PB94-964404
EP A/RODIR08-94/083
July 1994
EP A Superfund
Record of Decision: .
Old Works/East Anaconda Development
Area Site, Anaconda, MT
i . S. Environmental Protection AgO
:eo!on HI Ha2.8.rdous Waste
ec:hnic8.i Information Center
;0;; CI18stnut Street, 9th Floor-vI
Ihiladelphia. PA. .1.9107'..,/ ,"~'..s
~O~ ~~~~~~~c~ o~~v
-- [g@ U\n(Q)~ 'jj'@~@ !?~(Q)m 'jj'ln1n~ ~(Q)(Q)m
--
H()zardous Waste Conection
In1formation Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19107
-
[E~M ~@~@~~ (Gol~e(Ciion
!rnf@wU1J1JaJ~~@U1! ~G$@lU1rc~ (G@aiJ~~U'
U$ ~~~ 000@G@~ 3
P~n~IDill1(@~~fio~~D [?~ 1 ~~(jjJ1
-------
.~
RECORD OF DECISION
OLD WORKS/EAST ANACONDA DEVELOPMENT AREA
OPERABLE UNIT
ANACONDA SMELTER NPL SITE
ANACONDA, MONTANA
March 8, 1994
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region vm - Montana Office
Federal Building, 301 South Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626-0096
(Lead Agency)
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
(Support Agency)
Document Control Number: 7760-037-DD-CZVB
-------
.~
RECORD OF DECISION
OLD WORKS/EAST ANACONDA DEVELOPMENT AREA
OPERABLE UNIT
ANACONDA SMELTER NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences (MDHES) present this Record of Decision (ROD) for the Old
Works/East Anaconda Development Area (OW/EADA) operable unit (OU) of the Anaconda
Smelter National Priorities List (NPL) site. This ROD also addresses the final remedy for
the Mill Creek OU as presented in the Proposed Plan. The ROD is based on the
Administrative Record for the site, the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), the
Proposed Plan, the public comments received, including those from the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), and EPA responses. The ROD presents a brief outline of the
RI/FS, actual and potential risks to human health and the environment, and the Selected
Remedy. EPA guidance! was used in preparation of the ROD. The three purposes of the
ROD are to:
1.
Certify that the remedy selection process was carried out in accordance with
the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental, Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 D.S.C. 9601 et seq., as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and
the National Contingency Plan (NCP);
2.
Outline the engineering components and remediation requirements of the
Selected Remedy; and
3.
Provide the public with a consolidated source of information about the history,
characteristics, and risk posed by the conditions at the OW/EADA and Mill
Creek OUs, as well as a summary of the cleanup alternatives considered, their
evaluation, and the rationale behind the Selected Remedy.
The ROD is organized into three distinct sections:
1.
The Declaration section functions as an abstract for the key information
contained in the ROD and is the section of the ROD signed by the EP A
Regional Administrator and the MDHES Director;
2.
The Decision Summary section provides an overview of the site
characteristics, the alternatives evaluated, and the analysis of those options.
The Decision Summary also identifies the Selected Remedy and explains how
the remedy fulfills statutory requirements; and
I Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The Proposed Plan, the Record of Decision, Explanation of Differences, the
Record of Decision Amendment, Interim Final, EPA/540/G, July !989.
Rccord of Dccision OW/EADA OU
0308294/ owrod8. fl11l dd-czvb
1
-------
3. -
-~
The Responsiveness Summary section addresses pubiic comments received on
the Proposed Plan, the RIfFS, and other information in the Administrative
Record.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. rID! dd-czvb
2
-------
.~
DECLARATION
-------
OW/EADA OU ROD''''' -DECLARATION
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site
Anaconda, Deer Lodge County, Montana
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the Selected Remedy for the Old Works/East Anaconda
Development Area (OW/EADA) operable unit (OU) of the Anaconda Smelter Site in Deer
Lodge County, Montana. Also included as part of the Selected Remedy is the final response
action for the Mill Creek OU. The EPA, in consultation with the Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences (MDHES), selected the remedy in accordance with
Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
This decision is based on the administrative record for the OW/EADA and Mill Creek OUs
of the Anaconda Smelter Site. The Administrative Record Index and copies of key
documents are available for public review at the Hearst Free Library located on the comer of
Fourth and Main in Anaconda, Montana. The complete Administrative Record may be
reviewed at the EPA Record Center at 301 South Park, Federal Building, Helena, Montana.
The State of Montana concurs with the Selected Remedy, as indicated by cosignature.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
There may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment because of an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance from the
OW/EADA OU. Because of this, EPA and MDHES have determined that the response
action selected in this ROD is necessary.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The OW/EADA OU is the third remedial action to be taken at the Anaconda Smelter site.
The first action, taken at the Mill Creek OU, involved the relocation of residents from the
community of Mill Creek. The second action was the Flue Dust OU, which addressed one
of the principal threat wastes (flue dust) remaining on the Anaconda Smelter site. That
action addressed flue dust at the site through removal, treatment, and containment. In
addition to these remedial actions, several removal actions have been taken, including
permanent removal and disposal of Arbiter and beryllium wastes and the removal of
contaminated residential yard materials.
