. ,
~..\lectiO~-l
ce Center
9107 .
United Slates
Environmental proteclion
Agp"q
Offtce of
Emeroencv and
Remedial Response
EPAlRO')/R08-87/018
September 1987
6EPA
Superfund
Record 01 Decision:
1>lS~g- ZZOCf.J>3
~
r
'/ "
Central City/Clear Creek, CO
.....
-------
\\ I
TeCHNICAL REPORT DATA
'PI~fU' ".cJ /ftrtl'fJCIIOfff Off ("~ ,~.~"' (>#frN~ cO",,,lttlfff'
I IIII~OlllT NO. 12. I] "ICI"'EI'o r S ACCESS,:.. "0
EPA/ROD/R08-87/0l6
4. TITL.I 101'010 SU'TITL.I ~ 1111100111"1" OAT'I
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION September 30, 1987
Clear Creek/Central City, CO e. "I III 110 III..,,..C OIllCAI'o'ZAT'IOl'o COOl
First Remedial Action
7. AUT"'O'USI .. "'111110111"'1'010 OlilCAN'ZAT'IO,.. "'''OlilT "0
~. "'"110111"'''0 O"OANIZATION NA'" ANO AOOlil'SS 10. ""OOlilA.. h.'''lI'n "0
I I CON "IIIA(; ~AN 1'01;1
12. S~O.NSOIIIINO AOINCY NA'" ANO AOOIII,SS IJ. T'Y"t 011 1II'~OlllT ANO "'"'00 COIIE"EO
U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. '4. S~ONSOIIIINO AGINCY COOl
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
'1. SU,ttI.IM,NTAI'I" NOTIS
'.. AATIIIA(;T and
The Clear Creek/Central City site encompasses portions of Clear Creek County
Gilpin County in the Colorado Mineral Belts, CO. More specifically, the focus is on
five abandoned mines/tunnels proximal to the cities of Idaho Springs, Black Hawk anGl .,-
Central City and the influence of acid mine drainage from those tunnels on adjacent
stream courses. Surface water contamination results from acid mine drainage emanating
from the five tunnels and from seepage of ground water through tailings piles both
proximal to these tunnels and along stream courses. Approximately 1,200 lbs per day of
dissolved and suspended metals are discharged to the Clear Creek drainage from the five
mine tunnels. These dissolved and suspended metal loadings have resulted in a
significant depletion of aquatic life and have potential impact to sediments and
downstream users of surface and ground water. There are ten contaminants of concern
including aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chro,mium, copper, fluoride, lead, manganese,
nickel, silver and zinc. ,
The selected interim remedy for this site includes: construction of passive treatment
systems to treat mine tunnel discharge prior to discharge to surface water. This is the
preferred alternative and is contingent upon results of ongoing pilot plant studies. If
water quality concentrations cannot be achieved by passive treatment, either a
combination system of passive and active treatme~t systems will be constructed or two
(See Attached Sheet)
17. KIY .0"'08 ANa aoCU"I...T A"'AL,YS'S
Olac...,"O"" ".IO,..T""'""O'I.. INOIO TIIII"" C. COSATI F..I4IGroup
Record of Decision
Clear Creek/Central City, CO
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: gw, sw, sediments
Key contaminants: arsenic, chromium, metals
'I. OISTIIIIIUTION STATIMINT II. SICUllllTY C~, nll~ R,poff/ 21 ,..0 Oil ,"AGIS
158
20. SICUIII,TY CL.ASS, nil' p.,., n "III'CI
,
v
I'. ,- 2220-1 (I... '-711
""1'''0.... 10'T'O".. O..O...ITI
- -. _. . ...- 'L~ ..~-.,.. ~........... . ",,,,,"..~_."l' ~~-""';O:"~ ~~-f"/",,:.n;~~":.?~?7:~.:;'P:~"':-:'~~:~~:;{_~";:-:--,"i~'7.':-..:~.~.::.~""!::; ::.~;:?;;~:th:;:;~~~~~~..(:Z.~;;:t:.;::.;:;t.~1..~~~'.~~~;~:~~~::7';.~~';;~~:";..:;~ :.-
-------
EPA/ROD/R08-87/016
Clear Creek/Central City, CO
First Remedial Action
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
active treatment systems (chemical precipitation or electrochemical precipitation) will
be constructed to treat mine tunnel discharge. The estimated capital. cost for passive
treatment only is $1,663,000 with annual O&M of $115,000.
. ..' ._~ ... '..~-"!.~. PY~~!'~..'" "',.~.7-' ".,~~...~~-'-~ .~,-,":,",~.J-:~~-:~:~~~"'~~.~-:_:;~ ,{~~~~~;-;;:.~~~..~~..f\~..;-~.~t~';:~:}/t:::~;..:. ;." :;-~~~':J:::' :"':~:~~~~r:'~:;:~3~)~;~:~.;[2:.~:f~~;2::i~~~~~1~~~;~:~J:l::.~:~ri:l?5J;ZZ~
-------
.,~tO ".'"''
... ft i
ts./
""4, ..0<'-"
. UNITEC STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII'
999 , 8t" STI=!EET - SUITE SOO
OENVER, COLORAOO 80202.2405
CLEAR CREEK/CENTRAL CITY SITE
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD. OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
COMMUNITY RELATIONS RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
OPERABLE UNIT NO. ONE
Clear Creek and Gilpin Counties, Colorado
September 30, 1987
~1~._;o'I"':-~.: t ":TT"'~~~~~~~.-:~""~/!~~~.:1-:'~~.~~~ ~~:.~~~.; :~~:;...::. ~.. ~'.~~~:.~'s;~...~~;~:.:::'~ 2.;~'~:~~:~;;:~;"L'?;~~7Ai:~1Sl~~1...~'~~~~:';~:~7~~B.::;}i::~.~!~;tf{~!2~:j~<.::~~':~;~:~g~~~~!Z;'}~~~Y;S~~:~l~~:::
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Clear Creek and Gilpin Counties, Colorado
Operable Unit No. One
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document represents. the selected remedial action for Operable
Unit No. One of the Clear Creek/Central City site developed in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency-
Plan.
The State of Colorado has been consulted on the selection of remedy. The
State of Colorado has neither concurred nor non-concurred on the selection.
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based upon the Administrative Record for Operable Unit No.
One of the Clear Creek/Central City site (the ~index of IoIhich is attached in
Appendix C). The index identifies the items which comprise the
Administrative Record upon which the selection of the remedial action is
based.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
Low pH mine tunnel discharge water is only one of several sources to the
degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat at ~he Clear Creek/Central
City site. Data gathered during che re~edial in"estigation has sho~n that:
-1-
.::~ :':.~ :::I;~!:~,?:.'~:~ ;i.<::;:~ :':,:1' ~.~ -?,". . ~.~:_.:~; !~;~~i.l~X~~~7;:7:£;1~t;:~3';~!3~~:I~; .;'~~':J.~.~'K~~il]131:~;-i::!~~;
.' ~-p.-...' ....:....., ~ ", "':"~~'-~-.:.~:-(':,:."7"~""~ ~..;.\_~...;~::~.:-:, ".~\ : '~.".').:';::~~'~ .,:,,::"'.O;~~~'.~;;' .'..~.."'~ 'ii. ;J' ":"-"~'~"I~~ ~'~'.~: ~.>:
-------
a
Runoff from tailings and vaste rock piles contain dissolved and
suspended metals.
a
Tailings and vaste rock piles adjacent to Clear\Creek and North
Clear Creek are unstable and could collapse into the creeks. These
piles have the poten~ial to produce acid. ~hen introduced to vater,
the pH viII rapidly decrease and significant amounts of metals viII
be released to the environment.
o
Hydrostatic pressure viII build up in the tunnels due to cave-ins.
After sufficient pressure has built up, the tunnels viII blov out,
releasing large volumes of dissolved and suspended metals to the
creeks.
o
The ground vaters in the vicinity of the acid mine discharges are
contaminated.
"
o
There are additional sources of lov pH mine tunnel discharges and
tailings upstream of the site that could be contributing dissolved
and suspended metals to the streams.
All of the above factors contribute to vater quality and aquatic habitat
degradation and viII be studied in the folloving subsequent operable units:
Operable Unit No.
Operable Unit No.
Operable Unit No.
Operable Unit No.
Operable Unit No.
Tvo - Tailings and Yaste Rock Remediation
Three - Source Control
Four - Blovout Control
Five - Regional Ground ~ater Contamination
Six - Upstream Mine. Discharges and Tailings
These operable units are subject to change.
The selected remedy for Operable Unit No. One of the Clear Creek/Central
City site consists of treatment to meet upstream vater quality
concentration for contaminants of concern identified in the remedial
investigation (RI) in a treatment system discharge line. The upstream
vater quality' concentrations viII be used as operational standards for this
interim remedy. The upstream vater quality concentrations ("upstream
levels") consist of the geometric mean of the subset of RI samples taken on
Clear Creek immediately upstream of the discharge from the Big Five Tunnel
and on North Clear Creek immediately upstream of the discharge from the
-2-
~:;, ':'!-;~::,:; ~:~~0:'~~:" t::':.::1..; r~.~"~:~', ';G.:- ~;~~ ~ ',~' ~ ~~::~. ~.~:~'.~~ S'.~~,;':Z.:~~ ~~ .,~:~::;: }~; ;~~-: ~~.:r:'~ ?':"~::;'~'.~ ~'2,~;~{:: :;~.?:..;:...~;.r..::;.~~j.~~.::t::-';!:~2~ :-:..L~L:~~::.3.:c'. b:l~L~':'~~~J'.):5~~ ~~T.i:... "'J"'f??;~~:f"~:::~~r!.:'i~7~~~~' Y .
-------
Gregory Incline.
applicable and/or
remedy.
These upstream levels are not to be considered as final
relevant anq appropriate requirements for the final site
Because a determination of the final remedy'is contingent upon the
completion of the other operable unit3 listed above, t~e selected remedy is
an interim remedy. This interim remedy ~ill consist of construction of
passive treatment systems to treat the lo~ pH mine tunnel discharge from
each tunnel prior to discharge to surface waters. This is the preferred
alternative and is contingent upon the results of ongoing pilot plant
studies demonstrating that upstream levels can be met by a passive
treatment system. If the upstream levels cannot be met by passive
treatment, then either of the follo~ing treatment systems will be built:
o . a combination system consisting of passive and active treatment
systems ~ill be constructed. A phased approach to construction ~ill
be utilized.
o
tvo active treatment systems (chemical precipitation or
electrochemical precipitation) will be constructed to treat mine
tunnel drainage prior to discharge.
These systems will be designed to reduce the mobility, toxicity or volume
of dissolved and suspended metals in the mine drainage, increase pH, and
meet upstream levels. Upstream levels are listed in the Selected Remedy
section.
A pilot-treatment system for passive treatment has been constructed at tte
Big Five Tunnel. The pilot plant has been constructed to determine the
ability of passive-treatment effluent to meet upstream levels for the
discharge from a treatment facility at the end of the facility discharge
pipe. The pilot plant will also be operated to gather design data for
sizing volume requirements, determine optimum dissolved and suspended me1al
removal for various organic and vegetation types and confirm remo';al
-3-
"
. . '. ." ~':;: '~:f; ~~ :::'~"--, - !~ :::,~.: :;}': ,'~'7;:r:' .::;::::-'.':~. ~) .;. :) :~'-'~~::! .:~. ':~.7;' ~'~;. :;:.;':~ ~ ;,-:::;/~:.Y(i_:::~~i?~:::~';:~~~:~:'~"Ti~~:;;}~2;:i!~])~~:1~~~~&f;~~Ij~~13j.~{~1~~::~~~:';'~ :'._'1:;~~~,~£:r?~~g:~I:3:f7~~~C~i~~~
-------
efficiencies. Results of studies at the pilot plant viII provide data
required in order to determine final design criteria. Siting studies ~i:l
evaluate alternate treatment site locations.
The remedy includes the following operation and maintenance activities:
Passive Treatment
o
Annual collection of and laboratory analyses of soils and vegetat:on
to measure heavy metal accumulation.
o
Annual maintenance of Vegetation.
o
Replacement of wetland materials and disposal and treatment of metal
saturated organic materials and plants every 5 to 10 years.
o
Maintenance of pipelines carrying low pH mine tunnel discharge water
from tunnels to passive treatment systems.
Active Treatment
o
Labor costs for operation and maintenance of the facility.
o
Chemical costs and power costs for operation and maintenance of tte
facili ty.
o
Sludge treatment and disposal costs.
o
Maintenance of pipelines carrying low pH mine tunnel discharge Valer
from tunnels to treatment facilities.
Passive Treatment and Active Treatment Combination
o
The combination of costs listed above under passive treatment and
active treatment.
-4-
. :'~:;"'.":-,.,~,,".-'~': :'"-:,~w~.:","','.'''''.: .t"~.:.~_.-'~"."'''''r.''',"'':' M ,"""0""" ',_"",--''''.''-'~'-'.' -, .
-------
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is an interim solution requiring the exercise of the
"interim remedy" ....aiver (Section 121(d)(4)(A) of SARA) from
contaminant-specific ARARs listed ~n the ROD Decision Summary. Location
and Action Specific ARARs ....ill be met. The "interim remedy" ....aiver allo~s
-for the selection of a remedial action that does not attain ARARs if "thE
remedial action selected is only part of a total remediation action that
....ill attain such level or standard of control ....hen completed." ~pstream
....ater quality concentrations have been selected as the operational standcrd
for the interim remedy. The interim remedy treats 10"" pH mine tunnel
discharges in a treatment facility sufficiently to meet upstream ....ater
quality concentrations in the treatment facility discharge line. Operab:e
Unit No. One for the Clear Creek/Central City site is only part of the
total remedial action required for the site. Future operable units are
expected to be completed ....ithin 18 months, at ....hich time a final solutior
....i11 be proposed. .The interim remedy is consistent ....ith the final site
remedy.
In accordance with SARA section 121(d)(2)(A(ii), EPA intends that the
final remedy ....ill at least attain ....ater quality criteria established undE r
the Clean ~ater Act, ....here such criteria are relevant and appropriate-uncer
the circumstances of the release. Additional data collection and analys~s
are necessary for EPA to determine ....hether such national criteria are
relevant and appropriate under the circumstances of these releases or
....hether site-specific modification to national criteria ....ould more
appropriately establish a clean-up goal for this site. Until such time
that it is determined that site specific modification to individual
contaminant criteria are necessary, EPA ....ill consider the more stringent of
human health or aquatic life ambient ....ater quality criteria (A~QCs) as ar
ARAR for the final remedy. This interim remedy ....il1 provide protection (f -
human health and the environment.
-5-
-------
It is determined that the remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Therefore, this remedy satisfies the preference for treatment ~hat reducEs
mobility, toxicity, or volume as
bcf~
.Jc> t'fr,
,
-6-
~ -
Agency
:. ; ;{~. ;.~.;~;.~;:';j;~;:, ~~~'~('q.::,ik/;~/;:;:.~;.~;.;::,;::??):::.t~?:~:~!'~3 ':'/~~;~~'~~:;;;}i:};;:,q.~J~,:~:F7-~~~r;;:;~:'~1;.,i.~I:.:o:Xf.~::'~:I;~~;~¥.~:~i~;~{~@;t~::f.;7f;~;'::Y~;~?::~;~~~m:"';:;~~.~~~ ::,::::}~'7!7!!;;r.::?:::;:::7'
-------
ROD DECISION SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I.
Site Name, Location,
and Description. ............ ...... ....
II.
Sit e Hi s tory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,... . . . . . . . .
III.
Enforcemen t ............. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV.
Communi ty Relations History.................................
V.
Al terna t i yes Evalua t ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI.
Selec ted Remedy............................................
Appendix A - Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B - Applicable and/or Relevant and Appropriate Federal and State.
Requirements,
Appendix C - Index to the Administrative Record
Appendi~ D - State Concurrence Yith.Remedy
..
Page
1
3
13
14
.15
26
....,h'; ,'.~ :: r".-:' ~_::('j:. ~:::.I'~~ ;'~"'.::::'--.:;:~~::.~7:""",~-:;-!;J~~. .~:.;':(:~'[':;.:r>,,~!.:~;."7.,:.:'T~'~~;~:'~ ~~.~z:~:.;~ ~~'?~::::1."; ~::~Z~~~::-~~.>2z~r~I:}~~~£zZ:~5:';~~~~~b:a;r;~~~~~~:~~.!i,C ~~~~;:}7;~~~~E:~~~~:0I;;'f'~,
-------
Table
.. 1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure
1
LIST OF TABLES
Daily Discharge of Metals from Mine Drainages ...... .... ...
Mean Upstream Yater Quality Concentrations ...... ......
Summary of Risk Assessment
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
4
7
11
27
30
32
Page
z
. .' ;~:,::~r7"':,"7!>7':,:~!; '''''':' "".7: ';""; ::' '1 ',;';~'~' ".~::.': \<'.: :';"~-:" :;t,:r;;"';:~;'~' ::::~ Z:~,CLS1'S'/:::~~5'.3~ ~'~~~2.~;:::i3;1:~:~2~;~; .\.::L:~~:2 ~;,~~;:'~'i:\:;;~~;J:~:;"-~~';?:~.:~~~8,~;g~J:~~;7.-
Comparison of Alternatives
........... .............. .. . . . . .
Cost-Effectiveness Summary
. .. . . .. .. ... .... .. ... . .. .
. . . . . . .
Passive Treatment - Metal Removal Efficiencies.. ..........
LIST OF FIGURES
EPA Study Area............................................
"
-------
. - - . ..'
ROD DECISION SUMMARY
CLEAR CREEK/CENTRAL CITY SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. ONE
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
I.
The Clear Creek/Central City site vas nominated to the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) in 1982. The site is located approximately 30 miles
vest of Denver, Colorado and consists of the discharges of acid mine
drainage and milling and mining vastes from five mines/tunnels in the Clear
Creek and North Clear Creek drainages.
The Clear Creek/Central City site encompasses the northeastern portion of
Clear Creek County and southeastern portion of Gilpin County in the
northeastern portion of the Colorado Mineral Belt. Specifically, the focus
of the investigation'vas five abandoned mines/tunnels proximal to the
cities of Idaho Springs, Black Havk, and Central City and the influence of
. acid mine drainage from those tunnels on adjacent stream courses
(Figure 1). The tunnels are the Argo Tunnel and Big Five portals on Clear
Creek and the National Tunnel, Gregory Incline, and the Quartz Hill Tunnel
in the North Clear Creek drainage. The Argo portal is vithin th~ city
limits of Idaho Springs. The Big Five portal borders the Idaho Springs
city limits and is sitauted adjacent to a trailer court. The Gregory
Incline is vithin the Black Havk city limits. The National Tunnel is
vithin a mile of the City of Black Havk. The Quartz Hill Tunnel is vithin
a mile of the City of Central City.
Surface vater contamination results from acid mine drainage emanating from
the five tunnels and from seepage of ground vater through tailings piles
both proximal to these tunnels and along stream courses. Potential
contaminant receptors include inhabitants of the area, dovnstream surface
vater and ground vater users and vildlife, both terrestrial and aquatic.
Recent studies completed by EPA indicate that significant loadings of
-1-
.n
- - ~- --. _.- - ...~. -- ..... . .,..~-, -- -,.",,,,,,,,..-01-'-':"" .:'.':-.,"~~'" "--', -;: ~...::~.,,:,,:-~ ~~~-t..,:~~-;- ~.'!: ~- .";:':T:'.z\':':''''''''~~;~':".~!'.~~::;-'>-:~7''
-------
.--~. CIH'-Olcn,
PORTAL
OUART 1 Hill
TUNNEL
E l 8640'!
0_.--._. IItJs
---'~l .~
. ------ .
\91
.~
. -----
",.
HO".,.,onll ,/-'-";:
01 r:u AliI. ". (II .
rHO 01 AR.~O ru'..,.U
H 'M4' ~
C,IIIIIINII't "'MO!
--.
GAfGOAy GlitCH "'
--
" -.......
"..
'.
',-
I
\
I
'- nt Anc "AWl(
/1 GRfGORY INCLINE I
fAILINGS
j
-N- Or."..'
.~
I
r COlORAOO
..., .....
'f." .......
~l
NA T IONAl
TUNNEL
El8000'!
...-.., --
" .--......_--- .
'- "
I' G', PI" COUN'"
~ --'------'-. -'.
~ ,# ClfAACR'fIC -"._-" '--. -. -----'-"'### '\
"_#' - "'--', #, ,
COUNt" '.. ### .
....- . ,,-........
, ----' '..
~,I '...
, ,
, ,
\.'
PORT Al BIG
fIVE TUNNt l
El 1600' .!-
lx2
---.;::
PORTAL
ARGO fUNNEL
Ell~60'!
\
i
------
TO not OfN
'~IUltfS'
TO OfNvrn
'~)II UI, . '"
"
1:".......-- ..,
0.
-------
dissolved and suspended metals (1,200 pounds per day, are discharged to the
Clear Creek drainage from' the five mine tunnels. A summary of this data is,
listed in Table 1 and discharge concentrations from the tu~nels are
compared against Federal Ambient Yater Quality Criteria (AYQC) for aquatic
life. A summary of instream ~ater quality concentrations immediately
upstream of the' discharges from the Big Five Tunnel on Clear Creek and the
Gregory Incline on North Clear Creek is listed in Table 2. These dissolved
and suspended metal loadings have resulted in a significant depletion of
aquatic life and have potential impact to downstream users 01 surface and
ground ~ater.
The acidity of the mine drainage is due largely to oxidized ground water
,..
passing through ore zones dominated by iron-bearing minerals, primarily
pyrite. One method of forming acid mine, drainage is sulfide oxidation
being catalyzed by aerobic bacteria, particularly the genus Thiobacillus,
resulting in the release of sulfuric acid and, consequently, further
mineral dissolution. Subsequent discharge from the tunnels releases
dissolved and suspended metals to Clear Creek and North Clear Creek,
adversely affecting water quality for downstream users.
II.
SITE HISTORY
The Clear Creek/Central City historical hard rock mining site is one of the
most mined areas in Colorado. Data indicate that up to twenty-five (25)
mines and six (6) milling operations are currently operating in Gilpin and
Clear Creek counties. The area includes over 800 abandoned mine ~orkings
and tunnels. The intensity of mining operations has varied in recent
years, due largely to fluctuating market prices for precious metals.
Historically, gold mining accounted for 85 percent of the activity, silver,
for 10 percent and other minerals, such as copper, lead, and zinc, the
remaining 5 percent.
Mining activity in the Central City/Black Havk area commenced in 1859.
Placer gold'was found at the mouth.of Chicago Creek, near Idaho Springs, "in
-3-
. ..~- ~_... ,..... -_.'".w, ,.~~'-.... .~--_...~~' ..'~ ...r. ~..." -~._... ~'.' ~ ~'..., ~.-- :_"o;~.'~ ~ ~'-"_:r:-;'" -", .~t...._~: '~"'''''/:';'~~~'':~;''.;':';-~_.:''"/~;';'-~~:;~~:~~~ :.:~:::r:~~~/'~.. ~~.~:::-:..~\ .~~~~~::t~~.~-Y:;~:~~~;~:~~::}~11,:7~~~S::;.;.~~,~::~r~~.
-------
TABLE 1
DAILY DISCHARGE OF DISSOLVED AND SUSPENDED METALS FROM MINE DRAINAGES
o ~
Aquatic Mean Flo.... Metals
Mean Discharge Life of Discharge Loading
Pa.rameter Concentration AVQCa To Stream
(Total) ug/L Ug/L (cfs) (HGD) lbs/day
NATIONAL PORTAL
Aluminum 243 150b 0.08
Arsenic 7 190c 0.002
Cadmium 7 0.66d 0.002
Chromium 6 7.2c 0.002
Copper 185 6.5e (' 0.06
Iron 47,475 1. 3! 15.8
Lead 8 0.002
Manganese 17,625 886 5.9
Nickel 212 0.07
Silver 2 1.2~ 0.001
Zinc 6,303 47 2.1
Total 72,073 0.06 0.04 24
GREGORY INCLINE
Aluminum 3,288 15.0 7.2
Arsenic 5 190 0.01
Cadmium 11 0.66 0.02
Chromium 8 7.2 0.02
Copper 879 6.5 1.9
Iron 138,333 300.0
Lead 20 1.3 0.04
Manganese 27,950 59.4
Nickel 192 88 0.4
Silver 3 1.2 0.01
Zinc 6,315 47 13.7
Total 176,977 0.40 0.26 383
- . -4- ~
. .f.;~~~,~:~~':;~;::.~~~~ ~~::~ ;;;: ~:~~;'~:':';';~.;'~::';'~~:.~'~:~:;\~~I:~ >7~~;~~'~::~~.:0'~~;:::::2~:;.~: :';;'~.~~:~~]:{;~'L ~~::i~:i~ ~!-...'~~:;"~;.. ~1.: [~~ :::,~:~. :): ~~~~;~~~!::~;~~ ~', -'l~;-:{:~:; ~~,:~~~,,:.":';::~:'~?~; F~':';:~~~Z~~ ~~ ;~;~;~:2:!:::~~:":~~r~;~.~~~'1':r~7.~'
-------
TABLE 1 (Con t. )
DAILY DISCHARGE OF DISSOLVED AND SUSPENDED METALS FROM MINE DRAINAGES
Aquatic Mean FloW' Metals
Mean Discharge Life of Discharge Loading
Parameter Concentration AVQCa To Stream
(Total) ~g/L ~g/L (cis) (MGD) Ibs/day
QUARTZ HILL
Aluminum 63,400 150 1.5
Arsenic 1,474 190 0.04
Cadmium 363 0.66 0.009
Chromium 56 7.2 0.001
Copper 48,733 6.5 1.2
Iron 549,667 13.3
Lead 137 1.3 0.003
Manganese 62,100 1.5
Nickel 480 88 0.01
Silver 18 1.2 0.001
Zinc 89,300 47 2.2
Total 815,728 0.004 0.0029 20
ARGO TUNNEL
.Aluminum 19,600 150 49.0
Arsenic US 190 0.3
Cadmium 126 0.66 0.3
Chromium 19 7.2 0.05
Copper 5,170 6.5 13.0
Iron 144,000 360.3
Lead 59 1.3 0.2
Manganese 84,050 210.3
Nickel 218 88 0.6
Silver 75 1.2 0.2
Zinc 42,375 47 106.0
Total 295,827 0.46 0.3 740
-5-
., ~ .~<-..~-. .-,- '''''.;:~ '..:-.}.,:.~'."".7~~~'-"; -:-::':-."''''-'~. ",' ~:
~ ",'. ''"l' : ~ ','rt>P,~. ;. ..~~\;;,~.;."'~~:':>.: .~~:~.~.:.~:; ~ ;-..'..;~,~;:~~~::;~...~::;..~~:~~t.:~~".,:;.,~:~';;.';.:':~~;;;~;.:~~~~ :\;:..~;~-~~~~:~.~~~:.~\..~~~.'~~~::':~~f::~~l;~:.S~~;:s\~g~~;.::,~.:~~~~='
-------
TABLE 1 (Cont.)
DAILY DISCHARGE OF DISSOLVED AND SUSPENDED METALS FROM MINE DRAINAGES
o ~
Parameter
(Total)
Mean Discharge
, Concen tra t ion
ug/L
Aquatic
Life
AYQCa
ug/L
Mean floW'
of Discharge
BIG FIVE
(cfs)
(MGD)
Metals
Loading
To Stream
lbs/day
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Sil ver
Zinc
Total
14,067 150 3.4
8 190 0.002
27 0.66 0.007
14 7.2 0.003
1,420 6.5 0.3 '
51,000 12.3
40 1.3 0.01
28,733 6.9
239 88 0.06
6 1.2 0.002
8,253 47 2.0
103,807 0.045 0.029 25
~ AYQC - Ambient Yater Quality Criteria (Clean Yater Act).
See Fed. Reg. Vol. 51, No. 47, March 11, 1986, p. 8362.
c-
d See Fed. Reg. Vol. 50, No. 145,.July 29, 1985.
AYQC for Cadmium, EPA 440/5-84/032, January 1985.
e
f AYQC for Copper, EPA 440/5-84-031, January 1985.
AYQC for Lead, EPA 440/5-84/027, January 1985.
~ See Fed. Reg. Vol. 45, No. 231, November 28, 1980, p. 79340.
See Fed. Reg. Vol. 51, No. 102, May 28, 1986, p. 19269.
-6-
-------
TABLE 2
MEAN UPSTREAM ~ATER QUALITY CONCENTRATION
Parameter
Units
Clear Creek
Above Big Five
Tunnel
North Clear
Creek Above
Gregory Inc~ine
Aluminum (total) ug/l 172 . 60 185.49
Arsenic (total) ug/1 3.93 3.93
Cadmium (total) ug/l 4.47 3.42
Chromium (total) ugll 5.00 4.75
Copper (total) ug/l 15.54 17.90
Lead (total) ug/l 3.68 4.58
Manganese. (total) ug/l 317.34 222.96
Nickel (total) ug/l 8.45 8.05
Silver (total) ugll .66 .76
Zinc (total) ug/l 110.71 -178.03
-7-
. _.j._O- - -' _.- r_. ,-". -.... "".or.-' ".-"'''!_~~'''''''''~'''':'.'.-;.'~. '.'-~' '.~ ,''''::~.''''~ .~: '.:-'~.,.'<';"'~.' ~..'.7~;:."'~~~'':::~'''~~';~''.':'-:.~.~.-~.~~~~t.'~.~~..r.~7':'!~ 'P'~";:::"":.~~-;-~~'r''';~:;::'3:;~~,~~~r::::~~::.~~.'~~~~?~~:1~]8-~.J8::T:'!:zr::1-'3;::~'
-------
.' ;- ',,;,. ..,,: - .. , :.'
. ,.~ ~<'.' ~,,~, ..
January of 1859 and in Hay of the same year, the first lode discovery in
the Rockies was made in Gregory Gulch between Central City and Black Havk.
Initially, mining was concentrated in the Gregory Gulch area", including the
Gregory Incline. Exploration via adits and shafts rapidly expanded to the
south and west of Central City. The Quartz Hill Tunnel was begun in 1860,
largely for the purpose of transporting ore from the overlying surface
Glory Hole Mine to mills in Central City. The tunnel is over a mile long.
National Tunnel construction was initiated in 1905 and continued to 1937.
The tunnel is believed to be over 3,100 feet in length. The Argo Tunnel
was constructed from 1893 to 1904. The tunnel was built for the dual
purpose of mine drainage and ore transport. The total tunnel length is
4.16 miles, extending from the portal in Idaho Springs in a northvard
direction to beneath the headvaters of Gregory Gulch, vest of Central City.
" ~
in 1982, th~ Clear Creek/Central City site vas ranked as Site No. 174 of
the original National Priority list (NPL) of 400 sites. The site vas added
to the NPL in 1983. EPA began a Remedial Investigation (RI) of the site in
June, 1985. During the course of the Remedial Investigation, EPA
determined, in accordance with 40 CFR 300.68(c») that an operable unit
should be conducted to address treatment of mine drainages prior to
discharge to surface vaters to assure continued protection of the public
health and environment.
A removal action was initiated by EPA at the Gregory Incline and Tailings
in March 1987 to protect public health and the environment from hazards
associated with the possible collapse of a retaining crib vall that would
have allowed the tailings to slide into North Clear Creek. EPA vas
concerned that collapse of the tailings retaining crib would wash a large
load of metals laden tailings downstream into Clear Creek and contaminate
the City of Golden, Colorado municipal water supply. EPA also was
concerned that a collapse could cause short-term flooding in the Black Havk
area due to North Clear Creek being dammed for a short time. To protect
the public and the environment from these hazards, EPA removed an old
deteriorated crib retaining vall and decrea~ed the slope of the tailings
-8-
-------
deteriorated crib retaining wall and decreased the slope of the tailings
pile to stabilize it. EPA then constructed a temporary gabion-basket
retaining wall.
Surface water contamination results from lov pH mine discharges emanating
'from the five tunnels and from seepage of ground vater through tailings
piles both proximal to these tunnels and along stream courses. The lov pH
mine discharges results in the degradation of vater quality and aquatic
habitat. Data gathered during the Remedial Investigation has shovn that:
o
Runoff from tailings and waste rock piles contains dissolved and
suspended metals.
o
There are tailings and waste rock piles adjacent to Clear Creek and
North Clear Creek that are unstable and could collapse into the
creeks. These tailings are acidic in nature. Vhen introduced to
vater, the pH vill rapidly decrease and significant amounts of
dissolved and suspended metals vill be released to the stream.
o
Hydrostatic pressure vill build up in the tunnels due to cave-ins.
After sufficient pressure has built up, the tunnels vill blov out,
releasing large volumes of metals to the creeks.
o
Ground vater in the vicinity of the tunnels is contaminated.
o
There are additional sources of acid mine drainage and tailings
upstream that could be contributing dissolved and suspended metals
to the creeks.
All of the above factors contribute to vater quality and aquatic habitat
degradation and vill be addressed in the following subsequent operable
units:
Operable Unit No.
Operable Unit No.
~perable Unit No.
Operable Unit No.
Operable Unit No.
