PB96-964415
EPA/ROD/R08-96/127
Janaury 1997
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Anaconda Company Smelter,
Anaconda, MT
9/30/1996
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
COMMUNITY SOILS
OPERABLE UNIT
ANACONDA SMELTER NPL SITE
ANACONDA, MONTANA
September 25,1996
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region VIII, Montana Office
Federal Building, Drawer 10096
301 South Park
Helena, MT 59626
(406)441-1150
(Lead Agency)
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
2209 Phoenix Avenue
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-1420
(Support Agency)
Document Control Number: 7760-037-DD-DNJY
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
COMMUNITY SOILS
OPERABLE UNIT
ANACONDA SMELTER NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the concurrence of the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), presents this Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Community Soils Operable Unit (OU) of the Anaconda Smelter National Priorities List (NPL)
Site. The ROD is based on the Administrative Record for the Community Soils OU, including
the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), the Proposed Plan, the public comments
received, including those from the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), and EPA responses.
The ROD presents a brief summary of the RI/FS, actual and potential risks to human health and
the environment, and the Selected Remedy. EPA followed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, the National Contingency Plan (NCP),
and appropriate guidance in preparation of the ROD. The three purposes of the ROD are to:
1. Certify that the remedy selection process was carried out in accordance with
the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 etseq., as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (collectively, CERCLA),
and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP);
2. Outline the engineering components and remediation requirements of the
Selected Remedy; and
3. Provide the public with a consolidated source of information about the
history, characteristics, and risk posed by the conditions at the Community
Soils OU, as well as a summary of the cleanup alternatives considered,
their evaluation, the rationale behind the Selected Remedy, and the
agencies' consideration of, and responses to, the comments received.
The ROD is organized into three distinct sections:
1. The Declaration section functions as an abstract for the key information
contained in the ROD and is the section of the ROD signed by the EPA
Ecosystems Protection and Remediation Division Director and the DEQ
Director;
2. The Decision Summary section provides an overview of the OU
characteristics, the alternatives evaluated, and the analysis of those
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
options. The Decision Summary also identifies the Selected Remedy and
explains how the remedy fulfills statutory requirements; and
3. The Responsiveness Summary section addresses public comments
received on the Proposed Plan, the RI/FS, and other information in the
Administrative Record.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
DECLARATION
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
-------
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
Anaconda, Deer Lodge County, Montana
Community Soils Operable Unit
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the Selected Remedy for the Community Soils Operable Unit
(OU) of the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site in Deer Lodge County, Montana. EPA, with the
concurrence of DEQ, selected the remedy in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP.
This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the Community Soils OU of the
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. The Administrative Record (on microfilm) and copies of key
documents are available for public review at the Hearst Free Library, located on the corner of
Fourth and Main in Anaconda, Montana, and at the Montana Tech Library in Butte, Montana.
The complete Administrative Record may also be reviewed at the EPA Records Center in the
Federal Building, 301 South Park, in Helena, Montana.
The State of Montana concurs with the Selected Remedy, as indicated by its signature.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances at and from the Community Soils OU, if
not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Community Soils OU is the fourth remedial action to be taken at the Anaconda Smelter NPL
Site. The first action, taken at the Mill Creek OU, involved the relocation of residents from the
community of Mill Creek after other initial stabilization and removal efforts. The second action
was the Flue Dust OU, which addressed one of the principal threat wastes (flue dust) remaining
on the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. That action addressed flue dust at the site through removal,
treatment, and containment. At approximately the same time, other removal actions were
undertaken, including permanent removal and disposal of Arbiter and beryllium wastes and the
selective removal of contaminated residential yard materials from the community of Anaconda.
The third action addressed various waste sources found within the Old Works/East Anaconda
Development Area OU, located adjacent to the community of Anaconda, and in areas of future
development, and followed an initial removal action in the same area. Certain wastes within the
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU -p^ 1
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 U-1
-------
OW/EADA OU received an engineered cover, including the Red Sands waste material and the
Heap Roast slag piles, while others were consolidated and/or covered, including the Floodplain
wastes and miscellaneous waste piles. In addition, the third action allowed economic
development (i.e., construction of a golf course in the Old Works area) and provided the final
response action at the Mill Creek OU.
This remedial action at the Community Soils OU will address all remaining residential and
commercial/industrial soils within the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. The principal contaminant
of concern at the Community Soils OU is arsenic in surficial soils from past aerial emissions and
railroad beds constructed of waste material. This ROD establishes residential and
commercial/industrial action levels for arsenic at the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site.
All remaining cleanup decisions for the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site will be made under the
Anaconda Regional Water, Waste, and Soils (ARWWS) OU. The ARWWS OU is intended to
be the last OU at the site and will address potential impacts to surface and groundwater from
soils and waste sources such as tailings and slag. This OU will address human and
environmental risks associated with site-specific contamination that have not been addressed by
other response actions.
Major components of the remedy for residential soils include:
1. Clean up all current residential soils that exceed the residential action level
of 250 parts per million (ppm) soil arsenic concentration, through removal
and replacement with clean soil and placement of a vegetative or other
protective barrier;
2. In areas where specific site conditions dictate that removal is not
implementable, treatment or other measures (e.g., capping, tilling,
Institutional Controls (ICs) will be taken to reduce arsenic concentrations
to below the 250 ppm action level or to prevent exposure;
3. Clean up all future residential soils at the time of development that exceed
the residential action level of 250 ppm soil arsenic concentration, through
the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County (ADLC) Development Permit System
(DPS); and
4. Implement ICs to provide educational information to all residents
describing potential risks, and recommendations to reduce exposure to
residual contaminants in soils, and to ensure the long-term viability of this
remedy.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU p. _
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 \J-2,
-------
Major components of the remedy for commercial/industrial soils include:
1. Clean up all current commercial or industrial areas that exceed the
commercial/industrial action level of 500 ppm soil arsenic concentration through
a combination of revegetative techniques and/or engineered covers; and
2. Clean up all future commercial or industrial areas at the time of development that
exceed the commercial/industrial action level of 500 ppm soil arsenic
concentration through the ADLC-DPS.
Major components of the remedy for the railroad beds include:
1. Construct an engineered cover over all contaminated railroad bed material
within the community of Anaconda to prevent direct contact with, and
reduce potential for erosion and transport of, contaminated materials to
residential and commercial/industrial areas;
2. Separate the railbed from residential and commercial/industrial areas with
a barrier to restrict access to the railbed and to control surface runoff from
the railbed through the use of retaining walls and/or curbing; and
3. Maintain existing ICs to restrict access.
The Selected Remedy will achieve reduction of risk to human health through the following:
• Reduction of surface soil arsenic concentrations in residential and
commercial/industrial areas to acceptable levels; and/or
• Prevention of direct human contact with waste materials exceeding
acceptable levels.
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 uses permanent solutions (e.g., soil removal and
engineered covers) and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable for
this site. The remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedy. Treatment is not a principal element of the remedy because 1) soils are
being removed, thus eliminating the need for treatment and 2) treatment of railroad bed materials
was not found to be practicable on an active rail line. However, treatment of other principal
threats has been employed in other response actions at the site.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU -p. ^
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 LJ-J
-------
Since hazardous substances above health-based risk levels will remain on site, (i.e., railroad beds
and on-site soil management areas) 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.
Max H. Dodson, Director Date
Ecosystems Protection and Remediation Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII
Mark A/Simonich, Director Date
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES DS-iv
LIST OF FIGURES DS-v
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND INITIALISMS DS-vi
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION DS-1
2.0 OPERABLE UNIT HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES DS-3
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION DS-6
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT DS-8
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS DS-11
5.1 AIR DS-12
5.2 SURFACE SOILS DS-13
5.2.1 BACKGROUND SOIL CONCENTRATIONS DS-13
5.2.2 SURFACE SOIL DATA DS-13
5.3 SUBSURFACE SOILS DS-16
5.4 RAILROAD BEDS DS-17
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS DS-19
6.1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN DS-19
6.2 POTENTIALLY EXPOSED POPULATIONS DS-20
6.3 IDENTIFICATION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS DS-21
6.4 HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS DS-21
6.5 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS DS-23
6.6 QUANTIFICATION OF NONCANCER RISKS DS-23
6.7 POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO LEAD . DS-24
6.8 QUANTIFICATION OF CANCER RISKS DS-25
6.9 COMBINED RISKS DS-25
6.10 ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTIES DS-26
6.11 SUMMARY DS-27
6.11.1 ACTION LEVELS DS-28
6.11.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT DS-29
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES DS-30
7.1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES DS-30
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\artaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
7.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL SOILS
DS-31
7.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR RAILROAD BEDS
DS-32
8.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES DS-34
8.1 EVALUATION AND COMPARISON CRITERIA DS-34
8.1.1 THRESHOLD CRITERIA DS-34
8.1.2 PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA DS-34
8.1.3 MODIFYING CRITERIA DS-35
8.2 EVALUATING THE RESIDENTIAL SOIL ALTERNATIVES DS-35
8.2.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT DS-35
8.2.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS (ARARs) DS-35
8.2.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE DS-35
8.2.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH
TREATMENT DS-36
8.2.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS DS-36
8.2.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY DS-36
8.2.7 COST DS-36
8.2.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE DS-37
8.2.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE DS-37
8.2.10 SUMMARY DS-37
8.3 EVALUATING THE RAILROAD BED ALTERNATIVES DS-38
8.3.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT DS-38
8.3.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs DS-38
8.3.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE DS-38
8.3.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH
TREATMENT DS-39
8.3.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS DS-39
8.3.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY DS-39
8.3.7 COST DS-39
8.3.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE DS-39
8.3.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE DS-39
8.3.10 SUMMARY DS-40
9.0 SELECTED REMEDY DS-41
9.1 REMEDY FOR RESIDENTIAL SOILS DS-41
9.2 REMEDY FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS DS-43
9.3 REMEDY FOR RAILROAD BED MATERIALS DS-44
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
9.4 CLEANUP LEVELS DS-44
9.5 REMEDIATION REQUIREMENTS DS-45
9.6 COST DS-47
9.7 CONTINGENCY MEASURES DS-47
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS DS-48
10.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT DS-48
10.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs DS-49
10.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS DS-49
10.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES (OR RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES) TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE DS-49
10.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT DS-50
11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DS-51
12.0 REFERENCES DS-52
APPENDIX A - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
Table 1 Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Previous Investigations and Reports Used in the
Community Soils RI Report
Table 2 Summary of Kriging Results for Community and Regional Locations
Table 3 Summary of Subsurface Soil Sampling for Community and Regional Locations
Table 4 Summary of Railroad Bed Sampling for Anaconda and Regional Locations
Table 5 Exposure Parameters for the Residential Scenario
Table 6 Exposure Point Concentrations
Table 7 Summary of Soil Lead Data
Table 8 Noncancer Risks, Ingestion of Arsenic in Groundwater, Soil, and Dust, RME and
CTE Residential Scenario
Table 9 IEUBK Modeling Results Summary
Table 10 Cancer Risks, Ingestion of Arsenic in Groundwater, Soil, and Dust, RME and
CTE Residential Scenario
Table 11 Risk-Based Screening Levels for Arsenic for the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
Table 12 Comparison of Remedial Alternatives for Residential Soils
Table 13 Comparison of Remedial Alternatives for Railroad Beds
Table 14 Capital Costs
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
DS-iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
Figure 1 Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Location Map with Approximate Site Boundary
Figure 2 Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Map with Approximate Study Area
Figure 3 Air Monitoring and Dustfall Station Locations
Figure 4 Focus Area for Anaconda Residential Soils
Figure 5 Arsenic Distribution Surface Interval, Anaconda Railroad Bed
Figure 6 Site Conceptual Exposure Model
Figure 7 Modified Bornschein Subareas
Figure 8 Selected Remedy for Community Soils
Figure 9 Selected Remedy for Railroad Beds
EXHIBIT
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Focus Area for Regional Residential Soils
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
DS-v
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND INITIALISMS
ADLC
AM-95
AMC
AOC
ARARs
ARCO
ARWWS
GDI
COM Federal
CERCLA
C.F.R.
COPC
CPMP
CTE
DEQ
DPS
EE/CA
EPA
FS
HHRA
HQ
ICs
IEUBK
mg/kg
NCP
NPL
OW/EADA
OU
pH
PM-10
ppm
PRP
RARUS
RfD
RI
RI/FS
RME
ROD
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Upper 95% Confidence Limit of the Arithmetic Mean
Anaconda Mining Company
Administrative Order on Consent
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Atlantic Richfield Company
Anaconda Regional Water, Waste, and Soils
Chronic Daily Intake
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980
Code of Federal Regulations
Chemical of Potential Concern
Community Protective Measures Program
Central Tendency Exposure
State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Development Permit System
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Feasibility Study
Human Health Risk Assessment
Hazard Quotient
Institutional Controls
Integrated Exposure Uptake/Biokinetic
milligrams per kilogram
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area
Operable Unit
hydrogen ion concentration
10 micron particle size
parts per million
Potentially Responsible Party
RARUS Railway Company
Reference Dose
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Record of Decision
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
DS-vi
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND INITIALISMS (continued)
SCEM Site Conceptual Exposure Model
SF Slope Factor
SMP Site Management Plan
SPM Settled Particulate Matter
TCRA Time-Critical Response Action
fj.g/dL micrograms per deciliter
//g/L micrograms per liter
UCL Upper Confidence Limit
U.S.C. United States Code
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU T~IG
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 JLJo-VH
-------
-------
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
Community Soils Operable Unit
Anaconda, Montana
The Anaconda Smelter National Priorities List (NPL) Site is located in the Deer Lodge Valley in
southwestern Montana, in and around the city of Anaconda and about 25 miles northwest of the
city of Butte (Figure 1). Milling and smelting activities conducted at the Old Works and Washoe
Reduction Works smelters for nearly 100 years have resulted in the contamination of various
environmental media in the surrounding area, primarily through airborne emissions and disposal
practices from smelting operations.
The Anaconda Smelter NPL Site has been divided into several operable units (OUs), two of
which have not been completed: the Community Soils OU and the Anaconda Regional Water,
Waste, and Soils (ARWWS) OU. The study area for the Community Soils OU, as well as the
ARWWS OU, covers approximately 300 geographic sections (1-square mile each) and includes
the communities of Anaconda, Opportunity, Fairmont, Galen, and Warm Springs (Figure 2).
The Community Soils OU, for which this Record of Decision (ROD) has been prepared,
addresses all residential and commercial/industrial soils throughout the NPL Site. The
Community Soils OU Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) (AGC 1996a)
characterizes residential and commercial/industrial soils and railroad beds, and provides a
procedural means to identify and evaluate alternatives that remedy human health risks in
residential and commercial/industrial areas within the site.
The Community Soils area of concern is generally bounded on the east and south by the border
of Deer Lodge and Silver Bow Counties, on the west by the Anaconda West Valley, and on the
north by the border of Deer Lodge and Powell Counties. The majority of this land is classified as
rural. The Community Soils OU consists of the five communities within this area, and all other
residential areas within the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. The five communities included in the
study area have a combined population of under 8,600 (Peccia & Associates 1992).
Prior to closure of smelter operations in 1980, the Anaconda Smelter was a source of substantial
air emissions at the site. The distance and direction of each of the five communities from the
stack located on Smelter Hill are: Anaconda, less than one mile northwest; Opportunity, 3.0
miles east; Fairmont, 6.8 miles southeast; Warm Springs, 7 miles northeast; and Galen, 10.4
miles northeast. Other sources of aerial contaminants related to the Anaconda milling and
smelting operations have also contributed to community soils contamination.
Major drainages within the site include Warm Springs Creek, Mill Creek, Willow Creek, Lost
Creek and Silver Bow Creek. These creeks drain the Anaconda area and surrounding mountains
and eventually flow east and north where they enter the Clark Fork River drainage system.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU T\c 1
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 IJo-1
-------
Topography in the Anaconda area varies from floodplain to steeply sloping hills. South of the
area, the Pintler Mountains rise to above 10,000 feet. Northwest of the area is the Flint Creek
Range and southwest is the steeply rising Anaconda Range.
The climate for this area is characterized as semi-arid, with moderate wind conditions, long, cold
winters, and short and cool summers. The average annual temperature measured in Anaconda is
43°F. Weather data collected for the period of 1951 to 1980 in East Anaconda indicate the
annual average precipitation is approximately 14 inches per year.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU _ _ _
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 L/O-Z
-------
2.0 OPERABLE UNIT HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Around 1884, the Anaconda Mining Company (AMC) and its predecessors commenced large
copper concentrating and smelting operations at the area presently known as the Old Works. The
Old Works was located on the north side of Warm Springs Creek, west of Anaconda, and
operated until about 1901. In about 1902, ore processing and smelting operations began at the
Washoe Reduction Works (also called the Anaconda Smelter, the Washoe Smelter, the New
Works, and the Anaconda Reduction Works) on Smelter Hill, south of Warm Springs Creek
across from the Old Works which was owned and operated by AMC, its successors, and/or its
subsidiaries. In 1977, Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) purchased AMC and expressly
assumed its liabilities. Operations at the Anaconda Smelter ceased in 1980, and the smelter
facilities were dismantled soon thereafter. The only substantial feature remaining from the
smelter facility is the large brick smelter stack on Smelter Hill. ARCO has been identified as the
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) for this site.
The Anaconda Smelter NPL Site was placed on the NPL in September 1983, under the authority
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). The U.S. Environmental Protection agency (EPA) issued both general and special
notice letters to ARCO on several occasions and ARCO has been actively involved in conducting
investigations and response actions at the site since that time. On April 12, 1984, ARCO entered
into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA to conduct demolition activities at the
smelter. In October 1984, ARCO entered into another AOC to conduct several investigations at
the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site to characterize soils, surface water, groundwater, and solid
wastes. Early draft reports based on initial investigations indicated wide-spread contamination
and the need for more in-depth study.
In the initial stages of the investigations, it was discovered that the soils within the community of
Mill Creek, located two miles east of Anaconda, had elevated levels of arsenic. Children in Mill
Creek also had elevated urinary arsenic levels, indicating an excess exposure to arsenic in their
environment. Families with young children were temporarily relocated from the community in
May 1986. At that time, flue dust, the most concentrated arsenic and heavy metal source on the
site, was sprayed with surfactant to reduce fugitive emissions, and contaminated road dust in the
community was treated to reduce inhalation exposures. Following temporary relocation, none of
these children had levels of urinary arsenic above the levels of concern as determined by the
Center for Disease Control.
In July 1986, EPA entered into an AOC with ARCO to conduct an expedited RI/FS for the Mill
Creek community. The ROD for Mill Creek was completed in October 1987. The selected
remedy was the permanent relocation of all Mill Creek residents. EPA negotiated a Consent
Decree with ARCO concerning the implementation of the relocation remedy for Mill Creek
residents on January 7, 1988. The permanent relocation was completed in fall 1988.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
The generation and airborne transport of stack participate and fugitive dust emissions during
smelting operations also resulted in contamination of soils and household dust by arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in other areas surrounding the smelter. In addition, it was
suspected that contaminated material from the Old Works Smelter facilities was present around
homes in three Anaconda neighborhoods (Teresa Ann Terrace, Elkhorn Apartments, and Cedar
Park Homes).
On September 28, 1988, ARCO entered into an AOC (Docket No. CERCLA VIII-88-06) with
EPA to conduct an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) study and investigation for
the Old Works and Community Soils OUs of the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. Results of
sampling conducted by ARCO in 1988-1989 in the areas of Teresa Ann Terrace, Elkhorn
Apartments, and Cedar Park Homes indicated the presence of elevated heavy metal
concentrations at or near the soil surface. Sampling conducted by ARCO in 1990 confirmed the
presence of elevated concentrations of heavy metals in several yards, gardens, and common areas
of the three neighborhoods.
A September 17,1991, an Action Memorandum (with a concurrent AOC) required ARCO to
conduct a Time-Critical Removal Action (TCRA) by excavating and removing contaminated
soils in areas of Teresa Ann Terrace, Elkhorn Apartments, and Cedar Park Homes where arsenic
concentrations exceeded 250 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Under the TCRA, removal of
arsenic-contaminated soils to 18 inches and replacement of topsoil and grass began in late 1991
and was completed in September 1992. Removal occurred on about 8 acres of undeveloped lots
and 19 yards in Teresa Ann Terrace, on 32 yards around the Elkhorn apartments, and on 14 yards
around Cedar Park Homes.
In 1991, ARCO and EPA amended an AOC (Docket No. CERCLA VIII-88-16) to conduct the
Anaconda Soils Investigation to provide information to support future RI/FS activities at the
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. The investigation focused on five geographic areas: community
soils; near community soils; community targeted soils; regional soils; and regional targeted soils.
One of the primary objectives of the investigation was to delineate the nature and extent of
metals contamination resulting from airborne particulate deposition.
In 1992, ARCO initiated an Arsenic Exposure Study through the University of Cincinnati, to
measure arsenic in Anaconda residents and evaluate possible exposure pathways. Several
hundred families participated in this study to provide environmental (i.e., soil, dust, food, and
water) and biological (i.e., urine) data. Data from this study was utilized by EPA in the Final
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site (COM
Federal 1996a).
Also in 1992, EPA and ARCO further amended AOC 88-16 to conduct the Old Works/East
Anaconda Development Area (OW/EADA) OU investigations. The March 1994 ROD for the
OW/EADA OU selected a combination of engineering and institutional controls (ICs) as the
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
remedy. Remediation of recreational and commercial/industrial areas was conducted where
waste and soils exceeded arsenic levels of 1,000 and 500 ppm, respectively.
In early 1994, EPA began the scoping process for the human health risk assessment, culminating
in the completion of the Final Baseline HHRA in January 1996.
In 1995, ARCO and EPA entered into the 8th Amendment to AOC 88-16 to conduct a Phase I
Soils Remedial Investigation from previous studies to support both the Community Soils and
ARWWS OUs. This investigation contains the completed characterization of residential soils at
the site. The Feasibility Study (FS) portion of this Community Soils RI/FS was conducted under
the 7th Amendment to the AOC in 88-16.
The Community Soils OU addresses all remaining residential and commercial/industrial soils of
the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. This OU will also bring closure to previous actions conducted
at residential properties within the site (i.e., Community Soils TCRA and actions taken through
the County's Development Permit System) as well as commercial/industrial properties. Other
cleanup actions, not related to soil contamination, have been selected and implemented at the
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Public participation is required by CERCLA Sections 113 and 117. These sections require that
before adoption of any plan for remedial action to be undertaken by EPA, the State, or an
individual (PRP), the lead agency shall:
1. Publish a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan and make such plan
available to the public; and
2. Provide a reasonable opportunity for submission of written and oral comments
and an opportunity for a public meeting at or near the site regarding the Proposed
Plan and any proposed findings relating to cleanup standards. The lead agency
shall keep a transcript of the meeting and make such transcript available to the
public. The notice and analysis published under item #1 above shall include
sufficient information to provide a reasonable explanation of the Proposed Plan
and alternative proposals considered.
Additionally, notice of the final remedial action plan set forth in the ROD must be published and
the plan must be made available to the public before commencing any remedial action. Such a
final plan must be accompanied by a discussion of any significant changes to the preferred
remedy presented in the Proposed Plan along with the reasons for the changes. A response
(Responsiveness Summary) to each of the significant comments, criticisms, and new data
submitted in written or oral presentations during the public comment period must be included
with the ROD.
EPA has conducted the required community participation activities through presentation of the
RI/FS and Proposed Plan, a 30-day public comment period, a formal public hearing, and
presentation of the Selected Remedy in this ROD. Specifically included with this ROD is a
Responsiveness Summary that summarizes public comments and EPA responses.
The RI/FS and Proposed Plan for the Community Soils OU were released for public comment on
July 8, 1996. The RI/FS and Proposed Plan were made available to the public in both the
Administrative Record located at the EPA Record Center in Helena and the Hearst Free Library
in Anaconda. The Proposed Plan was distributed to the parties on the EPA Anaconda mailing
list (approximately 350 residents) and also made available at several locations in Anaconda. The
notice of availability of the RI/FS and Proposed Plan was published in the Anaconda newspaper,
The Anaconda Leader, July 5 and 10,1996. A formal public comment period was designated
from July 8 through August 9, 1996.
In addition, numerous public meetings and distribution of site information have been provided by
EPA. The most recent update of Superfund activities was provided in a March 1996 fact sheet,
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
and EPA held an informational meeting in Anaconda on March 14,1996, to explain the RI/FS
process and to discuss overall site progress, activities, and schedules.
A formal public hearing was held in Anaconda on July 18,1996. At this hearing, representatives
from EPA answered questions about remedial alternatives under consideration, as well as the
preferred remedy. A portion of the hearing was dedicated to accepting formal oral comments
from the public. A court reporter transcribed the formal oral comments and EPA made the
transcript available by placing it in the Administrative Record. A response to the comments
received during the public comment period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is
part of this ROD. Also, community acceptance of the Selected Remedy is discussed in Section
8.0, Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives, of this Decision Summary.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU T"lC "7
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 IJo- /
-------
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
The Anaconda Smelter NPL Site covers a wide area (Figure 2) and is currently organized into the
following OUs:
• Anaconda Smelter Demolition and Initial Stabilization Actions
• Mill Creek Children Relocation Removal Action
• Mill Creek Relocation Remedial Action
• Anaconda Yards Time Critical Removal Action
• Arbiter Non-Time Critical Removal/Beryllium Non-Time Critical Removal
Action and Repository Construction
• Old Works Stabilization Removal Action
• Flue Dust Remedial Action
• Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Remedial Action
• Community Soils Remedial Action
• Anaconda Regional Water, Waste, and Soils Remedial Action
The OUs were prioritized based on their potential risk to human health and the environment.
Mill Creek was considered the highest priority and EPA relocated Mill Creek residents in 1988.
Since then, EPA has also taken action at several other areas, including Flue Dust, Arbiter,
Beryllium, OW/EADA, and Community Soils. Completion of the Community Soils OU is
considered the next priority because of the potential exposure of remaining residents to elevated
arsenic concentrations.
The Conceptual Site Management Plan (SMP) was formally revised in October 1995, with the
Community Soils and ARWWS OUs identified for remaining ROD completion. A brief
description of the Community Soils and ARWWS OUs is provided below:
Community Soils Operable Unit. The Community Soils OU will address residential soils
throughout the entire Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, including potentially contaminated soils and
wastes in the communities of Anaconda, Fairmont, Galen, Opportunity, and Warm Springs, as
well as rural residential areas. This includes all land use areas (i.e., residential,
commercial/industrial, and recreational) within these general residential areas. The Community
Soils RI/FS will primarily address human health risks from contact with contaminated soils and
will result in the development of a residential soil action level for arsenic to be used sitewide.
Anaconda Regional Water, Waste, and Soils Operable Unit. This OU combines the former
Anaconda Regional Water and Waste, Anaconda Soils, and Smelter Hill OUs. No further
activities will be required under the Anaconda Soils and Smelter Hill OUs. The ARWWS OU is
intended to be the last OU of the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site and will address all remaining
issues not addressed under other remedial actions. This OU will continue to address potential
impacts to surface and groundwater from soils and waste sources such as tailings and slag. This
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
OU will address both the human and environmental risks associated with site-related
contamination that have not been addressed by other OUs.
The scope of the Community Soils OU, as defined in the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site,
Community Soils RI/FS Work Plan (ARCO 1994), is to address all residential areas within the
NPL Site. These generally include the communities of Anaconda, Opportunity, Warm Springs,
Galen, and Fairmont, and also include adjacent rural residential areas. Residential areas include
all land uses (i.e., residential, commercial/industrial, and recreational) within the general
residential or community setting. Areas of concern within these communities generally include
yard areas and other areas frequented by children (i.e., playgrounds and schools). In addition,
potential source areas within the communities, including railroad beds and imported waste/fill
areas in both residential and commercial/industrial areas, will also be addressed. Remediation of
ground and surface water is outside the scope of this project and will be evaluated, along with
other contamination, under the ARWWS OU.
The purpose of the Community Soils OU RI/FS was to gather sufficient information to support
an informed risk management decision for remediating potential human health risks in residential
and commercial/industrial areas of the site. The RI/FS was performed in accordance with EPA
guidance (EPA 1988), the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300, and CERCLA Section 104,42 U.S.C. § 9604.
The objectives of the RI/FS were to:
• characterize the nature and extent of arsenic and metals in community and
regional soils, including the railroad bed materials;
• identify potential receptors, exposure patterns, food chain relationships, and the
human health risks posed at the site from soil contamination;
• identify potential soil areas of concern based on arsenic and other metals
concentrations, potential risks, and the current or reasonably anticipated future
land use that may require development of remedial alternatives;
• determine the effectiveness of soil treatment on arsenic in soils through
treatability studies;
• further define or modify each of the alternatives listed in the work plan, with
respect to areas of concern and the technologies to be used, to be assessed in this
FS;
analyze each of the FS alternatives against the NCP (40 C.F.R. 300.430) criteria;
and
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
• compare the relative performance among each alternative with respect to the
evaluation criteria.
Based on the findings of previous investigations and the results of the Community Soils OU
RI/FS (AGC 1996a), the sources and areas of contamination at the Community Soils OU have
been adequately delineated to evaluate alternatives in the RI/FS.
This ROD was prepared according to EPA guidance (EPA 1989). The remedy outlined in this
ROD is intended to be the final remedial action for residential and commercial/industrial soils
within the Community Soils OU. It is also intended to be the final remedial action for waste
materials (i.e., railroad beds) within the communities. The primary purpose of the remedy
presented in this ROD is to prevent human exposure, by inhalation and ingestion, to
contaminated soil and smelter waste materials. Remedial actions for other media (e.g., ground
and surface water and environmental risk) are deferred to the ARWWS OU. Remedial actions
undertaken at the Community Soils OU are intended to be consistent with the remedial action
objectives and goals identified for the ARWWS OU.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Approximately 100 years of smelting operations at the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site have
produced airborne particulate matter that has resulted in widespread contamination of arsenic and
metals in near-surface soils. In addition, waste piles and other waste disposal areas have also
contributed to fugitive dust and air particulate fallout in the investigation area. As a result of
upvalley/downvalley air flows from the surrounding mountain ranges and bimodal distribution of
the wind flow patterns, airborne particulates have generally been deposited radially from the
former emission sources (Old Works and Washoe Works sites).
Soils data indicate that elevated arsenic and metals concentrations are found in residential areas,
both in Anaconda and adjacent rural areas. Elevated concentrations in the community of
Anaconda are highest in the eastern portion of the city, which is closest to the primary source, the
stack. The highest concentrations in the rural areas can be found between Anaconda and
Opportunity in a somewhat triangular area running northwest from south of the stack on Smelter
Hill to an area north of the airport. The area roughly approximates the primary directions of
wind flow in the area.
Elevated concentrations of arsenic and metals in railroad beds constructed primarily by a
subsidiaries or related corporations of the Anaconda Copper Mining Company, both in Anaconda
and regionally, indicate that sections of the railroad beds were likely constructed of materials
from the Anaconda or Butte mining/smelting operations.
Air monitoring data collected over a three-year period (1989-1992) found no exceedances of
federal or state ambient air quality standards, indicating that air quality is not currently adversely
affected by the contaminated soils present at the site. However, visual observations of wind
erosion have been noted at the site.
Since 1985, numerous regional and community soil investigations have been completed at the
site. The Community Soils RI/FS Report (AGC 1996a) characterizes the nature and extent of
contaminated soils in residential areas and summarizes the risks associated with those
contaminants to human health. The nature and extent of soils contamination is detailed in the
Soils Characterization Report (AGC 1996b). Potential human health risks are detailed in the
Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (CDM Federal 1996a). In addition, the RI/FS
Report identifies the current and reasonably anticipated future land use for the NPL Site. The
chemicals of potential concern for the Community Soils OU are arsenic and lead in residential
soils. Other media, such as non-residential soils, groundwater, surface water, soils outside of the
Community Soils OU, and waste sources, will be addressed under the ARWWS OU.
Media evaluated include air, surface and subsurface soils, and railroad bed material. The
following sections summarize the nature and extent of contamination for each of these media.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU Tvc 1 1
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 L/O-11
-------
5.1 AIR
Air was identified as one of the transport pathways of concern at the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
based on historical observations of fugitive dust. Ambient air monitoring was conducted during
a three year period and documented in the Aerometric Monitoring Reports for the Anaconda
Smelter Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Air Resources Program, published
quarterly and summarized annually in 1989 through 1992 (McVehil-Monnett Associates 1990,
1991, and 1992.)
The air monitoring program utilized four stations equipped with high volume PM-10 samplers,
13 dustfall stations, and three meteorological stations. The PM-10 stations measured the 24-hour
concentrations of PM-10 particulates as well as concentrations of total arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in particulate with a diameter of less than 10 microns. Dustfall
buckets were used to measure the monthly concentration of Settled Particulate Matter (SPM) at
the site. Meteorological information was collected at Sites 1, 3, and 4 (Figure 3). Wind direction
and wind speed were monitored at all three meteorological stations. Additional information such
as temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, pan evaporation, and precipitation were
recorded at the Mill Creek Park station (Site 3).
The principal wind direction for Sites 1 (Teresa Ann Terrace) and 4 (Zinc Processing Area) is
from the west and is attributed to the orientation of the Warm Springs Creek Valley. The
predominance of wind from the west at these two locations is due to both channeling of winds by
the valley sidewalls, and nighttime down-valley flow of cold air masses. Wind direction at Site 3
(Mill Creek Park) is primarily from the southwest, in a similar orientation to that of the Mill
Creek Valley. Channeling of wind in primarily a down-slope direction, but also occasionally in
an up-slope direction, was observed in the Mill Creek Valley.
During the three annual monitoring periods, there were no exceedances of federal ambient air
quality standards, which include standards for 24-hour and annual average PM-10 mass
concentrations and quarterly-averaged lead concentrations. There also were no exceedances of
the State of Montana ambient air quality standards for PM-10, quarterly lead, or PM-10 metals.
Linear regressions between PM-10 and trace element results at each PM-10 station were
performed for each annual sampling period. Based on the statistical analyses, correlations ranged
from none to strong between PM-10 and each metal at the four sample stations. The strongest
correlations wer6 observed at the Zinc Processing Area station (Site 4) where the correlation
coefficient (3-year average) ranged from 0.24 for beryllium to 0.80 for copper and zinc. Average
correlation coefficients from the Teresa Ann Terrace (Site 1), Kortem Storage (Site 2), and Mill
Creek Park (Site 4) ranged from 0.07 to 0.64. However, because of the low concentrations, the
correlations show no apparent trends over the three year sampling period and were generally
inconclusive.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
Four exceedances of the State of Montana ambient air quality guidelines for non-criteria air
pollutants were observed, three at the Zinc Processing Area station (two copper, one arsenic) and
one at the Mill Creek Park station (arsenic). There were also a total of 21 exceedances of the
State of Montana air quality standard for SPM during the three year monitoring period.
5.2 SURFACE SOILS
5.2.1 BACKGROUND SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
Soil, air, and groundwater arsenic, cadmium, and lead background concentrations were compiled
in the Final Remedial Investigation Report, Mill Creek, Montana, Anaconda Smelter Superfund
Site (ARCO 1987). In addition, a literature review of environmental media, including soils, was
conducted as part of a public health and environmental assessment in the Rocker and Ramsey
areas (CH2MHill/Chen-Northern 1989). For the Baseline HHRA (CDM Federal 1996a),
regional background values for arsenic, cadmium, and lead cited in the Mill Creek Remedial
Investigation (RI) report (ARCO 1987) (and included in the CH2MHill/Chen-Northern, 1989,
literature review) were considered the most appropriate background values for the Anaconda
area. Samples from non-impacted areas of Helena Valley, Philipsburg, Townsend, and
Livingston were used to establish regional background levels. These communities were
generally similar to those of Deer Lodge Valley. Upper and lower 95% confidence intervals
around the geometric mean were calculated to establish ranges of background soil metals
concentrations. Based on these data, the following ranges of background soil concentrations (in
mg/kg) for arsenic, cadmium, and lead were established:
Arsenic 6-16
Cadmium 0.5-1.4
Lead 18-70
Although the Mill Creek RI report did not establish background concentrations for copper and
zinc, these data were available for the same Helena Valley (zinc only), Philipsburg, and
Townsend stations used to estimate background concentrations for arsenic, cadmium, and lead.
Using similar statistical analysis, the following ranges of background soil concentrations (in
mg/kg) for copper and zinc were established:
Copper 17-29
Zinc 56-78
5.2.2 SURFACE SOIL DATA
Analytical data from previous site investigations (Table 1) includes more than one thousand
concentration values at locations covering an area of approximately 300 square miles. The
magnitude and extent of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc concentrations in surface (0 to
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU p.p i •}
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 L/O-1J
-------
2 inch) soils in the community and regional areas has been characterized by .compiling these
analytical data into databases for three separate areas: the Anaconda community, Opportunity
community, and the Regional area.
Kriging exercises were conducted for surface soil concentrations of several metals in the three
areas. Kriging is a geostatistical method that was used to predict concentrations between known
sample values and was used to characterize the surficial soil data for the site. The metals studied
in each of the two communities were arsenic, cadmium, and lead. Metals studied regionally were
arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc.
The geostatistical methods used in this study are referred to as ordinary and general relative
kriging. Ordinary and general relative kriging enables an estimation of values at a point, or
within an area for which there are few or no sample values, based on a set of neighboring values.
It produces a regular grid of interpolated point or block estimates and the kriging standard
deviation. The estimates are calculated from a weighted average of neighboring sample values
that are located within a specified radius of influence. Kriging also provides a measure of the
reliability of the estimates, because it takes into account the spatial variability of the data. At the
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, the spatial variability of metals concentrations in surficial soil is
partly attributed to the dispersion of airborne particulates from the former Anaconda Smelter
stack. Further discussion of the methods used, results, and limitations, is provided in the Soil
Characterization Report (AGC 1996b).
Results presented in the Soils Characterization Report are based on kriging efforts (model
selection, data set preparation, project-specific assumptions) conducted by ARCO's contractors
in consultation with EPA. These kriging results have been determined to be sufficient for the
purpose of the Community Soils RI. Other methods of kriging using different models, data sets,
and assumptions may produce slightly different but still valid kriging results.
A summary of all of the kriging results is presented in Table 2 for the three areas. An initial
screening of the soil concentration data eliminated cadmium, copper, and zinc from further
consideration from a human health standpoint, and only arsenic and lead were fully evaluated in
the Final Baseline HHRA (CDM Federal 1996a). Therefore, for the following summaries, only
the results for arsenic and lead are discussed. A complete discussion of all results is provided in
the RJ/FS report (AGC 1996a).
Results - Anaconda
The kriging block size for Anaconda was set to match the size of the city blocks in the central
and eastern parts of town, and a total of 551 blocks were included in the kriging effort.
• Arsenic. Estimated concentrations of arsenic within the kriged blocks in
Anaconda range from 72 to 514 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean concentration of
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
186 mg/kg. Estimated concentrations of arsenic are highest in the eastern portion
of Anaconda, which is closest to the primary source, the smelter stack. The
highest estimated concentrations of arsenic are generally in commercial/industrial
areas. Within residential areas, estimated arsenic concentrations range from 72 to
316 mg/kg. Kriged blocks in residential areas with soil arsenic concentrations
greater than the 250 ppm action level are shown in Figure 4.
• Lead. Estimated lead concentrations within the kriged blocks range from 111 to
698 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean of 328 mg/kg. The highest estimated
concentrations of lead are found in central Anaconda.
Results - Opportunity
The kriged area for Opportunity includes 360 3-acre blocks. The majority of these are within the
core of the community, where land use includes residential, public/institutional, commercial/
industrial, recreational, and agricultural. The remainder are in the area outside the core, where
land use includes open space, pasture, and agriculture.
• Arsenic. Estimated concentrations of arsenic within the kriged blocks in
Opportunity range from 98 to 230 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean concentration
of 154 mg/kg. Overall, the highest estimated arsenic concentrations are found on
the west side of Opportunity, in areas used as open space or agricultural. No
blocks exceeded the soil arsenic concentration action level of 250 ppm.
• Lead. Estimated concentrations of lead within the kriged blocks range from 101
to 238 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean concentration of 153 mg/kg. The
estimated lead concentrations are highest in the edges of the community,
particularly to the south. These concentrations are below the lead concentrations
seen in Anaconda.
Results - Regional
The regional kriging effort was conducted using a block size of 70 acres and a grid consisting of
3,033 cells.
• Arsenic. Estimated arsenic concentrations in the regional kriged blocks range
from 29 to 1,856 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean concentration of 195 mg/kg.
Estimated concentrations of arsenic exceed 1,000 mg/kg in 32 blocks. The
highest estimated arsenic concentrations are found in the rural areas between
Anaconda and Opportunity in a somewhat triangular area running northwest from
just behind Smelter Hill to the area just beyond the airport. The orientation of the
area roughly approximates the primary direction of wind flow in the area. Those
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
blocks which kriging shows to have soil arsenic concentrations greater than the
250 ppm action level are shown in Exhibit 1.
• Lead. Estimated concentrations of lead within the kriged blocks range from 16 to
825 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean of 127 mg/kg. The highest concentrations
are found within the Smelter Hill area as well as northwest and west of the area.
Some of the higher concentrations are also found west of Anaconda.
5.3 SUBSURFACE SOILS
Subsurface soil samples were collected in most of the previous investigations. The majority
were collected from soil profile sampling stations, where samples were collected from various
depth intervals. The number of intervals sampled varied between investigations, but the most
common intervals were: 0 to 2 inches, 2 to 10 inches, and 10 to 24 inches. The following is a
review of the magnitude and extent of metals distribution in the subsurface soil. Table 3
provides a summary of subsurface soil samples for community and regional locations.
In Anaconda, arsenic concentrations in the 2- to 10-inch interval ranged from 16 to 326 mg/kg,
with an arithmetic mean of 140 mg/kg. Only five of the 41 samples had arsenic concentrations
that exceeded 250 mg/kg. Four of these samples were located in residential areas. Lead
concentrations in the 2- to 10-inch interval ranged from 9 to 390 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean
of 111 mg/kg.
There are 35 profile stations with a total of 96 samples in Anaconda. These include 62
subsurface and 34 surface samples. Arsenic concentrations decrease with depth at a majority of
the stations. At stations where increases occur, the increases do not appear to be statistically
significant. Five of the 15 stations with increases have arsenic concentrations over 250 mg/kg.
In Opportunity, arsenic concentrations in the 2- to 10-inch interval ranged from 18 to 125 mg/kg,
with an arithmetic mean of 71 mg/kg. Lead concentrations in the 2- to 10-inch interval ranged
from 9.4 to 63 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean of 40 mg/kg.
Soil profile samples in Opportunity include 41 samples from 16 stations. These include 25
subsurface samples and 16 surface samples. Arsenic concentrations decrease with depth at 15 of
16 stations. At the single station with an increase, the concentration was above 250 mg/kg.
In regional subsurface samples, arsenic concentrations in the 2- to 10-inch interval ranged from 2
to 2,440 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean of 237 mg/kg. Lead concentrations in the 2- to 10-inch
interval ranged from 6 to 4,550 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean of 88 mg/kg. Most samples with
the highest arsenic and lead concentrations are located in the Smelter Hill area.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
Regional profile samples include 907 samples collected from 367 stations, including 544
subsurface samples and 363 surface samples. Arsenic concentrations decrease with depth at
most stations. At the 46 stations where increases occur, most increases are less than 100 mg/kg
and do not appear to be statistically significant.
5.4 RAILROAD BEDS
The following is a review of the nature and extent of metals distribution in the upper 24 inches of
the Anaconda and the regional railroad bed material. Table 4 provides a summary of railroad bed
samples and locations. Detailed information regarding individual sampling events is provided in
the Soils Characterization Report (AGC 1996b).
Results - Anaconda
The Anaconda railroad database contains 79 samples from three intervals: 0 to 2 inches, 29
samples; 2 to 10 inches, 25 samples; and 10 to 24 inches, 25 samples. Sampling locations with
the highest surface samples highlighted are shown in Figure 5.
• Arsenic. Concentrations in the surface interval range from 213 to 3,780 mg/kg,
with an arithmetic mean concentration of 1,285 mg/kg. Sixteen of the 29 surface
samples exceed 1,000 mg/kg and seven of these are located in or immediately
adjacent to residential areas. In the 2- to 10-inch interval, arsenic concentrations
range from 45 to 12,200 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean of 1,398 mg/kg. Arsenic
concentrations in the 10- to 24-inch interval samples range from 6 to 3,410 mg/kg,
with an arithmetic mean of 831 mg/kg.
• Lead. Concentrations in the surface interval range from 152 to 2,760 mg/kg, with
and arithmetic mean of 959 mg/kg. Four of the 8 surface samples in the upper
quartile are near residential areas. In the 2- to 10-inch interval, lead
concentrations range from 32 to 3,700 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean of 681
mg/kg. Lead concentrations in the 10- to 24-inch interval range from 12 to 1,230
mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean of 375 mg/kg.
To provide a description of the nature and extent of contamination with depth, profiles in railbed
materials were compiled from the three depth intervals at 25 stations. Arsenic concentrations
decrease with depth at most stations. Arsenic concentrations, which remain elevated, are
believed to be due to physical characteristics of the bed materials (i.e., waste material) used in
railroad bed construction.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU P\C 1 "7
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 Uo-1 /
-------
Results - Regional
Railroad beds on Smelter Hill were investigated to assess possible contamination in and along
railbeds and adjacent soils in current and reasonably anticipated future residential areas (e.g., the
Aspen Hills Subdivision). Samples were collected from the beds and adjacent soil pits along two
primary tracks. Transects were spaced every 500 feet along the process tracks and every 1,000
feet along the loop tracks.
A total of 297 samples from 80 sampling stations are included in the railroad bed database. All
stations were sampled at a depth of 0 to 2 inches, and most locations have three surface samples:
one from the center of the tracks and one from 20 feet to either side of the track. Nineteen of the
stations were sampled from both the 2- to 10-inch and 10- to 24-inch intervals, and three were
sampled from one of three other intervals (14 to 24 inches, 18 to 24 inches, or 20 to 24 inches),
for a total of 48 subsurface samples. Concentrations of all metals are elevated when compared to
those for the regional soils.
• Arsenic. Concentrations in the surface interval range from 86 to 66,900 mg/kg,
with an arithmetic mean of 2,140 mg/kg. In the combined subsurface intervals,
arsenic concentrations range from 96 to 10,100 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean of
2,023 mg/kg.
• Lead. Concentrations in the surface interval range from 122 to 13,800 mg/kg,
with an arithmetic mean of 786 mg/kg. In the combined subsurface intervals,
concentrations range from 122 to 5,520 mg/kg, with an arithmetic mean of 830
mg/kg.
Arsenic profiles were compiled from 3 depth intervals at 22 stations. The deepest sample profile
is 24 inches. Arsenic concentrations decrease with depth at most of the stations. As with the
Anaconda railroad bed, arsenic concentrations are believed to be due to physical characteristics
of the original bed materials (i.e., waste material) used during construction of the railway.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU F\C 18
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 Uo-1 o
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The Final Baseline HHRA provides the basis for taking action and indicates the exposure
pathways to be addressed by the remedial action. It serves as the baseline for indicating risks
that would exist if no action were taken at the site. This section of the ROD reports the results of
the Final Baseline HHRA conducted for the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site.
As part of the RI/FS, the Final Baseline HHRA was developed to assist EPA and the State of
Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in developing actions necessary to reduce
actual and potential risks from hazardous substances at the site. The Final Baseline HHRA was
conducted at the site with the following objectives:
• Provide an analysis of baseline risk (potential risk if no remedy occurs) and help
determine the need for action;
• Provide a basis for determining cleanup or action levels (concentrations) that are
protective of public health and the environment;
• Provide a basis to compare potential public health impacts of various cleanup
alternatives; and
• Provide a consistent process to evaluate and document potential public health
threats at the site.
6.1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Although smelting wastes contain a number of metals, experience at other mining and smelting
sites and through previous Anaconda risk assessments (i.e., Mill Creek, Flue Dust, OW/EADA)
has shown that risks to humans and the environment are dominated by the presence of arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc. Some studies did collect data on other metals that might
conceivably contribute to risk (e.g., antimony, radium, barium, beryllium, manganese, mercury),
but the relative contribution of these other chemicals to total risk is believed to be sufficiently
small compared to the risks from the primary chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) and were
not considered further.
Therefore, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc were the main focus of sampling, and the
analytical efforts performed at the site were considered for evaluation in the risk assessment.
Soil concentrations of cadmium, copper, and zinc were determined to be below health-based
screening levels; therefore, those chemicals were not considered further in the risk assessment.
Of the groundwater data available in areas where it is presently used for human consumption,
only arsenic is present in concentrations indicating a potential health hazard. COPCs selected for
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU -p-Q ., Q
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 L/O-1"
-------
the site are, therefore, arsenic and lead in soil and arsenic in groundwater.
Although groundwater is not within the scope of the Community Soils OU, risks from the
consumption of water were evaluated to determine cumulative risks under the residential
scenario. Evaluation of the water pathway will be addressed under the ARWWS OU.
6.2 POTENTIALLY EXPOSED POPULATIONS
A mixture of land uses in the study area suggest a variety of potential receptors. The focus of the
Final Baseline HHRA was on area residents, since data for non-residential areas outside of the
communities of Anaconda and Opportunity are sparse and insufficient to support quantitative
assessment. According to the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Comprehensive Master Plan
(Peccia & Associates 1992), 471,350 acres of the 472,320 total acres of county land area are
identified as rural and the remaining 990 acres are urban. Much of the rural land is National
Forest land used for conservation and recreational purposes. The majority of privately-owned
land is agricultural.
There are five communities located in the study area with a total population of under 8,600.
These include Anaconda and Opportunity, for which risks will be quantitatively evaluated, and
Fairmont, Galen, and Warm Springs. Anaconda is the largest community, with a population of
approximately 7,000 persons. Anaconda's public drinking water supply, which draws water
from surface water and groundwater sources, is outside the area of potential impact of past
smelter operations. Some homes in the Anaconda area, however, have private groundwater
wells. Rural areas such as Galen, Opportunity, and Warm Springs, and rural farm residences use
groundwater wells to provide drinking water.
Residents of Anaconda and other communities also participate in recreational activities such as
dirt-bike riding, mountain biking, hiking, hunting, and swimming. These activities may result in
exposure to arsenic and/or lead in soils within the study area.
In the future, areas of the site that are currently undeveloped could be developed for a variety of
purposes, including recreational, commercial, residential, or agricultural. Also, lands that are
currently used for agricultural purposes could be developed for other uses, such as residential
development.