Record of Decision OW/FADA OU
0308294/ owrod8, ftnl dd-czvb
D-I
-------
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECLARATION
The principal contaminant of concern at the OW/EADA and Mill Creek OUs is arsenic,
which is contained in the large quantities of milling and smelting wastes and in surficial soils
from past aerial emissions. This ROD establishes action levels for arsenic at the OW /EADA
OU. Major components of the remedy include the requirement to:
.
Construct engineered covers over waste materials in recreational and potential
commercial/industrial areas exceeding arsenic levels of 1,000 parts per million
(ppm);
.
Treat soils exceeding arsenic levels of 1,000 ppm in recreational and potential
commercial/industrial areas using innovative revegetation treatment techniques;
.
Cover or treat soils exceeding arsenic levels of 500 ppm in current
commercial/industrial areas;
.
Provide for future remediation of potential residential or commercial/industrial
areas, at the time of development, to the appropriate arsenic action levels
through the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County (ADL) Development Permit System
(DPS);
.
Construct surface controls to manage surface water runoff from Stuckey
Ridge, Smelter Hill, and throughout the site to minimize discharge to Warm
Springs Creek;
.
Upgrade or repair levees adjacent to Warm Springs Creek to contain the 100-
year peak flood event and prevent erosion of waste materials into Warm
Springs Creek;
.
Replace bridges or culverts, as necessary, to safely pass the loo-year peak
flood event;
.
Implement institutional controls to protect the above engineering controls and
manage future land and water use;
.
Implement long-term monitoring; and
.
Preserve, to the extent practicable, historic features in the Old Works Historic
District.
This Selected Remedy will achieve the following:
.
Reduction of risk to human health through:
Rccord of Dccision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
D-2
-------
.~
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECLARATION
Reduction of surface soil arsenic concentrations to acceptable levels,
and
Prevention of direct human contact with waste materials exceeding
acceptable levels.
.
Reduction of risk to the environment through:
Minimization of infiltration and deep percolation of metal-laden pore
water to ground water, and
Minimization of erosion and metal loading via transport of waste and
contaminated soil to Warm Springs Creek.
.
Preservation, to the extent practical, of historic features at the site.
ST A TUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost effective. Given the type of waste present at this site, this
remedy uses permanent solutions (e.g., engineered covers) and alternative treatment
technologies (Le., innovative revegetation techniques) to the maximum extent practicable and
satisfies the preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume as a principal element. Because this remedy may result in hazardous substances
remaining on site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years
after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment. This remedy is acceptable to both
the State of Montana and the community of Anaconda.
~'
~ / I
3 C? 1(;)0-
() / / ,
Date / I ;
William P. Yellowtail, Re lOnal Administrator
U.S. Environmental Prot tion Agency
Region VIII
~~~
Robert J. Rob,i.ns n, Duector
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
~/~/7Y
Date
Record of Decision OW/EADA au
0308294/ owrod8. fl1lldd-czvb
D-3
. _0" .-.'" ,'u' --. ..-. - ..4.-00_.. .
-------
.~
DECISION SUMMARY
. - .- ...'.. -..__.----_.- -'.,..--'-.
.. "- .. n ." . - '.- ~.- .-..... . - .
-------
OW/EADA OU ROD - DEelSION SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. DS-iv
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. DS-vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . .
II. SITE HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Enforcement Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. . . . . . . . . .
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT ...............
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary Contaminants of Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arsenic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cadmium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Copper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site Characterization Summary - OW/EADA OU . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Air. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vadose Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion of Fate and Transport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.Estimated Volumes of Contaminated Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site Characterization Summary - Mill Creek Operable Unit. . . . . . .
Air. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface and Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chemicals of Potential Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Human Health Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exposed Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exposure Pathways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Human Exposure Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exposure Point Concentrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quantification of Noncancer Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quantification of Cancer Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cancer Risks from Arsenic in Surface Soils. . . . . . . . . . . .
Cancer Risks from Arsenic in Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . .
Cancer Risks from Cadmium in Surface Materials. . . . . . . .
m.
IV.
V.
Record of Decision OWIEADA OU
0308294/owrod8. rmldd-czvb
DS-i
. .". ..... "'y' ..
".- ... - .."...
DS-viii
DS-l
DS-3
DS-4
DS-6
DS-8
DS-IO
DS-IO
DS-IO
DS-ll
DS-ll
DS-12
DS-12
DS-12
DS-12
DS-13
DS-14
DS-16
DS-17
DS-18
DS-20
DS-21
DS-23
DS-23
DS-23
DS-23
DS-24
DS-25
DS-25
DS-26
DS-26
DS-26
DS-27
DS-27
DS-27
DS-28
DS- 29
DS-29
DS- 29
-------
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Uncertainties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary/Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Action :Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ecological Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Identification of Potential Ecological Receptors. . . . . . . . . .
Contaminants of Potential Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exposure Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ecological Risk Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Common Elements of All Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Institutional Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Historic Preservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stream Channel Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of Alternatives Considered for OW/EADA OU . . . . . . .
Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preferred Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proposed Alternative for Mill Creek Operable Unit. . . . . . .
Description of Alternatives Considered for Mill Creek Operable Unit
Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preferred Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation and Comparison Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Threshold Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary Balancing Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Modifying Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives for OW /EADA Operable Unit .