Tvo - Tailings and Vaste Rock Remediation
Three - Source Control
Four - Blovout Control
Five - Regional Ground Vater Contamintation
Six - Upstream Mine Tunnel Discharges and Tailings
-9-
..,.-;-...!..,., .:'~. " ':"'-'~~ ';o'.~:--::-z,-;.~. ~..-.-~_r;;~~~IC '::9>' -::":~,'.;-i.:~:,~:::~'~.l~~'J?_;,~..';%~~,;~:~:::;~:--:~,,~:~i!~~~'?:'~:Z"
-------
.' ,. .' .:' ....", ...
. , " :~ ',.7"<-. '." ..." ~".
,.,:' 'I, .."..
Current Site Status
The concentrations of most metals (aluminum, cadmium, copper, lead,
manganese, nickel, silver, and zinc) detected in the mine tunnel discharges
exceed-Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe
Drinking Yater Act (SDYA) for drinking vater and Ambient Yater Quality
Criteria (AYQC) established under the Clean Yater Act for protection of
aquatic life. In several instances, the AYQC for protection of aquatic
lif~ are exceeded in the mine tunnel discharges by more than two orders of
magnitude. Conversely, with respect to the HCLs for drinking water, the
respective dissolved and suspended metal concentrations in Clear Creek and
North Clear Creek are often within the established criteria. It is
important to emphasize, however, that most dissolved and suspended metal
concentrations in the receiving streams exceed AYQC for protection of
aquatic life, vhich are more stringent than MCLs for drinking water for
these particular contaminants of concern. Table 1 is a computation of the
daily loading of dissolved and suspended metals in the mine discharges from
each of the five mine tunnels in the study and compares mean discharge
concentrations to AYQC.
A public health evaluation was conducted to identify compounds which could
'pose a significant health threat. All available data from surface water
and ground water sampling and tailings/waste rock analyses were evaluated.
Results indicate that of the elements detected, there were 10 ~ontaminants
of primary concern due to their widespread extent, potential health and
environmental effects, and relative concentration. The contaminants of
concern vere identified as aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper,
fluoride, lead, manganese, nickel, silver, and zinc.
The public health evaluation assessed the following risks associated with
exposure to surface vater from ingestion and direct contact by humans and
aquatic life. The results of the public health evaluation follov and are
summarized in Table 3.
-10-
-------
4 . ."..' .
~ . ~."-~
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE
. TO CONTAMINANTS AT THE CLEAR CREEK/CENTRAL CITY SITE
Total Excess Upper-Bound
Lifetime Cancer Riska
Exposure Pathway
Average
Case
Maximum Plausible
Case
Direct contact and incidental
ingestion of water while swimming
Clear Creek
SxlO-6 b 2xlO-S
4xlO-S 9xlO-4
NE NE
"
Ingestion of fish
Clear Creek
North Clear Creek
Ingestion of drinking water
from alluvial wells
Clear Creek Subbasin
North Clear Creek Subbasin
lxl0-2
7xIO-3
NE
NE
NE . not estimated.
a It is the Agency's policy that the selected remedy will at least attain a
level of control for such hazardous substances, polluta~!s, or -7
contaminants that falls within a total risk range of .10 to 10 over a
70-year lifetime e~gosure, with a goal of attaining a level of control
that reflects a 10- risk. (See Superfund Public Health Evaluation
Manual.)
b Five additional cancer deaths out of a population of 1 million over a
70-year lifetime exposur~.
-11-
~'''J. "'.'" .,.. -......~-~.-,........-~.....~.. "."'~'" ~..' '," """," .'I'.'.:."'... .,~' ..' :'t:!. ".: ;~-':~:'';:~~.-;.r._~~~::.~~i.'"~)~~P~!.~.~~~:~):~i'~;.F'_'?;~"~~.::'';~'~"7;~~~~~~~~''.~'}.:~~:.:.~ r~;:;:_:f.":-,';"'~:,:"",:;,;~'.'~':': "~'~~~0~~.2~.':.z:':~.~~;Z:'::~Zl~.
-------
: , ."
; :... '.~ ::.;' .. ':," ~ .- .
". ~:;::' ~.~ {.~-:;. ~. '.
o
Concentrations of dissolved and suspended metals in Clear Creek
. ~ater, at the intake for the City, of Golden ~ater supply, are belo~
MCLs specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDVA).
o
Ingestion of drinking ~ater from ground ~ater ~ells screened in the
Clear Creek and North Clear Creek allu~ia2 aquifers_sesults in an
upper-bound lifetime cancer risk of 1xlO- and 7xlO from exposure
to the geometric mean concen tra tions of arsenic in the Clear Cre'ek
sub-basin ground ~ater and the North Clear Creek sub-basin ground
~ater, respectively. Maximum concentrations of arsenic in both'
sub-basins exceed HCLs as did the maximum concentrations of cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. The geometric mean concentrations
of cadmium and lead are both above the HCLs. Residents of the
cities of Idaho Springs, Black Ha~k, and Central City are on public
~ater supply systems that meet HCLs.
o
Incidental ingestion of arsenic ~hile g~imming inSClear Creek may
result in an upper bound risk of SxlO- and 2xlO- , under the
average and maximum plausible scenarios, respectively. Ho~ever, it
should be noted that arsenic concentrations in Clear Creek are
similar to concentrations of arsenic in other Colorado rivers.
o
Direct contact ~ith mine discharge ~ater at the Big Five mine and
Argo Tunnel may not irritate hands, but may cause eye irritation.
o
Under the maximum plausible scenario, ingestion of fish from Clear
Creek may result in doses greater than the cancer risk criteria for
cadmium, copper, silver, and zinc. Ingestion of fish caught from
North Clear Creek may also result in doses of copper, silver, and
zinc that exceed the cance:4risk criteria. An upper bound lifetime
excess cancer risk of 9xlO ~as calculated for ingestion in fish
fro~ Clear Creek under the maximum plausible scenario, based on
arsenic. Because arsenic is metabolized in fish to a less toxic
form, the actual risk is probably lo~er. In addition, as a result
of mine drainage from the five tunnel discharges and other upstream
discharges, neither creek may support enough fish to result in the
assumed intake.
The exposure of aquatic life to acid mine drainage from the tunnel
discharges in the Clear Creek and North Clear Creek drainages, and the
marsh belo~ National Tunnel ~ere also considered. The major conclusions of
this assessment are summarized as follo~s.
o
Several of the chemicals of concern present in Clear Creek. North
Clear Creek,' and the marsh belo~ the National Tunnel are at
concentrations that exceed the Federal AVQC established under the
Clean Vater Act for the protection of' fresh~ater aquatic life. In
particular, concentrations of zinc, copper, and aluminum
-12-
-------
consistently exceed the acut~ and chronic criteria. The pH is lover
than the range of pH's suggested by the EPA for the protection of
freshvater aquati~ life. In addition, concentrations of manganese
exceed the lovest observed effect level in rainbov trout. Be~ause
aquatic organisms are exposed to a mixture and not individual
chemicals, toxic effects may be even greater than indicated by
comparison to the criteria. Although some fish may have developed
tolerance ~o the metals in the creeks, it is highly unlikely that
,the population of fish found in these creeks are free of toxic
effec ts.
EPA conducted a survey of ground vater uses in the study area. Samples of
ground vater vere taken from 13 veIls and analyzed for SOYA criteria. Only
one veIl failed to meet HCLs set under the Safe Drinking Yater Act. The
veIl not meeting SOYA MCLs exceeded cadmium levels. EPA has notified the
ovners of the veIls of the results of the analyses. A Super~und Removal
Action is planned to replace the contaminated veIl vater.
III.
ENFORCEMENT
EPA has determined that the possibility of participation by potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) in the project is minimal. A Potentially
Responsible Party Search vas conducted for the Clear Creek/Central City
site but did not result in identifying PRPs for the mine tunnel discharg~s,
vhich are the focus of this operable unit. Due to the complexity of the
underground tunnels and lack of historical survey information documenting
tunnel origin and ending, EPA is unable to trace the contamination sources.
The type of investigation that is needed to attempt to determine the origin
of the contaminant source is beyond the scope of a PRP search and vould
consist of a land survey and literature, docket and tax record search
conducted to establish which of the mine claims actually cross each of the
tunnels as well as a hydrogeologic analysis of vhich claims logically drain
into the tunnels. At this time, EPA does not feel that such an
investigation vould be fruitful due to the lack of recorded information.
The PRP Search found information on ovnership of the mine tailings that
will be used in Operable Unit No. Two. EPA has an extensive list of both
past and present ovners of the mine tailings and the underlying property.
-13-
-. ~---- --_.~_..-....... -... ,,,..,,. ,~,'~-"'-~~-'.1OO">I::_,,~~-~:.-.~.~'{-'''r~...,..':~-~';.~~':~t'''''''':: .';. _. ......~~~'-~~'~. ::':::"-;.<.:~-:f"'J.~.~..-::..:....: ..t"'1:;.~.. ::~":~7;:. ~,;'-_::~.;.r'~'.--\7"~"l:.'t'~.:;~~~.~~r::;7!:<:.';:~~ {?~;.~
-------
Because of the inability to identify the origin and therefore allocate
ownership of th~ mine discharges, EPA does not expect participation in this
operable unit by a financially solvent PRP and for now assumes that the
Hazardous Substances Trust Fund (Superfund) will finance the remedial
action.
IV.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY'
The Community Relations Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A) describes the
community's nature and level of concern regarding the alternatives
evaluated in the feasibility stu~y (FS) for Operable Unit No. One.
"
After release in June 1987 of the FS Report on Ope~able Unit No. One, EPA
held two public meetings in conjunction with the public commen: period,
June 8 through July 7, 1987. On June 3, 1987 and June 12, 1987,
announcements for the public comment period and public meetings were
published in the newspapers, the Clear Creek Courant and Yeekly Register
Call, respectively. EPA distributed the Proposed Plan during the public
meetings. The Proposed Plan was the Executive Summary of the FS Report.
It gave a brief description of the remedial action alternatives and stated
the rationale for the preferred remedy. The Proposed Plan was discussed in
articles in the Clear Creek Courant on June 24 and July 1, 1987.
On June 16 and June 17, 1987, EPA held public meetings on the Proposed
Plan. The preferred remedy stated in the Proposed Plan was construction of
passive treatment systems. In general, the public had mixed reaction to
the passive treatment systems, with some area residents supporting the
concept while others questioned the need for any remediation. The
alternatives selactedin the Record of Decision are a logical outgrowth of .
the Proposed Plan. Variations from the Proposed Plan will be published
when the Record of Decision is signed. The Responsiveness Summary to this
ROD describes in more detail the nature and level of the community's
concern, and include EPA's responses to all comments received during the
public review of the Operable Unit No. One feasibility study.
-14-
'. "''''-,.., " - ""'>-'","'.r,""''C;,_~-::-., _.'~""-'~'~.-~'--'.--'~"~'";"-""'-'''.t.'....., t'-:~I''''-'~ -~'-::'''-'_.'' .'::"--",-'-'-',"--. ~'"'''._'':_'''-'''''''''''''''-''''-''''' ,.-"..,."..",. .---..
-------
EPA has established information repositories at the EPA library in Denver,
the Gilpin County Court House in Central City, the Idaho Springs Public
Library and the Idaho Springs City Ball in Idaho Springs, and the Golden
Public Library in Golden, Colorado. The Administrative Record is located
at the Gilpin County Courthouse and the EPA Library. An index of the
Administrative Record is located at each information repository.
V.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The EPA evaluated potential remedial action alternatives to abate the
threat posed by contamination in five mine tunnel discharges primarily by
progressing through the series of analyses vhich are outlined in the
National Contingency Plan (NCP), in particular, 40 CFR Section 300.68, the
Interim Guidance on Superfund Selection of Remedy, December 24, 1986,
(OSVER Directive No. 9355.0-19) and the Additional Interim Guidance for
oFY '87 Records of Decision, July 24, 1987, (OSVER Directive No. 9355.0-21).
This process, in part, enables the EPA to address the SARA Section 121
°requirements ofo selecting a remedial action that is protective of human
ohealthoand the environment, that is cost-effective, that attains Federal
and State requirements that are applicable and/or relevant and appropriate,
and that utilizes permanent solutions and °alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Additionally, SARA Section 121 and the guidance documents
referenced above require that EPA give preference to remedies vhich employ
treatment vhich permanently and significantly reduces the mobility,
toxicity, or volume of hazardous substances as their principal element.
The selection of remedy process begins by identifying certain site-specific
information to be assessed in determining the types of response actions
that will be considered for the site. A general list of site-specific
information is contained in Section 300.68 (e)(2) of the NCP. This list
vas used to identify specific site and vaste characteristics of the
Operable Un~t No. One of the Clear Creek/Central City site. Based upon
-15-
~o:'~:~::'~::;;~::0:;T~gr,;ti~~{~~;~~~o~1:;;?g{?oO~Wi~i;~~i);;:~f~~;~:@:~::i.i~;:;:~;:;~;t~~o;~'~~~;~;~;;;~;~~~¥~~~7~~;~~J~:~~~;:?;;~;:~1~G:::;Y,ss~~~1f}r:%J~~~'~:
-------
these site and yaste characteristics, the EPA Yas able to reduce, from the
universe of many possible response actions, a set of response actions and
'associated technologies to be considered for Operable Unit No. One.
Section 121(b)(1) of SARA requires that an assessment of permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies that, in Yhole or in part, Yill result in a permanent and
significan t decrease in the toxici ty, mobili ty, or volume of the hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant be conducted. The alternative
treatment and resource recovery technologies considered included, among
others, passive treatment and metals recovery from sludges.
Before the technologies yere evaluated for remedial action alternatives,
they yere categorized as either discharge treatment or source control.
Source control measures are intended to contain the mine discharges Yithin
the five tunnels.
The next step of the selection of remedy process is assembling the
technologies and/or disposal options into remedial action alternatives.
Pursuant to OSVER Directive No. 9355.0-19, "Interim Guidance on Superfund
Selec tion of Remedy", .remedial ac tion a1 terna ti ves Yere considered ranging
from those that you1d eliminate the need for long-term management
(including monitoring) at the site to alternatives involving treatment that
yould reduce mobility, toxicity, or volume as their principal element.
Remedial action alternatives developed in this Yay ~ill vary mainly in the
degree to which they rely on long-term site management. Further, a
containment option involving little or no treatment and a no action
alternative Yere developed as'required by Section 300.68(f)(1)(v) of the
NCP.
The remedial action.alternatives developed in the FS for Operable Unit No.
One for the Clear Creek/Central City site are:
-16-
" '." "'~.:~:.~:~..~ t~~.~~~':Q~.;!F~~."""...~.::t~:~:~':~:JI~~f'~~{~:::~~0~:~'~~~0~~' [;;.:~~(~.:f?;~\~~::~~t:~~tFt;;?:.~:.~r;~~~:.~fff:!1~~~~~~j~1;!~\~J~~"I*~~:~;~~~~~}~::~~~~~~~~;f~~.~;;;:~:~~:'y:r].,.\~~~,~;,~':'~;;1~~:::::.!~;;;'
-------
No Action
Active Treatment
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Lime Precipitation
NaOH (Caustic) Precipitation
Reverse Osmosis
Electrodialysis
Ion Exchange
Freezing
Iron Oxidation/Precipitation
Sulfide Precipitation
Distillation
Recycling Bacterial Yaste
Coagulation/Flotation
Evaporation
Deep Yell Injection
Electrochemical Precipitation
Passive Treatment
Source Control
o 'Dry/Air Seals
o Fracture Zone Seals
o Portal Bulkheads
Controlled Release
Alternatives were subjected to an initial screening to narrow the list of
potential remedial actions for further detailed analyses using the criteria
of cost, effectiveness, and implementability (acceptable engineering
practices) as directed by 40 CFR Section 300.68(g) and the ability to
reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants, as directed by
SARA. Costs, including Operation and Maintenance (O&M) were considered for
each alternative. Each alternative 'was screened by evaluating engineering
feasibility, applicability, and reliability. Effectiveness in protecting
human health a~d the environment was considered. During the initial
sc;eening process, the controlled release alternative and the following
discharge treatment alternatives were eliminated: reverse osmosis,
electrodialysis, ion exchange, freezing, distillation, recycling bacterial
waste, evaporation, and deep well injection. The Source Control
alternative was recommended for further study, including field
-17-
"
. ~ ~77~~~r'~ /:':;~~'~.~.~,C;:~:,~'~~~IJ~~;~~~~'~;_:~. ~~ ~':;:.'~~';~~.'_:'::::=.S~~~~:: ,---~~:~::;~~~~~:~:';:~~~~.j~: ~~2~~~~%~.1:1~].;~5~:1r~==-7:~1L5..~I~~j~~:~;~~Z~~~~~;~:ft~%i~~~P~~;~
-------
investigations, under Operable Unit No. Three. The remaining alternatives
yere further considered in the section on Detailed Analysis of Remedial
Action Alternatives.
The justification for elimination of these alternatives folloys.
Reverse Osmosis: This alternative Yas eliminated for" the treatment of mine
tunnel discharges from Clear Creek/Central City study area for the
folloYing reasons:
o
The majority of dissolved iron in the Argo, Big Five, and National
discharges are in the ferric form. Maintenance costs in providing
an adequate product flov rate are expected to be extreme due to
membrane fouling.
o
Sulfate concentrations in the mine tunnel discharges are expected tq
result in significant operational problems from the formation of
calcium sulfates on the membranes.
o
Additional treatment or disposal facilities Yill have to be
constructed to provide for disposal of the brine, estimated to be up
to 25 percent of the influent.
Electrodialysis:
solids removal.
ElectrodialYSis has demonstrated only marginal dissolved
The most efficient removal occurs at high temperatures
Yith a 1 percent removal per degree fahrenheit "increase in temperature.
Increases in temperature compound the problem of scaling on the membranes.
Poyer consumption estimates are 0.2 to 0.4 kvH per 100 mg/L dissolved
solids per 1,000 gallons treated plus an additional 3 to 3.5 kYH/l,aaa
gallons treated for pumping and brine handling. Poyer cost estimates,
based on 3,000 mg/L of dissolved solids and $0.06/kvH translate into
$0.09/1,000 gallons. Brine volumes Yill be in the range of 15 to 25
percent of the influent floy and viII require additional treatment by
neutralization and precipitation and sludge disposal. ElectrodialYSis viII
not be considered further because the technology is only marginally
feasible and is not cost-effective for this application.
-18-
.'':_~~.:.I':~;~:''''.::.i':.':"~~:''''..:_::-r:~~''':'':~7'.~..::.'''''::::'f.':':''~'.-:~:-;~' -'",,:.: .::..:. :;"':":~~:::"":':~'::-':'':~.:~~~::-:2'..::_.__:'--':~ ~ :'~~:_:'.:"'-':~'.i~.:.:~=.:~-_....,.::-..-':""': _:.~ .'. :-':"~~,~:::,!,,_.'.:-!""~'.:c.ToI""'~."'''':7~:. '-""T~~!-:'-:~'":=!=:.r,,'.~.:'Y~i".~'o1'!"~'''''':~ "r."~~):~:~~'L~~;,-"'~_'
-------
.. ~,J
0".'--.1 "#"-. .-. "...
Ion Exchange: This alternative ~as eliminated as the primary treatment
process for the treatment of mine tunnel discharges for the follo~ing
reasons:
"
o
The ion exchange process generates a waste stream that may be as'
high as 25 percent of daily in£luen.t treated. Ancillary treatment
facilities for these waste present significant additional costs.
o
Although the success of the modified DeSaI and Two Resin Processes
in removing the reduced form of soluble metal species has been
demonstrated, discharges from the Argo Tunnel contain significant
ferric iron which is expected to clog the ~eak base resins requiring
extensive regeneration and eventually rende~ing them ineffective as
a form of treatment.
o
Cost comparison on a dollar/1,OOO gallons treated basis shows that
cost ranges for ion exchange ($1.00-$7.00/1,000 gallons, ~977
dollars) exceeds that of conventional neutralization/precipitation/
clarification ($0.20-$1.30/1,000 gallons., 1977 dollars) without
realizing significant additional benefits in metals reduction.
o
Both the Modified DeSaI and Two Resin processes require treatment of
column effluents for the precipitation and removal of metals.
Additional treatment of ~aste backwashes is also required. Both
treatment processes will generate sludges that require dewatering
and disposal.
Ion exchange will be considered as a tertiary treatment process to remove
trace metals.
Freezing: This technology is considered technically unfeasible. A
literat~re review shows that freezing has been effective and economical in
recovering cadmium and hexavalent chromium. However, initial concentra-
tions. were 100 mg/L. Freezing has not been shown to be technically
feasible or cost-effective for removing other heavy metals, especially'on a
large scale.
Distillation:
Operating costs are significantly higher than reverse
osmosis,. electrodialysis, or ion exchange.
Because of attendant high
operating costs, this alternative ~as excluded from further analysis.
-19-
.~-~ ;,.. ,.--::;:''f:,-=.-.c,' ;~:O'.~ " 1. ..~~.- .~~.: ,~:-...;.::~. ': ,~.~;\ ':,,:',-'~:"'~'_'f~::,~;.~:~;:!;~;"'~:.';;~::~.'i.~3)./f;;.":T~?2:',~~::'::?j.:~::'ft':"i;';:i:'T;;;.'tr,;;;;;:::!;~~S<~:~:f-;~ ':~:X!X~~F;~:~fs-:?::~'
-------
Recycling Bacterial ~aste: This technology vould not be ~echnically
applicable for the tlear Creek/Central City study area because:
o
Mine tunnel discharge and inhibitors vould have to be injected at
all surface recharge points. This is not technically.feasible
considering the length 01 main tunnels and connecting tunnels.
o
Mine tunnel discharges vould have to be c.ontinuously recycled to
upstream surface recharge points until bacterial grovth vas
inhibited. .
Evaporation:
site because:
This technology vould not. be technically applicable to this
o
There is insufficient land area for construction of a reservoir,
except for Quartz Hill.
o
Depth to Yater table is minimal and reservoir sites yould be in the
floodplain.
Deep ~ell Injection: This alternative, although technically feasible,
requires significant geological and geophysical subsurface investigative
york and literature reviev in order to determine a suitable injection
location for disposal of acid mine drainage. Deep veIl injection may lead
to aquifer contamination and does not result i~ reduction in the mobility,
volume, or toxicity of contaminants. Even after a suitable site has been
identified, costs for permitting, injection veIl installation, and
operation and maintenance are expected to be extreme. (~ith implementation
of land disposal restrictions, under RCRA, the discharge may have to be
treated prior to injection. Moreover, long-term viability of an operating
injection well is constantly in question because for the potential of
formation rejection of injected volumes or plugging of the veIl.
This alternative viII not be analyzed further because it does not reduce
toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants and because of the expected
high costs and uncertainty involved vith using this technology.
-20-
~';":':7' \.~,~>::::.;;;;;"T'~"'.::\~;;" : ..,~:. ,.'iF'.:;:';S;:;;;::''-:. ;'7:r:"~"~';,~;;:~'::'~;r';~;:":;':::;': ,,':":;:':'~;;:;:~~:-_':~~::\"';'.':;'C;:'':;;:;:7'~.~7,_\)!T{~-':~;:(.~~~'~W;J::';!:,~~;".:;'!.~f-~:1,'7:";!'~:;'~';!:':/.~.~~.;!!::7,;:-~.;'"J~'
-------
Controlled Release:
Controlled release requires ~ater to be stored for
release to streams during bigh flo~ periods to take advantage of dilution.
This alternative vould not be technically applicable because:
o
There is insufficient land area for construction of a reseTvoir,
except for Quartz Hill.
o
Depth to water table is minimal and reservoir sites would be in the
floodplain.
o
Dissolved and suspended metals vould precipitate ~ith suspended
charge and releated particles int~ bottom sediments. Resuspension
vould still be possible.
Source Control Alternatives:
A literature search and revie~ of available
mine maps vas conducted in order to investigate the feasibility of various
al~ernatives for source and discharge control of mine discharges from the
five tunnels. Available information on the hydrology' in the Clear
Creek/Central City area indicates the follo~ing:
o
The source of discharge from the tunnels is from percolating ground
water that directly enters the mines through fractures, intersecting
veins or intersecting tunnels, shafts, or cross cuts. The ~ater in
intersecting tunnels is also due mainly to ground vater inflo~.
o
Although some of the mine discharge may be related to runoff, the
majority of flow is du~ to ground vater inflo~. This is sho~n by
the relatively constant discharge from the mines. If the discharge
was mostly influenced by runoff, ~e vould expect the discharge to
show a more pronounced seasonal fluctuation.
o
The source or recharge area f9r the ground vater is mainly
infiltration over a large area.
o
The water infiltrates mainly through fractures and veins and
accumulates in the drainage tunnels. Little of the source is due to
point source contributions (such as the intersection of the adits
with surface channels). .
Given this current state of information, no accurate predictions could be
made concerning the feasibility of source control. Therefore. further
investigations including field york vill be conducted under Operable Unit
No. Three.
-21-
"-"~.'--~:~~'~~"~':~.E~~:~~~~~~~1~;~.~:~[~~0:~~~~~~~~~~~~~:
-------
. -' - ..' ..'~. '. 0#'. . -.,
- ~'_.. ',- - .,
. .:'..:;. ~ .:,~ . -
DETAILED .ANALYS!S OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES'
Consistent vith Section 300.68(h) of the NCP, the Office of' Solid Yaste and
Emergency Response (OSYER) Directive No. 9355.0-19, and the OSYER Directive
No. 9355.0-21, the remedial action alternatives remaining after initial
screening vere further refined and then subject to detailed analysis.
Detailed analysis of each remedial action alternative entailed evaluation
based on the criteria derived from the NCP and SARA. These criteria relate
directly to factors mandated ~y SARA in Section 121, including Section
121(b)(1)(A-G). The criteria are as follovs:
o
Protection of human health and the environment
o
Compliance vi th legally applicable and/or relevant and appropriate.
requirements
o
Reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume
o
Short-term effectiveness
o
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
o
Implementability
o
Cost
o
Community acceptance
o
State acceptance
The evaluation of alternatives reflects the mandate to utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable, as specified in Section 121 of SARA. The alternatives
selected for further analyses included:
o
No Action
o
Passive Treatment
...
-22-
-------
o
Active Treatment
o
A combination of Passive Treatment and Active Treatment
The alternatives are described ih the follo~ing paragraphs, follo~ed by a
comparative matrix evaluation, using the above evaluation criteria.
Description of Alternatives
No Action Alternative:
The No Action alternative assumes that there ~ill
be no treatment of mine tunnel discharge and that approximately 1,200
pounds per day of aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
manganese, nickel, silver, and zinc ~ill continue to be discharged into
Clear Creek and North Clear Creek. Remedial measures' ~ould be constructed
to limit the public's exposure to the acid mine drainage, i.e., fencing,
piping, etc.
Passive Treatment Alternative:
Passive treatment is an innovative
treatment technology that involves creation of an artificial ~etland to
emulate 'or enhance natural metal ion removal and acidity reduction
processes. Passive treatment ~as evaluated for the five tunnel discharges
based upon available area requirements, the ability of passive treatment to
significantly reduce the volume, mobility, or toxicity of contaminants, and
its ability to eliminate the need for long-term management. A passive
treatment pilot plant has been constructed at the Big Five Tunnel to
evaluate the effectiven~ss of ~etlands in removing metals from acid mine
drainage. Based upon the results of the pilot plant studies, passive
treatment systems ~ould be built to treat all five tunnel discharges.
There is sufficient land area near each tunnel to install passive treatment
systems.
Observations have sho~n that concentrations of metals present in acid mine
tunnel discharges are reduced as the ~ater flo~s through natural bogs and
~etlands. These observations led to the concept that these natural systems
could be designed and constructed to provide a self-sustaining treatment
-23-
',' . :. . ';:o.~- :.."'''''. ....... '~-:".:~4"'~' ..,.~~ j' ";:~:~"~.7'~ ~:. ')'0."~'~' :-' -;-c:.:; ("'?';~i t1.~~:;n.~-:t~3:;.'~J~~'.~'.~~;<~::'::;.:'k:~L~"","(:'":(~:-":":r:~~~~~..,~!!~~:.:':::~~j}~,~~=~:.~":~~- ;-~::..~:;":?i~t:';~~~::8.u::~::.£;:'r:z:::"~'~';~~~:~;;f-.~~?~;~)~~
-------
that would be inexpensive and require minimal maintenance for long-term
operation. These "passive" treatment techniques rely upon emulating or
enhancing the process of metal ion removal and reduction of acidity. In
order to design the natural wetland si.tuation, the concept was expanded to
include augmenting or replacing the peat with other organic materials to
provide a growth medium, and then transplanting several appropriate species
of native vegetation to enhance the continual addition of organic matter to
the growth medium.
In~estigations of inexpensive, low-maintenance alternative treatment
systems have been and are currently being conducted in Colorado and
elsewhere. These alternative systems rely upon natural processes including
filtration, cation exchange, sorption, coprecipitation, complexation, and
biologic extraction to remove metal ions, and aeration or the addition of
limestone as a buffer to stabilize the pH. Since the investigation into
the heavy metal removal processes is a relatively new field of study, the
removal mechanisms, the relationships among the process, and their relative
importance are not thoroughly understood.
Studies by the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Board, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
and various universities are cur~ently exploring continual
dissolved/suspended metal extraction using systems that consist of two
basic phases. The first phase removes metals, primarily iron, by employing
the natural processes that occur in self-perpetuating, artificially created
peat bogs. In the second phase, cascades are ~sed to exsolve carbon
dioxide, and .coarse limestone rock is added to the effluent discharge
channel to reduce acidity. Results of these studies have aided in the
development of preliminary design concepts for low maintenance, passive
treatment systems.
Cation exchange processes in peat and Sphagnum moss (humus) are believed to
be responsible for the metal ion removal. The cation exchange properties
of peat and peat-forming plants are attributed to the carboxyl functional
groups found in the humic acids of peats and the pectic compounds in plant
-24-
.. _. --..-... - _. -., 0". ~ ..~.. -.."" ..-...-.._~". ,.."'- ....... ""-"'-"-.-'n'__'"'"'''.',,,''' ~ '."'~I~""'~-,,,,,,,,,,,,,::,,-,,,,,,,,.,:.,,,,,,,",,,:~ ~.6Y'."'.~.!o1");~''''r''''..:'''-:-;i'''-'\ ~~~:T,:oI"..""''IT.'-':~;"-,,,~'''.1'-'''."':1'',.''-'
-------
cellular tissue.
galacturonic acid.
lamella betveen the
Pectic compounds are polymers composed primarily of
They are found in greatest abundance in the middle
plant tissue cell valls.
Annual vegetation and decaying plants generally remain standing for a
period of time until snov, vind, or othe~~henomena cause ~hem to collapse.
These collapsed materials contribute to the formation of peat and decompose
slowly under anaerobic or low pH conditions. Hetals "accumulated in
decaying leaves and stems may be retained in the substrate in the formation
of new peat, thus the plants may perform an important metal uptake removal
function in the vetland. Partially decomposed plants have also been shovn
to remove metal ions from solution.
I"'
Passive treatment sites require placement of a liner before placement of
organic material. ~he liner vill be required to prevent ground vater
contamination. To stay vithin the intent of RCRA, groundwater" monitoring.
may be necessary.
Active Treatment Alternatives: Alkaline precipitation (by using lime,
sodium hydroxide, or sulfide) vas evaluated and identified as an
alternative that"vould meet upstream vater quality concentrations in a
treatment plant discharge line. Laboratory treatability studies of
precipitation technologies vere conducted. Lime precipitation vas selected
as the preferred technology. Electrochemical precipitation is an
innovative process that may playa role in active treatment. Hovever,
additional investigation viII be necessary to determine the applicability
of electrochemical treatment.
Passive Treatment and Active Treatment Combination Alternative:
A
combination of passive and active treatment. systems vould be constructed to
treat mine tunnel discharge. The purpose of combining the tvo treatment
systems is to reduce the volume of lime required to precipitate metal
-25-
"
- " .,.,..-:- ...~~ "..,-",....... .." "',y. 1..~~.' ~:,.~..,.:-;n"'-.~.~y"r,::.:,~"'.~; . :..~~:,,!,~.~:!."-""~l',=c-:.~.~l.";'"'!'~'-~i:!"':,:~"~~;""'~~:::~~,"~:":.-;~~. ~q ;~,;::'~~.,~:....-' ~':.!:J.~.';f",;~(':.:.7.':::-:.~.~.t:~~i:~;"'f;t~ }.).?~::::~\";?'=: ':j'~':0..~~:'~:~~"'!:J~~'.j -
-------
,,:" ~ ~. . - -. . "
.. ,~. '-""' ,.
. ;. ,'- ~ .:::-.' ~ .,' 1:.'.
'. ~ . .. .
hydroxides and thereby also reduce the volume of sludges that Occur in an
active treatment facility. The reduction in sludge volume is estimated to
be 45
percen t. .
Comparison of Alternatives
Listed in Table 4, in matrix format, are the key criteria considered in
evaluating and comparing alternatives. These are specified in J. ~inston
Porter's memorandum "Additional Interim Guidance for FY '87 Records of
Decision," dated July 21, 1987.
compared in Table 5.
The cost summary of alternatives is
r
VI.
