
soil.
One commenter suggested the EPA consider deed restrictions instead of
institutional controls and require soil sampling prior to sale of a home similar to a termite
inspection.
-------
The EPA has considered deed restrictions as an option. The type of deed restriction has
been carefully considered and the EPA believes a notice oh the deed filed at the County
Recorder's Office may be sufficient. Such a notice may be filed on properties identified as
having contamination above the action levels for cleanup where the owner refuses to allow the
cleanup to proceed. However, deed notices on all potentially contaminated undeveloped
properties is not practical because of the very large amount of contaminated land and numerous
property owners. The EPA believes a better approach to controlling future development is
through local government land use controls, such as an environmental building code to be
enforced by the local health departments. Such a code could be a county or city ordinance and
would require soil sampling prior to occupancy of newly constructed dwellings. In the event
unsafe levels of contaminants are found in the soil, cleanup would be required prior to
occupancy. If the local governments fail to enact such protective ordinances, or repeal them after
enactment, the EPA may exercise its authority to identify undeveloped properties and place deed
notices on the title if the properties are contaminated with hazardous substances in accordance
with Section 107(1) of CERCLA, 42 USC § 6907(1).
The City of Joplin requested that the EPA release all soil sampling results for
residential yards to date.
The EPA will release all results with the ROD. Additionally, the EPA will continue to
provide data as it becomes available.
Several comments were received regarding institutional controls (ICs). These
included questions on who would fund the ICs, in what areas they would be required, how
they would be implemented, and what specific types of controls would be required.
The EPA and MDNR will work closely with the local governments to establish the ICs
for the site. ICs will be required only in the smelter zones and former mining areas. The EPA
will provide a map to the local governments outlining these areas of concern. Additionally, ICs
are required only for construction of new residential dwelling, daycare facilities, schools, or
parks and playgrounds. The ICs are not necessary for commercial or industrial sites.
The EPA's preference is that the ICs be implemented at the County level since the areas
of concern lie within several municipalities, and unincorporated portions of the county. It is
anticipated that the ICs will be developed as a health ordinance that requires sampling of
residential properties to show that lead levels are below 500 ppm prior to occupancy of the
dwelling. Properties that contain lead concentrations greater than 500 ppm will require
remediation. This could be accomplished by either excavating the contaminated soil until the
levels at the surface are less than 500 ppm, or capping the contaminated soil with clean soil. In
the case that the contaminated soil is capped, the thickness of clean soil is as follows; 500 ppm
to 1000 ppm requires six inches, 1000 to 2500 requires twelve inches, and more than 2500 ppm
requires eighteen inches. If the treatability study being conducted for phosphate stabilization
provide acceptable results, the EPA will provide phosphate treatment criteria. At a minimum,
one sample will be required for every 900 square feet (30 ft. by 30 ft.) of yard area. Sample
-------
analysis may be performed by x-ray diffraction (XRF) methods or by a reputable analytical
laboratory.
The EPA will provide funding to establish and implement the ICs. For example, funding
may be needed to draft the local ordinance, and to obtain a legal opinion as to the validity of the
ordinance, etc. Long-term O&M for the ICs will be assumed by the State of Missouri.
Depending on exactly what types of ICs are implemented, it is anticipated that maintenance of
the ICs will be funded through permit fees assessed to the home owner. For example, if a county
health ordinance is adopted requiring sampling of yard soil, the county may hire a firm to collect
and analyze to soil, and bill the home owner. The process would be similar to hiring someone to
conduct a termite inspection prior to sale of a home, or do a percolation test for installing a new
septic system.
The Jasper County Health Department submitted two comments to the EPA
concerning phosphate stabilization. These were that the technology should receive
community support before it is utilized and that the Agency should test both mine waste
soil, as well as, smelter zone soil.
The EPA intends to hold a public meeting once the treatability study is complete to
present and discuss the results of the study and to solicit support from the community before
proceeding with phosphate stabilization. During the initial study, only smelter zone soils will be
tested, since this is the area of highest contamination and will be remediated first. However, the
EPA plans to conduct testing of mining area soil in addition to the smelter zone soil as a second
phase of the study.