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. . .
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through
Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Short-term Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implementability ............................
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
0308294/owrod8 .fml dd-czvb
DS-ii
-. ---" .,-.-
DS-30
DS-31
DS-31
DS-32
DS-32
DS-33
DS-33
DS-33
DS-36
DS- 36
DS-36
DS-36
DS-37
DS-37
DS-37
DS-37
DS-38
DS- 38
DS-38
DS-39
DS-39
DS-40
DS-40
DS-41
DS-42
DS-42
DS-42
DS-43
DS-43
DS-44
DS-44
DS-44
DS-44
DS-45
DS-45
DS-45
DS-46
DS-46
DS-46
DS-47
DS-47
-------
X.
XI.
XII.
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
IX.
Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives for Mill Creek Operable Unit.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. . .
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through
Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Short-term Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implementability ............................
Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SELECTED REMEDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Remedy for Waste Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Remedy for Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stream Channel Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Institutional Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Historic Preservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Compliance Monitoring Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Remediation Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contingency Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Protection of Human Health and the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . .
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Cost Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies (or Resource Recovery Technologies) to the
Maximum Extent Possible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element. . . . . . . . . . . . .
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A - ARARS
Record of Decision OWfEADA OU
0308294fowrod8. fmfdd-czvb
DS-iii
DS-48
DS-48
DS-48
DS-48
DS-48
DS-49
DS-49
DS-49
DS-49
DS-50
DS-50
DS-50
DS-50
DS- 51
DS-51
DS-52
DS-53
DS-53
DS-54
DS-55
DS-55
DS-56
DS-56
DS-59
DS-60
DS-6Q
DS-61
DS-61
DS-61
DS-62
DS-63
DS-64
-------
Table I
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8 .fm! dd-czvb
.~
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
LIST OF TABLES
PM-lO Mass Concentration and Metals Analysis: Teressa Ann Terrace
Station
PM-lO Mass Concentration and Trace Element Analysis: Kortem
Storage Station
National and State of Montana Ambient Air Quality
Standards/Guidelines
Settled Particulate Matter Results
Summary of Metal Concentrations in Waste Material at the
OW/EADA Operable Unit
TCLP Results for Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area
Operable Unit Waste Materials
Summary of Metal Concentrations in Soil Samples, Subsurface Soil
Samples, and Subsurface Soil Samples Below Waste Material at the
OW/EADA Operable Unit
Exceedances of EP A Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
OW/EADA Operable Unit
Soil Sample Analytical Results for the Red Sands and Old Works
Tailings Pond Lysimeter Locations
Pore Water Analytical Results for Target Metals at the Red Sands and
Old Works Tailings Pond Lysimeter Locations
Comparison of Metals Concentrations in Vegetation from the Old
Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit with Regional
Data
Chemical-Specific Recommendations for Mineral Tolerances for
Domestic Animals
Summary of Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Waste
Volumes and Areas
DS-iv
------- ..n' ..
. ~.. ..-. -
-------
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Record of Decisioo OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8 .fm! dd-czvb
'4
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
LIST OF TABLES (~ontinued)
Human Exposure Assumptions
Summary of Information About Dirt Bike Riding in the Vicinity of the
Anaconda Smelter
Summary of Noncancer Effects and Reference Doses
Summary of Carcinogenic Effects and Cancer Slope Factors
Comparison of Surface Waste Concentrations to General Threshold Soil
Concentrations
Comparison of Alternatives for the OW/EADA Operable Unit
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Comparison of Alternatives for Mill Creek
Cost Estimate for OW/EADA Operable Unit Selected Remedy
DS-v
-------
.~
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Anaconda Superfund Site Operable Unit Locations
Figure 2
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Dedicated
Development/Urban Design
Figure 3
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Subareas
Figure 4
Old Works & Washoe Reduction Works
Figure 5
Anaconda Old Works
Figure 6
Risk Conceptual Site Model
Figure 7
Air Monitoring and Dustfa11 Station Locations
Figure 8
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Waste
Areas
Figure 9
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Arsenic
Isoconcenuations
Figure 10
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Sample
Stations for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Vadose Zone
Figure 11
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit MCL
Exceedances in the Ground Water
Figure 12
Soil Moisture at Site VZ-2 (Old Works)
Figure 13
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Vegetation
Figure 14
Town of Mill Creek Soil Arsenic Levels
Figure 15
Noncancer Risks to Workers from Arsenic in Surface Materials
Figure 16
Cancer Risks to Workers from Arsenic in Surface Materials
Figure 17
Cancer Risks to Dirt Bike Riders from Arsenic in Surface Materials
Figure 18
Conceptual Site Model for Ecological Assessment
Rccord of Dccision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrOO8. fml dd-czvb
DS-vi
..__._-- ..'..
- .-. .-. -.. ,~.._--_o- --
-------
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Record of Decision OWIEADA OU
0308294/ owrod8. fuildd-czvb
.,
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Land
Ownership
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Preferred
Alternative
Mill Creek Area
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Selected
Remedy
. DS-vii
.~- -. '.- . . _u. -
.- "-,,,----,--'--'
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADL
AM
AMC
AOC
ARARs
ARC 0
ARTS
ARWW
CDM
CERCLA
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Arithmetic Mean
Anaconda Minerals Company
Administrative Order on Consent
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Atlantic Richfield Company
Anaconda Revegetation Treatability Study
Anaconda Regional Water and Waste
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic feet per second
Daily Intake
Development Permit System
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Feasibility Study
Hazard Index
Integrated Risk Information System
Maximum Contaminant Level
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
milligrams per kilogram
miles per hour
National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
No Observed Effects Concentration
National Priorities List
Operation & Maintenance .