SELECTED REMEDY
Description of Selected Remedy
The selected remedy f~r Operable Unit No. One of the Clear Creek/Central
City site consists of construction of passive treatment systems to treat
mine tunnel discharges prior to discharge to surface waters. This is the
preferred alternative and is contingent upon the results of on-going pilot
plant studies demonstrating that upstream water quality concentrations can
be achieved by a passive treatment system. If the upstream water quality
concentrations cannot be achieved by passive treatment, then either of the
following treatment systems will be built:
o
a combination system consisting of passive and active treatment will
be constructed. A phased approach to construction will be utilized.
o
two active treatment systems (chemical precipitation or
electrochemical precipitation) will be constructed to treat mine
tunnel discharges prior to discharge to surface waters.
The selected remedy for treating mine tunnel discharges is cost-effective
and is protective of human health and the environment. A pilot treatment
-26-
-------
TABU 4 Ccont. I
CDIIPAillsaI or AL TEllllM'IVU
80 kti....
'a.aiV8 and A.ct IV.
TI..I..nl Co8blnatlon
Pas.av. Tr..t....t
Act IV. 'Ir..t88nt
~. I..,h-ntabaltty
6. CUlt
1. C088Unlty Acc.pt.n~.
.J
.~:)
8. Stat. Acc.pt.nea
renc.. ... ...il, C.....tlUCted but oust
be ..ant.ined to pc.veat buaaa contact.
upon r.ne. deterioration.
c.pltal COlt. 101 con8truction 01
tancanq. inl.t boa... and p'p'., i.
osa a..t.d to be sn. JOO. na. rOftCanCJ
would have to be replaced .~.ry JO to )0
V..'S.
Kony ..sadant. or ldabo Sp.inCJ.. Cont..1
C tt y. ond BI.c. ...... .uppo.t tho lie>
AoI.:t Ion .lt8Inat,,,. beeau.. they ba"'.
b..n llVIA9 "jtb .iae dr..naqa .11 tba'l
Ilvas. Downstr... U..f. &ad 'ilhlft9
qlOup8 do not 8upport Ut.1Io Action
.It..natav. becau.. 01 ".t.r quAlity and
a(1'18l&C habitat da,...dataoa.
Th. Coloudo Dap8n_nt or "'olth do..
Out support the No Action altar-natav8.
Th. Colo. ado Depe.t..nt 01 Mlld1.'.
e!t( ...t8. the ecOA081C "'81&18 or the
r. :.h81)' R..oulce pot ant .81 .1 S )), ,000
.....c v..r.
Tho ..istinCJ pond .t tho BI~ Piv. TUnDoI
wall bov. to to. d..ined and hllod.
PaSllve t..ataent a. allpl.....tAbI. oac.
tb. pi lot plont studi.. 0.. c_l.ted in
S.pta_. 198.. Da.iCJR ODd conU"""lon
will hk. up to . _tb..
Construction Involv.. the U.. 01 ,..dijlr
avaalabl. const ruct aon 8qUlp88nt.
Capital costs al. 8.ta..t.4 at
$1,66),000. Thai ..t.aoto ancludes
$141.000 to. CJuvaty papolan.. wtuch -y .
be ..duced b.sed on .at.nq studi...
'..rlv operation and ..ant.nance co.,.
10Ul' 0.. uta..tad to ... SlI!>.OOO. Not
Pl...nt worth 01 capital and O~ cost.
at . 10 ~Ic.nt Int.r.6t .8t. was
colculot.d to to. Sl,181.000.
'lb. M)Ollty 01 peopl. favol passlv.
t..at..nt .. a lov-cost, 10" ..Int.nanca
tr..t-nt alternative.
s.. a.spons I v.n... s~ ry .
11\. Colar.do Depart-nt 01 H..lth and
Colo.ado KJn.d a..nd ..cl...t Ion Do...d
.r. In lavo. 01 paiSlv. t..at..nt .. .
low-cost t I..t ..nt a. t .mat I V.. .
Tbe ..,..a_nt '!"JUllod 10' thlo
t8CMoloqy I' ...d.1I, avaalable and i.
"s.d In 8Unlclp.l .."aq. t...t..nt
pl.nt5. Con.tructaOA vilt taIL. up to .1
-tbs.
COAlt ruet Ion invol v.. the ua. 01 r..cU IV
avallabl. construct lOA equaf8N't.
n.e capital cost 1o. construction 01 .
"'Jorth CI.a. C...k and Cl.a. Cr..k
tr.at..nt plant a. ..tl..t.d to be
$l,ln.OOO. Annuol opoaotaon ond
..ant.nanca costs 1oc the two plant. .r.
.5ta...ted to be $~t','OO. 111. pce..nt
valu. 01 cap&tal and 0..,. coat. ba.ad 011
a 10' lnt.,.,t .at. ar. $1,1JJ,OOO.
ft. co-..naty would lak. to know .0 t.
'.~pon.abl. lor lon9-t.r. lacalaty
opelat ion.
s.. a..ponslv.n... SU888ry.
Th. StAt. &. concernad about th. lon.-
t.r. Opecat Ion and ...ntenance co.ta 10.
nu..,unfJ the 'Acaa,t,.
'lb. pe...av. t,..t-nt .,at.. vall be
con.tcucted and ope,at.d ~.'oc to
con.tructioo 01 the actay. t'..'..nt
.".t...
Conatruction involv.. the u.. 01 ..ad.lv
av.aaabl. conatluctlon etJUa~t.
n.. capitaa coat tlU ~onS'&U,,-tlun 01..
North Cl.ar Cr..k and CIa.. C.aak
lacillt, .. ..t,...tad to be $),16.,000.
Annuai 0,"" costa to. the lwo 'acalata..
ar. .att..t.d to ba $~II.JOO. Th.
pr.s.nt value COlt~ at a 10\.lnt.,.st
r~t. ar. ..tl..ted (0 b4 sa,~bJ,OOO.
'lb. co-.uutV would 1111:. to 11:,,0'" ,"",0 i.
,..ponsabl. for the lonq-ta.. tacllaty
opAlatlon.
s.. I..ponsiv.n... S....-.,y.
'lb. State .. conc.,nad ab.)ut the lon9-
t..8 operatton aqd ..ant..uanL. costs lor
~anq the '.Cll.ty.
-------
ju:
t':;~
~{-~
f .~;~
'~:.t
bl
~i,~
?~'0
("r).
iN
n
~J
;"J
",; -~
:.:r~
TABU: .
--:::; nlUSOII cw ALT1:IINIITIVES
.. kU""
'.SSlva Tr..t....t
I. C08plaanc8 with AIlAIb
ActIve T'..laeot
,-.'
l?~
',.',
:~.n~
~:\~
~
1. a.duct Ion ot Hobll.( y.
TO.lcltV. and Volu..
. ,
!:\1
~:\)
f~~~
1
"J
;I
,'"
- . ~ ..:
" ':~
'."~
J. Short-Ter.
Effectlven...
~(J
:~~l
: 1
'.~:~j
~~::\
",~
~: I
'"d
. .~'I
,j
.~,~
:~~
.. Lon9-T..a
Eff.ctlven...
'.','of
)
~:)
.;;'~ i
~:~~
;j
::~~
;(~ .
>:~
~'i
.:..
~:"J
~r=~
\".,
~.~~
~~
.~~
;.',J
Da.. not _t UAaa
(1)85 not le8Ic. 8Obalitv. t08icity. 01
YolU88 ot cont..iaant..
00.5 not r.duc. 11.. to aqu.tic I;'..
'.ncln9 "ill ,,8duc. derwoal ..poaur. to
public.
No ".duction in ..po8ur. 01 buaan and
-OVI rOl188nta. ceceptor. to -tal. in
t.h 'Sch.,-qas.
11>. ability to -t "Pat.... I...... 8ftel.
AIIAIIs ..i II be .".lut.eI In . pilot
plant. ARAb 10' eliapo..1 01 -t.1
I.d.n orqanlc Mt., i.l. .neludin, Ianel
chspos.l restrictionS. 11.11 be cOilplied
IIlth. 'a..tion t.chnolu9a.. ...,11 be
uS.d to .nsur. tb.t the ..t.rial p.ss.s
the £P to.aclty t.st And the tr.at.d
..t.ra.1 w,11 be ~Spo5ed an . 8UnJCap.a
landfill.
'ft1. olqanae ..t.r.al in the wetland 11.11
r.80". .lqru"CMt cpJantat... 0' h..vy
-tall, th...by .."'cln9 -bility,
of ..tals In th. twm.1 disCh.,qe.
H..vy -tals "111 bu.ld up In lb.
orq.nac ..t.raa1. 111. buildup will be
..nltoced Y..'ly and the olflanlc
..t..'al 1880V8d and d.sposed when
n.c.ss.ry '.it laated .t ev.,V S to 10
Y...I). '....t ..on or ."..Ia. tecMoloqy.
would be us.d to c.duce 8Ob..llty ...4
tOIII:Uy.
aisk to .quatlC 1&,. "111 be '''''ca4 by
c.duclnq ..tal loadinq to cr.....
V.q.tatlon should 8ccll..t. "ft., on.
,rovan" s..son. r.",ly ..ant.Ranc. ..y
be 18qUU8d to ,..stablash vellet-tion.
A pilot pi.nt stucty ..i II ...... th.
--unt 01 buildup 01 -tah In the
orqanac ..t.,a81 In ocder to e..ta..t.
how otten tha alq8nlc ..t.'181 11.11 h.v.
to b8 repl8cad.
T...tabihty atu4i.. ha... sh.... u..t
.ct.v. tr..t..nt "all le8O". ,...
pelcent 01 ..tal iona and ...t up.t.....
lev.l. and 11..11 not -.t .11
conl..anant-specafic .MAlt..
At>lno.._t.ly I, tJO cubiC y"", 01
sludqa would be pro~c.d e.cb v.al". the
aludq. pass.. tha £P tOI.city t..t.
Slud')e d.i5posal lIall -et ARAlIa tor
lan<1hll
-------
~1 -
~
:~~
~.,
;;j
;.'!
~
':1
" ~
.-.
i.\
~ ,
..(
':]
..'
;~:~
:~:~
TABU: 4 Ic_t. I
CDfU>."':""" or ALn:JUIATIVES
.. kti-
P.SSl.v. T....t-nt
Act I. v. T..at-nt
'...av. and Active
Tf..t..nt Co8fJanataon
9. Ov.f.it Protection 0'
Itua&n H..I th .nd t h.
I:nvtrol\88nt
",',
,.-
~,;:.
'.-,!.
L';. ~
\:~
:.~
(::~
"~1'
t..,
i~j
.:~.,.;
ii~
i::
;:;; I
~ ': :-.J
t'. \.D
r.; I
j'.i
H
i:.":
'~:- :,
J;]
-1J~
\.~
i~~
~1
~)
j~;=?
~.J-.~. ;
'Di
j~
.j~~~i
~.~
;r~
;~~
/1
;t,
}3
1~J
'1 I'!
!¥~
.',
.. i
----
I_ct. - b- IM.ldI .... to tIM
!tUI '.c. vater pathway a..8 ain.... due to
dilution or ..t.1 concentl.tion br the
'10" I.n Cl..r Creek. 'Ib8 AO actaon
.It.,native i. not protective 01 the
.nva IOn88Rt. II ,..c.. 8r. not
..ant.tned. it i. aot protectav. 01
h~n h.altb .becaua. 0' e.poaur. to low
ptl .an. tunnel diach.8r"8.
Pas.tve tre.t..nt siqrull.caatly IIlIprov..
p,otectton 0' huaen h.allh and the
.nvirol\8l8nt - Pt lot plant studies '" II
dete...n. the ..tent o' protection 01
the enVarOR8ent.
ActIV. tfe.t..nt saCjna"cantl¥ i8plov.,
plotectaon 0' huaan h..lth and lbe
~Va'0R88nt -
'11\. collbanataon .It.rnatav8
lacJI'ulicantly alliplove5 prol...:tlon 0'
huaa.n h..hh .nd the .nvllu.~nt.
----
-------
TABLE 5
COST SUMMARY
Cost Estimates
(51,000)
Present ~orth at
Discount Rate ($1,000)
Alternative'
Capital
Annual O&M
10%
1. No Action 33
2. Passive Treatment 1,663 115 2,549
3. Active Treatment 2,275 549 7,732
4. Passive Treatment and 3,864 511 8,967
Active Treatment
Combination
-30-
. ". ~'.:'~~~""':"'''~''~?:~~~:'''~''',~'''''''',,?)'::''_..''~~.~~'~~!.'''<''.-;:''!'~':~"';~":~,~::.:'-"~'~:r:c..::.:,.~ ':~':-'~':'~~~;::'!':'7~-".~,":,!,I:;:~_r;';~ 'I,;;'" ':'!1'i<-,<~,:..'; -~:-:>~'..;~."'~:~"r:''::.~'~:'''~{~.':'.}~.,.':1~~~ ~!p'~:-';"~:~:~",,!-'::?!":'-:r-":r::.y:~~.:'~,,~='-..r:~~~.~~..:;;;,).~z~.n~''''~''
-------
plant has been constructed at the Big.Five Tunnel in order to gather design
data and determine the extent of treatment attainable from passive
treatment systems.
Target treatment levels for the lnterim remedy in the treatment system
discharge pipe are upstream ~ater quality concentrations. These are more
stringent than Colorado Effluent Limitations (Table 6).
Disposal of Metal Laden Organic Material From Passive Treatment Systems
The material processes of senescence and death of vegetation ~ill provide
additional organic matter (humus) annually to remove metals from the
discharge. This organic replenishment is estimated to be sufficient to
increase metals uptake capacity so that removal and replacement of the.
organic matter in the treatment systems is planned (and included in the
costs) every seven years. The organic matter wili contain metals that ~ere
removed from the'mine tunnel discharges. For disposal considerations, the
metals of concern are arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and silver. The
accumulation of these metals c~uld result in a material that may be a
characteristic ~aste under RCRA due to metals ~hich exceed the EP toxicity
levels. In order to determine .if the materials are EP toxic, the materials
from the pilot plant ~ill be evaluated using both the EP (extract
procedure) toxicity test and the TCLP (toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure) tests. If the leachate concentrations exceed standards,
treatment ~ith appropriate fixation agents ~ill be performed prior to
disposal in a municipal landfill. Because the materials are characteristic
~astes, the metals ~ill be made non-hazardous by reducing the leachability
of the metals belo~ EP and TCLP levels. This reduction is achievable by
using various agents (cement, kiln dust, fly ash, etc.) ~hich fix the
metals in a less leachable form.
Current kno~ledge indicates that passive treatment systems have t~o re~Qval
zones; An aerobic zone removes metal oxyhydroxi~es and an anaerobic zone
removes metals in the sulfide form.
The aerobic zone may only be 1 to 3
-31-
.... - ..-",-''''- ~ 1 -...."1".- ~~~. ~-:r.~'" '.~ .~..- '~'.'.".r ;"}'--.'''' .~- !.'~-~.~~'~"'; -':.::~.r:~~I.,: n~{.-rj". ~~~::'=~'!~"'!;..:.;.~".-.~~~,,;,~'~;"~;"'.3-;~.J7;.~~~?F;i:-7lf.f~;.~:~~s.:1~'~~~~~:~~-~.{~~~'::1.:~~:=2,t:.~r:;.;zr.:l=,~:Z..?t.~~:T5'l::~~:'j~
-------
TABLE 6
'
,
3
i ItETAL IW«JVAL ESTIMATE
>,
I
I
I
i Expected
j
, ,...ive Discharge Water Expected
! Treet_nt Quality After Discharge Water Colorado Upstre- Water
! Mean Discharge ae80val Passive Quality After Effluent Quality Concentrations
! Water Quality Efficiency TreatllH!nt Activ~ Treataent Li.Hations 189/L1
Hetal mq/L ITolall 1\1 (1II.] 80 1. 26 <0.001 1.5/0.15 0.18
,
>
-------
TABLE 6
HETAL REK>VAL ESTIJV.TE
'.
Hetd
Md..n Disch8l:ge
W..ter Quality
mq/L (TotAl)
,..dve
T...at-nt
R.80val
Effici.ncy
1\1
Expected
Discharge Wate..
Quality After
Passive
Treat_nt
I "'9/L»
EllpectAd
Discharge Wat...
Qulllity Alt...
Activ. T...at...nt
1"'9IL I
Colorado
Effluent
Wai tat ions
I "'9/LIII
upst..... Wat...
Quality Conc.nt"lItions
1 8C)/L1
Clear Creek
ARGO
Aluainua
A..senic
Cadaiua
Copper
Iron
Lead
"'n9anese
Nickel
Zinc
BIG FIVE
J"
~
Aluainwa
Arsenic.
C..daiwa
Copper
Iron
Lead
"'n9anese
Nickel
Zinc
r
)
~
Source: CSM. 1981
,
:~
:.
!i
"
'.
!.
~j
:..j
'.~
;1
J
{f
.,~
'1
d
"
:.i
I
alOne d..y ",,"Xlmum;
Not a cont.llIIlndnt qt concern..
10 ol..ys ..verage. respectively.
19.6
O. U5
0.126
5.2
144 .0
0.059
84.0
0.218
42.0
14.0
0.008
0.021
1.4
51.0
0.04
29.0
0.239
6.)
80
unknown
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
unknown
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
<2
?
<0.025
-------
" ';.' .. ."... "'. - ~.~" ". '.. .
- - " '--' -.
, ,
inches deep and the anaerobic zone may be up to 3 feet deep. Sulfides in
the anaer~bic zone viII not resolubilize. As vegetation dies and decays
and the vetlands increase in volume, metal ions may change from the
hydroxide to the sulfide form. If this process does occur,then periodic
removal of metal laden organic material from the passive treatment systems
may not be required.
The passive treatment pilot plant that has been constructed at the Big Five
Tunnel viII' be used to study the cation exchange process and to determine
the depth of the aerobic and anaerobic zones. The results of the pilot
plant investigation viII determine the depth and frequency of removal of
metal laden organic material from the passive treatment systems.
As part of the cost estimate, removal and fixation of the organic material
has been assumed to Occur every seven years. Because the materials are
non-hazardous, the materials can be disposed in municipal landfills.
Hovever, as an added precaution, disposal costs vere estimated for
containment in lined cells vi thin a fly ash disposal area. A site in
Denver, is currently approved by the State of Colorado for disposal of
metal fixed vastes.
.
The disposal estimate is based on removal and fixation of 6,500 cubic yards
of material every seven years at $50 per cubic yard. This assumes that the
upper 1 foot of material viII be removed from 175,000 square feet of
passive treatment systems and replaced vith clean organi~ material at,$10
per cubic yard (1987 dollars).
Dis osal of Lime Treated Slud e from Active Treatment Plants
Treatability studies of mine tunnel discharges shoved that lime treated
metal hydroxide sludges pass both the EP and TCLP tests and can be disposed
in municipal landfills.
-34-
-------
Effects of Passive Treatment System Construction ort Vildlife
Construction of passive treatment systems will result in creation of food
and cover sources for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Use of these areas
will be dependent upon the .extent of open water habitat created and the
proximity of these areas to other sujtable habitats which could attract
wildlife, thereby enhancing the potential for use of passive treatment
areas. Vaterfowl (particularly species of Anatid ducks, which are
r~sidents of the area), songbirds which require wetland, or riparian areas
as breeding habitat, and herbivorous vertebrates are among the species most
likely to be affected by vet land construction. Creation of vetland
habitats 1,200 to 80,000 square feet in extent viII not have a significant
regional effect on habitat carrying capacity or on population levels of
wildlife. Local concentrations of some species can be expected to occur
where wetlands are created in close proximity to riverine, riparian, or
wetland areas which currently receive use.
Although the potential exists for bioconcentration of some metals in
wetland plants which may be used as wildlife forage, bioconcentration and
subsequent bioaccumulation of me'tals in vertebr~te and invertebrate
wildlife will be dependent upon a variety of site-specific physical,
chemical, and ecological factors. These factors may include: the form or
chemical species of metals present; the amount of contaminants present (and
variation of these amounts throughout wetland areas and over time); the
availability of pollutants to organisms capable of uptake; and the
ecological significance of passive treatment areas as sources of food for
any organism, considering the proportion of its home range which any
treatment area represents. In general, the biological significance of
metallic contaminants in wildlife food chains at these passive treatment
sites is expected to be negligible due to adsorption and complexation
processes within detrital materials or sediments which are expected to
limit bioconcentration in forage and invertebrate prey organisms. In
-35-
.' ., '.' ,':.r~.{. :'>.',;.::::!; c'~~;:-",:~;:'::~:~~7."::0i:r~Z.:S;~'~:;:'~:t;?-~~:-;;~;:Z-:J1;;;~~~;;.;~:;~:,-;f:l::::;);:;;i:~~;~F/:'1{~/~;:!0?:'t~:~~;; ~;7::~'~:iZ;~:S~~:?~+:>:I::::':~7~~:~~f.~:[f~';;[;r:
-------
addition, vildlife access to these sites 'vill be controlled by fencing to
limit exposure. Vhere feasible, strobe lights viII be installed to limit
vildfovl access.
Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs (O&M)
Estimated capital costs, O&M costs,
Table 5.
and present vorth costs are listed in
Schedule
The folloving schedule is planned for this project:
Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD)
Initiate Design
Complete Design
Initiate Construction
September, 1987
November,' 1987
June, 1989
July, 1989
Statutory Determinations
Protectiveness:
The Public Health Evaluation shoved that there is no
immediate danger to public health from mine tunnel discharge at present
flov rates because of dilution from flovs in Clear Creek. Also, the cities
of Idaho Springs, Blackhavk and Central City have municipal vater supply
systems that meet MCLs. Hovever, mine tunnel discharges have severely
impacted vater quality for aquatic life and aquatic habitat has been
destroyed. Construction of treatment systems viII improve vater quality
and enhance aquatic life.
Consistency Vith Other Environmental Requirements: Section 121(d)(1) of
SARA requires that selected remedial actions attain a degree of cleanup of
hazardous substances released into the environment and control of further
release at a minimum vhich assures protection of human health and the
environment.
Section 121(d)(2) of SARA states that remedial actions shall
require a level or standard of control vhich at least attains legally
-36-
:~.; ~"::;~:}~~:\~':'.~~.:~';i::~'3:~,?,~~;".:;i:..:.:;:"g;;;*~T.;.;}:~t::F;:.;~v:;~:;:~;.:?;:t\~.L\\j':;:;' ~'!J.!.\7t~~~::'~,..t,,"?'0..\':';~~:-;;~~:J'.)"::;'~,~;:~5i'~~il;7~'7T~~'.1.F? ',-;:",:'Y'~~:'.V':f;'ftr::',.;;.~;:?'E:f:.';'~,,,~'
-------
applicable and/or relevant and appropriate standards, limitations.
criteria, and requirements of Federal environmental la~s, and applicable
and/or relevant and appropriate promulgated requirements under State
. .
environmental or siting la~s that are more stringent than Federal
requirements. The ARARs analysis is included in Appendix B.
The Feasibility Study for this operable unit identified a range of
potential ARARs, including MCLs, and A~QC established under the Clean ~ater
Act. After consideration of public comments, the Agency has determined
that the contaminant specific applicable and/or relevant and appropriate
requirements for this operable unit are the Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking Vater Act (SDVA) for hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants identified in mine discharge in the
Clear Creek/Central City Site, Ambient Vater Quality
established under the Clean ~ater Act for protection
human health, and $tate Contaminant-Specific .ARARs.
Criteria (AVQCs)
of aquatic life and
The interim remedy viII meet upstream vater quality concentrations for
treating mine tunnel discharges.. The remedy is an interim solution for the
overall Clear Creek/Central City site requiring the exercise of the
"interim remedy" ~aiver from contaminant-specific ARARs (Section 121(d)(4)
of SARA). The upstream ~ater quality concentrations ~ill be used as
operational standards for this interim remedy. The upstream ~ater quality
concentrations ("upstream levels") consist of the geometric mean of the
subset of RI samples taken on Clear Creek immediately upstream of the
discharge from the Big Five Tunnel and on North Clear Creek immediately
upstream of the discharge from the Gregory Incline. These upstream levels
are not to be considered as final applicable and/or relevant and
appropriate requirements for the final site remedy. Cleanup of Clear Creek
and North Clear Creek to meet contaminant specific ARARs is dependent on
further remedial action to be undertaken in future operable units. Future
operable units are expected to be completed ~ithin 18 months, at ~hich time
a final solution ~ill be proposed. The interim remedy is consistent ~ith
the final site remedy.
-37-
.";.".~:: :~ ~.'" !i", ,~.)....;t," ~r~ t':' .". Pip.", ~~ ;...-.,,~, ';~~'::' '.. ::': .,'.~'.: ::~';.. r' .~';:.:,'.:~~-~~~':::~.~~~::.':'-~.~~.:~: :'.;:~~"1::;;:.'~~::':':~~:;~.~:~;::~;.:;'~.::z:.~'Jl:;:.-:i ."",~~~:~~~5-~~;~~;4 ;:':-:~~;~::~~~;:.~';~~~2i,~~t:~::[;:.~~--:.~:;;~%~~~,::;"
-------
In accordance with SARA section. 121(d)(2)(A(ii), EPA intends that the final
remedy will at least attain water quality criteria established under the
Clean Vater Act, where such criteria are relevant and appropriate under the
circumstances of the release. Additional data collection and analysis are
necessary for EPA to determine whether such national criteria are relevant
and appropriate under the circumstances of these releases or whether
site-specific modification to national criteria would more appropriately
establish a clean-up goal for this site. EPA needs to consider such
circu~stances as ambient background levels, stream habitat, upstream
contaminant contributions and non-point source contributions in making a
determination. This interim remedy will provide substantial protection of
human health and the environment, while providing the time necessary for
EPA to make this determination. Until such time that it is determined that
. .
site specific modification to individual contaminant criteria are
necessary, EPA will consider the more stringent of human health or aquatic
life ambient water quality criteria (AVQCs) as an ARAR for the final
remedy.
Location specific and action specific ARARs will be met. Land disposal
criteria established under 40 CFR Section 268 are applicable for disposal
of metal laden organic material. New requirements established for mining
wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA will be applicable. Also, portions of the
site are within Historical Districts and criteria established under the
National Historic Preservation Act are applicable (36 CFR Section 800).
The.State of Colorado provided EPA with a list of applicable and/or
relevant and appropriate State standards, requirements, limitations, or
criteria ("State requirements") for this operable unit on Hay 14, 1987.
The State amended its list on July 27, 1987 to add two additional
requirements. EPA has reviewed the proposed State .requirements under the
criteria set forth in Section 121(d) of CERCLA, and determined that cer!a:~
provisions within the State requirements generally are applicable or
relevant and appropriate (see Appendix B).
-38-
'." .::' ,:~;"CL: ':: -.'-'~-~ ;~-'~"'-;-.~''': ,..~.~.t'.~\ 2-.-."."-:'1 ,....'t :. ''1 ;'-,- ';-;'.". ".""f' ,1"'-'" '~'. :,--',\.,- I"~'" -,.:-~ .....- ,''''.(". '='~ .,...,... ~~"';-';
-------
Cost Effectiveness and-Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies to the Maximum Extent Possible: - The principal
threats posed by mine tunnel discharges are metals contamination of surface
water, ground water, and sediments. Passive treatment is an innovative
technology that is expected to reduce dissolved and suspended metal loading
by at leas t 50 to 90 percen t .in the discharge, depending on the me tal. If
passive treatment does not meet upstream water quality concentrations, then
either active treatment or a combination of active treatment and passive
treatment will be implemented.
The installation of either ot these treatment systems meets the statutory
t'
preference for permanent solutions that reduce the mobility, toxicity, or
volume of metals in the discharge.
-39-
...
. . .
: . ., .:.~:';" ": ~'. ?,~y., ~ L~i ~. :~'::-:~~.~~'.~'~':~.::: ~ ._..r~>~..~ ~.~~,,:" ~..,..;;~'~:.~.;':.' l. ~f6'1'.'~}~: ~~~';~~::?:"~";.~;~~.;.~~'~,,;~~~~~~-:~ ~~~~, '."J':~'~,,~~~' .:~~; :~~,~~~.,~~~{-~; )~:~;;?:;.:~~~ ~;J;:.=r; ~~,~~~;::;s:: .~? ]~i:~?~;-: l:;~i;T;/f#hf~;}' ;;f"~:~;':
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMKARY
OPERABLE UNIT NO.1 OF tHE
CLEAR CREEK/CENTRAL CITY SIn;
CLEAR CREEK AND GIUm COUNTIES, a>LDRADO
SEPTEMBER 1987
This community relations Responsiveness Summary for Operable Unit No. 1 of
the Clear Creek/Central City site was prepared by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to describe the issues raised by residents of Clear
Creek and Gilpin Counties regarding EPA's activities in the area and to
summarize EPA's responses to those issues. EPA is conducting a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site to determine the
nat~re and extent of contamination that may have resulted from historic mining
activities in the area, and to develop ways of remediating any contamination
found.
A Responsiveness Summary is required under Superfund law to document public
concerns about proposed remedial actions ,and EPA's responses to those
concerns.
This Responsiveness Summary summarizes public comments for the
period that began with the initiation of the Remedial Investigation (RI) of
the site in April 1985, through the public comment period on the Operable Unit
No.1 FS Report that closed on July " 1987. EPA activities, however, are
always open to public review, and this Responsiveness Summary reflects
comments received through September 25, 1987. This report is divided into the
following sections:
Section I.
Introduction and Back2round. This section provides a brief
introduction to the site and EPA's preferred alternatives
for remedial action.
Section II.
The Communitv Relations Proeram at the Clear Creek/Central
Citv Site.
This section provides a brief history of
" ~7 r. ~. . .1~ .._._:,.~~~~~{.~~ -::~'.~~ -' /:X'.~"1.7 ':7. ~- :::~:'~~~~:.;:::'~~';:~"j;;.::::~' ::-;-~.~:.1:':~~ ;~~;~::;/:;i,~~':: ~~:::::;~ '~.~!~:~::~J~;:'~~~.f.~:~':~:~.:_f~:~~:;:'£:~: ;.:~:~};~:;'~,~~~~~'::(\:;;;?~y+_::r:~;:~~f;~:,~~~::~1~;4~.r ~~'T:!f:?;~~:r
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 2 .
community relations activities conducted by EPA during the
RI/FS at the site.
Section III.
Summarv of Public Comments Received and EPA's Res~onses.
!his section summarizes comments received by EPA on Operable
Unit No.1, categorized as follows:
o Comments and EPA's Res~onses.
inception of the RI/FS on mine
September 1987 and EPA's responses to those comments;
and
Comments received from
drainage through late
o
Remaining Comments. Comments received for which EPA
will provide more complete answers after further study.
1.
INTRODUCTION AND BACXGROUND
Since February 1985, EPA has been investigating public health and
environmental risks posed by metals in mine drainages as a part of the.RI/FS
at the Clear Creek/Cencral City site in Gilpin and Clear Creek Counties. There
has been one RI at the site; the FS has been divided into operable units.
The Proposed Plan that EPA offered for public Comment in July 1987 included
passive treatment of mine drainage with the possible inclusion of additional
active treatment later if the need is identified. After considering all the
technical factors and public comments, EPA determined that the appropriate
remedy should include both passive and active treatment.
Community response to the Proposed Plan has been guarded. Residents
expressed misgivings about the need to solve a problem they feel does not
exist .. many area residents would prefer to see the Federal government spend
money to revitalize the economy by helping to reopen mining, rather than to
clean .up mine Wastes that have not in their minds presented a discernible
threat.
Roo ,. ,-.... . ....,~" '~~',::'..'-""<':'" .,;t::.
,,":" ': .~~ 'j','::~::~~~~:"J:~. to<:",~:'7.'.~"~:""::""',~-- '::' 7:-;': . ..~~..";~ ..::; -: .'..... ~~.: ...., ~.~:.~: ~::'--:'; «". " ; , :
. ~ ," '~"'.:,.6(&_';I"',:"' ,.-".:,-,~-.",.,... '-;~'~<: .':--";:''"r~-'' ~"',,::"~ '~'~"",'''''~''':'~''1":''~\':~ ...'1.":": """'~~."''''!.' "."'~""""~.!r~~,,,-"--
-------
Clear Creek/Cen~ral City Site
Responsiveness Summar]
Page 3
Three other alternatives EPA offered for comment are described below.
o No Action would involve only fencing
accessible to the public or enclosing the
treaCMent program would be initiated.
o Active Discharge Treatment would involve the use of lime to remove the
metals from con~aminated discharges. Sludge would be produced as a by-produc:
that would have to be disposed. Some active ~reacment may be considered later
for the remaining con~aminan~s that passive treacment does not remove.
areas where mine drainage is
drainage in pipes. No other
o Source Control would involve controlling the discharges by sealing them
in the mines or lining streams that feed the mines to preven~ additional water
from seeping in.
Several ac~ivities with high visibility in the community have been
undertaken during the studies thus far. They are described below.
o
GreEorv Tailin~s: A removal action was initiated by EPA at the Gregory'
Incline and Tailings in March 1987 to protect the public from hazards
associated with the possible collapse of the tailings into North Clear
Creek. EPA was concerned that collapse of the tailings would wash a
large load of metals downstream into Clear Creek, contaminate the
Golden municipal water supply that is'drawn from Clear Creek, and
result irt a massive fish kill. EPA also was concerned that a collapse
could cause short-term flooding in the Black Hawk area.