The City of Joplin also made two comments concerning phosphate stabilization.
These pertained to the large range of costs estimated for treatment, and allowing the
Citizen's task force and the Technical Assistance Group (TAG) to have input into the
study.
The EPA intends to provide the treatability study work plan to both the task force and the
TAG for review and comment before implementing the study. Additionally, both groups will be
allowed to review and comment on study results.
The wide range of the cost estimate stems from the fact that this type of treatment as not
been full tested to date to reduce bioavailability. The EPA is confident that phosphate
stabilization can be used to reduce bioavailability if thoroughly mixed into soil by methods such
as rototilling. However, rototilling, must first be proven to be effective, and second is relatively
expensive since yards must then be re-sodded. The EPA also plans to test less invasive
application method along with the rototilling. These methods are significantly less expensive,
yet like rototilling, have to date not been proven to reduce bioavailability. Additionally, the EPA
will also assess the depth of treatment that is the most cost effective, yet still protective of human
health.
-------
The City of Joplin asked how the EPA will acknowledge that the cleanup is
complete.
The EPA will publish a Remedial Action Completion Report at the conclusion of the
cleanup activities. This report will document all yards that were cleaned up, and will present any
and all data the EPA has demonstrating the remedial action is protecting human health.
The City of Joplin asked how long the remedial action is expected to take and what
assurances are in place to complete the action.
If phosphate stabilization is not used, the action will be completed in approximately five
years. The EPA anticipates that the cleanup will be completed sooner if phosphate is used. Once
the EPA issues the Record of Decision, it is committing to complete the entire remedial action.
The EPA has S3 million to start to cleanup this year and has planned $7 million for 1997.
Additional money will be incrementally added to the cleanup action until remediation is
complete.
v
The City of Joplin asked how homes that refuse cleanup during the removal will be
treated during the remedial action.
The homes that refused to participate during the removal action will be placed of the list
for top priority during the remedial action since their yards now contain the highest levels of
contamination. The EPA hopes they will now choose to have their yards remediated. If they still
choose not to participate, the EPA will publish the addresses of the yards that were not cleaned
up, yet contain unacceptable levels of contamination, to protect potential future buyers of those
properties. The EPA is also considering dead notices for the individual properties where the
owner does not allow remediation.
The City of Joplin asked if the EPA will address some lead-based paint issues along
with soil cleanup.
The EPA will clean up soil contaminated by lead-based paint in yards that are also
contaminated from smelter or mining sources. However, the EPA will not remediate lead-based
paint on the house itself. The EPA will advise the homeowner of the existing lead paint problem
and counsel the owner on ways to abate the problems.
The City of Joplin asked how contractors will be selected to conduct the remedial
action and encouraged use of local contractors.
The EPA intends to contract the remedial action to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
(COE) through an interagency agreement as provided for in the National Contingency Plan. The
COE has preplaced contractors that will be utilized to conduct the cleanup. However, equipment
operators, haulers, laborers, etc., are expected to be hired from the local workforce.
-------
The City of Joplin recommended using funds collected from the Eagle-Picher
Company as part of a bankruptcy settlement for remedial actions, not to cover past cost
incurred by the EPA, and the use should have public input.
The EPA intends to use funds collected from Eagle-Picher for remedial actions at the site.
The EPA's claim in the bankruptcy included money to remediate soil in Eagle-Picher smelter
zone and in the mining areas. In accordance with the bankruptcy settlement and court order, the
EPA will utilize funds received in the most appropriate method possible to remediate soils in
these areas of the site. An opportunity to submit comments on the EPA settlement with Eagle-
Picher was available during a public comment period and public meeting held in 1995.
Representatives of the City of Joplin attended the public meeting held on July 11. 1995 in Joplin,
Missouri. The EPA responded to the City's concerns at that time. We reiterate here that the
Agency intends to use funds to be received from Eagle-Picher for remedial actions at this site,
and not for recovery of past costs.