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area
Operable Unit
Blood Lead
hydrogen ion concentration
10 micron particle size
parts per million
Potentially Responsible Party
Reference Dose
Regional Historic Preservation Plan
Remedial Investigation
C.F.R.
cfs
DI
DPS
EEICA
EPA
FS
HI
IRIS.
MCL
MDHES
mg/kg
mph
NA TICH
NCP
NOEC
NPL
O&M
OW/EADA
OU
PbB
pH
PM-lO
ppm
PRP
RID
RHPP
RI
Record of Decision OWfEADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fmldd-czvb
DS-viii
. ..... - ~ - . .-.. u. -...
~ ~- ...-..- '..-,. -- ...- -'
. --.-.--......
-------
.~
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
RI/FS
RME
ROD
SDWA
SF
SPE
SPM
State
TCLP
UBK
ILg/L
U.S.C.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Record of Decision
Safe Drinking Water Act
Slope Factor
Simulated Precipitation Event
Settled Particulate Matter
. State of Montana
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Uptake/Biokinetic
micrograms per liter
United States Code
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-ix
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUl\1MARY
I.
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Anaconda Smelter NFL Site
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit
Anaconda, Montana
The Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area (OW/EADA) operable unit (OU) is
located in southwestern Montana, immediately adjacent to the town of Anaconda (Figure 1).
The OW /EADA OU encompasses approximately 1,300 acres and is bounded by Highway 1
and the East Anaconda Yard to the south, Highway 273 to the east, Stuckey Ridge to the
north, and Cedar Street in Anaconda to the west. Warm Springs Creek, the area's principal
drainage, flows east through the site. Also, since the anticipated land uses, site
characteristics, and contaminants of concern are-similar to areas in the OW/EADA OU, the
Mill Creek OU was included in the Selected Remedy for the OW /EADA OU. The Mill
Creek OU is approximately 140 acres in size and is located approximately two miles
southeast of the OW /EADA OU, adjacent to the Anaconda Smelter (formerly known as the
Washoe Reduction Works) (Figure 1).
The OW/EADA OU contains large volumes of milling and smelting wastes, fallout from
smelter emissions, and other debris that originated from the operation of smelters at the
Upper and Lower Works from 1884 to 1902, and the Washoe Reduction Works from 1902 to
1980. Remnants of six brick flues on the hillside to the north of Warm Springs Creek and
various deteriorated brick foundations, demolition debris, and railroad grades are all that
remain of the original Old Works facilities. The Red Sands, a major Old Works site feature,
consists of tailings and slag generated from the Lower Works smelter. Although there are no
wastes in the Mill Creek OU, soils in that area are contaminated as a result of smelter
emissions fallout and re-entrainment of contaminated materials, primarily flue dust.
The Mill Creek au has been identified as a potential commercial/industrial area and has
been zoned as such in the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Comprehensive Master Plan
(peccia & Associates 1992). Current land uses within the aW/EADA au are a mixture of
industrial and recreational (Figure 2). Current industrial uses within the OW/EADA OU
include the Anaconda Industrial Park, the Arbiter Plant, a municipal landfill, and the
Anaconda municipal sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant, the municipal
landfill, and the black slag pile near the drag strip are located within the boundary of the
OW/EADA OU; but are not within the scope of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) or this ROD, and will be addressed in a future ROD or RODs.
The aw /EADA au is divided into six subareas, based on the similarity of waste character-
istics and present or future land uses (Figure 3). The RIfFS focused on the characterization
and evaluation of the following areas of the OU:
Record of DecisiOD OWIEADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-l
-------
.~
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
.
Subarea 1 - Old Works structural areas;
.
Subarea 2 - Heap Roast Slag, Miscellaneous Waste Piles, and a portion of the
Warm Springs Creek floodplain;
.
Subarea 3 - Extension of the Warm Springs Creek floodplain and the
industrial park;
.
Subarea 4 - Red Sands, Arbiter Plant, and the Anaconda Industrial Park;
.
Subarea 5 - East Anaconda Yard and Benny Goodman Park; and
.
Subarea 6 - Drag strip.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fUlldd-czvb
DS-2
~ --- _.~-_.. -"..
-------
.~
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
n.
SITE HISTORY
The OW lEAD A au contains large volumes of various wastes and debris that originated from
copper ore milling, smelting, and refining operations at the Old Works site (Upper and
Lower Works) from 1884 to 1902. Additionally, the site contains some wastes and fallout
from smelter and emissions originating from the Washoe Reduction Works (later known as
the Anaconda Reduction Works) which replaced the Old Works in 1902 and operated until
1980. Figure 4 provides a general layout of the original Old Works and Washoe Reduction
Works facilities.