To protect the public and the environment from these hazards, EPA
decreased the slope of the tailings pile to stabilize it and
constructed a temporary retaining wall. EPAoriginally planned to
implement a remedy at the Gregory Tailings through an Expedited
Response Action (ERA) in the Fall of 1986. Engineering repor:s were
released in April and June 1986, followed by a public comment period'
July 7-28, 1986. 'EPA was unable to proceed with construction at th~t
time. however, due to the shor~age of funds that preceded
: .~.!'~ -:.:.~ ~.~~":i::'~~.,:%:~"::'~:~'~:'~~.; ;:.~:;;~~~:.;~. ;.t::' ;:",: .~ - - .~~:; ';,:",:,~.{.;.~F;;~~~~i~; :~:~..\~,',~:7~.~~~~~:,~;';::'. ~::;.~~:~',~~."~~~:~:~ ~,~!2~~~ .:;~.::~:~ .:~ ',:;,~~;~:~~~~r(,~~~;~~:!)::'~~~~~';;~::!~Z:I;q~;;~~~1~~;.;/~'.~~
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summa~J
Page 4
reauthorization of the Superfund program. The temporary retaining
wall was built under the EPA Emergency Response program.
o
Residential ~ells Survey: During the RI/FS, EPA found that shallow
ground water, the source of water for shallow domestic wells, is
contaminated in places with metals including lead, arsenic, cadmium,
zinc, copper, nickel, and chromium. In March and April 1987, EPA
conducted a survey of area households to find out if residents are
using shallow wells.
wells exist, and one
The survey revealed that only a small number of
private well was contaminated with elevated
The owner of that well has been informed of the
levels of cadmium.
elevated levels of cadmium in the well water. A Superfund Removal
Action to address this well is being developed by the Emergency
Removal Branch.
o
Passive Treacment Pilot Pro1ect: A pilot project for passive
treatment of mine discharge at the Big Five Tunnel portal is. now
underway. This project involves construction of a concrete box at the
mine portal to hold some of the min~ discharge in front of the portal.
An artificial wetland will be created in the box to study the
efficiency of this technology further in reducing the metal loadings
and neutralizing the acid drainage. EPA expects to use the results of
this project to refine estimates of land requirements and the types of
vegetation most suited to the implementation of this technology for
Operable Unit No.1.
The draft RI Report and the draft FS Report on mine drainages were
completed and released to the public in June 1987. The RI Report describes
the results of EPA's investigation of the entire site. The FS Report
discusses and evaluates methods of cleaning up mine drainage.
. : : '.~ ~.::~. ;.~"~~:' :"'::-~f;:'.:::: ~ ':~.:~:~ ;"-:'.~ ~~.'r.;:t ::~~'?~;'~:< :~~:~;::~~~~~\~:~:~:~ ~~!.:; ~';:~' 3~'~ '?}~-~.::' ::~;;.~'.>~r.; ;~.':'~'. ";. ".~~'~ #..;~:y;;~~~;~~ ((:~ ~ {~.':~ ;:~'?; ~':"~ ::::~~:::-~.~' ~ '~;.?:..r~~'~;':5; ~ :~,~~ ~:;~;~:';~~. ~ 5.:~'\Y.,-'- .~ .~'..~~: -~ .,~ ~>~ :~~: ~'~~." :~)~. ~~[~~1~0.;:;.:;;z~7;:....~ '
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness S~ary
Page 5
II.
THE COMMUNITY RElATIONS PR.OGRAK AT THE CI.F.AR CREEK/CENTRAL CITY SITE
EPA's communicy relations activities at the Clear Creek/Central City site
began in the fall of 1982 when the site was placed on the NPL. Since that
time, community concern about EPA's activities at the site has tended to be
moderate, with occasional periods of high interest caused by residents'
concern about. the action at the Gregory Tailings and about the Big Five pilot
project. In addition, many local people have been concerned about the fate of
at least cwo local propercy owners who may have some liability for cleanup
costs, both of w~om are private citizens who live at the site and have many
friends in the communities. In response, EPA representatives have met many
times with local officials, residents, and the' press to listen to concerns and
provide information. Much of the community concern has focused on residents'
expressed feelings that mine wastes do not present a problem worthy of the
high level of attention given to this site. In addition; there is a general
antagonism toward the Federal government because of mining regulations that
area residents feel have restricted mining activity in the area.
On several occasions, new information about on-going work at tlle site has
been the subject of extensive news and editorial coverage in local newspapers,
particularly due to EPA's action at the Gregory Tailings in the Spring of
1987. Residents expressed concern about the cost of and necessity for
conducting the project, particularly in light of the possibility that the
property owner, a local resident, might have to repay the government later for
the costs. The pilot passive trea~ent project at the Big Five Tunnel portal
has b~en closely followed in the local newspapers as well. Area residents and
the local newspapers have expressed relatively less interest in the mine
drainage problem than in the Gregory Tailings or the Big Five Tunnel projects.
In preparing the draft Revised Community Relations Plan (CRP) comple~ed i~
January 1986, EPA conducted discussions with local officials and communi:y
members in September 1985. The original CRP was prepared in the fall of 1982.
To facilitate the flow of information to the communities, information
-"'.r..'-'.':;O"1":,..~.~.7""';."'-':r"_'!"-"""".'.~: "...~ ~ :':..-:,--'~ .
. '. ,. '--~. ~. '_:~=::~~.~'~; .~'2:.~:'~:~':i21':",,;::~;'::?:: _2~:.::.~Y ::7~:::~"'~'A2S:~~:.~~Qj-'';;:;::::...'''':i.:,;:;:.-::~~:?,~;;:;~~~~.~:~.;,~~.::.:,[;.~;::~. ~y;;::~: ~~;;_;i';'\;!:2::.:r:~;~~;!~~~7.~~~
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 5
repositories were established at the Gilpin County .Cour~ House in Central
City, the Idaho Springs Public Library in Idaho Springs, and the EPA Library
in Denver in the Fall of 1985. In December 1985, EPA prepared and distributed
to residents an initial Fact Sheet de~cribing the site and the potential
contaminants of concern.
EPA prepared and distributed a second
Expedited Response Action planned at the
1986. The Agency held a public comment
a public meeting with local' residents.
Responsiveness Summary, that action was
Fact Sheet in July 1986 regarding the
Gregory Tailings for the Fall of
period on the proposed action, arid had
As described in Section II of this
later conducted as a Superfund Removal
Action in the Spring of 1987. In response to public. concern about the cost of
the Removal Action, the potential liability of the property owner, who is a
life-long resident of the community, the potential loss of an histori~ site.
and the potential for other similar actions in the area, EPA expanded the
number of information repositories to include the Golden Public Library in
Golden, and the Idaho Springs City Hall in Idaho Springs.
Later, in August 1987, EPA placed the full Administrative Record in the
Central City Courthouse and the EPA Library. An index to the Administrative
Record was placed in the other three repositories. In addition, EPA revised
the draft CRP, and signed a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the Gregory
Tailings Removal Action with the Colorado State Historical Society to assure
that the action that EPA undertook at the site was carried out in accord with
state guidelines for preserving historic sites in the area.
During the survey of shallow domestic wells in the Spring of 1987, EPA
prepared a letter to residents and a question-answer Fact Sheet -- both
designed to provide residents with information about the survey and its
purpose -- to be handed out by the individuals taking the su~~ey. Agency
representatives also met with local officials and area residents to discuss
the survey.
7:.::-:: :...~-=~\;,;.,;;:' !;,.';.:t~:-=-~~'~~:.~:.::?-~' :-:~~.;-.:;: ;:;.::'-c',:\:-::,,;,~~.,::.~,,:::;?- .~.:. ':.~'J: '~:-:~-:. :4~~"::':(;:~ :I';,':;~::'-;.: :.;'.1~,~.:::' ;~.~:~~~',\ :~-~~~."';"~:":.;,.r:,~,,-;~.. ;,-:-~;..~;;;',~ ~~~'?".:~t.~;;"~:-::.;:~~.~"-~:.~'.~-rr.:H'{.'~:",,~;i?'':1'~~'::;!"~~:7':::"'!'!,,":::-,:~~"~~~~~:J~_":"F:':'~..i~~~-~
-------
Clear Creek/Cen~ral Ci~y Si~e
Responsiveness Summary
Page 7
.
The qolorad0 His~orical Socie~y has de~ermined that the Big Five Tunnel
por~al is eligible to become a national historic landmark. Thus, EPA
submit~ed to the State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation drawings of
the passive treacment system at the 3i3 Five Tunnel por~al. Upon
recommendation of the Advisory Council, EPA changed the location and materials
, of the fence to be built around the passive treacment plant. These changes
were deemed impor~ant in preserving his~oric aspects of the ~el.
After,release in June 1987 of the FS Report on Operable Unit No.1, EPA
published a question-answer Fact Sheet and held ~-o public meetings in
conjunction with the public comment period from June 8 through July 7, 1987.
The first meeting, in Central City on June 16, had a turnout of about
seventeen people, and only one person asked a question of EPA. A local
proper~ owner later commented to EPA that he felt the public notice for this
meeting was insufficient. He requested an extension of the public comment
period. About for~ people attended the second meeting on June 17 in Idaho
Springs. These people had numerous questions and comments, and the atmosphere
at the meeting seemed to be one of questions and reservations about EPA's
plans at the site. Once again, residents expressed doubt about the necessity
for treating mine ?rainages when they are not perceived as causing any
problems. They also said that the cost of the treatment cast fur~her doubt on
the need for remediation, and expressed concern about the effects of EPA's
activities on the local economy.
detail in Section III.
These concerns are described in greater
III.
SUMKARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AND EPA' S RESPONSES
This section summarizes public concerns expressed about Operable Unit No.1
during remedial planning at the site through the end of the public comment
period. Community comments generally centered on local economic issues tha~
may be affected by EPA's actions at the site, and on policy quest~ons about
how EPA first became involved in the area and how EPA sets its priorities.
Several people. most notably the Clear Creek Coun~y Me~al Mining Association
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 8
(CCOMMA) and ocher area residencs ac the site, commented that the metals in
mine drainage have economic value. Many comments that EPA received on the
draft FS Report were made by ~o owners of mining proper~ at the site, both
of whom live in communities at the site.
Aside from local coun~ and municipal governments, the CCCMMA is the only
citizens' group that has expressed interest in EPA's activities. The CCCMMA
includes a broad membership throughout the site and areas downstream. The
residents and CCCMMA suggested that EPA evaluate reclamation of these metals
from the drainage as a way of reducing the public health and environmental
risks at the same time economic return is provided to the communities.
A major concern at the site has been the extent to, which EPA's Superfund'
activities may adversely impact area proper~ owners and the general prospects
for future mining. A number of citizens have expressed support for area
property owners both encouraging EPA to limit the financial liabilities any
local property owners may have to bear and discouraging EPA from destruction
or removal of the wastes before the minerals can be exploited. These people
and others suggested also that EPA should reevaluate its cleanup priorities "
.
they said that blowout concrol is the most important health and environmental
.
issue 'at che site and should be addressed first. Blowouts are large explosive
releases of mine drainage from mines whose tunnels were temporarily blocked
for a period of time through natural silting or collapse of ' mine workings.
The Argo Tunnel has experienced blowouts in the past, with resulting
contamination of Clear Creek downstream to Golden.
During the public meetings, EPA responded that it would examine the
economic benefits of metals reclamation from the mine drainage. The Agency
also agreed that blowout control is an important issue. Noting that blowout
control is currently under study, EPA said that mine drainage remediation is
an initial remedial step that is relatively easily developed and implemented
and treats the baseline, or constant, flow while the difficult question of
blowout control is studied.
"':,':;~'~}~~~::;;':~,:~::~~:;t:;+"~~:-;')~'~:~iS~~~:;:;{,::;,S~ ;~£~ T)?'I,~,'i";.::;.::i:~:,n:~;!7:~~r:;~,::q;]<:.:~::T;E'F:l~:~:f:::S!:S;:~~~~~~~'7:':~J:~~-::~~f:~;~~~?C~;:.:f:~~:;~r~~~~~:'~
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summar;
Page 9
v'
The firs~ subsec~ion below provides a summary of commen~s and EPA's
responses; the second subsection summarizes remaining comments for which EPA
will be able to provide more complete responses after further s~udy.
A. Summary of Comments Received During the Public Commen~ Period and
Af~erwards and EPA' s Responses
!his sec~ion ca~egori%es ques~ions and comments received during the public
comment period and afterwards, and EPA's responses to those comments in the
('
categories below.
o
Policv Issues. Residents ques~ioned how and why ~he site was listed on the
Na~ional Priorities List (NPL) , how the Superfund process would work as
. decisions are made and actions taken, how EPA selected water quality
standards for the site, and how EPA would acquire land for a passive
treatment facility.
o
Remedial Alternative Issues.
In general, residents expressed the opinion
that the mine drainage contains metals with significant economic value,
suggested that EPA address blowout control as a first priority, and urged
EPA to consider reopening the Argo Tunnel as a means of blowout and
drainage control. The Colorado Department of Health (CDH) supported
passive treatment as being relatively cost-effective, but strongly
recommended that EPA consider other methods of remediation -- such as
source control.. that will have even lower long-term cos~s.
o
Technical Issues. CDH recommended that EPA begin tunnel mapping to
expedite inves~igations of source control, ground water, and blowout
control, and suggested additional tailings characterization and surface
geologic mapping be undertaken. Residents commented that the ground water
may contribute to the contamination problem, and asked how much land would
be needed for a passive treatment facility at the Argo Tunnel portal.
- - --.. .--- -.u_-'- .. _._-*_....L-""__'."",. . "'..."-~ '; 'I',-,":~''':''''.';-:~--~ - .~:.-",.:,""~""'::~' ..:.~.:>- ~"':.f!':."~'.:.~' ~ :..r.'!:"';'~:"":':::.(~:;-~i~~:~~~--;';~"(;'_:'f:""""'~,~~~'::~;;-~~~';n~'~~:~-;;,~;.;~.~:1~~.'2.::'~~Tio~~:~-;!:~..;?':Z=:::=.
-------
Clear Creek/Central Ci~J Site
Responsiveness S~a~J
Page 10 '
o
Health Issues, Two residencs made health-related comments: one said he
had lived ac the site for fifey years without negative effects, and the
other suggested that EPA include pr~vate wells in its investigation.
o
Communitv Issues. The Central Ciey Board of Trustees asked EPA to keep it
better informed of activities planned to take place within the city limits.
o
Cost Issues. A representative of a resident propercy owner of Black Hawk
asked whether EFA would leave the question of liab~lity open for a long
time, and another resident commented that studies at the site are costing
too much money.
1. Policv tssues
o
Comment:
The Mayor of Idaho Springs noted that when the site was
first considered for the National Priorities List (NFL), it initially
received a low Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score. He asked what
prompted the rescoring of the site after the initial low score.
EFA's Resuonse: The preliminary score at the site was based on a
review of available reports. A later field investigation produced
information about the Argo Tunnel blowouts and the importance of this
seccion of Clear Creek as a critical habitat for aquatic life.
"Critical habitatR refers to the environmental factors that make it
Possible for the stream to support the life cycle of animals,
including obtaining food, procec:ing themselves, and reproducing. .
o
Comment:
A local property owner asked when the HRS site score was
whether the HRS data were available for review,
changed sufficiently to cause it to be included on the NPL, and
Sp'rings also expressed a desire to see the HRS data, and another
resident asked whether the score can be changed.
The Mayor of Idaho
- ,
. ,
. ',' .~. "';~.]~:~::~~:~.::.: J,:.~'::~;. :Z;,'''~~~r~;;: :;;";'.~::?;:'~:;';').;":~: :',~\~, ~~;J,~;~:;:~' ?V:' ;~~~_:.:;"if7:. ~7~'::..:.~::':.7.~t;~(~. '~~~'~'~~~'7:' ~::~~. ~:~~~7...f;: ;,;;1~~-!~~":;::;~~.; Z~:r.~.;;~:~,r~'~~~~~;'~,?:~;~:::~~.:.~~~.7£r~.J5<'::"f!;:l?;;~~";:r{.".:"
-------
Clear Creek/Central Cicy Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 11
EPA's Res~onse: During the Preliminary Assessment, EPA reviewed
initial scoring data_L. which was based. on available reports. The
revie~ers determined that a Field Investigation would be needed. The
Field Investigation produced the information about the Argo Tunnel
blowouts and the role o.f Clear Creek as a critical habitat for aquatic
life. The site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL in 1982. The
change in the initial score occurred during the time when the site was
e~aluated for inclusion on the NPL, not at some later date. EPA has
placed the HRS scoring information in the site information
repositories as part of the Administrative Record, but at this time it
is not possible to change the score.
0.
Comment: The Mayor of Idaho Springs asked to see the EPA criteria
used for ranking the site. He said that if the blowout led to a
higher HRS ranking, then blowout potential should receive priority
treatment.
EPA's Res~onse:
The HRS scoring is part of the Administrative Record
that is placed in the informatiQn repositories. Blowout study is
underway and the Blowout Control FS Report is scheduled to be issued
for public comment in July 1988. Because of the technical complexity
of the blowout issue, the study cannot be accelerated further.
o
Comment: A local proper~ owner asked when EPA expects to select a
remedy for mine drainage and whether it will decide to make this
selection prior to completion of the one-year pilot project at the 'Big
Five Tunnel portal. The Kayor of Idaho Springs asked whether
construction for the pilot passive treatment project at the Big Five
Tunnel would begin as soon as the remedial action has been selected.
EPA's Response:
EPA expects to select a remedy for mine drainage by
the end of September 1987.
The primary purpose of the Big Five
...
-.r ~.....,....., .,..,.... ''':'>:'~~'~~ ,..-..- ---::" ;.....~;. ~ :- ."".p o.r:,,;-~,"(~~~.~ ";". ~~.~. '.':' ~"--:'I:.:.;;ryr>::-: r' .~:'>\~':'~~~~~;\ ':".~~?:-~';;'~~ ~~:,:~'I.~I:;- :.,.!': ::", -~. ',;:-:-.~:..:., 'r:." ~"?:'~:~ ~.r~;~~~ );:'-'.fY ;:~l:.~~"
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 12
project is to refine the technology to determine how much land will be
needed, and what kinds of vegetation and organic material will be most
appropria~e. Initiation of the project is not dependent upon the
decision for remedial action ~n mine drainage. EPA is initiating the
pilot project at the Big Five Tunnel portal prior to making a final
decision on the remedial action for mine drainage because the pilot
study will provide EPA with valuable information about how a passive
treacment system should be set up in that area. Seasonal.
considerations required that the pilot project be initiated during the
summer months. The project is included as a part of the Proposed Plan
EPA released on June 8, 1987.
o
CQmment:
A resident asked whether EPA has established a baseline or
background figure for water quality in Colorado.
EPA's Res~onse: The State of Colorado has established water quality
standards for all Colorado streams. EPA is committed to cleaning up
the discharges from mine drainages in order to meet Colorado stream
standards wherever possible. Colorado stream standards are based on
protection of human health and aquatic life. These standards may be
higher than background at some points.
.0
Comment: The Mayor of Idaho Springs said the criteria used by EPA to
evaluate drinking water qualiry were too stringent. He added that use
of overly stringent concentrations makes the situation appear worse
than it really is.
EPA's Res~onse: EPA responded that national standards for drinking
water were established by Congress under the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act. These standards are applied uniformly across the country.
: t ~,~~~'.~~':':~7 7:~'~~.:.;;~{:.:.~T ';';-~:~: :::~~.:;~;~.i.: +r~~:::'.:~,:~.~;:';:~~~:~~: :.~~~:r~-;.~' ;~~:.:;~~~::~:: ~"1 :'.~;J~~~.~~:~e?::~~:::~:;~',~;'-~::;7~~C~:.[~~f::}~_~~~.~~~~~.::?"Z::~.;:;'.:E~,~ ~~~~;::~:.;.~~: :':::':'-;,~:~:::.:::'~:~'7:~:-::~-:~~"~::; ~~.~::.l:?::-~~~~.:-v~-; ~.. .:
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 13
o
Comment: The Mayor of Idaho Springs questioned why some area
drainages were included in the FS Report and ochers were not. He said
that even with cleanup of the five mines, ocher point source and non-
point source problems would continue to exist. He suggested EPA look
at other sources of contamination. He asked whecher EPA has
considered the economic feasibility of restoring Clear Creek water
quality.
EPA's Res'Conse:
Regarding the concern about continuing sources of
contamination, EPA responded that: its studies show that drainage from
the five tunnels is a principal contributor in the degradation of the
water quality of Clear Creek and North Clear Creek. Mine drainage
treacment is just one of the remedial actions that EPA expects to
take, however, and other concerns will be addressed in later studies.
Concerning the question of the economic feasibility of restoring Clear
Creek water quality, the Colorado Deparcmenc of Wildlife has estimated
that the economic value of Clear Creek as a fishery resource is
$736,000 per year, if Clear Creek is restored to a viable fishery.
EPA has considered the economic feasibility of restoring the water
quality. but it was not a major consideration in the final decision-
making process.
o
Comment: The Mayor of Idaho Springs said that the creeks are no
longer stocked with fish below Idaho Springs as they were previously.
He suggested that the RI/FS Report should have considered this fact in
its evaluation of fish populations below Idaho Springs.
EPA I S Res'Donse:
EPA has considered this issue.
The Colorado
Deparcment of Wildlife no longer stocks fish below Idaho Springs
because of reduced fish habitat and poor water quality. If the
aquatic habitat is improved, the stream will probably be restocked.
."" -.. .. "..," ~"'.., ""-.. ,,,,,.,,,,,_,;o:"'I.'_"'-~~"~"'~<"" :=".."":''''-'-' .-:" :..~:.~..:.:.y:.~~~.j:? .:;~=-!':'::~ ~;-..:~/~:~,..~. "l:. ".'-~': .r J',".-~.'~':~'.~~~'~:~-"'-~::':~'~'''~-''.:.~.:;:~ ~.:~~. ~':::~/;'.:.."~~~.~~~~':_:::.~::r:-:7m~::':~:::'
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 14
o
o
Comment: A local proper~ owner asked how EPA plans to acquire land
for a passive treacment facili~, and questioned whether EPA has
condemnation authority.
EPA's Resuonse: EPA has not yet pursued options for acquiring land
for a passive treacment facility. If the Agency encounters a problem
in its efforts to obtain land in one area, it will explore Other
options. Although it is not presently contemplating condemnation
proceedings. if necessary, EPA can exercise condemnation authority.
EPA is hopeful that passive treatment locations will constitute a
compatible land use.
t'
o
Comment: A local proper~ owner asked whether EPA's decision is
subject to appeal on the grounds that it is not in the best interest
of the local economy.
EPA's Resuonse: One reason that EPA is asking.for public comment now
is to be as responsive as possible to community needs in the decision-
making process. EPA's decisions can be changed through a formal
process, although there is no defined period during which appeals can
be made.
o
Comment: A local proper~ owner said that individuals who may wish to
appeal a decision need more concrete information about EPA's plans at
the site in order to comment.
EPA's Resuonse: EPA responded that the plans EPA has presented in the
FS Report were as concrete as the Agency had at that time.
CJ
Comment: A local property owner asked if the affected property
owners. the cities, or th~ counties have input to the final decision
about the treacment.
-------
Clear Creek/Cen~ral Cicy Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 15
EPA's Resuonse: EPA encourages communicy comments.
received are reviewed during the decision process.
continue to interact, with affected proper~ owners
continues to unfold.
All comments
EPA expects to
as the process
2. Remedial Alternative Issues
o
Comment:
Several commen~ers expressed the opinion that there is
'commercial value to the sludge produce~ through the active discharge
trea~men~ process.
One commenter asked whether EPA will consider the
possibility of resource recovery, adding that the Agency should
consider the poten~ial value of precious metals in the sludge, and in
ebe mine water. Another commenter said that processing could reduce
the volume of the sludge as much as 50 percent and the value of the
metals would offset the costs of disposal. The President ~f the Clear
Creek County Metal Mining Association recommended that EPA undertake a
program of research on passive discharge treatment systems to
investigate methods of metals reclamation. The Colorado Department of
Health (CDH) supported this recommendation.
It said sludge and
precipitate reprocessing for gold and silver recovery should be
evaluated by assaying the wastes to determine how much precious metal
they contain, and by identifying potential reprocessing technologies
and costs. In earlier studies, the State determined the drainage was
non-hazardous.
EPA's Resuonse: At the public meeting, EPA responded ebat although it
has not considered the issue of metals reclamation from mine drainage,
ebe Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) requires
evaluation of resource recovery and reclamation, and the Agency will
consider this issue before selecting the final remedy. Referring to
the comment that an earlier State study had shown the sludge to be
non-hazardous, EPA said it is required to comply with the laws as they
. . - 'T.~:';-c:.;;~~.::;:::::I;:::':;'0':.'rT;'";T;~::'?r?})~;~S~:~;~~;:~~::::{ :~.,.Cj=:'.",:,;:;;,~";:22-~~;~::~~.~:.}:~:;(.:'~;: t~:~i~;' ~\.2:1 ;:-::'~::V~:X.y~r;Jf~~:~~~Ti;gi!-?f~~J.;~~~~~1~~.:?'
-------
cerlci tv
:')()()8:::
March 24. 1 ~87
Pages: 1
Memorand1..lm
Data Qualitv review
~rom: Diane Short.
To: Reqion 8 EPA
training. Aoril 14. 1987
Richard Cheatham, REM II
20<)()84
l'1arch 24. 1987
Pages: 1
Record of communication
Removal actlon: .Greqorv tailinqs. Black
From: Cindy Coe. OSHA Health Regs. Team
To: Sharon Kerct-IEr. E~'A
Hawke. CO/Health Sa~etv
,'-' ~ ~ . .,'. .~.,.
::. . -..~ :. ..," "..': ~ ~'~_.~-.~~ ::-r.,'':}.,~~' --"'~:".:~,~,~' ~~:I ~-~~ '~:~'- ~,.:~.~~.~';.t.~;(~:;{t;:~'~j::~:J:t::':E~1!.?j~0}.~.~~~~:t';'t~~~~'.:::~~~~~:.~~;~:.:
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 16
exist at che time of treatment. A past determination chat che
drainage is non-hazardous may no longer be valid.
u
o
Comment::
CDH said it support~ che concept of passive treatment
because its long term costs are lower 'than for active treatment.
added, however, that more discussions are needed on the role of
CDH
passive treatment in the treatment sequence.
,CDH said che same
comment applies to iron oXidation/precipitation,
coagulation/flotation. reverse osmosis, and ion exchange unit
treacment: processes. CDH expressed the opinion that detailed cos:s
presented in Section 3 of the FS Report may not reflect these unit
treatment processes, and are thus too low.
EPA's Resuonse: EPA has subsequently met wich CDH and reviewed the
unit treatment processes. The pilot plant that has been constructed
at the Big Five Tunnel will evaluate the removal efficiency of passive
treatment. Active treacment will be added as a polishing step.
o
Comment::
CDH expressed the opinion that EPA's rejection of source
control alternatives as technically infeasible is premature. It said
consideration should be given to doing remedial design investigations
for channel paving in Lake Gulch to evaluate its effect on flows from
the National Tunnel durin; Operable Unit No.1. In any event, CDH
concluded, it is critical that source control evaluations be given the
highest prioricy, since source control offers che best opportunity for
minimizing long-term costs.
[PA's Resuonse: EPA plans to investigate source control alternatives
for selected areas under Operable Unit No.3.
o
Comment::
One commenter noted that the appropriateness of any proposal
would have to be analyzed in detail~ particularly with regard to cost
effectiveness and the possible destruction of a valuable economic
.' .,." ~'.~ '.".,~ ,~,''''.~..-r.:.' .
.~ - ;:.'''' ,;, ."'" ':<.'{" .::';;,~ "".: ",'..-.:: ~:.~"'~'7.'~ .~:,:IJl',"~ :-. :;~~.(.. ~'''~-~-~£~Y'?::~:~'.~'h~ ~i':~~t:;',~:rl~~~:.--;:::::;::~:::1}~'~~~~:;.:;.1~~~:~t~}i';G::;~:~~.}~~h~r~~~(~~[;~~.:~t.
-------
Clear Creek/Cent=al City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 17
asse c.
Given these two considerations, this party recommended the "No
Action" proposal.
EPA's Res~onse: Consideration of cost effectiveness is che principal
criterion required in che decision- making process. The revised
Superfund legislation requires thac priority be given to alcernacives
that reduce the mobility, toxicity and volume of wastes. There is no
presenc indication that mine drainage represents a valuable economic
asset. The' No Action alternative is not accepcable, as has been
explained in the ROD.
o
Comment:
Referring to the Argo Tunnel, a resident noted chac passive
treacment is of no value unless the potential for a blowout is
controlled.
EPA's Res~onse: EPA will locate the passive creacment facility away
from the Argo Tunnel portal so that a blowout would noc affect ic.
Treatment of discharge is a first step in the process of remediation.
Because che remedy must go inco che design phase, it will be one to
one-and-a-half years before the Agency actually builds a permanent
passive treatment system. Meanwhile EPA will study blowout control
and reach a decision on che mosc cost-effective manner to protect
against blowouts.
o
Comment: The Mayor of Idaho Springs suggested that EPA re-evaluate
its priorities if blowout was a main consideration in listing the site
on the NPL. He suggested that EPA first address blowout control at
the site.
EPA's Res~onse:
EPA has begun to study blowout cont=ol; in the
meantime, however, EPA is addressing other important issues related to
metals in the environmenc. Unless the discharges can be plugged. base
, - ..., ...,. -," -. ,- "". ......,.",..",!\",...,,,,' ~., ~'."~:"::P;'~''''''S..;t7.'':'.~'';~':';.~+-".''::::..r:::''l':r.';~~'':.-';'~"'::';'.o;!''''''t'\:';'.';'P';:~~;o;-",,;~..',:,::;~-;~~:';,2;',,~':;I.J;n~?~E~:;;~~~{;:~l:'!{~:;:"
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 18
flow from the ~els will always be an issue, and EPA can proceed
with a remedy for it.
---
o
Comment: A resident noted tha~ although the Argo Tunnel blowout
increased the HRS ranking, the Executive Summary of the RI/FS Report
states that water quality near Golden meets existing drinking water
quality standards. He questioned whether it is essential to spend
money to treat mine drainage. Another resident noted there are ~o
pathways of human exposure to the contaminants .. wells and municipal
water .. and asked what the pathways were that affected human health
in the ranking of the site.
EPA's Resuonse: In considering potential threats to water quality, .
EPA looks at population within three miles of a site, as well as at
all possible pathways of contamination (e.g,. through drinking water)
If a pathway from the contamination to the population exists, that
will raise the score. In the original HRS scoring, it was suspected
that human health was threatened. Subsequent studies indicated,
however, that the primary threat was not to human health, but rather
to the environment. Under the 'Superfund law, EPA is responsible for
protecting both human health and the environment, however, and must
address both types of problems. Study and action are required at the
site because the creeks do not meet water quality criteria for aquatic
life. The potential also exists for human exposure far downstream if
a blowout were to occur.
3. Technical Issues
o
Comment:
CDH commented that EPA should begin mine tunnel mapping in
order to expedite investigations of source control, ground water, and
blowout control.
.'.. '.. -' . -.: ':"".~' .,.~: .,~ ,~,::..,.. . .: ".r'" '.'~"'." '."':..~':""J'.."',~~."":l'!"r.,,~';','~'" -.:.-' '.''''''!~ ""'~,..-.rv;.:'LI!.~." -"~"':"!'\:'.1'~"'-"'''~~''-'.'''I'_-_:"......~.J'..,~''.",,''''IJ._'''''''.)'~'''':~'''"O'Y''.-. ._~.~........- ..."-' ""...",..- "",-..,""'_h ......_-~------
_..'to.: .':"- .:: ~ . "."::.:~::: '.:.:"':'.0 :.~~~-_.., -'
-------
Clear Creek/Cencral Cicy Sice
Responsiveness Summarf
Page 19
EPA's Res~onse:
EPA believes its files do include all available mine
maps. The Agency is looking fur~er into ~e availabili~ of
additional maps. EPA has initiated a blowout control study that will
use ~ese maps.
o
Comment:
A resident asked whether the results from EPA's April 1987
tests of aquifer wacer quality will be available for review.
EPA's Res~onse: EPA is in the process of writing the reports' that
include these findings; chese findings will be incorporaced inco che
Addendum Report to the RI Report, which will be issued in lace 1987.
When they are completed, copies will be placed in the information
repositories as part of the Administrative Record.
o .
Comment: A resident stated that a 1975 study by the Stace showed
metals concentrations in area wells, and suggested that ground water
may contribuce to the contamination problem.
EPA's Res~onse: EPA believes chis may be correct, and will study
ground water during Operable Unit No.6. Meanwhile, EPA's
investigation has also shown that the mine drainages have a
significant impact on the screams, and the Agency is now addressing
this mine drainage problem.
o
Comment: A local proper~ owner said that a study done ten to fifteen
years ago showed that water 100 to 150 yards downstream from the Argo
Tunnel portal does not exceed water qua1icy standards.
[PA's Res~onse:
EPA's findings do not agree with this statement.
EPA's water quality monitoring studies show ~at Ambient ~ater Quality
Criteria are exceeded along Clear Creek as far south as Golden.
~?-~.~,-~~~~:~:?~~~~~.~:~~~~t~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~:~
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 20
o
Comment: The Mayor of Idaho Springs asked how much land is needed for
passive treaCMent of the Argo Tunnel drainage.