Based on current and reasonably anticipated future land uses, the following populations are
considered most likely to be exposed to COPCs at the NPL Site:
• Current and future residents
• Agricultural workers
• Recreational users
• Commercial workers
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
6.3 IDENTIFICATION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Site Conceptual Exposure Model (SCEM) (Figure 6) for the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
presents primary sources of contamination, primary release mechanisms, secondary and tertiary
sources of contamination, and potential human receptors. The SCEM presents reasonable
pathways of exposure from primary sources of contamination to potential receptors.
The two primary sources of contamination to surface and subsurface soils within the study area
are historical air emissions from the Old Works and Anaconda Smelter stacks, and tailings and
slag remaining from the smelting processes. The primary release mechanism for tailings and
slag is wind erosion, although some release via infiltration/percolation and runoff has also
occurred. Contamination in air emissions is transported via dry or wet deposition from the air
into three secondary sources: soil, surface water, and sediment.
Exposure pathways of concern for the populations previously discussed are:
• Residents (adults and children aged 0 to 6 years)
Ingestion of surface soils
Ingestion of interior dust
Ingestion of groundwater
• Agricultural Workers (adults)
Ingestion of surface soils
Ingestion of dust
• Recreational Users (dirt bike riders)
Ingestion of surface soils
Inhalation of dust
• Recreational Visitors (swimmers)
Ingestion of surface water
Dermal exposure to surface water
• Commercial Workers (adults)
Ingestion of surface soils
Ingestion of interior dust
6.4 HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
In general, it is expected that different people living or working in an area may have different
levels of contact with various contaminated media and, thus, result in different levels of
exposure. Therefore, it is appropriate to think of exposure of a population as a range or
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
distribution of values, rather than as a single value. In order to account for this, EPA calculates
exposure both for an average person, and for someone at the upper end of the distribution
(approximately the 95th percentile). The average exposure is termed Central Tendency Exposure
(CTE), while the latter is termed the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME). Both estimates are
useful in understanding exposures and risks which can exist at a site.
Table 5 lists the parameters needed to calculate average and RME daily intake levels for each of
the contaminated media for the residential populations of potential concern at the site. Some of
these values are reasonably well established (e.g., body weight, water intake, exposure frequency
of workers), but other values are based on site data (e.g., soil ingestion, arsenic bioavailability).
Other values are based mainly on professional judgment.
Arsenic chronic daily intake (GDI) was estimated for each residential exposure pathway based on
estimates regarding the extent, frequency, and duration of exposures and the exposure point
concentrations. Site-specific exposure assumptions were used when available; these include
concentration estimates of arsenic in dust, soil, water, and diet. EPA has used available data to
derive site-specific arsenic bioavailability estimates for ingested soil and dust (EPA 1994b and
1995). The following are the bioavailability values used in the Final Baseline HHRA:
• 25.8% bioavailability for dust
• 18.3% bioavailability for soil
• 100% bioavailability for water
Findings in the Anaconda Soil Ingestion study support the Superfund Program's usual approach
of assuming ingestion of 100 milligrams (mg) soil and dust per day as a CTE assumption and
200 mg soil and dust per day as a RME assumption for ingestion rates of children 0 to 6 years
old. Though default assumptions are used for soil and dust ingestion rates for children, these
assumptions are clearly consistent with available site-specific data.
Predictions of exposure obtained from calculations of GDIs based on CTE assumptions were
compared to measured levels of arsenic in the urine of children living in Anaconda. The
arithmetic and geometric means of predicted and measured urinary arsenic concentrations for
children were compared to evaluate the appropriateness of the exposure assumptions used. The
Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance demonstrated that measured and predicted urinary
arsenic are not statistically different. However, EPA exposure calculations underpredict urinary
concentrations where measured levels are greater than 10 /^g/L. Overall, the results of the
comparison support the use of the described exposure calculations in the risk assessment for the
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. In addition, EPA provides a level of conservatism by using
estimates of risk based on RME, or upper-bound, exposure assumptions, in accordance with EPA
guidance.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU _.„ -_
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 LJj-2,2.
-------
6.5 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
An exposure point is an area within the site where humans are expected to come into contact
with one or more contaminated media. Typically, the boundaries of an exposure point are
selected to represent an area over which exposure of an individual is expected to be
approximately random. Based on this, the exposure point concentration for a chemical is defined
as the upper 95th confidence limit of the arithmetic mean (AM-95) of the measured values for
that chemical within the exposure area (calculated based on the assumption of log normal
distribution of measured values).
Soil, dust, and tap water data collected by the University of Cincinnati (Bornschein, 1992 and
1994) were used to evaluate risks. In this study, Anaconda was separated into subareas (A, B, C,
D, E, F, I, and J) to better characterize possible differences in exposure conditions within the
community (Figure 7). For the risk assessment, subarea F, the subarea closest to Smelter Hill,
was subdivided into areas Fl and F2 to ensure that potential exposures in this area were
adequately addressed. Opportunity was retained as a separate study area (subarea G). Numerous
yards within each subarea were sampled and soil was collected from several locations within
each yard, including play, house perimeter, garden, hardpack, and bare areas. Soil concentrations
for arsenic and lead from all of these samples were averaged for each yard. Arsenic exposure
point concentrations for soils of each subarea are shown in Table 6. Lead intake was evaluated
by the Integrated Exposure Uptake/Biokinetic (IEUBK) Lead Model, Version 0.99. Average
lead concentrations in soils of each subarea, rather than the 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL)
of the mean, are used as lead exposure point concentrations (Table 7).
6.6 QUANTIFICATION OF NONCANCER RISKS
Noncancer risk from a single chemical is usually described in terms of the Hazard Quotient
(HQ). The HQ is the ratio of the estimated daily intake (GDI) of a single chemical received by a
human exposed at the site, compared to a Reference Dose (RfD) that is believed to be without
appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects.
If the value of HQ is equal to or less than one, it is concluded that the chemical does not pose a
noncancer risk. If the value of HQ is greater than one, then there may be a risk of noncancer
effects. In general, the likelihood of effect increases as HQ increases, but HQ values greater than
one do not imply an effect will necessarily occur.
For the Final Baseline HHRA, however, HQs were calculated only for arsenic. Lead risks were
evaluated through the use of the EPA IEUBK Lead Model, Version 0.99. This model evaluates
health risks based on blood-lead levels. It would be inappropriate to attempt to combine arsenic
and lead toxicity values because of the different evaluation methodologies. Additionally, lead
and arsenic do not induce similar toxic effects, nor does their toxicity occur through the same
mechanism of action.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
Table 8 presents noncarcinogenic HQs for ingestion of soil and dust, which range from about 0.1
to 0.3 for all subareas. The highest HQs are found in subareas D and Fl, though differences
among subareas are small. HQs based on CTE estimates are about 53% of those based on RME.
Potential risks due to ingestion of groundwater are similar to those for ingestion of soil/dust in
subarea A and in Opportunity, and overall these risks fall in the lower half of the range of HQs
for soil/dust ingestion. The highest HQ (0.34 for subarea A) is less than 1, suggesting that
exposures to arsenic in groundwater will not exceed the target HQ of 1 .
All HQs estimated are less than unity, suggesting little potential for impacts to human health.
Potential arsenic exposure in the communities of Anaconda and Opportunity does not appear to
be associated with unacceptable non-cancer health risks.
6.7 POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO LEAD
Risks from exposure to lead cannot be assessed using standard methods, because toxicological
criteria for lead are not available.
The best available quantitative tool for evaluating health effects from exposure to lead is the
IEUBK model (EPA 1994c). This model uses current information on the uptake of lead
following exposure from different routes, its distribution among various internal body
compartments, and its excretion, to predict impacts of lead exposure on blood-lead
concentrations in young children. Predicted blood-lead concentration can then be compared with
target blood-lead concentrations associated with subtle neurological effects in children. Because
children are thought to be most susceptible to the adverse effects of lead, protection for this age
group is assumed to also protect older individuals. Protection of young children is considered
achieved when the model predicts that less than 5% of children will have blood-lead levels
greater than 10 vg/dL (EPA 1994d).
Table 9 summarizes the modeling results. Modeling predicted that 5% of children in exposure
subarea E may have blood-lead levels in excess of 10 ^g/dL. The estimated percentage of
individuals in exposure subarea E having blood-lead levels above 10 //g/dL is 5.38. Based on the
combined data for all subareas, only 0.68% of children are predicted to have blood-lead levels
above 10yUg/dL.
Generally, EPA considers risk from exposure to lead unacceptable if more than 5% of the
children have blood-lead levels in excess of 10 /^g/dL (EPA 1994d). Although risk from lead
exposure would be considered marginally unacceptable for exposure in Subarea E, lack of site-
specific information (i.e., lead data from interior dust, lead bioavailability data) significantly
increases the uncertainty of the predicted value. Use of conservative default assumptions in the
IEUBK model have likely overestimated risks due to lead in this subarea.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
6.8 QUANTIFICATION OF CANCER RISKS
Cancer risk is described in terms of the probability that a person exposed under a specified set of
conditions will develop a tumor before the age of 70 as a result of that exposure. For example, if
the probability were one out of one million (1/1,000,000), this is expressed as 1E-06. Typically,
EPA considers remedial action at a site when excess lifetime cancer risk to any current or future
resident falls within or exceeds a risk range of 1E-04 (1/10,000) to 1E-06 (1/1,000,000), with
1E-06 as a point of departure.
When data permit, EPA derives numeric values useful in quantifying the toxicity and
carcinogenicity of a compound. Slope factors (SF) are route-specific estimates of the slope of
the cancer dose response curve at low doses.
Table 10 presents pathway-specific and total cancer risks for RME and CTE scenarios. Potential
risks based on RME estimates associated with ingestion of soil/interior dust are in the range of
2E-05 to 4E-05 for all subareas, reflecting the relatively homogeneous distribution of arsenic in
the study area. The highest risks are estimated for subareas D and Fl, perhaps reflecting the
proximity of these areas to Smelter Hill. However, differences in risk estimates among subareas
are small and may not be significant. Risks based on CTE estimates are about 16% of those
based on RME.
Potential risks from ingestion of arsenic in groundwater are somewhat higher than those for
soil/dust ingestion in subarea A and in Opportunity, although they still fall within EPA's targeted
risk range. Groundwater risks were not evaluated for other subareas since data from these areas
was lacking.
6.9 COMBINED RISKS
Residents of Anaconda and Opportunity might be exposed to both contaminated soil/dust and to
contaminated groundwater. Thus, total risks for receptor populations may be higher than risks
estimated for individual pathways. It may be appropriate to combine risks based on RME
estimates if it is likely that the same individual might experience RME exposures in more than
one pathway. For Anaconda and Opportunity, it is conceivable that the same individuals could
be exposed at higher levels to both soil/dust and groundwater. In fact, within a single subarea,
soil concentrations are relatively consistent, suggesting that the occurrence of high soil/dust
levels and high local groundwater contamination in the same location is likely. Though this
alone does not indicate that people at such locations will be maximally exposed to both soil/dust
and groundwater, it does increase the likelihood for co-occurrence of such exposures. Thus, it
seems reasonable to combine risks based on RME for subarea A and Opportunity.
Combined RME cancer risks for subarea A (5.3E-05) and Opportunity (5.5E-05) are still within
the EPA's targeted risk range. Likewise, combined HQs (0.55 and 0.6 for subarea A and
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
Opportunity, respectively) are still below the target HQ of 1. Thus, combining risks from the
soil/dust ingestion and groundwater ingestion pathways does not result in a significant increase
in risk estimates.
6.10 ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTIES
Quantitative risk estimates are based on site-specific information, national default assumptions,
toxicology literature, and professional judgement. There are uncertainties associated with all of
these sources, and hence, there is uncertainty in all quantitative estimates of risk. The Final
Baseline HHRA (CDM Federal 1996a) was developed with the advantage of at least three large
exposure studies which greatly improve confidence in the risk assessment: 1) the Arsenic
Exposure Study identified individuals at risk of arsenic exposure as well as the types and
specifics of those exposure conditions; 2) a Childhood Soil Ingestion Study (Calabrese) defined
more reliable site-specific soil ingestion rates for this group of special concern; and 3) a study
using primates (Freeman) measured absorption of arsenic from residential soils and dust from
homes and yards in Anaconda. All these studies have been carefully reviewed and assessed by
EPA toxicologists. All were considered in the development of the risk assessment and the
development and selection of remedial action for this site.
Analysis of uncertainties in the above risk estimates suggests that it is unlikely that risks have
been underestimated, especially for the well-characterized communities of Anaconda and
Opportunity. It is reasonable to conclude that exposures calculated in this assessment are
acceptable for calculating risk.
Although the communities are generally well-characterized, it is important to remember that the
exposure point concentration term calculated for each subarea was based on an average of all the
soil data within that exposure area. This means that some of the soil samples were higher than
the concentration term and some were lower. Over a lifetime of exposure these concentrations
average out to present risks to arsenic that are within EPA's targeted risk range for the subareas
evaluated in Anaconda and Opportunity. A concern exists, however, when some of those data
points (which may be diluted in the calculation of the concentration term) turn out to be so
elevated (i.e., hot spots) that a potential for short-term or acute risk occurs; or a person is
preferentially exposed to a smaller more highly contaminated area.
Although a statistically significant number of samples were collected in each of the subareas to
adequately characterize exposure in accordance with EPA guidance, not every single yard in
Anaconda was sampled. Also, many of the areas surrounding Anaconda have not been
adequately sampled yet. Therefore, screening levels were developed to assist in assessing areas
where occasional hot spots of arsenic may occur. Screening levels were developed in the risk
assessment and are provided in Table 11. For the residential scenario, the range of screening
levels for soil arsenic concentrations encompass EPA's targeted risk range are 3 ppm (1E-06) to
297 ppm (1E-04).
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
6.11 SUMMARY
Cancer risks, calculated using averaged RME concentrations for soil/dust for all evaluated
subareas of the site, fall into a narrow range of about IE-OS to 3E-05. This narrow range reflects
the relatively even distribution of arsenic within Anaconda and Opportunity. A similar narrow
range of non-cancer risks (hazard quotients of 0.1 to 0.3) is estimated for the same exposures.
Cancer risks estimates for all subareas are within EPA's targeted risk range of 1E-04 to 1E-06,
but are greater than the 1E-06 point of departure. All hazard quotients fall below the target level
of one.
In subarea A and in Opportunity, cancer risks, calculated using averaged RME concentrations for
groundwater, are in the same range as those for exposure to soil/dust. This is also true for non-
cancer risks. Combined cancer and non-cancer risks suing averaged RME concentrations for
groundwater and soil/dust (Subarea A and Opportunity) remain within the risk range, but are
greater than the point of departure. This suggests that even where near maximum exposures to
both groundwater and soil/dust occur simultaneously, exposures are not in excess of the targeted
risk range established by EPA, but are greater than the point of departure.
Typically, EPA considers remedial action at a site when the excess cancer risk to any current or
future population falls within or exceeds the targeted risk range. EPA considers a risk of 1E-06
as the point of departure for evaluating remedial actions. Although the results of the risk
assessment indicate that risks calculated for each subarea are all within EPA's targeted risk range,
individual yards within a subarea having elevated concentrations of arsenic (hot spots) could
preferentially pose an unacceptable risk to those residents. In addition, rural residential areas that
were not adequately sampled to allow a calculation of risk, may also have hot spots that could
pose an unacceptable risk. Thus, EPA believes a remedial action is necessary to address those
individual residential areas or hot spots within the Community Soils OU.
EPA generally considers risk from exposure to lead unacceptable if more than 5% of the children
have blood-lead levels in excess of 10 ^ig/dL (EPA 1994c). Modeling predicted that 5.3% of the
children in Subarea E may have blood-lead levels in excess of 10 /ag/dL. Although risk from
lead exposure would be considered marginally unacceptable for exposure in Subarea E, use of
conservative default assumptions in the IEUBK model have likely overestimated this risk. Thus,
EPA will not address risks to lead at the Community Soils OU.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from individual yards or hot spots, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
6.11.1 ACTION LEVELS
As discussed above, EPA believes that individual residential areas or hot spots within the
Community Soils OU may pose an unacceptable risk. EPA also believes that the exposure
estimates, considering uncertainties, calculated in the risk assessment are reasonable. Therefore,
the range of screening levels (3 ppm to 297 ppm), that were developed for the targeted risk range
of 1E-04 to 1E-06 in the risk assessment, are considered to be the appropriate range from which
to select an action level for remediating hot spots.
First EPA determined that the appropriate remediation unit for a residential hot spot is the
residential yard. The residential yard was chosen for the following reasons:
• Yards are an appropriate remediation management unit (i.e., property ownership);
• It is consistent with previous removal and remedial actions taken by EPA;
• Allows for consistent remediation of community and rural residential areas;
• Yards are defined as the unit to be addressed under the ADLC-DPS; and
• It is not unreasonable for an individual to remain in one residence for a long
period of time, even a lifetime.
EPA then determined the arsenic action level for residential surficial soils to be 250 ppm. This
corresponds to an excess cancer risk of 8E-05 and is within EPA's targeted risk range. Although
the 250 ppm action level departs from EPA's 1E-06 point of departure, this action level is
determined to be protective for the following reasons:
• The 250 ppm action level reflects detailed site-specific studies conducted in
Anaconda that significantly reduce the uncertainty of the risk assessment. These
studies provide site-specific parameters to replace standard EPA default
assumptions which generates a greater degree of confidence in the range of
screening values.
• The range of screening values were developed from conservative exposure point
concentrations in the risk assessment. Samples collected for the risk assessment
were chosen from areas likely to contain elevated concentrations, not a random
average of a particular area. These data potentially elevated the exposure point
concentrations adding conservatism to the calculated screening values.
• The 250 ppm action level is applied to a much smaller exposure area than those
evaluated in the risk assessment. Although the excess cancer risk (8E-05) for the
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
250 ppm action level is greater than the existing risk range for the subareas (IE-OS
to 3E-05), it is applied to a much smaller exposure area than the subareas that
were evaluated in the risk assessment. This significantly decreases the chance of
averaging out a higher concentration value within a yard as compared to the larger
subarea.
• Cleaning up hot spots in excess of the 250 ppm action level is expected to reduce
the overall risk in each subarea and the entire community of Anaconda to close to
1E-05 which approaches EPA's 1E-06 point of departure and the State of
Montana's general goal of protection from environmental carcinogens at 1E-05.
In addition to the above, risk management considerations included the following:
• A 250 ppm action level was previously utilized in a removal action taken under
the Community Soils OU; and
• A 250 ppm level is currently utilized in the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Development Permit System.
• The 250 ppm action level incorporates a balancing of the NCP criteria used to
select remedial actions that are protective, implementable and cost effective.
An arsenic action level of 500 ppm for surface soils and waste material in commercial/industrial
land use areas was previously identified in the OW/EADA OU ROD, and was based in the
OW/EADA Baseline Risk Assessment. For consistency at the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, it is
EPA's intent to continue to apply this action level at remaining commercial/industrial land use
areas through this Community Soil ROD.
6.11.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Environmental risks were not assessed under this OU as this is currently being assessed in an
ecological risk assessment under the ARWWS OU.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoi!s\csrod.rv5
-------
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
7.1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
A brief description of the site cleanup alternatives that were considered in the Community Soils
RI/FS Report (AGC 1996a) is provided below. These alternatives, initially presented in the
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Community Soils RI/FS Work Plan (ARCO 1994), were identified
to meet the CERCLA Section 121 requirements for developing an appropriate range of options to
undergo a detailed analysis. Alternatives identified in this section were selected based on the site
conditions, previous remedial actions at residential sites, and the results of previous technology
scoping activities at other Clark Fork River NPL Sites. These activities included identification,
screening, and evaluation of potential general response actions, remedial technologies, and
process options in accordance with 40 C.F.R.§300.430 (e)(2)-(7).
The alternatives initially identified in the RI/FS Work Plan were modified in the FS analysis, as a
result of additional information provided by the Soils Characterization Report and the Final
Baseline HHRA. The alternatives were directed primarily at addressing residential yards,
playgrounds and play areas, vacant lots, and parks where the public may have maximum
exposure to contaminants (i.e., hot spots). In addition, alternatives were also directed at
addressing railroad beds in the community of Anaconda. Alternatives were not developed
specifically for commercial/industrial land use areas in the Community Soils FS. However, the
alternatives developed for residential areas and railroad beds were appropriate for the
commercial/industrial areas within this site. An explanation for the inclusion of
commercial/industrial areas within this ROD is found in Section 11.0.
The remedial alternatives evaluated in the FS included two basic types of response actions:
engineering controls and ICs. For residential soils, engineering controls included: in-place
treatment, capping, and excavation and removal. ICs included a community education program
designed to maintain existing or new engineering controls and a permitting program designed to
clean up contaminated soils during new residential construction. For the railroad beds,
engineering controls included: capping, separation barriers, and excavation and removal.
Institutional Controls included private property and governmental restrictions. In addition, the
NCP and EPA guidance require EPA to consider a no action alternative as a baseline against
which the other alternatives are compared.
All alternatives presented in the FS were evaluated against the nine criteria described in the next
section, and then compared with each of the other options. A description of the alternatives is
provided below.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\cornsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
7.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL
SOILS
The engineering and ICs identified above for residential soils were developed and refined during
the FS process and assembled into the four alternatives listed below to provide a range of options
from no action to excavation and disposal. These alternatives were intended to address
residential soils where concentrations of arsenic exceed the final action level (250 ppm) for
residential use. For the purpose of costing alternatives in the FS and the Proposed Plan, 10 to 50
yards were assumed to exceed the action level. It was also assumed for costing purposes that soil
contamination is limited to the top several inches of the surface and the depth of remediation
(removal or treatment) would only need to be implemented to six inches. As noted, these
alternatives are also suitable for addressing commercial/industrial areas.
Alternative 1 - No Action
Estimated present worth cost: 0
Implementation time: 0
The NCP and EPA guidance require that EPA consider the no action alternative. This alternative
is used as a baseline against which to compare other alternatives. Under Alternative 1, no further
action would be undertaken. Contaminated soils would remain on site. The risk assessment was
conducted to estimate risks posed by site soil to human health in the absence of a remedial
action. Individual yard areas with elevated soil arsenic concentrations pose a risk requiring
action, as described in Section 5.0.
Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls
Cost per yard: Not Applicable
Estimated present worth cost: $1,369,325
Implementation time: 6 months
This alternative entails the establishment of a Community Protective Measures Program
(CPMP), comprised of an educational/informational component and existing ICs.
The education/informational component of this alternative would involve dissemination of
written guidance for public agencies and residents describing risks and recommendations for
addressing potentially contaminated soil. Information on concentrations of contaminants and
their locations obtained through sampling would be maintained in a county database for public
access. All soil sampling results and any pertinent changes in soil concentrations or covers
would be recorded for use by regulators, prospective home buyers, lenders, contractors, and other
interested parties. Additional educational measures would include the dissemination of materials
Record of Decision
Community SoilsOU —.Q ,-.-
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 IJo- J L
-------
designed to educate residents on the importance of maintaining a healthy lawn or adequate gravel
cover on their property if they are within a designated area.
Existing ICs are those already included in the ADLC-DPS, within the Superfund Planning Area
Overlay District. The DPS provides guidance on soils testing, soils remediation, and soils
disposal in designated areas through the county's permit requirements and inspection procedures.
Alternative 3 - In-PIace Treatment, Capping, and ICs
Cost per yard: $7,541
Estimated present worth cost: $1,394,731 - $1,496,358
Implementation time: 1 year
This remedial alternative consists of treating contaminated soils in residential yards by tilling to a
depth necessary (6 inches assumed for costing purposes) to reduce arsenic concentrations to
below the final risk-based action level for residential soils, and by adding soil amendments to
further reduce the mobility of any remaining metals in the soil. The area would then be capped
with soil, vegetation, gravel, or other equivalent barrier to protect the treated area. The ICs
described in Alternative 2 would be used to promote maintenance of the cap and ensure proper
handling of other soil on site.
Alternative 4 - Excavation and Disposal of Contaminated Soils and ICs
Cost per yard: $10,089
Estimated present worth cost: $1,420,216 - $1,623,778
Implementation time: 2 years
This alternative would consist of removing contaminated soils (6 inches assumed for costing
purposes) in residential yards above the final risk-based action level for residential soils and
proper disposal in a designated on-site soil management area. Excavated areas would be
backfilled with clean material and capped with vegetation, gravel, or other equivalent barrier.
The ICs described in Alternative 2 would also be used to promote maintenance of the cap and
ensure proper handling of other soils on site.
7.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR RAILROAD BEDS
Three alternatives were developed and refined for the evaluation of railroad beds within the
community of Anaconda. They are intended to address contaminated materials that were used to
construct the railroad bed on the active railway operated by RARUS Railway Company, which
runs through the residential portion of Anaconda. Concentrations of arsenic generally exceed
1,000 ppm throughout the profile and length of the railbed. Risks from these beds are generally
limited to direct contact with contaminated material and the transport of contaminants to
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
residential properties via dust and surface water runoff. For the purpose of costing alternatives in
the FS and Proposed Plan, 1,000 to 3,000 linear feet of railroad bed in the residential areas were
assumed to require remediation. As noted, these alternatives are also suitable for addressing
commercial/industrial areas.
Alternative 1 - No Action
Estimated present worth cost: 0
Implementation time: 0
This alternative provides no new engineering controls or ICs. Its purpose is to provide a baseline
against which the effectiveness of other alternatives can be evaluated. Exposed waste materials
would remain in place under the no action alternative.
Alternative 2 - Capping, Roadway Separation, and ICs
Cost per 100 linear feet: $5,006
Estimated present worth cost: $50,063 - $150,188
Implementation time: 1 year
This remedial alternative consists of capping designated portions of railbed with large rock to
prevent direct contact and reduce potential for erosion and transport of contaminated materials.
Because the rail line is active, a rock cap is preferable to soil and vegetation for railroad
maintenance concerns. Additionally, this alternative provides for a separation of the existing
boundary of the railbed from residential areas, alleys and other roadways, as necessary, with a
barrier to eliminate vehicular traffic on the beds and control surface runoff. Barriers include the
use of retaining walls and/or curbing. Existing ICs would continue in the form of private
property and government restrictions.
Alternative 3 - Excavation and Disposal of Contaminated Railbed Materials and ICs
Cost per 100 linear feet: $73,840
Estimated present worth cost: $738,375 - $2,215,125
Implementation time: 2 years
This alternative would consist of the total removal of contaminated railbed materials and disposal
in an on-site repository. The railroad bed would then be reconstructed with clean fill, with the
railroad tracks, ballast, etc., being replaced.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
8.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 300.430(e)(9) of the NCP requires that the agencies evaluate and compare the remedial
cleanup alternatives based on the nine criteria listed below. The first two criteria, (1) overall
protection of human health and the environment and (2) compliance with applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) in Appendix A, are threshold criteria that must be met
for the Selected Remedy. The Selected Remedy must then represent the best balance of the
remaining primary balancing and modifying criteria.
8.1 EVALUATION AND COMPARISON CRITERIA
8.1.1 THRESHOLD CRITERIA
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a
remedy provides adequate protection and describes how potential risks posed through
each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or ICs.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will comply with identified
federal and state environmental and siting laws and regulations.
8.1.2 PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time.
4. Reduction of toxicity. mobility and volume through treatment refers to the degree that the
remedy reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contamination.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to complete the remedy and
any adverse impact on human health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,
including the availability of materials and services needed to carry out a particular option.
7. Cost evaluates the estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and present
worth costs of each alternative.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projecls\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
8.1.3 MODIFYING CRITERIA
8. State acceptance indicates whether the State (DEQ), based on its review of the
information concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance is based on whether community concerns are addressed by the
Selected Remedy and whether or not the community has a preference for a remedy.
8.2 EVALUATING THE RESIDENTIAL SOIL ALTERNATIVES
The following is a brief summary of the agencies' evaluation and comparison of residential soil
alternatives. Additional details evaluating the alternatives is presented in the FS. This section
evaluates the performance of the residential soil alternatives against the nine criteria discussed
above, and compares it with the other possible options.
8.2.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
This criterion is based on the level of protection of human health and the environment afforded
by each alternative. All of the alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1 (no action), are
somewhat protective of human health and the environment. Although Alternative 2 is somewhat
protective, it only relies on compliance with county regulations, does not reduce arsenic
concentrations under existing barriers or where barriers do not currently exist. Thus, it is not
fully protective of human health and the environment. In contrast, Alternatives 3 and 4 offer
highly protective and irreversible remedies which would result in low residual concentrations of
arsenic remaining in residential areas. Only Alternatives 3 and 4 are discussed further in this
evaluation of alternatives.
The analysis of the other criteria indicate that Alternative 4 provides the greatest overall
protection of human health with the greatest risk reduction (clean soil versus treat soil), as
compared to Alternative 3. Alternative 4 best approaches EPA's risk point of departure at 1E-06
with the replacement of clean soil.
8.2.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
This criterion is based on compliance with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs.
Alternatives 3 and 4 both comply with or attain identified state and federal ARARs.
8.2.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
This criterion is based on the magnitude of residual risk and adequacy and reliability of controls.
Alternatives 3 and 4 both employ permanent irreversible actions, resulting in lower arsenic
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
concentrations remaining in the soil. However, Alternative 4 provides for the greatest reduction
in residual concentrations through removal of contaminated soil and replacement with clean soil.
8.2.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH
TREATMENT
This criterion is based on the treatment process used, the amount of contamination destroyed or
treated, the reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume, the irreversible nature of the treatment,
the type and quantity of residuals remaining, and the statutory preference for treatment. Only
Alternative 3 uses a treatment process. This treatment (tilling and soil amendments) is expected
to reduce arsenic concentrations in the upper soil surface to below the final risk-based action
level and immobilize the arsenic and other metals present in the soil.
8.2.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
This criterion is based on the degree of community and worker protection offered, the potential
environmental impacts of the remediation, and the time until the remedial action is completed.
Alternatives 3 and 4 both involve activities that have the potential to increase short-term risks.
Such risks may result from a potential to generate arsenic-laden dust, to leave soils exposed for
short periods of time, and to increase traffic of heavy vehicles in a residential area. Of these two
alternatives, Alternative 3 involves a slightly lesser level of short-term risk, as in-place treatment
will take a shorter time to implement than excavation and soil replacement, and will involve
smaller and fewer pieces of equipment. However, EPA believes that any short-term risks
associated with Alternatives 3 and 4, although minimal, can be effectively managed through
careful planning and implementation.
8.2.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY
This criterion is based on the ability to perform construction and implement administrative
actions. Alternatives 3 and 4 involve administrative and construction activities that will require
careful scheduling and coordination with the county and with homeowners, who would likely
continue to occupy their homes during remediation. Implementation of Alternative 4 will require
the import of soil cover, which would need to be identified during the design phase. Both
Alternatives 3 and 4 would also require ICs to be implemented. All of these activities are readily
implementable, and there is no real difference among the alternatives.
8.2.7 COST
Alternative 4 is slightly more expensive than Alternative 3.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
8.2.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE
The State has been consulted throughout this process and concurs with the Selected Remedy.
8.2.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
Public comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan was solicited during a formal public comment
period extending from July 8 to August 9,1996. Comments received from the community were
generally in support of EPA's Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4). Comments from ARCO
strongly favor Alternative 3.
8.2.10 SUMMARY
EPA has rated the relative performance of each alternative with respect to each criterion.
Alternatives are rated to have an advantage (+) or disadvantage (-) when compared to other
alternatives. A zero rating (0) is applied to an alternative having no distinct advantage or
disadvantage over the other alternatives. The summary of EPA's rating of residential soil
alternatives is shown in Table 12.
Of the residential soil alternatives presented in this ROD, only Alternatives 3 and 4 are fully
protective of human health and the environment and thus, are discussed further in this section.
Alternative 4 reduces residual soil arsenic concentrations to a greater degree than Alternative 3
(clean soil versus treated soil). Both Alternatives offer permanent and irreversible actions.
Alternative 3 employs treatment while Alternative 4 does not. Both Alternatives are readily
implementable, have similar short-term impacts, and are cost effective.
Both Alternatives would require invasive actions in residential yard areas. Alternative 4 would
require additional action to bring in clean soil. Alternative 3 is estimated to cost less than
Alternative 4, although cost differences are not considered significant. Sufficient uncertainty
exists with Alternative 3 to require additional treatability testing to demonstrate cleanup
effectiveness, cost, and implementability issues.
In comparing the relative performance of all criteria (Table 12), Alternative 4 has a slight
advantage over Alternative 3. However, important differences, listed below, between the two
alternatives have lead EPA and the State of Montana to strongly prefer Alternative 4.
• Alternative 4 provides the greatest level of protection and best approaches EPA's
1E-06 risk point of departure and the State of Montana's general goal of protection
from environmental carcinogens at IE-OS. Note that although the relative
performance rating for overall protection of human health and the environment
was the same, the differences described above in regard to a threshold criteria can
be significant.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
• Alternative 4 utilizes a proven methodology. Although soil treatment under
Alternative 3 has been demonstrated in reducing relatively high concentrations to
moderate levels in large areas using large equipment, it has not been demonstrated
to be effective for low concentrations, in confined areas using smaller equipment.
Sufficient uncertainty exists with the implementability, effectiveness, and cost of
Alternatives.
• Cost differences between Alternative 4 and 3 are not significant in comparison to
the benefits described above.
8.3 EVALUATING THE RAILROAD BED ALTERNATIVES
The following is a brief summary of the agencies' evaluation and comparison of railroad bed
alternatives. Additional details evaluating the alternatives are presented in the FS. This section
evaluates the performance of the railroad bed alternatives against the nine criteria, and compares
it with the other possible options.
8.3.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
This criterion is based on the level of protection of human health and the environment afforded
by each alternative. Only Alternatives 2 and 3 are protective of human health and the
environment, and are discussed further in the evaluation of alternatives. Alternative 3 offers the
highest degree of protection as all contaminated materials are removed. However, the analysis of
the other criteria indicate that Alternative 2 also provides high overall protection of human health
and the environment. Also, it is more protective in the short-term and is more easily
implemented in a shorter time frame than Alternative 3.
8.3.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
This criterion is based on compliance with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs.
Alternatives 2 and 3 comply with or attain state and federal ARARs.
8.3.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
This criterion is based on the magnitude of residual risk and adequacy and reliability of controls
needed to manage remaining contaminants. Alternatives 2 and 3 both reduce or control the risks
from contaminated railroad bed material. Alternative 3 (complete removal) provides the greatest
effectiveness and permanence, although Alternative 2 (rock cap) can reasonably offer long-term
effectiveness as well. To ensure the integrity of the remedial solution, Alternative 2 will require
controls for management of remaining materials (i.e., routine visual inspections).
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
8.3.4 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH
TREATMENT
This criterion is based on the treatment process used, the amount of contamination destroyed or
treated, the reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume, the irreversible nature of the treatment,
the type and quantity of residuals remaining, and the statutory preference for treatment. None of
the alternatives provide treatment.
8.3.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
This criterion is based on the degree of community and worker protection offered, the potential
environmental impacts of the remediation, and the time until the remedial action is completed.
Alternatives 2 and 3 both involve activities that have the potential to increase short-term risks.
These risks may result from the potential to generate arsenic laden dust, increase traffic of heavy
vehicles in a residential area, and possibly create train-related safety hazards.
Of these two alternatives, the Alternative 2 involves a lower level of short-term risk, as capping
and roadway separation will take less time to implement than excavation and removal, and it will
involve smaller and fewer pieces of equipment. It will also have less potential for train-related
safety hazards. However, EPA believes any short-term risks for either Alternative 2 or 3 can be
effectively managed through careful planning and implementation.
8.3.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY
The criterion is based on the ability to perform construction and implement administrative
actions. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 require construction activities, but Alternative 2 has a
significantly lower level of activity, comparing placement of rock to total removal and
reconstruction of the railroad bed. Removal and reconstruction would require additional time,
and would be conducted around the schedule of the train.
8.3.7 COST
Alternative 2 is significantly less expensive than Alternative 3.
8.3.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE
DEQ has been consulted throughout this process and is in agreement with EPA on the evaluation
and selection of Alternative 2 as the Selected Remedy.
8.3.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
Public comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan was solicited during a formal public comment
period extending from July 8 to August 9,1996. Comments received from the community were
generally in support of Alternative 2. Comments from ARCO also favored Alternative 2 over
Alternative 3.
8.3.10 SUMMARY
EPA has rated the relative performance of each alternative with respect to each criterion.
Alternatives are rated as having an advantage (+) or disadvantage (-) when compared to other
alternatives. A zero rating (0) is applied to an alternative having no distinct advantage or
disadvantage to the other alternatives. The summary of EPA's rating of railroad bed alternatives
is shown in Table 13.
Of the railroad bed alternatives presented in this ROD, only Alternatives 2 and 3 are fully
protective of human health and the environment and attain ARARs, and thus, are discussed
further in this section. Alternative 3 has a distinct advantage in long-term effectiveness and
permanence as compared to Alternative 2 (removal versus engineered cover). However, other
balancing criteria distinctly favor Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would have significantly fewer
short-term impacts and implementability issues, and less cost.
In comparing Alternative 2 to Alternative 3, the balancing criteria favor Alternative 2. In
addition, because the railroad bed is under an active line, community interests also favor
Alternative 2. The State of Montana has been consulted throughout the process and has
concurred with Alternative 2 as the Selected Remedy.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
9.0 SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of CERCLA requirements, the detailed analysis of alternatives, and
public comments, EPA has determined that the Preferred Alternative as presented in the
Proposed Plan, with important modifications, is the appropriate remedy for the Community Soils
OU. Modifications include specifying commercial/industrial soils for remediation in addition to
residential soils and railroad bed materials, as presented in the Proposed Plan. This Selected
Remedy will reduce risk to human health through the following:
• Reduction of surface soil arsenic concentrations to acceptable levels, and
• Prevention of direct human contact with waste materials (i.e., railroad beds).
While certain other alternatives may better satisfy certain individual selection criteria, the
Selected Remedy best meets the entire range of selection criteria and achieves, in EPA's
determination , the appropriate balance considering site-specific conditions and criteria identified
in CERCLA and the NCP, as provided in Section 10.0, Statutory Determinations.
9.1 REMEDY FOR RESIDENTIAL SOILS
The Selected Remedy will address all remaining residential soils within the site, through the
following:
1. Clean up all current residential soils within the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site that exceed
the residential action level of 250 ppm soil arsenic concentration, through removal and
replacement with clean soil and a vegetative (e.g., new sod or seed) or other protective
barrier (e.g., asphalt pavement, concrete sidewalks).
• Residential soils include yards, parks, school grounds, or other play areas. Also
included are barren driveways, alleys, or other common areas adjacent to yards
which may contribute to the contamination of yards and which may be frequented
by children.
• Based on soils characterization in the RI/FS report, all current and reasonably
anticipated future residential areas within the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site that are
estimated to exceed 250 ppm soil arsenic concentration, have been identified as
the "Focus Area" for cleanup (Figure 4 and Exhibit 1).
• The cleanup activities will be directed toward or initiated in residential areas that
are within the Focus Area.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
• The cleanup activities will provide for opportunistic sampling and remediation of
potentially contaminated soils outside the Focus Area (i.e., individual areas that
exceed 250 ppm soil arsenic concentration, or areas suspected of having
contaminated material present from the railroad bed or other sources) on a limited
basis.
• Residential soils to be cleaned up (those that exceed 250 ppm soil arsenic
concentration) will be determined by sampling. Consideration will also be given
to the permanence of existing barriers and ICs (e.g., use restrictions, maintenance,
etc.) in determining which residential soils will be remediated.
• In areas where soil removal is to be implemented, only the depth of soil that is
greater than 250 ppm soil arsenic concentration, to a maximum of 18 inches, will
be removed (Figure 8). The maximum 18-inch depth is based upon possible
activities that might be conducted in a yard (i.e., garden, play area, or other
excavation).
• In areas where site-specific conditions dictate that removal is not implementable
(i.e., yard size, topography, rocks, trees, etc.), other measures (i.e., capping,
tilling, ICs, etc.) will be taken to reduce arsenic concentrations to below the 250
ppm action level or prevent exposure.
• Removed soils will be disposed of in a designated on-site soil management area.
2. Implement ICs to clean up future residential areas.
• Clean up all future residential soil areas within the Focus Area that exceed the
residential action level of 250 ppm soil arsenic concentration at the time of
development, through the ADLC-DPS. The ADLC-DPS will continue to require
soil sampling at all new residential construction within the Superfund Planning
Area Overlay District. Soils exceeding the 250 ppm soil arsenic concentration
will be cleaned up through the DPS with preference given to removal.
• The current ADLC Superfund Planning Area Overlay District will be expanded,
where necessary, to include the Focus Area.
• In areas where site-specific conditions dictate that removal is not implementable,
other measures (i.e., capping, tilling, ICs, etc.) will be taken to reduce arsenic
concentrations to below the 250 ppm action level or prevent exposure.
3. Implement ICs to provide educational information to all residents describing potential
risks and recommendations to reduce exposure to remaining contaminated soils.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
• Develop a CPMP, to be managed by ADLC, to provide educational information to
residents within the ADLC Superfund Planning Overlay District describing risks
and recommendations to reduce exposure to residual contaminants (>250 ppm) in
soils (i.e., the importance of maintaining a healthy lawn or other protective cover).
• Information on soil arsenic concentrations and locations will be maintained in an
ADLC database for public access. All sampling results and pertinent changes in
soils and condition of existing covers will be recorded for use by regulators,
prospective home buyers, lenders, contractors, and other interested parties.
4. Institute operation and maintenance activities as necessary.
9.2 REMEDY FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREAS
Consistent with the remedial action selected for the OW/EADA, the selected remedy will address
remaining commercial/industrial areas within the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site through the
following:
1. Reduce arsenic concentrations at the surface to below 500 ppm in current industrial or
commercial areas using a combination of Revegetation techniques and/or engineered
covers.
• Utilize Revegetation techniques, which may include deep tilling, lime additions,
and soil amendments, to reduce surface soil arsenic concentrations to below 500
ppm and establish a diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover.
• Construct engineered covers to provide an effective and permanent barrier to
waste materials.
2. Implement ICs to clean up future commercial/industrial areas.
• Final remediation of arsenic contamination in commercial/industrial areas to the
action level of 500 ppm will be implemented through the ADLC-DPS at the time
development occurs, except as otherwise determined by EPA, in consultation with
the affected landowner.
3. Institute operation and maintenance activities as necessary.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
9.3 REMEDY FOR RAILROAD BED MATERIALS
The Selected Remedy will address contaminated railroad beds within the Community of
Anaconda (Figure 4) through the following:
1. Construct an engineered cover over all contaminated railroad bed material within the
community of Anaconda to prevent direct contact with, and reduce potential for erosion
and transport of, contaminated materials to residential areas.
• Utilize large rock on portions of the railroad bed that have steeper fill slopes
(Figure 9).
• Utilize clean ballast material on portions of the railroad bed strictly used for
railroad operation.
2. Separate the existing boundary of the railbed from residential areas with a barrier to
restrict access to the railbed and to control surface runoff from the railbed through the use
of retaining walls and/or curbing.
3. Maintain existing ICs to restrict access (i.e., governmental and private trespass
regulations).
4. Institute operation and maintenance activities as necessary.
9.4 CLEANUP LEVELS
The purpose of this response action is to control risks posed by direct contact with all residential
soils and waste materials (i.e. railroad beds) within community areas of the Anaconda Smelter
NPL Site. Although the results of the risk assessment indicate that risks calculated for each
subarea are all within EPA's targeted risk range, individual yards within a subarea having
elevated concentrations of arsenic (i.e., hot spots) could preferentially pose an unacceptable risk
to those residents. In addition, rural residential areas that were not adequately sampled to allow a
calculation of risk, may also have hot spots that could pose an unacceptable risk. Thus, EPA
believes a remedial action is necessary to address those individual residential areas or hot spots
within the Community Soils OU.
Since no federal or state ARARs exist for soil arsenic or waste material, an action level was
determined through site-specific analysis. The analysis used the Final Baseline HHRA (CDM
Federal 1996a) to develop a range of screening levels that corresponded to risks within EPA's
target risk range of 1E-04 to 1E-06. The action level for residential soils is 250 ppm soil arsenic
concentration. This corresponds to an excess cancer risk of 8E-05 and is within EPA's targeted
risk range.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoi!s\csrod.rv5
-------
All residential soils in excess of the action level will be addressed by the Selected Remedy. In
individual yards where the Selected Remedy is implemented, the cleanup level is expected to
approach 1E-05 with the replacement of clean soil. In addition, cleaning up individual yards in
excess of the 250 ppm action level is expected to reduce the overall risk in each subarea and the
entire community of Anaconda to close to IE-OS which approaches EPA's 1E-06 point of
departure and the State of Montana's general goal of protection from environmental carcinogens
at IE-OS.
The action level for commercial/industrial soils is 500 ppm soil arsenic concentration. This
corresponds to an excess cancer risk of approximately 6E-05 and is within EPA's targeted risk
range. This action level is a continued application of the commercial/industrial action level
established under the OW/EADA ROD (EPA 1994a). Although no areas were identified in the
RI/FS, both current and future properties may be identified during Remedial Design.
Commercial/industrial areas where the Selected Remedy is implemented, the cleanup level at the
surface is expected to approach 1E-05 through the use of engineered covers.
No action level was developed for addressing the railroad bed materials within the community of
Anaconda. Concentrations of arsenic throughout the profile of the railbed material generally
exceed 1000 ppm. Because the railbed material is located within the community of Anaconda,
the above action levels of 250 and 500 ppm for residential and commercial/industrial areas,
respectively, are applied to the railbed material. Where the Selected Remedy is implemented to
railbed material, the cleanup level at the surface is expected to approach 1E-05 through the use of
engineered covers.
9.5 REMEDIATION REQUIREMENTS
The remediation requirement for residential soils is to reduce surface arsenic concentrations to
below 250 ppm. The remediation requirement for contaminated railroad bed materials is to
prevent direct contact with, and reduce potential for erosion and transport of, contaminated
material to residential areas. The specific remediation requirements of the Selected Remedy are
to:
• Reduce soil arsenic concentrations in residential areas to below 250 ppm through removal
and replacement with clean soil and a vegetative or other protective barrier.
- Current residential areas with soils exceeding 250 ppm soil arsenic
concentration shall be identified through sampling during Remedial
Design. Existing barriers and ICs (e.g., use restrictions, maintenance, etc.)
will also be evaluated to identify soils requiring remediation.
- All identified residential soils exceeding 250 ppm soil arsenic
concentration shall be removed to a maximum depth of 18 inches.
Record of Decision
Community SoilsOU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
- Clean soil, as determined by EPA, shall be used to replace removed soils.
Soils shall be of sufficient quality to support a vegetative or other
protective barrier.
- Protective barriers shall be designed to protect the replaced soils and/or
provide an effective and permanent barrier to contaminated soils or waste
materials.
- Vegetative barriers shall be of sod or seed in consideration of land use.
- Removed soils shall be disposed of in a protective manner.
• Reduce arsenic concentrations at the surface to below 500 ppm in current industrial or
commercial areas using a combination of Revegetation techniques and/or engineered
covers.
- Revegetation techniques, which may include deep tilling, lime additions,
or soil amendments, shall be implemented to reduce surface soil arsenic
concentrations to below 500 ppm and establish a diverse, effective, and
permanent vegetative cover.
- Engineered covers shall be designed to provide an effective and permanent
barrier to waste materials. Soil covers shall be stabilized with
Revegetation that provided a diverse, effective, and permanent cover.
• Develop ICs to restrict and manage future land use.
- Assure that future land use at the site is consistent with EPA's
determination of the health and environmental risks posed by
contaminants left on site.
- Provide for the preservation and maintenance of Superfund remedial
structures on the site, including but not limited to caps, beams, waste
repositories, and vegetated areas.
- Require that future development at the site employ construction practices
that are consistent with the protection of public health and the
environment, as determined by Superfund remedial actions.
- Remedied, as development occurs at the site, soil arsenic contamination to
levels appropriate for the intended use, as determined by Superfund
remedial actions.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
- Provide for implementation of other laws applicable to development, such
as subdivision and floodplain requirements.
• Design engineered covers to prevent direct contact with, and reduce potential for erosion
and transport of, contaminated railroad bed materials.
- Engineered covers shall be designed to provide an effective and permanent
barrier to waste materials.
• Design engineered barriers to restrict access to railroad bed and to control surface runoff.
- Barriers shall be designed to prevent contaminated railbed material from
eroding to adjacent residential areas.
9.6 COST
Unit costs for addressing residential soils and railroad bed materials are presented in Table 14.
Based on the information presented in the RI/FS, Proposed Plan, and this ROD, and specifically
for the purpose of estimating the total present worth cost of this Selected Remedy, the following
RI/FS unit assumptions have been revised as follows:
Estimated number of yards to be remediated - 50
Estimated linear feet of railroad bed to be remediated -10,000 feet
The total present worth cost of the Selected Remedy in the Community Soils OU is estimated at
$2.3 million (Table 14).
9.7 CONTINGENCY MEASURES
In the event ICs (i.e., the ADLC-DPS and CPMP) fail to identify and remedied remaining
residential and commercial/industrial areas in excess of the action level, and protect and monitor
the implemented remedy, additional measures will be taken by EPA. Because waste materials
will remain on site, the remedy may take several years to implement, and will require long-term
ICs, the Selected Remedy will require a five-year review under section 121(c) of CERCLA and
Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP.
Removal of soils and covering of waste materials is fully expected to meet cleanup levels.
However, if the remedial design or action phase indicates that the levels will not be met,
additional measures will be taken as necessary to meet the cleanup requirements.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, EPA must select a remedy that is protective of human health and
the environment, that complies with ARARs, is cost effective, and utilizes permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that include treatment
which permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous
wastes as a principal element. The following sections discuss how the Selected Remedy meets
these statutory requirements.
10.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The Selected Remedy protects human health and the environment through the prevention of
direct contact with contaminants at the site. The Selected Remedy balances the use of removal,
engineered covers, and ICs to effectively reduce direct contact, ingestion, and inhalation of all
contaminants, but particularly arsenic, to reduce risks in the area of IE-OS. This is within EPA's
targeted risk range of 1E-04 to 1E-06 and approaches EPA's 1E-06 point of departure and the
State of Montana's general goal of protection from environmental carcinogens at IE-OS.
All residential soils in excess of the action level will be addressed by the Selected Remedy. In
individual yards where the Selected Remedy is implemented, the cleanup level is expected to
approach IE-OS with the replacement of clean soil. In addition, cleaning up individual yards in
excess of the 250 ppm action level is expected to reduce the overall risk in each subarea and the
entire community of Anaconda to close to IE-OS
The action level for commercial/industrial soils is 500 ppm soil arsenic concentration. This
corresponds to an excess cancer risk of approximately 6E-05 and is within EPA's targeted risk
range. This action level is a continued application of the commercial/industrial action level
established under the OW/EADA ROD (EPA 1994a). Commercial/industrial areas where the
Selected Remedy is implemented, the cleanup level at the surface is expected to approach 1E-05
through the use of engineered covers.