The Upper and Lower Works were the first copper smelting facilities built in Anaconda to
process copper ore mined in nearby Butte. Although the source of copper ore was over 30
miles away, the smelters were built in Anaconda because of the dependable water supply
from Warm Springs Creek.
The Upper Works structural area was constructed between 1883 and 1884 and, to expand
capacity, the Lower Works structural area was completed in 1888, approximately one mile
east of the Upper Works. Old Works structures included a concentrator, boiler house,
"slum" houses, and other facilities (Figure 5). The smelters were connected to brick stacks
atop adjacent hills by masonry flues. Dismantling started in 1902 and was completed about
1906. Structural remains today consist primarily of massive sandstone blocks and brick
rubble.
The smelting process consisted of several steps that generated different types of waste
materials. Lower grade ore was crushed and screened and then jigged (agitated) to
concentrate the ore material. The Jig Tailings were discharged onto the floodplain area.
The Heap Roast Slag are composed of partially vitrified slag generated by processing efforts
to recover target metals from discarded tailings. A combination of jig tailings and slag
produced at the Lower Works were sluiced across Warm Springs Creek between 1890 and
1901 to form the Red Sands. Portions of the Red Sands were reworked on several occasions
between 1913 and 1943.
During Old Works operations, a portion of the Warm Springs Creek channel within the site
was realigned and straightened, and levees were installed. All operations ceased at the Old
Works when, in 1902, the much larger and more modem Washoe Works (later known as the
Anaconda Reduction Works) began production across the valley on Smelter Hill, south of
Warm Springs Creek.
The Arbiter Plant was a hydro metallurgical copper refining plant erected by the Anaconda
Minerals Company (AMC) in the 1970s to produce copper cathodes from copper sulfide
concentrate produced at the Weed Concentrator in Butte. The Arbiter Plant operated from
August 1974 to February 1975 and from September 1976 to November 1977. An ammonia
leaching and solvent-extraction process was used to solubilize and refine flotation
Record of Decision OWIEADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-3
---_.~_.---- - -.
-_..~--_.._.+ -.. ... ...
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
concentrates of 25-percent copper sulfide. The plant was permanently closed in November
1977. The site is currently used as a storage area for various equipment and surplus
materials. Most of the buildings have been cleaned and are either vacant or used for storage
by local businesses.
The East Anaconda Yard area contained the Washoe Works acid and brick plants and the
Bradley Ponds flue debris material. The acid and brick plants were both constructed in the
191Os. The brick plant produced both building bricks and high grade silica fire bricks used
in the reverberatory furnaces. The acid plant produced sulfuric acid used in the flotation and
leaching processes and the treatment of phosphate rock at the phosphate plant. The Bradley
Ponds were used for the disposal of flue debris generated at the smelter and have since been
removed and stabilized under the Flue Dust OU remedial action.
Several of the structures within the Old Works area are eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places, including two former lumber company buildings, various Old
Works structural areas, the Heap Roast Slag, and the Red Sands. The Anaconda Old Works
Historic District is considered significant not only to Anaconda's growth into an important
turn-of-the-century Montana city, but also to the development of the Buttel Anaconda area as
one of the largest copper producers in the world for over 30 years. Remnants of the original
Old Works structures are historically significant for their relationship to the refinements in
copper metallurgy developed at the site. The Heap Roast Slag and Red Sands are a
significant part of the Old Works structures and are included in a Regional Historic
Preservation Plan.
'~~ -,'
Enforcement Actions
The history of pollution problems associated with heavy metal releases at the Anaconda
Smelter site led to listing the site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983
under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). In October 1984, the Atlantic Richfield Company
(ARCO) entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOe) to conduct Remedial
Investigations (RIs) for the Anaconda Smelter site. Draft RI reports generally indicated
wide-scale contamination and a need for more in-depth study.
In the initial stages of the Anaconda area investigations, it became apparent that the
community of Mill Creek, located two miles east of Anaconda, was being severely impacted
by contamination. Children in Mill Creek had elevated urinary arsenic levels indicating an
excess exposure to arsenic in their environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(BPA) redirected the sequencing of the RIs on the site to focus on Mill Creek. Young
children, the population at greatest risk, were temporarily relocated from the community in
May 1986. At this time, control measures were initiated on flue dust, the most concentrated
arsenic and heavy metal contaminant source on the site.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fmldd-czvb
DS-4
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
In July 1986, EPA entered into an AOC with ARC a to conduct an expedited RI/FS for Mill
Creek. The Record of Decision (ROD) for Mill Creek was completed in October 1987. The
Selected Remedy was permanent relocation of Mill Creek residents. This remedy was
selected in part because the area had the potential to become recontaminated from
surrounding waste sources. EP A successfully negotiated a consent decree with ARCO
concerning the implementation of the relocation remedy for Mill Creek residents on
January 7, 1988. The permanent relocation of residents was completed in the fall of 1988.
In September 1988, EPA entered into an AOC w.ith ARCO to conduct an RI/FS for the Flue
Dust OU. The ROD was completed in September 1991. The remedy selected was treatment
and disposal of all flue dust located on Smelter Hill. Also in September 1988, EPA entered
into a consent order with ARCO to conduct an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA) for the Old Works OU. The Final EE/CA Report addressing these areas was
approved by EPA in July 1991. The actions taken as a result of the EE/CA have included
stabilizing the Red Sands adjacent to Warm Springs Creek, repair of breaks in Warm Springs
Creek levees, and the installation of fencing to limit access to certain areas of the Old Works
site. Further cleanup actions relating to the Red Sands, as well as the remainder of the Old
Works OU, are included in this OU.