EPA's Re$~onse: EPA estimates ~hat over 200 square feet of land are
needed to treat. one gallon per minute of drainage flow. The pilot
project at the Big Five Tunnel poreal will help EPA further refine
these estimates. ~ith a 206~gallon-per.minute flow from the Argo
Tunnel, EPA estimates that about one to two acres would be required
for the passive treacment facility for the Argo Tunpel. EPA considers
the question of siting an important one, and will contact the
community again to solicit public comments when it reaches the site
selection stage.
o
Comment: A local property owner suggested that further consideration
of passive treacment should be limited to an evaluation of just one
site, and asked whether EPA has considered the Big Five Tunnel site
for such tests.
EPA's ResDonse: The results of the pilot plant program at the Big
Five Tunnel site will be applied to other sites in the area.
o
Comment: CDH suggested that additional tailings characterization and
surficial geologic mapping to complete the inventory of tailings/waste
rock piles will be needed to complete the Feasibility Study for
tailings remediation.
EPA's Res~onse: The characterization and mapping have been completed
and will be included in the FS Report on Operable Unit No.2.
4. Health Issues
o
Comment:
One resident noted that he has lived in the area for fifty
. ";.~.~:.7i~f."~~~,,~;.;:;_r_~~:'f~~~::~ ::.> ~y~!,; ~.::?,~.:~:~~~~:~ '~~~;':~~G?~~!!~::J:"J~ ~:;':'~:~~~r~j~.rr~(~~~,~.~;:~:!:::t7\~~~':~~~:rf~~:.l~~:~~~~:.?;~:..';: .~:;;::'i'~'5_;:;~~~~~~?':l';:-~;~~~::~~;~~~~~~;;~:~~;:~'~':i''~;.~~~'~~~.~:;~~tr$Y~~~."
-------
Clear Creek/Central Cicy Site
Responsiveness Summ~ry
Page 21
years, and he does not believe that the water qualicy presents a
health hazard.
EPA's Res~onse: The purpose of the RI/FS process is to determine
scientifically the risks to human health and the environment that
exposure to contaminants at the site may cause. The effects of some
metals may not be observed for years. No human health hazard was
found in the creeks because the metals are diluted by the flow of the
streams. Mine drainage, however, does present human health hazards.
o
Comment: The Mayor of Idaho Springs recommended that EPA investigate
health effects from possibly contaminat~d private wells just outside
the Superfund boundary.
EPA's Res~onse:
EPA conducted a well survey in the Spring of 1987 and
determined that an immediate risk does not exist because most people
are using public water supplies that meet the criteria
Safe Drinking ~ater Act. A ground water study will be
Operable Unit No.6 to evaluate the long-term risks.
of the Federal
completed under
5. CommunitY Issues
o
Comment: The Central Cicy Council said that EPA should have consulted
with the Cicy Council prior to undertaking activities and making plans
. for work within. the cicy limits, and asked EPA to consult with the
'Cicy Council on activities already undertaken as well as proposed
activities.
EPA's Res~onse:
EPA has subsequently met with the Cicy Council and
agreed to regular consultant meetings.
No significant activity has
taken place within the limits of Central City.
'... .~~ "'" I "tA.0'" ..---~.,."-~=--:_.t~"_":,'r;; ~':-~;.:r.~~~-;':-':'i.~-~~:~~f' .~-;::~-:~"-;;-:'~:::.I~;:~~';:':::;. ;:~~Z~~.~r~;'~~-"~?':;,,~~~~;~~~~~i~~':::r?~~.~.~~+;'~~~.~;~:~~:7f~qqt;f;~:;:.:;0~~~~~~7:
-------
Clear Creek/Cen~ral City Si~e
Responsi~eness Summary
Page 22
o
Commen~: Represen~atives of a local proper~ owner requested an
extension of the comment period for communi~ review of the draft RI
and FS Reports, adding that they believe EPA has not done an adequate
job of making the documents available to this individual.
EPA's Res~onse: EPA notified the commenter by letter that comments
would be accepted and considered until mid. September before the ROD is
signed. EPA is always open to public comment at any time.
6. Cost Issues
o
Commen~: A local property owner commented that' the site is the focus
of too much study, adding that such studies are a waste of the
taxpayers' money.
EPA's Res~onse: Yhenever possible, EPA a~temp~s to use other s~udies
and not to duplicate efforts unnecessarily. All of the studies EPA
has conducced Co daCe have been essential to gain a thorough
understanding of the contamina~ion problem at the site.
o
Commen~: A representative of a local proper~ owner asked whether the
property owner will pay the bill for remediation, or if the question
of financial responsibility will be left open for a long period.
EPA's Res~onse: EPA is
potentially responsible
bankrupt anyone.
conducting a thorough search for all
parties; it is not EPA's intent, hQwever, to
B. SUMMARy OF REMAINING COMMENTs
Several commenCers asked questions that can be answered more ~horoughly
'. ..., "',:C-;:Z:="C:."''7,;;.'1.,.'s .,::~,-,',~,.:.-'"';';!>= "",'.- :''''.C 'f'""';.~';'~"1 L':,,~,f:'.""'"-' -,,,:.,:-,~.,..~ '.",~~::;, "~'U' """":,0,"""..."",.,.,,.. ~"';=.""'-"C!'''''J:'==--",,"''''''«,",,1''''''r...:..'''' r....,.":..:,,,~~;.,...,......,,,.~....-~.~ ,,~, .
-------
Clear Creek/Central City Site
Responsiveness Summary
Page 23
during later scudies. These four remaining comments are summarized below,
followed by EPA's preliminary response.
o
Comment: A local property owner asked if EPA has calculated the role
that contaminated ground water plays in contributing metals to the
creeks.
EPA's Res~onse: When EPA began its investigation of the site, it did
not expect ground water to be the focus of study. A ground water
problem was found, however, and EPA plans to study the problem fur~her
under Operable Unit No.6.
o.
Commen t :
A resident asked whether the contamination of Clear Creek
from the ground water originates in the bedrock or the alluvium.
EPA's Response: EPA believes that during periods of high flow, the
stream recharges the ground water; during low flow periods, recharge
is from the aquifer to the stream. EPA has established that the
alluvial ground water is contaminated in some places. It will study
bedrock ground water under Operable Unit No.6.
o
Comment: The President of the Clear Creek County Metal Mining
Association recommended thatEPA consider seriously the option of
reopening the Argo Tunnel, cleaning out the cave-ins, and diverting or
grouting the water channels. Two commenters recommended that EPA
consider the benefits of cleaning out the tunnels as a means of
providing economic benefits to the county and the State, and as being
the most viable method of preventing fucure blowouts. One commenter
added that records will bear out the fact that most of the deposits
above the tunnel are of sufficient value that mines would be reopened
if the tunnel were cleaned out.
The other commenter added that
cleaning out the tunnels must be done carefully to minimize safety
u.----- ---- _._~. ~.~_.........",-_.....-.,.....' ...:....t_-- .,,,....,.. .~,-.-,-.~.:.4 "t.:,'." =:.".' .--: "'f"..,.~................_~~,4.- .", .-;.. Tn-~. -:-'."'.i~":;;""7!'~~'~:':.1'r-~~-,...
-------
',C. . I ~ '
Cl~ar Creek/Centxal C1:y S1:e
Responsiveness Summary
Page 24
risks. Further, the Mayor of Idaho Springs stated that olowout
potential exists at several mine adits in the area. '
EPA's Res~onse: EPA has initiated a s~dy on blowout control to
protect human health and the environment. Superfund decisions cannot
be influenced'by economic benefits that result to the community,
however. A draft FS Report will be available for public review in
July 1988.
o
Comment:
portion
A local property o~er stated that he owns only a small
of the land at the Argo Tunnel portal, adding that the Bureau
Management (BtM) owns 99.97 percent of the ~el.
of Land
EPA', s Res~onse: EPA is in the process of finalizing a search to
identify potentially responsible parties.
"
.;- .-r..- -.::- :,-'.:.' :.,.... ~~;~-"~~"l'-:""':.'t.":'. --~.,... 1,- ~..~..,-: ~ ""r:'~~, 1.- "-,"'~' "";".;I'\!!':-'-~~"'-":'-\.- '1.~"~.,:_r "':':..0;.:.:0 ~~,-. ',-,!: "" ,.---,.~~,~"',~' ",.,~"t'.~:~ -,~-,.-' -",'."~'" .., '",,"'":.'r-"""'''~~'''''''-T''_~'.-,~,",,--..~:,,-,
-------
Clear Creek/Cen~ral Cicy Sice
Responsiveness Summary
Page 25
ArL\CBHENT 1 TO APPENDIX A
CHRONOLOGY OF COMMUNITY REIATIONS AcrmTIES AT mE
C1.EAR CREEK/CEN'I'RAL CITY SITE
The lisc below summarizes communicy relacions accivicies aC the Clear
Creek/Cen~ral City sice. In addition to che accivicies lisced below, EPA has
me~ with area residents and local officials throughouc the RIfFS..
o EPA develops Community Relations Plan (CRE). (Occober 1982)
o EPA conducts on-site discussions with local officials and area residents.
o
(Sepcember 1985)
EPA establishes informacion files ac three locacions in the local
o
communicies, at the Gilpin Councy Courc House, the Idaho Springs Public
Library, and the EPA Library. (November 1985)
EPA discributes a kick-off Fact Sheec on the sice. (December 1985)
EPA completes the draft Community Relations Plan. (January 1986)
EPA releases a question-answer Facc Sheet on the proposed Expedited
Response Action at the Gregory Tailings, holds a public comment period, and
sponsors. a public meeting on the ERA. (July 1986)
EPA holds a public meeting on the proposed Emergency Removal Action at the
Gregory Tailings, and signs a Memorandum of Understanding with the Colorado
Historical Society. (March 1987)
In response to community requests, EPA expands the number of local-area
information repositories to include the Golden Public Library and the Idaho
o
o
o
o
o
Springs City Hall. (May 1987.)
EPA releases a question-answer Fact Sheet on the well survey and writes an
open letter to residents. (April 1987)
EPA revises the draft CRP. (June 1987)
EPA distributes a question-answer Fact Sheet, holds a public meeting, and'
has a public comment period on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan for Operable
o
o
Unit No.1.
(June-July 1987)
o
EPA places the Administrative Record in ~he information repositories at the
Gilpin County Court House and the EPA Library.
(August 1987)
." -:"~Y:'~':':'-'''::~~'':':.:::'&~ ~ ~~:".':'-''':~ ~:,":~,.:,~~...:.:;.: .,::; :.:::.~ ;"'~~ "'.;-;!;T"~.~>.0~~ !-']~.~}z..~}~;~~~~01E~E-;!:]lF~_~~'
_. -... ---- ---...'-- "-"''''.- ~.""''''''.''''-_:"'''a''_"~''''''''..:.'...-'.)I.''I'''"'"",-,,,,_.,-:,~:' ~!': -
-------
APPENDIX B
APPLICABLE AND/OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
INTRODUCTION
Under section 121(d) (1) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 ("SARA"), remedial actions must attain a degree of cleanup
vhich assures protection of human health and the environment.
Additionally, Superfund remedial actions that leave any hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant onsite must meet, upon completion of
the remedial action, a level or standard of control that at least attains
standards, requirements, limitations, or criteria that are "applicable
and/or relevant and appropriate" under the circumstances of the release.
These requirements, knovn as "ARARs", may be vaived in certain instances.
(Section 121(d)(4) of SARA.)
ARARs are derived from both Federal and State la~s.
Under section 121(d)
(2) of SARA, the Federal ARARs for a site could include requirements under
any of the Federal environmental la~s (e.g., the Clean Air Act, the Clean
Yater Act, and the Safe Drinking Vater Act). State ARARs include
promulgated requirements under the State environmental or facility siting
lays that are more stringent than Federal ARARs and have been identified to
EPA by the State in a timely manner.
Subsection 121(d) of SARA requires that Federal and State substantive
requirements that qualify as ARARs be complied vith by remedies (in the
absence of a waiver). State requirements can be ~aived if a State has not
consistently applied or demonstrated the intent to consistently apply a
requirement in similar circumstances at other remedial actions vithin the
State (Subparagraph 121(d)(4)(E) of SARA).
Federal, State, or local
permits do not need to be obtained for removal or remedial actions
implemented on site (Subsection 121(e) of SARA).
B-1
..' .~ ._- -_.... - -.... ~ .--' . . 0-,. .,......' "",,'_.'h."'- .~ "".: .~ -.r--.. ''''-'r".''''''''~-.'''t~ -,.~~~':"J'.-.'\o~::io'."':-, ,,"'rJ ~I' ':"'~~-wJ"'~."F.',."~:'!'lrr~~~':!J.~~:0'"
-------
The definition of "applicable" and "relevant or,appropriate" requirements
is derived from the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. ~ 300.6 (1986)
("NCP"). "Applicable" requirements are those that would be legally
applicable to a remedial action except that the action is being taken
pursuant to CERCLA authority. Applicable requirements may apply directly
or through incorporation by a Federally authorized State program.
"Relevant and appropriate" requirements are not legally applicable, but are
designed to apply to problems or situations sufficiently similar that their.
application is appropriate. For example, requirements may be relevant and
appropriate if they would be "applicable" but for jurisdictional
restrictions associated with the requirement.
There are three types of ARARs. The first type includes "contaminant-
specific" requirements. These ARARs set limits on concentrations of
specific hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants in the
environment. Examples of this type of ARAR are ambient water quality
criteria and drinking water standards. A second type of ARAR includes
location-specific requirements which set restrictions on certain types of
activities based on site characteristics. These include restrictions on
activities in wetlands, floodplains, and historic sites. The third type of
ARAR includes action-specific requirements. These are technology-based
restrictions which are triggered by the type of action under consideration.
Examples of action-specific ARARs are Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) regulations for waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
ARAR IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
EPA and the State of Colorado reviewed, respectively, Federal and State
laws, standards, requirements, criteria, and limitations for possible
application to the Clear Creek/Central City site. Tables B-1 and B-2
contain a listing of the potential ARARs screened by EPA and the State.
These charts identify each potential ARAR and ~hether or not it is
B-2
-------
"applicable" or "relevant and appropriate." The remainder of this analysis
describes the three types of ARARs identified for Operable Unit No. One in
grea t er de tai 1.
" .
CONTAMINANT-SPECIFIC ARARs
The contaminant pathvays of concern are discharge from five distinct
tunnels to Clear Creek and North Clear Creek surface vater and subsequent
interactions vith shallov ground vater. The principal contaminants include
but are not limited to arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, fluoride, lead,
nickel, silver and zinc. Humans are a potential receptor of contamination
from discharge through exposure to both contaminated acid mine drainage and
ground vater.
Aquatic life is exposed to contaminated surface vater.
Contaminant-Specific ARARs .
The contaminant-specific ARARs for Operable Unit No. One are described
belov and listed in Tables B-1 through B-3.
1.
Maximum Contaminant Levels for Drinking ~ater
The Federal Safe Drinking ~ater Act and Colorado drinking vater
authorities provide for the establishment of drinking vater
standards for public vater systems. These standards are
"applicable" only to public vater systems as defined by the Act and
regulations. Hovever, they may be considered "relevant and.
appropriate" as ARARs for potential ground vater and surface vater
exposure via drinking vater (U.S. EPA, Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual (Oct. 1986». Because of the connection at the
site betveen surface vater and ground water which is an existing or
potential source of drinking water, drinking vater standards are
considered ARARs for Operable Unit No. One.
The primary "maximum contaminant levels" or MCLs" for inorganic
chemicals are considered ARARs. Primary MCLs are enforceable
standards establishing maximum permissible levels of contaminants
in drinking vater. (40 C.F.R. ~ 141.2(c) (1986». These standards
are health-based, but have an economic component. (42 U.S.C. ~
1401(1)(C». Primary MCLs are currently set for the follo~ing
chemicals: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium. lead, mercury,
nitrate, selenium, and silver. (40 C.F.R. ~ 141.11(b». The
B-3
-- - . -- --- ..n___'¥_"-''''', '",-.'--"....- f-~'~-_"'~":" :. '~:.- ,:,-=~."o'. ..2~" .::.. '_"';.'~~~~:'':''-';-'~~\:a'~~;-:;;;':..:/.;.. ~~"'J:;;;;;::;,~;::,:,;/:':::J.I~~";~'~'~:~~~~~~..~H-~:~'~~.r~;~.!:~~~,;tt;~:~;~\.%f~~;:s;~:!~;-;;;;z~~~~~~~~~;,
-------
..
Federal and State MCLs for these substances are identical.
(Colorado Primary Drinking Vater Regulations, 5 Colo. Admin. Code
1003-1 (1981». MCLs are less stringent than AVQC.
The Safe Drinking Vater Act also provides for establishment of
secondary MCLs. These are designed to "control contaminants in
drinking water that primarily affect the aesthetic qualities
relating to public acceptance of drinking water." 40 C.F.R. ~
143.1 (1986). The regulations note that secondary MCLs "in the
judgment of the Administrator (of EPA) are requisite to protect the
public welfare." 40 C.F.R. S 143.2(f). Federal secondary MCLs are
set for chloride, color, copper, corrosivity, fluoride, foaming
agents, iron, manganese, odor, pH, sulfate, total dissolved solids,
and zinc. 40 C.F.R. S 143.3. The State of Colorado has not
promulgated secondary MCLs.
.2.
Federal Ambient Vater Quality Criteria
Section 304(a) of the Clean Vater Act, 33 U.S.C. ~ 1314(a) (1982),
requires EPA to develop water quality criteria related to
protection of human health and aquatic life. EPA has developed
criteria for numerous substances. The Federal water quality
criteria.are not legally enforceable and are therefore not
"applicable" to the cleanup. However, they may be considered
"relevan~ and appropriate" under the circumstances of the release.
Under section 121(d)(2) (A) of SARA, the remedy selected must
"require a level or standard of control which at least attains...
water quality criteria established under section 304 or 303 of the
Clean Vater Act, where such ... criteria are relevant and
appropriate under the circumstances of time release or threatened
release." SARA further provides that "0) in determining 'Jhether
or not any 'Jater quality criteria under the Clean Vater Act is
relevant and appropriate under the circumstances of the releases,
(EPA) shall consider the designated or potential use of the surface
or ground water, the environmental media affected, the purposes for
which such criteria 'Jere developed, and the latest information
available." (Section 121(d)(2)(B)(i) of SARA.)
EPA has determined that the ambient water quality criteria for
acute and chronic toxicity to fresh water aquatic life and to
humans for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, iron, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and. zinc are relevant for
Operable Unit No. One. Additional data collection and analysis are
necessary for EPA to determine whether such National criteria are
appropriate under the circumstances of these releases into Clear
Creek and North Clear Creek or whether site specific modifications
to national criteria 'Jould more appropriately establish a cleanup
goal for this site. Until such time that it is determined tha~
site specific modification to individual contaminant criteria are
B-4
-------
t'
necessary, EPA ~ill consider the more stringent of human health or
aquatic life ambient ~ater quality criteria (AVQCs) as an ARAR for
the final remedy.
3.
State ~ater Quality Standards
Section 303 of the Clean ~ater Act, 33 U.S.C.- ~ 1313, provides for
promulgation of water quality standards by the States. The
standards consist of designated uses of water and water quality
criteria for water. based on uses designated. 40 C.F.R. ~ 131.3(i)
(1986). The criteria are "elements of State water quality
standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels, or
narrative statements, representing a quality of ~ater that supports
a particular use." 40 C.F.R. ~ 131.3(b).
a.
State Contaminant-Specific ARARS
State contaminant-specific ARARs are list~d in Table 6-1 and 6-3.
Table 6-1 compares Federal MCLs, AVQC and State
Contaminant-specific ARARs. State contaminant-specific ARARs are
considered relevant, but to the extent that they are duplicative of
Federal A~QC, their appropriateness for this site has to be
evaluated.
b.
Colo. Admin. Code 1002-8.
The State has also identified the "basic standards" portion of "The
Basic Standards and Methodologies" as an ARAR for Operable Unit No.
One. (5 Colo.. Admin. Code 1002-8.) Section 3.1.11 of these
regulations establishes basic standards applicable to all ~aters of
the State. The key portions of these standards ~hich are relevant
and appropriate for Operable Unit No. One state: .
Substances attributable to human-induced discharges ... shall not
be introduced into ~aters of the State:
a.
which can settle to form bottom deposits detrimental to the
beneficial uses. Deposits are stream bottom buildup of
materials which include but are not limited to anaerobic
sludges, mine slurry or tailings, silt, or mud; or
b.
which form floating debris, scum, or other surface materials
sufficient to harm existing beneficial uses; or
c.
which produce color, odor, or other conditions in such a degree
as to create a nuisance or harm existing beneficial uses or
impart any undesirable taste to significant edible aquatic
species or to the ~ater; or
d.
in amounts, concentrations. or combinations ~hich are harmful
to the beneficial uses or toxic to humans, animals. plants, or
aquatic life; or
6-5
~. " "-,,". .~. "1-",',- ~,~.:~'-:~' ,,-; :.... ~ .~;:: '-, .~""'. :~.~..:. ;'; ~~ -.:_~-;-;- ~~~~-~~:;:~:~Ejl:~!,"~'~:-~:~':..~.:_~~.::127~:-:{!::~;j~5:~flli::i'2).~...',~~7Z~~~~?~~$::;~IE~~;~!zr~Z~f~!?-;.~}.~lq~J.~~~~3;~~~;?lf5:;~:~.'
-------
e.-
in amounts, concentrations, or combination which produce a
predominance of undesirable aquatic life; or
f.
in concentrations which cause a film on the surface or produce
a deposit on shorelines.
C.
Antidegradation Standard
The State of Colorado has also identified
standard as an ARAR for the Operable Unit
of The Basic Standards and Methodologies,
1002-8, provides: .
its antidegradatiort
No. One. Section 3.1.8
5 Colo. Admin. Code
Existing uses shall be maintained as required by State and
Federal law. No further water quality degradation is allowable
which would interfere with or become injurious- to existing
uses. ('
Under section 3.1.3, the ahtidegradation standard applies to all
waters of the State and is considered relevant and appropriate for
Operable Unit No. One.
State regulations do not define the term "existing uses". Under
Federal regulations; existing uses are defined as "uses actually
attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether
or not they are included in the water quality standards." (40
C.F.R. S 131.10.)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs
Physical characteristics of the site influence the type and location of
remedial responses considered for Operable Uriit One. The location-specific
ARARs identified for the site in Tables B-1 through B-3 establish
consultation procedures with Federal and State agencies and may impose
constraints on the location of remedial measures or require mitigation
measures.
The location-specific ARARs for Operable Unit No. One relate to historic
preservation, fish and wildlife, wetlands, floodplains, and work in
navigable waters. The location-specific ARARs influence the t:;pe and
location of remedial alternatives developed for the siee.
B-6
~;,. :"~,':;::',~..:-';.;~:-..:,. :.: ,,",'.~: :~.,~~~:~~' .~~. ~:... .~." ,;::;.~ \-=,~ {,. _::,,::.~.i.:'::': ::1 :..,~.~y~ :~~.~. :.~~~ l:'~'~J:f. ~~,::.~~ :~?:Yl~ .~n~ :'.;,;r.~' '~~~.G:~~~!~}~~~'~'I~::~:};.~~!~;~~"/~~,:t.r~~:;';- ~'~~'~~~~.~~,:"~~~~~~;;::'~z~~';:;?..i.fj'P,,~~:~:::-:.~~-.:-:
-------
1.
Historic Preservation ARARs
Both Federal and State la~s provide for protection of historical
resources. The Central City Historic District is located ~ithin
the Superfund site. In addition, there may be features eligible
for the Federal or State historical registers. All regulations
relating to. historic preservation will be followed.
2. '~ish and Vildlife
The Fish and Vildlife Coordination Act requires EPA to coordinate
vith Federal and State agencies if the remedy would modify any
stream or water body. If any remedy selected involves modification
of Clear Creek or North Clear Creek, EPA will ~ork ~ith these
agencies to provide for protection of fish and wildlife.
3.
Floodplains
Portions of the site along North Clear Creek are in the floodplain.
Facilities will be situated out of the floodplain for Operable Unit
No. One. Requirements of the Executive Order on Floodplain
Management are applicable to this operable unit.
4.
Vetlands
The Executive Order on protection of wetlands is applicable for.
this operable unit.
5.
York in or Affecting Navigable Vaters
,If the remedy selected for Operable Unit No. One involves ~ork in
or affecting navigable ~aters, EPA ~ill follo~ all relevant ARARs
under Section 404 of the Cleai Vater Act.
Action-Specific ARARs
The action-specific ARARs for Operable Unit No. One deal with requirements
for the degree of discharge treatment required and requirements for
disposal of sludges and metal laden organic material.
1.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The degree of treatment required for lo~ pH mine discharges ~ill be
sufficient to meet upstream ~ater quality concentrations in Clear
Creek and North Clear Creek. The NPDES effluent limitations vould
not be as stringent.
B-7
. ',":',. .. T.':,..~':-":';': ~:,.,;:; ~::::=?~~ ::).tr:::~'-;~.~.!:.:r.=~;;j'!.:;':_!(: IYj/:;;, :~;.\:~:~./.\~~.~r;.~r; ;..;;~:~r;J!-~1}.;'~:"~-;'T;.~~~?~~~:;l~~~l~:.;,~~;t~~~.J ~~~~~~;:;:~~..;_~~l)}1 ::~:~7i;;~;!'?;. '.:'~:::<~:; ~~~. ~~!;f:;~lj::{:~f~:.~::::::.:':.~'~. ,:; :"
-------
2.
Solid Vaste Disposal Act (SVDA)
The SWDA sets criteria foi landfilling of sludges and would also
impose a land ban on landfilling of metal laden organic material
removed from passive treatment systems, if not treated to pass EP
toxicity tests. The SVDA is an ARAR. Subtitle D of RCRA is
considered relevant and appropriate upon implementation.
8-8
. "--:: ;~:;.:..#;...~...:.. '.~:,::.: !t:s_~,~~. ::. ".... ';t:":.. :~li.;~~ ~r;,~'~.\'-,'" ~~~.~;r.;: 1;'l':'i"; :i:.'".,;:r-;;;::l:.~i., ~{~;~ i::~:j",:):::;'~:!, ;.?>~,"j ~::t.';.;~;.J::~~:~).:'J''::?~:.:'''::~' ~~~~~~.;; ::~~;.:::;:';;:;J; Y;~-Z:~7~~~~~~ ,:'.:'.::: :,~;,.or:..:~.~~'~;~;7~J' :r!"~'..?- ~'}~~~!'7""::~:: .
-------
i.i
~ 1
n
.'~
!~!
!:,
~:
i:-
t
i.~
n
~~
.!~
:~.:
~,~
~tj
.~..'
-,i'!'"
:1)
"",:
b
Ci~
:!-.1,
';'~
1;~
~1
';(1
t'
i5
:1J
~:\
~j
~~~
~"1
;}~
; ~.~
:~~!
;~~
;~s~~
~i;/~
{)~
')1.
-\0,
:~~:~
" -'-10
".IoJo.
:\:,
~~J~l
"~j
. ; ~
,::f:1
~]~j
. 6':.:
~~~{
:~'J
~:~j
TABlE S-1
RmNITAL Am.ICWE (R REU.VANr Am APf'mPRIATE ffiI'IDUA
PfRI1NENl' TO QF1IR ffiEE](/QNIRAL CI1Y Sl1E
nglL
A~ A\X'£ (III (III Hetlnt
Cmtcninan t to. a fbmn Heal th b Aquatic Life Cmtaninant Specific Effluent Limi tatims ~tectim
of Cmcem ' (SJIA) (OJA) (OJA) ARARs Eh:I of Pipe LimitC
AhmilllJR (AI) O.15d 0.025
Arsa1ic (As) O.6g,h 0.003 (OC) 0.110.05 0.001
0.(0)4 (Nr)
01romlJR (Cr) 0.05 (hex) 0.05 (hex) 0.0072 (hex~f 0.010
(Total) 179.0 (tri) 0.042 (tri) ,g
Copper (0...) 1.0 o.ro>sK' i 0.3/0.15 o. an
orgaoolep t ic
Flooride (F) 4.~ 1.4-2.4
la:Jd (Pb ) 0 . O'.:() 0.0'.:() O.OO~,k 0.6/0.3 0.002
Hangarese (Hn) 1.0 0.015
(Total)
Nickel (Ni) 0.015 O.OO8d,g 0.040
-------
i
~
~
!
i.
\
,
~
~
. :~
~~
",
:~
:j
~'i(
~.j
..t
",
~ i
,\
~;t
~
~:;
'.J
,;J
:)
.;.~~
-,.,
':;~
!~1
~~
.~~
j~
'.;~
\:(:
... .: ~
2~i
:~1
~::~
";.;1
(.~~
~;(~
~i
,';!
,"
t:"1oZ
::;t
f,;1
fj
0~
t;:~
r~j
I!\'.r
l.~
ii;
" I
TABlE 8-1
PUlINITAL APPLICABlE m RfUYANl' AtI) APm>AUA1E rnrIHUA
PER'I'mENI' 1U crEAR rnm1 0.010
Zinc (7n) 5.0 O.04~,m 1.5/0.75 0.002
orgamleptic
I
a
b CPR 40, Part 141, Subpart B, 141.11.
Supedud Pllhlic Hmlth Evaluatim K:nJal, ~arber 18, 1~, ~ Directive 9285.4-1.
c
d for (]}1 data. ,
Fffieral Register, Vol. 51, tb.~7, Hardt 11, 1~, p. 8362 (proposed value).
~ Value in pa~lthesis 6JUals 10 CMc.ioogen:ic risk level.
, Federal RegIster, Vol. ~, tb. 145, July 29, 1985.
~ At hardness of ~ ng/L CaQ)3' foor day average cmcentratim.
. AuiJient \later Q.Jality Criteria for Cadniun, EPA 44O/S-W./032, Janmy 1985.
~ Ambielt \later Q..Jality Criteria for O>pper, EPA 44O/S-W./031, Jaruary l~.
~ fffieral Register, Vol. 51, tb. 63, April 2, 1986, p. 11396.
I AuiJient \lat~r- ().ulity Criteria for lead, EPA 44O/S-84/fYl.7, Jaiuuy 1~.
fffieral RegIster J Vol. 45, tb. 231, tbvarber 28, 1~, p. 79340.
m fffieral Register, Vol. 51, tb. 102, Hay 28, 1986, p. 19269.
n Stardacd Lhi Is.
o Q1e day maxillun/30 days average, respectively.
tbte: All values are "total recoverable" coocentratims except for Aquatic A\X1.; for As, Cd, OJ, Pb \/hich are acid soluble.
-------
TABlE B-2
mEW. ARARs '.
Awlicable/
;-ardmI, RequiraJB)t, Relevant am
~iteria, or LUnitation Citatim t:5crlptim Appropriate Cammt
ootaminant -Sped fie
ate Drinking \later Act 40 U.S.C. S ~
Natiooal Prinary 40 C.F.R. Part 141 . Establishes hmlth-OOsed st~ tb/Yes The K1s for imrganic
Dr~ \later for pililic water systans (mxinun cont
-------
!
;:
'I
~:
\.
I'
;,
t
f
j:
.i:i
...
"
.1.
~~
~.
:,'
N
i,
~~
;.:~
(!
TABlE 8-2 (emt.)
F'EIERAL ARMs
Standard, Requi r€II8l t ,
Criteria, or Limitation
~~
D;
t
Citatim
~iptim
Applicable!
Relevant am
Appropriate
Cama1t
TOKic Pollutant
Effluent Stcntards
~~.~
t~.
'{-{
:t.j
'.'1
:1'!
'J;
~~
:'1',
~.}
-:t]
::~
;}~~
.~,
.::.~
)'~
,.{~
;t.~
~~
"fr...
.!~.~
.; :~:,
r:'1~
~Lt1
:f~ Actim-Sped fie
~ :-:.~.
~1. Clean Vater Act
,L~
..\":
'~-yl
'-:.\
~J~~
1i
1:it;t
~fj
,~~)
'~~~J .
~'.~ '.!
Identificatioo alrl
Listing of Jlazanb.1S
Vaste
K3timal Pollutallt
Oisch¥ge Eliminat ion
Systan
40 C. F .R. Part 129
40 C. F .R. Part 261
33 u.s.c. ~~
1251-1376
40 C.F.R.Parts ill,
125
Establishes effluent stardards or
prOOibi tims for certain toxic
pollutants: aldrin/dieldrin, mr,
enfrin, toxa&hne, bmzidine, KRs
IRfires tlnge solid VdStes which
ace subject to regulatim as
hazardoos vastes meter 40 C.F.R.
Parts 262-265 am Parts 124, 270,
271.
Requi res perrni ts for tre
discharge of pollutants fran any
point source into wters of tre ,
lhi ted States
tb/tb
tbltb
YeslYes
These polluta'lts ace oot
present in effluent.
Crmtes 00 substanti \Ie
clearup requirE!l81ts. lhJer
40 C.F.R. ~ 261.4(b)(7),
solid vaste fron, the
extractim, beneficiatim,
am process~ of ores am
minerals is oot hazardous
vaste. Ibwever, lIlder
Q1OA, ~ reqWrE!I81ts nay
be relevant am appropria~e
an:Ier the clretmStances of
the release at the si te. In
this chart, any. solid vastes
\.'hich pose a thrw t to pililic
heal th or welfare or the
envi rtmH'It ace tertJat
"hazardOllS oaterials."