Because the railbed material is located within the community of Anaconda, the above action
levels of 250 and 500 ppm for residential and commercial/industrial areas respectively, are
applied to the railbed material. Where the Selected Remedy is implemented to railbed material,
the cleanup level at the surface is expected to approach 1E-05 through the use of engineered
covers.
Environmental risk will be further reduced through removal of soils and use of engineered covers
to minimize the transport of contaminants to other media (i.e., air, surface and groundwater).
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
There are no short-term threats associated with the Selected Remedy that cannot be readily
controlled through applicable health and safety requirements, monitoring, and standard
construction practices.
10.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
The Selected Remedy will comply with all ARARs identified in Appendix A to this ROD. No
waiver of ARARs is expected to be necessary. Final Performance Standards and compliance
points will be determined in Remedial Design.
10.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS
EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy is cost effective in mitigating the principal risks
posed by contaminated wastes and soils. Section 300.430(f)(ii)(D) of the NCP requires
evaluation of cost effectiveness. Overall effectiveness is determined by the following three
balancing criteria: long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, and
volume through treatment; and short-term effectiveness. Overall effectiveness is then compared
to cost to ensure that the remedy is cost effective. The Selected Remedy meets the criteria and
provides for overall effectiveness in proportion to its cost. The estimated cost for the Selected
Remedy is $2.3 million.
To the extent that the estimated cost of the Selected Remedy exceeds the cost for other
alternatives, the difference in cost is reasonable when related to the greater overall effectiveness
achieved by the Selected Remedy.
10.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (OR RESOURCE RECOVERY
TECHNOLOGIES^ TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE
EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost effective manner at the
Community Soils OU.
Of those alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and comply with
ARARs, EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy for residential and commercial/industrial
soils and railroad bed materials provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term
effectiveness and permanence, treatment, implementability, cost, and state and community
acceptance.
While the Selected Remedy for residential soils does not employ treatment, the removal of
contaminated soils and replacement with clean soil provides greater protection by reducing soil
arsenic concentrations, and, therefore, risk, to a greater extent. This Selected Remedy utilizes
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
proven methodologies in removing and replacement of soils and is consistent with previous
residential soil removal actions taken at the site (i.e., Community Soils TCRA).
While the Selected Remedy for the railroad beds does not utilize the most permanent solution
(removal), the use of engineered covers provides a long-term effective and permanent barrier to
contaminated waste materials, thus reducing risk to an equivalent extent. Additional barriers and
surface controls will prevent the migration of contaminants to adjacent residential areas. ICs,
including maintenance activities, will be coordinated through local government to ensure long-
term effectiveness of the remedy. This Selected Remedy achieves equivalent risk reduction with
significantly fewer short-term impacts, implementability issues, and cost. This Selected Remedy
also allows for continued operation of the active railway and is consistent with remedial actions
taken at the site on similar wastes (i.e., OW/EADA OU).
The Selected Remedy for commercial/industrial areas utilizes a combination of engineered
covers and Revegetation techniques that have been demonstrated to be long-term effective and
permanent, implementable, and cost effective at other remedial actions taken at the site on
similar waste materials (i.e., OW/EADA OU). This Selected Remedy will also utilize innovative
treatment techniques as applicable.
Any short-term impacts associated with the Selected Remedy can be effectively managed
through careful planning and implementation.
10.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
Treatment of residential soils was considered but was determined to be not as protective and
permanent as the Selected Remedy (removal). Treatment of the railroad bed materials was not
considered due to the fact that the rail line is active and that the railbed would need to be retained
or replaced. In addition, treatment has been employed in previous response actions to address
principal threat wastes at the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The RI/FS and Proposed Plan were released for public comments in July 1995. Because data
contained in the RI did not identify commercial/industrial areas of concern, the FS and Proposed
Plan did not specifically identify alternatives for addressing those areas within the site. Arsenic
concentrations from the commercial/industrial areas previously sampled were below risk-based
screening levels. However, during the public comment period, concerns were expressed
regarding specific commercial/industrial areas that have not been sampled.
Since the Selected Remedy will address commercial/industrial properties associated with certain
residential soils or properties containing railroad bed materials, and since most
commercial/industrial areas at the site are currently being addressed under the OW/EADA ROD
(EPA 1994a), EPA has determined that it is appropriate to formally address all remaining current
and future commercial/industrial land use areas at the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site under this
Selected Remedy. Although commercial/industrial areas were not specifically evaluated in the
FS, sufficient information exists to include them in the Selected Remedy. EPA has determined
that the inclusion of these commercial/industrial areas in this ROD is a logical outgrowth of the
information available to the public in the RI/FS and Proposed Plan. As discussed in this ROD,
EPA will address these areas in the same manner that other commercial/industrial areas are
currently being addressed at the site. Components of both the Community Soils and OW/EADA
Selected Remedy (engineered covers, soil treatment, and ICs) will also apply to the remaining
commercial/industrial areas. This includes the selected 500 ppm soil arsenic cleanup level. This
approach is consistent with the final cleanup strategy for the site.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU TvC ci
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5 IJo-J i
-------
12.0 REFERENCES
AGC. 1996a. Community Soils Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
prepared for ARCO by Advanced GeoServices Corporation.
AGC. 1996b. Community Soils Operable Unit Soil Characterization Report, prepared for
ARCO by Advanced GeoServices Corporation and included as Appendix A of the Community
Soils Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
ARCO. 1987. Atlantic Richfield Company. Mill Creek Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Final Remedial Investigation Report, Mill Creek, Montana, Anaconda Smelter Superfund
Site, First Operable Unit, prepared for EPA by Anaconda Minerals Company. September.
ARCO. 1994. Atlantic Richfield Company. Final Draft Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
Community Soils Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan.
September.
Bornschein, R., University of Cincinnati. 1992. Anaconda Childhood Arsenic Exposure Study
prepared for the Deer Lodge County Board of Health by the University of Cincinnati. April.
Bornschein, R., University of Cincinnati. 1994. The Anaconda Study: An Assessment of
Residential Arsenic Exposures Among Children Living in the Vicinity of a Former Copper
Smelter, Update II. September 27.
CDM Federal. 1996a. COM Federal Programs Corporation. Final Baseline Human Health Risk
Assessment, Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, prepared for EPA by CDM Federal Programs
Corporation. January 24.
CDM Federal. 1996b. CDM Federal Programs Corporation. Anaconda Smelter Superfund Site
Community Soils Operable Unit Proposed Plan, prepared for EPA by CDM Federal Programs
Corporation. July 1996.
CH2MHill/Chen-Northern. 1989. Public Health and Environmental Assessment Data Summary
Report, Rocker and Ramsey Areas, Silver Bow Creek CERCLA Site, prepared for DEQ by
CH2MHU1 and Chen-Northern. April 28.
EPA. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibilitiy Studies Under CERCLA. Interim Final. Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response. EPA/540/G-89/004. OSWER Directive 9355.3.01. October.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
EPA. 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on Preparing Superfund
Decision Documents: The Proposed Plan, the Record of Decision, Explanation of Differences,
the Record of Decision Amendment. Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/007. July.
EPA. 1994a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Old Works/East Anaconda Development
Area Operable Unit, Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Record of Decision. March 8.
EPA. 1994b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in
Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
OSWER Direction #9355.0-30.
EPA. 1994c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance Manual for the Integrated
Uptake Biokinetic Model for Food in Children. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA/540/R-93/081. Publication 9285.7-15-1.
EPA. 1994d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for
CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. OSWER Directive #9355.4-12. July.
EPA. 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Review of the Battelle Columbus Report:
Determination of the Bioavailability of Soluble Arsenic and Arsenic in Soil and Dust Impacted
by Smelter Activities Following Oral Administration in Cynomolgus Monkeys. Amended Final
Report. March.
McVehil-Monnet Associates, Inc. 1990. Annual Aerometric Monitoring Report for the
Anaconda Smelter Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Air Resources Program, August
1989 through June 1990, prepared for PTI Environmental Services and ARCO by McVehil-
Monnett Associates, Inc. September.
McVehil-Monnet Associates, Inc. 1991. Annual Aerometric Monitoring Report for the
Anaconda Smelter Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Air Resources Program, July 1990
through June 1991, prepared for PTI Environmental Services and ARCO by McVehil-Monnett
Associates, Inc. September.
McVehil-Monnet Associates, Inc. 1992. Annual Aerometric Monitoring Report for the
Anaconda Smelter Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Air Resources Program, July 1991
through June 1992, prepared for PTI Environmental Services and ARCO by McVehil-Monnett
Associates, Inc. September.
Peccia & Associates. 1992. Anaconda Deer Lodge County Comprehensive Master Plan,
prepared for the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Planning Board by Peccia & Associates and Lisa
Bay Consulting. December 1990. Revised June 1992.
Record of Decision
Community SoilsOU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
-------
TABLES
-------
-------
TABLE 1
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Previous Investigations and Reports
Used in Community Soils RI Report
Year Description
1985 Soils Data Report, Phase II, ARCO.
1986 Anaconda Smelter RI/FS, Phase I, Data Compilation, ARCO.
1987 Solid Matrix Screening Study, Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, EPA.
1988 Community Soils Screening Study, EPA.
1991 Anaconda Soil Investigation, Phase I, ARCO.
1991 Smelter Hill RI/FS, Phase I and II Soil Investigations, ARCO.
1991 Anaconda Community Soils Economic Evaluation/Cost Analysis, ARCO.
1992 Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area RI/FS, ARCO.
1993 Anaconda Soil Investigation, Phase II, ARCO.
1993 Anaconda Regional Water and Waste Quarterly Sampling, ARCO.
1993 Smelter Hill RI/FS, Phase II, ARCO.
1994 The "Department of Justice Study", Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, U.S.
Department of Justice.
1994 Anaconda Arsenic Exposure Study, ARCO.
1994 Aspen Hills subdivision soil sampling, local developer.
1995 Terrestrial Resources Injury Assessment Report, Upper Clark Fork River Basin,
State of Montana.
1995 Regional Water and Waste RI Report, ARCO.
1996 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, EPA.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE 2
Summary of Kriging Results - Community and Regional
Sample Location
Arsenic
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
(mg/kg)
Copper
(mg/kg)
Lead
(mg/kg)
Zinc
(mg/kg)
pH
Community Surface Soil Samples
Anaconda
(551 grid cells)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
72
514
186
1.4
16.0
5.9
-
-
-
111
698
328
-
-
-
-
-
-
Opportunity
(360 grid cells)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
98
230
154
4.0
8.5
5.6
-
-
-
101
238
153
-
-
-
-
-
-
Regional Surface Soil Samples
(3, 03 3 grid cells)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
29
1,856
195
0.1
41.0
4.5
0.5
5,287
435
16
825
127
63
1,932
300
3.8
8.9
6.5
- = Kriging not conducted for this parameter on the Community data.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE 3
Summary of Subsurface Soil Sampling - Community and Regional
Sample Location
Arsenic
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
(mg/kg)
Copper
(mg/kg)
Lead
(mg/kg)
Zinc
(mg/kg)
|i§PH
Community Surface Soil Samples
Anaconda
(2 to 10 inches), 41 samples
Minimum
Maximum
Average
16
326
140
0.6
9.6
2.7
75
3,860
688
9
390
111
55
1,030
290
6.3
8.2
7.4
(10 to 24, 26 to 36, and 36 to 48 inches), 27 samples
Minimum
Maximum
Average
7
700
111
0.6
8.8
1.7
16
3,140
612
8
673
90
42
687
163
7
8.8
7.6
Opportunity
(2 to 10 inches), 16 samples
Minimum
Maximum
Average
18
125
71
0.7
2.3
1.5
31
300
179
9
63
40
44
172
117
6.4
8.3
7.4
(10 to 24 inches), 9 samples
Minimum
Maximum
Average
2
295
52
1.5
1.5
1.5
7
139
31
8
39
13
28
121
47
6.7
7.6
7.1
Regional Surface Soil Samples
(2 to 10 inches and 3 to 6 inches), 388 samples
Minimum
Maximum
Average
2
2,440
237
0.2
126
5
6
18,133
509
6
1,550
88
28
3,500
339
2.9
8.7
6.6
(10 to 25 inches and deeper), 189 samples
Minimum
Maximum
Average
1
1,250
145
0.2
32.0
2.0
4
7,590
299
4
587
32
18
3,850
242
3.5
9.1
7.3
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE 4
Summary of Railroad Bed Sampling - Anaconda and Regional
Sample Location
Arsenic
(ing/kg)
Cadmium
(mg/kg)
Copper
(mg/kg)
Lead
(mg/kg)
Zinc
(mg/kg)
PH
Anaconda Surface Soil Samples
Surface Interval (0 to 2 inches), 29 samples
Maximum
Minimum
Average
3,780
213
1,285
101.0
3.0
22.3
139,000
1,200
11,482
2,760
152
959
23,000
1,010
5,846
7.5
2.6
6.0
Subsurface Intervals (2 to 10 inches), 25 samples
Maximum
Minimum
Average
12,200
45
1,389
114.0
3.0
9.0
15,200
370
5,604
3,700
32
681
35,500
75
4,830
7.5
2.6
5.7
Subsurface Intervals (10 to 24 inches), 25 samples
Maximum
Minimum
Average
3,410
6
831
40.0
3.0
5.2
10,700
61
2,800
1,230
12
375
11,300
74
2,029
7.6
2.8
5.1
Regional Railroad Bed Samples
Surface Interval (0 to 2 inches), 249 samples
Maximum
Minimum
Average
66,900
86
2,140
_.
...
...
79,100
93
4,607
13,800
122
786
60,600
484
5,185
8.9
2.2
6.5
Subsurface Interval (2 to 10 inches), 22 samples
Maximum
Minimum
Average
10,100
261
2,711
...
...
...
7,660
247
3,470
5,520
122
1,165
16,000
647
4,489
8.6
3.4
6.2
Subsurface Interval (10 to 24 inches), 26 samples
Maximum
Minimum
Average
5,260
96
1,441
...
...
...
19,000
142
2,714
3,850
122
548
16,900
647
3,640
8.3
4.1
6.1
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Note: Regional railroad beds were not sampled for cadmium.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLES
Exposure Parameters for the Residential Scenario
Symbol
SL
TR
AT
CF
EF
SF0
IRchild
EDchiId
BWchild
IRadult
EDadult
BWadult
FS
BAFS
C
FD
BAFD
;r>OJinte'::'--;::.;vv
(mg arsenic/kg soil)
(unitless)
(days)
(kg/mg)
(days/year)
(mg/kg-day)'1
(mg/day)
(years)
(kg)
(mg/day)
(years)
(kg)
(unitless)
(unitless)
(unitless)
(unitless)
(unitless)
•;;.. .'••;••'. Definition '.'^ ~^;' ^- ..
risk-based screening level
target risk
averaging time
conversion factor
exposure frequency
oral slope factor for arsenic
soil ingestion rate for children
exposure duration for children
average body weight for children
soil ingestion rate for adults
exposure duration for adults
average body weight for adults
fraction of soil ingested
bioavailability of soil
contribution of soil arsenic to
arsenic in dust
fraction of dust ingested
bioavailability of interior dust
Value
Section 6-2
Section 6-2
Carcinogens = 25,550
Noncarcinogens
RME= 10,950
CTE = 3,285
.000001
350
1.5
RME = 200
CTE =100
RME = 6
CTE = 2
15
RME =100
CTE = 50
RME = 24
CTE = 7
70
0.45
0.183
0.43
0.55
0.258
Source
-
-
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
EPA 1995b
EPA 1993a
EPA 1993a
EPA 1993a
EPA 1993a
EPA 1989a
EPA 1993a
EPA 1993a
EPA 1993a
EPA 1993a
EPA 1989a
Professional
Judgement
EPA 1995a
Calculated,
see text
Professional
Judgement
EPA 1995a
Source: Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, CDM Federal 1996
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE 6
Arsenic Exposure Point Concentrations for Soils (mg/kg)
Subarea
Subarea A
Subarea B
Subarea C
Subarea D
Subarea E
Subarea Fl
Subarea F2
Subarea I*
Subarea J
Opportunity
Sample
•: :-::-: Number "W
44
60
17
11
47
52
36
3
10
22
Geometric
M.:. Mean::;;,:;;:::::;;;::
82.27
130.84
183.46
214.86
190.57
237.46
190.57
109.73
132.95
122.73
Arithmetic
:::::;:::;:: :Mean
86.92
138.97
191.43
225.26
195.31
246.36
204.30
117.13
140.66
127.56
Ln-STD
0.34
0.35
0.30
0.34
0.22
0.28
0.39
0.45
0.36
0.30
Minimum
Detection
38.40
59.33
107.50
136.00
92.00
126.50
82.50
67.50
64.00
128.90
Maximum
Detection
171.20
229.80
306.33
340.00
292.50
409.25
373.50
165.50
193.60
219.25
95th UCL
95.76
150.52
221.65
282.23
206.31
264.60
231.64
830.91
181.24
145.05
*Area I should use maximum detection because of limited sample number (3)
Source: Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, COM Federal 1996a
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoi!s\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE?
Summary of Soil Lead Data
Subarea
Subarea A
Subarea B
Subarea C
Subarea D
Subarea E
Subarea Fl
Subarea F2
Subarea I
Subarea J
Opportunity
All Areas
Number of
Residences
44
60
17
11
47
52
36
3
10
22
302
Minimum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
19.80
44.60
57.20
110.20
110.00
111.00
60.00
60.50
14.30
46.20
14.30
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
312.00
1,183.00
851.00
812.50
1,388.00
2,152.70
1,220.20
87.00
303.20
351.20
2,152,70
Average
Concentration
(mg/kg)
75.92
256.65
476.49
419.37
581.66
533.99
508.14
75.03
191.20
133.98
364.03
Standard
Deviation
54.42
215.04
245.23
230.53
282.04
302.75
288.65
13.44
88.43
81.85
297.24
Source: Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, CDM Federal 1996a
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLES
Noncancer Risks
Ingestion of Arsenic in Groundwater, Soil, and Dust
RME and CTE Residential Scenario, Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
(mg/kg-day)
Subarea
Subarea A
Subarea B
Subarea C
Subarea D
Subarea E
Subarea Fl
Subarea F2
Subarea I
Subarea J
Opportunity
RME Scenario
Groundwater
Ingestion HQ
3.27E-01
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
2.83E-01
Soil and Dust
Ingestion HQ
2.11E-01
2.79E-01
3.60E-01
5.70E-01
3.80E-01
5.24E-01
4.48E-01
3.45E-01
3.32E-01
3.20E-01
Total
Arsenic Risk
5.48E-01
2.79E-01
3.60E-01
5.70E-01
3.80E-01
5.24E-01
4.48E-01
3.45E-01
3.32E-01
6.03E-01
CTE Scenario
Groundwater
Ingestion HQ
1.34E-01
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.12E-01
Soil and Dust
Ingestion HQ
1.13E-01
1.49E-01
1.93E-01
3.05E-01
2.03E-01
2.80E-01
2.40E-01
1.84E-01
1.77E-01
1.71E-01
Total
Arsenic Risk
2.46E-01
1.49E-01
1.93E-01
3.05E-01
2.03E-01
2.80E-01
2.40E-01
1.84E-01
1.77E-01
2.83E-01
*Groundwater risks were not evaluated for these subareas since the primary source of drinking water is the public water supply.
Source: Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, COM Federal 1996a
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
HQ = Hazard Quotient
RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE 9
IEUBK Modeling Results Summary
Subarea
Subarea A
Subarea B
Subarea C
Subarea D
Subarea E
Subarea Fl
Subarea F2
Subarea I
Subarea J
Opportunity
All Areas
Predicted Percentage of
Individuals with Blood Lead
Levels Above 10 Mg/dL
0.00
0.13
2.23
1.32
5.38
3.74
3.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.68
Predicted Geometric
Mean Blood Lead
Level (//g/dL)
2.3
3.7
5.2
4.8
5.9
5.5
5.4
2.3
3.2
2.8
4.4
Source: Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, COM Federal 1996a
= micrograms per deciliter
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE 10
Cancer Risks
Ingestion of Arsenic in Groundwater, Soil, and Dust
RME and CTE Residential Scenario, Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
(mg/kg-day)
Subarea
Subarea A
Subarea B
Subarea C
Subarea D
Subarea E
Subarea Fl
Subarea F2
Subarea I
Subarea J
Opportunity
RME Scenario
Groundwater
Ingestion
HQ
3.76E-05
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3.16E-05
Soil and
Dust
Ingestion HQ
1.55E-05
2.05E-05
2.64E-05
4.18E-05
2.79E-05
3.84E-05
3.29E-05
2.53E-05
2.43E-05
2.34E-05
Total
Arsenic Risk
5.30E-05
2.05E-05
2.64E-05
4.18E-05
2.79E-05
3.84E-05
3.29E-05
2.53E-05
2.43E-05
5.51E-05
CTE Scenario
Groundwater
Ingestion
HQ
3.94E-06
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3.32E-06
Soil and Dust
Ingestion HQ
2.44E-06
3.23E-06
4.17E-06
6.59E-06
4.40E-06
6.06E-06
5.19E-06
3.98E-06
3.83E-06
3.69E-06
Total
Arsenic Risk
6.38E-06
3.23E-06
4.17E-06
6.59E-06
4.40E-06
6.06E-06
5.19E-06
3.98E-06
3.83E-06
7.01E-06
*Groundwater risks were not evaluated for these subareas since there was inadequate data from these subareas.
Source: Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, CDM Federal 199a
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
HQ = Hazard Quotient
RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE 11
Risk-Based Screening Levels for Arsenic for the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
Medium
Screening Level
Based on
Carcinogenic
Risk
1E-07
1E-06
IE-OS
1E-04
1E-03
Screening Level
Based on
Noncarcinogenic
Effects (HQ = 1)
Soil
Residential
Scenario
(mg/kg)
RME
0.30
2.97
29.7
297
2,970
573
CTE
1.85
18.5
185.2
1,852
18,516
1,071
Agricultural
Scenario
(mg/kg)
RME
1.00
10.03
100.3
1,003
10,033
NC
CTE
10.04
100.4
1,003
10,038
100,385
NC
Commercial
Worker Scenario
(mg/kg)
RME
1.33
13.3
133
1,331
13,307
2,139
CTE
10.15
101.5
1,015
10,155
101,546
4,570
Recreational Dirt
Biker Scenario
(mg/kg)
RME
2.32
23.2
232.3
2,323
23,231
NC
CTE
53.55
535.5
5,355
53,551
535,517
NC
Surface Water
Recreational
Youth/Swimmer
Scenario (mg/L)
RME
0.002
0.020
0.20
2.0
20.2
1.04
CTE
0.008
0.81
0.81
8.1
81.0
4.16
NC = Not calculated. Risk-based screening levels for these exposure scenarios are based on inhalation and ingestion
exposures. A RfD for inhalation is not available; screening levels based on noncarcinogenic effects can, therefore, not be
calculated for these exposure scenarios.
Source: Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, COM Federal 1996a
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/L = milligrams per liter
HQ = Hazard Quotient
RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE 12
Comparison of Remedial Alternatives for Residential Soils
NCP Criteria
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative!
ICs
Alternative 3
In-PIace Treatment,
Capping, and ICs
Alternative 4
Excavation, Disposal;
and ICs
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Compliance with ARARs
-
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
Balancing Criteria
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
through Treatment
Short-term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
+
+
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
Modifying Criteria
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
Net Rating
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
'
0
3+
+
0
4+.J,:, •-:.:.::•:;::
A rating of- to + is given if the alternative addresses the criteria, with - being the lowest rating and + being the highest. A "0" signifies no significant advantage or disadvantage.
The Selected Remedy must meet the threshold criteria.
NR = Not Rated; did not meet the threshold criteria.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE 13
Comparison of Remedial Alternatives for Railroad Beds
NCP Criteria
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative!
Capping, Roadway
Separation, and ICs
Alternative 3
ICs and Excavation
and Disposal
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Compliance with ARARs
-
-
+
+
+
+
Balancing Criteria
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
through Treatment
Short-term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
-
-
-
Modifying Criteria
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
Net Rating
NR
NR
NR
0
+
3
0
0
0
A rating of - to + is given if the alternative addresses the criteria, with - being the lowest rating and + being the highest. A "0" signifies no significant
advantage or disadvantage.
The Selected Remedy must meet the threshold criteria.
NR = Not Rated; did not meet the threshold criteria.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
TABLE 14
Capital Costs
Residential Soil Component (50 residential yards)
Excavation and Disposal Soils
Excavation and Transport of yard soils ($l,700/res. yard)
Site Preparation ($l,500/res. yard)
Eco-Compost ($25/cu. yd.) (2.3 cu. yd./res. yard)
Eco-Compost/Topsoil ($15/cu. yd.) (9.25 cu. yd./res. yard)
Rock ($15/cu. yd) (5 cu. yd./res. yard)
Sod ($0.4/sq. ft.) (1,500 sq. ft./res. yard)
Subtotal (50 residential yards)
Mobilization/Demobilization (20%)
Safety and Health (5%)
Total (50 residential yards)
(Contingencies @ 20%)
V^: 'Cost -:
85,000
75,000
2,875
6,938
3,750
30.000
203,563
40,713
10.178
254,454
50.891
$305,345
Railroad Bed Component (10,000 linear feet)
Capping and Roadway Separation
Placement and Grading of Rock ($1,500/100 ft.)
Crushed Stone (4" @ $15/ton) (157 tons/ 100 ft.)
Concrete Curbing ($3/foot) (50/100 ft.)
Subtotal (10,000 linear feet)
Mobilization/Demobilization (20%)
Safety and Health (5%)
Total (10,000 linear feet)
(Contingencies @ 20%)
150,000
235,500
15.000
400,500
80,100
20.025
500,625
100.125
$600,750
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Institutional Control Component
Capital Cost
Community Protective Measures Program (per year)
Net present value calculated using a 7% discount value over a 30-year period
50,000
75,000
$1,369,325
•• Totals :, :'..,:;; : •:>•:,.. . ': ,.;: '•^•••^f.: '• . .''-C" -\^%:;0;':.
Capital Costs (Residential Soil and Railroad Bed Components)
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Present Value
$906,095
$1.369.325
$2,275,420
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrod.rv5
-------
FIGURES
-------
-------
Figure 1
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Location Map
with Approximate Site Boundary
Mil/town Reservoir Site
Anaconda
Smelter Site
Clark Fork Basin
Superfund Sites
Scale of Miles
5 10 IB 20
*4 VS/MS/M I
Silver Bow Creek/
Butte Area Site
Montana Pole Site
Town
Highway
Stream
Superfund Sites
Montana State Library
Natural Resource Information Systsm
MapNo:94nrdcl6
Clark Fork
.Drainage Basin
Montana
Area of
Superfund Sites
-------
Approximate Study Area of the
Community Soils and Anaconda Regional
Water, Waste, and Soils Operable Units
Warm
Springs
Old Works/East Anaconda
Development Area
Figure 2
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Map with Approximate Study Area
Scale of Miles
1 2 3
Clarkjork GISJBrqect
NRIS Natural Re*oni*>e Information System
BI! *ttft*M*mi,lt
Map97epai3e September 10,1996
-------
Smelter Hill
Operable Unit
Boundary
LEGEND
Dustfall IDF) station locations
Air monitoring stations
Site 1-Teressa Ann Terrace
Site 2-Kortem Storage
Site 3-Mill Creek Park
Site 4-Zinc Processing Area
Air Monitoring and Dustfall Station Locations
0 500 1000 2000 3000fMt
f.
Figure 3
-------
-------
Figure
Focus Area for Anaconc
Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Recreational/Open Space
Residential Land Use With Best Kriged Estimate
Arsenic Concentrations Greater Than or Equal
to 250 rag/kg
Krigin
dabs
Repot
Basei
where
These
does i
errors
purpc
Scale of Feet
1000 2000
3000
-------
Figure 4
Focus Area for Anaconda Residential Soils
al/Industrial
lal/Open Space
I Land Use With Best Kriged Estimate
Concentrations Greater Than or Equal
Kriging was conducted by ACC, using relative semi-variogram models, on a
data set supplied by EPA, in June 1996, for the Soils Characterization
Report, ARCO 1996.
Base map digitized from aerial photographs by Horizons, Inc., Rapid Qty,
where available.
These data were obtained by NRIS from the sources named above. NRIS
does not guarantee the data for functionality, accuracy, or being free from
errors. The user assumes responsibility to verify usability for their
purposes.
Scale of Feet
000 2000
3000
rk CIS Proie
. NRIS Natural Resource Information System
Map97epa13b September 9,1996
f
-------
\U>rs^fi$^jfi^^^
-^'"' •' ** -if . e*-M_j''. -II—.: - f // •;-'
^ £> .. ^h/fes*^";//!'^"
l\
M f ^W/ ' '""'vvjis' /•; Jk y-1 S j/S'^/r^-^J ••'-« ^tM^i "•"*//
^ Sfti^/^Miis^^L
1«;;7/ ^pWpf^T^^K
^ /liplf!^-^
•!••$•.•••£&&• t > . i/^ m.. ' f i~'--.'*~**-~lJ f • i i
ti^^ ^>C ikf;]! \fJiL /
-------
Arsenic Distri
Anacon
Upper Quartile
Arsenic
Concentrations in mg/kg givenfor upper quart
c-
fi/ry^^Jt^
'---
-------
* Sample Site
* Upper Quartile
Arsenic
Figure 5
Arsenic Distribution Surface Interval
Anaconda Railroad Bed
——• Paved road
Other road
-- Trail
Building
Other Structure
Water Feature
Woods or Trees
Railroad
-•-- Fence
Stream, Drainage
Culvert
Section Line
1000
sow
Scale of Feet
Concentrations in mg/kg given for upper quartik onfy
^%^ /r^''^x&s^ '
'%-^i/^ VB|A%^ ''
^^pf^^^^S^
.
;;• s>; • •- , ^--i._ „/
'''
Mop 97epal3c September 9,1996
-------
PRIMARY
SOURCES
PRIMARY
RELEASE
MECHANISMS
HISTORICAL
EMISSIONS
SECONDARY
SOURCES
INFILTRATION/
PERCOLATION
SURFACE
AND
SUBSURFACE
SOILS
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
of Cmp Dnner ft Hebw be.
Figure 6
^^
Anaconda Site Conceptual Exposure Model
-------
SECONDARY
SOURCES
TERTIARY
SOURCES
SURFACE
AND
SUBSURFACE
SOILS
SURFACE
WATER
FRUITS/
VEGETABLES
RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL
WORKER
RECREATIONAL
COMMERCIAL
WORKER
POTENTIAL HUMAN
RECEPTORS
= SIGNIFICANT PATHWAY
QUANTIFIED IN HHRA
O = INSIGNIFICANT PATHWAY
NOT QUANTIFIED
BLANK = INCOMPLETE PATHWAY
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
of Crap teener It Hebe be.
Figure 6
Anaconda Site Conceptual Exposure Model
PageJLofl.
-------
Figure 7
Modified Borschein Sub-Areas
Anaconda, Montana
Natural Resource Infonnatioii System
Map 97epa13d
September 9, 1996
-------
• In areas where soil removal is to be
implemented, only the depth of soil that is
greater than 250 ppm soil arsenic
concentration will be removed.
New Sod or Seed
"t" Up to a Maximum of 18"
I of Contaminated Soil
I Removed and Replaced
+
with Clean Soil
Figure 8
Diagram of Selected Remedy for Community Soils
-------
12'-6"
TYP.
•15'-
TYP.
TYP.
•15'
TYP.
ROCK CAP
EXISTING RAILROAD BED
T ^\^
Concrete curbing for roadway separation, where necessary |
Figure 9
Diagram of Selected Remedy for Railroad Beds
-------
EXHIBITS
-------
-------
"m^
s
,\
\
x ......
-
p»
7090000
P>
noogoo_
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
:O
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
AZ
BA
BB
BC
BD
BE
BF
BG
BH
Bl
--
BJ
BK
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
800000
-------
Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Recreational/Open Space
Agricultural
Waste Left in Place
Combined Residential and
Recreational/Open Space
Combined Residential and
Agricultural
Land Use Area Not
Determined
-------
ce
Combined Residential and
Recreational/Open Space
Combined Residential and
Agricultural
Land Use Area Not
Determined
Residential Land Use With Best
Kriged Estimate Arsenic
Concentrations Greater Than
or Equal to 250 mg/kg
-------
itial Land Use With Best
d Estimate Arsenic
jntrations Greater Than
ual to 250 mg/kg
30
-------
0
3000 6000
Scale of Feet
9000
12000
The primar
decisions fc
map were [
and presen
Land owne
digitized fr
digitized in
obtained b
from existir
Plan (revise
EPA. Forfi
Charles
U.S. En
Federal
301 Soi
Helena
-------
The primary intention of this map is to assist EPA in making risk management
decisions for the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. The boundaries for this land use
map were prepared using various sources, including land ownership information
and present and anticipated future land uses in the Anaconda, Montana, area.
Land ownership was determined from NRIS Map #96arco51_3-3x, which was
digitized from a map provided by Olson-Elliot and Associates in 1993, and
digitized information on U.S. Forest Service property boundaries recently
obtained by NRIS. Present and anticipated future land uses were determined
from existing sources such as the Anaconda-Deer Lodge Comprehensive Master
Plan (revised in June 1992) and discussions between Anaconda-Deer Lodge and
EPA. For further information contact:
Charles Coleman, Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Montana Office
Federal Building, Drawer 10096
301 South Park Avenue
Helena, Montana 59626 (406)441-1150
Kriging was conducted by ACC, using relative semi-variogram r
data set supplied by EPA, in June 1996, for the Soils Characterlz
Report, ARC01996.
Base map digitized from aerial photographs by Horizons, Inc., F
where available. Remaining base map data and section lines w<
by the USGS from 1:24,000 scale quads of 1989.
These data were obtained by NRIS from the sources named abo
does not j
errors.
purposes.
c uaui wcie uuuimeu uy I^IMJ irum me suurco nanicu auu
not guarantee the data for functionality, accuracy, or being
s. The user assumes responsibility to verify usability for the
10000-foot grid tics are Montana State Plane South Zone coordi
-------
ive semi-variogram models, on a
the Soils Characterization
; by Horizons, Inc., Rapid City,
i and section lines were digitized.
1989.
• sources named above. NRIS
y, accuracy, or being free from
'erify usability for their
e South Zone coordinates.
Exhibit 1
Focus Area for Regional
Residential Soil
.Clark Fork CIS Project
NRIS Natural Resource Information System
Itaama Slate LOmay 444-Si54
ISIS East Soli Avemt, Htltna.Uoitota SSS20
Map97epa13a September 4,1996
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs
-------
-------
FINAL DRAFT
IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS, CONTROLS CRITERIA, OR LIMITATIONS
FOR THE ANACONDA SMELTER SUPERFUND SITE, COMMUNITY SOILS
OPERABLE UNIT REMEDIAL ACTION
INTRODUCTION
Section 121(d) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d), the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (the
"NCP"), 40 CFR Part 300 (1990), and guidance and policy issued by
the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") require that remedial
actions under CERCLA comply with substantive provisions of
applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, requirements,
criteria, or limitations from State of Montana and federal
environmental laws and state facility siting laws during and at the
completion of the remedial action. These requirements are
threshold standards that any selected remedy must meet.
This document identifies final ARARs that are expected to
apply to the activities to be conducted under the Community Soils
Operable Unit ("CS OU") remedial action. The following ARARs or
groups of related ARARs are each identified by a statutory or
regulatory citation, followed by a brief explanation of the ARAR
and how and to what extent the ARAR is expected to apply to the
activities to be conducted under this remedial action. The
descriptions given here are provided to allow the reader a
reasonable understanding of each requirement without having to
refer constantly to the statute or regulation itself and to provide
a brief explanation of how the requirement is to be applied in the
specific circumstances involved at this OU.
Although the ROD for the CS OU does not require remediation of
ground or surface water and does not require compliance with water
ARARs, several ground and surface water quality ARARs are
nevertheless outlined herein. This is done to promote consistency
with the Anaconda Regional Water, Waste, and Soils (ARWW&S) OU
remedial action which will require compliance with water ARARs, and
as a reminder that the cleanup at the CS OU may not adversely
affect water quality. Consistency with the ARWW&S OU action and
protection of water resources during the CS OU action will be
achieved through the use of best management practices to minimize
releases of contaminants from soil and railroad bed materials to
water media.
Substantive provisions of the requirements listed below are
identified as ARARs pursuant to 40 CFR § 300.400. ARARs that are
within the scope of this remedial action must be attained during
and at the completion of the remedial action. No permits are
anticipated for the remedial action for the CS OU in accordance
with Section 121(e) of CERCLA.
-------
TYPES OF ARARs
ARARs are contaminant, location, or action specific.
Contaminant specific requirements address chemical or physical
characteristics of compounds or substances on sites. These values
establish acceptable amounts or concentrations of chemicals which
may be found in or discharged to the ambient environment.
Location specific requirements are restrictions placed upon
the concentrations of hazardous substances or the conduct of
cleanup activities because they are in specific locations.
Location specific ARARs relate to the geographical or physical
positions of sites, rather than to the nature of contaminants at
sites.
Action specific requirements are usually technology based or
activity based requirements or limitations on actions taken with
respect to hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. A
given cleanup activity will trigger an action specific requirement.
Such requirements do not themselves determine the cleanup alterna-
tive, but define how chosen cleanup methods should be performed.
Many requirements listed as ARARs are promulgated as identical
or near identical requirements in both federal and state law,
usually pursuant to delegated environmental programs administered
by EPA and the state. The Preamble to the NCP provides that such
a situation results in citation to the state provision and
treatment of the provision as a federal requirement.
I. CONTAMINANT SPECIFIC ARARs
A. Federal and State Groundwater and Surface Water ARARs.
Final remediation of groundwater and surface water is not
within the scope of the CS OU and will be addressed under the
ARWW&S OU. EPA identifies certain groundwater and surface water
requirements herein for the purposes of 1) prohibiting degradation
of these media by this response action, particularly with respect
to the railroad beds, and 2) achieving consistency with the ARWW&S
OU response action. Specifically, these ARARs are intended to aid
in the identification of contamination from the soils and railroad
beds to groundwater and surface water. It is not expected that the
groundwater and surface water requirements identified herein will
be performance standards or final ARARs for the CS OU. Consistency
between the RWW&S OU and the CS OU will be achieved through
identification of releases from the soils or contaminated railroad
beds and minimization of releases that would result in unacceptable
adverse impacts to groundwater and surface water.
-------
1. The Federal Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251. et
seq.
General. The Clean Water Act provides the authority for
each state to adopt water quality standards (40 CFR Part 131)
designed to protect beneficial uses of each water body and requires
each state to designate uses for each water body. Pursuant to this
authority and the criteria established by Montana surface water
quality regulations, ARM § 16.20.601, et seq.. Montana has
established the Water-Use Classification system. Under ARM §
16.20.604, Warms Springs Creek has been classified B-l. Certain of
the B-l standards, codified at ARM § 16.20.623, as well as
Montana's nondegradation requirements, are presented below.
2. Surface and Groundwater Quality Requirements.
Montana Water Quality Act. MCA S 75-5-101 et seq.. and implementing
regulations.
a. Water. genera1.
i. MCA S 75-5-303 (applicable). This section
provides that existing uses of state waters and the level of water
quality necessary to protect those uses must be maintained.
ii. MCA S 75-5-605 (applicable). This section
prohibits the causing of pollution of any state waters or the
placing of wastes where they will cause pollution of any state
waters.
b. Surface Water.
i. ARM S 16.20.618 (applicable). Waters
classified B-l are, after conventional treatment, suitable for
drinking, culinary and food processing purposes. These waters are
also suitable for bathing, swimming and recreation, growth and
propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life,
waterfowl and furbearers, and use for agricultural and industrial
purposes. This section provides also that concentrations of
carcinogenic, bioconcentrating, toxic or harmful parameters which
would remain in water after conventional water treatment may not
exceed standards set forth in department circular WQB-7, as well as
other specified criteria.
ii. ARM S 16.20.633 (applicable). Prohibits
discharges containing substances which will settle, create floating
debris, scum, or film, produce odors, create colors or other
conditions creating a nuisance, or create concentrations or
combinations of materials which are toxic, or create conditions
which produce undesirable aquatic life.
iii. ARM S 16.20.708 (applicable). Existing
and anticipated uses of surface water and water quality to support
those uses must be maintained.
-------
iv. General Discharge Permit for Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity. Permit No. MTR100000
(November 17. 1992) (applicable). The requirements of this permit
are applicable for stormwater runoff from construction activities.
c.
i. ARM S 16.20.1002 and -1003 (applicable).
Groundwater in the CS OU is classified as I and must meet the
standards for Class I groundwater.
ii. ABM S 16.20.1011 (applicable). This
section provides that any groundwater whose existing quality is
higher than the standard for its classification must be maintained
at that high quality unless the board is satisfied that a change is
justifiable for economic or social development and will not
preclude present or anticipated use of such waters. Concentrations
of dissolved substances in Class I goundwater may not exceed the
human health standards listed in department Circular WQB-7, as well
as other specified criteria.
B. Federal and State Air Quality Requirements.
1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR S
50.6 (PM-10) t 40 CFR § 50.12 (lead) (applicable). These provisions
establish standards for PM-10 and lead emissions to air.
Corresponding state standards are found at ARM § 16.8.815 (lead)
and ARM § 16.8.821 (PM-10).
2. Montana Ambient Air Quality Regulations. ASM §§
16.8.807. -.815. -.818. and -.821 (applicable).
a. ARM S 16.8.807. This provision establishes
sampling, data collection and analytical requirements to ensure
compliance with ambient air quality standards.
b. ARM S 16.8.809. Establishes sampling, data
collection, recording, and analysis to ensure compliance with
ambient air quality standards.
c. ARM § 16.8.815. Lead emissions to ambient air
shall not exceed a ninety (90) day average of 1.5 micrograms per
cubic liter of air.
d. ARM S 16.8.818. Settled particulate matter
shall not exceed a thirty (30) day average of 10 grams per square
meter.
e. ARM § 16.8.821. PM-10 concentrations in
ambient air shall not exceed a 24 hour average of 150 micrograms
-------
per cubic meter of air and an annual average of 50 micrograms per
cubic meter of air.
II. LOCATION SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
The statutes and regulations set forth below relate to the
preservation of certain cultural, historic, natural or other
national resources which may be adversely affected by the CS OU
remedial action. They require that such resources be identified,
and that steps be taken to minimize the impact of the remedial
action upon any such resources.
A. National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470. 40
CFR S 6.301(b). 36 CFR Part 800 ("NHPA") (applicable). This
statute requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of this response action upon any district, site, building, struc-
ture, or object that is included in or eligible for the Register of
Historic Places. In addition, Indian cultural and historical
resources must be evaluated, and effects avoided, minimized, or
mitigated. Compliance with NHPA requirements will be attained
through the Regional Historic Preservation Plan as implemented
pursuant to agreements entered into with EPA and Anaconda/Deer
Lodge.
B. Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act. 16 U.S.C.
§ 461 et sea.? 40 CFR § 6.310 (a) (applicable). This provision
requires federal agencies to consider the existence and location of
land marks on the National Registry of National Landmarks and to
avoid undesirable impacts on such landmarks.
C. Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C. S 1531. 40 CFR
S 6.302(h). 50 CFR Parts 17 and 402 (applicable). This statute and
implementing regulations provide that federal activities not
jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered
species. Based upon available information and investigations to
date, and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, no
designated threatened or endangered species or their habitat are
expected to be affected by this remedial action.
D. Floodplain Management. 40 CFR § 6.302(b). and Executive
Order No. 11988. These require that actions be taken to avoid, to
the extent possible, adverse effects associated with direct or
indirect development of a floodplain, or to minimize adverse
impacts if no practicable alternative exists.
E. State of Montana Floodplain and Floodway Management Act
and Regulations (all applicable).
1. MCA § 76-5-402. ARM 36.15.701 and 702. These
specify uses allowed in the floodplain, excluding the floodway, and
allow residential, commercial, or industrial structures meeting
-------
certain minimum standards including those relating to placement of
fill, roads, and floodproofing.
2. ASM 36.15.602 (5). 605. and 703. Solid and hazardous
waste disposal and storage of toxic, flammable, hazardous, or
explosive materials are prohibited anywhere in floodways or
floodplains.
3. ASM 36.15.606. Requires compliance with standards
for levees, floodwalls, and riprap.
4. ASM 36.15.701(3)(c) and (d) . Roads, streets,
highways and rail lines must be designed to minimize increases in
flood heights. Structures and facilities for liquid or solid waste
treatment and disposal must be floodproofed to ensure that no
pollutants enter flood waters and may be allowed and approved only
in accordance with regulations.
III. ACTION SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
The statutory and regulatory requirements set forth below
govern the implementation of the CS OU, including design and
construction activities. Anticipated remedial action activities
include the removal and disposal of residential soils, the
revegetative treatment of commercial/industrial soils, and the
construction of engineered covers over railroad bed materials
and/or other commercial/industrial soils. The railroad lines
within the CS OU are part of an active rail system and therefore,
the materials associated with the operation of these lines are not
considered solid waste. Soils to be removed from residential areas
are not considered solid waste because they may be useful as cover
material at other locations on the Anaconda Smelter NPL site,
provided the soils contain no more contaminants than may be
compatible with the intended uses for those other locations. Soils
removed from residential areas will be used either as cover
material or will be consolidated on-site within other contaminated
areas which will be addressed under the ARWW&S OU. Solid waste
disposal requirements are identified herein for the purpose of
governing management of these areas until final closure.
It is not expected that the solid waste requirements
identified herein will be performance standards or final ARARs for
the CS OU. Some of these will be considered relevant and
appropriate for the temporary storage or management of solid waste
until final closure under the ARWW&S OU.
A. Federal and State RCRA Subtitle D Requirements
(applicable at time of ARWW&S OU).
40 CFR Part 257 establishes criteria under Subtitle D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for use in determining which
solid waste disposal facilities and practices may reasonably be
-------
expected to adversely affect public health or the environment. See
40 CFR § 257.1(a). This part comes into play whenever there is a
"disposal" of any solid or hazardous waste from a "facility."
"Disposal" is defined as "the discharge, deposit, injection,
dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or
hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid
waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the
environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any
waters, including ground waters." See 40 CFR § 257.2. "Facility"
means "any land and appurtenances thereto used for the disposal of
solid wastes." Solid waste requirements are listed herein because
the possibility that there may be disposal of solid wastes as a
result of this remedial action has not yet been eliminated.
1. 40 CFR § 264.257 (incorporated by reference in
Montana under ARM § 16.44.702). Criteria for Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices. The activities to
be performed for the CS OU remedial action are expected to comply
with the following requirements.
a. 40 CFR S 257.3-1. Washout of solid waste in
facilities in a floodplain posing a hazard to human life, wildlife,
or land or water resources shall not occur.
b. 40 CFR S 257.3-2. Facilities shall not
contribute to the taking of endangered species or the endangering
of critical habitat of endangered species.
c. 40 CFR S 257.3-3. A facility shall not cause
a discharge of pollutants, dredged or fill material, into waters of
the United States in violation of sections 402 and 404 of the Clean
Water Act, as amended, and shall not cause nonpoint source
pollution, in violation of applicable legal requirements
implementing an areawide or statewide water quality management plan
that has been approved by the Administrator under Section 208 of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
d. 40 CFR S 257.3-4. A facility shall not
contaminate an underground source of drinking water beyond the
solid waste boundary or beyond an alternative boundary specified in
accordance with this section.
e. 40 CFR § 257.3-8(d). Access to a facility
shall be controlled so as to prevent exposure of the public to
potential health and safety hazards at the site.
2. State of Montana Solid Waste Requirements.
a. ARM § 16.14.523. Specifies that solid waste
must be transported in such a manner as to prevent its discharge,
dumping, spilling or leaking from the transport vehicle.
-------
b. ASM S 17.50.505(1). Facilities for the
treatment, storage or disposal of solid waste must be: (1) located
where a sufficient acreage of suitable land is available for solid
waste management; (2) not be located in a 100-year flood plain; (3)
be located only in areas which will prevent the pollution of ground
and surface waters and public and private water supply systems; (4)
be located to allow for reclamation and reuse of the land; (e) have
drainage structures installed where necessary to prevent surface
runoff from entering waste management areas; and (f) be limited to
Class III disposal facilities, where underlying geological
formations contain rock fractures or fissures which may lead to
pollution of the ground water or areas in which springs exist that
are hydraulically connected to a proposed disposal facility.
c. ARM § 17.50.505(2) . Specifies standards for
solid waste management facilities, including the requirements that
Class II landfills must confine solid waste and leachate to the
disposal facility. If there is a potential for leachate migration,
it must be demonstrated that leachate will only migrate to
underlying formations which have no hydraulic continuity with any
state waters; adequate separation of group II wastes from
underlying or adjacent water must be provided; and no new disposal
units or lateral expansions may be located in wetlands. This
provision also specifies general soil and hydrogeological
requirements pertaining to facility siting.
d. ARM § 17.50.212. Prohibits dumping or leaving
any debris or refuse upon or within 200 yards of any highway, road,
street, or alley of the state or other public property, or on
privately owned property where hunting, fishing, or other
recreation is permitted.
e. ASM § 17.50.506. Specifies design requirements
for landfills. MCLs may not be exceed, or the landfill must
contain a composite liner and leachate collection system in
compliance with listed criteria.
f. ASM § 17.50.513. Specifies general operational
and maintenance and design requirements including run-on and run-
off control systems, fencing, and point and nonpoint source
discharge in violation of Clean Water Act.
g. ASM S 17.50.530 and 531. These set forth post
closure care requirements for Class II landfills. Post closure
care must be conducted for a period sufficient to protect human
health and the environment. Post closure care requires maintenance
of the effectiveness of any final cover, and compliance with
groundwater monitoring requirements found at ARM Title 16, chapter
14, subchapter 7.
-------
B. Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act.
M.C.A. § 82-4-201 and following (relevant and appropriate).
Certain discrete portions of the following regulatory
provisions, to the extent they address changes in water quality and
quantity, grading requirements, erosion control, and stabilization
measures, may be relevant and appropriate for the replacement of
residential soils and/or the management of removed soils in an on-
site disposal or consolidation area.
1. ARMS 26.4.501(3) (a) and (d) and (4). Backfill must
be placed so as to minimize sedimentation, erosion, and leaching of
acid or toxic materials into waters, unless otherwise approved.
2. ARM S 26.4.50KA) (1) (a) and (2). Final graded
slopes will be 5:1 unless otherwise approved. If steeper, slopes
must have a long term static safety factor of 1:3, not to exceed
the angle of repose unless the existing grade of the area is
steeper, in which case the existing grade meets this requirement.
Disturbed areas must be blended with undisturbed ground to provide
a smooth transition in topography.