A focused investigation of wastes within the ponds and bunkers at the Arbiter Plant site was
conducted for the Accelerated Removal EE/CA in 1991. The waste materials within the
Arbiter ponds and bunkers were removed as part of the Accelerated Removals response
action in 1992. In May 1992, as a part of the Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Conceptual Site
Management Plan (EPA 1992a), OUs at the site were reorganized. This plan formed the
OW/EADA OU from those formerly referred to as the Old Works and Arbiter Plant OUs
and portions of the Smelter Hill OU. The OW/EADA RI/FS, initiated in 1992, was
completed in September 1993. This ROD sets forth the remedy for the OW/EADA OU of
the Anaconda Smelter Site.
ARCO has been identified as the potentially responsible party (PRP). ARCO purchased
AMC in 1977. AMC owned and operated the smelters from approximately 1884 to 1977.
The Cleveland Wrecking Company was also identified as a PRP for their involvement with
transportation and disposal of wastes during demolition activities.
EPA has issued both general and special notice letters to ARCO on several occasions.
ARCO has been actively involved in conducting investigations at the site since September
1983, when the site was placed on the NPL. EP A, the Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences (MDHES), and ARCO entered into agreement to conduct the
OW/EADA RI/FS in September 1992 under AOC, Docket No. CERCLA VIII-88-16.
Record of Decision aWIEADA au
0308294/ owrod8. fU1/dd-czvb
DS-5
... . ..- .
- .. .' -... .... ,-..-.--.
-------
.~
OWfEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
m.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Public participation is required by CERCLA Sections 113 and 117. These sections require
that before adoption of any plan for remedial action to be undertaken by the President (EPA),
by a State (MDHES), or by an individual (PRP), the lead agency shall:
1.
Publish a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan and make such plan
available to the public; and
2.
Provide a reasonable opportunity for submission of written and oral comments
and an opportunity for a public meeting at or near the site regarding the
Proposed Plan and any proposed findings relating to cleanup standards. The
lead agency shall keep a transcript of the meeting and make such transcript
available to the public. The notice and analysis published under item #1 shall
include sufficient information to provide a reasonable explanation of the
Proposed Plan and alternative proposals considered.
Additionally, notice of the final remedial action plan adopted must be published and the plan
must be made available to the public before commencing any remedial action. Such a final
plan must be accompanied by a discussion of any significant changes to the preferred remedy
presented in the Proposed Plan along with the reasons for the changes and a response
(Responsiveness Summary) to each of the significant comments, criticisms, and new data
submitted in written or oral presentations during the public comment period.
EP A has conducted the required community participation activities through presentation of
the RIfFS and Proposed Plan, a 30-day public comment period, an informational meeting, a
formal public hearing, and presentation of the Selected Remedy in this ROD. Specifically
included with this ROD is a Responsiveness Summary that summarizes public comments and
EP A responses.
The RIfFS and Proposed Plan for the OW fEADA OU were released for public comment on
September 23, 1993. The RIfFS and Proposed Plan were made available to the public in
both the Administrative Record located at the EP A Record Center in Helena and the Hearst
Free Library in Anaconda. The Proposed Plan was distributed to the parties on the EP A
Anaconda mailing list. The notice of availability of the RIfFS and Proposed Plan was
published in the Anaconda newspaper, The Anaconda Leader, on September 22 and 24,
1993, and in the Butte newspaper, The Montana Standard, on September 23, 1993. A
formal public comment period was designated from September 23, 1993 through October 22,
1993.
EPA held an informational meeting in Anaconda on September 29, 1993 to explain the RIfFS
process, outline the Proposed Plan and preferred alternative, and answer questions regarding
the alternatives. A formal public hearing was held in Anaconda on October 14, 1993. At
Record of Decision OWfEADA OU
0308294/owrod8. rmidd-czvb
DS-6
. .--..-. _..~.. --..
- u._... . .. -
- - . .-. -'.""
'---"~' _.. "F
-------
.~
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
this hearing, representatives from EPA answered questions about remedial alternatives under
consideration, as well as the preferred remedy. A portion of the hearing was dedicated to
accepting formal oral comments from the public. A court reporter transcribed the formal
oral comments and EP A made the transcript available by placing it in the Administrative
Record. A response to the comments received during the public comment period is included
in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this ROD. Also, community acceptance of
the Selected Remedy is discussed in Section VIII, Summary of Comparative Analysis, of this
Decision Summary.
Record of Decision aW/FADA au
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-7
.. ..'....,.. .
. -.. ._--~-_. ~... ,""'"
. .. .....-...-----,..,..- '-.-' .
-------
.~
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
The Anaconda Smelter site covers a wide area (Figure 1) and is currently organized into the
following OUs:
Anaconda Smelter Demolition (Smelter Hill)
Mill Creek Children Relocation
Anaconda Yards Time Critical Removal Action
Arbiter/Beryllium & Repository Construction
Old Works Stabilization
Mill Creek Relocation
Flue Dust
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area
Community Soils .