A permit is oot' required for
on-si te CEOA response
actims, tAlt the ~tantive
requirE!l81ts apply. Permit
retluirrna1ts cunently
III i 1 ized hv ml are Ips..,>
-------
.;1
t'
:,{::
J~
,f
};
."~;~:
;;'~
\.t~
t.r..:
;{.~
..':v
~~
'Ji?
TABlE 8-2 (coot.)
mmAL ARARs
Stardard, R.8Juiretalt,
Criteria, or Umitatim
;-;0.""
O:'Jj.
;f: ~
Citatim
~ptim
AppliC4blel
Relevant am
Appropriate
Glmmt
;-:i~
,.,
'~}
Effluent Umi tatims
.:n
~;, !
:.!.",
"~¥4
"'~;..'~
:1,~~
1:
;-J
:~"~
tetimal Pretreatnalt
Stardards
"~i
':.j}
'f>, l.d . I
~. So 1 \laste Disposa Act
)~ (IISUI1f\ ")
.1:'j
~.t~
',~!
;.,,~
~.
~
~1;..
~t~
if'
~i~
~
~j
:,)..1
),'
".1
~;~
~,~
:~:~;
.;.1.
I',
~;~
~i
Cd teria for
Classificatim of
Solid \laste Disposal
Facilities am
Prac t ices
40 (D Part 4ltO
40. C.F.R. Part 403
42 U.S.C. SS
6~1-6967
ltO. C.F.R. Part '157
Sets tedn>logy-OOsed effluent
limi tatims for point soorce
discharges in the Ore ~ am
Dress~ Point Source Category.
..
Sets stardards to cmtrol
pollutants Wich pass t.hrn.gh or
interfere vi th treatno1t processes
in pililicly
-------
. STATEOFCOL9~o
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH \'1\ -b ?\\. .,. "2;".
~21UEd>,;1rh'he"lJe ~<3~1" ~@.: ",,~'..,.-
Den,...r (o'OI
-------
Mr. Robert Duprey
December 22, 1987
Page Two
If you have any questions, please call Jeff Deckler at 331-4830.
Sincerely,
~
Thomas P. Looby
Assistant Dire tor
Colorado Department
of Health
cc:
Bill Geise, Jr.
Ken Mesch
Dan Scheppers
Jeff Deckler
Wal ter Sanc1za
TPL:nr
. .:~~.';;'<~';:;::t;: ~~':~ ;.;';" :~';'('.'). ;,::~...;.: .;-'~. :\~}{:: :"~"':;';r:~,'r,:';,; ':"~~..?;:,\{;~~.;:~;';(~.
-------
TABlE S-2 (cmt.)
mEW. ARARs
StaOOard, Requi rement ,
Criteria, or Limitatim
Citatim
~ptim
Applicable!
Relevant ani
Appropriate
Cannent
Grldelines for the
I4rd Dispooal of
Solid \lastes
Standards Applicable
to Generators of
Hazardous \laste
Standards Applicable
to TransponerS of
Hazardous \las te
\~ !
1
7 !,
q
)
,1
I
Standards for Owners
aRt Operators of
Hazardous \las te
Trea mea, S tOlClge ,
aRt Disposal
Facilities
J
:j
;~
~f
I
.!~
,
,
;(
:'~
~~
ii
)
;'j
;j
:.,
. .~
>'1
.,
\
:,
40 C.F.R. Part 241
40 C.F.R Part 262
40 C. F .R. Pari: 263
40 C.F.R. Part 264
Establishes requirements cnI
procedures for laM disposal of
solid wastes
Establishes standards for
geneCators of hazardous waste
Establishes standards which apply
to persms transport~ hazardous .
waste within the U.S. if the
transportatim requires a nanifest
mler 40 C. F .R. Part 262
Establishes mininun natimal
stardards \wtUch define the
occ~table~tof~
waste for £M1erS aRt operators of
facilities which treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste
tb/Yes
tb/Yes
tb/Yes
tb/Yes
')
cnIy relevant aRt awropriate
if sl~ disposal alterna-
t i ve developed \KIl1ld involve.
off-site transportation of
hazardws OBterials.
cnIy relevant am awropriate
if sl~ dispooal alterna-
tive developed \KIl1ld involve
off-site transportation of
hazardws OBterials.
Part 264 \KIl1ld apply to
slldge mly if it were a
hazardoos waste. A R.C.R.A.
, 'rn) facility is not ~
wilt.
-------
TABLE B-2 (coot.)
FRHW.. ARARs
Stardard. Requi reI8I t .
Criteria. or Limitatioo
Ci tatioo
I6criptim
Sal
Facilties
40 C.F.R'Part 265
Establishes miniJII.m natiooal
stanlards that define the
acceptable IIBI1agBImt of hazardws
vaste ~ the period of interim
status am lntil certificatioo of
final closure. or if the facili ty
is giliject to post-closuce
requir6lB1ts. lntil post-closure
respmsibili ties are fulfilled
I Stardards for the
I t1anagem:n t of
Speci fie Hazardous
\tastes aM Spec if i c
Types of Hazardous
\taste t1anagem:nt
Facili t ies
4OC.F.R. Part 266
Establishes requireDB1ts \/hich
apply to recyclable IIBterials that
are recla.ina:t to recover
eccnmically significant aIJOIlts
of precious netals, inclld~ gold
aM silver
Applicable!
Relevant aM
Appropriate
tbltb
tb/Yes
RaJeties stniLd be cmsistent
vi th the mre st~t Part
264 staldards as these
represent the ultinate RrnA
CO!4>liance stardards am are
. coosistmt vith (}]{QA's goal
of l~-tenn protectioo of
(Ublic hwlth am welfare aM
the envi1lIllB1 t .
[bes rot establish addi tiooal
clearnp reqWret81ts.
")
-------
TABlE B-2 (coot.)
FEIDAL ARARs
S tardard, RaJui rem.:n t ,
Criteria, or Limitatim
Ci tatim
~ptim
Awlicablel
Relevant ani
Awropriate
Cama1t
;1
"
Interim StaMards for
Owners ani Operators
of NerJ Hazardous
Uaste LaM Disposal
Facilities
:~
,,:
'{
:j
;:1
~
~
;.,
:..,
.,
LaM Disposal
Criteria
i:
~~
.)
If;
~:~
l~j
i'.,
I~J
f.:
!A
f:~
:::
i1~
",
r ~
PI
~:-i
;.....,
., ~~
:;:1
fj
L'
n Occupltimal Safety am
l; Heal th Ac t
l; ~
~1
ii
:'i
':'J
{-.!!
t;]
i~
,-
ii
q
Hazardous Uaste
Permi t Program
lhtergrotnl Storage
Tanks
40 C. P.R. Part 267
40 C.P.R. Part 268
40 C.F.R. Part 210
40 C. F .R. Part 200
29 U.S.C ~~ 651-678
Establishes min.inun natimal
staOOanls that define acceptable
RBnageIe1t of hazardoos waste for
new lam disposal facilities
'Establishes provisims cov~ msic
EPA penni tt~ mJUirerents
Establishes regtililtims related to
urxIerg1lU1d storage' tanks
Regulates IoUrker health ani
safety.
tbltb
YeslYes
tblfu
tbM>
YeslYes
REmedies shwld be cmsistent
vith the IOOre str~t Part
264 standards as these
represent the ultinBte ~
OOJ1}liance standards aM are
cmsistent vith a1n.A's goal
of l~-tenn protectim of
fAlblic health ani Ioielfare am
the envinTll81t.
RaJuirarents for laOOfill
disposal of IlEtal laden
organic naterial apply.
A permit is rot mJUired for
m-si te (}]Ul\ respmse
actims. Suhstantive
requirell8lts are addressed in
40 C.F.R. Part 264.
Use of l.IdergOlni storage
tanks are rot bei~
cmsidered.
lhJer 40 C.F.R. S m.38,
r6)Uirarents of this Ac t
apply to all respmse
ac t i vit ies lfiJer the fflJ.
-------
TABlE 8-2 (COlt.)
~ ARARs
StaMard, Requirare-a t,
Criteria, or Umitatioo
Ci tatim
~cripticn
Applicable!
Re.levan t ard
Appropriate
Federal Mine Safety am
fmlth Act
Cammt
Hazardous fob terials
Transportatim Act
Hazardous fob terials
Transportatioo
Regulat ims
Locaticn-Specific
Naticnal Historic
Preservatioo Act
~ U.S.C. U 001-962
49 U.S.C. U
lOOl-10U
49 C.F.R. Parts 107,
171-177
16 U.S.C. S 470
40 C.F.R. S 6.301(b)
36 C.F.R. Part OOJ
Regulates w~ cmti tiens in
tnJergrnnJ mines to asgn-e safety
ard health of wrlcers.
Regulates transportatim of
hazardous IIBterials.
Requires Federal agmcies to take
into ac
-------
TABlE 8-2 (ant.)
mEW. ARMs
( StanJard, RequimrB1t,
; Cri teria, or Umi tat ioo
Ci tatim
~ptim
Applicable!
Relevant am
Appropriate
Camu1t
~ Archeological am
; Historic Preservatioo
1 Act
~:
;~
\
rJ
.,
~~
:\ Historic 5i tes, Bui Idings
) aM Antiquities Act
,.
;:
;1
:-:
~;~
;l~
j
;i Fish aM \lildlife
~
:,: Coordinatioo Act
1.;-
.~
~~ 1
:~::
::'i,
f':.
~. ~
'"
,'It
f .~
i;.~
I'.~
r'.'
,'I
i.":
J"
,,'J
;:'1
(1
:'-;1
j~4
~r,
,;g
FJ
:~';.i
U
16 U.S.C. S 469
/to C.F.R. 5 6~1(c)
16 U.S.C. 55 461-467
/to C.F.R.S 6.~1(a)
16 U.5.C. 5S 661-666
/to C.F.R. S 6.J02(g)
Fstablishes procedures to provide
tor preservatioo ot historical am
archeological data ,.roch might be
destroye:l tluwgh alteratim of
. terrain as a resul t of a Federal
coostructim project or a
Federally licmse:l activity or
program.
Requi res Federal agencies to
coosider the existence am
location of l.andnarl<.s on the
fob t irnal Regis t ry ot fob tural
L.aOOnarks to avoid lIdesirable
ilTplc ts 00 such laMnarks.
Requires cmsultatioo \/hen Fe:teral
departna1t or agency proposes or
auili>rizes any JOOdificatioo of any
stream or other- wa ter txxIy aM
adequate provisim tor protectioo
of fish am vildlife resources.
YeslYes
YeslYes
YeslYes
Port ims of the site are in
fobtirnal Historic
Preserva t im Areas.
Portims of the si te are in
fobtirnal Historic
Preservat im ALms.
AI tema t i ves developed lIB}'
JOOdi fy s t reoo5.
-------
TABIE B-2 (cmt.)
FEmW. ARARs
Stardard, RaJuinm:n t ,
Criteria, or Umitatim
Ci taUm
~criptim
Applicablel
Relevant am
Appropriate
Clean \later Act
GmIott
Dredge or Fill.
R6Jui ffiIB1 ts
(Seetim 4(4)
Rivers aM Harbors Act of
1899
See t im 10 Permi t
Executi ve Order m
Protectim of UetLurls
33 U.S.C. SS
1251-1376
/to C.F.R. Parts rn,
231
33 C.F.R. Part 323
33 U.S.C S /t03
33 C.F.R. Parts
320-330
Exec. Order tb.
11,9!X> .
40 C.F.R. S 6.J02(a)
& Apperdix A
Requires pemi ts for discharge of
dr~ or fill mterial into
navigable vaters.
Requires pemi t for structures or
wrk in or affec~~ navigable
vaters.
RaJuires Federal agencies to
avoid, to the extmt possible, the
adverse i~cts associated with
tJ.e destructioo or loss of
~tlarrls am to avoid support of.
new coostructioo in "",,' -ds if a
practicable alternath. .ists.
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
"
.,
I~:
A permi t is not mJUired for
oosi te CFJUA respmse
actims, wt substantive
requiraJJ31ts \/Wld be lret if
an alternative developed
Io.U1ld involve discharge of
dredgW or fillllBterial into
navigable vaters. This is
not anticiJated.
T
A penni t is not m:tWred for
msi te CFJUA resprnse
actims, wt substantive
m:tWraJJ31ts \Olld be lret if
an al ternati ve developed
IoUJld involve structures or
wrk in or affect~
navigable vaters.
. ~.
If an al ternati ve developed
IoUJld affect a ~tlaM. 111is
is not anticiJated.
-------
"
~~
~~
.;
~i
H
t~
~~
~i
~ i
¥!
,"
~j
TABlE B-2 (COlt.)
FEIHW. MARs
StaOOard, RequimIal t ,
Cri teria, or Umi ta t i CI1
Ci tatim
~criptioo
. Applicable!
Relevant ani
Appropria te
Cammt
,)~
1"':
~ .
~.'!
H
;-~I
~;~
\;j
;-.-1
~~';
j"
{.:
;l,~
~?,
~~~
f:
:~}
X"
;t1
'I'
,-' ~
t~
.~.:
,.;;j
,~~::
,;."
~;l
H
:{,
i~
~; ':J
',(
-!i.~
f,.:
~;: ~
Pi
"..'~
J~
'"...!
~i~
.d
.I;;
n
, ,
:.J
EKecutive Order
-------
TABLE 8-)
COIDRAOO ARMs
EFFLUENT LJ"ITATIONS8
;
Conta.inant
Colo~ado
Conta.inant Specific
unit
AltAR
Co_nts
pH standa~d units 6.0 - 9.0
I'eeal coli toOl No./I00 .1 200
Total Suspended Solids 8
-------
TABLE 8-)
COLORADO MARs
COHrAHINNn'-SPEClflC ARARs WATER QUALITY LlIUTED
t.
:7~
Cont..inant
coloudo
Conta.inant-Specitic
NUlab
units
Physical and Biological
pH (standa~d units I
6.S - 9.0
Standa~d
units
'J'U~bidity
tu~bidity
uni ts
Dissolved Oxygen
1.0
aq/L
Te8p8~atu~e (OCI
200/... )0 inc~ease
.C
Fecal ColiforM
200
No/IOO .1
Ino~9anics
Aaaonia (un,on,zedl
0.020
aq/L
Nitdte
0.050
aq/L
Ollo~ide 250 aq/L
Suit ate 250 18
-------
TABU: B-1 Icont.1
COIDRAOO ARARs
CONl'MINANI'-SPECIFIC ARARs WATER QUALITY LDUTED
':onta.inant
Colorado
Cont..inant-Specific
A1U>lt b
Units
Title and Section of State Standaed
Applicable/
Relevant and
Appeopdate
Co_nts
Baeon
0.150
'Rot identified as' conta.inant
Sulfue 185 "2SI
0.002
Residual Chlor1ne
3
i Metals
)-
J
J
,I
~
~!
:1
~
:~
~~
J.
; :~
.,
~~
;/
[~
.~
i!.
t
ti
l:."!
:?;
l~
",
[1
~I
;,;1
\i
)
t~
MWlinWi
0.150
Arsenic
0.050
Ba dWi
BerylliWi
0.0051
cadaiWi
0.00048 IHCCI
0.001,ICCI
aq/L
5 cat 1002-8, Sect,. 1:'.6, Re9ion 3,
Seqaents 2, 11, 1)
aq/L
5 Cat 1002-8, Sect. ).'.6, Re9ion 3,
Seqments 2, 11, 1)
aq/L
5 Cat 1002-8, Sect. 1.'.6, Re9ion 3,
Se988nts 2, 11, 13
189/L
aq/L
5 Cat 1002-8, Sect. 1.8.6, Re9ion 3,
Seqaents 2, 11, 1)
5 Cat 100)-1, Aeticle S
aq/L
5 Cat 1001-1, Article 5
I119/L'
189/L
5 Cat 1002-8, Sect. 1.'.6, Re9ion 1,
Seqaent 13 peotects aquatic lite troa
cheonic toxicity.
HolNo
HojNo
HojNo
Yes/yes
Yes/yes
Yes/yes
, Yes/yes
Yes/yes
of concern
Rot identified 8. conta.inant
of concern
Rot identified as conta.inant
ot concern
-------
TABU: 8-1 (cont.)
.,
COlDRADO MARs
COOTNtINANT-SPECIYIC ARAlIa WATER QUALITY LIMITED
Conta.inant
Colorado
Conta8inant-Spacitic
ltJWf.b
Units
Applicable/
aelevant and
Title and Section of State Standard
Appropriate
Co-nts
. ,r
Chro.iU8 (III' 0.019 8
-------
"
~
i;
,/
,.
."
;:
~
,:
I~
}\
/,-
(.
/:
H
~
t..
,.
!J
.~~
'I.:
f
,":
:H
:i,':
~'~
."
'i.~
~t
J.. .~
?~
t.i
{~;
~:~
'~:;
Ji '1
!~:
TABU: 8-) (cont.)
COIDRADO ARARs
COHTAKINANI'-SPECIFIC NlARs WATER QUALITY LIHITl:D
Conta.inant
colorado
Conta.inant-Specitic
NlARb
unih
Titie and Section of State Standard
Applicable/
Relevant and
Appropriate
Hanqanese (Total I
1.0
Co-nt&
tie r cu ry
0.012
Nickel
O.OSO
RadiU8 1226 + 2281
s
Se1eniU8
0.010
\:.;
V
"J
~...,
))
. ..~
:t;'~
~~~1
'I..i
:.{J
:\:~
'7'.
;r."J
~!
0;1
~:~
::'?:J
.:~-'
:1~
,:J~1
...11
!~~
~;)
~i1
".;~
'/~~
Silver
O.OOOla
"'a11 i U8
0.01)
Uranium
40
89/L
S CCR 1002-8, Sect. ).8.6, Reqion 3,
Seqaent 11
89/L
89/L
pCi/L
5 CCR 1003-1, Article 1
I19/L
S CCR 1002-8,
Seqaent 11
5 CCR 1003-1,
Sect. ).8.6, Reqion 3,
Article S
119/L
S CCR 1002-8, Sect. ).8.6, Reqion 3,
Seqaents 2, II, 13
""I/L
pCl/L
S CCR 1002-8, Sect. ).8.5
Yes/yes
Yes/yes
Yes/yes
No/No
Yes/ye&
Yes/yes
No/NO
No/No
Not ident4fied a& conta.inant
\
of concen,
Not identified a& conta.inent
of concern
Not identified a& cont..inent
of conce~n
-------
.~
.1
TABU: &-) (cont. I
COLORADO AIWb
COtn'NUNAm'-SPECIYlC ARABs WATER QUALITY LIIUTED
:l
.,
Conta.inant
Colorado
Contaainant-Specific
ARARb
units
Applicablel
Relevant and
:.!
'j
}
Titl. and Section of stat. Standard
Appropriate
Co-nts
Zinc
119/L
Yes/yes
0.28 (CCI
0.5 (NeCI
.. St..ndard is h..rdness dependent.
v..lue is tor hardness of SO 119/L.
f
,
b Standards apply to SUltdce water .t . c08plianc. point, downstre... of aixin9 zone for effluent and receivin9 w..ter.
-------
TA8l£ 8-3
0X1IWD MARs
lOCATIm Sl'tUnc ARARs - DIsown: 1RFA1KNl'
Title and Section
of State Standard
le;criptim
ApplicablelRelevant
and Appropriate
Cante1t
Q)lorado Vater ()Jali ty
Cmtrol Act Sectims
25-8-2f1l and 25-8-702
;
'.
.~
Procedural Rt:gula t i fIlS
for Site Applicat iel1...<;
for Ibtestic Uastewater
Treatll81t Uorks, 5 OR
1002-12, SectiCXlS 2.2.1,
2.2.4 and 2.2.5
;~
..1
~i
j
,'.
',>
~
Q)lorado tIaza.n:b.Is Uaste
ttlnaganen t Regula t i ms,
6 a:R 1007-3, Parts 2W,
261, 262.1~
j
,~
~~
:~
.,
"I
~~
~
~:!
?j
.(j
Q)lorado Hazardoos Uaste
Act, Sect ims 25..15-10l,
203, 200, :))2
".
i:J
,"
:~A
~J
~. RequimTBlts for si t ing
~. -,
~1 of IlazanblS Uaste
r.."
!:-i Disp>sal Si tes. 6 GR
Jf:l007-2, Sectims 2. t,
~. , .
;i 2.2, 2.4.1, 2.5.1, 2.5.3
~~ and 2.5.6
~~~'J
"1
h~~
~\:1
I'.
h:j
:)
~. ,
Requires Vater ()Jali ty Cmtrol Division
approval of the locat ims of vastevater
treatment facllities, before COJIIH1Ci~
cmstructim.
Establishes broad siti~ criteria
relative to floodplains and natural
hazards. ~cribes review procedure and
decisim cri teria; sunmrizes
infomatim and data rffJUirE!181ts
Defines hazardws solid wastes, requi res
waste chacacterizatim
Establishes broad si tiJ1t cri teria and
site evaluatim procedures for
iRUvidual stornge or disposalll1i ts
(i.e. ~ts, landfills)
Geol~cIHydrolqpc emU tims ID.JSt
assure vaste isolatim frun exposure
IBthways fmu 1(0) years. Sit~ Dust
assure shJrt and lcrg tenn protection of
turon heal th and mvi rmIJ2Il t .
~/Yes
~/Yes
~/Yes
tb/Yes
. ~Itb
Awlicable to danestic waste-
va ter plants, wt relevc.1 t ar.t
appropdate to industrial waste-
vater plants
Relevant and appropriate to
treatnmt worl
-------
TABlE B-3 (cmt.)
24-001-101, 102, 101,
104, 100
SI tiJw is restricted in vicini ty of
recmt faul til1t. tb haza.rdws waste
disposal can ocwr in a 100 year flood-
plain. Disposal into or below ~face .
water cnI gronI vater is prdrlbited.
tbltb
Establishes ImBd sit~ criteria am
si te evaluatim procedures for
mtividual storage am disposalrnits
( i. e.. iqxudro1ts, lardfi lls)
tblYes
Sitq oust mrlmize vinJ protectim am
minimize upstrmm drainage area. tb
solid waste disposal can occur in a 100
ymr floodplain. Disposal into or below
~ce water iDt grnnj water is
prdrlbitm. ~t design is
cmtrollm by a site's locatim in
rel.atim to the upper400St
-------
cc Uork2/ROO/lJO
TABlE B-3
, W7, 600, fm, 610
Colorado \Ii hllife, Sectioos
33-1-101, 102, 103, 104, 105,
106, 107, 1m, 109, 110, 115,
120
)
'J
.i
.'
~
J
J.
)
')
1
'j
",
:'~
Colorado ~(XlrtJTa1t of fIealth
Administral ioo, Sectioos
25-1-101, 102, 103, 107(e),
(s), (t), 1(13, 109, 110, 114,
114.1
Procedural ~1Ula t ioos for
Site Applications for Ibnestic
\lastewater TreatJTa1t Uorks, 5
OCR 1002-12, SL~tions 2.2.3,
2.2.4, 2.2.5
~
~1
'<
"
~
~1
.}
,',
'1
j
.P~
"
"
lJ
.'j
,~
'.:1
q
'.:~:~
Basic Stamarrls am
HetOOdologies, 5 OCR 1002-8,
Sectims 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4,
3.1.5,3.1.8, 1.1.9,3.1.10,
3.1.11, 1.1. n,L 1.14, 3.8.Z,
3.R.3, 3.8.1.
Establishes state policies toward vater
, quali ty protectim. ~fines terms.
Autl¥>rizes regulatioos ard lists
infolllBtim, data noritor~ aM operatimal
reqWrmB1 ts tha t nus t be inc.hIled.
Describes enforcaJa1 t procedures.
Establishes barM program for protectil1t
wildlife, aM SUTllBrizes broad protective
criteria.
Establishes safe drinking water autl¥>rities
for the state.
Describes review procedures aM dec.isioo
criteria. Surnarizes informatim, data
nmitor~, ard reporti~ requiraJO'lts.
Establishes perfoI1JBl1Ce staOOards am
procedures for applyirg cmtaminant specific
ARARs.
tb/Yes
tb/Yes
tb/Yes
tb/Yes
tblYes
Prooulgated guidance m pnwan
goals, policies, regulatims.
Relevant aM appropriate as rea.s
-------
TABlE B-3 (GDtira8l)
hb
Describes review procedures and decisim
cri tieria. SlImBrizes infornatim, data
IID1itor~ am report~ mJUireJH1ts.
No/Yes
Defines hazardoos solid vastes, requires
waste characterizatirn.
U>/Yes
Fstablishes brood design cri teria and
min.inun standards for operat~ imividual
storage am disposallDits. ~cribes
EnforceJH1t procedures.
U>/Yes
'.
Refer to NPDES in Table B-2
';
~~.
Cri tical for determin~ waste
haOOlirg requir£m2J\ts.
..
-------
TABlE B-3 (Cootirned)
"" Subp"'l ts A, B, C,
D, E, F", G, T, J. If. I., H, N
Describes specific design cri teria ant
min.iJIun staMards for operat~ inlividual
storage am disposal mits. SumBrizes
infornBtioo, data, lIQ\itor~ am report~
re:JUirenB1ts.
Establishes t?road design cri teria am
min.iJIun staMards for operat~ inlividual
storage am disjnsalmi ts. SumBrizes
enforcarent procedures.
Establishes specific design criteria for
inlividual storage am disposalmits.
Sumarizes infomatioo, data, nmi to~ am
report~ requir6lH1ts. .
Establishes specific design criteria aM
min.iJIun staMards for operat~ inlividual
storage or disposal mi ts. Slmmrizes
infornBtioo data, nmi torirg am reporti~
requir6lH1 ts.
tblYes
tblYes
tbltb
tblYes
Relevant cnI appropriate if wastes
characterlzai as hazardws, am if
m-si te dispooal is coosidered.
This is not anticipated.
Relevant cnI appropriate for oo-si te
disposal, aM for m-si te storage
prior to off-site shipment, not for
gmerators.
-------
"
.~
~
J
,;
i
"
~!
~.
TABlE 8-3 (Cootirned)
00I1JWX) ARMs
fCl'ICN-SPa:IFIC ARARs - DI~ 'mF.A'DtENr
Title and Section
of State Standard
~iption
ApplicablelRelevant
and Appropriate
CamBlt
Colorado Basic StaOOards for
Grourd \later, 5 ern 1002-8,
Sectims 3.11.0 to 3.11.9
~ Color Hazardous \laste
Har1agrna1t Regt ita t ions 6
-------
~
:~
'~
TABlE 8-] (Cmtirued)
CDLlJW)) MARs .
ACrICN-sm;.u'lC MARs - moowu: 'mF.A'OONf
;i
'i
Title ar.J Sectirn
of State Standard
!~
"
,"
~
,i~
n
{~
u
~ptirn
. ApplicablelRelevant
ar.J Appropriate
Qmre}t
Rules ar.J Regula t ims
Governing the Transportatim
of Hazanloos I'bterials Vi thin
Colorado, 4 (ll{ 72.3-18, Itff
1-9
t~
.". .~
~.,
f;
~:
Colorado Air ()wity Cootrol
Act, Sectioos 25-7-101, 102,
105, 1~, 107, 100, 109, 110,
114, 117 .
~~ i
ft
.,
J;
:n
;J..
~'j
,..
~J
~ :
~:':
'f'>;
:~ .;
~:1
:H
'do:.
:i,'
~.'I
"-1
:~?;
'{ ~
~~
;r~
3,1
!..
:~:~
~~
:/c
'~;1
:ect ims ,
I, II(A)(1) at.1 lli(D),
Regulatioos 8 (5 a:F. 1001-10);
Anbiffit Air Starrlnds (5 a:F.
1001-14); AA~-1.1
Colorado t-bise AbatE!lB\t
Statute, SectiOl\~> 25-12-101,
102, 103, l()I., \OS, 1~, 107,
100
Colorado Vi 1111 i fe EhforcEfIB1t
aM Penal ties, &'Ctions
33-6-101, 10/, 1<>3, 104, 105,
}()), ](Y), 110, 111, 113, 114,
116, 117, 1}1), I {l0, 124, 126,
120, 129, UJ
Establishes specific r8jUiraJB1ts for the
transportatim of hazardoos naterials,
especially regarding labellirg ani
placarding .
Establishes broad starrtmls for air quali ty
protectim
Establishes stanJards for cmtroll~
fugitive particulate enissims ar.J air
tories. ~fines tenns.
Establishes stanJards for cmtroll~ noise
PrOOibits specific actims as vays to
protect wi ldlife.
t-b/Yes
t-b/Yes
t-b/Yes
t-b/Yes
t«.>/Yes
Ihzardoos wastes are a subset of
hazardws IIBterials. gupp~ of
hazardous naterials is rot
antici~ted.
Relevant and aPPropriate during
cmstructioo activities.
Relevant aoI appropriate during
coostructim activities.
Relevant and appropriate for
protecti~ wildlife near the si te
during cmstructim activities.
-------
),i
'.,
...
.n
.~.:
'H
..'f.t
, .l.~
y~
....
'n
.. ~1
'.~?
- .~~
.~n
".n
~"J
~.j)
,f2
-:~
/1
~~ ~
-"
.(
~~:1
J1
.,.,
',i'j
':1
; .~'.;
.:"...
'..~:
'\.";
"
'~~:
j~-:
.<
:i~
;}.;
~1
:r
~:~
;~ :
1,1
:f!:
""!:\
;f~
~J
....:.
.~~~
r
d
~0;
ij
',Ii!
j;1
~~
!:~
-;'1
I'~J
t,
f'~
j:~
ig
~~
!?i
f~
1;;
~ :"":
TA8[E S-3 (Cmtin8l)
(])[lJWX) ARMs
ACl'ICN-Sm.:ltlC MARs - DIrowu: 'Im'.A'Dmr
Title am Sectim
of State Standard
ApplicablelRelevant
arxI Appropria te
~ptim
Gmrent
\Iildlife Cannissim
Regula t iOO5, 2 CXR 406-0,
Articles I, fi, IV, V, VI,
vn, VITI, IX, X, XI
Fstablishes specific reqWf8Imts for
protectim of wildlife.
tb/Yes
Colof'Ckio AbatffiHlt of Public
tiJisance Act, Sectioos
16-lJ-:~)l, J02, JOS, JOJ,:oJ,
300(4), 312
tbltb
RegulatiOO5 Pertai~ to
~ t ic Sewage Shdge, 5
-------
.' ."'.... .~.....;:!'\..,.. ....... - .-' . a" I.'t..""~~:."'"
",":":=:'!';:'"~."".:.'
.~. :." /--
APPENDIX C
INDEX TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
0.
':. ..~. ~': ~~.~:.~....~::..-..-;~ ::": ;-.'> :::.;.\\~":." . -;...;~:",-~ :~::~;::.;':: ~~~ :~~t:: ':~~~~:'~~.;:~~";>'I?::;}~J~:~~~i..~~~ ~.!W?:~.;~;:~~~:J;f~t~:;,.~~;;?;~w~~~:~r ~~?:r;-.
-------
\1tO $'..,.
~.. ",f>
... ~ .
~ ... ..)
~ .
; ~Li1. ~
';. ;l
"',. .,
4, -o,t.....
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
ONE DENVER PLACE - 999 18TH STREET - SUITE 1300
DENVER. COLORADO 80202-2413
. ...
..
August 28, 1987
.
To:
Residents and Other Interested Part:ies
The Administrative Record (AR), a compilation of all significant documents
used in making decisions for the Clear Creek/Central Cicy Superfund site, is
now available. Because of the volume of materials, the full AR has been
placed in the informacion files at the following addresses:
Gilpin County Courthouse
203 Eureka
Central City, CO 80427
(303) 569 - 3251
Hours: Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:30
U,S. EPA Library
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 293-1444
Hours: Mon.-Fri. 8.:00-4:00
An index of the AR is available at all five information files, including those'
listed. below:
Idaho Springs
Ci ty Hall
1711 Miner Street
Idaho Springs, CO
(303) 567-4421
Hours: Mon.-Fri. 8:00-5:00
80452
Idaho Springs
Public Library
219 14th Street
Idaho Springs, CO
(303) 567-2020
80452
Golden. Public
Library
923 lOch Street
Golden, CO 80401
(303) 279-4585
Hours: Mon. ,Tues. ,Thurs.
1:00-7:00
~ed. ,Fri. 9:00-5:00
Saturday 10:00-3:00
Hours: Mon.-Thurs.
10:00-9:00
Fri.-Sat. 10:00-5:00
Sunday 12:00-5:00
The purpose of the AR is to provide complete documentation
studies prepared for the site. ~e encourage you to review
If you have any questions about the materials, please give
a call. You can reach ~alter Sandza at (303) 293-1519. I
1-800-332-3321 (toll free) or (303) 293-1699.
of the process and
these materials.
me or ~alter Sandza
can be reached at
n~~:lY,
~11:ttJ
Community Relations
Coordinator
. . :' ,':,. ,.'- . ,Po::. ""._""';' -/:' ';;'~:..:;-:':A:.. .:;''; . ~.~ :-;',£1"'; '.;.; :.:,. :;;::.: '';~\''>-''':~':~I".;:~'~:';''''''";'.~.~)'~.,::;.,:'',~::~';~~;.:;'~:'~;:.!-':)~:~;':'?:;:;\J.::..~:~~1;~~:~~;';~,~'~{;;.:-,.~~:~~~1::)"'':.~~y..;.a~"~~:~;i~~.!'.W';'~4':~;~;;' ~:~::g;t~~~~~;~~~7~:?5:;~~~~
-------
csnCltv
CENTRAL CITY/CLEAR CREEK ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
CENTRA~ CITY/CLEAR CREEK REMEDIAL ACTlqN DOCUMENTS
"
10(1)01
Decsmber 1. 1967
Pages: 150
Recort
, Pollution/aouatics S. Plat Basin
By: U. S. Dect. of'Interior
To: l.lnknown
1 ()()(J02
De~smoe"" 1.