3. ARM § 26.4.514. Final grading will be done along
the existing contour in order to minimize subsequent erosion and
instability, unless otherwise approved.
4. ARM § 26.4.519. Pertinent areas of the CS OU where
excavation will occur will be regraded to minimize settlement.
5. ARM §26.4.631(1). (2). (3) (a) and (b) .
Disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance will be mini-
mized. Changes in water quality and quantity, in the depth to
groundwater and in the location of surface water drainage channels
will be minimized, to the extent consistent with the selected
remedial alternatives.
6. ARM § 26.4.633. Surface drainage from a disturbed
area must be treated by the best technology currently available
(BTCA). Treatment must continue until the area is stabilized.
7. ASM S 26.4.638(1) (a) and (c) and (2). Practices to
prevent or minimize sedimentation and erosion will employed to the
extent possible.
8. ARM § 26.4.634. Disturbed drainages will be
restored to the approximate pre-disturbance configuration, to the
extent consistent with the selected remedial alternatives.
9. ARM § 26.4.638 (2). Sediment control measures must
be implemented during operations.
-------
10. ASM § 26.4.641. Practices to prevent drainage from
acid or toxic forming spoil material into ground and surface water
will be employed.
11. ASM § 26.4.702(4). (5) and (6). Practices to
prevent compaction, slippage, erosion, and deterioration of
biological properties of soil will be employed.
12. ARM § 26.4.703. When using materials other than, or
along with, soil for final surfacing in reclamation, the operator
must demonstrate that the material (1) is at least as capable as
the soil of supporting the approved vegetation and subsequent land
use, and (2) the medium must be the best available in the area to
support vegetation. Such substitutes must be used in a manner
consistent with the requirements for redistribution of soil in ARM
§ 26.4.701 and .702.
13. ARM § 26.4.711. Requires that a diverse, effective
and permanent vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety and
utility as the vegetation native to the area of land to be affected
must be established. This provision would not be relevant and
appropriate in certain instances, for example, where there is
dedicated development.
14. ASM § 26.4.713. Seeding and planting of disturbed
areas must be conducted during the first appropriate period for
favorable planting after final seedbed preparation but may not be
more than 90 days after soil has been replaced.
15. ARM § 26.4.714. Mulch or cover crop or both must be
used until adequate permanent cover can be established.
16. ARM § 26.4.716. Establishes method of revegetation.
17. ARM S 26.4.718. Requires soil amendments,
irrigation, management, fencing, or other measures, if necessary to
establish a diverse and permanent vegetative cover.
18. ASM § 26.4.728. Sets forth requirements for the
composition of vegetation on reclaimed areas.
19. ARM § 26.4.751. Measures to prevent degradation of
fish and wildlife habitat will be employed.
20. ARM § 26.4.761(2) (a) . (e) . (h). M) . and (k) . These
provisions specify fugitive dust control measures which will be
employed during excavation and construction activities to minimize
the emission of fugitive dust in the CS OU. These provisions are
addressed below in Section III.C.
10
-------
C. Air Requirements (all applicable).
1. ARM § 16.8.1401(2). (3). and (4). Airborne
particulate matter. There shall be no production, handling,
transportation, or storage of any material, use of any street,
road, or parking lot, or operation of a construction site or
demolition project unless reasonable precautions are taken to
control emissions of airborne particles. Emissions shall not
exhibit an opacity exceeding 20% or greater averaged over 6
consecutive minutes.
2. ASM S 16.8.1404(2). Visible Air Contaminants;
Emissions into the outdoor atmosphere shall not exhibit an opacity
of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive minutes.
3. ASM § 16.8.1427. Nuisance or odor bearing gases.
Gases, vapors and dusts will be controlled such that no public
nuisance is caused within the CS OU.
4. ASM S 26.4.761(2) (a). (e) . (h) . (-1). and (k) .
Fugitive dust control measures such as 1) watering, stabilization,
or paving of roads, 2) vehicle speed restrictions, 3) stabilization
of surface areas adjoining roads, 4) restriction of travel on other
than authorized roads, 5) enclosing, covering, watering, or
otherwise treating loaded haul truck, 6). minimizing area of
disturbed land, and 7) revegetation, must be planned and implement-
ed, if any such measure or measures are appropriate for this
remedial action.
D. Air Quality Requirements (applicable).
Remedial activities will comply with the following
requirements to ensure that existing air quality will not be
adversely affected by the CS OU remedial action.
1. ARM S 16.8.815. The concentration of lead in
ambient air shall not exceed a 90 day average of 1.5 micrograms per
cubic meter of air.
2. ARM § 16.8.818. Settled particulate matter shall
not exceed a 30 day average of 10 grams per square meter.
3. ASM S 16.8.821. The concentration of PM-10 in
ambient air shall not exceed a 24 hour average of 150 micrograms
per cubic meter of air and an annual average of 50 micrograms per
cubic meter of air.
11
-------
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
COMMUNITY SOILS
OPERABLE UNIT
ANACONDA SMELTER NPL SITE
ANACONDA, MONTANA
September 25,1996
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS RS-i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS RS-ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION RS-1
1.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BACKGROUND RS-1
1.2 PUBLIC MEETING PUBLICITY RS-1
1.3 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD RS-1
1.4 DOCUMENT REPOSITORIES RS-1
1.5 CITIZENS GROUPS RS-2
1.6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RS-2
1.7 PROGRESS REPORTS RS-2
1.8 MAILING LIST RS-3
1.9 CHRONOLOGY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES RS-3
2.0 EXPLANATION OF RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY RS-5
2.1 SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS RS-6
3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RS-7
3.1 PUBLIC COMMENTS RS-7
3.1.1 COMMENTS AT THE FORMAL PUBLIC MEETING RS-7
3.1.1.1 Comments from Ms. Sandy Stash (ARCO) RS-7
3.1.1.2 Comment from Mr. Bill McCarthy RS-8
3.1.1.3 Comment from Ms. Ellen Tocher RS-9
3.1.1.4 Comment from Mr. John Sevores RS-9
3.1.2 WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO EPA RS-9
3.1.2.1 Comment from Mr. Joe Oik RS-9
3.1.2.2 Comment from Mrs. Nicki Leiss RS-10
3.1.2.3 Comments from Dr. Wesley D. Granger RS-10
3.1.2.4 Comments from Mr. John Sevores RS-11
3.1.2.5 Comment from the Anaconda Environmental Education Institute (AEEI) . RS-12
3.1.2.6 Comments from Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry & Hoven, P.C., representing RARUS
Railway Company RS-12
3.1.1.7 Comments from Environmental & Mining Systems International (EMSI) . RS-12
3.2 COMMENTS FROM ARCO RS-13
4.0 REFERENCES RS-26
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU .
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 Ko-1
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADLC
ADRA
AEEI
AGC
AMC
AOC
ARARs
ARCO
A.R.M.
ARWWS
GDI
CERCLA
C.F.R.
CPMP
DEQ
DPS
EE/CA
EMSI
EPA
FS
HHRA
ICs
IEUBK
M.C.A.
rng/day
NCP
NPL
OU
OW/EADA
ppm
PRP
RARUS
RD
RI
RI/FS
ROD
TAG
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Anaconda-Deer Lodge Reclamation Advocates
Anaconda Environmental Education Institute
Advanced GeoServices Corporation
Anaconda Mining Company
Administrative Order on Consent
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Atlantic Richfield Company
Annotated Rules of Montana
Anaconda Regional Water, Waste, and Soils
Chronic Daily Intake
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980
Code of Federal Regulations
Community Protective Measures Program
State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Development Permit System
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
Environmental & Mining Systems International
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Feasibility Study
Human Health Risk Assessment
Institutional Controls
Integrated Exposure Uptake/Biokinetic
Montana Code Annotated
milligrams per day
National Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Operable Unit
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area
parts per million
Potentially Responsible Party
RARUS Railway Company
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Technical Assistance Grant
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-ii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared this Responsiveness Summary
in conjunction with the Record of Decision (ROD) to document and respond to issues and
comments raised by the public regarding the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
and the Proposed Plan for the Community Soils Operable Unit (OU) of the Anaconda Smelter
National Priorities List (NPL) Site. Comments were received during the Public Comment Period
from July 8 through August 9,1996. These comments, and responses to them, are outlined in
this document. By law, the EPA must consider public input before making a final decision on a
cleanup remedy. Once public comment is addressed, the final decision on a cleanup remedy will
be documented in the ROD.
1.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BACKGROUND
EPA has conducted community involvement activities for the Community Soils OU in
accordance with state and federal laws and EPA Superfund guidance documents. From the
beginning of the RI/FS process for the Community Soils OU, EPA has conducted community
relations activities and sought the involvement of the public and the Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP), Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).
1.2 PUBLIC MEETING PUBLICITY
Press releases were sent to The Anaconda Leader to announce each public meeting and the
Public Comment Period. The public meetings were then advertised in this newspaper. Print
advertisements were display style, conspicuously large (quarter page), and were placed in a
widely-read section of the paper.
13 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
The Administrative Record is the set of documents identified for the Community Soils OU upon
which the selection of the remedy is based. The Administrative Record is required by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
§113(k). The Administrative Record (on microfilm) is available for public review at the Hearst
Free Public Library in Anaconda, and the Montana Tech Library in Butte, with the complete
Administrative Record located at the EPA Records Center in Helena.
1.4 DOCUMENT REPOSITORIES
Key documents relating to the Community Soils OU are also available at the Hearst Free Public
Library in Anaconda and at the EPA Records Center in Helena.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 K.S-1
-------
1.5 CITIZENS GROUPS
The Anaconda-Deer Lodge Reclamation Advocates (ADRA) organization was formed in
1988 by members of Citizens in Action and the Anaconda-Deer Lodge Environmental
Advisory Council to work towards economic recovery. ADRA has met regularly with EPA
and ARCO to discuss Superfund activities taking place in the Clark Fork Basin. ADRA has
co-sponsored public Superfund meetings with EPA.
ADRA and the Arrowhead Foundation, a non-profit community group focusing on the effort to
establish a world-class, Jack Nicklaus-designed golf course in the Old Works/East Anaconda
Development Area (OW/EADA) OU, recently combined organizations to keep involved in
Superfund activities. This organization (Arrowhead) recently received a Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG) from EPA to further evaluate Superfund activities and processes at the site.
Arrowhead hired the Anaconda Environmental Education Institute (AEEI) to provide support in
the review of technical issues.
The Opportunity Concerned Citizens organization was formed to provide input and direction
concerning the Warm Springs Proposed Plan. This group has shown interest in certain OUs.
EPA and State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) officials stay in contact
with this group.
1.6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County (ADLC) had been very active in Superfund activities at the site.
EPA meets regularly with ADLC to discuss project objectives and community needs. In
addition, ADLC, along with Burte-Silver Bow County, have hired a technical consultant to
review site information.
1.7 PROGRESS REPORTS
Since the NPL listing of the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site in 1983, EPA and DEQ have produced
numerous Progress Reports and Fact Sheets that discuss Superfund issues at the Anaconda
Smelter NPL Site. Many of these printed materials have been site-specific and have discussed
issues relating to specific OUs.
These Progress Reports and Fact Sheets contained information on released documents, meetings,
site activities, completion of projects, sampling results, etc. They were sent to those individuals
on the site mailing list and extra copies were distributed at public meetings. Copies of previous
Progress Reports and Fact Sheets are contained in the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
Administrative Record.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 K.o-2
-------
1.8 MAILING LIST
EPA maintains the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site mailing list on a computer database and updates
this list as needed. Currently, approximately 350 individuals and organizations are included on
the list. EPA actively solicits additions to the mailing list in the Fact Sheets, the Proposed Plan,
and at public meetings.
1.9 CHRONOLOGY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
1983-1996
February 1995
March 1996
July 1996
Numerous site-wide community relations activities were conducted at the
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. This included the development of a
Community Relations Plan, which was last revised in 1992.
EPA and DEQ officials conducted extensive community relations
activities in Anaconda and Opportunity, Montana, over the years. A
part-time Community Relations Liaison worked in Anaconda for several
years. In addition, the EPA Community Involvement Coordinator has
conducted numerous small and large group meetings and extensive
Community Relations activities in Anaconda and Opportunity. An EPA-
sponsored Bureau of Reclamation employee oversees construction
activities, and has been a community point-of-contact since 1990.
EPA officials were readily available to local news media which resulted in
frequent site coverage in local newspapers. Many meetings with local
groups (ADRA/Arrowhead, TAG) and local government were held to
inform the public of the progress of this and other projects.
A Health Risk Fact Sheet was published to explain potential health risks
associated with arsenic and EPA's approach for assessing those risks.
An update of Superfund activities was provided in a March 1996 Fact
Sheet and EPA held an informational meeting in Anaconda on March 14,
1996, to explain the RI/FS process and to discuss overall site progress,
activities, and schedules.
EPA sent out the Proposed Plan to the site mailing list. A display ad and
legal ad for the Proposed Plan, Public Comment Period, and meeting dates
were published in The Anaconda Leader on July 5 and 10, 1996.
A formal public hearing was held in Anaconda on July 18, 1996. At this
hearing, representatives from EPA answered questions about remedial
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-3
-------
alternatives under consideration, as well as the preferred remedy published
in the Community Soils Proposed Plan.
July 1996 EPA received public comments on the Community Soils Proposed Plan
from July 8 through August 9, 1996.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU . n C /I
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 K.o-4
-------
2.0 EXPLANATION OF RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Three types of comments were received on the Proposed Plan by EPA during the Public
Comment Period. These were:
• Comments received at the July 18,1996 public meeting. The oral comments that were
given at the formal public meeting were recorded and transcribed by a court reporter.
Responses to these comments are provided in Section 3.0. In addition, questions and
answers preceded the formal comments. A copy of the transcript of the formal public
meeting, including formal comments, is provided in Attachment A.
• Written comments received by EPA during the Public Comment Period. Copies of these
comments can be found in Attachment B. EPA's responses to these comments are in
Section 3.1.2.
• Written comments received by EPA from ARCO. Copies of these comments are
provided in Attachment B. EPA's responses to these comments are in Section 3.2.
Written comments were received from the following groups and individuals:
• 4 Private citizens;
• 1 Local environmental education group;
• 1 Local business;
• 1 Contractor for other federal agency; and
ARCO
It should be noted that while only the formal public comments and comments from ARCO are
presented and responded to in this Responsiveness Summary, EPA has also considered other
information in the remedy selection process. EPA has considered information from meetings
held among EPA, DEQ, ARCO, ADLC local government officials, and other parties during the
RI/FS and during the Public Comment Period. EPA has also considered additional written
submittals from ARCO, including their applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) scoping documents, risk assessment documents, and correspondence related to the
RI/FS and remedy selection.
All comments received, including those provided to EPA prior to the Public Comment Period,
have been reviewed and considered by EPA in the decision-making process. These comments
are addressed, either explicitly or implicitly, in this Responsiveness Summary and in the ROD, in
RI/FS documents, or in correspondence contained in the Administrative Record.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 Ro-5
-------
The comments and responses have been organized into two parts:
Part I. Section 3.1 - Public Comments, includes summaries of most remarks made by
citizens, local government, community groups, and local and state environmental
organizations. Each comment is followed by EPA's response. Policy comments
and responses are generally included with the public comments.
Part II. Section 3.2 - ARCO Comments, provides a set of technical and legal comments
from ARCO and EPA's detailed response, including comments on ARARs and the
Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA).
2.1 SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS
Of the comments received by EPA during the Public Comment Period, one comment has resulted
in an important change to the ROD. Based on this comment, received at the July 18,1996 public
meeting, and on subsequent input from the State and ARCO, EPA has formally identified
commercial/industrial properties as residential areas within the Community Soils OU, and has
specified an action level and remedy for such properties in this ROD.
The RI/FS and Proposed Plan were released for public comments in July 1995. Because data
contained in the Remedial Investigation (RI) did not identify commercial/industrial areas of
concern, the Feasibility Study (FS) and Proposed Plan did not identify alternatives for addressing
those areas within the site. Previously sampled commercial/industrial areas were generally
below risk-based screening levels. However, during the Public Comment Period, concerns were
expressed regarding specific commercial/industrial areas that have not been sampled.
Since the Selected Remedy will address commercial/industrial properties associated with certain
residential soils or properties containing railroad bed materials, and since most other
commercial/industrial areas at the site are currently being addressed under the OW/EADA ROD,
EPA has determined that it is appropriate to formally address all remaining current and future
commercial/industrial land use areas at the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site under this Selected
Remedy. Although commercial/industrial areas were not specifically evaluated in the FS,
sufficient information exists to include them in the Selected Remedy. As discussed in this ROD,
EPA will address these areas in the same manner that other commercial/industrial areas are
currently being addressed at the site. Components of both the Community Soils and QW/EADA
Selected Remedy (engineered covers, soil treatment, and Institutional Controls (ICs)) will also
apply to the remaining commercial/industrial areas. This includes the selected 500 ppm soil
arsenic cleanup level. This approach is consistent with the final cleanup strategy for the site.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU t> o £
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 RS-6
-------
3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The following section is divided into two parts. The first part lists the public comments that are
generally non-technical in nature. These include general comments regarding the Preferred
Alternative and the ability of the Preferred Alternative to meet permanence criteria, concerns
about specific areas of the Community Soils OU. The second part discusses specific comments
from ARCO relating to ARARs, the RI, and the Final Baseline HHRA (CDM Federal 1996).
3.1 PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following comments are generally of a non-technical nature. They are divided into
comments received at the formal public meeting and written comments. Each comment is
identified and, in most instances, the comments are quoted directly. In some instances, the
comments are paraphrased. EPA's responses are stated after each comment.
3.1.1 COMMENTS AT THE FORMAL PUBLIC MEETING
The following are comments received at the formal public meeting held July 18,1996. A
transcript of the meeting is provided in Attachment A. Each individual comment is identified
and EPA's responses follow each comment. The comment is italicized and EPA's response is in
regular type.
3.1.1.1 Comments from Ms. Sandv Stash (ARCO^
Comment A: ".../ think the real good news out of this whole thing is that this community
[Anaconda] is not at risk...I think additionally, since this work has limited this
down to basically a 14-block area, that as near as lean tell, about four to six of
them were in the [Benny Goodman]park or non-residential, that we've really got
a small focused area that we need to be concerned about. That's important for
anyone who ever has tried to sell a house here because that means there's 95
percent of the community that basically does not need to worry about this issue in
that regard."
Response: Although risks are generally low for the community, there are individual yard
areas that may have elevated soil arsenic concentrations above the action level
which will require remediation.
Comment B: "... With the exception of Teresa Ann Terrace, which had some old deposits from
the Old Works that came from the smelters in the form of tailings, we did not see
any elevated level of arsenic below the two-inch level. So if you live in an area
that is in the focus area subject to sampling, I would be extremely surprised in out
of just thousands and thousands of samples that were taken, that you would see
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 K.O- /
-------
anything below the two-inch level. That differs a lot from Butte because
everything was built on mining waste, you see elevated levels at deeper depths.
Here, because it was from the stack, it's very, very shallow. So I think that's
something people need to take note of."
Response: EPA generally agrees with this comment. Of the 69 subsurface samples (usually
collected at 2- to 10-inch and 10- to 24-inch depths) collected in Anaconda, only
seven were greater than 250 ppm arsenic concentration. Only three of these were
located in residential areas not believed to be influenced by wastes from the Old
Works. Therefore, EPA anticipates that most of the yard removals will focus on
near-surface soils.
Comment C: "...Charlie did the best job I've heard in a long time explaining kriging, but what
people need to realize, if you live in [a Focus Area], it doesn't mean you have
high soil levels, it means you have a chance of having high soil levels. That's why
some of the sampling is as important as it is... We would view this as something
that the landowner very much would have the prerogative to have a place in the
county they could call if they have a question and feel that they may have a
concern about a bald spot in their area, should they live in the Focus Area in
town or whatever... And the key elements that [ARCOJ would be willing to fund
with the County are basically education [and] the sampling... We would expect to
provide money to the County such that they can go out and take some samples and
then get back to you without [ARCOJ ever being involved...[W]e feel [the County
is] in a much better position to do that. Clearly, we will give them the resources
to do that and finally give them the resources for any sodding or anything that
would need to be done in bare areas that might have elevated levels in those
[FJocus [AJreas..."
Response: EPA acknowledges these comments, and looks forward to the full funding by
ARCO of all necessary ICs.
3.1.1.2 Comment from Mr. Bill McCarthy (RARUS Railway Company)
Comment: "/ think our initial view on the proposed alternative for the railroad beds is
basically acceptable. We reserve the right to comment and maybe suggest some
ideas and bring up some concerns that may not be readily noticeable, but I think
it's headed in the right direction. We would like to be part of the work plan
and...tell our ideas on how to maybe improve the remedy. But basically, I think
it's headed in the right direction."
Response: EPA plans to include the RARUS Railway Company, as with any involved
landowner, in the Remedial Design process.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-8
-------
3.1.1.3 Comment from Ms. Ellen Tocher
Comment: "... / live in the focused area.. .probably in the middle of it. When I got the
Proposed Plan and [saw] that we -were right in the middle of this [FJocus [Area],
I kind of thought, oh, my God. But you relieved my fears tonight to know that we
might not have this arsenic in our yard or that we were just picked out of the
whole city."
Response: Based on kriging, the Focus Area indicates where elevated soil arsenic
concentrations may exist. Additional sampling during the Remedial Design will
be needed to confirm the location of any areas above the action level which will
require remediation.
3.1.1.4 Comment from Mr. John Sevores
Comment: "I'm a resident of Deer Lodge County and I would like to make a request of Sandy
Stash and Atlantic Richfield. And that is that in the Copper Village Art Museum,
they have a copy of the Bliss case which involves the Anaconda Company [and]
Standard Oil. It's 15 volumes. It's reference that tells the whole history of this
valley, about what happened when the industrialists beat the farmers to death...Is
there any way possible that Atlantic Richfield could provide a reading copy at the
Hearst Free Public Library of the Bliss case so that people that wonder what is
happening with this valley, what is the history of this valley, and why it is the way
it is... basically the Anaconda Company bought this valley... [I]t would be nice for
research if you could actually read a copy of the case rather than it being locked
up at someplace where it isn't really accessible to the amount of time that it would
take to research [it]."
Response: EPA copied the Bliss case and sent it to the Hearst Free Public Library for Mr.
Sevores and others to use.
3.1.2 WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO EPA
3.1.2.1 Comment from Mr. Joe Qlk
Comment: "/ am in favor of the EPA's plan for eliminating dangerous levels of arsenic in
Anaconda. But I would also like the EPA to test the dirt road in front of my
house. Please respond."
Response: All barren areas within the Focus Area will be evaluated. If this area is outside
the Focus Area, this request should be made to the county after the Community
Protective Measures Program (CPMP) is put in place.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-9
-------
3.1.2.2 Comment from Mrs. Nicki Leiss
Comment: "I fully agree -with the alternative that you (EPA) have chosen to clean up the
residential soils here in Deer Lodge County and I say go full steam ahead -with
that. But in handling the Railroad Beds here you must fully clean them up also by
using Alternative 3 instead of Alternative 2. "
Response: EPA has rated the relative performance of each railroad bed alternative with
respect to the nine evaluation criteria. Of the railroad bed alternatives presented
in this ROD, only Alternatives 2 and 3 meet the threshold criteria, meaning that
they are fully protective of human health and the environment and attain ARARs.
Of the balancing criteria, Alternative 3 has a distinct advantage in long-term
effectiveness and permanence as compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 2,
however, would have significantly less short-term impacts, implementability
issues, and cost. In comparing Alternative 2 to Alternative 3, the balancing
criteria favor Alternative 2.
With respect to the modifying criteria, community interests favor Alternative 2,
because the railroad bed is under an active line and the Selected Remedy would be
much less disruptive. The State of Montana has also indicated preference for
Alternative 2 as the Selected Remedy.
3.1.2.3 Comments from Dr. Wesley D. Granger
Comment A: "If possible, I -would like to respectfully ask you why can we not at least name the
Aspen Hill Creek area simply Aspen Hill Clear Creek District, instead of [a
Superfund] site with all the accompanying negative connotation that goes with
that name?"
Response: EPA has forwarded a copy of your letter to ADLC. ADLC is the entity that
defined the Superfund Planning District through their county Master Plan (Peccia
and Associates 1992). ADLC may choose to change the name of the district at the
next opportunity to revise their Master Plan.
Comment B: "/ would respectfully suggest that the same building permit process or whatever
final building permit protocol that is finally decided would still be in place not
compromising on the health of the residents or the environment, while at the same
time removing the stigma associated with the designation [as a Superfund] site. "
Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-10
-------
Comment C: "/ have no strong feelings regarding various proposals for making the arsenic
levels in desired [areas] less than 250 parts per million range. I only hope that
the final plan would be based on science as well as maybe flexibility that would
take into account on how one plans to use his own property. "
Response: As provided in the ROD, residential soils which exceed a soil arsenic
concentration of 250 parts per million (ppm) will be remediated through removal
and replacement with clean soil and a vegetative or other protective barrier. This
includes soils addressing future residential areas through the ADLC-Development
Permit System (DPS). However, EPA is aware that this action may not be
implementable in all areas as dictated by site conditions. In those cases, other
protective measures will be required (i.e., capping, treatment, ICs, etc.).
3.1.2.4 Comments from Mr. John Sevores
Comment A: "This is a formal request to have the Department of Justice look into Superfund,
starting with Milo Manning and [Val] Galle, and clean the filthy waste from the
Superfund City".
Response: The commenter's request was forwarded to the Department of Justice.
Comment B: "This project has been steamrolled to skate the public review process. The
average person wouldn't know the Development Permit System and even those
living in the [FJocus [AJrea have no idea. They (the county) are not finished
amending the master plan or Development Permit System, so how can there be
any public comment when you are basing this decision on documents that are not
public information yet? "
Response: EPA has worked hard to provide full and complete information on this project.
EPA also understands that there is a public comment process, through the county,
for developing or amending each of the above-referenced documents. EPA is
anticipating that these documents will incorporate the provisions necessary to
implement the ICs identified as part of the Selected Remedy. However, if they do
not, EPA will then look at contingency measures (as stated in the ROD) to
accomplish the remediation goals of the project.
Comment C: Specific property was included in the action zone for Community Soils because of
the property owner's opposition to Anaconda/DeerLodge andARCO activities.
Response: This Selected Remedy is intended to address all properties where soil arsenic
concentrations exceed the appropriate action level for the anticipated land use
(i.e., residential, commercial/industrial, agricultural, etc.). Focus Areas were
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-11
-------
identified using kriging methods as a best estimate for those soil concentrations.
Certain properties may have been excluded on the basis of anticipated land use. If
however, the anticipated use is incorrect, these areas will subsequently be
included in the Focus Area.
3.1.2.5 Comment from the Anaconda Environmental Education Institute (AEED
Comment: "The Anaconda Environmental Education -Institute (AEEI) is in support of the
Community Soils Operable Unit Proposed Plan. This plan is in the best interest
of Anaconda-Deer Lodge County with respect to human health and the
environment. Furthermore, -we commend the EPA andARCO on their efforts and
cooperation with each other to devise a remedy that is not only cost-effective, but
beneficial to the quality of life in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County."
Response: EPA acknowledges these comments.
3.1.2.6 Comments from Browning. Kaleczyc. Berry & Hoven. P.C.. representing RARUS
Railway Company
Comment A: "While the preferred alternative is generally acceptable to RARUS, we would
recommend certain modifications. The use of large rock for capping areas within
the shoulders of the railbeds, around switch stands, and at locations where utility
easements exist under trackage or where signal wire is buried is problematic for
maintenance and repairs. The large rock is very difficult to dig up, and can cause
maintenance problems with ties and trackage. Therefore, we would suggest the
use of clean ballast from shoulder to shoulder of the railbed and in other areas
mentioned above."
Response: EPA generally agrees, and will consider this during the Remedial Design.
Comment B: "Other lines, properties, or portions of lines may be suitable for remediation at
this or some future time. In addition, there are properties adjacent to the railbed
which may be suitable for non-railroad activities, such as commercial or
residential development. Those areas may also need to be remediated. RARUS
would be happy to discuss those potential areas with EPA at a future date. "
Response: EPA generally agrees, and will consider this during the Remedial Design.
3.1.1.7 Comments from Environmental & Mining Systems International (EMSD
Comment: Comments were raised regarding the methods, assumptions, and data used to
produce kriging maps in the Soils Characterization Report. The comments were
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 K.O-12
-------
directed primarily at data selection and technical adjustments (or lack of) made
for anisotrophy.
Response: These comments have merit. Professional judgement instituted by EPA and
ARCO contractors may result in kriged maps with somewhat different results
compared to work being done by others. However, the kriged maps presented in
the Soil Characterization Report were completed using adequate procedures and
are sufficient to serve the Community Soils RI/FS as well as future investigative
and planning tasks. Other methods of kriging using different models, data sets,
and assumptions may produce slightly different, but still valid, kriging results.
3.2 COMMENTS FROM ARCO
The following are responses to ARCO's August 9,1996 comments to EPA's Community Soils
Proposed Plan, including responses to referenced comments specific to ARARs, the Final
Baseline HHRA, and the Community Soils RI/FS. All ARCO comments are attached.
Comment A: "Based upon ARCO's -work on the Community Soils OURI/FS, Alternative No. 3,
In-Place Treatment, Capping and 1C's meets the requirements ofCERCLA and
the NCP, and is preferable over Preferred Alternative No. 4 identified in the
Proposed Plan... Yet EPA identifies Alternative No. 4 as the Preferred Alternative
on the basis that 'the removal option is a more proven, protective and permanent
remedy that is readily implementable and cost effective.' The Proposed Plan
provides no basis for EPA's conclusion and the administrative record does not
support this conclusion."
Response: In the Feasibility Study, EPA, through its formal comment, rated the relative
performance of each alternative with respect to 7 of the 9 National Contingency
Plan (NCP) criteria. Alternatives were rated to have an advantage (+) or
disadvantage (-) when compared to other alternatives. A zero rating (0) is applied
to an alternative having no distinct advantage or disadvantage over the other
alternatives. In the ROD, EPA has rated the residential soil alternatives against all
nine criteria as shown in Table 12 of the ROD.
Of the residential soil alternatives presented in the ROD, only Alternatives 3 and
4 are fully protective of human health and the environment and, thus, discussed
further. Alternative 4 reduces residual soil arsenic concentrations to a greater
degree than Alternative 3 (clean soil vs. treated soil). Both Alternatives offer
permanent and irreversible actions. Alternative 3 employs treatment, Alternative
4 does not. Both Alternatives are readily implementable, have similar short-term
impacts, and are cost effective.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-13
-------
Both Alternatives would require invasive actions in residential yard areas.
Alternative 4 would require additional action to bring in clean soil. Alternative 3
is estimated to cost less than Alternative 4, although cost differences are not
considered significant. However, sufficient uncertainties exist with Alternative 3
in regard to the cleanup effectiveness, cost, and implementability issues with in-
place treatment of residential areas. Additional treatability studies would be
required to demonstrate the performance of this alternative in meeting the criteria.
Conversely, removal actions, conducted in residential areas, have proven that the
criteria can be met.
In comparing the relative performance of all criteria (ROD, Table 12), Alternative
4 has a slight advantage over Alternative 3. However, important differences,
listed below, between the two alternatives have lead EPA and the State of
Montana to strongly prefer Alternative 4.
• Alternative 4 provides the greatest level of protection and best approaches
EPA's 1E-06 risk point of departure and the State of Montana's general
goal of protection from environmental carcinogens at 1E-05. Note that
although the relative performance rating for overall protection of human
health and the environment was the same, the differences described above
in regard to a threshold criteria can be significant.
• Alternative 4 utilizes a proven technology. Although soil treatment under
Alternative 3 has been demonstrated in reducing relatively high
concentrations to moderate levels in large areas using large equipment, it
has not been demonstrated to be effective for low concentrations, in
confined areas using smaller equipment. Sufficient uncertainty exists with
the implementability, effectiveness, and cost of Alternative 3.
• Cost differences between Alternative 4 and 3 are not significant in
comparison to the benefits described above.
Comment Bl: "ARCO also contests the 2 50 ppm residential soils action level for arsenic
identified in the Proposed Plan....ARCO requests that EPA raise the residential
soils action level for arsenic for the Community Soils OU to at least 297 ppm
arsenic."
Response: The Final Baseline HHRA was conducted according to EPA guidance utilizing
site-specific data to the maximum extent practicable. Default assumptions and
professional judgement were also used throughout the exposure assessment to
estimate potential chronic daily intakes (GDI). Data were not available to
determine quantitatively how each of these assumptions and judgements might
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 Ro-14
-------
influence GDI calculations. However, as discussed in the risk assessment, urinary
arsenic concentration predicted using the basic assumptions also used in the
exposure assessment are in good agreement with those actually measured in the
community of Anaconda. This suggests that assumptions and judgements made
are reasonable and uncertainty in the results of the exposure assessment is
relatively small, at least for young children.
It should also be noted that uncertainties in exposure assumptions not directly
assessed by the comparison of observed and predicted urinary arsenic in children
are not expected to greatly influence exposure estimates. As discussed in the
Final Baseline HHRA, factors such as soil/dust ingestion rates for adults, and
exposure frequency and duration, are at least conservative (i.e., are unlikely to
underestimate possible exposures) and probably do not result in substantial
overestimation.
It is reasonable to conclude that exposures calculated in this assessment are
acceptable for calculating risk.
Section 300.430(e)(2) of the NCP (pp. 8716) requires that remedies are selected
that reduce the threat from carcinogenic contaminants at the site such that the
excess risk from any medium to an individual exposed over a lifetime generally
falls within the range of 1E-04 to 1E-06. EPA's preference, all things being equal,
is to select remedies that are at the more protective end of the risk range.
Therefore, when developing its preliminary remediation goals, EPA uses 1E-06 as
a point of departure. Preliminary remediation goals for carcinogens start at the
point of departure, but may be revised to a different risk level within the risk
range based on consideration of appropriate factors including, but not limited to:
exposure factors, uncertainty factors, and technical factors.
As discussed above, EPA believes that individual residential areas or hot spots
within the Community Soils OU may pose an unacceptable risk. EPA also
believes that the exposure estimates, considering uncertainties, calculated in the
risk assessment are reasonable. Therefore, the range of screening levels (3 ppm to
297 ppm), that were developed for the targeted risk range of 1E-04 to 1E-06 in the
risk assessment, are considered to be the appropriate range from which to select
an action level for remediating hot spots.
First, EPA determined that the appropriate exposure area of a residential hot spot
is the residential yard. The residential yard was chosen for the following reasons:
• Yards are an appropriate remediation management unit (i.e., property
ownership);
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 Ko-15
-------
• It is consistent with previous removal and remedial actions taken by EPA;
• It allows for consistent remediation of community and rural residential
areas;
• Yards are defined as the unit to be addressed under the Anaconda-Deer
Lodge County Development Permit System; and
• It is not unreasonable for an individual to remain in one residence for a
long period of time, even a lifetime.
EPA then determined the arsenic action level for residential surficial soils to be
250 ppm. This corresponds to an excess cancer risk of 8E-05 and is within EPA's
targeted risk range. Although the 250 ppm action level departs from EPA's 1E-06
point of departure, this action level is determined to be protective for the
following reasons:
• The 250 ppm action level reflects detailed site-specific studies conducted
in Anaconda that significantly reduce the uncertainty of the risk
assessment. These studies provide site-specific parameters to replace
standard EPA default assumptions, which generates a greater degree of
confidence in the range of screening values.
• The range of screening values were developed from conservative exposure
point concentrations in the Final Baseline HHRA. Samples collected for
the Final Baseline HHRA were chosen from areas likely to contain
elevated concentrations, not a random average of a particular area. These
data potentially elevated the exposure point concentrations adding
conservatism to the calculated screening values.
• The 250 ppm action level is applied to a much smaller exposure unit than
those evaluated in the Final Baseline HHRA. Although the excess cancer
risk (8E-05) for the 250 ppm action level is greater than the existing risk
range for the subareas (1E-05 to 3E-05), it is applied to a much smaller
exposure unit than the subareas that were evaluated in the Final Baseline
HHRA. This significantly decreases the chance of averaging out a higher
concentration value within a yard as compared to the larger subarea.
• Cleaning up hot spots in excess of the 250 ppm action level is expected to
reduce the overall risk in each subarea and the entire community of
Anaconda to close to 1E-05 which approaches EPA's 1E-06 point of
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 K.O-10
-------
departure and the State of Montana's general goal of protection from
environmental carcinogens at IE-OS.
In addition to the above, risk management considerations included the following:
• A 250 ppm action level was previously utilized in a removal action taken
under the Community Soils OU;
• A 250 ppm level is currently utilized in the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Development Permit System; and
• The 250 ppm action level incorporates a balancing of the NCP criteria
used to select remedial actions that are protective, implementable, and cost
effective.
Comment B2: Incorporated by reference are ARCO 's comments dated December 1, 1995
(attached).
Response: 1. Arsenic Toxicity
The derivation of the oral cancer slope factor for arsenic is a controversial topic
which is well represented on all sides. Section 5.3.4 in the Final Baseline HHRA
(COM Federal 1996) for Anaconda attempts to present all of those issues and
uncertainties in an objective manner. The 1995 paper by Mushak and Crocetti has
been published in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal and adds a much
needed perspective to those issues. The reference will not be removed.
2. Lead Exposures
The Final Baseline HHRA (CDM Federal 1996) for Anaconda evaluated the soil
and dust ingestion study performed by Dr. Calabrese. The mean soil and dust
ingestion rates range from 83 to 117 mg/day depending on which tracers were
looked at. The Integrated Exposure Uptake/Biokinetic (IEUBK) model utilized
default soil and dust ingestion rates ranging from 85 to 135 mg/day depending on
the age of the child. EPA felt that the findings in the site-specific soil/dust
ingestion study supported the values used in the IEUBK model and, given the
analytical variability in the study, did not merit a revision of those values.
Although results form Dr. Calabrese's reevaluation of the Anaconda data were not
submitted to EPA, we are still very interested in receiving those. As indicated in
earlier discussions, EPA will consider the revision of the soil/dust ingestion rates
used in the Final Baseline HHRA based on those new data. Until then, the
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 Ko-1 /
-------
existing data does not suggest, with any certainty, that the IEUBK default soil
ingestion rates exceed site-specific soil ingestion values.
3.
Discussion of Lead and Arsenic Toxicokinetics
EPA agrees with these comments and has incorporated them into the Final
Baseline HHRA for Anaconda.
Comment B3: "The purpose of[ARCO's February 29, 1996] letter is to provide EPA with a
risk-based derivation of a cleanup level that -would be appropriate to apply to
individual yards in Anaconda... If it is necessary for EPA to establish a cleanup
level that could be applied to an individual yard, the yard cleanup level should
reflect the time spent elsewhere in the community...For these reasons, we believe
that the cleanup level for an individual yard should be set at 400 ppm. "
Response: See previous comment in regard to the selected action level. EPA has decided
that the yard is an appropriate exposure area and was chosen for the Community
Soils OU for the following reasons:
• Yards are an appropriate remediation management unit (i.e., property
ownership);
• It is consistent with previous removal and remedial actions taken by EPA;
• Allows for consistent remediation of community and rural residential
areas;
• Yards are defined as the unit to be addressed under the Anaconda-Deer
Lodge County Development Permit System; and
• It is not unreasonable for an individual to remain in one residence for a
long period of time, even a lifetime.
Comment C: "..the ROD should expressly state that remedial action at the Community Soils
OU will be undertaken upon a private landowner's property only at the.request of
the landowner. Additionally, the ROD should specify that remediation will only
occur in residential areas within the Focus Areas that are not already adequately
covered with lawn, vegetation or another appropriate protective barrier."
Response: EPA recognizes the property rights of landowners and will work with them to
implement the remedial action as appropriate. Individuals within the Focus Areas
will be contacted for access to sample with possible remediation of soils to
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-18
-------
follow. Landowners will be encouraged to participate. If specific yards are not
sampled or remediated, EPA will not be able to declare their property as clean or
remediated. These properties (and cleanup status) would be tracked within the
County's data base for future access to realtors or others interested in the property.
Property owners outside the Focus Areas will not be contacted by EPA. Instead,
general information will be distributed within the community through the CPMP,
suggesting that individuals who believe a problem may exist on their property
contact EPA through the county to request participation in the remedial action.
All properties within the Focus Areas will be included in the remedial action
regardless of existing cover. In addition to addressing current exposure to
elevated soil arsenic concentrations, EPA is required to address future exposure as
well. Because certain barriers may not be permanent or remain effective over
time, contaminated soils below the barriers may become exposed in the future. In
addition to sampling for soil arsenic concentrations, EPA will evaluate the
adequacy of existing barriers and any associated ICs (i.e., use restrictions,
maintenance, etc.) before determining which soils require remediation.
Comment D: "EPA should utilize ARCO's ARARs Clarification Document, or a subset thereof,
as the final ARARs for the Community Soils Remedy Selected in the ROD."
Response: EPA believes that its selection of ARARs is rational and based on sound
judgment. As ARCO knows, remedial actions must be protective of human health
and the environment and must meet ARARs. See 40 C.F.R. §
300.430(f)(l)(I)(A). ARCO seems to argue that because the ARARs in this
instance may result in a cleanup slightly more conservative than the analysis that
determines how to protect human health might require, the ARARs listing is
somehow flawed. But the NCP makes clear that a remedial cleanup must not only
be protective of human health, it must also meet all ARARs requirements unless
those ARARs are waived.
Comment E: "Remediation of surface water, ground-water, air and other media than soils and
railbeds is outside the scope of this Operable Unit and ARARs should not be
identified for these media."
Response: EPA agrees that remediation of these media is outside the scope of the
Community Soils OU. However, ARARs for these media are outlined in
connection with this OU for two reasons. First, these ARARs must ultimately be
met at the completion of remedial work for the Anaconda Regional Water, Waste,
and Soils (ARWWS) OU. These ARARs are mentioned here in order to promote
consistency between the Community Soils and the Regional Water, Waste, and
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-19
-------
Soils cleanups. Second, although these ARARs are outside the scope of this OU,
it is always possible that actions at the Community Soils OU could independently
violate these ARARs. These ARARs are therefore retained as a reminder that
they must complied with in carrying out response actions at this OU.
Comment F: "There is no need for EPA to identify all possible federal and state requirements
as final ARARs in the ROD in order to ensure a protective remedy."
Response: It is assumed that ARCO's comment concerning the need for flexibility has to do
with the reclamation ARARs, M.C.A. § 32-4-201 and following, and regulations
promulgated thereunder, identified by EPA. EPA agrees that all the reclamation
ARARs identified are not necessarily relevant and appropriate for each area to be
remediated as part of this OU. For example, A.R.M. § 26.4.502 governs how
slopes are to be reclaimed. If a parcel such as a flat residential yard is being
addressed, an ARAR dealing with slopes is obviously not pertinent. If a particular
ARAR does not make sense in a particular situation, it will not be applied. Thus,
EPA believes that there is adequate flexibility built into the process of selecting
and applying ARARs and developing performance standards without dropping
certain reclamation ARARs from the ARARs listing.
Comment Gl: "ARCO incorporates by reference its disclaimer letter (August 9, 1996, attached)
on the RI/FS."
Comment G2: "EPA did not prepare a complete rewrite of the RI/FS, and no complete rewrite
was required."
Response: The context of EPA's July 30,1996 letter was in regard to the ARWWS OU and
not the Community Soils OU. In that regard, the regional soils portion of the
January 16, 1996, draft Community Soils RI, prepared by ARCO, did not provide
sufficient detail to characterize the fate and transport of soil contaminants to other
media (i.e., surface and groundwater). It was EPA's intent (as conveyed in the
Soils RI outline and scoping meetings) to use this RI to fulfill all characterization
needs of both OUs. Subsequently, it was determined that separate RIs would be
required for the regional and community soils components. The Community Soils
RI subsequently deleted the regional fate and transport information. Soil
characterization information was then provided in a separate Soils
Characterization Report to support both RIs. These changes, in EPA's opinion,
were construed as a major rewrite.
EPA agrees, with the exception of above, that most other portions of the
Community Soils RI/FS were provided as directed. However, most of these
sections required extensive editorial revisions to provide sufficient detail to
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-20
-------
support the technical discussions in the document. ARCO has made all requested
changes, to date, in a satisfactory manner.
Comment HI: "Kriging method[s] EPA required were unnecessary and overly conservative...
ARCO's first round of kriging was in accordance with generally accepted
methodologies..."
Comment H2: "ARCO contests the use of relative kriging EPA required in the third round [of
kriging effort], the required use of faulty DOJ software package in the 2nd round,
and the use of250ppm arsenic action level [to establish the number of residential
blocks exceeding the arsenic action level]."
Response: The semivariogram and associated kriged maps for arsenic and metals for
Anaconda, Opportunity, and Regional soils were completed in early 1996 by
ARCO's subcontractor, Advanced GeoServices Corporation (AGC). This work
was completed using log transformed data applied to ordinary kriging procedures.
As stated in the first paragraph of Section 3.3 in Volume II of the Final Draft
Community Soils OU RI/FS Report (July 3,1996), "Kriging can be performed on
log-transformed data sets; however, when the kriged results are back-transformed,
the biases that are introduced make it impossible to accurately calculate
confidence intervals." Accurately calculated confidence intervals are critical in
determining the overall quality of the kriging effort. Both AGC and EPA were
concerned about this technical limitation, but neither party knew of a solution.
This problem was most apparent on kriged maps where arsenic levels were
bounded by very large upper and lower 90% confidence limits.
Subsequent discussions with Dr. Rex Bryan (EMSI, a Department of Justice
subcontractor) revealed that general relative kriging procedures could be applied
to the soil data and associated calculation of confidence limits on estimated kriged
values could be performed in a correct and logical manner. Software believed to
contain general relative kriging was provided to AGC for a trial run. The trial run
resulted in a kriged map with 90% confidence intervals as large as those using
ordinary kriging. Subsequent discussion with Dr. Bryan revealed that the
incorrect software had been provided which did not contain general relative
kriging. He apologized for this error and confirmed that general relative kriging
procedures were available in software previously obtained by AGC from Dr. Peter
Knudsen (Montana Tech). Geostatistical software developed by Dr. Knudsen had
been used by AGC to do ordinary kriging and this software also contained general
relative kriging procedures.
At this juncture, AGC applied general relative kriging procedures to the
Anaconda, Opportunity, and Regional arsenic data and the Regional lead, copper,
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU _ _
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 K.o-21
-------
cadmium, and zinc data. The resultant 90% confidence intervals were much
improved and overall results were very satisfactory. These products appear in the
Final Draft Community Soils OU RI/FS Report (July 3,1996).
With respect to ARCO's assertion that the kriging was overly conservative,
although a statistical comparison of blocks exceeding the arsenic action level as a
function of either ordinary kriging or general relative kriging was not performed,
EPA believes this statement to be incorrect. In fact, EPA believes that the
opposite is true; that is, the number of residential blocks exceeding the arsenic
action level is less with the general relative kriging used in the Final Draft
Community Soils RI/FS. The upper 90% confidence limit on estimated kriged
values had notably lower arsenic concentrations at many locations, compared to
those attained with ordinary kriging. If the upper 90% confidence interval were
used, this would identify fewer blocks that exceed the action level.
With respect to ARCO's assertion that relative kriging does not comport to
generally accepted methodologies, general relative kriging is the standard of the
industry. Unfortunately, neither EPA nor AGC had this knowledge at the time of
the first round.
With respect to ARCO's contesting the use of relative kriging, general relative
kriging is the correct application of geostatistics to the soil data. ARCO's
contractor (AGC) recognized the problem associated with application of ordinary
kriging procedures but did not know how to institute a solution. If ARCO had
contracted a company that had more experience with such data sets, this redo of
the kriging work could have been avoided. If AGC had pursued the problem in
greater depth (e.g., consulted with other geostatistical professionals), this problem
could have been avoided. Instead, the undesirable characteristics of the first effort
were only revealed upon review of the kriged map, and EPA oversight identified
an alternative to solve the problem.
With respect to ARCO's contesting the use of faulty DOJ software, this scenerio is
explained above and was unfortunate. Neither EPA or AGC were familiar with
general relative kriging. Therefore, it was not apparent that the software provided
by Dr. Bryan was an error.
With respect to ARCO's contesting the use of 250 ppm estimated arsenic to
identify the number of residential blocks exceeding the action level, only three
additional blocks were added (for a total of 12), discounting the Teresa Ann
Terrace blocks and the two recreational and two commercial blocks. The
discounted blocks are described away as non-residential in the text of the RI/FS,
but are retained on the map to honor the results of the kriging effort.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU T>c T)
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 RS-22
-------
Comment I: "No technical or risk-based justification exists for determining 250 ppm arsenic
as the residential soils action level."
Response: See EPA response to ARCO Comment (B) above.
Comment J: "EPA arbitrarily modified the ranking of alternatives in the final screening of
alternatives."
Response: See EPA response to ARCO Comment (A) above.
Comment K: "Previously reclaimed areas and recreational areas should not be included in the
Focus Areas in the RI/FS."
Response: According to the Community Soils OU RI/FS Work Plan, "the scope of the RI/FS
is to evaluate all residential areas within the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. These
areas generally include the communities of Anaconda, Opportunity, Warm
Springs, Galen, and Fairmont, but also include adjacent rural residential
dwellings. Areas of concern within the communities include yards or "dwelling
areas". The "dwelling area", as defined by the ADLC-DPS, is the area within a
100-foot radius of the approximate center of a residency. In addition to dwelling
areas, areas frequented by children within the communities (i.e., playgrounds,
school yards) will also be evaluated. In addition, this RI/FS will also address
potential future residential areas as defined in upcoming revisions to the ADLC
Master Plan. Potential source areas within the communities will also be
evaluated. These include railroad beds, areas where street sweepings were
disposed, suspected waste/fill areas, alleys, etc." In addition, comments provided
during the Public Comment Period resulted in EPA also including
commercial/industrial areas within this action.
Therefore, the scope of this remedy is current and future residential areas within
the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, which includes parks, playgrounds, school yards,
commercial/industrial areas, and railroad beds within communities.
The intent of this remedial action is also to bring closure to previous residential
cleanups which were conducted either with removal actions or through the
ADLC-DPS. Closure of areas previously remediated or reclaimed would be
primarily administrative to ensure that previous actions are consistent with this
final remedial action.
Use of the Focus Areas in the Selected Remedy is for the purpose of prioritizing
remedial actions only. The intent of the original scope of the Community Soils
OU as well as the Selected Remedy is to address all of the above "areas" that are
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-23
-------
within the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site that exceed the appropriate action level.
An area by area evaluation will be required during the Remedial Design (RD) to
identify the specific locations that require remediation. Consideration will be
given in RD to the sampled arsenic soil concentration, current and reasonably
anticipated landuse, existing barriers, ICs, and landowner input.