Anaconda Regional Soils
Anaconda Regional Water and Waste
The OU s were prioritized based on their potential risk to human health and the environment.
Mill Creek was considered the highest priority and EPA relocated residents in 1988. Since
then, EPA has also taken action at several other OUs, including Flue Dust, Arbiter,
Beryllium, Community Soils, and Old Works. The OW/EADA OU is considered the next
priority because of the potential exposure of the nearby population to elevated metal
concentrations and the potential for economic development within the area.
The purpose of the OW /EADA OU RI/FS was to gather sufficient information to support an
informed risk management decision on which remedies are the most appropriate for the
OW fEADA OU. The RIfFS was performed in accordance with the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300, and CERCLA
Section 104, 42 U.S.C. ~ 9604.
The objectives of the RIfFS were to:
.
Determine the nature and extent of metals in source areas and other affected
areas within the OWfEADA OU;
.
Define the potential pathways along which metals can migrate, as well as the
physical processes and, to the extent necessary, the chemical processes that
control these pathways;
.
Determine risk assessment information, including potential receptors, exposure
patterns, and food chain relationships; and
Record of Decision aW/FADA au
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-8
. - ..--.-.. ...
-.....- -" -.
....-"-.--w ....-
-------
.... - ,-. .
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
.
Develop, screen, and evaluate remedial alternatives and predict the
consequences of each remedy.
Based on the findings of previous investigations and the results of the OW/EADA OU RI/FS,
the sources and areas of environmental contamination at the OW/EADA OU have been
adequately delineated.
The Mill Creek OU was previously assessed under an RIfFS completed in September 1987
by ARCO. Volume VI (Mill Creek Addendum) of the OW/EADA RI/FS summarizes the
current status of the Mill Creek OU, including sample results from data collected in 1993.
The remedy outlined in this ROD represents the final remedial action only for contaminated
soil and waste materials within the OW/EADA and Mill Creek OUs. The purpose of the
remedy presented in this ROD is to prevent human and environmental exposure, by
inhalation and ingestion, to contaminated soil and smelter waste materials. Remedial actions
for other media (e.g., ground water) and areas specifically excluded (e.g., black slag pile)
are deferred to other OUs. Remedial actions undertaken at the OW/EADA OU are intended
to be consistent with the remedial action objectives and goals identified for the Anaconda
Regional Water and Waste (ARWW) OU and other investigations.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-9
-------
.~
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
v.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The OW IEADA OU contains large quantities of milling and smelting wastes, contaminated
soils caused by smelter emissions, and other debris that originated from the Upper and
Lower Works structural areas. Approximately 1.4 million cubic yards of Jig Tailings, Heap
Roast Slag, Red Sands, and other wastes remain on site. The estimated volume of Heap
Roast Slag is approximately 298,000 cubic yards. The volume of the Red Sands is estimated
to be approximately 607,000 cubic yards. With the exception of the Red Sands, most wastes
within the site have remained essentially undisturbed since the turn of the century. Although
there are no waste materials located within the Mill Creek OU, soils in that area have been
contaminated by smelter emissions fallout and re-entrainment of contaminated materials,
primarily flue dust.
Existing pathways for potential migration of metals of concern include air, surface water,
infiltration of precipitation, and ground water. These are summarized on Figure 6 and
discussed below.
The following section discusses the primary contaminants of concern, summarizes the nature
and extent of contamination, provides a brief discussion of contaminant fate and transport,
and provides estimated volumes of contaminated materials.
Primarv Contaminants of Concern
Arsenic
Arsenic occurs in either a trivalent or pentavalent oxidation state. The most common
inorganic trivalent arsenic compounds are arsenic trioxide, sodium arsenate, and arsenic
trichloride. Pentavalent inorganic compounds are arsenic pentoxide, arsenic acid, and
arsenates, such as lead arsenate and calcium arsenate.
Inorganic arsenic is released into the environment from a number of anthropogenic sources,
including primary copper smelters. Airborne arsenic is largely trivalent arsenic oxide, but
disposition in airways and absorption from lungs are largely dependent on particle size and
chemical form. It has long been recognized that trivalent compounds of arsenic are the
principal toxic forms. The pH of aqueous solutions appears to be a major factor in the
stability of either valency form of arsenic. Trivalent arsenic in alkaline solutions is more
rapidly oxidized than at acidic pH. Pentavalent inorganic arsenic is relatively stable at
neutral or alkaline pH, but undergoes reduction with decreasing pH.
There is evidence that chronic arsenic inhalation exposure increases the risk of lung cancer.
Other concerns noted from long-term exposure to arsenic include lymphomas and leukemia,
renal adenocarcinoma, and nasopharyngeal. EP A has classified arsenic as a human
carcinogen via inhalation.
Rccord of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fml dd-czvb
DS-lO
h___" - - - .. . -.---. . -..-- . -..
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
Cadmium
Cadmium is a metal that is often a byproduct of lead, zinc, and copper mining and smelting
activities. Cadmium is more readily taken up by plants than other metals such as lead. It is
an important metal due to its use in electroplating or galvanizing and because of its non-
corrosive properties. .