The City of Joplin recommended that the EPA consider comprehensive remediation
of all lead potential sources, including paint, water, and soil to create a "lead safe"
environment. Additionally, the City recommended that the EPA correlate blood-lead data
to soil data, and consider long-term measures that provide protection from chipping lead-
based paint.
The EPA will issue a proposed plan later this year or early 1997 that provides for
remedial action for contaminated ground water. The remedial action described in this Record of
Decision deals with soil cleanup directly, and provides health education to reduce risk associated
with lead-based paint. The Exposure Study published by the MDOH showed the strongest
correlation of blood-lead to soil lead contamination. The study did not find a significant
correlation to lead-based paint. The EPA recognizes that chipping lead-based paint may
recontaminate a small portion of soil in the drip zone of a house. However, the EPA believes the
most cost effective method to deal with the potential problem is through health education
activities.
Several commenters were concerned that the EPA identify all residential yards and
gardens that require remediation. Of particular concern were homes built in mining areas
and homes built on transported mining wastes or transported contaminated soil.
The EPA has planned an extensive sampling program to identify all homes that require
cleanup. The sampling program will be designed to identify yards that exceed 500 ppm lead to
allow focused health education and possibly phosphate stabilization. In the smelter zones, the
program will continue sampling at the point where earlier characterization stopped until homes
within the zone of contamination greater than 500 ppm lead have been identified. In the mining
areas, the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) under an agreement with the EPA identified all
homes constructed on or near mining wastes in 1994 by comparing historic aerial photographs
with aerial photographs obtained in 1991. The EPA will verify that this study was accurate and
will characterize new homes built after 1991 in the mining areas. The EPA has not determined
-------
an adequate method for determining where homes have been built on transported minins wastes
or transported contaminated soil. However, if such homes are identified and soil contamination
exceeds the action levels, they will be included in the remedial action.
Additionally, the EPA will attempt to identify and sample existing gardens within the
affected areas. Gardens that exceed 500 ppm lead and/or 75 ppm cadmium will be included in
the remedial actions.
The Jasper County Superfund Site Coalition (JCSSC) commented that they believe
the EPA has limited the sampling, cleanup levels and remedial action based on budgetary
constraints.
The EPA has not limited Superfund response actions to meet perceived budget
limitations. The EPA selects the least costly remedy that provides protection to human health
and meets the statutory criteria. The remedy provides protection of human health with both
engineering and institutional controls. The selected remedy is approximately 60 percent less
expensive than using only engineering controls, i.e.. excavating all homes with lead
concentrations greater than 500 ppm.
The JCSSC commented that the remedy places unspecified requirements and costs
on the local community.
The EPA will work with the local governments to establish ICs, health education
programs, and a long-term repository. Financial responsibility for health education and the
repository is the responsibility of the EPA and MDNR. The EPA anticipates that the State and
local governments will provide that costs associated with maintaining the ICs will be the
responsibility of the future home owners or developers. The local communities should not have
any additional financial burden due to the ICs.
The JCSSC commented that the Proposed Plan did not contain a sampling plan or
sampling schedule for yards and gardens.
Sampling plans and schedules are typically developed as part of the Remedial Design
after the ROD is completed. The sampling plans will contain provisions to identify and sample
all gardens, as well as yards in the affected areas.
The JCSSC questioned whether the EPA would remediate driveways containing
mining wastes (chat).
The EPA will remediate chat driveways only at residential properties where soil
remediation is conducted. Driveways on residential properties that contain soil with metals
concentrations less than the action levels will not be addressed by the selected remedial action.
Consultations between the EPA and the MDOH indicate the driveways, without high soil lead
-------
level are not anticipated to create a significant risk. The risk associated with driveways alone can
be dealt with through health education. Property owners will be advised to pave or otherwise
cover chat driveways with clean material.