Comment L: "Cleanup Actions for Current and Reasonably Anticipated Future Residential
soils must be limited to specified residential areas that are within the Focus Areas
in Figure 2 and 3 of the Proposed Plan."
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. (See EPA's response to ARCO Comment K
above).
Comment M: "Funding procedures for cleanup of future residential areas should be in
accordance with procedures specified in the CPMP and the DPS and should not
be specified in the ROD."
Response: EPA agrees that funding requirements should not be specified in the ROD.
However, the funding procedures will be determined during RD and should not be
assumed to be the CPMP or DPS. EPA encourages ARCO to continue its efforts
with the county to develop adequate and fair funding procedures.
Although it is EPA's desire to use ICs to remediate areas both in the near and far
future, it is also EPA's intent to ensure that those ICs do not divert remediation
responsibilities to individual landowners.
Comment N: 'Wo preference should be given to removal of soils at future residential areas."
Response: EPA's intent is to apply the residential soils remedial action in a consistent
manner to all current and future residential areas within the site. In order to utilize
existing ICs, this includes requiring a preference for removal under the ADLC-
DPS. As stated in the ROD, EPA is aware that removal may not be possible in all
situations, whether it is current residential areas under the remedial action or
future residential areas under the DPS. In those cases, other methods will be
utilized to reduce soil arsenic concentrations.
Comment O: "ARCO concurs with EPA that risks to human health within the Community Soils
Operable Unit are below levels of concern."
Response: Although risks to the communities are generally below levels of concern, kriging
estimates and actual data suggest that there may individual yards that have soil
Recordof Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
RS-24
-------
arsenic concentrations that are above the selected action level, and will therefore
require remediation.
Comment P: "The "Designated Soil Management Area" should be identified in the ROD as the
ADLC Designated Soils Repository."
Response: The ADLC Designated Soils Repository was specifically not mentioned to allow
some flexibility for utilizing removed residential soils at other locations within the
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. However, EPA does agree that the ADLC
Designated Soils Repository may well be the primary disposal location.
Comment Q: "ARCO generally supports the Preferred Alternative for the railroad beds."
Response: EPA acknowledges this comment.
Comment R: "ARCO does not admit and reserves its right to contest the statement in the
Proposed Plan that "railroad beds [-were] constructed primarily by a subsidiary
of the Anaconda Copper Mining Company, in Anaconda and regionally."
Additionally, the Proposed Plan speculates that railroad beds were likely
constructed of materials from the Anaconda or Butte mining/smelting operations,
again without basis."
Response: There is considerable historical information indicating that the Butte, Anaconda &
Pacific Railroad, which built and operated many if not all of the railroad beds
addressed in this action, was closely associated with and controlled by the
Anaconda Company and its predecessors in various ways. Railroad bed material
appears to be waste material from smelting and mine processing in part, and is
likely contaminated with materials transported from Anaconda Company mines to
the Anaconda Smelter. The likely source for the smelting and mine processing
waste material is the Anaconda Company or its predecessor's facilities in
Anaconda or Butte.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoi!s\csrs.rv5
RS-25
-------
4.0 REFERENCES
AGC. 1996. Community Soils Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
prepared for ARCO by Advanced GeoServices Corporation. This document also contains the
Soils Characterization Report as Appendix A.
CDM Federal. 1996. Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, Anaconda Smelter NPL
Site, prepared for EPA by CDM Federal. January 24.
Peccia & Associates. 1992. Anaconda Deer Lodge County Comprehensive Master Plan,
prepared for the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Planning Board by Peccia & Associates and Lisa
Bay Consulting. December 1990. Revised June 1992.
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5 RS-26
-------
Attachment A
Transcript of Formal Public Meeting
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
-------
-------
PUBLIC HEARING
ANACONDA COMMUNITY SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Taken at:
Anaconda High School
Anaconda, Montana
July 18, 1996
CHARLES COLEMAN, EPA Project Manager, presiding
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING,
CANDI NORDHAGEN Registered Professional Reporter
1734 Harrison Avenue Conference Room
Bate, Montana 59701 1734 Harrison Avenue
(406) 494-2083
-------
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page
TM
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Page 1
PUBLIC HEARING
ANACONDA COMMUNITY SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Taken at:
Anaconda High School
Anaconda, Montana
July 18,1996
CHARLES COLEMAN, EPA Project Manager, presiding
Candi Nordhagen
Registered Professional Reporter
Nordhagen Court Reporting
1734 Harrison Ave. • Butte, MT 59701
(406)494-2083 • 1-800-823-2083
Fax (406) 782-8669
Conference Rooms
Page 2
ANACONDA COMMUNITY SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
JULY 18,1996; ANACONDA, MONTANA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 The following proceedings were had:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BE IT REMEMBERED THAT a formal public
hearing was held at the Anaconda High School,
Anaconda, Montana, on July 18,1996, Charles
Coleman, EPA Project Manager, presiding.
MR. COLEMAN: We might as well get
started. I appreciate folks coming in, giving up a
summer evening to be with us today. I know it kind
of would be hard to drag myself in if I had
something going on.
My name is Charlie Coleman. I'm
Project Manager, EPA Project Manager of the
Community Soils Operable Unit.
Tonight we want to discuss the proposed
plan that was recently published for the Community
Soils Operable Unit. We have a pretty full agenda
tonight. We want to try and accomplish a lot of
things here. As you can see, we brought some
materials with a lot of information. We've placed
some information at the Hearst Library and up at the
Page 3
l county courthouse.
2 What I'd like to try to do tonight is
3 is summarize a little bit some of the more technical
4 information we have available and answer any
5 questions you might have on that, answer any
6 questions that you might have in regard to the
7 preferred alternative or any other questions that
8 you might have tonight; and then lastly, actually
9 give you guys an opportunity to formally provide
10 testimony or a formal comment on the record that we
11 would include in our final decision document. This
12 is just another opportunity or means to give the
13 public an opportunity to participate in the
14 Superfund process, both from a written standpoint
15 and an oral standpoint.
16 This public participation process is
17 kind of provided under the Superfund law and it
18 really is important. This is really your
19 opportunity to kind of get involved in some of the
20 work that we've been doing. It's in your community,
21 in your neighborhoods, in fact. We want to be
22 available and give you every opportunity to provide
23 comment.
24 Currently, we're in a public comment
25 period that lasts until August 9th. As I mentioned,
Page 4
1 there is the complete remedial investigation or the
2 study that we've conducted with all the information,
3 and a feasibility study which is really our
4 evaluation of the different types of alternatives
5 that were considered in arriving at our preferred
6 alternative.
7 In addition, there are copies of the
8 proposed planned. I'm not sure whether everybody
9 here has had an opportunity to receive an individual
10 copy. I believe we have some tonight to pass out to
11 you or take if you would like. If not, there should
12 be copies at the Hearst Library and up at the
13 courthouse. Please get one of those. And again,
14 it's an opportunity to provide some comment on
15 those.
16 When you're providing comment, whether
17 it's tonight orally or in writing to the agency, all
18 of the information contained in the reports or in
19 the proposed plan is all fair game to comment on.
20 We're looking for support of our preferred
21 alternative or criticism against it.
22 If you review some of the other
23 alternatives and you think they are better, we want
24 to hear that, or maybe you have a whole different
25 idea of how we should be addressing problems here.
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Page 1 - Page 4
-------
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Multi-Page
TM
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
PageS
l All of that we'd like to hear from you. And if you
2 do take the time to either write those comments down
3 or speak those out tonight, they will be formally
4 addressed back to you individually and also be a
5 part of the Record of Decision, which is what we do
6 after this public comment period, make our final
7 decision on the alternatives that we're talking
8 about tonight.
I believe when you came in here, there
0 was kind of a comment sheet, if you want to just
1 make notes as we talk tonight, keep track of any
2 comments or questions you might have. Also, if you
3 want to take this, write your comments on this, and
4 send it in. Again, we're trying to make things easy
5 to be able to get that information back to the
6 agency.
7 In addition, there's several of us here
8 tonight and available to answer any questions. I
9 believe on your hand-out packet at the back there's
:0 my name and phone numbers available. Also with us
:i tonight, Julie DalSaglio is the other EPA Project
22 Manager on the Anaconda site. She's working on the
3 Anaconda regional water wastes and soils - there she
24 is in the back over here - some of the other work
25 that's going on. And if you have questions in
Page"
1 more technical information that's at the library and
2 also act as a go-between. If you had a question and
3 would rather talk to them, see if they can answer
4 it, that is great. If they can't, they're going to
5 call me and we'll definitely try to get that
6 information back to you. So they're another
7 resource here for you that's in your community.
8 I think I'll just jump into this. I
9 guess with the size of the crowd we have here
10 tonight, if I'm going over something that you don't
11 quite understand, raise your hand; or if it just
12 doesn't make sense, I'll try to stop and maybe
13 explain it a little bit better. I'm going to try to
14 go through a lot of information very quickly so we
15 can talk about the alternatives a little bit. But I
16 do want to try and address any of your concerns. We
17 have kind of a question-answer period kind of built
18 into this, but feel free to stop me as I go along
19 here and see if we can get all the questions
20 answered.
21 The Community Soils Operable Unit,
22 that's the project that we're working on, is one of
23 only two that are remaining here at the site. The
24 other that Julie's working on I mentioned, Anaconda
25 Regional Water, Wastes, and Soils - it has a long
Page 6
l regard to that, you might stop her here tonight.
2 Also, Andy Young, State Project
3 Officer, is here as well, and we have some various
4 other people; Pam Hillery, our Community Relations
5 Specialist. Feel free to stop us tonight, ask
6 questions.
7 Again, there's some posters up here
8 that show some information. Feel free to look at
9 those and grab any one of us to answer any of your
10 questions.
11 Also here in the third - fourth row
12 here are some folks that are actually working for
13 you here in Anaconda as part of the technical
14 assistance grant that EPA has provided to community
15 through the Arrowhead group: Meg, Don and Todd,
16 Todd and Don, those three right here are in a sense
17 available to review technical information and try to
18 answer questions for people. They are located down
19 at the ALDC. Where is that at?
20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 118 East 7th,
21 Community Services Building.
22 MR. COLEMAN: And your phone number?
23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 563-5538.
24 MR. COLEMAN: These people are
25 available to maybe help sift through some of the
PageS
l title because it has lot of stuff in it - really
2 deals with all the remaining issues at the site here
3 including groundwater, surface water issues, deals
4 with all the big waste sources that we still have at
5 site, Anaconda-Opportunity Ponds and slag, Smelter
6 Hill, and all the non-residential soils.
7 This project specifically deals with
8 residential soils throughout the entire Superfund
9 site. This overhead here generally shows kind of
10 the area that we evaluated during the course of this
11 project.
12 One of these overheads should be — or
13 all of these overheads should be in your packet of
14 information. I may not cover all of them. If you
15 see something that I didn't cover, again, stop me
16 and I can put that up.
17 The Community Soils Operable Unit, as I
18 said, deals will all residential areas, whether
19 they're within the communities of Anaconda,
20 Opportunity, Warm Springs, Galen, Fairmont, but also
21 addresses any of the adjacent rural properties that
22 are out there. Within the communities, we generally
23 look at a yard as a residential soil, but within the
24 communities, we also want to address through this
25 project any parks, schools, playground areas, areas
Page 5 - Page 8
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANAUUNLJA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page""
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Page 9
l where children might frequent.
2 In addition, as I mentioned, Julie was
3 working on a lot of these other waste sources. We
4 are, under this project, trying to deal with any
5 waste sources that might again be within the limits
6 of the community. "That's why this particular
7 project deals with the railroad beds that run
8 through the community of Anaconda and/or may deal
9 with any other materials that may have been imported
10 at sometime in the past.
11 That kind of gives you a scope of what
12 this project is all about. Through this project, we
13 hope to also bring closure to any previous
14 activities that dealt with residential areas like we
15 did at Teresa Ann Terrace and Cedar Park Homes. So
16 this would hopefully bring closure to those areas as
17 well.
18 The investigation that we did really
19 centered on three main areas within this project:
20 Characterization of soils, primarily within the
21 communities; a characterization of risk through our
22 risk assessment process; and identification of where
23 people might be living or people might live in the
24 future through an assessment of future land use.
25 I think I'll just maybe briefly talk
Page 11
l were collected by sampling out there. We wanted to
2 try to be able to estimate concentrations throughout
3 the area.
4 This process allowed us to take actual
5 data points and estimate what a concentration might
6 be in any particular area at the site. The middle
7 number is what we would consider a best estimate of
8 what's represented within that grid cell. And the
9 upper and lower numbers are kind of the upper and
10 lower bounds. And again what that would mean is if
11 you collected data, the chances are the estimation
12 or the actual concentration should fall between the
13 upper and lower limits of those numbers there.
14 As you can see, in some cases there's
15 quite a bit of variability between that upper and
16 lower limit. I guess the main thing I wanted to
17 mention on this is that in those areas where you
18 don't have actual data and in cases in the community
19 where unless we were actually in your yard, all
20 we're really doing is estimating a likelihood of a
21 concentration in those areas. To really be sure
22 whether that concentration is there, we would need
23 to go back and actually sample to find that out.
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What is each
25 number for? The 140, is that the arsenic?
Page 10
l about the results of those. I have a lot of
2 overheads that deal with some of the results. In
3 your packet, there's some summaries of soil-sampling
4 information. I think I will just briefly discuss
5 those in terms of that was kind of a compilation of
6 the data that was collected throughout the site and
7 gives an average, minimum-maximum. It's there for
8 your information.
9 What we did, there's been soil data
10 collected at site for almost ten years and we had
11 literally thousands of data points. What we wanted
12 to do to characterize the soils is basically take
13 all that information and then estimate soil
14 concentration where we didn't have data.
15 We use a computer process called
16 "kriging" to do that. Some of you have already
17 stepped up and looked at some of these maps, a bunch
18 of squares and a lot of little numbers in them. We
19 did that both on a regional basis, it looks like a
20 jigsaw puzzle, and we did that for the communities
21 of Anaconda and Opportunity.
22 Because there was some questions about
23 what that is, this is a quick example, a crash
24 course on kriging here, but what we tried to do is
25 we had some data points, actual data points that
Page 12
l MR. COLEMAN: I'll use that as an
2 example. In this grid here, even though there was
3 one sample collected at 119, based on not only that
4 data point but some of these other data points, we
5 would estimate the concentration. If you were to go
6 out there and just take another sample, that it
7 would be very near 140.
8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is that for
9 arsenic?
10 MR. COLEMAN: For arsenic, that's true.
11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What are the
12 other numbers?
13 MR. COLEMAN: They're all for arsenic.
14 The upper number is basically, if I took a sample on
15 this grid, it should not exceed 170, and generally
16 would not be below 110, if I choose a representative
17 soil sample. That's kind of what that, in a
18 nutshell, really means.
19 Now, having said that, within the
20 communities, some of that you can throw out the
21 window because as folks know here, you people bring
22 in sod for soil and they do different things in
23 their yard. So again, it's an estimation of a few
24 data points to what might be there, but because we
25 know people do a lot of different things, it may not
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Page 9 - Page 12
-------
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18,1996
Multi-Page
TM
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Page 13
1 actually represent what's in your particular yard.
If you get a chance to look at this,
3 these orange squares here kind of represent higher
4 values. It doesn't necessarily mean all these
5 values are bad or anything like that. It just says,
6 again, based on all these squares here, we asked the
7 computer to tell us where the highest 25 percent of
8 the values are, and it kind of shows in this area.
The Smelter stack would have been
0 located somewhere in this direction here. And the
1 only thing I want to point out from an overall
2 standpoint is that consistently, we kind of see this
3 pattern of elevated metals or concentrations in the
4 area, kind of approximate some of the wind patterns
5 in there, we see a lot around Smelter Hill kind of
6 going out kind of towards Warm Springs. This is
7 generally the area that we see more elevated
8 samples.
9 We didn't find very high samples in the
20 other communities like Opportunity, Warm Springs,
21 Galen, and Fairmont. We did see some, as shown on
22 the Anaconda map, we did see some more elevated
23 levels in the eastern part of the community. So in
24 a sense, those areas were kind of the areas we ended
25 up focusing on.
Page 15
1 at arsenic bio availability. And what that is, is
2 if arsenic gets in your body, how much of it
3 actually gets absorbed into the body or into the
4 blood. That study was done down in Colorado using
5 monkeys. All of that data that was collected from
6 the studies was used by EPA to conduct a risk
7 assessment.
8 Our risk assessment differs from those
9 studies. They are looking at actual risk, actual
10 ingestion rates, and actual bio availability. The
11 EPA's risk assessment actually tries to predict a
12 potential risk using somewhat conservative numbers
13 so that we're protective in our estimations.
14 We calculated risk to residents within
15 Anaconda and Opportunity. And our results basically
16 indicated that the risk levels were generally below
17 our level of concern, which was all real good news.
18 All the studies that were conducted and even EPA's
19 risk assessment generally indicated that risks in
20 this area were fairly low.
21 However, we still had a concern that
22 there may be individual areas out there, individual
23 yards that may have elevated, you know, maybe more
24 elevated metals that for that particular individual
25 may create more of a risk.
Page 14
l Also as part of this investigation, we
2 did quite extensive risk characterization on human
3 health. Some of you here may have actually been
4 involved with the University of Cincinnati arsenic
5 exposure study. But they came and actually
6 evaluated hundreds of families here in the
7 community.
8 And the basic result of that study
9 showed that although there may be some elevated
10 levels of arsenic in the community, the connection
11 or the exposure that was being measured was very
12 low, which is good. In fact, Anaconda was near
13 normal in terms of the type of exposure to arsenic
14 that you would see in other places around the
15 country. So that was good. That was actually a
16 more of a snapshot or a picture of what actual
17 exposure people were receiving in the community.
18 In addition to that study, we've had
19 studies - and again most of these were sponsored by
20 ARCO - we had a study that was conducted by the
21 University of Massachusetts that looked at soil
22 ingestion. And what they were trying to measure is
23 actually the soil that actually might be ingested
24 via hand-mouth activities and things like that.
25 We also looked at a study that looked
Page 16
l From that, we needed to kind of bring
2 an end point to what is elevated and what is okay,
3 so we wanted to propose an action level for arsenic
4 here for Anaconda. This is just a little diagram to
5 kind of put this in perspective. EPA's, what we
6 would consider our acceptable risk range for excess
7 cancer risk in the community ranges between 3 and
8 300. Background, based on some earlier studies, was
9 down in this range of 6 to 16. However, based on
10 some of the data that we've collected since, a more
11 natural background is probably anywhere from 50 to
12 close to 100. We just see those values everywhere.
13 We were kind of already up here. What
14 we ended up doing was choosing 250 parts per
15 million, or were proposing 250 parts per million as
16 kind of the action level. It is at the upper end of
17 our risk range but because of the all the data that
18 was collected and all the studies that were done,
19 EPA feels really good that the 250 number is a very
20 protective number to establish a risk action level
21 for.
22 Also on this, it does show the average,
23 what the average concentrations we found both within
24 Anaconda and Opportunity. So average concentrations
25 already kind of fall below our action level. Again,
Page 13 - Page 16
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Fage ""
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULYJ8,1996
Page 17
l what we're emphasizing here is that we're looking
2 for those individual areas or yards that may exceed
3 the 250 parts per million level.
4 Those areas are kind of shown on this
5 map. What this map is, those areas that we are
6 calling residential or future residential or
7 potential residential areas and exceed 250 parts per
8 million are shown up as being shaded. Again, they
9 approximate kind of where we see the more elevated
10 metal concentrations. The blank areas are excluded.
11 There's Smelter Hill, Opportunity Ponds and some
12 areas that we believe to be dedicated for primarily
13 agricultural use.
14 So generally, there's some areas to the
15 north and to the northeast that are kind of being
16 included in what we're calling the focus area and
17 some areas to the southwest in the Aspen Hill -
18 Clear Creek area of the Mill Creek drainage that,
19 again we're predicting based on data collected, that
20 these areas might be greater than 250 parts per
21 million and then thus exceed our action level.
22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I've got some
23 property between Lost Creek and Warm Springs Creek
24 by the old drag strip. They came up and were taking
25 the sample. I have been hauling manure in there for
Page 19
l did the same thing, we had relatively few areas that
2 based again on our estimation actually would exceed
3 the 250 part per million proposed action level in
4 this southeastern part of Anaconda and in the
5 eastern part.
6 Some of these blocks on the far east
7 are primarily outside the residential area. Some of
8 them, I think, border Benny Goodman Park and aren't
9 necessarily included. I did want to also mention
10 that also in the proposed plan, we did have some
11 areas in the Teresa Ann Terrace. They are probably
12 being impacted. Those blocks were included because
13 they were being impacted by samples outside of that.
14 Since we have already taken a removal action at
15 Teresa Ann Terrace at the 250 part per million
16 level, we really don't believe that is an area of
17 concern or focus area. So on this map, we have
18 shown that to be deleted. So within Anaconda, the
19 focus area remains in these two areas.
20 I know there was some questions about
21 why this area and not in between and that sort of
22 thing. I think it's still kind of a mystery to us
23 that certain areas popped up. One, you start with
24 the premise you've got a lot of data and you let the
25 computer do the work. It may give you some funny
Page 18
l a year and a half trying to get something to grow.
2 That's where they took the sample where I have been
3 neutralizing it for well over a year and a half.
4 That's where they took their sample from my
5 property. Some of it is nothing but rocks. You
6 can't get nothing to grow there. They wouldn't take
7 a sample there.
8 MR. COLEMAN: Generally, unless you
9 brought in clean soil, when you sample for metals,
10 since metals can't be created nor destroyed, they
11 still should pick up the metals in those areas.
12 We are and will continue to collect
13 data to evaluate areas. And I think based on this,
14 showing this as a focus area, what we would likely
15 do is in those areas where a person is living and
16 has a yard area, we would still want to come back
17 and sample those areas and make sure that you're
18 either below 250 or above.
19 So again, this is an estimation. It
20 does match up pretty well with other data that we
21 collected. So we feel that it is pretty accurate to
22 at least give us a starting point to look at
23 different areas.
24 Then like I said, we did focus, we also
25 looked at the community of Anaconda. And when we
Page 20
l sort of things. It's also dependent upon where the
2 data is collected.
3 It's very possible in some of these
4 areas, that if you get several data points, it may
5 be biased because they're maybe from the boulevard
6 and where there may have been some slag from street
7 sweeping, they may actually bias those to be a
8 little high.
9 It may be there's also actually
10 something occurring there, maybe some drainage
11 coming off the hillside or maybe that's just where
12 some of the aerial emissions deposited. But at
13 least the way we're showing this is these were the
14 areas, based on our best techniques, that had the
15 possibility of having soil that would exceed the 250
16 parts per million action level.
17 With that, the feasibility study that
18 we conducted, we really wanted to accomplish several
19 objectives. Let me back up one step here. As part
20 of the evaluation process, I mentioned we looked at
21 railroad beds within the community as well.
22 Generally, what we saw as we sampled, we had samples
23 all along the railroad tracks in this particular
24 area.
25 Generally, we had values that range
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Page 17-Page 20
-------
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18,1996
Multi-Page1
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Page 21
l from the hundreds all the way up to the 4,000 parts
2 per million arsenic. And generally, the average for
3 the railroad beds all through this area exceeded
1,000 parts per million, which in our estimation is
5 fairly high and is also indicative that those
6 railroad bed materials were probably constructed of
7 tailings and slag, maybe ore concentrates and things
8 like that over the operation of the Smelter.
So the railroad bed actually became an
0 area of concern within the community. And actually
l of a lot of the things we see in the community, it
2 actually has some of the highest values in the
3 community that we see compared to the soils that
4 we've sampled. So the entire railroad bed from east
5 Anaconda yards to the west end of town is also an
6 area of concern that we want to address under this
7 proposed plan.
8 Primarily, those areas that are
9 adjacent to residential areas or have the potential
0 to erode material in the residential areas, but we
l also wanted to address that whole railroad bed
2 because of their elevations and because people
3 worked there and materials have the potential to
4 transport via wind and other things to the rest of
:5 the community. So railroad beds are included as
Page 22
l of the railroad bed materials. All of these
2 alternatives were evaluated against nine criteria
3 that EPA is required to look at, things like
4 protectiveness, does it meet the environmental
5 regulations, long-term effectiveness, short-term
6 impacts, cost effectiveness, community acceptance.
7 I'm sure I'm leaving some out but at least that's
8 kind of the gist. Then we can compare them against
9 each other.
10 Based on that evaluation, I guess
11 tonight we're here proposing the ones that we think
12 are the best of those four soil and three railroad
13 bed alternatives. With that, I'll speak to those
14 alternatives because I think that's what everybody
15 wants to talk about Is there any questions on some
16 of that technical information? I probably spent
17 more time than I should have on it It still may be
18 a little bit on the technical side.
19 (No response.)
20 MR. COLEMAN: What we're proposing as
21 the preferred alternative for soils is to clean up
22 all current residential soils that exceed the 250
23 parts per million arsenic concentration using
24 Alternative 4, which is the removal of those soils
25 and then replacement with a vegetative or other
Page 22
l part of this project.
2 In other words, in the feasibility
3 study, we had several objectives that we wanted to
4 accomplish by the remedy that we chose. Essentially
5 for soils that are in people's yards, we really want
6 to prevent ingestion, inhalation, contact with any
7 of those soil materials that exceed the action level
8 that may increase somebody's risk. We wanted to do
9 that for individual yards that exceeded the action
10 level that's proposed here.
11 And then for the railroad beds, we
12 wanted to prevent contact with the contaminated
13 material and prevent surface runoff and wind erosion
14 from the railroad beds. In doing that, we looked at
15 four alternatives for the soils and three
16 alternatives for the railroad beds. The four that
17 we looked at for soils include no action, which we
18 were required to do; institutional controls, which
19 included an educational program, in-place treatment,
20 which essentially was the mixing of those soils to
21 reduce arsenic concentrations; and then the removal
22 of those soils that exceed the action level.
23 The railroad bed alternatives that we
24 chose to look at were, again, no action, the capping
25 of the railroad bed materials, and the total removal
Page 24
l protective barrier. It could be gravel, pavement,
2 some sort of parking lot, or whatever might be the
3 land use that's there.
4 What we want to do to try to address,
5 to find those areas of the 250, we're going to focus
6 the cleanup in those focus areas that were shown on
7 the map both regionally and within the community of
8 Anaconda. What we would like to do within those
9 areas is get access; sample, because like we said,
10 just because you're in the focus area doesn't
11 necessarily mean you would exceed 250, so we would
12 like to sample your yard to find out if you actually
13 do exceed 250; and then if so, take the necessary
14 removal actions that we need to do.
15 We want to kind of prioritize our
16 cleanup efforts at the site here. We want to
17 address barren areas first or areas where children
18 might be playing, especially if there's children
19 playing in barren areas. Those that pose the
20 greatest concern to us have the greatest chance for
21 exposure, so we'll try to address those areas first.
22 Then ultimately, we would try to
23 address all soils that are greater than 250 even if
24 they have a current lawn or healthy lawn there. The
25 thought with that is that if down the road that
Page 21 - Page 24
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page""
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Page 25
1 something changes, we want to remove the yard, put a
2 garden in, the lawn dies, then you have exposed
3 soil. There is a potential for a future exposure
4 there. Typical with most Superfund cleanups, we
5 would try to address those soils as well, but
6 because they would have a lawn on them now, they
7 would be a lower priority and we would address those
8 areas last.
9 In addressing an area that was greater
0 than 250, we propose only addressing those areas
l that are greater than 250 and only those portions of
2 a yard that might be greater than 250. We would
3 have to come up with some sort of sampling strategy
14 to look at yards. We're looking at the front yard,
15 backyard, side of the yard, but we would really only
16 want to focus on those areas that are greater than
17 250.
18 We might have a yard area where
19 actually somebody brought in clean sod in the back.
20 Well, it doesn't make sense to dig that stuff up
21 because you might have something more elevated in
22 the front yard. So we really want to focus our
23 cleanup efforts to those areas that might actually
24 — or that actually do exceed 250 parts per million.
25 We would only clean up the depth of
Page 27
l Because we are initiating cleanup
2 activities in the focus area, we still wanted to
3 have a program that allowed other folks that were
4 outside of that area to have their concerns
5 addressed as well. So in the other areas that are
6 outside of the focus area, where individuals might
7 suspect there's contaminants in there, maybe they
8 said, "Geez, I brought in material 20 years ago and
9 I know I brought it and I think it was contaminated
10 then and I think it's contaminated now," or if they
11 live next to the railroad tracks and their block
12 wasn't included but it looks like there's
13 contaminants that have eroded into the yard, or
14 where individuals may have been part of a previous
15 sampling activity and have actual data that says I
16 might be above 250, we would also want to try to get
17 to those people as well.
18 In those instances, the residents would
19 need to kind of initiate that activity. We're
20 looking to the County to kind of - we're going to
21 give the County the opportunity to run a program of
22 this type. To date they have indicated interest in
23 doing that, very similar to what Butte-Silver Bow is
24 doing with the lead abatement program.
25 What we were kind of envisioning is
Page 26
l soil that actually exceeds 250 parts per million.
2 Based on some of the soil data that we've collected
3 to date in the community, what we typically see is
4 that the concentrated elevations are in the top
5 couple inches of the soil profile. So if we went
6 into the yard and the elevated concentration were in
7 the top three, four, five, six inches, well, that's
8 what we would propose removing and replacing that
9 with clean soil to a maximum of 18 inches. We would
10 not go beyond 18 inches. The belief there is that
11 18 inches is protective of most activities in a
12 yard: Garden, digging, dogs, play areas, and that
13 sort of thing. So we would cut it off at a maximum
14 of 18 inches.
15 We would only do removal in those areas
16 where we could really do removal. As a lot of you
17 are aware, in the eastern part of Anaconda, there's
18 a lot of small yards and a lot of intricate workings
19 over there. Some of those areas may not lend
20 themselves to removal. So in those cases, we would
21 try to look at other mechanisms. We might look at
22 some of the treatment or some sort of a capping or
23 something else. Again, we would try to bring that
24 below 250, but where removal is not feasible, we
25 would not push for that.
Page 28
l that we would have a program to hopefully address
2 other people's concerns through the county in those
3 areas. And we would kind of basically go through
4 the same format, you know, samples. And if for
5 whatever reasons it's above 250, we would want to
6 address those areas as well.
7 Again, those areas we might do on a
8 more limited basis and we would do in a more
9 programmatic approach. And again, it may take — we
10 would have to prioritize those with the other work.
11 But all of this work may take several years. Again,
12 I would emphasize again that based on the actual
13 risk data that we've collected, generally risks are
14 fairly low and I guess EPA would believe that if we
15 took several years to do this, we're not really
16 putting anybody at undo risk.
17 The second component in dealing with
18 soils is to deal with future development in the
19 area. Currently, this is being dealt with under the
20 county's development permit system. Basically
21 through this, through our proposal, we would propose
22 continuing using the Development Permit System to
23 look at addressing future residential areas. We
24 would continue to use the 250, which is already in
25 the Development Permit System. In areas where the
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Page 25 - Page 28
-------
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Multi-Page
TM
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Page 29
l Development Permit System excludes some of our focus
2 area, we would ask the County to include those areas
3 so that all the focus areas are within these overlay
4 districts that use the Development Permit System.
And because we're doing removals within
6 the community, our preference through the DPS would
7 be to do removal, again, with the same conditions
8 that where removals aren't appropriate, we would
9 look at other measures to do that work or to reduce
0 the concentrations below 250.
We're proposing under this proposal
2 that the costs of operating the DPS to the county
3 aren't a burden to the county or to the taxpayers;
4 and also, if there's any cleanup work that falls
5 onto an individual that is outside of typical
6 development of a property, that those costs aren't
7 necessarily passed on to the individual as well.
And the third component of what we're
9 proposing is the educational component, to develop a
;0 community protective measures program, which
il disseminates information to residents about some of
22 the people that we talked about tonight in terms of
23 risk. I think a lot of this risk information fairly
24 alleviates a lot of fears in the community and we
25 would like to share that with individuals.
Page 31
l about ten years. What we would like to do is
2 compile all that information, give it to the County
3 so that as you go on, arid us and ARCO leave, you're
4 able to use that information as a benefit to
5 yourselves. Under this project, we would try to
6 develop that program a little bit better with the
7 County.
8 Let's see, I'm going to jump to our
9 proposal for the railroad beds. What we're
10 proposing for the railroad beds is basically to
11 construct an engineered cover over all exposed
12 railroad beds within the community. In doing that,
13 we would consider both existing and future land use.
14 If there is a railroad bed that's
15 abandoned, not in use, or has the potential to be
16 used for something else down the road, we would want
17 to take that into account. We would want to
18 consider how that railroad bed is constructed, the
19 height and slope of the railroad bed. Throughout
20 the community you have a variety of steep railroad
21 slopes over the Goosetown area, and then as you get
22 further west and through the center of town, that's
23 basically pretty flat in there. In our design of
24 any kind of capping of those railroad beds, we would
25 consider all those aspects.
Page 30
l We also have recommendations that would
2 further reduce people's risks, you know. There's a
3 lot of things that people can do themselves to help
4 their own living conditions, that sort of thing, in
5 terms of watching where kids play, washing hands,
6 and things like that this. So this community
7 protective measures program pulls together a lot of
8 information like that, gets it to everybody in the
9 community, just to give them a better understanding
10 about their environment here.
11 In addition, this program would also
12 set up a database on a geographical information
13 system, which is very similar to what you see here.
14 It provides a county a means of tracking soil
15 concentration throughout the community to be able to
16 track when somebody's yard is cleaned up or when
17 it's sampled and it's not a problem.
18 The value of this system is that when
19 you go to sell your house or a lender wants to have
20 some assurance that it's not contaminated, you know,
21 we should be able to use the county database, you
22 know, what about this property? We can say: Oh,
23 yeah, it was sampled back in 19-whatever, and it was
24 below, it's not a problem.
25 Again, we've been doing work here for
Page 32
l We also need to — you know, we want to
2 work with the railroad, work with the County and
3 ARCO to try to come up with a plan that satisfies
4 all the needs, and do something, I guess, that in
5 the bottom line, just makes sense.
6 In addition to capping the railroad
7 material, we want to in certain areas, especially
8 where we have the steeper slopes, separate the toe
9 of the slope from adjacent residential areas or
10 adjacent alleyways or adjacent streets.
11 In some of the areas in the eastern
12 part of town, the railroad beds go right into
13 somebody's yard or right into the street. We want
14 to be able to create a barrier there either through
15 the use of a retaining wall, curbing, to essentially
16 prevent any migration of these materials off of the
17 railroad bed itself. We might have to look at some,
18 in certain cases, look at drainage and other things
19 like that.
20 As part of this remedy, we're trying to
21 prevent access to the railroad beds. We're kind of
22 doing that. We're preventing contact by putting a
23 rock cap or a cap of some sort on those areas. But
24 I think also we want to look at restricting access.
25 There is a potential that in certain areas, if it
Page 29 - Page 32
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page'"
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Page 33
l makes sense, some additional fencing of the railroad
2 beds and things like that. Again, we would need to
3 work with the community and with the railroad to
4 determine where it makes sense to do that.
5 But again, we're trying to prevent kids
6 from playing on the railroad beds. It seems like
7 it's a fun place to ride your bike and jump and
8 things like that. Probably if I was a kid, I would
9 be there, too. So hopefully, the combination of
0 these things would allow us to be more protective of
l the children in the area and to prevent those
.2 contaminants from recontaminating yards or getting
3 into the yards and things like that.
4 In a nutshell — and there's some
.5 diagrams and things in here that I didn't put up
6 here that kind of show what I was talking about, and
.1 I can put those up and discuss those further if
i8 there's any questions.
.9 But in a nutshell, that's what we're
20 proposing here. We think that the remedies that
21 we're proposing are a good balance of EPA's
22 criteria. We think that they're protective. We
23 think the 250 part per million action level is
24 protective. In the soils, the soils proposal that
25 we're doing, we think that by doing the actual
Page 35
l this? Here's my soil value," or "somebody sampled
2 my house," and that sort of thing, we usually can't
3 always answer their questions because we've not ever ;
4 established the final action level or identified \
5 areas that might be a concern or that are, in our
6 opinion, to be cleaned.
7 So we're hoping that through this
8 project, that we're able to tell people that we
9 don't think there's a problem; and where we do think
10 there's a problem, here's a mechanism to try to
11 rectify it. We're working with the County to try to
12 keep track of all this.
13 We want to try to make this
14 user-friendly for people. We want to work with I
15 individuals if we come into your yard area to work
16 with you, to, you know, I guess be user-friendly. I
17 guess there's always a possibility that we can get
18 into certain yards and people say, "I just don't
19 want you here. I like it just the way it is." And
20 I think we would respect that.
21 Again, that information is tracked by
22 the County and somebody might have to come in and do
23 something later on. I guess I would say even to
24 allow us to come in and do the sampling and stuff is
25 a benefit to you. Because if we can come in there
Page 34
l removal versus any of the other things, we think
2 it's a much more proven and protective way to get at
3 the source for the costs that we would be spending
4 out there.
5 For the railroad beds, we think that in
6 that instance, to try to remove the railroad beds
7 could be a real disruptive activity, not only to the
8 railroad itself but to residents that live nearby.
9 We actually feel that the cap can provide equal
10 protection for a lot more cost effectiveness and
11 have fewer short-term impacts and actually be more
12 readily implementable. We could get out there and
13 do that right away.
14 If we start looking at trying to muck
15 up the whole railroad grade in there, it would end
16 up taking a lot longer and we would have to
17 coordinate it with the operation of the railroad and
18 et cetera.
19 I guess if I was going to have a sales
20 pitch to this thing, the whole thing is really to
21 try to bring closure to Superfund within the
22 community structure and for individuals. I think a
23 lot of the questions that we always get, people come
24 into your community, they want to buy property, they
25 want to buy a house, and they're saying, "What about
Page 36
l and demonstrate that you're less than 250 parts per
2 million, that's a value to your property. And if
3 for whatever reason you wanted to sell it, whatever,
4 you can tell people, "Hey, EPA said this is safe."
5 So I guess that's kind of what we're
6 selling. We're selling to get ourselves out of
7 here. We want to bring our efforts in the community
8 to a closure and give you a mechanism or give the
9 County a mechanism or program that allows you to
10 deal with these areas and to have a program to deal
11 with any concerns that people might have, whether
12 it's right now or a couple years down the road. We
13 can set up a program that somebody — you know, a
14 dog digs a hole and says, geez, you know, something
15 don't look right there. Boom, call the County, take
16 a sample. Do I have a problem?
17 The whole hope here is that we can make
18 residents feel good about your community, that it is
19 safe; and probably more important, keep the
20 development aspect going that some of the other work
21 has already done. You're doing a lot of good things
22 here. Here's a mechanism to keep your property
23 valuable and developable or sellable, or whatever
24 you want to call it. That was my sales pitch, I
25 guess.
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Page 33 - Page 3(
-------
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Multi-Page
TM
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Page37
Then the last thing I have here is:
2 Where do we go over after this process? After the
3 comment period of August 9, what we'll do is
4 evaluate any comments that we might get either here
5 tonight or in writing. We will go back and finalize
6 our technical documents. We still have some work to
7 do on those. We will develop what we call response
8 summary, which is really a response to every
9 individual comment. And there's always a
0 possibility that your comments could change the
1 remedy. So we're not saying hard and fast it's a
2 done deal. We want to hear from you and there's
3 always a possibility of making improvements to
4 anything that we do.
5 We would like to then finalize this
6 decision by the end of September in what we call a
7 Record of Decision document. After that point,
8 then, assuming that we're on the same track here, we
9 would start negotiations with — primarily first
20 with ARCO to kind of get the ball rolling; and then
21 probably shortly thereafter, the County because they
22 would likely be a key player in this; also, the
23 railroad to start the design process. And with any
24 luck, if we had the program and the designs in
25 place, our preference would be to be back out here
Page 39
l maybe they don't.
2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're talking
3 about samples in the residential area in my yard.
4 How many samples would you take and how large are
5 the samples? You don't bring a backhoe in there or
6 something.
7 MR. COLEMAN: No, no, and that's
8 something I think we need to work out the details
9 because typically, and it goes back to maybe how we
10 look at risk, we're really looking at exposure to
11 multiple, you know, to your whole yard. We don't
12 necessarily want to go to one spot and say, "This is
13 representative of your whole yard."
14 You kind of want to — it's more likely
IS we take some sort of composite - this is what we've
16 done in the past - we'll take a composite. If your
17 composite is greater than 250, then we would come
18 back and we would analyze the individual pieces to
19 see if there was a portion of a yard or maybe the
20 whole yard is elevated. That would tell us how to
21 maybe clean up your yard.
22 UNIDENTIFffiD SPEAKER: How large a
23 sample do you take?
24 MS. fflLLERY: Just a little plug.
25 MS. STASH: It's about two inches.
Page 38
l next year doing any kind of physical type of work
2 where it is ever necessary.
3 MR. COLEMAN: That is it. Questions?
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Why is the EPA
5 preventing ARCO from leasing out their land for
6 pasture?
7 MR. COLEMAN: I don't think that we
8 are. I mean if there is--we try not to get
9 involved with any private interactions between
10 whether it's ARCO or individuals. If somebody
ll wanted to sell property, lease property, do
12 whatever, we have the same arrangements when people
13 are doing any kind of work, whether they are laying
14 down fiber optics or whatever.
15 They come to us and say, "Can we do
16 this?" Again, we tell them what's out here. A lot
17 of those are arrangements between whoever to do that
18 work.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Then it's okay
20 for the EPA to say ARCO can lease out their ground
21 for pasture land?
22 MR. COLEMAN: That's ARCO's decision to
23 make out, yeah. I mean we're not preventing
24 anything like that.
25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If they want to;
Page 40
1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: When you did
2 this sampling before, did you take samples out of
3 the alleys?
4 MR. COLEMAN: You know, I've had that
5 question asked and I couldn't remember.
6 MS. STASH: We did.
7 MR. COLEMAN: Did we?
8 MS. STASH: Yes.
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So in this
10 targeted area between Alder and Chestnut Street,
11 would you be doing the alleys again there?
12 MR. COLEMAN: I think to make sure
13 we've addressed these areas, in the focus areas, I
14 think we would like to go back in those focus areas,
15 anyway, and make sure that we've got a
16 representative sample there. Now, if we go back and
17 look at the data and it said, yeah, we already
18 sampled that, we may not. But If we've not sampled
19 your alley or that alley, I think we would take a
20 sample there.
21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Our house is
22 right on the comer of the alley. There is a lot of
23 traffic. I was wondering, would that —
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And it would
25 washout.
Page 37 - Page 40
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page'"
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Page 41
1 MR. COLEMAN: Right, and that's exactly
2 the reason we would want to do that because if we're
3 cleaning up yards, we wouldn't them to be
4 recontaminated. Again, in that part of town where
5 yards are small, a lot of times, that's where kids
6 play and activities are. Any kind of those sort of
7 areas that are alley or barren driveways, that sort
8 of thing, those would be areas that we would come in
9 and do a sampling. Now again, within a yard
0 structure, again, we have to develop a sampling
11 strategy to see how we - you know, we probably want
12 to do similar materials like yard materials in one
13 sample and maybe a parking lot or something as an
14 additional one. But those are things we will work
15 out with ARCO and the County to figure out how we do
16 that sampling strategy.
17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The alleys are
18 dirt, and when you drive down them, you stir up the
19 dirt, if you don't sample them, hell, you might as
20 well go home.
21 MR. COLEMAN: Again, in a lot of cases,
22 gravel and other things might have brought in. It
23 may be clean dirt, but we don't know that if we
24 don't have samples.
25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you don't
Page 43!
1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, as it
2 rains, it washes right off. So rather the drip line
3 or drain line, when it hits the ground, it's not
4 going to move much.
5 MR. COLEMAN: One of the things we've
6 done with the data that we did collect is actually
7 do kind of a statistical analysis between play areas
8 and drip lines and that sort of thing. We don't see
9 statistically with the data we've collected a large
10 difference. I mean generally, what you see at the
11 drip line and in other areas is generally fairly
12 similar. We do see a little bit higher at drip
13 lines and that sort of thing, but statistically, not
14 all that different. Again, we'll take all that into
15 account.
16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That would
17 indicate it's not coming in from the air, then.
18 MR. COLEMAN: It's hard to tell.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's probably
20 hauled in there.
21 MR. COLEMAN: Possibly. The Smelter
22 has been closed since 1980. I think in 15 years,
23 with the rain and stuff, you see more of a — you're
24 not seeing just such an effect from coming off of
25 the roof line. If metals are there, they're there.
Page 42
l have samples and find out, you might as well go
2 home. That's the first .thing you should sample.
3 MR. COLEMAN: Again, it falls into our
4 prioritization of trying to deal with barriers
5 first.
6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What about at
7 the eves of the house, the drain spouts?
8 MR. COLEMAN: What we did, when the
9 University of Cincinnati did their sampling, they
10 actually focused on drip lines. So a lot of the
11 data points that we actually see in the community
12 are from drip lines. Again, when we do a strategy
13 for a yard, we'll take those things into
14 consideration.
15 I don't know exactly, I mean if we go
16 to it and say, okay, this yard, we're just going to
17 do, boom, four composites, or whether we'll be
18 selective and try to look for particular areas,
19 we'll have to work all that out. But in the past,
20 we have considered those things like drip lines,
21 play areas, garden areas, and things like that. A
22 lot of these areas, we already have that data and we
23 will use that data to help us make decisions on how
24 to sample and where to sample and that sort of
25 thing.
Page 44
l Statistically, we're not seeing a lot of differences
2 between those and the rest of the yard for whatever
3 reason.
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: When you tested,
5 you tested down at the east end of Anaconda. When
6 you tested, did you consider AFFCO polluting down
7 there? I lived in Anaconda for 30 years and every
8 year AFFCO keeps getting worse and worse and worse.
9 I mean I can get up in the morning and there is
10 black silt on my car. I've never seen it — this
11 year, I mean it's bad.
12 MR. COLEMAN: I don't think the
13 sampling necessarily distinguished between where the
14 contamination came from. Maybe that's a possibility
15 that some of that is contributed by that. I don't
16 know if there's any real way to distinguish that or
17 not. I think at this point from EPA's perspective,
18 we would not try to do that. I guess ARCO's always
19 available to try to sort out if there's other folks
20 that are partly responsible as well.
21 Now, if it's more of a question if we
22 go and clean up areas and they're going to be
23 recontaminated, that's a real legitimate question.
24 I guess I don't have an answer for you. But that's
25 something to consider. Typically, I guess they are
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Page 41 - Page 44
-------
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18,1996
Multi-Page
TM
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Page 45
l regulated by whatever the current environmental laws
2 are for their industry. I'm not sure what they are.
3 That might be the best we can do.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well down there,
5 I mean like I say, I've lived there 30 years, same
6 house, and it's gotten worse each year. We've never
7 had a smell like that at the east end of Anaconda,
8 not until they put the electric furnaces in four
9 years ago - five years. And you can tell it keeps
0 getting worse. My grass is totally yellow. I've
1 tried everything. I swear it's from the pollution
2 from AFFCO.
3 MR.COLEMAN: I don't know. And it
4 might be - Andy Young here is from the State. It
5 might end up being more of an air quality concern
6 for ongoing industries and maybe Andy can talk with
7 you and pass that on to any of the appropriate
8 people.
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's what I
20 was wondering. If you're going to clean it up —
21 MR.COLEMAN: It's hard to tell what
22 may be coming out of there. We just don't have any
23 information from them.
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you're going
25 to clean it up, I think the foundry should be
Page 47
1 that they have say in what's happening as well.
2 So I would say, yes, we would try to
3 build in a lot of flexibility to what we're doing
4 here.
5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You're using the
6 masterplan.
7 MR. COLEMAN: We would US6 the
8 masterplan because it is the mechanism by which the
9 County, through the county commissioners, can
10 establish boundaries of overlay districts and
11 basically require the Development Permit System to
12 be required.
13 So we are looking at that component of
14 the masterplan and the Development Permit System to
IS be in effect. It actually becomes an institutional
16 control. We are relying on the County to do that.
17 Now, within how they operate that, like I say, we
18 give them some flexibility to do that work.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But it's not a
20 completed masterplan yet.
21 MR. COLEMAN: I'm not sure whether it
22 is or not, but I think those components, at least
23 the components today where the Development Permit
24 System is being required are actually, I believe, in
25 place. We would at least focus on those parts.
Page 46
l cleaned up, too. I think it should be included in
2 the cleanup. Like I say, each year it keeps getting
3 worse and worse and worse down there.
4 MR. COLEMAN: Good point.
5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You're using
6 Deer Lodge County's masterplan in your decision and
7 allowing them some flexibility in addressing
8 situations that are local; is that right?
9 MR. COLEMAN: I think what we would do
10 under the current Development Permit System, there
11 is a lot of flexibility built in down there. In
12 some of this, like our preference for removal, we
13 may want to tighten that up. But what we would
14 envision is that every situation that you go out and
15 you sample somewhere is always unique.
16 If you're out in a rural part of town,
17 rural country especially, I mean a yard isn't
18 necessarily a yard. And especially if you're over
19 in Aspen Hills or Clear Creek, you might be on the
20 side of a mountain. So I think we would work with
21 the County to be educated to make those decisions
22 that essentially give them the flexibility to do
23 that, and work with not only the County with
24 flexibility, but we also want to be able to, as
25 we're dealing with individual landowners, to think
Page 48
1 I don't think we have to have the
2 entire masterplan, which really deals with the whole
3 county, in place to do our work. But we do need to
4 make sure that the County does have the pieces of
5 the Development Permit System in place for this. We
6 would work with them and with your county
7 commissioners to try and do that.
8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Howwouldyou
9 review something like that if it's in the works
10 right at this minute and yet you have a time
11 constraint on public comment? So you're asking us
12 basically to do a public comment and to trust the
13 local government and you?
14 MR. COLEMAN: Yeah, I think we're
15 proposing that to a certain degree. I guess if you
16 want to comment and say, "Geez, I don't trust that,"
17 I think that's a valid, fair comment. I think we
18 have utilized it in the past. I guess we believe
19 that we can develop a program with the County to do
20 that work.
21 It's not a guarantee and maybe the
22 appropriate response would be if we can't do that,
23 then we have to go back and kind of say, "That part
24 failed. What do we need to do to compensate for
25 that?" Typically when we do a remedy, we do
Page 45 - Page 48
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
lAJJVUVlUmi
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Muiti-Jfage
JKORMAL FUBL1C HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Page 49
1 contingency remedies as well.
2 Any of these things that we propose
3 could fail. If they fail, we have to go back to the
4 drawing board. I meant that's the risk we take.