F'ag 0:'= : 8::
1=\:01: Aoe
Poll~tion/aeuatlcs S. Plat Basin
B'n 1..1. :3. Dsot. o~ In"terior
To: '.\n known
19Q7
('
100003
Decembsr 1. 1975
F'~ge=: :38
F\:ecort
Bio"ta ~ W. Qualitv S.
Bluestein ~ Henorlcks
By: Lln known
F'l at Ri'lsr
1 (J()() 0 4
ALlgl.l st 1. .1 978
F',ages: 4
Oat="
CC flSh scecies
By: Colo. Diy.
To: \..Lnknown
counts near metro
of Wildlife
100005
July 30, 1982
P ~g es : 41'
Recort
EPA fit team report on NCC drainage
By: Donna Toeroek. Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
To: Keith O. Schwab (EPA)
.- - .~
.. ...... "',. '~-,..;..' "'~'.': ._': ~ n~=:' : .r'.~~~:''''.~!'''':.,~::~, ,::~:.',,~':::~::::~'.l"f.~~i~':::£'~~':":'::'J.~l-~~~~~:'.!'~~:";;:i-".f..~~:.-~":?;,::~:'~~~~~~:::';.;~Q::,~+'~';=.;~:~s~:::;.:;::::r:1~~;.::';TZ;~~~.:'?~.\~::..~~r
.. . .' M .... '''' . ".' :\" . . .' -,.....~. ..... ,. '. -
-------
cenC:l t.,
10(J')Ot:
,J aill..l ar '/ 1 e . 1 c; 87-
F':ges: 4
EPA aC~lon memo croceed w/RIiFS
From: William H. Hedeman
-------
cen.:: t'~.
1 ()O':. 1 ::
Fo:brl_I,:..rv :S,
F' CI.g o:S : 5('
Reoort
CH2M Hill findl
Bv: unknown
To: I.lnknown
1Q85
work olan RI/FS
. 10001:::
May 31, 1985
F'ages: .78
Reoo/"'t
Draft Work Plan for CC RI/FS
8'1: Rebert L. Olsen
-------
"...":.",.;,. '," ,.,'
c::r,Cl t',
1 (JOO 1,~
tJct~cer 1. 1 Q:5
F'ages: 15
Data
STS 8011 80ring Logs. Tail.
8'.1: J. LeClaire (CDM)
,~~ T L.In
100019
October 1. 1985
Pages: 41
DC'.ta
Gormlev Drill1nq
Bv: Gorrnle\,.
To: CDM
Borehole Logs CC
10(>O:i)
tJctooer 14. 1985
P.ag.es: 32
M i s.c.
Aql_!ati ~ Ecoloo.v
Bv: CI:.M
To: L.!n ~;:ncwn
Info. Notes DC'.ta
10(11):1
Novemcer.
F'age':!: 6
Dat~.
GroL.1.nd w.?ter
Bv: '_!nknown
To: '_In known
1985
res 1..11 t s
1 (H)O::
December- 1. 1985
Pages: 4
Fi 91.Ires
Figures for sucer-fund
By: unknown
To: unknown
fact sheet
100023
December 1. 1985
F' a ';1 e s : 4
. Fact Sheet
Fucer~und proQram
8v: EF'A
To: '_ln~'nowli
-f~.ct
sheet CC
-------
c:enClt'.,'
1 ()()(':: 4-
Februarv 4. 1QSb
Pages: 1
Data
Geotec:n Boret101e
Bv: w,known
To: 1.ln known
Coords
100025
Aoril 2:. 198Q
Pages: 6
Dat~.
CC Creek Census and
Bv: I..!nknawn
To: Llnknown
Stockinq Info
10(Je)2b
Aoril 23. 1986
F'a~es: 1 Q
Recort
Final Health ~ Saf~ty Plan Aoorov
8'1: I-!nknown
To: '.In known
100027
May 29.
PaQes:
COM +:0
From:
To:
1986
""
Oeot. He~1th on Water Stos
John K. Ho~kins
-------
,=en,= i 1:',
10()O:::,:
Jul v 1. 1 Q8c.
P~,g~s: 4
Fac:t Shee1:
Sucel'"fw"1o fa,=t
By: I..In known
shee1: Gl'"eool'"Y tail
100031
..
JI..1I'l 1.1986
F'aqes: 62
I=:ecol'"'t
GOl'"ml ey SOl..ll'"c:e
B'I: GOl'"mley
To: CDM
c:ol"'1tl'"ol
inyestiqs.
1 (J(J<):::::
Julv 10. 1Q66
F'ao es : ::3
Ltl'" Rct
Low Flows CC: Co. Deot. Health
By: Ri'=h HOl'"stmann (CO Dect. of Health)
To: John Hockins (CDM)
100033
AUgl..lst 1. 1980
F'ages: 24
Reool'"t
Big 5 Pass. Tl'"eat. Design ~ Cost
B'I: E. A. HOWel'"d 2)
1 (H)(, 38
Novemcer 1. 1~86
F' aa es : 1:: 1
Valldated lab data
ekos (\,..' ::. .:1)
8,,:
C:::'M
10003Q
November 1. 1986
Pages: 1 ():3
Validate~ lab data
8'1: CDM
OkQ5
(t) .
1 C)
1 (H)(!4(J
November 1. 198Q
F'ages: 17:'
Validat~d lab data 01::9s (V.
8v: COM
lA)
1 c)(J04 1
November 1. 198Q
Pages: 301
Validated lab data
8y: COM
pkqs (V. 7)
10(1042
November 1. 1986
F'ages: ::3
Validated lab data pkgs (V. 3)
8'1: CC'M
~
. . -:.' ~.~, t(,,'~- ~~: ,'~;.~..~~r~:;. :~.: ~ ~~ ~;~ ~ {~.~:.~...~: r:;,. . }~.~:; ;'~~~:~jf;,~'~~'6~~.3~;'i\~~~~-~;::Y~~~: ~¥:C~.f~:ft?':~. ~;~~.:~:::f'::.:'g ~:l:~'~7~~:'~~{~~~~:~'f'::~~,:~~~~.: ~,~~".~~:0'~~.~.J~~'~: f[~~~~~~:.';\~{~;:~~~~~r:~~~P~~iJf.~~~lf"i~::"
-------
,= c:n c: 1 t './
1 U(H)4::
Novc:mOc:r- 1, 1~86
Paa.9C:s: 197
\-Ial i dated 1 ab data pkgs (V, 10)
Bv: CDM
10004.;;1.
November- 1. 1986
Paoes: 192
Validated 1 ~b data ekgs (V, 5)
8' '. CDM
'"
10l)U4S
Novc:mt. er- 1. :1:;86 "
F' ages: """"I~'
';'-'0
Valida.ted lab data pkas (() 8)
. .
Bv: CDM
1 C)/X)46
November- 1. 1986
F'.ages: =:~
Validated lab data ekes (V. 1 B j
8v: CDr1
100047
November- 1, 1Q86
F'agc:s: 28()
Val i d~.tc:d lab data pkgs (V. 6)
Bv: CDM
1 (H)048
November- 1, 1986
Pages: 189
Validated lab data ckgs (V. 9)
By: CDM
100049
December- 15. 1986
Pages: ..,
...
Mi nLltes
Mi nl.ltes I'"'lsk assessment meeting
Bv: John HOOf.lns (CD~;'
To: Att2noec:s 0;: meetino
,..;i.?",~'~~;H;~q$;~.~~~t~~~~~t~~;~t'~~~r:F;:;~\I;;:Pi£;';;~:'~~;h:\?+;~~~:':P:~5t'..:~;.t~ T;:;;;:'Y:~?~+;~~:f?y:;V::?F?lj~~;~~~;d;~~~~~~}~';:f~4tB~~~q{2e;.p!h~~~~~FF;~g!Zr
-------
'==r":Cl ':'..
~
100(;5('
De~:!mber- 16. 1'i86
'F'ages: 12
Letter-
ICF/Clemen~ water- quality summs.
Fr-om: Patr-icla Billing
-------
c en c l t ',.,
1 r)I)(i56
Ae"-ll 1. 1~e,7
F'ages: 732
Reeo,.-t
Draft Remedial Inyest. V 2
By: Roger L. Olsen (CDM)
To: EF='A
Te;,:t
100057
Aeril 7. 1987
Pages: 103
Reeort
Argo Tunnel Water T,.-eatab. StudY
F,.-om: Resource TecM. Groue
To:
CDM
1 r)005:3
Ae,.-i 1 7. 1987
Pages:
EPA Release on
Bv: EF'A
CC well water surv
100059
Mav ::. 1987
F'ages: 1
Klusman SCle~tific comments on RI
From: Ronald W. Klusma~ 1)61-
June 1. 1987
Paa.ges: 36
EPA ~etter asking public comm
From: Jane O. Russo
-------
c:enC:l :v
.
1 ()()(i6:
.J'.tne ~. 1 ~87
F'aoes: 19
EPA Itr :: to'CO Hist Soc: on BlC 5
From: Walter Standza (EPAi
To: Kaaren K. Patterson (CO Hist.
Soc:)
~
100063.
J1..1ne 8. 1987
Paces: 78,~
Recort
Final Draft
Bv: CDM
To: E~'A
Rem.
Invest. V.
2 Aoe.
1 (H) (I ~ ~
.J'.lne e. 1 ~S~
F'~c:es: 489
F:eoor~
Final Dr-aft
B':o/: CDM
To: EF'A
"
Rem.
Invest. I/o
1 Te:-:t
1 <)<)().~5
JLlne 8. 1987
Pages: 416
Reeor-t
Draft Feas.
8\1: CDM
To: EF'A
StudY Public: Comment
100(166
JLlne 9. 1987
F'ages: 2
EPA memo on deleg brief summ CC
From: James J. Scherer .:-t: ;:-.,': ~0~r~';~~'~ ;~1,~'.~:~'~ !~~a (~~;,,~~:.~),~~~.~ ~~:;-;~~~?:;:R?/~~~~~iij::~;-i:;~~':
-------
~enCl ":'.'
1 0(J(Jo2
.J '.tn e :q. 1 ~E.7
F'iI.~es: 15
Reoo,...t
A,...my Co,...os Eng. comments on RIfFS
8y: S. L. C~,...lock .'.,- -':~~~"'~.'j"'..':,: ", ,-,',"':',;' :-.:~r-:~.'. '~_:.1.":')~..~.~:~.~""~""v'."-'
:. -~'." :; "'''''''''~''''- ';'- ~;. ""'...l~"." "'-." '~':'> '..~ ."'': ":l ~. "".; ,,!,,....~ ....,.. . '-:,' ~'. '.";".'T" .,.' """';'-..."Z'''''':... :.~ ~. -,- " '.., ; ....,......~". .-:;........." ,"'."{"' .~'-~, """".O"P"'>< "..._.....,.....~ -~--- -..~ . - -' ~ ._~ -"
-------
c er! I: l ': .~'
1\)<:;1:1:" 4
J'.ll',; 8. 1987
Pau~es: 1
. Historic Preserv. recly on Bia 5
From: Rober~ Fink (Ad. Council on
To: Walter Stand:a (EPA)
Hist.
F'res. )
1 ()0075
Julv 10. 1987
F'aQes: 1
Letter-
TrOL!t unltd
From: I<:.ent
To: .Jc1\ne
resconse to CC RI/FS
Fishman (Trout Unltd)
RLlSSO
-------
C!e!'i C l : '/
10(J'):3(J
Oc:tooer 8.
...,
..
198::
Pages:
Letter
Central Citv/Clear Creek CERCLA site: recuest
From: J ;--' Wi lllam Gel se. Jr.. EF'A
To: George Groves. Racuette Real Estate
for access
100081
October 29. 198~
F'aQes: ..,
Letter
Central Citv/Clear Creek CERCLA slte: request
From: Stechen F'. Cherr'l. (EF'A'.
To: George Groves. Raoue't~e Re~l Estate
for access
1000:3:2
October 31, 1985
Pages: ,=
Letter
Meetino on ARAR's inocerable unlts Clear Creek/Central
From: -Roger L. Ols~n. CbM
To: Walter Stan=a and Sandra Moreno. EPA
Ci ':'1
RI/F:
100083 '
Novemcer 11. 1985
F'ages: ,~
Fact Sheet
Clear Creek/Central
9'1: EPA
Cltv site
100084
November 7.
Pages: :;
Form
USEF'A
Clear
From:
To:
1985
permission form for access to properties concerning, the
Creek/Central City ha:ardous waste site i~vestigations
EF'A
various property owners
v
1 c)()():3 5
NovemOer 1:. 1085
Fages: 1
Mestlnq Recort
Clear Creek Countv
From: llnknown
To: l..lnknown
Metal
r-1lr11 ng Assn.
-------
~=!"\~ 1 ~../
.
1 ()f)\>8=H
Aor l 1 11. 1980
F'aces: 38
Reoor-i:
Pr-eliminar-v S~r-eeninq Analvsis. Gr-eqor-y
Tailings/Expedited Response
Fr-om: Came Dresser- ~ McKee Inc.
To: EPA
Incline ~~
1 (H) 0 e c,
Mav 12. 1980
F'ages: 15
Memor- :-.ndLlm
Meetlng wlth Colorado Historical
From: Mark SWltak. CDM
To: Waltar- Stand:=.. EPA
Socletv Ma..'.,{ 1::.
1986
1 ()()(I:~"7
J'_lne 13. 1 ~86
F'ages: 66
~:eeor-t
EnQineer-inq Evaluation ~ Cost Analysis
Incline ~ Tailings Exoedited Resoonse
Fr-om: Camo Dresser ~ M~Kee
To: EF'A
of Alter-natlves.
13,... eo:;J0""""
10(1068
November- 18. 1986
Pages: 14
Memor an d Llm
November 17. 1986 meeting summarv and
Fr-om: Rocer- Olsen. CDM
To: Walter- Stand:a, EPA
action
item
1(>(>089
December 5. 1986
Pages: ::
Memo;...andLlm
Agenda ~or Clear Creek/Central City RI/FS
Fr-om: Roger Olsen. CDM
To: Walter- Stand:a. Sandra Mor-eno, Jim
Noack
risk assessment meeti!"\g
Baker- and Ned
. :~:-~';:'~f'~:~'~'::<:'.!;:!.'.r.':~-:; '~~;:~',:_;~:-::.~~ :-~;~:~f,~:I~~::..;~.~.~;:;.;.~~~.:5.;i~'.~--,~~'~';:?~f'~0~'~'.':'~~. :;~;~~'~;~':;~~~~~:£f~~~l~.~?:!~;-;r~:~~'~;;;;;Y:.~ ?~dj.f~~~~~?~ ~111::~~~:~.':~d.~.~~T~~~j;~~~~:.~~4~~~}~~8~~SSi~"7i~::
-------
ce"cltv
1 o:)()(},~(,
Dec emb er 1:'. 1 qac
F'aqes: 1
Record o~ Communication
The Nederland Mountaineer
From: 8arbara Lawlor
To:' Jane Russo
(a newsoaoer)
1<)1)(>91
Decemoer ::. 1986
F'ages: 1
Memor an 0 Llm
Meeti"Q to discuss ARARs for
From: F'atrlcla 8il11<;1. CDM
To: Dist~lbution
the Clear Creek/Ce"tr~l City slte
1 (H)(>O:
Feoruarv 19. 1087
F'aCJes: ::
Letter
Clear'Creek/Central City RIfFS status
From: CDM
To: Sandra Moreno. EF'A
10(1093
Febr~larv 19. 1987
F',ages: 27
Letter
Site ac,=ess and
RI/F':;
From:
To:
site use 8lg 5 tunnel, Clear Creek/Central C1tv
Roger L. Olsen. CDM
Sandra Morene. EPA
1 (I(H)<:;\4
February 25. 1987
Pages: 1.::'
Memorandum
Clear Creek/Central City FS,
From: R. L. Olsen and J. K.
To: Walter Stand:a. EF'A
February 19. 1987 progress reoort
Hopkins, CDM
10<)1)95
March ~.
10e7
F' ~ a e s :
Letter
Greqorv ta1llnos
From: .Jeral d .J.
T.;:): Robert L.
C'
....i
Central Cltv/Clear Creek. CERCLA
De'll tt. of Devi tt 'and Wel s::mann
D'_lprey. EPA
Sl~=
: ; ~.:-:~:;?:::::~:?;;,' ~';';':><;;:::"~:':.Y~"~~~;':?;\-'d:~~~::e;J",,;,~~~:?::::;?~, 'j;;::;;?;/; "::~-~~~:'~:?;~~~-~:::,~:2;;~;};~'~~!:}:~~~i~5H;:~:;~:s.;,:;.h~~:~';';::~~::~'~i.5~:,;::;:i~*"~~~mZ~~,'r~~{;~?~:;::
-------
,:enc:i t'.
lOO(lq,:,
March 4,
F'ages: 4
Letter
Gregorv tailinos
From: Jerald J.
To: SC'.ndra R.
1Q87
Central Citv/Cle~r Creek. CERCLA site
Devitt, of Devitt and Weis:mann
Moreno. EPA
10(H)Q7
March o. 1987
Pages:
Letter
Enclosure o~ ~~ct sheets for the ~reqorv tailinqs ooerable unIt
of the Cl~5r Cr~ek/Central Ci~v National priorl~ies li5~ 5l~~
From: Sharon L. Kercher. EPA
To: St~ve Smith. Colora~o Second Congres51onal Dlstrl~~
Of+ic:e
""I
....
10009:3
MarCh l!). 1987
Pages: 1
Agenda'
Meetinq of the Citv of Black Hawk
1000QC;
MC'.rc:h 25. 1987
PaQe'5: 1
Cons~n1: Form
'Clear Creek/Central City CERCLA
From: Marko LaM and Joanne LaM
To: EF'A
site.
Greqory tailings
1 (II) 1 (II)
MarCh 26. 1987
Pages: 1
Consent Form
Clear Creek/Central City
From: Kevin J. Roche
To: EF'A
CERCLA site. Gregory tailings
1 c)() 1 c) 1
March :5.
1 9E:. 7
F' age s : 1
Consent form
Clear' Creek/Central City
From: David G. SoellmC',n
To: EF'A
CERCLA site. Gregory talllnqs
.---. -~ ....-..- "----'''''-~¥ ;'~--"".""'-'" ~,--..no.,!,~~.:-.;~"",""',,:".1..",' "....\~~'':.,",=",:...~';:'~:'''~:-;~.5'''='''..:.CIO'~.'''':.'f.1 ".",......)
-------
c:?nC1 tv
1 ()() 1 (J::
Marcr'1 27. 1987
F'a<;J~s: 2,
Let t er
The Citv.Council me~t1nQ o~ Marcn 10. 1~87
From: Sharon L. kercher. EF'A
'To: Bill Loren:. Mayor o~ Black Hawk
100103
March 27. 1987
F'a<;J~S: ::
Le1:ter
The 819 5 tunnel site access
From: John Hookins. CDM'
To: Sandra Moreno. E~'A
Cle~r Cre~k/Central City RIfFS
site
100104
Marcn .30. 1°87
F'aqes: 3
Memorandum
Clear Creek/Central City F5 March
From: R. L. Ols~niJ. K. Hook1ns
To: Walter Stano:~.. EF'A
1987 crOQress ~eoort
1 ()() 1 05
Mar:h .31. 19E:7
F'~,g~s: 2
Letter
Issuance of the utility oermit ,to highway right-of-w~y near m1le
cost 240
From: John Hookins. CDM
To: P. R. McOllough. Colorado Dect. of Hwys.
1 ()I) 1 <)6
March 31, 1987
Pag~s: 3
L.et t er
Gregory tailings, Central CitY/Clear Creek
From: Jerald J. D~vitt. DeYitt ~ Weis:mann
To: Robert L. Duprey, EPA
CERCLA site
,
. f :. ,,,: ~. "'.',.'" '''.
't' ~,'r:- .'..I:"....~: 1.'" "', - .~ "'-.0::' ','.' ;'~..~-.~",...
-------
'= =r:c 1': './
it) (J 1':" ~
AOr"ll 1. 1°87
F':g e '= : 1
Samo:e letter
Agreement wlth Norman R. Blake an~ Mildred L. Blake regarding
utili:a~ion o~ or-ooerty owned by the Blake's an~ locatEd be~we~r
Selack St. and Gr-eqory Mill site
From: Nor-man R. and Mildred l. Blake
To: Harold W. Zarling. Riedel Environmental- Services Inc.
1 (H) 1 ()8
Aoril 2. 1987
Pages: 1
Letter-
\/erO.;l,l con<:ent to ac~ess the mlll t~,i 1 ings on adjCl,cent ::r.=::er-,:'/
from Norman Blake
From: Sharon L. Kercher
To: Harold Zarlir.~. Riedel Envlr~nmental Servlces Inc.
100109
Acrll 6. 1,987
F'aoes: ~
Memorandl_lm
Big 5 tunnel oassive
From: John Hookins.
To: Walter Sand:a
tr-eatment oilot land
CDM
and ~andra Moreno, EPA
1 ()() 1 1 i)
Acril 13. 1987
Pages: 1
l.etter
Gregory tailings. Central City/Clear Creek CERCl.A
From: Jerald J. Devitt. Devitt and Weis:mann
To: Sharon Kercher, .EPA
site
100111
Acr-i 1 13. 1987
Pages: 4
Let t er-
Decision not to place r-icr-ac mater-ial. along the bank of the
behind or-ocer-tv
Fr-om: Sharon Kercher, EPA
To: Mr. and Mrs. Marko Lah
creek
. . d.'- ~.'_uL A~_"""'''.'!:.:''", -.- ,,'. ~.. ...~~vr~: .":4-." f .: ~v::,,:-r:':1&: .~...~-~..:~....:- .~.; "!_:.:;;';:yc:~:~.:.~r7?~'~:'~.~':. ~~~S':j'~;.:;..,~":.~:f;~~;'i;:~S;:.~;~i .::=;:;:;~~~,:2~~:~~~c::(:.~P:t~;iJ~. ~{'~:~f{~'f.;"~;'~;.,~;f'.~~~:;';~~~.~-;~;:;:~'
-------
c: en c: 1 1: '/
1 r) r) 1 1 ::
-Aorll'10. 1c;87
F'ages: ::
Letter
Cle~r Creek/Central City site recuest for acc:ess
From: S~ndra R. Moreno. EPA
To: The Honorable Bill"LorEn=, Mayor City of Black Hawk
1 (It) 1 1 3
Aor 11 20. 1987
F'ages: -
Letter
Clear Creek/Central City site
From: Sandra R. Moreno. EPA
To: Kermit's Restaurant
request for access
100114-
Aoril 24. 1~87
Pa<;les: -3
Memor andl.!m
Big 5 tunnel ownershlo Clear
From: John Hoekins, CDM
To: Sandra Moreno. EF'A
Creek/Central City
1 (10 115
Aoril :'=i.
F'ages: 1
Letter
Paoers
From:
To:
1987
on eassive treatment technology
John Hookins. CDM
Jim Reld. Mavor Citv of Idaho Sorings
1 (10 116
Aoril 31), 1967
Pages: 1
Letter
Central City/Clear Creek CERCLA site: request for
From: Sandr~ R. Moreno, EPA
To: George Groves. RaQuett Real Estate
acc:ess
..
100117
Mav 1. 1987
Acc:es= Aqreement
Constl"'uc:tlcn of a paSSlve treatment ollot plant
Bi q 5 tLtnnel
From: George Groves
To: EF"A
5 t r '_I c: t w- e
:?: t;-
-------
ce~Cl~'/
, 0
11)(1~13
Mc..\i 14. 1~S7
F'aqes: :::
Le':ter ,
Geote~hnic~l drilling. 8iQ 5 tunnel
From: J. Wi 11 i am Gei se
To: Al Hovl. Los LaQo~ RancM
waste rock
1 (H) 1 1 9
June 1987
Pages: ::
Fact Sheet
Cle~r Creek/Central
8'1: EF'.:4
City suoerfund site
1001:':'
,JLlne 1'). 1'~87
F'ages:
Letter
CODY of recuestec sta':~te
From: Sandr~ R. Moreno
To: Alfred G. Hovl. Los
.,
....
Laqos RanG:h
1 (H) 1 2 1
JI.lne 11. 1987
F'ages: 2
Greqorv tal lines. Central CIty/Clear Creek CERCLA
From: Jerald J. Devitt, Devitt and Wels:mann
To: Sharon Kercher and Walter Sand:a. EF'A
slte
100122
JLlne 12. 1c;S7
F'ages: 1
Access Agre~ment
EPA authority to
From: Al-fred G.
To: EPA
enter ueon proeertv
Hovl
1 Oe) 123
June 16.
Paqes:
Let t er
Greqcrv t~111n9s. Cent~al Cltv!Cle~r Creel CERC~Q Sl~e
for lnform~':lon and documents
From: J. William Geise. EPA
To: Jerald J. DeYitt. Devltt and Wels:mann
1987
'.'
,,- 2 ': '-~ ~ S '":
-- - - - - - .__. ._.~- --_..... '.. .._~.,,-,--....'., "."" ........" ~-.,.~...~~.~~...... ~ ',' ."i'- . ~;,,",'''''''~~'~'''~'':.a.').~...;.:,~~..~ 0;':.:~?--"::';7?7::-::-:-~;q.~~:"-;';';.:..~v:.7!'.~~'!;-,:,(~:~.:;:::~'t'~-~~-«i';"-;'"~:f~:::~-':~ ~..;t~:;~~~~'\:.~~"''}~t.~~~\Y-
-------
c erl c : tv
1 (J (I 1 :: <1
,JLll'l 7. 1 ~67
F'ages: ,~
Letter
Craft feasibillty study recort. Cle~r Creek/Central City
draft remeclal investigation recort
From: Bruce Scnmaltz. Mayor of Central City
To: Walte~ Standza and Jane O. Rus~o, EPA
slte
1001:5
July 8. 1987
PaQes: 1
Record of communication
Central City/Clear Creek
From: Blll Gei se
To: Nonn Blake
NPL si te .
lC)C)126
Jul ",1 15. 1 ';67
F'ages: 1
Recoro of communlcation
Meetinc at Central Citv with
From: C. Jav Silvernail
To: Walter Standza. EPA
Mavor Schmaltz 7/15/87
lOi)12~
J 1.ll'y 1 6. 1 987
Pages: -
Record of communication ooerable unit schedule
810101 off ,:ontrol
From: Walter Standza. EPA
To: C. Jav Silvernail
1 <:Ie) 1 28
J ul y 20, 1987
Pages: 1
Record of communication
Meeting at Central City
From: Jane Russo
To: C. Jay Silvernail
with Mayo!'" Schmaltz and Aldermen
1001::Q
.J '.11 v :: 1. 1 q S "7
F'ages: 1 .
Re~ord of communlcatlon
Cadmlun and drinkinq water
From: C. Jav Sll'lern~.il
To: Walter Stano:a
o of res ide n c e s 1 n C I e =, r C r e e ~.
~- ":"':"" ~ ..~., !.-::-.O:;;:",- ....., ~......~.~,~ ",' ,,,:,.~--:;,.~ -.0: ':'''''''-:-'0'' .........."."". '. "'1"--,-.., ~ ,-"~' ..."
-------
'=:("1'=1:',,'
1()() 1 ::(:
JLlly 21. ,1987
Paggs: 1
Le,: t er-
The tra("1smittal of r-eYised_~es1gn for th~ fence at the 81g ~
tunnel Clgar CregK
From: Walter Stand:a. EPA
To: Jay Yan:. Colorado Historical Society
100131
JLll v 2::. 1 Q87
Pages: 1
Le':ter
Extension to tng OU011C comment for Clear Creek suoerfwnd
From: J. W1lllam GelSg. EP~
To: Jeralo J. D:Vltt. Devitt and We1s=man
:. :",".~ ) =.= "':.
10013:
Various dates fr-om Acrll throuqh July 1987
Pages: 11
Newscacer Articles
Central CitviClgar Creek remoyal site of the Gregory ta1li("1gs
From: var i OLIS
To: general cublic
100133
Date Llnknown
F'ages: 5
Site F'lans
Gregorv tailings
From: CDM
To: '_mknown
100134
Date unknown
Pages: 6
Report
Charac:teristics
From: unknown
To: unknown
OT contaminants
."'.
." ." .. .-. .0"" "~""'--' ... .~, '...-~~/"".'''~'' a;.",>:', ~ '.;'-~~~'.", ~_-:r_"'." ~.!£.:. ''':'t::':',~'':..'''':f"J~::?:'.~:'_'-~:'''~:~!~~,~,~:"7I:.~:..~~~'.~::::':::::~~~J:~:.~~:-::-.7.'
-------
".'... ,
c S!"1 C l of: 'I
1 (Ie) 135
Oc-: o~ er- 1 () . 198c)
F'ages: 5
Inter--Office communicatIon
Test of water- tre~tment Ar-go tunnel
Fr-om: Don Simoson and Dave Helm, CDH
To: Ar-den Wallum
1(1)136
June 30. 196:
F'ages: 5
Inter-Office communication
A~go tunnel and Gregor-v tailing
Fr-om: June Cr-Slth
To: Suoer-fund file
oile
100137
Moil'.,' 31. 1983
F'ages: 1
Inter--Office communica~ion
Ar-Qo tunnel/May 28. 1983
Fr-om: Marv Cervera
To: Emer-gen,:v re;;oonse
file
.
lU0138
Octooer 21. 1QE5
F' :;.':J es : ~
Le~ter
Technical advisory committee uOdate Clear Creek/Central Citv
sl_loer-fl-1ncs si te
Fr-om: Roqer L. Qlsen. CDM
To: Ned Noack. Colo. Dept. of Health
100139
Febr-uar-v 19, 1986
Pages: 2
Letter-
Technical.advisory committee uCdate, Clear- Creek/Central City
superf'-1nd si te
Fr-om: Roger- L. Olsen and Patr-icia R. Fuller-, CDM
To: Ned Noack~ Colo. Deot. of Health
,
-------
~=nCl t./
1 (>':' 1 4e)
,J'_lrIE l'~. 1920
F'=Q=s: 1
Int~r-Office communlcation
Central City. RI. FS and ERA
From: Ned Noack. Colo. Dee~. of Health
To: Ken Mesch. Ce~~ral City, CERCLA
1 (H) 1 4 1
.Jl..lne :5.
1980
Pages: :
Inter-Office communlcation
Cen~ral City ERA
From: Ned Noack. Colo. Dect. of Health
To: Ken Mescn. Cen~ral Cl~Y. CERCLA file
10014:
JI..1ne :6. 198.:.
F'a';es: 1
Record o~ communicati.on
WOOdbury and Central City uedate
From: Ned Noack, Colorado Deot.
To: Ken Mesch
of Health
100143
JI.;llv :3. 1986
F'aQes: 1
Inter-Office communlcation
Argo tunnel come I ex
From: Gary Broet=man, CDH
To: Tom LOOby
100144
Sectember 29, 1986
Pages: 1
Letter
Management of sucerfund site cleanup
From: L. Russell Freeman of James L. Grant and
To: Mr. Peter Kenney. Commission Chairman of
Count'l
Associates
Clear Creek
1 Oe) 145
Novemt'er 11. 19::c.
F':\ges: -
Record of communl=atlcn
CDH/EPA sucerfund/Color~do Historical
From: No:.j N.
To: ken M. CI.nd Centr;.l Ci ty f 11 e
SOCletv
meo:t:.ng
11/1 c) /50
. .
.... '.'. _. "I W'-~' '.. -':_'''',,-.'''~'~~':~''';'.. ~'~.'L-'::',!. --'~':-::. J;: ~.~.:::. 'Ii '. ::~ '... :~-;t.- ..:,~::;.. ,..:";.,' j/:~':;'-';.~:t..;p..~.;..:.:~~~~::;?~' :;::;'.;~~.~:;;::!,:~~:;;~~-;...~ i' R:'~;:'_C:P~~~{::';~~;;;':;::-:~;;;,~~~~;(~'f.~~~?;;.~'-;f...:,:?t.:;/:~~.;~..ti-'~;'~JT;~-::t;:;-~~~~
-------
~enC1 to.'
1 (H) 1 46
J anl.tarv :0. 1987
F'ages: 1
Let t er
The Board of Countv Commissioners of Clear Creek County's
interest in the possibility of plaYing a primary role 1n the EP~ -
superfund ~leanuc a~tiYities
From: Peqgy Stokstad. Peter Kennev and Joe Hruska. Board of
CountvCommissloners
Ned Noa~k. Colo. Deot. of Health
To:
1 (H) 1 47
Feari.tarv 13. 1 <::'87
F'aqes: 1
Re~ord of communicatlon
PrOQres3. Gregorv In~line tailings ERA
From: Ned
To: Ken M.. Central City CERCLA
100148
Aorll 1<;:87
F'ages: '.'