The JCSSC questioned whether the EPA will remediate vacant lots during the
remedial action since they are typical playgrounds for neighborhood children.
The EPA does not agree that all vacant lots are typical playgrounds for children in the age
group of concern and does not propose remediating all vacant lots that exceed action levels
within the affected areas as part of the selected remedy. However, the intent of the selected
remedy is to remediate areas where small children (under the age of six years) congregate or
spend a significant amount of time. The EPA will remediate a vacant lot(s) in the case where it
can be shown that small children spend significant time at the lot.
The JCSSC commented that they prefer the EPA remediate all garden soils
exceeding the Missouri Any-Use Numbers of 240 ppm lead and 28 ppm cadmium, and the
remedy, whether excavation or phosphate stabilization be applied to all gardens.
Additionally, they requested the EPA conduct bioavailability studies on cadmium as well as
lead.
The EPA with ATSDR and MDOH have determined that the site specific action levels for
gardens of 500 ppm lead and 75 ppm cadmium are protective of human health. The EPA will
remediate all gardens that are identified within the areas of concern that exceed action level using
excavation initially and then phosphate if the treatability studies show it to reduce bioavailability.
The EPA has not developed a methodology for conducting bioavailability studies on
cadmium. However, the data collected from the site indicates that cadmium rarely exceeds the
action level of 75 ppm in existing yard soil sampled to date. Additionally, research conducted by
others on using phosphate to reduce bioavailability in plants shows similar decreases in cadmium
after application as with lead.
The JCSSC requested clarification on the number on bioavailability tests, or more
specifically, the number of feeding studies, to be conducted during the phosphate
treatability study. Additionally, they questioned the amount of long-term monitoring to be
conducted.
The EPA will initiate the study with bench scale testing to determine two to three
optimum phosphate types and application rates to reduce bioavalability of lead. Effectiveness of
the tests will be assessed using physical and chemical analyses such as scanning electron
microscopy, x-ray diffraction, and in-vitro methods. At the completion of the bench study the
most promising mixture will be analyzed in a feeding study. If the feeding study shows an
adequate reduction in bioavailability, the two to three methods developed on the bench scale will
be applied to field test plots using different application methods. After the test plots have
"cured," soils will be collected from the plots to conduct additional feeding studies (up to three)
10
-------
to assess the application methods' effectiveness at achieving the reduction in bioavailability
achieved in the feeding study from soils mixed on the bench. The EPA will hold a public
meeting to discuss the results of the study and solicit public comment before switching to
phosphate stabilization of residential yards.
Additional testing is planned for the future to assess long-term stability of the treated
soils. The EPA will assess the stability of the treatment during each five-year review that is
conducted for the site. A review is required every five years as long as contaminants remain on-
site.
The JCSSC suggested that the EPA conduct studies on the uptake of metals by
garden plants in phosphate treated soils, if the treatment is to applied to gardens.
The reduction in availability of lead. zinc, and other metals has already been well
documented by other researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and private industry.
The EPA is not planning on reproducing these studies.
The JCSSC requested clarification on the criteria that will be used to determine that
switching from excavation to stabilization will be protective of human health.
The EPA will evaluate the success of phosphate stabilization using the EEUBK model
and the bioavailability number generated from the treatability study to calculate a new "safe
level" number for soil that has been treated with phosphate. All soils between 500 ppm and the
newly calculated site specific "safe level" will be stabilized with phosphate. All residential soils
exceeding the "safe level" for lead will be excavated.
The JCSSC provided numerous comments from their advisors regarding
development of the treatability study, proper data collection and analysis during the
treatability study, and development of long-term monitoring.
The Treatability Study Work Plan is currently being developed. The EPA intends to
involve the JCSSC's and the Jasper County EPA Citizens Task Force's advisors, as well as other
technical experts both within the EPA and outside the Agency, in development and review of the
treatability study and long-term monitoring program. The Work Plan will be distributed for
review once the fist draft has been completed by MDNR and reviewed by the EPA.
11
-------
-------
-------
------- |