5 We're going to try to work this out through the
6 County. If it don't work, we have to go back to the
7 drawing board. We can do that, Superfund allows us
8 to do that kind of thing.
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's the
10 advantage of the permits?
11 MR.COLEMAN: I guess the biggest
12 advantage, well, for new construction starts, the
13 way I understand the Development Permit System, if
14 you don't get a permit, you're not supposed to
15 build. That's the biggest advantage to the permit
16 system from the County's perspective.
17 But I think from our perspective, the
18 advantage is that it allows you to know what is on
19 your property and if any sort of action needs to be
20 taking place. And it should make that property more
21 valuable. I mean if you want to then sell that
22 property in the future, you say, "Hey, it's been
23 tested or it's been cleaned up," you know. That's a
24 marketable thing. Those are what I see as the two
25 biggest benefits of having that done.
Page 51
l that would be beyond typical construction, you know,
2 could be something that we would also take care of.
3 I think in most cases, the practice
4 that we've seen is that a lot of the cleanup that
5 might be necessary with a new development can be
6 taken care of as part of — you know, you go out
7 there and clear your - level your land and that
8 sort of thing. A lot of times, that takes care of
9 the problem.
10 We would continue to encourage the
11 County to work with individuals that way. We don't
12 want the Development Permit System to become a real
13 burden and slow down home starts and construction
14 and make it impossible. Somebody says, "Geez, I've
15 got rocks out here and I've got trees and I want the
16 rocks and trees." Well, you should keep the rocks
17 and trees. So we will work with the County to make
18 this a workable program.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What is your
20 minimum cost?
21 MR.COLEMAN: On a sample?
22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, break it
23 down.
24 MS. STASH: Nobody's being charged for
25 the samples.
Page 50
1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If I wanted to
2 build a building, I have to go up here and buy a
3 $1,000 permit to build an S800 shed, it's
4 ridiculous.
5 MR. COLEMAN: Well, as far as I
6 understand, and again, the way this is supposed to
7 be set up, is that there should not be or we would
8 not expect a cost —
9 MS. STASH: It's a cost, zoning.
10 MR. COLEMAN: And there's other zoning
11 things I guess we don't have control over. The
12 Development Permit System for dealing with a
13 residential home, again, it's set up so that —
14 right now it's set up, I think there's minimal cost
15 because until this remedy is in place, a landowner
16 does have some responsibility to pay for the
17 sampling, which is minimal, and to do the
18 construction in a certain way.
19 But again, we work with the County and
20 the County then works with individuals to try to do
21 that in a way that minimizes cost. Again, we would
22 do the same thing, except I think we would actually
23 propose that the cost of sampling and anything the
24 County would do would be taken care of by the County
25 and those costs be taken care of, and that any costs
Page 52
1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I mean what's
2 the actual cost?
3 MS. STASH: It's probably $25 - $100.
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Twenty-five
5 dollars?
6 MS. STASH: The County's doing that
7 right now under funding from this.
8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's what I
9 wanted to know. If I wanted to have two or three
10 samples taken, what's it actually costing somebody
11 or me or something else?
12 The other question is: On your risk
13 chart, 300 parts per million is 1 in 10,000, what is
14 250?
15 MR. COLEMAN: It comes out at about 8
16 times 10 - so 8 in 10,000, 8 in 10,000 people. Let
17 me explain. I guess excess cancer risk, a little
18 bit, that's the additional, I guess, cancer burden a
19 person might have in addition to what you already
20 have, which is for most of us, pretty high already.
21 So we're talking about a normal cancer
22 risk throughout the United States of 1 in 4 and this
23 is an additional cancer risk of 8 in 10,000. It is
24 a low risk but —
25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It shouldn't be
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Page 49 - Page 52
-------
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18,1996
Multi-Page
TM
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Page 53
1 that, should it? Because at 30, it's 1 in 100,000.
MR. COLEMAN: I think it actually comes
3 out 8.4. We won't quibble over —
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 250, well, 250
5 parts per million would be the cleanup. That's what
6 I was wondering what the risk was for that figure.
7 That's the figure you're using for cleaning it up.
8 MR. COLEMAN: Two fifty.
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If it's above
0 250, you take it up. If it's below 250, you leave
l it alone. What's the risk at 250?
MR. COLEMAN: I guess I did misspeak
3 because it's 8 in 100,000, is what it is.
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So it's about 1
5 in 12,500. Why don't you make this comparison thing
6 and have that on it since the figure of 250 is what
7 you're using.
8 MR. COLEMAN: Okay, there you go, 1 in
9 12,500. Get it right, get it right. I'm an
0 engineer. I work backwards. I apologize for
1 anything that's technically not coming across.
2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: In a targeted
23 area, would the people be notified and asked to
24 volunteer or will it be door to door, a person
25 coming door to door to take the sample?
Page 55
l check and balance because to get to that
2 arrangement, ARCO and the County would have some
3 agreement in terms of responsibility. Our check is
4 to ARCO, to make sure that they ensure that the work
5 is getting done. Typically, the County would want
6 from us some protection in doing the work.
7 We end up with this triangle where
8 basically us and the County have an agreement, we
9 and ARCO have an agreement, and ARCO and the County
10 will probably have some agreement. And we all kind
11 of check and balance each other.
12 I guess EPA has -1 would say we have
13 the biggest hammer. If the work doesn't get done
14 for whatever reason, we can come back and first look
15 to ARCO and say, "We need to get this work done."
16 And probably if there's an agreement between us and
17 the County for them to get some protection, we can
18 look at them as well.
19 It's kind of the similar arrangement we
20 have right now with the Old Works area and the golf
21 course. I think it's going to work very well. I
22 think there's enough checks and balances that we can
23 keep everybody honest, I think.
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Howdowekeep
25 everybody honest?
Page 54
l MR. COLEMAN: We have to figure that
2 detail out, set up something with the County,
3 sessions between the County and ARCO. You could do
4 it in a survey or mailing or door to door. I'm not
5 sure exactly how we might do that yet.
6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Who takes the
7 actual sample?
8 MR. COLEMAN: Again, we need to
9 determine that. I think we're proposing or at least
10 we would like to offer the opportunity to the County
11 to do that. We would offer to the County to do as
12 much of the program as they would like to take on
13 and kind of coordinate that with ARCO. They may not
14 want to do the construction work, or there's a
15 mutual consulting firm or contract firm that does
16 that, but in terms of kind of running the program
17 and getting the information and working with
18 individuals and sampling, we would look to the
19 County to do that.
20 The County has expressed an interest in
21 doing that. So that's kind of the avenue we're kind
22 of looking at right now.
23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's your
24 check and balance?
25 MR. COLEMAN: It's kind of a unique
Page 56
1 MR. COLEMAN: Again, I think it's
2 through that same check-and-balance process. I
3 think this particular project may — I mean we have
4 to be careful. One of the things we want to do with
5 this project is make it a fair project, we want to
6 make it fair to the individuals. We're not going to
7 force anything down anybody's throats that don't
8 want it. We want to work with individuals. But at
9 the same time, we've got to be fair to ARCO.
10 It's not intended for some developer to
11 come in, buy up a bunch of property real cheap and
12 say, "Okay, ARCO, clean it up for me," and turn
13 around and sell it to somebody else. That isn't
14 going to work, either. All those things that can
15 lend themselves to fraud or whatever, I think we'll
16 address them in one manner or the other. Again, we
17 want to make this fair for everybody.
18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On that map, you
19 have a gray-shaded area in the south of Anaconda. I
20 don't see very much of the county's land affected.
21 Don't you think that's rather odd?
22 MR. COLEMAN: Well, there are areas
23 like Smelter Hill and some of the new property that
24 the County has acquired. That's primarily because
25 in their acquiring of that property from ARCO. the
Page 53 - Page 56
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-rage
FORMAL FUJBL1C JtmAKINCi
JULY 18, 1996
Page 57
l deed restriction says there's no residential
2 development. So we're only looking at areas that
3 are potentially developable. I guess it was our
4 estimation that people will not be developing on
5 Smelter Hill because ARCO owns the property and they
6 are not going to allow it.
7 Any transfers to the County have kind
8 of been the same way. That's the reason that those
9 are left out. I guess we could have said — we
0 could have had a big black thing and it still would
1 be the same thing. Nobody's going to live in these
2 particular areas, at least to our best assumption.
13 Again, when we develop this through the
14 Development Permit System, that sort of thing, we
15 may just - the Development Permit System is kind of
16 an inclusive area so it may include those areas,
17 anyway. But it's our estimation that people would
18 not live there.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, basically,
20 they could, Anaconda would be responsible for taking
21 the sample?
22 MR. COLEMAN: If they are in an area
23 that people can live in and it's within our zone.
24 Again, we would make adjustments. If we missed an
25 area that needed to be included, we can add those
Page 59
1 County.
2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: By looking at
3 those maps, the emissions came from the Smelter,
4 they jumped over the "C" Hill and crashed onto "A"
5 Hill.
6 MR. COLEMAN: Maybe I'm looking at--
7 this area over here?
8 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's the one
9 behind your butt on the other map.
10 MR. COLEMAN: This area in here?
11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's the one.
12 MR. COLEMAN: Maybe I think -- well, I
13 guess that was our assumption that that is not
14 anticipated for residential development. If I'm
15 wrong, I would like to know that I guess that was
16 my assumption, nobody lives up there or would live
17 up there; that it was, I'm not sure, I don't think
18 it's public ground, maybe some of it is County's
19 property and whatever, but that was the reason for
20 that. I was confused on which area you were
21 describing there.
22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If it was county
23 property and was in that area, it would —
24 MR. COLEMAN: It would probably be a
25 shaded area and would fall in the same category that
Page 58
l in. Yeah, the County would, under the Development
2 Permit System or under this new program, we would
3 sample these areas that were within the shaded zone
4 to determine whether they are above 250 or not.
5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If they are not
6 in the shaded zone?
7 MR. COLEMAN: If they are not in the
8 shaded zone and they're in — like a big part of
9 this south here, I mean we're actually, our
10 estimates show it should not exceed 250. So we're
11 saying it's clean. We think it's clean. It may
12 also be excluded because there's a lot of areas out
13 here that we just don't believe would actually
14 exceed 250. So we would actually be coming to
15 people and saying, "We're giving a clean bill of
16 health. We think this area is okay."
17 I guess in those particular areas,
18 again, if there's a reason for thinking that there
19 might be some contamination there because of
20 imported fill or there's a railroad or something
21 like that, we can still sample those areas. That's
22 the difference between the shaded areas and not is
23 that we would focus on the shaded areas. The other
24 areas, we think they're clean, but there's still a
25 mechanism to be able to sample those through the
Page 60:
l we could go out and sample that, and if it was above j
2 250, clean it up.
3 MS. DALSOGLIO: Let me reassure you
4 that area is not being written off by this action,
5 but the whole Smelter complex area, the final
6 decision on the remediation up there is still to be
7 made in the next year.
8 So what Charlie's trying to show here
9 on this map are the areas where we, to the best of
10 our understanding, are predicting where people
11 currently live or will live in the future, and then
12 where we would apply this remedy. The remedy for
13 Smelter Hill, that green blob in the middle of the
14 shaded area there, is part of the other project that
15 Charlie mentioned earlier, Regional Water, Wastes,
16 and Soils, and that remedy will be selected next
17 year. So we'll be coming back to talk about what
18 the final remedial action on Smelter Hill will be.
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Smelter Hill is
20 only part of that. That's the front of "C" Hill
21 there, John, you're talking about. What about the
22 front of "C" Hill?
23 MS. DALSOGLIO: That's also part of
24 this project next year. Everything that you see
25 colored on those maps outside of what he has shaded
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Page 57 - Page 60
-------
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18,1996
Multi-Page
TM
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
2
Page 61
l in that he's predicting where people live are being
2 addressed in this other program.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's all
4 county property, the front of "C" Hill, that's all
5 county property. They planted trees up there. You
6 can go up and look at them trees. Out of, I'd say,
7 100 percent of them trees that they planted, maybe
810 percent grew and that's it
MS. DALSOGLIO: We've actually gone up
0 there and surveyed those areas. Again, we're
l looking at whether or not we should go back in there
2 and do additional reclamation work in this decision
3 that's coming up next year. I want to assure you
4 it's not being ignored.
MR. COLEMAN: We're not saying it's not
6 elevated metals. I mean if you look at this map,
7 we're estimating elevated metals there. Basically,
8 we just don't believe that there's residences up
9 there. And if there is residences -
0 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, there's
l never going to be residences that out there.
MR. COLEMAN: That's why it's not
:3 included.
14 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The only
25 resident in that area is Nazer.
Page 63
l that they sold, and all the county properties that
2 they sold happen not to be on there.
3 MR. COLEMAN: That's not the reason
4 they are not on there.
5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's a little
6 bit strange to me. I can tell from the get-go who
7 has some influence.
8 MR. COLEMAN: This project is really
9 dealing with where we think residents would be.
10 Julie's correct. I mean all these other things
11 you're talking about are still being evaluated.
12 I'm glad you bring up some of those
13 issues because I think that's important information
14 for Julie to look at because that last project that
15 Julie's working on needs to address anything else
16 that we haven't addressed to date.
17 But, you know, this project only deals
18 with residential yards and where people are actually
19 living. That's just the way we broke it out.
20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, but the
21 wind. You don't live at the east end of Anaconda.
22 The wind blows down there. That's the hardest
23 place. The wind blows off of "C" Hill. I mean the
24 dust is kicked up clean down to Benny Goodman Park.
25 If you're going to clean up the
MR. COLEMAN: That's why that's not
Page 62
l
2 included. But Julie's correct. We will look at it.
3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you look
4 behind Nazer's in that gulch, when they tore down
5 the beryllium plant, that's where they dumped the
6 garbage was in that gulch there. That's where all
7 the old bricks and beryllium from the beryllium
8 plant is buried in that gulch.
9 MS. DALSOGLIO: We've identified that,
10 we know that that material was there. We've
ll identified it. We're looking at whether or not we
12 should go in and remove that material or just leave
13 it alone or whatever. Those kinds of decisions,
14 again, are being addressed under this other project.
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What about
16 Nazer's? Is there any cleanup for around Nazer's?
17 I would like to know what they are going to do with
18 the foundry and stuff. Are you guys going to clean
19 up around the foundry? That's another area. The
20 foundry has been there a hundred years. You look
21 behind the foundry, there's a dump, waste dump
22 behind there where they dumped everything, I mean
23 everything in there.
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's not on
25 there because it was at one time county property
Page 64
l residential areas, you've got to clean up the front
2 of "C" Hill, AFFCO, foundry, and Nazer's. You've
3 got to do all that. Why clean up the yards when
4 you're going to leave that? That's one of the
5 biggest — that pollution, I'd say, did not come
6 from the Smelter. It came from up there on "C" Hill
7 and from the foundry.
8 MR. COLEMAN: We're not saying we're
9 not going to address these areas; just not under
10 this particular project. As Julie was saying, those
11 areas will be evaluated and we will look at just the
12 thing you're talking about. Do they present a risk
13 to the community? Is there a pathway for dust and
14 surface runoff and all those things? Those things,
15 that's exactly what Julie's working on.
16 MS. DALSOGLIO: We agree. EPA has the
17 same concerns that if we clean up an area or apply a
18 remedy, we don't want something uphill to
19 recontaminate something that we've already cleaned
20 up below. That makes absolutely no sense. So we
21 agree with that statement. That's part of what we
22 want to make sure that we wrap up in this last
23 decision.
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Like John says,
25 why isn't the front of "C" Hill being considered?
Page 61 - Page 64
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page
FORMAL
JULY 18, 1996
Page 65
1 Why has it been passed over?
2 MR. COLEMAN: It hasn't been. That's
3 what I'm trying to say. It has not been passed
4 over. It'spart of the ongoing project.
5 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The County owns
6 it.
7 MR. COLEMAN: That doesn't matter. I
8 mean ARCO's property, the County's property,
9 whatever, those properties that are still out there
0 that have contamination, we're still evaluating.
1 We're not done here. This isn't the end of the
2 project area. We're just dealing with a portion of
3 it.
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will you send
15 out the County to test their own land?
16 MR. COLEMAN: Sure.
17 MS. DALSOGLIO: Actually, we've
18 collected soil samples from those areas. They have
19 been collected by efforts that ARCO has done of the
20 site, they've been collected for the US Department
21 of Justice in another program, there's also been
22 soil samples collected in that area for the State's
23 Natural Resource Damage Assessment Program. We have
24 looked at all of that data. That's what created the
25 map on your far left side that shows the elevated
Page 67
1 comment. I really can't respond to a question
2 during this period. It's really your opportunity to
3 say: I support the remedy; I don't like the remedy;
4 you should do this, or whatever. You can be as
5 brief as you want.
6 I think there's a small enough crowd, I
7 won't limit anybody on time. We can just proceed
8 that way. If there is no interest and people would
9 rather write, that's fine, too. You don't have to
10 come up. But here's your opportunity to do so.
11 I guess we'll let Sandy start it off
12 here.
13 MS. STASH: Maybe I can answer
14 questions and make a comment at the same time.
15 For the record, my name is Sandy Stash.
16 I'm the Senior Manager for ARCO, and hopefully
17 actually answer some of the questions folks had.
18 We have given some thought to how this
19 whole thing can be implemented. I guess before I
20 start there, an important thing, and I think Charlie
21 said it and if I can restate it, I know for a long
22 time in this community it was a real concern that
23 the community was at risk. I think anybody who has
24 been here for a long time probably remembers times
25 in school where various times they came through and
Page 66
l concentrations of arsenic and that's why you see the
2 broader areas that we investigated. So, no, the
3 County has not gone out and sampled their own
4 property. That area has been sampled by three
5 independent sources.
6 MR. COLEMAN: We can continue this
7 discussion. I guess in the essence of time and
8 wanting to give people an opportunity to get on the
9 record for the public comment, I would like to try
10 to switch into that gear. And you guys have an
11 opportunity to come in and comment on that. I would
12 be happy to come back and discuss this. I don't
13 want to lose everybody here before they've had a
14 chance to formally do that.
15 I guess I'll be available after this
16 next portion, which is anybody that wants to come up
17 and formally say anything, you're for it, against
18 it, whatever, here's your opportunity to do that.
19 Then if anybody has any additional questions, Julie
20 and I and Andy or anybody else are willing to stay
21 afterwards and discuss any of these with any of you.
22 Maybe the best way to do that is have
23 folks that are interested in making public comments,
24 probably a good, clear way, if you wanted to come
25 right up here, state your name and if you have a
Page 68
l sampled kids for arsenic and everything else. I
2 think the real good news out of this whole thing is
3 that this community is not at risk. And I think
4 that's a very clear statement in some of the things
5 that Charlie said.
6 I think additionally, since this work
7 has limited this down to basically about a 14-block
8 area, that as near as I can tell, about four to six
9 of them were the park or non-residential, that we've
10 really got a very small focused area that we need to
11 be concerned about. That's important for anyone who
12 ever has tried to sell a house here because that
13 means there's 95 percent of the community that
14 basically does not need to worry about this issue in
15 that regard.
16 Charlie said something else, too, that
17 I guess I wanted to reclarify because we are the
18 ones that actually did the sampling. With the
19 exception of Teresa Ann Terrace, which had some old
20 deposits from the Old Works that came from the
21 smelters in the form of tailings, we did not see any
22 elevated level of arsenic below the two-inch level.
23 So if you live in an area that is in that focus area
24 subject to sampling, I would be extremely surprised
25 in out of just thousands and thousands of samples
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Page 65 - Page 68
-------
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Multi-Page
TM
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Page 69
l that were taken, that you would see anything below
2 the two-inch level.
That differs a lot from Butte because
4 in Butte, because everything was built on mining
5 waste, you see elevated levels at deeper depths.
6 Here because it was from the stack, it's very, very
7 shallow. So I think that's something that people
8 need to take note of.
Finally, Charlie did the best job I've
0 heard in a long time explaining kriging, but what
l people need to realize, if you live in that area, it
2 doesn't mean you have high soil levels, it means you
3 have a chance of having high soil levels. That's
4 why some of the sampling is as important as it is.
5 If our experience in Butte proves true - and when I
6 say "our", actually the city of Butte, community of
7 Butte - when they went back after the initial
8 sampling and looked, I believe they expected about
9 100 yards that might have elevated lead. And
20 indeed, what they found so far I think is 5. They
21 are not done yet. But you need to understand a
22 little bit the nature of statistics.
23 Charlie used the word "we" a lot. I
24 guess if I could just briefly outline how we see
25 this cleanup remedy getting done, we do, despite the
Page 71
l whatever.
2 And the key elements and the elements
3 that we would be willing to fund with the County are
4 basically education, the sampling. And that gets to
5 your question about how much do samples cost. We
6 would expect to provide money to the County such
7 that they can go out and take some samples and then
8 get back to you without us ever being involved.
9 Again, we feel they're in a much better position to
10 do that. Clearly, we will give them the resources
11 to do that and finally give them the resources for
12 any sodding or anything that would need to be done
13 in bare areas that might have elevated levels in
14 those focus areas.
15 They have a very effective program in
16 place. I guess despite your concern about permits,
17 the development permit part actually doesn't cost
18 anything. I think you do pay for building permits
19 here, but the thought is that if you live in the
20 focus area east of town, you've got a bald spot,
21 you've got a question, you have a place to call.
22 You don't have to pay to call that place and
23 somebody there in the planning or health department
24 in county government, they would come out, they'd
25 take the sample, they'd get back to you. If it
Page 70
l comments from the back, see this as the very best
2 way to do this as a county-driven program.
3 We're into the Butte program about two
4 years now and I guarantee you a local government
5 does a lot better job with programs, community
6 protection programs and whatever, than a large oil
7 company can do or the Federal Government can do. In
8 that regard, we've had some initial discussions with
9 the County and expect that how this would be
10 structured is that it would be county driven and
11 directed. As the Local Health Department, the local
12 agency, they are in the very best position to do, I
13 believe, all of the work associated with this
14 remedy. That's indeed what's been done in Butte and
15 it's very effective.
16 Secondly, the reason that the Butte
17 Lead Program has been successful is it's landowner
18 directed. It isn't something that somebody from the
19 outside, a federal agency or company or whatever, is
20 directing the landowner. We would view this as
21 something that the landowner very much would have
22 the prerogative to have a place in the county they
23 could call if they have a question and feel that
24 they may have a concern about a bald spot in their
25 area, should they live in the focus area in town or
Page 72
l looks like an issue, they could provide you with sod
2 and technical advice or whatever that needs to be
3 done, if there's dirt work. So that's basically how
4 we see the thing being structured.
5 I guess the reason I feel so strongly
6 about it - and encourage anybody that has questions
7 to talk to a guy named John Mike Downey in Butte who
8 runs the Lead Prevention Program over there. I know
9 that it's been noted as a real national model. In
10 fact, Cameron Buhl who was here and may have left —
11 MR. BUHL: I'm still here.
12 MS. STASH: - is somebody who could
13 also, I think, give some description of that.
14 How we would see this happening, we've
15 made some progress towards this already, is we will
16 provide funding to the County for at least two
17 additional positions, one being an individual to run
18 this program. That would be both the permit program
19 as well as this education outreach.
20 Secondly, a person that would run
21 rather sophisticated piece of equipment, it's
22 mapping equipment, geographic information system,
23 why that's important, something Charlie said, which
24 is it's a way to track so that when you go to sell
25 your home, there is some kind of concern, there's a
Page 69 - Page 72
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page1
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Page 73
1 tracking that your property has been checked or that
2 your property isn't in an area of concern.
Right now there's a little bit of a
4 black cloud over a good part of the town because of
5 the concern over Superfund. So I think we feel that
6 the mapping system is a way to help with that to a
7 great degree.
Those two positions as well as some
9 additional funding for sampling comes to the tune of
0 about an additional 150,000 a year, in addition to
1 the 100,000 that we're already providing. If you
2 notice in the proposed plan, most of the cost
3 associated with the remedy that EPA has proposed is
4 for this program. Again, we have a choice. We can
5 try to do it under EPA order or we can accept the
6 EPA order and then empower the local community to do
7 that.
8 Again, despite those earlier comments
9 on fraud and everything, I think most of the people
:o would feel that the local government is the very
21 best place to put that kind of program.
22 On the railroad beds -1 see Bill
23 McCarthy here - we actually haven't had a chance to
24 visit about this, but how we would envision that
25 being done, because that is an active railroad that
Page 75
l MR.COLEMAN: Thank you. Next? Don't
2 be shy.
3 MR. MCCARTHY: Can I make an informal
4 comment, Charlie, and a written —
5 MR. COLEMAN: You can do it verbally
6 and still do writing, that'snot a problem. You get
7 more chances than one.
8 MR. MCCARTHY: I'm Bill McCarthy. I'm
9 with the railroad in town. I think our initial view
10 on the proposed alternative for the railroad beds is
11 basically acceptable. We reserve the right to
12 comment and maybe suggest some ideas and bring up
13 some concerns that may not be readily noticeable,
14 but I think it's headed in the right direction. We
15 would like to be part of the work plan and get, you
16 know, tell our ideas on how to maybe improve the
17 remedy. But basically, I think it's headed in the
18 right direction. Like I say, I will probably make a
19 more formal comment in writing just to go on the
20 record formally.
21 MR. COLEMAN: Thanks, Bill.
22 ELLEN TOCHER: I'm Ellen Tocher and I
23 live in the focused area right probably in the
24 middle of it. When I got the proposed plan and seen
25 that we were right in the middle of this focus, I
Page 74
l Bill McCarthy and his company make their living off
2 of, is that would be something very much that we
3 would look to work with the railroad on. It's a
4 business associated with re-ballasting certain parts
5 of the railroad bed and you're probably in the best
6 position do that. We would envision some sort of a
7 discussion settlement with the railroad on just how
8 that would be done.
9 Anyway, in our estimation, this is
10 probably about a two- to three-year program that
11 would need to be funded, perhaps with a couple years
12 after that to make sure that people continue to get
13 information. It would be integrated into the
14 existing Development Permit System. Again, that is
15 allowing for some of the development that you're
16 seeing happening at Teresa Ann Terrace right now
17 around the golf course.
18 I think if structured this way, it's a
19 very workable remedy. I think it can stand to be
20 kind of a national model, very much like the lead
21 program in Butte as far as ways to deal with these
22 issues.
23 And I'm like Charlie, I'll be happy to
24 answer questions after the meeting if anybody has
25 any. Thanks.
Page 76
l kind of thought, Oh, my God. But you relieved my
2 fears tonight to know that we might not have this
3 arsenic in our yard or that we were just picked out
4 of the whole city.
5 MR. COLEMAN: Thank you for your
6 comment. Anybody else?
7 MR. SEVORES: Can I do it from here -
8 MR.COLEMAN: It works better if you
9 could at least speak loud enough so Candi can get
10 you on the record. That's the main thing. It helps
11 her to see you speak.
12 MR. SEVORES: My name is John Sevores.
13 I'm a resident of Deer Lodge County and I would like
14 to make a request of Sandy Stash and Atlantic
15 Richfield. And that is that in the Copper Village
16 Art Museum, they have a copy of the Bliss case which
17 involves The Anaconda Company, Standard Oil. It's
18 15 volumes. It's a reference that tells the whole
19 history of this valley, about what happened when the
20 industrialists beat the farmers to death.
21 However, it would take me years to go
22 down and read it, half-an-hour - 45 minutes a day.
23 Is there any way possible that Atlantic Richfield
24 could provide a reading copy at the Hearst free
25 library of the Bliss case so that people that wonder
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Page 73 - Page 76
-------
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
Multi-Page
TM
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Page 77
l what is happening with this valley, what is the
2 history of this valley, and why it is the way it is
3 could have a reading copy to research the early
4 1990s when the same thing happened before. And that
5 was basically The Anaconda Company bought this
6 valley.
7 MS. STASH: You're asking me now about
8 something that happened in 1910?
9 MR. SEVORES: No, I'm talking about the
0 Bliss case which is an important document in
1 Anaconda's history.
2 MS. STASH: I'd be happy to talk to you
3 after the meeting.
4 MR. SEVORES: But it would be nice for
.5 research if you could actually read a copy of the
6 case rather than it being locked up at someplace
7 where it really isn't accessible to the amount of
8 time that it would take to research. That's all.
9 MR.COLEMAN: Okay. We had a request
20 there.
21 Any other comments? Is there anything
22 you want to share? Going once, going twice, okay.
23 Like I said, it doesn't prevent anybody from still
24 and we would strongly encourage any written comments
25 on the proposed plan.
CERTIFICATE
Page 79
STATE OF MONTANA
: a.
County of Silver Bow )
I, Candi Nordhagen, Registered Professional
Reporter and Notary Public in and for the County of
Silver Bow, State of Montana, do hereby certify:
That the public hearing was taken before me at
the time and place herein named; that the hearing
was reported by me in machine shorthand and later
transcribed by computer, and that the foregoing
seventy-eight (78) pages contain a true record of
the proceedings, all done to the best of my skill
and ability.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my notarial seal this.'Tf^A day of
.. . i co
NotaryPuBta. ••---•
Montana residing at Butte,
Montana. My commission
(NOTARIAL SEAL) expires September 15,1995.
Page 78
l There is an address, I think, in the
2 hand-out package on the last sheet, there is an
3 address to send the comments to myself and all
4 comments will be responded to one way or another.
5 Again, on behalf of the EPA, we would
6 like to thank you folks for taking time out of your
7 summer evening to come and listen to our spiel. We
8 hope we are headed in the right direction with this
9 community and I guess we look forward to the next
10 step of this process to actually implement these
11 programs so that it starts to work for you. Thanks
12 again for coming.
13
14 * * * * *
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 77 - Page 79
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page"
$1,000-ball
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
-$-
il,000[i] 50:3
;iOO[i] 52:3
125 [ij 52:3
iSOO [1] 50:3
-1-
1 [5] 52:13,22 53:1,14,18
1,000 [1] 21:4
10 [2] 52:1661:8
10,000 [4] 52:13,16,16
52:23
100 [3] 16:1261:769:19
100,000 [3] 53:1,13
73:11
110[i] 12:16
118[1] 6:20
119[i] 12:3
12,500 m 53:15,19
14-block[i] 68:7
140 [2] 11:2512:7
5 [3] 43:2276:1879:22
50,000 [1] 73:10
16[i] 16:9
170[i] 12:15
18 [7] 1:152:2,626:9,10
26:11,14
l9-whatever[i] 30:23
1910[i] 77:8
1 980 [i] 43:22
1990S[1] 77:4
1993[il 79:19
1995(1] 79:22
1996 [3] 1:152:2,6
-2-
20 [1] 27:8
25 [1] 13:7
250 [40] 16:14,15,1917:3
17:7,20 18:18 19:3,15
20:1523:2224:5,11,13
24:2325:10,11,12,17,24
26:1,24 27:16 28:5,24
29:10 33:23 36:1 39:17
52:1453:4,4,10,10,11,16
58:4,10,14 60:2
-3-
3[i] 16:7
30 [3] 44:7 45:5 53:1
300 [2] 16:852:13
-4-
4 [2] 23:2452:22
4,000 [1] 21:1
45 [1] 76:22
-5-
5[i] 69:20
50 [1] 16:11
563-5538 m 6:23
-6-
6[i] 16:9
-7-
78 [1] 79:14
7th [1] 6:20
—8—
8 [5] 52:15,16,16,2353:13
8.4 [1] 53:3
-9-
9[i) 37:3
95 [1] 68:13
9th [i] 3:25
-A-
abandoned [i] 31:15
abatement [i] 27:24
ability [i] 79:16
able [9] 5:1511:230:15
30:2131:432:1435:8
46:24 58:25
above [6] 18:1827:16
28:5 53:9 58:4 60:1
absolutely [i] 64:20
absorbed [i] 15:3
accept [i] 73:15
acceptable [2] 16:6
75:11
acceptance [i] 23:6
access [3] 24:932:21,24
accessible [i] 77:17
accomplish [3] 2:22
20:18 22:4
account [2] 31:1743:15
accurate [i] 18:21
acquired [i] 56:24
acquiring [i] 56:25
act[ij 7:2
action [18] 16:3,16,20,25
17:21 19:3,14 20:16 22:7
22:9,17,22,24 33:23 35:4
49:19 60:4,18
actions [i] 24:14
active [i] 73:25
activities p] 9:14 14:24
26:1127:241:6
activity [3] 27:15,1934:7
actual [13] 10:25 11:4,12
11:18 14:16 15:9,9,10
27:15 28:12 33:25 52:2
54:7
add[i] 57:25
addition [8] 4:75:179:2
14:1830:1132:652:19
73:10
additional [9] 33:1
41:1452:18,2361:12
66:19 72:17 73:9,10
additionally [i] 68:6
address [17] 7:16 8:24
21:16,21 24:4,17,21,23
25:5,7 28:1,6 56:16 63:15
64:9 78:1,3
addressed [6] 5:427:5
40:13 61:2 62:14 63:16
addresses [i] 8:21
addressing is] 4:25 25:9
25:10 28:23 46:7
adjacent [s] 8:2121:19
32:9,10,10
adjustments [i] 57:24
advantage [4] 49:10,12
49:15,18
advice [i] 72:2
aerial [i] 20:12
AFFCO[4] 44:6,845:12
64:2
affected [i] 56:20
affixed [i] 79:18
afterwards [i] 66:21
again [52] 4:135:146:7
8:159:511:1012:2313:6
14:19 16:25 17:8,19 18:19
19:2 22:24 26:23 28:7,9
28:11,1229:730:2533:2
33:535:2138:1640:11
41:4,9,10,21 42:3,12
43:14 50:6,13,19,21 54:8
56:1,16 57:13,24 58:18
61:1062:1471:973:14
73:18 74:14 78:5,12
against [4] 4:21 23:2,8
66:17
agency [4] 4:175:16
70:12,19
agenda [i] 2:21
ago [2] 27:8 45:9
agree [2] 64:16,21
agreement [5] 55:3,8,9
55:10,16
agricultural [i] 17:13
airp] 43:17 45:15
ALDC[i) 6:19
Alder [i] 40:10
alleviates [i] 29:24
alley [4] 40:19,19,2241:7
alleys [3] 40:3,1141:17
alleyways [i] 32:10
allow [3] 33:1035:24
57:6
allowed [2] 11:427:3
allowing [2] 46:774:15
allows [3] 36:949:7,18
almost [i] 10:10
alone [2] 53:11 62:13
along [2] 7:1820:23
alternative [6] 3:74:6
4:2123:21,2475:10
alternatives [io] 4:4,23
5:7 7:15 22:15,16,23 23:2
23:13,14
always [7] 34:23 35:3,17
37:9,13 44:18 46:15
amount [i] 77:17
Anaconda [33] 1:5,13
1:14 2:1,2,5,6 5:22,23
6:13 7:24 8:19 9:8 10:21
13:22 14:12 15:15 16:4
16:2418:2519:4,1821:15
24:8 26:17 44:5,7 45:7
56:19 57:20 63:21 76:17
77:5
Anaconda* S[i] 77:11
Anaconda-Opportunity
[i] 8:5
analysis [i] 43:7
analyze [i] 39:18
Andy [4] 6:245:14,16
66:20
Ann [5] 9:1519:11,15
68:19 74:16
answer [ii] 3:4,55:18
6:9,18 7:3 35:3 44:24
67:13,17 74:24
answered [i] 7:20
anticipated [i] 59:14
anybody's [i] 56:7
anyway p] 40:1557:17
74:9
apologize [i] 53:20
apply [2] 60:1264:17
appreciate [i] 2:12
approach [i] 28:9
appropriate [3] 29:8
45:17 48:22
approximate [2] 13:14
17:9
ARCOpi] 14:2031:3
32:3 37:20 38:5,10,20
41:15 54:3,13 55:2,4,9,9
55:15 56:9,12,25 57:5
65:1967:16
ARCO'sp] 38:2244:18
65:8
area [M] 8:1011:3,613:8
13:14,17 15:20 17:16,18
18:14,16 19:7,16,17,19
19:21 20:24 21:3,10,16
24:10 25:9,18 27:2,4,6
28:1929:231:2133:11
35:15 39:3 40:10 53:23
55:20 56:19 57:16,22,25
58:1659:7,10,20,23,25
60:4,5,14 61:25 62:19
64:17 65:12,22 66:4 68:8
68:10,23,2369:1170:25
70:25 71:20 73:2 75:23
areas [95] 8:18,25,259:14
9:16,1911:17,21 13:24
13:24 15:22 17:2,4,5.7.10
17:12,14,17,20 18:11,13
18:15,17,23 19:1.11,19
19:23 20:4,14 21:18.19
21:2024:5,6,9,17,17,19
24:21 25:8,10,16,23 26:12
26:15,19 27:5 28:3.6,7,23
28:25 29:2,3 32:7,9,1 1.23
32:25 35:5 36:10 40:13
40:13,1441:7,842:18.21
42:21,2243:7,1144:22
56:22 57:2,12,16 58:3,12
58:17,21,22,23,24 60:9
61:1064:1,9,1165:18
66:2 71:13,14
arrangement pi 55:2
55:19
arrangements [2] 38:12
38:17
arriving [i] 4:5
Arrowhead [i] 6:15
arsenic [IT] 11:25 12:9
12:10,13 14:4,10,13 15:1
15:2 16:3 21:2 22:21
23:23 66:1 68:1,22 76:3
Art[i] 76:16
aspect [1] 36:20
aspects [i] 31:25
Aspen [2] 17:1746:19
assessment m 9:22,24
15:7,8,11,1965:23
assistance [i] 6:14
associated [3] 70:13
73:13 74:4
assuming [i] 37:18
assumption [3] 57:12
59:13,16
assurance [i] 30:20
assure [i] 61:13
Atlantic [2] 76:14,23
August [2] 3:2537:3
availability [2] 15:1,10
available [8] 3:4,225:18
5:20 6:17,25 44:19 66:15
avenue [i] 54:21
average P] 10:7 16:22
16:23,24 21:2
aware [i] 26:17
away[i] 34:13
-B-
B[i] 1:3
background [2] 16:8,11
backhoep] 39:5
backwards [i] 53:20
backyard [i] 25:15
bad [2] 13:544:11
balance [4] 33:2154:24
55:1,11
balances [i] 55:22
bald [2] 70:2471:20
ball[i] 37:20
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Index Page 1
-------
bare - copies
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
Multi-Page
TM
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
>are[i] 71:13
>arren[3] 24:17,1941:7
>amer[2] 24:1 32:14
>arriers[i] 42:4
based [ii] 12:3 13:6 16:8
16:9 17:19 18:13 19:2
20:14 23:10 26:2 28:12
>asic[i] 14:8
>asiS[2] 10:1928:8
>eat[i] 76:20
)ecame[i] 21:9
>ecome[i] 51:12
>ecomes[i] 47:15
bed [13] 21:6,9,14,21
22:23,2523:1,1331:14
31:18,1932:1774:5
beds [19] 9:720:2121:3
21:2522:11,14,1631:9
31:10,12,24 32:12,21 33:2
33:6 34:5,6 73:22 75:10
>ehalf [i] 78:5
behind [4] 59:962:4,21
62:22
lelief [i] 26:10
below [ii] 12:1615:16
16:2518:1826:2429:10
30:24 53:10 64:20 68:22
69:1
>enefit[2] 31:435:25
>enefits[i] 49:25
Jenny [2] 19:863:24
>eryllium[3] 62:5,7,7
best [13] 11:720:1423:12
45:3 57:12 60:9 66:22
69:9 70:1,12 73:21 74:5
79:15
betterm 4:23 7:13 30:9
31:6 70:5 71:9 76:8
>etween[i4] 11:12,15
16:7 17:23 19:21 38:9,17
40:1043:744:2,1354:3
55:16 58:22
jeyond[2] 26:1051:1
jias [i] 20:7
biased [i] 20:5
licrrii S-4 "\7-in SR-fi
Jig lyj o.*t j i.i\j jo.o
biggestp] 49:11,15,25
55:13 64:5
L *1 A A r+
blke[i] 33:7
bill [5] 58:1573:2274:1
75:8,21
bio [2] 15:1,10
bit[ii] 3:37:13,1511:15
23:1831:643:1252:18
63:6 69:22 73:3
black[3] 44:1057:10
73:4
blank [i] 17:10
Bliss [3] 76:16,2577:10
blob[i] 60:13
block [i] 27:11
blocks [2] 19:6,12
)lood[l] 15:4
jlows[2] 63:22,23
)Oard[2] 49:4,7
}ody[2] 15:2,3
loom [2] 36:1542:17
jorderti] 19:8
jOttom[i] 32:5
3OUght[i] 77:5
boulevard [i] 20:5
boundaries [i] 47:10
joundsd] 11:10
Bow [3] 27:2379:4,8
break [i] 51:22
bricks [i] 62:7
brief [i] 67:5
briefly [3] 9:25 10:4
69:24
bring [io] 9:13,1612:21
16:1 26:23 34:21 36:7
39:5 63:12 75:12
broader [i] 66:2
broke [i] 63:19
brought [6] 2:23 18:9
25:1927:8,941:22
Buhl [2] 72:10,11
build [4] 47:349:1550:2
50:3
building [3] 6:21 50:2
71:18
built [3] 7:1746:1169:4
bunchp] 10:1756:11
burden [3] 29:1351:13
52:18
buried [i] 62:8
business [i] 74:4
butt[i] 59:9
Butte[ii] 69:3,4,15,16
69:17 70:3,14,16 72:7
74:21 79:21
Butte-Silverdj 27:23
buy [4] 34:24,2550:2
56:11
-c-
C[ii] 1:359:460:20,22
61:4 63:23 64:2,6,25 79:1
79:1
calculated [i] 15:14
Cameron [i] 72:10
cancer [5] 16:752:17,18
52:21,23
Candip] 76:979:6
cap [3] 32:23,23 34:9
capping [4] 22:24 26:22
31:24 32:6
card] 44:10
care [5] 50:24,2551:2,6,8
careful [i] 56:4
case [4] 76:16,2577:10
77:16
cases [6] 11:14,1826:20
32:1841:2151:3
category [i] 59:25
Cedard] 9:15
cell[i] 11:8
center [i] 31:22
centered [i] 9:19
certain [8] 19:2332:7,18
32:25 35:18 48:15 50:18
74:4
certify [i] 79:8
cetera [i] 34:18
chance [S] 13:224:20
66:14 69:13 73:23
chances [2] 11:1175:7
changed] 37:10
changes [i] 25:1
characterization [3]
9:20,21 14:2
characterized] 10:12
charged [i] 51:24
Charles m 1:182:6
Charlie [10] 2:1660:15
67:20 68:5,16 69:9,23
72:23 74:23 75:4
Charlie's [i] 60:8
chart [i] 52:13
cheap [i] 56:11
check [4] 54:2455:1,3,11
check-and-balance m
56:2
checked [i] 73:1
checks [i] 55:22
Chestnut [i] 40:10
children [4] 9:124:17
24:1833:11
choice [i] 73:14
choose [i] 12:16
choosing [i] 16:14
Chose [2] 22:4,24
Cincinnati [2] 14:442:9
city [2] 69:1676:4
clean [22] 18:923:21
25:19,25 26:9 39:21 41:23
44:22 45:20,25 56:12
58:11,11,15,2460:262:18
63:24,25 64:1,3,17
Cleaned [S] 30:1635:6
46:1 49:23 64:19
cleaning [2] 41:353:7
cleanup [io] 24:6,16
25:2327:129:1446:2
51:4 53:5 62:16 69:25
cleanups [i] 25:4
clear [5] 17:1846:1951:7
66:24 68:4
Clearly [i] 71:10
J L J "
closed] 16:12
Closed [i] 43:22
closure [4] 9:13,1634:21
36:8
cloud [i] 73:4
Coleman[69] 1:182:7
2:11,166:22,2412:1,10
12:13 18:8 23:20 38:3,7
38:22 39:7 40:4,7,12 41:1
41:21 42:3,8 43.-5!l8,21
44:12 45:13,21 46:4,9
47:7,2148:1449:1150:5
50:10 51:21 52:15 53:2,8
53:12,18 54:1,8,25 56:1
56:22 57:22 58:7 59:6,10
59:12,24 61:15,22 62:1
63:3,8 64:8 65:2,7,16 66:6
75:1,5,21 76:5,8 77:19
collect [2] 18:1243:6
collected [is] 10:6,10
11:1,11 12:3 15:5 16:10
16:18 17:19 18:21 20:2
26:2 28:13 43:9 65:18,19
65:20,22
Colorado [i] 15:4
colored [i] 60:25
combination [i] 33:9
coming [ii] 2:1220:11
43:17,24 45:22 53:21,25
58:14 60:17 61:13 78:12
comment [22] 3:10,23
3:24 4:14,16,19 5:6,10
37:3,948:11,12,16,17
66:9,1167:1,1475:4,12
75:19 76:6
comments [12] 5:2,12
5:13 37:4,10 66:23 70:1
73:18 77:21,24 78:3,4
commission [i] 79:22
commissioners [2] 47:9
AO *T
48:7
communities [7] 8:19
8:22,24 9:21 10:20 12:20
13:20
community [si] 1:52:1
2:18,20 3:20 6:4,14,21 7:7
7:218:179:6,811:18
13:23 14:7,10,17 16:7
18:2520:21 21:10,11,13
21:25 23:6 24:7 26:3 29:6
29:20,24 30:6,9,15 31:12
31:2033:334:22,2436:7
36:1842:1164:1367:22
67:23 68:3,13 69:16 70:5
73:16 78:9
company [5] 70:7,19
74:1 76:17 77:5
compared] 23:8
compared [i] 21:13
comparison [i] 53:15
compensated] 48:24
compilation [i] 10:5
compiled] 31:2
completed! 4:1
completed [i] 47:20
complex [i] 60:5
component [4] 28:17
29:18,1947:13
components [2] 47:22
47:23
composite [3] 39:15,16
39:17
composites [i] 42:17
computer [4] 10:15 13:7
19:25 79:13
concentrated [i] 26:4
concentrates [i] 21:7
concentration [9] 10:14
11:5,12,21,2212:523:23
26:6 30:15
concentrations [8] 11:2
13:13 16:23,24 17:10
22:21 29:10 66:1
concern [M] 15:17,21
19:1721:10,1624:2035:5
45:1567:2270:2471:16
72:25 73:2,5
concerned [i] 68:11
concerns [6] 7:16 27:4
28:236:1164:1775:13
conditions [2] 29:7 30:4
conduct [i] 15:6
conducted [4] 4:2 14:20
15:18 20:18
Confused [1] 59:20
connection [i] 14:10
conservative [i] 15:12
consider m 11:7 16:6
31:13,18,25 44:6,25
consideration [i] 42:14
considered [3] 4:542:20
64:25
consistently [i] 13:12
constraint [i] 48:11
construct [i] 31:11
constructed [2] 21:6
31:18
construction [5] 49:12
50:18 51:1,13 54:14
consulting [i] 54:15
contact [3] 22:6,1232:22
contain [i] 79:14
contained [i] 4:18
contaminants [3] 27:7
27:13 33:12
contaminated [4] 22:12
27:9,10 30:20
contamination [3]
44:14 58:19 65:10
contingency [i] 49:1
continue [5] 18:1228:24
51:10 66:6 74:12
continuing [i] 28:22
contract [i] 54:15
contributed [i] 44:15
control [2] 47:1650:11
controls [i] 22:18
coordinate [2] 34:17
54:13
Copies [2] 4:7,12
Index Page 2
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
AINAUUN1JA UUMMUINll Y
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Mum-rage
copper - rainnom
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
Copper [i] 76:15
copy [5] 4:1076:16,24
77:3,15
coiner [i] 40:22
correct [2] 62:2 63:10
COSt [12] 23:634:1050:8
50:9,14,21,2351:2052:2
71:5,17 73:12
costing [i] 52:10
costs [5] 29:12,1634:3
50:25,25
country p] 14:1546:17
county [67] 3:127:20,21
28:2 29:2,12,13 30:14,21
31:2,7 32:2 35:1 1,22 36:9
36:1537:2141:1546:21
46:2347:9,9,1648:3,4,6
48:19 49:6 50:19,20,24
50:2451:11,1754:2,3,10
54:11,19,2055:2,5,8,9,17
56:24 57:7 58:1 59:1,22
61:4,5 62:25 63:1 65:5,15
66:3 70:9,10,22 71:3,6,24
72:16 76:13 79:4,7
County's [7] 28:2046:6
49:16 52:6 56:20 59:18
65:8
county-driven [i] 70:2
couple [3] 26:536:12
74:11
course [4] 8:10 10:24
55:21 74:17
courthouse p] 3:1 4:13
COVerp] 8:14,1531:11
crash [i] 10:23
crashed [i] 59:4
create [2] 15:2532:14
created [2] 18:1065:24
Creek [5] 17:18,18,23,23
46:19
criteria [2] 23:233:22
criticism [i] 4:21
crowd [2] 7:967:6
curbing [i] 32:15
current [4] 23:2224:24
45:1 46:10
CUt[ij 26:13
-D-
DalSagliom 5:21
DALSOGLIOw 60:3
60:23 61:9 62:9 64:16
65:17
Damage [i] 65:23
data pi] 10:6,9,11,14,25
10:25 11:5,11,1812:4,4
12:24 15:5 16:10,17 17:19
18:13,20 19:24 20:2,4
26:2 27:15 28:13 40:17
42:11,22,2343:6,965:24
database [2] 30:12,21
date [3] 26:327:2263:16
deal [9] 9:4,8 10:228:18
36:10,10 37:12 42:4 74:21
dealing [S] 28:1746:25
50:12 63:9 65:12
deals [7] 8:2,3,7,18 9:7
48:2 63:17
dealt [2] 9:1428:19
death [i] 76:20
decision [io] 3:11 5:5,7
37:16,17 38:22 46:6 60:6
61:1264:23
decisions [3] 42:23
46:21 62:13
dedicated [i] 17:12
deed[i] 57:1
deeper [i] 69:5
Deerp] 46:676:13
definitely [i] 7:5
degree [2] 48:1573:7
deleted [i] 19:18
demonstrate [i] 36:1
department [3] 65:20
70:11 71:23
dependent [i] 20:1
deposited [i] 20:12
deposits [1] 68:20
depth [i] 25:25
depths [i] 69:5
describing [i] 59:21
description [i] 72:13
design [2] 31:2337:23
designs [i] 37:24
despite [3] 69:2571:16
73:18
destroyed [i] 18:10
detail [i] 54:2
details [i] 39:8
determine [3] 33:454:9
58:4
develop [6] 29:1931:6
37:7 41:10 48:19 57:13
developable [2] 36:23
57:3
developer [i] 56:10
developing [i] 57:4
development [25] 28:18
28:20,22,25 29:1,4,16
36:2046:1047:11,14,23
AO C Af\ 1 1 CA. 11 C1>C 11
48:5 49:13 50:12 51:5,12
57:2,14,15 58:1 59:14
71:17 74:14,15
diagram [i] 16:4
diagrams [i] 33:15
Hies ni 25-2
UAWu |_1J ftjfitf
difference [2] 43:10
SH-'57
JO.Z^
differences [i] 44:1
different [6] 4:4,24
12:22,25 18:23 43:14
differs [2] 15:869:3
dig[i] 25:20
digging [i] 26:12
digS[i] 36:14
directed [2] 70:11,18
directing [i] 70:20
direction [4] 13:1075:14
75:18 78:8
dirt [4] 41:18,19,2372:3
dlSCUSS [5] 2:19 10:4
33:17 66:12,21
discussion [2] 66:774:7
discussions [i] 70:8
disruptive [i] 34:7
disseminates [i] 29:21
distinguish [i] 44:16
distinguished [i] 44:13
districts [2] 29:447:10
document [3] 3:11 37:17
77:10
documents [i] 37:6
doesn't [9] 7:12 13:4
24:10 25:20 55:13 65:7
69:12 71:17 77:23
dog[i] 36:14
dogS[i] 26:12
dollars [i] 52:5
Don [2] 6:15,16
done [20] 15:4 16:18
36:2137:1239:1643:6
49:2555:5,13,1565:11
65:19 69:21,25 70:14
71:12 72:3 73:25 74:8
79:15
door [6] 53:24,24,25,25
54:4,4
down [22] 5:26:1815:4
16:924:2531:1636:12
38:1441:1844:5,645:4
46:3,1151:13,2356:7
62:4 63:22,24 68:7 76:22
Downey [i] 72:7
DPS [2] 29:6,12
drag [2] 2:1417:24
drain [2] 42:743:3
drainage [3] 17:1820:10
32:18
drawing [2] 49:4,7
drip [7] 42:10,12,20 43:2
43:8,11,12
drive [i] 41:18
driven [i] 70:10
driveways [i] 41:7
dump [2] 62:21,21
dumped [2] 62:5,22
during [2] 8:1067:2
dust [2] 63:2464:13
-E-
E[3] 1:379:1,1
early [i] 77:3
east [7] 6:2019:621:14
44:5 45:7 63:21 71:20
eastern [4] 13:23 19:5
26:1732:11
easym 5:14
educated [i] 46:21
educational 71:472:19
educational [2] 22:19
29:19
effect [2] 43:2447:15
effective [2] 70:1571:15
effectiveness [3] 23:5
23:6 34:10
efforts [4] 24:16 25:23
36:7 65:19
either [5] 5:218:1832:14
37:4 56:14
electric [i] 45:8
elements p] 71:2,2
elevated [is] 13:13,17
13:22 14:9 15:23,24 16:2
17:9 25:21 26:6 39:20
61:16,17 65:25 68:22 69:5
69:1971:13
elevations [2] 21:22
26:4
Ellen [2] 75:22,22
emissions p] 20:12 59:3
emphasize [i] 28:12
emphasizing [i] 17:1
empower [i] 73:16
encourage [3] 51:1072:6
77:24
end [11] 16:2,1621:15
34:15 37:16 44:5 45:7,15
55:763:21 65:11
ended [2] 13:24 16:14
engineer [i] 53:20
engineered [i] 31:11
ensure [i] 55:4
entirep] 8:821:1448:2
environment [i] 30:10
environmental [2] 23:4
45:1
envision p] 46:1473:24
74:6
envisioning [i] 27:25
EPA [18] 1:182:7,175:21
6:14 15:6 16:19 23:3
28:14 36:4 38:4,20 55:12
64:1673:13,15,1678:5
EPA'S[5] 15:11,1816:5
33:21 44:17
equal [i] 34:9
equipment [2] 72:21,22
erode [i] 21:20
eroded [i] 27:13
erosion [i] 22:13
especially [4] 24:1832:7
46:17,18
essence m fifi-7
Ww3w*JWW ^1 J UU> /
essentially [4] 22:4,20
32:15 46:22
establish [2] 16:2047:10
established [i] 35:4 :
estimate [5] 10:13 11:2
11:5,712:5
estimates [i] 58:10
estimating [2] 11:20
61:17
estimation [8] ll:ll
12:2318:1919:221:4
C*T A 1 T 1 A ft
57:4,17 74:9
estimations [i] 15:13
et[i] 34:18
evaluate pi 18:1337:4
evaluated [5] 8:10 14:6
23:263:1164:11
evaluating [i] 65:10
evaluation [3] 4:420:20
23:10
evening [2] 2:1378:7
everybody rn 4:823:14
30:8 55:23,25 56:17 66:13
everywhere [i] 16:12
eves[i] 42:7
exactly [4] 41:142:15
54:5 64:15
example [2] 10:23 12:2
exceed [14] 12:15 17:2,7
17:21 19:2 20:15 22:7,22
23:2224:11,1325:24
58:10,14
exceeded p] 21:322:9
exceeds [i] 26:1
except [i] 50:22
exception [i] 68:19
excess [2] 16:6 52:17
excluded p] 17:1058:12
excludes [i] 29:1
existing [2] 31:1374:14
expect p] 50:870:971:6
expected [i] 69:18
experience [i] 69:15
expires [i] 79:22
explain p] 7:1352:17
explaining [i] 69:10
exposed [2] 25:231:11
exposure rn 14:5,11,13
14:17 24:21 25:3 39:10
expressed [i] 54:20
extensive [i] 14:2
extremely [i] 68:24
-F-
F[i] 79:1
fact [3] 3:21 14:1272:10
fail rzi 49-3 3
ACUJi l_*J ~7.J)J
failed [1] 48:24
fair [6] 4:1948:1756:5,6
56:9,17
fairly [5] 15:2021:5
28:1429:23 43:11
Fairmont p] 8:20 13:21
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Index Page 3
-------
fall-Julie's
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
Multi-Page""
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
fall [3] 11:12 16:2559:25
'alls [2] 29:1442:3
amities [i] 14:6
ar[5) 19:650:565:25
69:20 74:21
aimers [i] 76:20
ast[ij 37:11
ears [2] 29:2476:2
feasibility [3] 4:320:17
22:2
easiblem 26:24
federal [2] 70:7,19
eelsm 16:19
encing[i] 33:1
ew[2] 12:23 19:1
ewer [i] 34: n
ibet[i] 38:14
fifty [ij 53:8
figure [5] 41:1553:6,7
53:16 54:1
ill[i] 58:20
final [5] 3:115:635:4
60:5,18
inalizep] 37:5,15
inallyp] 69:971:11
ineii] 67:9
turn [2] 54:15,15
first [6] 24:17,21 37:19
42:2,5 55:14
ive [2] 26:7 45:9
lat[i] 31:23
flexibility [«] 46:7,11
46:22,2447:3,18
focus [23] 17:1618:14,24
19:17,19 24:5,6,10 25:16
25:2227:2,629:1,340:13
40:14 47:25 58:23 68:23
70:25 71:14,20 75:25
focused [3] 42:10 68:10
75:23
focusing [i] 13:25
folks [8] 2:126:1212:21
27:3 44:19 66:23 67:17
78:6
Following [i] 2:9
Force [i] 56:7
foregoing [i] 79:13
Formm 68:21
formal [3] 2:43:1075:19
formally [5] 3:95:3
66:14,17 75:20
format [i] 28:4
forward [i] 78:9
found [2] 16:2369:20
foundry [7] 45:2562:18
62:19,20,21 64:2,7
foUT[7] 22:15,1623:12
26:7 42:17 45:8 68:8
fourth [i] 6:11
fraud [2] 56:1573:19
free [4] 6:5,87:1876:24
requent[i] 9:1
front [7] 25:14,2260:20
60:2261:464:1,25
idl[i] 2:21
'un[i] 33:7
und[i] 71:3
imdedm 74:11
unding[3] 52:772:16
73:9
iinny[i] 19:25
iirnacesm 45:8
future [9] 9:24,2417:6
25:3 28:18,23 31:13 49:22
60:11
-G-
G[i) 1:3
Galen [2] 8:2013:21
;ame[i] 4:19
garbage [i] 62:6
rardenp] 25:226:12
42:21
;ear[i] 66:10
jeez[4] 27:836:1448:16
C1 . 1 A
51:14
generally [14] 8:9,22
12:15 13:17 15:16,19
17:14 18:8 20:22,25 21:2
28:1343:10,11
geographic m 72:22
geographical [i] 30:12
jet-go [i] 63:6
gist[i] 23:8
given [i] 67:18
giving [2] 2:1258:15
glad[i] 63:12
go-between [i] 7:2
God[l] 76:1
goes[i] 39:9
golf [2] 55:20 74:17
gone [2] 61:966:3
good [11] 14:12,15 15:17
16:19 33:21 36:18,21 46:4
66:24 68:2 73:4
Goodman m 19:8 63:24
Goosetownri] 31:21
government [s] 48:13
70:4,7 71:24 73:20
grab[i] 6:9
grade HI 34:15
grant m 6:14
O* ••••» i.»j «•»
grass [i] 45:10
gravel [2] 24:1 41:22
gray-shaded [i] 56:19
great [2] 7:473:7
greater [7] 17:2024:23
25:9,11,12,1639:17
greatest [2] 24:20,20
green [i] 60:13
greW[l] 61:8
grid [3] 11:812:2,15
ground [3] 38:2043:3
59:18
groundwaterm 8:3
group [i] 6:15
grow [2] 18:1,6
guarantee [2] 48:21 70:4
guess [36] 7:9 11:16
23:10 28:14 32:4 34:19
35:16,17,23 36:5,25 44:18
44:24,2548:15,1849:11
50-11 52-17 18 53-12
J\J.Al J+ttLltLQ f)Jfl4m
55:12 57:3,9 58:17 59:13
59:1566:7,1567:11,19
68:1769:2471:1672:5
78:9
gulch [3] 62:4,6,8
guy[l] 72:7
guys [3] 3:962:1866:10
-H-
H[i] 1:3
half [2] 18:1,3
tialf-an-hour[i] 76:22
hammer [i] 55:13
handp] 7:1179:17
band-mouth [i] 14:24
hand-out [2] 5:1978:2
hands [i] 30:5
happening [4] 47:1
72:14 74:16 77:1
happy [3] 66:1274:23
77:12
hard [4] 2:1437:1143:18
45:21
hardest [i] 63:22
hauled [i] 43:20
hauling [i] 17:25
headed [3] 75:14,1778:8
health [4] 14:358:16
70:11 71:23
healthy [i] 24:24
hearp] 4:24 5:1 37:12
heard [i] 69:10
hearing [3] 2:579:10,11
Hearst[3] 2:254:12
76:24
height m 31:19
held[i] 2:5
hell[i] 41:19
help [4] 6:2530:342:23
73:6
helps [i] 76:10
hereby [i] 79:8
herein [i] 79:11
hereunto [i] 79:17
Hey [2] 36:449:22
high [8] 1:132:513:19
20:8 21:5 52:20 69:12,13
higher [2] 13:343:12
highest[2) 13:721:12
Hill [18] 8:613:1517:11
17:17 56:23 57:5 59:4,5
60:13,18,19,20,22 61:4
63:23 64:2,6,25
Hilleryp] 6:439:24
Hills [i] 46:19
hillside [i] 20:11
history [3] 76:1977:2,11
hitS[i] 43:3
hole[i] 36:14
home [5] 41:2042:2
50:13 51:13 72:25
Homes [i] 9:15
honest [2] 55:23,25
hope [3] 9:1336:1778:8
hopefully [4] 9:1628:1
*31 .0 £*7. 1 C.