Table
Prooosed sche~ule
From: lotn known
To: !-In known
of deliver-abIes
1 (> c) 1 4'~
April 27. 1987
F'ages: 1
Re~ord of ~ommuni~ation
Domestic well efforts
From: Ned N.
To: Ken M., Central
Ci ty CERCLA file
100150
June 15. 1987
Pages: 2
Memorandlolm
Clear Creek/Central City Colo. Remedial
From: Ellen Manglone and Sharon Norman
To: r.en Mesch
Investigation
~'. ... ,I '.,'." ~" ~.-. ~.:-...-...~ ..'" ,~... . " ',' "', ~:.~:r:''., -:;'.
.. .' ..,-:.~.~, .-:.. ; ":"""-"':.'>~~~
',:- '-'-.'.'-~.'\"" ~::;::::':"';~;.<.~~' ,:,".~"..'.:"~'~.":"':,' ir:-:'-_"...",'~~-::~':':;'I~"'.:t.~'''''or,~ '.~f':t.'t...~~~..:;o..~ .;..~ ~,~~~:--'_7.:''',;..(''.'. ',";:. ;""'"..:' "":J"":{~
-------
'= en c 1 t ',I
10(i151
Julv 9. 1987
F'ac;les: 5
Inter-Office c:ommunlcation
Preliminary comments draft RI. Clear Creek/Central
From:. Ned Noack. Colo. D-=?t. of Health
To: Ken Mesch and Central City CERCLA file
City
site
100152
July 13. 1987
Pages: 2
Memor an d '_1m
Cl~ar Cre~k/Central Cltv feasibility study
From: Maureen Dudley -
To: Ned Noack. Colc. Ceot. of Health
('
10015:::
.J'_ll v 27. 1987
Pages: 5
Inter-Office communlcation
Clear Creek!Cen~ral City FS review
From: Ned Noack. Colc. Deot. of Health
To: Dan Scheccer= and Ken Mesch
1 (II) 1 54
Date '-in known
F'a~es: 2
Ques~lons and comments
Clear Creek Me~al Miners
From: '-In known
To: I_~nknown
Assn. meetinq
100155
Date unknown
List
The technical
site
From:
To:
advisorv committee of the Clear Creek/Central
City
unknown
unknOwn
--'<;"""':'i:~.'::.:.~"7,?,';"'!.:- \ "y~ ',;:: ';.~,.~-;;~:'-;';" :-:'f'A;;~;j;.':~ ~~:~(:; ';';;::~f.;,;v,;:~;f\:;P;!(::7'4;~~:;.+'-;X-:?;r:,;~ij;.:;$---r:E.i?i:( -:_";:.~~tt~~;.:~,:~;~;;;;!~r:::r;:;';;:;<::.~:*~Y~T;;:l.~;~~,:,:r'A}'I:;:~;'
-------
CSHiC:l tv
CENTRAL CITY/CLEAR CREEK REMOVAL ACTION DOCUMENTS
:00001
November 18. 1985
Pages: 1
Lettsr .
Mlninc Association cooperatio~
From: E. R. Lewandowski
To: Jane Q. 1=:US50 .
:00(>0:
De~emoer. 1985
1='a99s: 4
Fact Sheet
Minlncr anc mllllng
':on t=tT11 n~. t 1 on
By: EFA
wast: ='.~
tne sO'.tr':e of
~ ,:J>: 1 C
met a ~
20(>003
Apri 1 11. 1986
F':\ges: 37
Recort
Preliminary screening analysis,
expedited response acti~n
Bv: CDM
Gregorv Incline and Tailings.
200004
Mav 12. 1980
PaCies: 2
Mem~r andLlm .
Meeting with historical society
Fr~m: Mark Swatek, CDM
To: Wed tel'" Sand= a. EF'A
21)001)5
June 13, 1986
Report
Engineerinq evaluation and cost analysis of alternative.
Incline and Tailings. excedited response action
From: Mark Swatek. Camp Dressel'" and McKee, Inc.
To: Walter Sand:a. EPA
Gregory
q
. ~"~ '1";",., -:'-'-~'. " -~':'I:";t;'r.,;-~:.:~~,~. "'':-~''\.''-."':' -,:-:;"".,. ""f'<"''''':":''''''7''" ',' ~: :-;-.. ~-r:~""\''-~~'-~ ;.:,~~;:,.:-,:.., '~~... ':.~:~ly'.:~ '~1";:-'-'~:~--r"~:7"":'" ',:1::--.~.~::-:.~.~~""t-'_~..:.::~~.,:.~,?::~~~"-;;~.~ ~~~:; ~:.7_~.~~~'":~~.''-': ~,;'" "'''~:~..~.~'...,.~r+1~~'''''
-------
'= er-; c 1 t '.'
:()j:'I')()~
o
o
J'..tlv 1.
F'aq:?s:
Reoort
f":eg ion
From:
To:
1 ~S.=.
1
8 lncident notification
Walte/'" Sand=a. Suoer~und remedial
'..Ln k n ol-Jn .
"200(\(\7
J'..lly. 198Q
F'ages: 4
Fact Sheet
EF'A's oroqress
Bv: EF'A
at the Clear Creek/Central City
SLlCie/"'~I_lnd 5i te
20()('08
.J '_II ". 1 ~ 8 .:;:)
F'~ae:: 1 ee
f":eoort
Geote,=hnical investlg~tions. tailings
C""eek/Centr~l City site
By: Gormlev Consultants. Inc.
To: C~mo Dressel'" McKee. Inc.
and waste rock,
Clear
2 C)(H) 0 9
Jl.llv. 1986
F'aQes: 26
AooendlX to Geote'=hnical investlgatlons
Cle~r Creek/Central City site
By: Gormlev Consu)tants. Inc.
To: Camo Dressel'" McKee. Inc.
tal lings
an CJ w Co. s tel'"' 0 c r: .
20c)1) 1 (>
Seotember 8. 1~86
Pages: :::
News Release
F'ubllC comment.
By: EF'A
Announced by EPA
2(01) 11
July 14. 1986
Pages:
Let::?/'"
Comment: on oroo0521 for ~:~::=s
From: Norman R. Slake
TQ: '_In k:-:own
2
rn:. 11
talllnq
acne
. ,.: . .." ~.< ....",',-"'..' < ":,.. " ..,.",..',-., '- ""'i 1 ""'''': I,:.:, :.:;-. ;:1":;,. "",:::,,"'.'''' -";"', """.~;'" '>: ~. "~-''''-''';~'';:',- ~ ;;;.;: .::. ;,;~;.;/,,'':-'- ~ \ ':': -;;':~,::;:;.~. ;:.;::.;.::~:.,::..:;:,;~.'.:t,:::!,~ ~;:(;:;:;;;::~ ':;-,;:; ~,~;::;:::~Z."';;:4:~ ~.~,~i{;;;:',?:;;:~~;;:;':'.T":'.;.'7.:
-------
c en c 1 : \,
:o()(\ 1:
.Jl.ll'l ::. 1986
F'ages:
Letter
Recommenoations on the encineering evaluation and
of alterna~ive and preliminary screenlng analysis
From: Mona Da~kins, City of Black Hawke
To: Jane O. Russo. EPA .
""
...
cost an~.l 'IS;' s
"
2(>()(i 1 ::
Jl.lly :4.
P ag es: . 2
Let t er
Resoonse to suoerfund oroqram fact
From: Marvin Thurber. ,Clear Creek
To: Je..ne O. F':l.LSSC. EF'~
1986
sheet
Water User's Alliance
20<)i)14
AUQl.lst 5, 1966
F'ages: 4
Memorandt.lm
Review from the agency for toxic substances and disease reglstr",
of soil samoles
From: Jeffrev A. Lvbarger, M.D.. Deot. of Health and Human
Services
Michael A. McGeehin. EPA
To:
20()() 1 S .
At.lgl_lSt 18. 19E:6
Pages: 1
Letter
Personal correspondence regarding proposals
at the Gregorv incline and tailings
From: Bi 11 v Jean Smi th
To: James 0. Russo
to contaln the ha=ara
2()t)O 16
October 17, 1986
Pages: 4
Memorandt.lm
Summar v of demograchics
Bv: Ann Marshall
To: Roqer 01sen
and community concerns
- .~.:~ '::::,;:\,,~ ';:.~::; ~':~".:. -~J.'j:~:. ~:,71' ~r'~ .i~:: ::, :-.'l~~~.: :~~:{: ~r;:;,5~~:';.:; i~'~?; #;.~~:t:~~~. :'::"~: ':' ;~~,~:'::'l.:;:\=>~ ;::~: :;:'~'~~~~::7.~~~::'~~:~i :~: '';/;~;':~,:';:::'::'\~.~1'~~~:';.;~':'t~~~~7'~:;',. ?~;!:::- ~~:~~:::~:;~;::~:~?1~t:~;:~~~~~~.7
-------
Ce!iCl :'.'
::0\)(:'1 7
Novem~e~ 21. 1ce~
PaQes: 1
Le~te~
Phase I ano II ~eoorts
By: Sha~on KerCher. EmerQency Resoonse B~anch
To: Maureen Dudlev. Colorado Deo~. of Health
2(H)O 18
December 12. 198~
Pages: 2
Letter
Memc~anoum of aoreement for the hlstorical value of the c~ib wal~
From: Sharon L. Kercher
To: Greqorv Kendricks. Nat'l Park Service
20(H) 1 '~
December 18. 1980
F'ages: 4
Letter
ReO~iest for Comments of the Colo. State His~orical Preservation
Officer and the advisory council in Comoliance with 36 CFR PART
SOt) .
From:
To:
Sharon Kercher, EPA
Robert Fink. Advisory Council on Historic
F'reserv.atlon
: c) (i (): "::
December 18. 1986
F'ages: 4
Letter
Request for Comments of the Colo. State Historical P~eservation
Offi.cer an,:! the advisory COl.lncil in comollance with 36 CFR Part
81)()
From:
To:
Sharon Kercher
Leslie Wildeseh. Colo. Historical Society
200021
December 29, 1986.
Pages: 1
Letter
Response to document.ation reoues~
Engineering Record
F ~ om : G r e q 0 ~ v D. r:: end ~ 1 C k. N at' 1
To: Sharon Ke~cne~, EP~
from the HistorlC
Ame~lcan
F'ar;
Se~\llce
.. ,~=:..-~ ;-:'10 .~', ~::-;o-::;o :.:"~~'"-= ::"~-:-:\.~"~~'J;-~ ~:O~o~;-;'rf ~~ . .:."o::.~::~~.:~~ "'::.i.-:~.; ~":.~~;;';~~';':"'-;:~:~\,;.~~~,;t.;~~~~';;~;~~~~1~;~::';;:';:~?'/:.:;"::~~~\:'~~~;-i:~~~-~:~rJ~;:~?~~ \~~~;~~~~:f;;;~~'!F.":;':.~~~fJ~~~;;;;;7;.
-------
C :'11= l -: \/
:r)(\()::
DS!o::emoS!r 31.
1Q8Q
F'aoS!s:
~
....
LettS!r
SiQnific~nce of the crib w~ll and the need for additional
information rS!ouirS!d bv the council to com~le~e their reV1S!W
From: Robert Fink
To: Sharon Ker~her. EPA
~
2 I) c)!):::
JanLlar',,( 12.
1987
F'agS!s:
1
LettS!r
~istori~al value and tMS! aovS!rse effS!o::ts of the
From: Leslle WlldS!sen. DS!ou~v Sta~e His~orlcal
OfflcS!r
Sharon ~:::S!rchS!r
const'_lct:. or,
F'r es er', ::>. ~ : .:::r,
To:
200024
Januarv 21. 1987
F'ages: 9
Memcrandum with attached dccumS!ntation
Historic American EnglnS!S!ring Record. documentation
Gr~HJOry tai 1 i ngs
From: DavS! H. Erlckson, TAT RS!gion 8
To: Shar'::Jn Ker,=her. E::'~
orS!parS!o T.':',
2!)()()::~
February 4. 1987
F'agS!s: 1
MemorandLlm
GrS!gorv tailinos and incline
Central Citv NF'L site
From: John R. Giedt
To: Rebert L. Ducrev
ooerable Llnit of the ClS!ar C,-S!ef;:.'
200026
February 4, 1987
Pages: 1
Letter
EnclosurS! of a memorandum of agreement
From: Sharon L. ~erc~er
To: LS!slle E. Wlloes~n. Cole. Hlst,orlc:d
Sec 1 e t ..'
~ ~:::~::.;~ ~".~~\:;';.\~.\';... ~o~:,:;::.~~"~~"~:.~~-;~V ;.:~~;o,;:'J-~.)~;';;":;" -.: ..:.. ~~.. ~:';'.:.'::'i,j.::-.":';.~~:;~.;,:-~.:';"';.;~.:~::::;.'I-:f~Z~:-.:,.,~~~{~..?;~:~~: '.~~ ::::_)!:or~~,;::,.:~~~.t.~;'!.'\~,!r..;:: 'J:!~~'.::':;~~!:;::J.~t;r ~~~~i~~~.r~~~t'!'!,~ ~;:~;i"!::!'~:~~::~4::!!..~.!.:~::;.i
-------
=ef"'lc:, 'tv
:: (H)<:";"
~eor:_i=-.rv 1:.
F'ages: 1
~ .: 6 -;
o
U
Letter .
The retalnment o~ a oortion of the crib wall for the Museum ~or
Historlc:1 value
From:. Sharon Kercher. EPA
To: Director. Gilain Historical Society and Museum
o
200028
February 12. 1987
Pages: 1
Letter
Reouest ~rom the EPA fer the immeoiate concurrence
aOvIsory counCIl on the memcranoum agreement
From: Sharon L. Kercher
To: Robert Fink. Advisorv CounCIL on Historic
F'reseryati on
of the
2!)()()2°
Fearwarv 17. 1987
F'ages: 1
Letter
Transmitt=-.l of documentation oackaqe oer the Historic American
Engineering Records reouirements
From: Sharon L. Kerch~r .
To: Gregory P. Kendrick. Nat'l ParK Service
200030 .
February 18. 1987
Pages: 1
Letter
Informative letter describing the timber crib wall possible
collaese with the unexplanation of the results if thlS should
haoeen .
From: Sharon Kercher. EPA
To: Honorable William Loren:. Mavor City of Black Hawk
200031
February 18. 1987
Pages: 1
Letter
Inform~tive letter
wall with oossible
ram 1 ~ 1 C :01. 1: 1 'J n S
reoaroino the DOSSlble collaose
wate!'"
From:
To:
a';' c'~n:3Inl,j.=t:C:: 81- t:f:,"~ :-,~
::) -t the c .... ''; = ':
Sharen Kerche!'". EFA
Ned Noack. Colo. Dect.
o~ Health
"c.:: ;:~".;<,:;'. :: ...~.~;;.~ ,:"c,:, '~"i:;;::"';""';::~~'''\;:";:; .:~~/h::::,:;;~~?~";'-:'J':";;~;>:~'f:~:"..'~(~r;~'??7\~':~:;;::S;; ;;;~?~~;;::::~+~~~%'3S:;;;~.~~%~i;E~f::~~~~~;:::;~?:.~~;'~~!
-------
,= en c 1 ~ \/
:(~")(1:3:
Fe!;jr'..iar'..... 1:;. 1 ~67
Pages: 1
L.e":":er .
Con~irmation of teleohone conversation o~ recelot of constructlon
drawlngs for Gregorv tailings
From: Sharon L.. KercMer, EPA
To: kaaren Patterson. Colorado Historical Society
200033
Februarv 26. 1987
Pages: ....
L.etter
The Gablan wall olacement at the Gregory tailings and Questions
raisec bv the Colo. Historical Society
From: Buddv Hines. Roblnson Engineering Inc.
To: Peter 8arret~. Ecologv and Environment. Inc.
200034
Feorwarv :7. 1987
F'ages: 1
L.etter
Comments and understandlngs from the Colo. Historical
regarding the Qablan wall construction
From: Leslie E. Wildesen. Colo. Historlcal Society
To: SharQn.L. Kercher. EPA
Sec i et '/
20(JC)3~
March 2. 1987
Pages: -
Agr-eement
Memor-andum of agr-eement by and among
State Histor-ic Preservations Offlcer-
Historic Pr-eservation
Fr-om: unknown
To: unknown
the US EPA. the Color-ado
and the AdvlSOr-v CounCll on
2()(l036
March 3, 1987
Pages: 8
Memor-and'_lm
ReQuest for- r-emoval action fundino to
bv the cotential collacse of the mlne
Cr-ee~
Fr,::m:
To:
eliminate the threat cosec
talllnqs at North Cle~r
Sharon L.
RObert L.
Kercher. EFA
DLlcrev .
-------
c err c :. t..,
2\:,1.)(,::-:-
o
U
Mar-=~ .:,. 1987
F'=ges: 1
Le~ t er
InTormatlon to residents
Clear Cregk/Central City
reOarding the study and clean-ue o~ t~e
Suoer.f'_lnd si te
.
Q
2c)1)().38
Marc:h 11), 1987
F'aQes: 1
Letter
Memoraner.lm oT
From: Robert
To: Sharon
aqregment regarding emergenc:v resoonse aC:~10n
Fink
~::- er c: her
'2(11)(13-::;1
March 1:.
1 ';e7
Paoes:
~
I
Reoort
Drain.aoe calc:ulations ~or North Clear
From: Robinson Engineering, Inc., by
To: '.Inknown
Cregk, Blac:k Hawke. CO
H. J. Hein=
200040
March 16. 1987
F'i\qes: 1
Le':t:r
Conc:ern about tne olac:ement of the Gabian wall and the imeac:: O~
oersonal or~oerty
From: Sharon L. KerC:her, EPA
To: Mr, and Mrs. Marc:o Lah
21)1)041
MarC:h 17, 1987
Pages: 1
Letter
TMe ac:c:eptanc:e bv the c:ultural resourc:es division oT the
Americ:an Engineering Record doc:umentation oT tMe Gregory
From: Gregory Kendrick, Nat'l Park Servic:e
To: Sharon Kercher, EPA
Historic:
taillng:;
"
- ..,. '.,..,'-';~ ':-:,..:., :~::;.:.<.;","; ';:~:"'.;>?i?-"':~':?.~:'i.":~:< '~;:~':;'!i":('-~~?~':"'!;'7:;:~r,:r.::::;'J.?'''£;.i:~~ ?iY;,,"';;:g;!"';;':~f;r;;'~:*~:;::F~y'..!:';'¥:~';;:f,~'';f:.t::~~(~'0f!;-F&'5::~;;~.'~?~,:;r£~"',s'i;;~~~~~,,:S:~~"~;"V~;-:'
-------
'==!"'\~lt..
2()(J(J4:
Mar-c:"1 20" l'~e7
F':iqes: .,;;.
Le1:t~r-
Infor-mation r-~gar-dinQ.the ne~d for- immeoiate action r-eouir-ed to
cr-01:ect the Nor-th Clear- Cr-eek
Fr-om: Shar-on L. Ker-cher-, EPA
To: Cur-t Musgr-ave. U.S. Army Cor-c of Engine~rs
"
:c)0043
Mar-c,., 23, 1°87
F'ages: 1
Le':ter-
Wr-ltten r-e,=or-d o~ the concer-ns o~ John Liou of FEMA
Fr-om: Eud~v Heln:. Roelnson En~lneer-lnq Inc.
To: Pet~r- Bar-rett. Ecoloqv ana EnYlr-onmen~al~
20(H>44
Mar-,:n 24, 1987
Pages:' :::
Letter-
Author-l:ation bv the Deear-tment of the Ar-mv for-
of the Envir-onmental Prot~cticn Agen~y
From: Eloon E. Strine, Dect. of the Army
To: Sharon ~::er,=her-
the pr-oeosed ~
2c)()()45
Mar-c~, 26, 1 cS7
F'ages: 1
Con:ent form
Access ~o properv
Fr-om: Kevln Jonn
To: EF'A
Roche
:00046
r1arch 26. 1987
Pages: 7 .
Recort with attached communications
Flood plain development per-mit Trom
By; Peter ~ar-rett
To: Sharon Kercher
the City OT Black Hawk
.
-------
=eiIClt',.
2r)(;
-------
c er, '= i ~ './
20()()5:
Aor1l 3, 1Q87
F':ges: ::
Memorand'-lm
Toxicitv potential of wood cribbing at Greqory ta11ings
From: Peter Barrett, Ecoloqv & Environment, In,=.
To: Sharon KerCher, EPA
2(10053
Acr i I 11, 1987
Pages: 1
L.etter
Mine owners OC1n1on on the EPA handlinq of the Gre~ory incl:ne
crl~ J e,=t
From: Chas E. FetterhofT
To: S"n2l.ron Ker,:ne!"". E:='A
('
:OI)()54
Acril 1.::, 1~8i
Pages: ::
Letter
Placement of ricrac material along the bank of t~e ,=reek benlnd
individual orooertv owner
From: Sharon L. Kercher, EPA
To: Mr. and Mrs. Marko Lah~ orocertv owners
200055
April 17, 1987
F'ages: 1
Letter
Materials submitted to the National Archives oursuant to the
memorandum of aqreement
From: Sharon Kercher, EPA
To: Dire,=tor of the Giloin Histor1,=al Society and MU3eum
20()OS6
Apr'il 23,
Pages: 2
. Letter
Change
From:
Tc:
1987
in the finalconstr'uction plans
Shar'on Kercher~ EPA
Leslie Wildesen, Color' ado Historical Society
'.~-:-:'.~-;~";:::,:~f~S~G ~;:~a};;!~;~;>!:~!:i;;;;;':;::';~';,~1 ;i:.z;;"j,~:~;:~:it\i;+'S;';.:~:;).;~;~~:~?fi~;):r::;rx::~~w;;),:~:P9\~;5~I~i~1~~~~:~i~j;~;~77;~~~:"-';;'",:\~:: ?-.~: ::';\;.:7Ft.}~t;~':::!'7T~-\~:?-;?!?;T:
-------
c en c: ~ ~ '.'
. u
:')()f:J57
Aor 11 ::::. l'~87
F'aqes: 1
Memor an d Llm
Removal aC~lon at G~eQory tailinqs and decision to remove the
crib wall
From: Sharon Kercher. EPA.
To: The record
\
"
2()OO.58
Aj:)ri I 23. 1987
Pages: ::
Memor an d '_1m
Grec;lcr~ Talllngs:
Bank"
Fr'~m :
To:
decision not ,to lnstall
riorao on "Concc:>
Sharon Kercher. EPA
The re'=or~
:: IXH) 5 9
Acril 23. 19E7
Pages: 1
Memorandl.lm .
Removal action. at Gregorv tailings and the
from alignment at Gabian wall as sj:)ecified
From: Sharon Kercher,' EPA
T,~: The R:e'=or.:j
decision tO'deviate
in the design drawings
20()(:t60
Acri 1 ::::. 1987
Pages: 1
MemOr"'andLlm
Removal action at Grec;lor"'Y tailinc;lS
as backfill behind Gabian wall
From: Sharon Kercher, EPA
To: The Record
and decision to use key
gravel
:O(X>61
May 11. 1987
Pages: 1
Letter
Justification for the change in the final construction j:)lans and
recuest for a choto of the aj:)cearance of the ~lnished oroduc~
From: Barbara Sudler, State Historic Preservatlon O~~lC:~~
To: Sharon L. ~er~her-. EPA
,tI\
. -- --".- ".-"" _...__.~. r,.,-.. .-, ~'.:' ."-'" --.#'~~";''''''.'..'..~''..;~.:",,:--.
. :::: <""'" .r.,-:"'- :;'- / ..-. ~'..~ .-.;-._~:::",_T1:"1':_~~':'~:":) ,:.,:.; ::..~_'0 -:'~:":.-!,',-'.!~'j;:.:j;'::;';-~t~'.f)'J'~~.
-------
.: en ~ l t \~
~(".\() ~ ~
- .1,. '."~-
M:tv 14. 1Q87
F'ages: 13
Letter wlth enclosures
Lists of acclicable and relevant state reoulrements. stand~ros.
criterla ~nd limit?tlons for the ~rocosed remedlal actlon at t;,e
Clear Creek/Central City Superfund site
From: Ken Mesch, CDH
To: EF'A
20<)()63
Mav 18, 1Q87
F'aQes:
Letter
Landowner resocnsloilitv
From: James J. Soherer.
To: 13len P. Anderson
.
.
for clean-yo costs at the 51t:
EFA
20<)()64
No date
Pages:
R:eoor~
Dooumentation ~ackage for
the l.Jndert~H: 1 ng
By: EF'A
I:'
,.,j
Gregory tailings with a descriotion
20(o()o5
no dat.e
F'ages: 1
Vicinitv mac
The project site
Bv: I..lnknown
To: unknOwn
::O()(>66
no date
Pages:
Report
General information
'By: unknown
To: loIn known
-
'.'
on the site with history included
. 0<
"
-------
c en c 1 t ','
:r~)()(\6 i
"
u
1'"\0 da,:=
Pages:
Reoort
Histor1c~:1 information
8v: l.lnknown
To: '.lnknown
4
20c)()68
no date
Pages: ..,
Inventorv
HA8S/HAER
no't:?d
Inventory of the Gregory tailings with the sign1~icanc=
2c)()(i6°
no c:..,.te
F'aOE5 :
o
Re'='~rrj
Historic Americ.an Enoineering
His;orical narrative
Bv: Ecoloqv and Environment.
To: EF'A'
Recoro of the Gregorv ta1linqs.
Inc.
'200070
no d.aa.te
F'ac;es:
01 .~gram
Creek isolation
8v: '_tnknown
To: Lln known
-
.~.
alternative concrete box culvert
200071
no date
Pages:
Tab I e
The summary of the chemical test results
above and below the Gregory tailings and
rock tailings and the ground water
By: unknown
To: l.tnknown
~
.;;.
from North Clear Creek
from the Gregory waste
.: .~' ::;;;:'"c,~!::,.,:::;;:.:"'~.:; ,;.(. ".;;'; ;:~, :''';;\~~;> ':~~i> '::~>:::-::f:::;::?r;~:;;:~:,'7.if;:~£t-:'fl~;'~;;t.:~~:i~~~ ~.~<;.: '~:;'~-;:;':':~~~.':~~::'X\~;t :~~.;~",\r~::7?:-::~;;:;t:;~:/"Gi~~:::;:~;'~~f~1f:~~~t7?;~;~i~~
-------
<:::on,= i ~ ''"'
2()(:(17:
no dC\t:o
Pages:
F'lan
The isolation alt:o~nativ9 G~oian w~ll
F~om: Robinson Engine9~inQ. Inc.
To: EF'A
-.
...
2(1)073
Jul'.' 18,1986
F'aoes: 16
F':eoo~t
W~aO-~le ~geo~t on the ~easibility o~ ~90~ocessinQ the G~:ogo~y
tailin~s
By: W. Re:: BLlll and ThomC\s R. Wi 1 oeman. The Co lor ado Sc~cc l
of Mlnes ~
C~me. Dresser and McKee
To:
20(JOi4
J1.11v 21. 1980
Pages: 9
Reeort
Prelimin~rv reoort on the value o~ the Gregorv tailings
By: W. Rex Bull and Thomas R. Wlldeman. Color~oo School o~
Mines
Came. Dr9sser and McKee
To:
:C)(i()75
Feoruarv 13, 1987
Pages: 8
Memor andLlm
Removal reouest for
By: Peter Barrett.
To: Floyd Nichols,
the Gregorv i nc (i ne and tai 1 i ngs
Ecology and Envlronment, Inc.
e:F'A
200076
February 18. 1987
F'ages:. 4
Letter
Gregorv tailings
From: Robert L.
To: Nc.r-man R.
Central City/Clear Creek CERCLA site
Duer9Y, .e:RA
Blake
~
",' :,' . ~ -,»........,.,...t.-,..'" , _~f'''''''''. ;','- ,- ~ :",-"-'-":"-~J"......,..:~ ': ~ ""~:;f~'\'_(~,,7'::Y~~.~,;: ~"'";"-;"~"J-'.~:-~-'..~~~.~"'.'-:'';;':'"';'{,,,,: ,~';-:::"'.~.'t (,{" .T";:--":'~'~i"' -. ~J."r""'1..':'\~.r...';!""~""':".-;"-'",,; ~t ',-<: ~.:~~'..';.-:' "\"':-\.~.. r'. ...,~..."~:'1'~~~:'.,..-.~~'";-~~,.,,. ,:'
-------
c:'!'"1 c : ~ "/
L/
"
:(1(1(J77
FeOruarv :6. 1967
Pages: 1
Receiot
Gregorv tailings
Signed: Norman R. Blake
200078
March do, 1987
Paqes: 1
Recoro of communication
Removal action at Grecorv tailinos. Black
From: Clair Tanner. We'?k1y Re~;llster
T~: St-Iaron L. r::ercner
HaWf::. CO
:O<)()7Q
Mar,::n 11. 1987
F'aqes: 1
Record o~ communicatlon
Removal action Gregorv tailings. Black Hawk, CO.
ys ricrao ,
From: Buddv HinEs. Robinson Enqineerino
To: Sharon Kercher
Gabian baskets
2')008(:'
Mc1I.rch 19. 1987
F'~.ges: 1
Record o~ communication
Removal action: Gregorv tailings. 8lack
From: Jim Baker. Regional toxicologist
To: Sharon Kercher
Hawke, CO
:00081
March :0. 1987
Pages: 4
Letter
Gregory tailings. Central City/Clear Creek CERCLA site
From: Robert L. Ducrev. EPA
To: Gerald J. Devitt of Devitt and Weis=man. Attys at law
:O(H)S:
March :::. lQ87
Pages: 1
Record o~ communication
Removal action: Gregorv taIlings.
From: Mel CcO'.s s i d'l
To: Sharon Kercher. EPA
81 ack Hawf:. CO
. -;' ~~?~~.y; .'~ry~~'~~-:.~:~.~~:.~ }~.-:~~;: ~-=i~.:~..;~.~;:t:5:~ '.~:~:'.:~:.~ij.~~i-;;;~~\:f!~~~~i~:~~~':;~,~',,~,:~,-;~, /;~~:~~;':?~.5.? '~~:\7~~1~':~~:;:~~'~ ~~ i~1~:::~.~'.:~.~ :~~ ~~1q;;~~~~':~.~!f\~$;..~~f,~,~~~!:ij~~~;~~~~.~:;~.~\~tW"fu~~~~.f~~
-------
APPENDIX D
STATE OF COLORADO CONCURRENCE VITH REMEDY
:':r~: ';'..~~,' '-~~~~ ~';:".I! .:,~~.~~.~ j-; .T'~J~;W;:;/~.~:~~: :::.~r;:!~.:": ?':~(~:~~ ~""\:~'';: ~-;;.~' ~ ~.I,:!:~.S:': ~~;,~~~;(!'.'~'l. :=-'.; ti:~~.; 'L :-. .?- ~~:~,'~ r~~ ~7:<:.:::.~.~~~~~.':;,,;:-: ~.'
.",,: -...:: ::':.~:..I ::'-:~'::,,,~-'!:.~,:~~':'~'~....~\t::~.~ ..:,;,::')~~..::::..;:.:.; :...L::-~. ::~;.':::.c::..~t~.;
-------
COI..ORAOO DEPARTI1ENr OF HEALTH
Drinking Water/Ground Water Section
'"
I~LER-oFFICE QOMMl~ICATION
TO:
~~e Shelton
Paul Ferrar~
December 18, 1987
mct1 :
DATE:
Sl.JBJEC7: Concurrence:
Unit No. One
Record of Decision, Clear Creek/Central City Operable
The ARARS . and standards in the ROD appear to meet State aquatic, river,
health and groundw~ter standards and requirements, the proposed remediation
and contingencies appear to be viable. Therefore, this Division concurs wi th
the subject Record of Decision excepting as follows:
1. Appendix B, page 1 and table B-2 -- OHEP policy is that CPDES perIni ts
must be issued at CERCLA/Superfund sites for discharges to State w.aters
from treatment plant/passive-treatment systems. AccOrdingly, the
Division does not agree with the ROD statement that no permits are
required.
2. Page 2 (executive summary) and page 12 (main body) -- the Division does
not agree with the ROD that geometric means should be used instead of
arithmetric means to determine ambient and effluent means for metals,
etc., for purposes of compliance with ARARS or standards. In addition
to being non-comparable between data sets and in error (low) compared
to arithmetric means, the use of geometric means, applied to w.ater
contaminants, creates a false tolerance for exceedence of stream
standards .
PF/ls
xc: John Leifer
Tom Looby
:.
"".I"'r-~'-, :
or,:,.: ~"';'"
'.';--'-:~-~'-~J"..'f/'~' J'~'':"'r-~r.':, ...~ ..",'-:' :"...~~.:,,:,,";';.......~.,~. .":_~-~'.!":,-~-::::.-:::..- ..'r .","-:
.' ':" .';-;, ': .,..';" :"#"':":," . 2'~' ,t . -'. ~ ','- -."r.-;:', . \"':r '",..' ,',-
::0:"'""':" .:,::: '.~,''''-'~-';:'''-'';:'-';.~.'(:'\.?,,'''::'.'\,:":~'"':''?',,-''\-:'''''''''S ,.-.. ..
------- |