33:9 67:16
hoping [i] 35:7
house [7] 30:19 34:25
35:2 40:21 42:7 45:6
68:12
human [i] 14:2
hundred [i] 62:20
hundreds [2] 14:621:1
-I-
idea[i] 4:25
ideas m 7V121fi
AUwUO |_*J ' J.1A,XU
identification [i] 9:22
identified [3] 35:462:9
62:11
ignored [i] 61:14
impacted [2] 19:12,13
impacts [2] 23:634:11
implement [i] 78:10
implementable m
34:12
implemented [i] 67:19
important [8] 3:1836:19
63:1367:2068:1169:14
72:23 77:10
imported [2] 9:958:20
impossible [i] 51:14
improve [i] 75:16
improvements [i]
37:13
in-place[i] 22:19
inches n 26:5,7,9,10,11
26:14 39:25
include [4] 3:1122:17
29:2 57:16
included [to] 17:1619:9
19:12 21:25 22:19 27:12
46:1 57:25 61:23 62:2
including [i] 8:3
inclusive [i] 57:16
increase [i] 22:8
indeed [2] 69:2070:14
independent [i] 66:5
indicate [i] 43:17
indicated [3] 15:16,19
27:22
indicative [i] 21:5
individual [12] 4:9
15:22,22,24 17:2 22:9
29:15,17 37:9 39:18 46:25
72:17
individually [i] 5:4
individuals [ii] 27:6
27:14 29:25 34:22 35:15
38:1050:2051:1154:18
56:6,8
industrialists [i] 76:20
industries [i] 45:16
industry [i] 45:2
influence [i] 63:7
informal [i] 75:3
information [28] 2:24
2353:44:2,185:156:8
6:17 7:1,6,14 8:14 10:4,8
10:13 23:16 29:21,23 30:8
30:12 31:2,4 35:21 45:23
54:1763:1372:2274:13
ingested [i] 14:23
ingestion[3] 14:22
15:10 22:6
inhalation [i] 22:6
initial [3] 69:1770:875:9
initiate m 27:19
initiating [i] 27:1
instance [i] 34:6
instances [i] 27:18
institutional [2] 22:18
47:15
integrated [i] 74:13
intended [i] 56:10
interactions [i] 38:9
interest [3] 27:2254:20-
67:8
interested [i] 66:23
intricate [i] 26:18
investigated [i] 66:2
investigation [3] 4:1
9:18 14:1
involved [4] 3:19 14:4
38:9 71:8
involves [i] 76:17
issue [2] 68:1472:1
issues [4] 8:2,3 63:13
74:22
itself [2] 32:17 34:8
-J-
jigsawfi] 10:20
job [2] 69:970:5
John [4] 60:2164:2472:7
76:12
Julie [5] 5:219:263:14
64:10 66:19
Julie's [5] 7:2462:2
Index Page 4
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page
TM
July - odd
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
63:10,15 64:15
July [3] 1:152:2,6
jump [3] 7:831:833:7
jumped [i] 59:4
Justice [i] 65:21
-K-
keepm 5:1135:1236:19
36:22 51:16 55:23,24
keeps [3] 44:845:946:2
key [2] 37:2271:2
kicked [i] 63:24
kid[i] 33:8
kids [4] 30:533:541:5
68:1
kind [58] 2:133:17,19
5:107:17,178:99:11 10:5
11:9 12:17 13:3,8,12,14
13:15,16,24 16:1,5,13,16
16:25 17:4,9,15 19:22
23:8 24:15 27:19,20,25
28:3 31:24 32:21 33:16
36:5 37:20 38:1,13 39:14
41:643:748:2349:8
54:13,16,21,21,25 55:10
55:19 57:7,15 72:25 73:21
74:20 76:1
kinds [i] 62:13
krigingm 10:16,24
69:10
-L-
L[i] 1:3
land [8] 9:2424:331:13
38:5,21 51:7 56:20 65:15
landowner [4] 50:15
70:17,20,21
landowners [i] 46:25
large [4] 39:4,2243:9
70:6
last [5] 25:837:163:14
64:22 78:2
lastly [i] 3:8
lasts [i] 3:25
law[i] 3:17
lawn [4] 24:24,2425:2,6
lawS[i] 45:1
laying [i] 38:13
lead [5] 27:2469:1970:17
72-8 74-20
/4b»O l~,f*\t
lease [2] 38:11,20
leasing [i] 38:5
least [9] 18:2220:1323:7
47:22,25 54:9 57:12 72:16
76:9
leave [4] 31:353:1062:1
64:4
leaving [i] 23:7
left [3] 57:965:2572:10
legitimate [i] 44:23
lend [2] 26:1956:15
ender[i] 30:19
6SS[i] 36:1
evel[i9] 15:1716:3,16
16:20,25 17:3,21 19:3,16
20:16 22:7,10,22 33:23
35:4 51:7 68:22,22 69:2
evelsp] 13:2314:10
15:16 69:5,12,13 71:13
ibrary[4] 2:254:127:1
76:25
likelihood [i] 11:20
likely pj 18:1437:22
39:14
imitp] 11:1667:7
united [2] 28:868:7
imitspj 9:511:13
ine[5] 32:5 43:2,3,1 U5
lines [5] 42:10,12,20 43:8
43:13
istenm 78:7
iterallym 10:11
ive[i6] 9:2327:1134:8
57:11,18,2359:1660:11
60:1161:163:2168:23
69:1170:2571:1975:23
ivedp] 44:745:5
ives[i] 59:16
living [5] 9:2318:1530:4
63:19 74:1
OCal[7] 46:848:1370:4
70:11,11 73:16,20
ocatedp] 6:1813:10
ocked[i] 77:16
!
-------
off - reasons
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
Off [9] 20:1126:1332:16
43:2,2460:463:2367:11
74:1
Offerpj 54:10,11
Officer [i] 6:3
oil [2] 70:676:17
Old [5] 17:2455:2062:7
68:19,20
loncem 77:22
one [20] 4:13 6:97:22
8:12 12:3 19:23 20:19
39:1241:12,1443:556:4
56:1659:8,1162:2564:4
72:17 75:7 78:4
|ones [2] 23:11 68:18
ongoing [2] 45:1665:4
onto [2] 29:1559:4
Operable [6] 1:52:1,18
2:21 7:21 8:17
operate [i] 47:17
operating [i] 29:12
operation [2] 21:834:17
opinion [i] 35:6
opportunity [20] 3:9,12
3:13,19,22 4:9,14 8:20
10:21 13:20 15:15 16:24
17:1127:2154:1066:8
66:11,1867:2,10
optics [1] 38:14
oral[i] 3:15
orally [i] 4:17
orange [i] 13:3
order [2] 73:15,16
orepj 21:7
ourselves [i] 36:6
outline [i] 69:24
outreach [i] 72:19
outside [7] 19:7,1327:4
27:629:1560:2570:19
overall [i] 13:11
overhead [i] 8:9
overheads [3] 8:12,13
10:2
overlay [2] 29:347:10
own [3] 30:465:1566:3
owns [2] 57:5 65:5
Multi-Page™
48:23 51:6 58:8 60:14,20
60:23 64:21 65:4 71:17
73:4 75:15
participate [i] 3:13
participation [i] 3:16
particular [io] 9:6 11:6
13:1 15:24 20:23 42:18
56:3 57:12 58:17 64:10
partly [i] 44:20
parts [16] 16:14,15 17:3,7
17:2020:1621:1,423:23
25:24 26:1 36:1 47:25
52:13 53:5 74:4
pass [2] 4:10 45:17
passed [3] 29:1765:1,3
past[4] 9:1039:1642:19
48:18
pasture [2] 38:6,21
pathway [i] 64:13
pattern [i] 13:13
patterns [i] 13:14
pavement [i] 24:1
pay [3] 50:1671:18,22
people [36] 6:4,18,24
9:23,23 12:21,25 14:17
21:2227:1729:2230:3
34:2335:8,14,1836:4,11
38:12 45:18 52:16 53:23
57:4,17,23 58:15 60:10
61:1 63:18 66:8 67:8 69:7
69:1173:1974:1276:25
people's [3] 22:528:2
30:2
per [17] 16:14,15 17:3,7
17:20 19:3,15 20:16 21:2
21:4 23:23 25:24 26:1
33:23 36:1 52:13 53:5
percent [4] 13:761:7,8
68:13
-P-
1:3
[package [i] 78:2
packetp] 5:198:13 10:3
pages [i] 79:14
Pamii] 6:4
park[4] 9:15 19:8 63:24
68:9
parking [2] 24:241:13
parks [i] 8:25
part[28] 5:56:13 13:23
14:1 19:3,4,5,15 20:19
22:1 26:17 27:14 32:12
32:2033:2341:446:16
Index Page 6
perhaps [i] 74:11
period [5] 3:255:67:17
37:3 67:2
permit [22] 28:20,22,25
29:1,446:1047:11,14,23
48:5 49:13,14,15 50:3,12
51:1257:14,1558:271:17
72:1874:14
permits [3] 49:1071:16
71:18
person [4] 18:1552:19
53:24 72:20
perspective^] 16:5
44:17 49:16,17
phone [2] 5:206:22
physical [i] 38:1
I pick [i] 18:11
picked [i] 76:3
picture [i] 14:16
piece [i] 72:21
pieces [2] 39:1848:4
pitch [2] 34:2036:24
place [14] 33:737:25
47:25 48:3,5 49:20 50:15
63:2370:2271:16,21,22
73:21 79:11
placed [i] 2:24
places [i] 14:14
plan [9] 2:204:19 19:10
21:1732:373:1275:15
75:24 77:25
planned [i] 4:8
planning [i] 71:23
plant [2] 62:5,8
planted [2] 61:5,7
play [5] 26:1230:541:6
42:21 43:7
player [i] 37:22
playground [i] 8:25
playing [3] 24:18,1933:6
plug[i] 39:24
point [7] 12:4 13:11 16:2
18:22 37:17 44:17 46:4
points [8] 10:11,25,25
11:512:4,2420:442:11
polluting [i] 44:6
pollution [2] 45:11 64:5
|Pondsp] 8:517:11
popped [i] 19:23
portion [3] 39:1965:12
66:16
portions [i] 25:11
pOS6[l] 24:19
I position [3] 70:1271:9
74:6
positions [2] 72:1773:8
| possibility [5] 20:15
35:17 37:10,13 44:14
possible [2] 20:3 76:23
Possibly [i] 43:21
posters [i] 6:7
potential [7] 15:1217:7
21:19,23 25:3 31:15 32:25
potentially [i] 57:3
practice [i] 51:3
predict [i] 15:11
predicting [3] 17:19
60:10 61:1
preference [3] 29:6
37:25 46:12
preferred [4] 3:74:5,20
23:21
premise [i] 19:24
prerogative [i] 70:22
present [i] 64:12
presiding [2] 1:182:7
pretty [S] 2:21 18:20,21
31:2352:20
prevent [8] 22:6,12,13
32:16,2133:5,1177:23
preventing [3] 32:22
38:5,23
Prevention [i] 72:8
previous [2] 9:1327:14
19:7 21:18 37:19 56:24
prioritization[i] 42:4
prioritize [2] 24:15
28:10
priority [i] 25:7
private [i] 38:9
problem [7] 30:17,24
35:9,1036:1651:975:6
problems [i] 4:25
proceed [i] 67:7
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
providing [2] 4:1673:11 j
proceedings [3] 1:112:9
79:15
process [10] 3:14,169:22
10:1511:420:2037:2,23
56:2 78:10
Professional [i] 79:6
profile [i] 26:5
I program [32] 22:1927:3
27:21,24 28:1 29:20 30:7
30:1131:636:9,10,13
37:24 48:19 51:18 54:12
54:16 58:2 61:2 65:21,23
70:2,3,1771:1572:8,18
72:18 73:14,21 74:10,21
programmatic [i] 28:9
programs [3] 70:5,6
78:11
| progress [i] 72:15
project [30] 1:182:7,17
2:175:216:27:228:7,11
8:25 9:4,7,12,12,19 22:1
31:5 35:8 56:3,5,5 60:14
60:24 62:14 63:8,14,17
64:10 65:4,12
properties [3] 8:21 63:1
65:9
property [26] 17:2318:5
29:1630:2234:2436:2
36:2238:11,1149:19,20
49:22 56:11,23,25 57:5
59:19,23 61:4,5 62:25
65:8,8 66:4 73:1,2
proposal [4] 28:21 29:11
31:933:24
t propose [6] 16:325:10
26:828:2149:250:23
proposed [12] 2:194:8
4:19 19:3,10 21:17 22:10
73:12,13 75:10,24 77:25
proposing [io] 16:15
23:1 UO 29:11,19 31:10
33:20,21 48:15 54:9
protection [4] 34:10
55:6,1770:6
protective [io] 15:13
16:2024:126:1129:20
30:7 33:10,22,24 34:2
protectiveness [i] 23:4
proven [i] 34:2
proves [i] 69:15
provide [8] 3:9,224:14
34:9 71:6 72:1,16 76:24
provided [2] 3:176:14
public [13] 2:43:13,16
3:245:648:11,1259:18
66:9,23 79:7,10,21
published [i] 2:20
pulls [i] 30:7
push[i] 26:25
put [7] 8:1616:525:1
33:15,17 45:8 73:21
putting [2] 28:1632:22
puzzle [1] 10:20
-0-
quality [i] 45:15
question-answer [i]
7:17
questions [22] 3:5,6,7
5:12,18,25 6:6,10,18 7:19
10:22 19:20 23:15 33:18
34:23 35:3 38:3 66:19
67:14,17 72:6 74:24
quibble [i] 53:3
quick [i] 10:23
quickly [i] 7:14
quite [3] 7:11 11:15 14:2
-R-
primarily[6] 9:20 17:12
provides [i] 30:14
Rpj 1:379:1
railroad [47] 9:720:21
20:23 21:3,6,9,14,21,25
22:11,14,16,23,2523:1
23:1227:1131:9,10,12
31:14,18,19,20,24 32:2,6
32:12,17,2133:1,3,634:5
34:6,8,15,17 37:23 58:20
73:22,25 74:3,5,7 75:9,10
rain[i] 43:23
rains [i] 43:2
raise [i] 7:11
|range[4] 16:6,9,1720:25
ranges [i] 16:7
rates [i] 15:10
rather [6] 7:3 43:2 56:21
67:9 72:21 77:16
re-ballasting [i] 74:4
[read [2] 76:2277:15
readily [2] 34:1275:13
reading [2] 76:2477:3
[real [9] 15:1734:744:16
44:2351:1256:1167:22
68:2 72:9
| realize [i] 69:11
really [23] 3:18,184:38:1
9:18 11:20,21 12:18 16:19
19:16 20:18 22:5 25:15
25:22 26:16 28:15 34:20
37:8 39:10 48:2 63:8 67:1
67:2 68:10 77:17
| reason [io] 36:3 41:2
44:3 55:14 57:8 58:18
59:19 63:3 70:16 72:5
reasons [i] 28:5
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page1
reassure - start
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
reassure [i] 60:3
receive [i] 4:9
receiving [i] 14:17
recently [i] 2:20
reclamation [i] 61:12
reclarify[i] 68:17
recommendations m
30:1
recontaminate m
64:19
recontaminated p]
41:4 44:23
rccontaminating m
33:12
record [8] 3:105:537:17
66:9 67:15 75:20 76:10
79:14
rectify [i] 35:11
reduce [3] 22:2129:9
30:2
reference [i] 76:18
regard [4] 3:66:1 68:15
70:8
regional [4] 5:23 7:25
10:19 60:15
regionally [i] 24:7
Registered [i] 79:6
regulated [i] 45:1
regulations [i] 23:5
lelationsp] 6:4
relatively [i] 19:1
relieved [i] 76:1
relying [i] 47:16
remaining [2] 7:23 8:2
remains [i] 19:19
remedial [2] 4:1 60:18
remediation [i] 60:6
remedies [2] 33:2049:1
remedy [16] 22:432:20
37:1148:2550:1560:12
60:12,16 64:18 67:3,3
69:25 70:14 73:13 74:19
75:17
remember [i] 40:5
REMEMBERED [i]
2-4
ft "T^ O OO 1 "9
16:6,7,17,20 22:8 28:13
28:16 29:23,23 39:10 49:4
52:12,17,22,23,24 53:6
53:1164:1267:2368:3
risks [3] 15:1928:1330:2
road [3] 24:2531:16
36:12
rock[i] 32:23
rocks [4] 18:551:15,16
51:16
rolling [i] 37:20
roof [i] 43:25
row[i] 6:11
run [4] 9:727:2172:17
72:20
running [i] 54:16
runoff [2] 22:13 64:14
mnS[i] 72:8
rural [3] 8:2146:16,17
-S-
cafe m ^fi*4 1Q
OCUW \*>\ Jv*~)*7
sales [2] 34:1936:24
sample [32] 11:23 12:3,6
12:14,17 17:25 18:2,4,7,9
18:17 24:9,12 36:16 39:23
40:16.20 41:13,19 42:2
42:24,2446:1551:21
53:25 54:7 57:21 58:3,21
58:25 60:1 71:25
Sampled [10] 20:2221:14
30:17,23 35:1 40:18,18
66:3,4 68:1
samples [is] 13:18,19
19:13 20:22 28:4 39:3,4,5
40:241:2442:151:25
52:10 65:18,22 68:25 71:5
71:7
sampling [is] 11:125:13
27:1535:2440:241:9,10
41:16 42:9 44:13 50:17
50:23 54:18 68:18,24
69:14,18 71:4 73:9
Sandy pj 67:11,1576:14
satisfies [i] 32:3
saw[l] 20:22
Says [6] 13:527:1536:14
51:14 57:1 64:24
school [3] 1:132:567:25
schools [i] 8:25
scope [i] 9:11
seal [2] 79:18,22
second [i] 28:17
Secondly [2] 70:16
72:20
see [38] 2:237:3,198:15
11:1413:12,15,17,21,22
14:1416:1217:921:11
21:1326:330:1331:8
39:1941:1142:1143:8
43:10,12,23 49:24 56:20
60:24 66:1 68:21 69:1,5
69:24 70:1 72:4,14 73:22
76:11
seeing [3] 43:2444:1
74:16
selected [i] 60:16
selective [i] 42:18
sell [7] 30:1936:338:11
49:21 56:13 68:12 72:24
sellable [i] 36:23
selling [2] 36:6,6
send [3] 5:1465:1478:3
Senior [i] 67:16
sense [8] 6:167:12 13:24
25:20 32:5 33:1,4 64:20
separate [i] 32:8
September [2] 37:16
79:22
Services [i] 6:21
sessions [i] 54:3
set [7] 30:1236:1350:7
50:13,14 54:2 79:17
settlement [i] 74:7
seventy-eight [i] 79:14
several [6] 5:1720:4,18
22:3 28:11,15
Sevoresm 76:7,12,12
77:9,14
shaded [9] 17:858:3,6,8
58:22,23 59:25 60:14,25
shallow [i] 69:7
share [2] 29:2577:22
shedm 50:3
sheet [2] 5:1078:2
short-term [2] 23:5
34:11
shorthand [i] 79:12
shortly [i] 37:21
Show [5] 6:816:2233:16
58:10 60:8
shnwpHrii 14-Q
9H\JiH WU |.1J 1^*7
showing [2] 18:1420:13
shown [5] 13:21 17:4,8
19:18 24:6
Shows [3] 8:913:865:25
shy[i] 75:2
Side [4] 23:1825:1546:20
65:25
sift[i] 6:25
Silt[i] 44:10
Silver p] 79:4,8
similar [5] 27:23 30:13
41:1243:1255:19
Site [10] 5:227:238:2,5,9
10:6,1011:624:1665:20
situation [i] 46:14
situations [i] 46:8
six [2] 26:7 68:8
size[i] 7:9
Skill [i] 79:15
slag [3] 8:520:621:7
slope [2] 31:1932:9
Slopes [2] 31:2132:8
sloW[i] 51:13
small [4] 26:1841:567:6
68:10
Smell [i] 45:7
Smelter [14] 8:5 13:9,15
17:1121:843:2156:23
57:5 59:3 60:5,13,18,19
fLA.fi
O'»:o
smelters [i] 68:21
snapshot [i] 14:16
sod [3] 12:2225:1972:1
sodding [i] 71:12
soil [22] 8:23 10:9,13
12:17,22 14:21,23 18:9
20:15 22:7 23:12 25:3
26:1,2,5,9 30:14 35:1
65:18,22 69:12,13
soil-sampling [i] 10:3
soils [27] 1:52:1,18.21
5-21 7-21 25 8-fi R 17 Q-TI
J.AJ *.AI,*J 0.0,0, i / y.±\j
10:12 21:13 22:5.15.17
22:20,22 23:21,22,24
24:23 25:5 28:18 33:24
33:24 60:16
sold [2] 63:1,2
someplace [i] 77:16
sometime [i] 9:10
somewhat [i] 15: 12
somewhere [2] 13:10
46:15
sophisticated [i] 72:21
Sort [20] 19:2120:1 24:2
25:13 26:13,22 30:4 32:23
35:239:1541:6,742:24
43:8,1344:1949:1951:8
57:14 74:6
source [i] 34:3
sources m 8:4 9:3,5 66:5
south [2] 56:1958:9
southeastern [i] 19:4
southwest [i] 17:17
speak [4j 5:323:1376:9
76:11
SPEAKER [63] 6:20.23
11:2412:8,11 17:2238:4
38:19,25 39:2,22 40:1.9
40:21,2441:17,2542:6
43:1,16,19 44:4 45:4,19
45:24 46:5 47:5,19 48:8
49:950:1 51:19,2252:1,4
52:8,25 53:4,9,14,22 54:6
54:23 55:24 56:18 57:19
58:559:2,8,11,2260:19
61:3,20,24 62:3,15,24
63:5,20 64:24 65:5,14
Specialist [i] 6:5
specifically [i] 8:7
spending [i] 34:3
spent [i] 23:16
spiel [1] 78:7
sponsored [i] 14:19
spot [3] 39:1270:2471:20
SpOUtS [1] 42:7
Springs [4] 8:20 13:16
13:20 17:23
squares [3] 10:1813:3,6
SS[i] 79:3
Stack [2] 13:969:6
Stand [i] 74:19
Standard m 76:17
standpoint [3] 3:14,15
13:12
Start [6] 19:2334:14
37:19,2367:11,20
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Index Page 7
-------
started - workable
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
Multi-Page
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
started [i] 2:12
starting [i] 18:22
Starts [3] 49:1251:13
78:11
Stash [13] 39:2540:6,8
50:951:2452:3,667:13
67:15 72:12 76:14 77:7
77:12
State [6] 6:245:1466:25
7O.O fl *51
/7:j,o,zi
State's [i] 65:22
Statement [2] 64:21 68:4
States [i] 52:22
Statistical [i] 43:7
statistically [3] 43:9,13
44:1
Statistics [1] 69:22
Stay[i] 66:20
steep [i] 31:20
steeper [i] 32:8
Step [2] 20:1978:10
stepped [i] 10:17
still [18] 8:415:21 18:11
18:16 19:22 23:17 27:2
37:6 57:10 58:21,24 60:6
63:1165:9,1072:1175:6
77:23
stirm 41:18
Stop [5] 6:1,57:12,188:15
strange [i] 63:6
Strategy [4] 25:1341:11
41:16 42:12
Street [3] 20:632:13
40:10
streets [i] 32:10
strip [i] 17:24
Strongly [2] 72:577:24
structure [2] 34:2241:10
structured [3] 70:10
72:4 74:18
Studies [6] 14:1915:6,9
15:18 16:8,18
Study [10] 4:2,3 14:5,8,18
14:20,25 15:4 20:17 22:3
Stuff [5] 8:1 25:20 35:24
43:23 62:18
subject [i] 68:24
successful [i] 70:17
Such [2] 43:2471:6
suggest [i] 75:12
summaries [i] 10:3
summarize [i] 3:3
summary [i] 37:8
summer [2] 2:1378:7
Superfund[7] 3:14,17
8:8 25:4 34:21 49:7 73:5
Support [2] 4:2067:3
supposed [2] 49:1450:6
surface [3] 8:3 22:13
64:14
surprised [i] 68:24
survey [i] 54:4
surveyed [i] 61:10
SUSpect [1] 27:7
swear [i] 45:11
sweeping [i] 20:7
f O *• '
switch [i] 66:10
System [22] 28:20,22,25
29:1,4 30:13,18 46:10
47:11,14,2448:549:13
49:1650:1251:1257:14
57:15 58:2 72:22 73:6
74:14
-T-
T[2] 79:1,1
tailings [2] 21:768:21
lakes [2] 51:8 54:6
taking [5] 17:2434:16
4Q-7n ^7-7f> 7R-fi
^y.^u j / ,fi\j /o.u
targeted [2] 40:1053:22
taxpayers [i] 29:13
technical [8] 3:36:13,17
7:1 23:16,18 37:6 72:2
technically [i] 53:21
J *• *
techniques [i] 20:14
•pllcru 7/5-1 S
Uwllo in /u.lo
ten p] 10:1031:1
Teresap] 9:15 19:11,15
68:19 74:16
terms [6] 10:514:13
29:22 30:5 54:16 55:3
Terrace [5] 9:1519:11
19:1568:1974:16
test[i] 65:15
tested [4] 44:4,5,649:23
testimony [i] 3:10
thank [3] 75:176:578:6
Thanks p] 74:25 75:21
78:11
themselves [3] 26:20
30:3 56:15
thereafter [i] 37:21
they've [2] 65:2066:13
thinking [i] 58:18
third [2] 6:11 29:18
thought [4] 24:2567:18
71:19 76:1
thousands [3] 10:11
£O OC O C
68:25,25
threep] 6:169:1922:15
23:12 26:7 52:9 66:4
three-year [i] 74:10
throats [i] 56:7
through [23] 6:15,257:14
8:24 9:8,12,21.24 21:3
28:2,3,21,2129:631:22
32:14 35:7 47:9 49:5 56:2
57:13 58:25 67:25
throughout [6] 8:8 10:6
11:230:1531:1952:22
throw [i] 12:20
tighten [i] 46:13
times [5] 41:551:852:16
67:24,25
title [i] 8:1
Tocher p] 75:22,22
today [2] 2:1347:23
Todd[2] 6:15,16
tO6[i] 32:8
together [i] 30:7
tonight [18] 2:19,223:2
3:84:10,175:3,8,11,18
^•71 «-i ^ 7-in 71-1 1
J.Z1 O.l,2 /. lUZJ.il
29-22 37-5 7fi-2
^y ,*f+t *? / *j 1 1}***
too [4] 33:946:167:9
68:16
took [4] 12:1418:2,4
28:15
top [2] 26:4,7
tOre[i] 62:4
total [i] 22:25
totally [i] 45:10
towards [2] 13:1672:15
town [9] 21:1531:22
32:1241:446:1670:25
71:20 73:4 75:9
track [5] 5:1130:1635:12
37:1872:24
tracked [i] 35:21
tracking [2] 30:1473:1
tracks [2] 20:2327:11
traffic [i] 40:23
transcribed [i] 79:13
TRANSCRIPT [i] 1:11
transfers [i] 57:7
transport [i] 21:24
treatment [2] 22:19
26:22
trees [6] 51:15,16,1761:5
61:6,7
triangle [i] 55:7
tried [3] 10:2445:11
68:12
tries [i] 15:11
true [3] 12:1069:1579:14
trust [2] 48:12,16
try [32] 2:223:26:177:5
7:12,13,1611:224:4,21
24:22 25:5 26:21,23 27:16
31:5 32:3 34:6,21 35:10
35:11,1338:842:1844:18
44:19 47:2 48:7 49:5
50:20 66:9 73:15
trying [10] 5:149:4 14:22
18:1 32:20 33:5 34:14
42:4 60:8 65:3
tunem 73:9
tum[l] 56:12
Twenty-five [i] 52:4
twice [i] 77:22
two [10] 7:23 19:1939:25
49:24 52:9 53:8 70:3
72:16 73:8 74:10
two-inch [2] 68:2269:2
type [3] 14:1327:2238:1
types [i] 4:4
typical [3] 25:429:15
51:1
typically [5] 26:339:9
44:25 48:25 55:5
-u-
U[i] 1:3
ultimately [i] 24:22
under [13] 3:17 9:4 21:16
28:1929:1131:546:10
52:7 58:1,2 62:14 64:9
73:15
understand [4] 7:11
49:13 50:6 69:21
undo[i] 28:16
[TNTDENTTFIED r«i
\J 1^1 AXXJ^l^ J. -E-A J 1 tmf \V3\
6:20,23 11:24 12:8,11
17:22 38:4,19,25 39:2,22
40:1,9,21,2441:17,25
42:643:1,16,1944:445:4
45:19,24 46:5 47:5,19
48:8 49:9 50:1 51:19,22
52:1,4,8,25 53:4,9,14,22
54:6,23 55:24 56:18 57:19
58:559:2,8,11,2260:19
61:3,20,24 62:3,15,24
63:5,20 64:24 65:5,14
unique [2] 46:1554:25
Unit [6] 1:52:1,18,21
7:21 8:17
United [i] 52:22
University p] 14:4,21
42:9
unless [2] 11:1918:8
up [73] 2:12,25 4:12 6:7
8:16 10:17 13:25 16:13
16:1417:8,2418:11,20
19:23 20:19 21:1 23:21
25:13,20,25 30:12,16 32:3
33:15,17 34:15,16 36:13
39:2141:3,1844:9,22
45:15,20,25 46:1,13 49:23
50:2,7,13,14 53:7,10 54:2
55:756:11,1259:16,17
60:2,6 61:5,6,9,13,18
62:19 63:12,24,25 64:1,3
64:6,17,20,22 66:16,25
67:10 75:12 77:16
uphill [i] 64:18
upper [6] 11:9,9,13,15
12:14 16:16
used p] 15:631:1669:23
user-friendly [2] 35:14
35:16
using [8] 15:4,1223:23
28:22 46:5 47:5 53:7,17
usually [i] 35:2
utilized [i] 48:18
-V-
validm 48:17
valley [4] 76:1977:1,2,6
valuable [2] 36:2349:21
value p] 30:1835:136:2
values [6] 13:4,5,816:12
20:25 21:12
variability [i] 11:15
variety [i] 31:20
various [2] 6:3 67:25
vegetative [i] 23:25
verbally [i] 75:5
versus [1] 34:1
via [2] 14:2421:24
view [2] 70:2075:9
Village [i] 76:15
visit [i] 73:24
volumes [i] 76:18
volunteer [i] 53:24
-W-
wall[i] 32:15
wanting [i] 66:8
wants [3] 23:15 30:19
66:16
Warm [4] 8:20 13:16,20
17:23
wash[i] 40:25
washes [i] 43:2
washing [i] 30:5
waste [5] 8:49:3,562:21
69:5
wastes [3] 5:23 7:25
60:15
watching [i] 30:5
water [4] 5:23 7:25 8:3
60:15
ways[i] 74:21
west [2] 21:1531:22
WHEREOF [i] 79:17
whole [14] 4:2421:21
34:15,2036:1739:11,13
39:20 48:2 60:5 67:19
68:2 76:4,18
Willing [2] 66:2071:3
wind [6] 13:1421:24
22:1363:21,22,23
window [i] 12:21
within [23] 8:19,22,239:5
9:19,2011:812:1915:14
16:23 19:1820:2121:10
24:7,8 29:3,5 31:12 34:21
41:9 47:17 57:23 58:3
without [i] 71:8
WITNESS [i] 79:17
wonder [i] 76:25
wondering p] 40:23
45:20 53:6
word[i] 69:23
words [i] 22:2
workable [2] 51:18
74:19
Index Page 8
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
-------
ANACONDA COMMUNITY
SOILS OPERABLE UNIT
Multi-Page
TM
worked - zoning
FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING
worked [i] 21:23
workings [i] 26:18
works [5] 48:9 50:20
55:20 68:20 76:8
worry [i] 68:14
worse [8] 44:8,8,8 45:6
45:10 46:3,3,3
wrap[i] 64:22
write [3] 5:2,1367:9
writing [4] 4:1737:5
75:6,19
written [4] 3:1460:4
75:4 77:24
wrong [i] 59:15
-Y-
yard[32] 8:2311:1912:23
13:1 18:1624:1225:1,12
25:14,15,18,22 26:6,12
27:13 30:16 32:13 35:15
39:3,11,13,19,20,2141:9
41:1242:13,1644:246:17
46:18 76:3
yards [is] 15:23 17:2
21:1522:5,925:1426:18
33:12,1335:1841:3,5
63:18 64:3 69:19
year[U] 18:1,3 38:1 44:8
44:1145:646:260:7,17
60:2461:1373:10
years [15] 10:1027:8
28:11,1531:1 36:1243:22
44:7 45:5,9,9 62:20 70:4
74:1176:21
yellow [i] 45:10
ret [4] 47:2048:1054:5
69:21
foung[2] 6:245:14
yourselves [i] 31:5
-Z-
zone[4] 57:2358:3,6,8
zoning [2] 50:9,10
1
j
i
NORDHAGEN COURT REPORTING - (406) 494-2083
1734 HARRISON AVENUE, BUTTE, MT 59701
Index Page 9
-------
-------
Attachment B
Written Comments Received During Public Comment Period
Record of Decision
Community Soils OU
092596/projects\anaconda\comsoils\csrs.rv5
-------
-------
EPA's
AMA-CCMOA .
T
(/
ENVlRONMtw,
PROfTBCnONAGBlCY
/ ii:3 0 J1996
MONTANA OFFICr
-------
//
d
PROTECTION AGENCY
JU'. t .5 1996
MONTANA OFF/Cr
-... ^.
-------
Wesley <2).
DIPLOMAT OF AMERICAN
BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 12 PROFESSIONAL PARKWAY
RIDGELAND. MS 39157
TELEPHONE: (6O1) 856-246O
July 23, 1996
United States Of America
EPA Office, Montana
ATTENTION: Charles Coleman
301 South Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, Montana 59626
Dear Mr. Coleman:
As promised, enclosed you will find my thoughts on the
Anaconda Super Fund Proposal specifically involving the Aspen Hills
Clear Creek area. Realizing an almost life long dream,
approximately one year ago, I brought a 40 acre lot in the upper
Clear Creek area. Prior to buying the Clear Creek lot, I diligently
attempted to get clarification on various concerns of mine
including what were th'e surrounding communities like, whether these
communities harbor violent right wing paramilitary groups, as well
as environmental risk of the surrounding country side. I discussed
the latter issue with you on several occasions and in addition to
reading about arsenic exposure and questioning other State agencies
(e.g., the last State agency I talked with for instance had the
responsibility of mentoring the quality of ground water and they
had no evidence of arsenic or any metal levels in ground water in
the Aspen Hills Clear Creek area). I felt very comfortable and at
peace with the decision to buy the Clear Creek lot and I made two
trips to the Anaconda area last year. These trips only reinforced
my belief that I was indeed blessed at the opportunity to buy a
beautiful 40 acre mountain lot near a beautiful old historic town
with a 200,000 plus wilderness to the west and a 50,000 acre wild
State wildlife management area to the east which would hopefully
quench my thirst for hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities
(I was and still am so much in love with my mountain lot that three
months ago I actually bought a second adjacent 40 acre mountain
lot) . Approximately one week ago I received my title insurance to
the second Clear Creek lot and although receiving it was a mere
formality to me, I was nonetheless excited to receive it until I
saw the sentence stating that my property was in a Super Fund
site. This factor has been known to me for approximately one year
but actually seeing it in writing gave me a bad, uncomfortable,
almost nauseating feeling, a feeling of having done something I
should not have done. This however is not my true logical deep
feeling for my land and the surrounding area for which I have come
to really appreciate and love.
If possible I would like to respectfully ask you why can we
not at least name the Aspen Hill Creek area simply Aspen Hill Clear
Creek District instead of Super Fund site with all the accompanying
-------
DIPLOMAT OF AMERICAN W/CMAgy/ -is*
BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 12 PROFESSIONAL PARKWAY
RIDGELAND. MS 39157
TELEPHONE: (601) 856-2460
Page II
negative connotation that goes with that name? I would respectfully
suggest that the same building permit process or whatever final
building permit protocol that is finally decided would still be in
place not compromising on the health of the residents or the
environment, while at the same time removing the stigma associated
with the designation Super Fund site. This would seem to me
beneficial in the short and long run for the county, and again most
importantly not compromise on the goal of decreasing environmental
risk. Is there a good reason why we shouldn't change the name to
something else if we don't compromise on the health of the
environment or its residents in the process of making that name
change? I have no strong feelings regarding various proposals for
making the arsenic levels in desiredless than 250 parts per million
range. I only hope that the final plan would be based on science as
well as maybe flexibility that would take into account on how one
plans to use his own property. Based on arsenic levels that were
shared with me recently, my area of Clear Creek actually has levels
less than the 250 parts per million range.
These issues are obviously of great importance to me. I hope
to some day complete my dream by building a cabin on my lot and
spending at least summers in Clear Creek contributing in a positive
fashion to Anaconda Aspen Hills Clear Creek community. I hope that
you and county officials give serious consideration to changing the
name of the Super Fund site in the Aspen Hills - Clear Creek
District to anything else other than Super Fund site. It may be,
just may be, by the time I visit Montana in September I won't be
tempted to grimace the next time I look at my title insurance
document. I really look forward to hearing from you and county
officials soon concerning this matter.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
(sj-t-iJLi, &l*-- .-v-jv-"——
Wesley D. Granger, M.D.
WDG/cw
-------
5o.
o
o
-------
e\d
u
v^-ai
O
AS ^
X-V
Will
ou.V
^
. "m
oO
JGG+
u
-------
Wie
vC t>r\o'\c\^oKj's
-------
-------
1 KJ "to
31. WVevo.
-VUc .....
vne
el r. f
*0. ILW Se.cf(D.
- -
mi \T^V
6/CKJ RdW
-------
-------
s fOo sdein. TUcv C-^Ve
Ix^WV
_
-------
ANACONDA SMELTER SUPERPUND SITE PROTECrJ°N
Community Soils Operable Unit >••?-
PROPOSED PLAN
July 1996
COMMENT SHEET
Please write any comments that you may have concerning the preferred alternative on this sheet.
_ The, knaconda. EnviAonmnntat Education In&tUwte. (AEEI) 4A in Auppovt
06 the. Comman^ty SoW> Operable. Unit PAopo^ed Plan. Tkca plan & vn. the, but
^ Anaconda-PeeA Lodge. County with leAptct to human hzaJLth and the.
e.nvionme.nt. fwthifunofie., toe commenrf the. EPA and ARCO on the^ift e.Movte and
w^th each otk&i to cteu^e a. x.eme.dy that the mtnfJfu nl. IHAe. JLYI AnaL(^nnda-Ve.eA Lodae. Countu,
Name: Anaconda EnviAoYmuvtaJL Education Jni>£ti.ute. (AEE7) [Todd EmAta.nd&L, Met? f/xLcfee// and
Von PawtiLk).
Address: in EaAt Se.ve.nth Stfl.e.vt _ AnncnnHn. MT
Phone: (406) 563-5538
-------
BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN, P.C. ;..JQ i 1 ^995
ATTORNEYS AT LAW MONTANA OFFICE
K1MBERLYA BEATTY 139 NORTH LAST CHANCE GULCH MARYK GIDDINGS
LEO BERRY POST OFFICE BOX 1697 OLIVER H.OOE
R STEPHEN BROWNING J. DANIEL HOVEN
KEN C. CR.PPEN HELENA- MONTANA 596M STANLEYT. KALECZYC
MARCIA DAVENPORT __ CATHERINE A. LAUGHNeR
KATHARINE S. DONNELLEY JOHN H MAYNARD
PAGE C DRINGMAN TELEPHONE (408) 44M220 SHARON A. O1EARY
MARKD.ETCHART TELEFAX (408) 443-0700 LEO S. WARD
August 9,1996
Mr. Charles Coleman VIA FAX
Ms. Pam Hillery
U.S. EPA, Montana Office
301 South Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626
RE: Anaconda Community Soils
Dear Mr. Coleman and Ms Hillery.
On behalf of our client, RARUS Railway Company, we are submitting the following
comments on the Preferred Alternative for Railroad Beds at Anaconda Community Soils.
While the preferred alternative is generally acceptable to RARUS, we would recommend
certain modifications. The use of large rock for capping areas within the shoulders of the
railbeds, around switch stands, and at locations where utility easements exist under trackage or
where signal wire is buried is problematic for maintenance and repairs. The large rock is very
difficult to dig up, and can cause maintenance problems with ties and trackage. Therefore, we
would suggest the use of clean ballast from shoulder to shoulder of the railbed and in the other
areas mentioned above.
Other lines, properties, or portions of lines may be suitable for remediation at this or
some future time. In addition, there are properties adjacent to the railbed which may be suitable
for non-railroad activities, such as commercial or residential development. Those areas may also
need to be remediated. RARUS would be happy to discuss those potential areas with EPA at a
future date.
-------
Mr. Charles Coleman
Ms. Pam Hillery
August 9, 1996
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this preferred alternative for Community
Soils. Should you have any questions or concerns with regard to these comments, please do not
hesitate to contact William McCarthy or Leo Berry.
Sincerely,
BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN, P.C.
By.,
Leo Berry VfMJ
cc: Bill McCarthy x '
-------
C;-: COi_UH-..u<_> LJ
ENVIRONMENTAL & MINING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL
2221 East Street
P.O. Box 1193
Golden, Colorado 60401 U.SA
Tol: (303) Z77-0073
Fax: (303) 27B-4749
August 16,1996
Mr. Henry Elsen
USEPA Region Vm Montana Office
Federal Building
301 S. Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, Montana 59626-0096
Fax (406)441-1125
"Re: Review of Final Draft-Community Soils Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Report
Dear Henry
I have reviewed the statistical and geostatistical portions of the Community Soils RI/FS and have
these comments:
• The text and the plots discuss the impact of soil contamination with arsenic a risk-base
screening level of 1x10"4 RME risk. According to Table 2-10 Volume I, this gives an
RME for arsenic of 297.0 rag/kg for the Residential Scenario and 1003 mg/kg for the
Agricultural Scenario. However, at a risk level of 1x10-5 more commonly required by
EPA, the RME becomes 29.7 mg/kg As and 100.3 mg/kg As for the Residential and
Agricultural Scenarios. At these lower concentration level, most of the Anaconda
Community Soils and the Regional Soils would be condemned as too contaminated. The
report does not clearly explain why the more risk tolerant level has been selected for
discussion.
• Volume n is mislabeled as Appendix A. Volume HI has Appendix A-G
• The Text in Volume I, page 1-9 refers to "thousands of data points" used in the analysis.
The number of As samples used in this study for histograms of surface statistics is
significantly less than "thousands":
Study Area Before Cutting "Outliers'* After Cutting "Outliers"
Anaconda Community: 453 381
Opportunity : 87 83
Regional : 792 791
Total: : 1332 1255
• Even before "outliers" were removed, the text discusses other data points removed from
the study as nonrepresentative in a non-informative manner. For example on page 2-10,
Review Final Draft-Community Soils
August 16,1996
rcb | c:Vwp\«nft jcrig.mmo 1
-------
ftUG-16-96 FRI 2:27 GOLDEN COUOKHJLiu
Volume II, the text reads:
"Sample results from 10 regional targeted stations (21 total surficial samples)
located along the berm of theYellow Ditch,...were excluded from the regional soil
data base because analytical results from these samples were not considered
representative of metal levels in native soils at the site. Furthermore, analytical
results from soil samples collected .....from 30 community soil stations and 24
community targeted stations located in Anaconda were also excluded from the
regional surface soil data base"
No mapping of these affected samples was done in the report. Nor was preliminary
statistics done before these "nonrepresentative" samples were removed from
consideration.
• Of concern is the potentially inappropriate removal of the higher values of arsenic from
the data base before the geostatistical mapping of arsenic contamination. For example on
page 2-14, Volume II:
Using Table 3-2, the other samples which were removed as non-representative, with no
detailed explanation were:
Data Set Sample ID Cone (mg/kg) Justification
Anaconda AN007 1320 Related to OWyEADA OU
Opportunity NC018 740 Related to tailings pond
Opportunity NC019 780 Related to tailings pond
Opportunity NC020 1000 Related to tailings pond
Opportunity NC023 986 Related to tailings pond
Regional M-6 . 27,200 Related to Smelter Hill
In each case these removed values are higher than the highest arsenic reported hi
Appendix C-Descriptive statistics, i.e.
Anaconda Community — 793 mg/kg
Opportunity Soils - 488 mg/kg
Regional 3960 mg/kg
In all cases a more rigorous statistical treatment of these data points should be done
before they are removed.
• Review of the many of the histograms in Appendix C, Volume HI, shows that this cutting
of the higher concentrations unnaturally truncate the lognormal distributions expected for
metal contaminants. This is most noticeable for the Opportunity Soils area, where the
loss of the highest four values impacts the lognormal curve for arsenic, cadmium and
Review Final Drift-Community Soils
August 16.1996
rcb | c:\wp\4ni_krig.mmo •<
-------
-16— 96 FRI 2:ZT L.ui_Utn uoi_w.^.. .-
lead by cutting off of the bell shaped curve on the right side.
• Table 2-7, Volume I indicates the Regional Surface Soil Samples were composed of
samples which have composite lengths in excess of 0 to 2 inches. In particular, there are
samples with 0"-3", 0"-6,0"-10"lOM2",0ll-18",0"-24fl,0"~36", and 0"-48" included in this
surface data set This report has observed that concentrations of arsenic diminish
rapidly at depth. The inclusion of this lower material in a average concentration of a
sample will bias its value to the low side
• The description of the lodging procedures used in this report must have more detail to be
useful. There is not dear documentation on the parameters used in the kriging
procedure. Th* dmir.« of manv nf these oarameters such as the size of the search ellipse
or the number of samples required loi eacu krigiiig <*
-------
i—16 — 96 FRI 2:28 UUI-JJC.M UUI_UKI-I.UW .
boundaries artificially truncates the potential variograra's range. Furthermore, it is most
likely that a review of directional variograms will show distinct anisotropies controlled
by airflow in the valleys.
A correct modeling of the directional anisotropy will most likely have the greatest effect
on the Regional kriging results.
Histograms of the cross-validation work should be included to give a visual QA/QC of
the effectiveness proposed of variogram models. The effects of varying the range,
nugget, sill, and anisotropy of the interpreted variogram model can be explored.
The arsenic data is shown be sufficiently log-normal to warrant transformation to
normalize the data. The concern stated on page 3-4, Vol. n is not valid:
"Kriging can be performed on log-transformed data sets; however, when the
kriged results are back-transformed, the biases that are introduced make it
impossible to accurately calculate confidence intervals"
The compensation for back-transformation biases are well understood theoretically.
However the general relative transformation can be used as a surrogate for log-
transformation.
Appendix D...The variography for Arsenic is misfiled under Appendix E, X-Value
Kriged Estimation.
It is unclear on page 3-4, Volume n, on how the use of general relative kriging
contributes to a "small sacrifice hi the reliability of the estimates". This is after the text
explains that "The general relative semivariograms resulted in much
unproved...confidence intervals around the estimates, as compared to the absolute
semivariograms.."
For the Regional Soils it is probably an incorrect assertion (page 2-7, Volume I) that the
density of subsurface data is insufficient for kriging.
On page 3-5, Volume n, has a typographical error with "xx" used in place of numbers...
"Within residential areas, estimated arsenic concentrations range from xx to 316
mg/kg"
Review Final Draft-Community Soils
August 16,1996
rcb | c:\wp\eun_kri2-nuno
-------
555 Seventeentn Street
Denver. Colorado 50202
"-ieonone 303 293 4900
ENVIHOwiwrr- ••
OROTECTION AGENCY
OEC06)995
December 1, 1995 '4QNTANA QFRCf
Mr. Charles Coleman
Anaconda Project Manager
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region Vm Montana Office
Federal Building
301 South Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, Montana 59626-0096
Subject: ARCO's Comments on the November 7, 1995 Review Draft of the Baseline Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Anaconda NPL Site
Dear Charlie:
ARCO's comments on the baseline human health risk assessment for Anaconda are provided in
this letter. We do not at this time have any comments that would require revisions in the risk
calculations. We do have some comments about supporting text and risk characterization:
• Arsenic toxicity - we believe that references to the recent paper by Mushak and
' Crocetti undermines the discussion of uncertainty in the toxicity criteria for arsenic
(Section 5.3.4) due to the extensive technical errors, omissions and
misinterpretations of the literature in their analysis. We request that reference to
this paper be removed from the risk assessment, and that this reference be replaced
with more technically valid citations.
• Lead exposures - EPA used version 0.99 of the IEUBK model to characterize
risks associated with exposure to lead in soil and dust in Anaconda. EPA's analysis
indicated a slight exceedance in one subarea of EPA's desired level of protection,
i.e., that less than 5 percent of children will have blood lead levels greater than 10
mg/dL. ARCO has strong reservations about the validity of this model, especially
in the absence of extensive site-specific data against which the model can be
calibrated. At this site, we agree with EPA's assertion that there is not currently
sufficient data available to support a site-specific estimate of soil lead
bioavailability; however, we do believe available site-specific soil ingestion data are
sufficient to support a site-specific modification of soil ingestion rates. By
comparing site-specific soil ingestion data with the default values in the IEUBK
model we have concluded that soil lead exposures in Anaconda are not expected to
exceed EPA's desired level of protection because of the default values are much
greater than values derived from site-specific data. In the EEUBK model, soil
2161104
vjantic fi ..jni.ela Company I Illllllllll Hill Hill lllhlllllllll till V^COD 50'2
449573
-------
Charles Coleman
December 1, 1995
Page3
agricultural lands as well. We also need to reach agreement on appropriate exposure units for
application of these target risks, i.e., areas over which individuals are likely to be exposed. We
believe that exposure units for residential area lifetime cancer risks should be substantially larger
than a single residential yard because an individual will derive only a fraction of their exposure
over a 30 year period from a single yard. Even if they remain in Anaconda, most people will not
reside in the same house from birth until they are 30 years old. Even the rare individual who stays
in one house will have exposures from around the neighborhood. Thus, we request that EPA use
residential exposure units of a residential block or larger. This approach is especially appropriate
in Anaconda, where most of the arsenic in soil is derived from a single large source transported by
atmospheric dispersion. Using the same logic, exposure units for the agricultural lands should be
at least as large as a typical ranch. We recommend that the one mile square areas evaluated in the
remedial investigation be used as exposure units. This size (640 acres) is likely to provide a
conservative estimate of a typical ranch size.
Once again we would like to thank EPA for their willingness to review and critique site-specific
data we have developed and submitted during the course of this investigation. We believe that the
investigations conducted in Anaconda have furthered our understanding of arsenic exposures in
smelter communities, and will provide EPA with useful information for application to many other
sites. Please call me if you wish to discuss our comments.
Sincerely,
Stephen E. Dole
Environmental Manager
cc: Andy Lensink, EPA/Denver
Susan Griffin, EPA/Denver
Andy Young, MDEQ
Robin Bullock, ARCO/Anaconda
Howard Greene, ARCO/LA
Pam Sbar, ARCO/Denver
Rosalind Schoof, PTI/Bellevue
-------
307 East Park Street. Suite 400
i.naconaa. Montana 59711
Teieonone 406 563 5211
Facsimile 406 563 8269 ENVIRONMCM'- •
- , nn ,nn, PROTECTION AGENC\
February 29, 1996
MAR 0 -) 1996
GM!NISTRAnVE RECORD MONTANAOFF.C'
Mr. Charles Coleman
Anaconda Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIE Montana Office
Federal Building
301 South Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, Montana 59626-0096
Subject: Arsenic Cleanup Levels for Residential Areas in Anaconda
Dear Charlie:
The purpose of this letter is to provide EPA with a risk-based derivation of a cleanup level
that would be appropriate to apply to individual yards in Anaconda. In our December 1,
1995 comments on the Anaconda baseline risk assessment, we recommended that residential
cleanup decisions in Anaconda be made on the basis of average arsenic concentrations in
a neighborhood or over a residential block. The basis for this recommendation is the fact
that people spend a substantial portion of their time away from home, and are also not likely
to reside in the same house as a child and as an adult. Thus the exposures received during
the 30 years of exposure assumed by EPA are likely to represent an average of exposures
received at more than one residence, and from other areas of the community.
If it is necessary for EPA to establish a cleanup level that could be applied to an individual
yard, the yard cleanup level should reflect the time spent elsewhere in the community. We
propose that this be done by estimating the proportion of time spent away from home, and
assuming that the average arsenic concentration to which a person is exposed while away
from home is the same as the average arsenic concentration for all residential areas, i.e.,
172 ppm according to the draft final baseline risk assessment. If we assume that the target
risk for an individual home should not exceed 1 x 104, the 297 ppm community trigger level
can then be used to back calculate the cleanup level for an individual home.
The proportion of exposures likely to occur away from home can be estimated from activity
pattern data reviewed in EPA's June 1995 revision of the Exposure Factors Handbook.
Three large studies of time and activity patterns are analyzed in the handbook, a national
survey of adults conducted in 1985, a study of adults conducted in California during 1987
and 1988, and a study of children conducted in California during 1989 and 1990. Although
the fraction of time awake that is spent away from home is not directly reported in these
studies, it can be calculated as follows. These studies report the total amount of time spent
at home each day, including time spent sleeping, and the time spent away from home. For
adults, the time spent sleeping (at home) is also reported. Thus, the time awake at home
can be calculated by subtracting the time spent sleeping from the total time at home. The
total time awake can then be calculated by adding the time away from home to the awake
time at home. These calculations are shown in Table 1. Data from both the national and
A!lant,c R.chi,e«> Company ^ -i D 0 3 0 0 |l||l|l||||l||ll||||l||||||l|||||l '^COD-6010-B
449564
-------
California surveys are included. Additionally, because women spend more time home than
men do, data for women are also provided. As shown in Table 1, the average percent of
time awake that is spent away from home ranges from 44 to 58 for adults.
Sleep times were not reported for children, so we assumed that children between the ages
of 0 and 11 years spend an average of 10 hours, or 600 minutes, sleeping. This estimate
is likely to be conservative based on the time reported in the personal care activity category.
This category includes sleep, and the times reported for children (794 minutes per day) are
approximately 150 minutes higher than those reported for adults (642 minutes per day in
both surveys). Adults reported that they sleep approximately 500 minutes per day, so
children may actually sleep as much as 650 minutes per day. When it was assumed that
children sleep 600 minutes per day, it was estimated that they are away from home 43
percent of the time they are awake.
After reviewing the activity data for adults and children we concluded that it is reasonably
conservative to assume that during a 30 year exposure duration, while awake an Anaconda
resident will spend 45 percent of their time away from home and 55 percent of their time
at home. This assumption is conservative because it assumes that 30 years will be spent
living in the same house. These values may then be used in the following equation to
calculate a risk-based cleanup level for an individual yard:
Risk-based target concentration = (0.45)(Community concentration) + (0.55)(Yard
concentration).
When the risk-based trigger concentration is 297 ppm and the average community
concentration is 172 ppm, the average yard concentration would be 399 ppm. Thus, a
cleanup level of 400 ppm for an individual yard would guarantee that a reasonable
maximum exposure (RME) would not exceed a target risk of 1 x 10~*. As indicated by
EPA's central tendency risk estimate (which yields a 1X 10~* risk screening level of 1,852
ppm), actual risks are likely to be only a fraction of the RME estimates. It is also
noteworthy that EPA's RME screening level of 297 ppm does not account for the fact that
in Anaconda exposures to soil will be minimal during the 155 days per year when the
ground is frozen or snow covered. If wintertime soil and dust ingestion exposures are
assumed to be limited to indoor dust, the RME screening level would increase from 297 to
approximately 330 ppm. For these reasons, we believe that the cleanup level for an
individual yard should be set at 400 ppm. We would be pleased to discuss this
recommendation with you further at your convenience.
f •
Sincerely,
Robin J. Bullock ,
Sr. Environmental Manager
cc: S.M.Stash
P.S.Sbar
R.W.Lawrence
H. Greene
C. Lapin
P. Flack
K. Ekstrom/AGC
File: 72.05.110.1
-------
TABLE 1. DERIVATION OF ESTIMATES FOR THE PERCENT
OF TIME AWAKE SPENT AWAY FROM HOME
Adults
(ages 18-64)
National
(1985)
Children
(ages 0-11)
CARB CARB
(1987-88) (1989-90)
Total
Total Sample Women Sample Women
(N = 1,980) (n= 1,059) (N = 1,359) (n = 720) (N = 1,200)
Time duration (minutes per day)
At home
At home, asleep
At home, awake*
Away from home (including travel)
Total awake time*
Percent of time awake spent away
from home*
954*
(-1 494C
460
( + ) 478*
938
51
1 ,022*
496°
526
411*
937
44
892*
498°
394
546*
940
58
963*
504C
459
473*
932
51
1,078"
600"
478
362"
840
43
* Data from U.S. EPA 1995, Table 5-26.
b Data from U.S. EPA 1995, Table 5-34.
0 Data from U.S. EPA 1995, Table 5-28.
* Best professional estimate.
* Calculated value.
-------
RCO
307 East Park Street. Suite 400
Anaconda. Montana 59711
Telephone 406 563 5211
Facsimile 406 563 8269
ENVIRONMfcNi :':.
PROTECTION AOENKfev,v:
August 9, 1996
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Charles Coleman
USEPA, Montana Office
301 South Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626
AUO • '.
MONTANA OFFICr
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Andrew J. Young
MDEQ, Superfund Section
2209 Phoenix Avenue
Helena, MT 59601
Re: Comments of Atlantic Richfield Company on the Anaconda Smelter Superfund
Site, Community Soils Operable Unit, Proposed Plan
Dear Mr. Coleman and Mr. Young:
Atlantic Richfield Company ("ARCO") submits the following comments on the July
1996 Community Soils Operable Unit Proposed Plan (the "Proposed Plan"). ARCO applauds the
agencies' efforts to involve the community in the process through the Community Protection
Measures Program (the "CPMP") and to identify Preferred Alternatives that recognize current
and reasonably anticipated future land use and institutional controls through the Anaconda-Deer
Lodge Master Plan, the Development Permit System, and the CPMP. ARCO expects to continue
to work with the County to ensure reliable, effective and enforceable institutional controls (ICs)
for the Community Soils Operable Unit ("CSOU"), including appropriate funding arrangements
for implementation of such controls within the Focus Areas identified in the Proposed Plan.
ARCO will provide the agencies with ARCO's letter to the County with respect to
implementation and funding of the CPMP early next week for inclusion in the administrative
record of the CSOU.
Based upon ARCO's work on the CSOU RI/FS, Alternative No. 3, In-Place Treatment,
Capping and ICs, meets the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP, and is preferrable over
Preferred Alternative No. 4 identified in the Proposed Plan. Alternative No. 3:1) is fully
protective of public health and the environment; 2) attains ARARs; 3) provides at least
equivalent long-term effectiveness and permanence as Alternative No. 4; 4) reduces the toxicity,
mobility or volume of contaminated soils through treatment that immobilizes arsenic and other
metals present in the soils; 5) provides greater short term protection to the community and
workers during implementation than Alternative 4, without the soil excavation, transport and
replacement risks associated with Alternative 4; 6) is at least as implementable as Alternative
No. 4; and 7) costs less than Alternative No. 4. Alternative No. 3 is the most cost effective
remedy for the CSOU. Alternative No. 3 satisfies CERCLA's preference for treatment. The
Proposed Plan itself recognizes most of these advantages of Alternative No. 3. Yet, EPA
identifies Alternative No. 4 as the Preferred Alternative on the basis that "the removal option is a
Atlantic B'Chtieid Company
ARCOD-6010-B
-------
Mr. Charles Coleman
Mr. Andrew J. Young
August 9,1996
Page 2
more proven, protective and permanent remedy that is readily implementable and cost effective."
The Proposed Plan provides no basis for EPA's conclusion, and the administrative record does
not support this conclusion. Alternative No. 3 is less invasive, less costly, takes less time, is
more readily implementable, is less disruptive, and is protective of public health and the
environment. It is the most sensible alternative for the CSOU. ARCO requests that the Agency
reevaluate its position and select Alternative No. 3 as the remedy in the ROD.
ARCO also contests the 250 ppm residential soils action level for arsenic identified in the
Proposed Plan. ARCO incorporates by reference its February 29,1996 letter to Mr. Charles
Coleman regarding arsenic cleanup levels for residential areas in Anaconda, and its December 1,
1995 comments on the Anaconda human health baseline risk assessment. ARCO has provided
EPA with justification for using a significantly higher residential soils arsenic action level for the
CSOU based upon current, generally accepted methods and assumptions for evaluating risk.
ARCO requests that EPA raise the residential soils action level for arsenic for the CSOU to at
least 297 ppm arsenic. This level itself is highly conservative and would provide more than
adequate protection of human health.
ARCO requests that any alternative selected for the CSOU recognize the property rights
of landowners. To that end, the ROD should expressly state that remedial action at the CSOU
will be undertaken upon a private landowner's property only at the request of the landowner.
Additionally, the ROD should specify that remediation will only occur in residential areas within
the Focus Areas that are not already adequately covered with lawn, vegetation or another
appropriate protective barrier. The selected remedy should not require removal of lawns,
vegetated areas, or other barriers that currently provide adequate protection of public health.
Additional comments on the Proposed Plan are set forth in ARCO's August 9,1996
CSOU RI/FS Disclaimer Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference.
ARCO's specific comments on the Proposed Plan are set forth below.
1. EPA Should Utilize ARCO's ARARs Clarification Document or a Subset
Thereof as the Final ARARs for the Community Soils Remedy Selected in the ROD. ARCO
submitted to EPA and MDEQ ARCO's Clarification of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements for the Community Soils Operable Unit (the "ARARs Clarification Document").
The ARARs Clarification Document is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein by
reference. The ARARs identified in ARCO's ARARs Clarification Document are based upon
EPA's and the State's initial identification of ARARs, but are more specifically tailored to, and
are more appropriate for, the site specific circumstances and remedial alternatives identified for
the Community Soils Operable Unit in the Proposed Plan. The Community Soils remedy should
-------
Mr. Charles Coleman
Mr. Andrew J. Young
August 9,1996
Page 3
pertain only to remediation of certain current and reasonably anticipated future residential soils
within identified Focus Areas and railbeds within Anaconda. The residential soils action levels
and the actions required for remediation of residential soils and railbeds are spelled out in the
Preferred Alternatives. Remediation of surface water, groundwater, and media other than
residential soils and railbeds is outside the scope of this Operable Unit and ARARs should not be
identified for these media. EPA has determined that air quality is not currently adversely
affected by contaminated soils present at the Community Soils Operable Unit. See Proposed
Plan, p.3. Thus, remediation of air quality should not be an objective of this Operable Unit.
Moreover, there is no need for EPA to identify all possible federal and state
requirements as final ARARs in the ROD in order to ensure a protective remedy. For example,
the Proposed Plan identifies action levels for residential soils cleanup, the maximum depth of
excavation, the potential areas of excavation, fill requirements and protective barrier
requirements. Flexibility exists for circumstances when excavation may not be appropriate,
determining the appropriate depth of excavation, and selecting the type of protective barrier that
is most appropriate. These requirements for the remedy should guide remedial design/remedial
action decisions, not preliminarily identified ARARs that may only be tangentially related to, and
may in fact impede selection and implementation of, a remedy that is protective of public health
and the environment.
The Proposed Plan recognizes that the Alternatives No. 3 and No. 4 will attain
ARARs. Only those requirements that meet the requirements of section 121(d) of CERCLA and
the NCP and specifically pertain to the Community Soils Operable Unit final remedy are
identified as ARARs in ARCO's ARARs Clarification Document. The ARARs Clarification
Document is conservative and overinclusive of potential ARARs. It may be appropriate to
identify a subset of ARARs identified in the Clarification Document as final ARARs in the
ROD.1 EPA should attach ARCO's ARARs Clarification Document, or a subset thereof, as the
final ARARs for the ROD. ARCO looks forward to working closely with EPA and MDEQ to
develop appropriate Final ARARs and performance standards.
'ARCO notes that its ARARs Clarification Document is, if anything, overinclusive of
potential ARARs for the Community Soils Operable Unit. The Alternatives No. 3 and No. 4
identified in the Proposed Plan could be implemented readily in a manner protective of public
health and the environment and consistent with CERCLA and the NCP with far fewer ARARs.
For example, most requirements identified as relevant and appropriate in ARCO's ARARs
Clarification would more appropriately be addressed based upon professional judgment in
remedial design consistent with the remedy described in the ROD. Inclusion of a specific
requirement in ARCO's ARARs Clarification Document does not mean that ARCO endorses the
requirement as an ARAR.
-------
Mr. Charles Coleman
Mr. Andrew J. Young
August 9,1996
Page 4
2. ARCO Incorporates by Reference its Disclaimer Letter on the RI/FS. EPA
required ARCO to incorporate certain comments and revisions in the Final Draft Community
Soils RI/FS (June 1996), which was prepared by ARCO and approved by EPA. ARCO provided
EPA with a disclaimer letter with respect to revisions with which ARCO disagrees on August 9,
1996. ARCO incorporates by reference the comments in its August 9,1996 Disclaimer Letter.
3. Cleanup Actions for Current and Reasonably Anticipated Future Residential Soils
Must be Limited to Specified Residential Areas that are Within the Focus Area in Figures 2 and
3 of the Proposed Plan. EPA has identified "Focus Areas" for Anaconda Residential Soils and
Regional Residential Soils for the Community Soils Operable Unit. The Focus Areas are based
on soils characterization in the RI/FS Report and EPA's overly conservative statistical
determination of where there is a potential for risk. Response actions at the Community Soils
Operable Unit should be limited to the Focus Areas, and the railbeds within the community of
Anaconda.
Areas outside of the Focus Areas are by definition not areas of concern to human
health based upon EPA's overly conservative statistical methodology. ARCO strongly objects to
the proposed inclusion of "opportunistic sampling and remediation of potentially contaminated
soils outside the Focus Area" as an element of the Preferred Alternative for residential soils or of
the remedy selected in the ROD. See, Proposed Plan, p.7. Areas outside of the Focus Areas
should be no longer be considered within this Operable Unit and should be deleted (hi
accordance with appropriate procedures) from the Anaconda Smelter NPL site. Sampling or
other activities outside of the Focus Areas should not be addressed under CERCLA and should
not be covered under the CPMP.
4. Funding Procedures for Cleanup of Future Residential Areas Should be in
Accordance with Procedures Specified in the CPMP and the DPS and Should not be Specified in
the ROD. The description of the Preferred Alternative for Residential Soils states "Funding for
implementation of the DPS, including cleanup efforts directly related to contaminated soils, will
not be required of individuals or the county." Proposed Plan, P.7. The Proposed Plan also
provides, "Funding for implementation of the CPMP will not be required of the County." I&
As EPA is aware, ARCO is working cooperatively with the County to establish
appropriate funding mechanisms for the CPMP and the DPS. The CPMP will specify
appropriate and fair funding mechanisms for cleanup efforts and education directly related to
contaminated soils at current and reasonably anticipated future residential areas within the Focus
Areas. ARCO recognizes that institutional controls are a key component of the remedy for the
Community Soils Operable Unit, and expects to work closely with the County to ensure
appropriate and mutually acceptable funding mechanisms are in place. However, it is
inappropriate, unnecessary and inconsistent with CERCLA and the NCP for the Proposed Plan or
-------
Mr. Charles Coleman
Mr. Andrew J. Young
August 9, 1996
Page 5
the ROD to include some, while excluding other, potential funding sources. ARCO does not
anticipate that new subdivisions or resubdivisions, new activities on previously reclaimed areas
such as Teresa Ann Terrace, or individuals or entities who convey property for residential
development in the Focus Areas after the issuance of the Community Soils ROD will be funded
under the funding mechanism agreed upon between ARCO and ADL. As discussed above,
ARCO also does not anticipate that the CPMP or any cleanup/sampling actions will be funded
outside of the Focus Areas.
ARCO anticipates that ARCO and ADL will arrive at a mutually acceptable
funding mechanism for the CPMP and for the DPS prior to issuance of the ROD. ARCO will
keep EPA and MDEQ apprised of the status of the funding arrangement with ADL.
5. No Preference Should Be Given To Removal of Soils at Future Residential Areas.
The Proposed Plan states on page 7 that preference will be given to removal at future residential
areas where appropriate. It is not necessary to establish a preference for removal. Rather, the
most appropriate cleanup mechanism consistent with the ROD, CPMP and DPS should be used.
The Proposed Plan recognizes that the most appropriate measure should be taken. To clarify
this, ARCO requests that EPA delete the preference for removal of soils at future residential
areas in the ROD.
6. ARCO Concurs with EPA that Risks to Human Health within the Community
Soils Operable Unit Are Below Levels of Concern. ARCO submitted comments on EPA's
Anaconda Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment to the agencies on December 1,1995.
ARCO's comments are incorporated herein by reference. ARCO agrees that health risks to
residents in Anaconda and Opportunity, as well as predicted blood levels, are below EPA's levels
of concern.
7. The "Designated Soil Management Area" Should Be Identified in the Rod as the
ADL Designated Soils Repository. The Opportunity Ponds area is identified as the ADL
Designated Soils Repository.
8. ARCO Generally Supports the Preferred Alternative for Railroad Beds. The
Preferred Alternative should be implemented in a cost-effective manner consistent with Rams'
active operation and maintenance of the rail line. The selected remedy should be limited to the
portion of the Rarus railbed within the current boundaries of the community of Anaconda. Given
the low risk, the remedy should be implemented at the time of scheduled ongoing maintenance
over an appropriate period of time. ARCO expects to work closely with RARUS to propose a
mutually acceptable approach for the railbeds to EPA and MDEQ.
-------
Mr. Charles Coleman
Mr. Andrew J. Young
August 9,1996
Page 6
By submitting these comments, ARCO does not admit and reserves its right to contest
any liability or conclusions of fact or law related to the Community Soils Operable Unit. Without
limitation, ARCO does not admit and reserves its right to contest the statement in the Proposed
Plan that "railroad beds [were] constructed primarily by a subsidiary of the Anaconda Copper
Mining Company, both in Anaconda and regionally." The Agency has provided no basis for this
allegation. Such allegations are inappropriate in the Proposed Plan and the ROD. Additionally,
the Proposed Plan speculates that railroad beds were likely constructed of materials from the
Anaconda or Butte mining/smelting operations, again without basis. This unsubstantiated
assertion is also inappropriate and unnecessary for the Proposed Plan or the ROD.
ARCO appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. ARCO requests that the
agencies give these comments full and careful consideration. Please respond to each of these
comments in the Responsiveness Summary of the ROD. Also, please include these comments in
the administrative record for the Community Soils Operable Unit. ARCO requests that the
Agency select the remedy in the CSOU ROD in accordance with these comments. If you have
any questions, please call me at (406) 563-5211 ext. 414.
Very truly yours,
Robin Bullock
Enclosures
cc w/enc: Andrew J. Lensink, Esq.
Sandra M. Stash, P.E.
Pamela S. Sbar, Esq.
Mary Capdeville, Esq.
-------
-------
CLARIFICATION OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS, CONTROLS CRITERIA, OR LIMITATIONS
FOR THE ANACONDA SMELTER SUPERFUND SITE, COMMUNITY SOILS
OPERABLE UNIT REMEDIAL ACTION
INTRODUCTION
Section 121(d) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d), the National Ofl and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (the "NCP"), 40 CFRPart 300 (1990), and guidance and
policy issued by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") require that remedial actions
under CERCLA comply with substantive provisions of applicable or relevant and appropriate
standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations from State of Montana and federal environmental
laws and State facility siting laws during and at the completion of the remedial action. These
requirements are threshold standards that any selected remedy must meet
This Clarification is provided as an Appendix to the Community Soils FS. This
Clarification identifies final ARARs that are expected to apply to the activities to be conducted
under the Community Soils Operable Unit ("CS OU") remedial action. The following ARARs or
groups of related ARARs are each identified by a statutory or regulatory citation, followed by a
brief explanation of the ARAR and how and to what extent the ARAB, is expected to apply to the
activities to be conducted under this remedial action.
Final remediation of ground-water and surface water within the CS OU is not within the
scope of the remedial action for this Operable Unit. Further, it is anticipated that remediation of
soils will not result in significant degradation of groundwater or surface water. Water quality
provisions for groundwater and surface water set forth herein are not identified as final ARARS
or performance standards for the CS OU. The requirements are identified only for purposes of
preventing significant degradation of groundwater or surface water when conducting a remedial
action, and to ensure that the remedial action at the CS OU is consistent, to the extent practicable,
with the groundwater and surface water ARARs for the Regional Water, Waste, and Soils
("RWW&S") OU, which will be the final response action for these media.
Substantive provisions of the requirements listed below are identified as ARARs pursuant
to 40 CFR § 300.400. ARARs that are within the scope of this remedial action must be attained
during and at the completion of the remedial action. No permits are anticipated for the remedial
action for the CS OU in accordance with Section 121(e) of CERCLA.
TYPES OF ARARs
ARARs are contaminant, location, or action specific. Contaminant specific requirements
address chemical or physical characteristics of compounds or substances on sites. These values
establish acceptable amounts or concentrations of chemicals which may be found in or discharged
to the ambient environment.
-------
Location specific requirements are restrictions placed upon the concentrations of
hazardous substances or the conduct of cleanup activities because they are in specific locations.
Location specific ARARs relate to the geographical or physical positions of sites, rather than to
the nature of contaminants at sites.
Action specific requirements are usually technology based or activity based requirements
or limitations on actions taken with respect to hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants,
A given cleanup activity will trigger an action specific requirement. Such requirements do not
themselves determine the cleanup alternative, but define how chosen cleanup methods should be
performed.
Many requirements listed as ARARs are promulgated as identical or near identical
requirements in both federal and state law, usually pursuant to delegated environmental programs
administered by EPA and the state. The Preamble to the NCP provides that such a situation
results in citation to the state provision and treatment of the provision as a federal requirement
L CONTAMINANT SPECIFIC
and State Groundwater and Surface Water ARARs^
Final remediation of groundwater and surface water is not within the scope of the CS OU
and will be addressed, as appropriate, under the RWW&S OU. EPA identifies certain
groundwater and surface water requirements herein solely for the purposes of 1) prohibiting
significant degradation of these media by this remedial action, particularly with respect to the
railroad beds, and 2) achieving consistency with the RWW&S OU response action. Specifically,
these requirements are intended solely to aid in the identification of potential contamination from
the soils and railroad beds to groundwater and surface water and for developing remedial
alternatives. The groundwater and surface water requirements identified herein are not
performance standards or final ARARs for the CS OU. These requirements are listed below.
1. Surface Water. M.C.A. §§ 75-5-303. -308. -708 and -317: ARM §
16.20.711. These sections establish nondegradation requirements for surface waters. Section 708
provides that existing and anticipated uses and the water quality necessary to protect those uses
must be maintained unless degradation is allowed under the nondegradation rules of ARM §
16.20.71 1. MCA § 708 provides for short term exemptions from surface water nondegradation
requirements and § 3 17 identifies activities that are considered "not significant" and thus not
subject to nondegradation requirements.
2. Groundwater.
a. ARM § 16.20.1002 and .1003 (applicable^. Groundwater in the
CS OU is classified as Class L
b. ARM § 16.20.1011 (applicable^. This section provides that any
groundwater whose existing quality is higher than the standard for its classification must be
-2-
-------
maintained at that high quality unless the board is satisfied that a change is justifiable for economic
or social development and will not preclude present or anticipated use of such waters.
c. M.C.A. § 75-5-317 (applicable). This section identifies sources of
pollution that are considered non-significant activities, and not subject to nondegradation
requirements.
B. Federal and State Air Quality Requirements.,.
1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR § 50.6 fl*M-10)t 4Q
CFR § 50.12 fleacfl (applicable). These provisions establish standards for PM-10 and lead
emissions to air. Corresponding state standards are found at ARM §16.8.815 (lead) and ARM §
16.8.821 (PM-10).
2. Montana Ambient Air Quality Regulations. ARM §§ 16.8.807. .815.
.818. and .821 (applicable).
a. Arm § 16.8.807. This provision establishes sampling, data
collection and analytical requirements to ensure compliance with ambient air quality standards.
b. ARM § 16.8.809. Establishes sampling, data collection, recording,
and analysis to ensure compliance with ambient air quality standards.
c. ARM § 16.8.815. Lead emissions to ambient air shall not exceed a
ninety (90) day average of 1.5 micrograms per cubic liter of air.
d. ARM § 16.8.818. Settled paniculate matter shall not exceed a
thirty (30) day average of 10 grams per square meter.
e. ARM § 16.8.821. PM-10 concentrations in ambient air shall not
exceed a 24 hour average of 150 micrograms per cubic meter of air and an annual average of 50
micrograms per cubic meter of ah*.
IL LOCATION SPECIFIC REOTJTREMENTS
The statutes and regulations set forth below relate to the preservation of certain cultural,
historic, natural or other national resources which may be adversely affected by the CS OU
remedial action. They require that such resources be identified, and that steps be taken to
minimize the impact of the remedial action upon any such resources.
A. National Historic Preservation Act. 16 TT.S.C. § 470.40 CFR § 6.301(b\ 36
CFR Part 800 ("NHPA") (applicable). This statute requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effect of this response action upon any district, site, building, structure, or object that
is included in or eligible for the Register of Historic Places. Compliance with NHPA requirements
has been attained through the Regional Historic Preservation Plan as implemented pursuant to
agreements with EPA, Anaconda/Deer Lodge, the Advisory Council and other parties.
-3-
-------
B. Historic Sites. Buildings and Antiquities Actt 16 TT.S.C. § 461 et seq.r 40 CFR §
6.310(aX (applicable). This provision requires federal agencies to consider the existence and
location of land marks on the National Registry of National Landmarks and to avoid undesirable
impacts on such landmarks. It is not anticipated that the remedial action will affect or result in
adverse impacts to National Landmarks.
C. Endangered Species Act. 16 TT.S.C. § 1531. 40 CFR § 6.302(h). SO CFR Parts
17 and 402 (applicable). This statute and implementing regulations provide that federal
activities not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species. Based
upon available information and investigations to date, and consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, no designated threatened or endangered species or their habitat are expected to
be affected by this remedial action.
D. Floodplain Management. 40 CFR § 6.302(bV and Executive Order No. 11988.
These require that actions be taken to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse effects associated
with direct or indirect development of a floodplain, or to minimize adverse impacts if no
practicable alternative exists.
HL ACTION SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
A. federal and State RCRA Subtitle P Requirements (relevant and
appropriate).
40 CFR Fan 257 establishes criteria under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act for use in determining which solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a
reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment Sss. 40 CFR § 257. l(a).
This part comes into play whenever there is a "disposal" of any solid or hazardous waste from a
"facility." "Disposal" is defined as "the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or
placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid
waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into
the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters." See 40 CFR § 257.2. "Facility"
means "any land and appurtenances thereto used for the disposal of solid wastes." It is not
anticipated that disposal of solid waste will occur through implementation of the remedial action
for the CS OU. These requirements do not pertain to the consolidation of materials in a waste
management area or to the treatment/capping of materials in place.
B. ^Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act. M.C.A. § 82-4-201
and following (relevant and appropriate).
Certain discrete portions of the following regulatory provisions, to the extent they
address grading requirements, erosions control, and stabilization measures that will be useful in
securing certain locations addressed by the remedial action at the CS OU, are identified as
relevant and appropriate requirements,. If a portion of a regulation is not specifically referred to
below, then that portion of the regulation is not considered to be an ARAR or performance
standard.
-4-
-------
1. ARM § 26.4.501(3X31 and (d) and (4). Backfill must be placed so as to
minimize sedimentation, erosion, and leaching of acid or toxic materials into waters, unless
otherwise approved.
2. ARM § 26.4.502rAVnra^ and m. Final graded slopes wffl be 5:1 unless
otherwise approved. If steeper, slopes must have a long term status safety factor of 1:3, not to
exceed the angle of repose unless the existing grade of the area is steeper, in which case the
existing grade meets this requirement Disturbed areas must be blended with undisturbed ground
to provide a smooth transition in topography. This requirement does not pertain to residential
yards or commercial property or similar landscaped areas.
3. ARM § 26.4.514. Final grading wfll be done along the existing contour in
order to minimize subsequent erosion and instability, unless otherwise approved. This
requirement does not pertain to residential yards or commercial property or similar landscaped
areas.
4. ATtM § 26.4.519. Pertinent areas of the CS OU where excavation will
occur will be regraded to minimize settlement
5. ARM § 26.4.63im. (21 (S\(a\ and (¥>. Disturbances to the prevailing
hydrologic balance will be minimized. Changes in water quality and quantity, in the depth to
groundwater and in the location of surface water drainage channels will be minimized, to the
extent practicable and consistent with the selected remedial alternatives.
6. ARM § 26.4.638(l)(a) and (c) and (2). Practices to prevent or minitni?ft
sedimentation and erosion will be employed to the extent possible.
7. ARM § 26.4.638(2). Sediment control measures must be implemented
during operations.
8. ARM § 26.4.702f4\ (S\ and (6). Practices to prevent compaction,
slippage, erosion, and deterioration of biological properties of soil will be employed.
9. £RM § 26.4.711. Requires that a diverse, effective and permanent
vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety and utility as the vegetation native to the area of
land to be affected must be established. This provision would not be relevant and appropriate in
certain instances, for example, where there is dedicated development, or in areas of residential or
commercial development.
10. ARM § 26.4.761(2Xa)T (e)T (h), fj), and (k). These provisions specify
fugitive dust control measures which will be employed during excavation and construction
activities to minimize the emission of fugitive dust in the CS OU. These provisions are addressed
below in Section mC.
-5-
-------
A'r Reuirements (all alicable).
1. ARM § 16.8.1401f2\ (3). and (4). Airborne participate matter. There
shall be no production, handling, transportation, or storage of any material, use of any street,
road, or parking lot, or operation of a construction site or demolition project unless reasonable
precautions are taken to control emissions of airborne particles. Emissions shall not exhibit an
opacity exceeding 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive minutes.
2. ARM § 16.8.1404(2). Visible Air Contaminants. Emissions into the
outdoor atmosphere shall not exhibit an opacity of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive
minutes.
3. ARM § 16.8.1427. Nuisance or odor bearing gases. Gases, vapors and
dusts will be controlled such that no public nuisance is caused within the CS OU.
4. ARM § 26.4.761 (2)faX to. fhV (j) and fid. Fugitive dust control
measures such as 1) watering, stabilization, or paving of roads, 2) vehicle speed restrictions, 3)
stabilization of surface areas adjoining roads, 4) restriction of travel on other t*m" authorized
roads, 5) enclosing, covering, watering, or otherwise treating loaded haul truck, 6) minimizing
area of disturbed land, and 7) revegetation, must be planned and implemented, if any such
measure or measures are appropriate for this remedial action.
D. Air Quality Requirements (applicable).
Remedial activities will comply with the following requirements to ensure that
existing air quality will not be aversely affected by the CS OU remedial action.
1. ARM § 16.8.81$. The concentration of lead in ambient air shall not
exceed a 90 day average of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
2. ARM § 16.8.818. Settled particulate matter shall not exceed a 30 day
average of 10 grams per square meter.
3. ARM § 16.8.821. The concentration of PM- 10 in ambient air shall not
exceed a 24 hour average of 150 micrograms per cubic meter of air and an annual average of 50
micrograms per cubic meter of air.
-6-
-------
307 East Park Street. Suite 400
Anaconda. Montana 59711
Telephone 406 563 5211
Facsimile 406 563 8269
August 9,1996
Mr. Charles Coleman VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII; Montana Office
Federal Building
301 S. Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626-0096
Mr. Andrew Young VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Environmental Remediation Division,
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
2209 Phoenix Avenue
Helena, MT 59620
Re: Atlantic Richfield Company Disclaimer of Required Revisions in the June 1996
Final Draft Community Soils Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (the
"CSOURI/FS")
Dear Mr. Coleman and Mr. Young:
ARCO hereby disclaims any revisions ARCO made to the CSOU RI/FS in response to
comments received from EPA or the State on prior drafts of the RI/FS or other CSOU
deliverables. The deliverables ARCO initially submitted to the agencies with respect to the
CSOU pursuant to Administrative Order on Consent, Docket No. CERCLA VIII-88-16, as
amended, (the "AOC") were prepared hi accordance with the requirements of the AOC and the
Community Soils RI/FS Work Plan. ARCO has the following specific comments:
1. EPA did not prepare a complete rewrite of the RI/FS. and no complete rewrite
was required. Contrary to assertions in EPA's July 30,1996 letter to Sandy Stash, EPA did not
prepare a "complete rewrite" of the Community Soils RI/FS. ARCO's initial draft CSOU RI/FS
submittals to EPA followed the framework of the RI/FS Statement of Work (which EPA
prepared) and were prepared hi accordance with the AOC. ARCO objects to EPA's contention
that such submittals required complete rewrite. EPA elected to revise the framework for
preparation of the RI/FS, and provided ARCO with an outline for the revisions. Certainly,
EPA's outline cannot be characterized as a rewrite. In any case, ARCO cooperatively prepared
subsequent RI/FS deliverables hi accordance with EPA's outline. ARCO certainly did not
expect that its cooperation would be construed as evidence of "limited focused attention to the
final RI/FS activities hi Anaconda" as EPA claimed hi its July 30,1996 letter.
2. Kriging methods EPA required were unnecessary and overly conservative. EPA
required that ARCO undertake a second and third round of kriging to show the kriged
Atlantic Richtield Company ARCOD-6010-B
-------
Mr. Charles Coleman
Mr. Andrew Young
August 9,1996
Page 2
distribution for arsenic in Anaconda. ARCO's first round of kriging was in accordance with
generally accepted methodologies and provided a conservative basis for determining residential
areas hi the CSOU requiring remediation. The second round of kriging that EPA required was
based on a faulty software package we understand was suggested by the United States
Department of Justice.1 ARCO was then required to undertake a third round of "relative"
kriging. The second and third rounds of kriging were not necessary to determine the kriged
distribution of arsenic in Anaconda and resulted hi a highly over-conservative estimate of the
number of residential blocks exceeding the arsenic action level. EPA compounded the problems
with this approach when it required ARCO to use the upper 90% confidence interval instead of
the "best estimate" and then identified an action level of 250 ppm soil arsenic.
ARCO contests the use of relative kriging EPA required hi the third round, the required
use of the faulty DOJ software package hi the 2nd round, the use of the upper 90% confidence
level, and the use of 250 ppm arsenic action level for residential soils kriging. This approach
does not comport with generally accepted methodologies, and is inconsistent with and more
conservative than risk-based cleanup levels specified in the NCP. The number of residential
blocks exceeding 297 ppm arsenic hi residential surface soils for Anaconda based upon ARCO's
"best estimate" approach hi the first round of kriging was zero. In contrast, the number of
residential blocks exceeding 297 ppm arsenic hi surficial soils hi the third round of kriging was
92. Use of the 250 ppm arsenic level further increased the number of blocks. The ordinary
kriging ARCO used in the first round based upon the best estimate approach is sufficiently
conservative and provides a more accurate number of residential blocks exceeding the arsenic
action levels. ARCO disclaims the results of the kriging required hi the second and third rounds.
3. No technical or risk-based justification exists for determining 250 ppm arsenic as
the residential soils action level. ARCO incorporates by reference its February 29,1996 letter
to Mr. Charles Coleman regarding arsenic cleanup levels for residential areas hi Anaconda and
its December 1,1995 comments on the Anaconda baseline risk assessment. ARCO provided
EPA with justification for using a significantly higher action level based upon current, generally
accepted methods for evaluating risk.
The 250 ppm arsenic action level for residential soils is not supported by current,
generally accepted methods for evaluating risk to human health. Application of the 250 ppm
'If this understanding is incorrect, please inform us.
2This number does not include the three Teresa Ann Terrace blocks that were previously
remediated or the two recreational and two commercial blocks that were classified
inappropriately as residential by NRIS simply because they overlapped a residential street.
-------
Mr. Charles Coleman
Mr. Andrew Young
August 9,1996
Page 3
level to residential soils cleanup will result hi unnecessary cleanups in areas that do not present
an unacceptable risk to human health. ARCO disclaims the 250 ppm action level for arsenic hi
residential soils and any use made by the Agency of the action level.
4. . EPA arbitrarily modified the ranking of alternatives in the final screening of
alternatives. As ARCO ranked the alternatives hi the final screening, Alternative 3, In-Place
Treatment, Capping and ICs, ranked ahead of Alternative 4, Excavation and Disposal. EPA
acknowledges hi the Proposed Plan that Alternative 3 is "fully protective of human health and
the environment" and that Alternative 3 attains ARARs. Alternative 3 is less invasive and is less
costly than Alternative 4. EPA further acknowledges hi the Proposed Plan that Alternative 4
"may be slightly more difficult to implement and have increased short-term impacts and costs
over Alternative 3." No basis exists in the administrative record or the RI/FS for selecting
Alternative 4 over Alternative 3. ARCO disclaims the ranking of the alternatives EPA required
hi the RI/FS, and requests that EPA review the record, revise the rankings, and identify
Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative and remedy hi the ROD.
5. Previously reclaimed areas and recreational areas should not be included in Focus
Areas in the RI/FS. Inclusion of previously reclaimed areas and recreational or commercial
areas hi the Focus Areas is inconsistent with the objective of the Community Soils Operable Unit
to address residential soils. ARCO disclaims inclusion of these areas within the Focus Areas.
This letter is not intended to provide specific "line by line" disclaimers to the CSOU
RI/FS. The fact that ARCO has not addressed a specific revision EPA required hi the CSOU
RI/FS hi its comments above should not be construed hi any was as ARCO's agreement with
such a revision. ARCO reserves its right to submit additional disclaimers and contest any
revisions to the CSOU RI/FS required by the agencies.
We appreciate your consideration of these comments. Please include these comments in
the CSOU administrative record. If you have any questions, please contact me at (406) 563-5211
ext. 414.
Sincerely, ^^
sZZ'JZ^
Robin Bullock
cc: Andrew J. Lensink, Esq.
Sandra M. Stash, P.E.
Pamela S. Sbar, Esq.
Mary Capdeville, Esq.
-------
-------
-------
------- |