Long-term effects of low-level exposure to cadmium include chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease and emphysema, and renal tubular disease. Inhalation exposure to high levels of
cadmium may cause tracheobronchitis, pneumonitis pulmonary edema, and may ultimately
lead to pulmonary fibrosis. There have been numerous epidemiological studies intended to
determine a relationship between occupational (inhalation) exposure to cadmium, and lung
cancer and prostatic cancer. The conclusions of these and other studies indicate long-term
exposure to cadmium may contribute to lung cancer; however, confounding exposures to
arsenic, nickel, and cigarette smoking prevent definitial conclusion. Risks of prostatic cancer
due to long-term exposure to cadmium are also uncertain. EP A has classified cadmium
according to its weight of evidence criteria in Group BI (probable human carcinogen) via the
inhalation pathway based on animal and human health studies.
Lead
Because of its extensive use and its widespread distribution, human exposure to lead is
common. The principal route of human exposure to lead is food, but it is usually
environmental sources that produce excess exposure and toxic effects. Common
environmental sources include lead-based paint, lead in air from combustion of lead-
containing auto exhaust or industrial emissions, hand-to-mouth activities of young children
living in or near polluted environments, and lead dust brought home by workers. Nearly all
environmental exposure to lead is to inorganic compounds. Route of absorption (inhalation,
ingestion) does not affect distribution of lead in the body. Lead is distributed among several
physiological compartments which include blood, soft tissue (particularly brain, kidney and
liver), and bone. Infants retain approximately 30 percent of the absorbed lead, whereas
adults retain approximately I percent of absorbed lead. Increase in blood pressure is the
most sensitive adverse health effect from lead exposure occurring in adult populations. At
higher levels of exposure, gastrointestinal symptoms such as colic, abdominal pain,
constipation, and anorexia are typical. Kidney damage may occur with both acute and
chronic exposure to lead. Several studies have demonstrated a statistical decrement in
children's IQ due to environmental exposure to lead. Pregnancy is regarded as a period of
increased risk because blood levels of lead are the same for both the mother and fetus (the
fetus exhibiting a greater sensitivity to lead exposure). Maternal blood-lead levels have been
correlated to birth weight and neurobehavioral deficits or delays in infants.
Studies on the association of occupational exposure to lead with increased cancer risk are
insufficient to determine the carcinogenicity of lead in humans. Lead has been classified by
Record of Decision OW/FADA OU
0308294/owrod8 .fml dd-czvb
DS-II
"..., -."-..- --.
. u ---- -..------.-
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
the EPA as a 2B carcinogen, indicating evidence for carcinogenicity in animals is adequate
but inadequate in humans. .
Zinc
Zinc may be released to the atmosphere as dust and fumes resulting from zinc production
facilities, lead and copper smelters, brass works, automobile emissions, fuel combustion,
incineration, and soil erosion. Urban runoff, mine drainage, and municipal and industrial
effluents are common sources of zinc that pollute ground water and surface water resources.
Zinc is a nutritionally essential metal and deficiency results in severe health consequences.
Zinc is present in most food, water, and air. Approximately 20 to 30 percent of ingested
zinc is absorbed. Acute toxicity of ingested zinc results in gastrointestinal distress and
diarrhea. Inhalation of zinc fumes in an industrial setting has resulted in metal fume fever.
Zinc is classified in Group D (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) by EP A, based
on inadequate evidence in humans and animals as to the carcinogenic effects of zinc.
Copper
Copper may be released to the environment as a result of metal plating, industrial and
domestic wastes, and mining and smelting wastes. Because copper is a nutritionally essential
element in animals and humans, environmental accumulations are considered less important
routes of excess exposure than occupational exposure or exposures resulting from accidents.
Most copper ingested into the body is stored in liver and bone marrow. Infants are thought
to exhibit increased susceptibility to copper toxicity because homeostatic mechanisms (storage
mechanisms) are not fully developed at birth. Copper is also more toxic to plants and fish
than animals; thus, its occurrence and ability to load into surface water systems at the site is
a primary concern.
Site Characterization Summary - OW IEADA OU
As reported in the Final R1 Report (ARCa 1993a), six media and/or pathways were
characterized during the remedial investigation for the aw IEADA au. These
media/pathways included air, waste, soil (surface and subsurface), vadose zone, ground
water, and surface water. As discussed in the RI Report, final decisions related to
remediation of ground water and surface water will be addressed upon completion of the
investigations under the ARWW au.
Air
Two air monitoring stations, located at Teressa Ann Terrace and Kortem Storage equipped
with high volume PM-lO samplers and two dustfall stations, were utilized in the aW/EADA
au from August 1989 to June 1992 to determine the maximum levels of particulates and
Record of Decision OWIEADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fm! dd-czvb
DS-12
.- ..~.. ,'" ~ _...
"' --"'~"..-.r_._---_." .
.. - "'-'-'-'-""."--'- .
. .. -.----.,. ....
-------
-4
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
metals in ambient air at the site (Figure 7). A meteOrological station was also installed and
operated during the investigation at Teressa Ann Terrace to characterize air flow at the site.
The results of this investigation were used to determine the potential health and
environmental risk from inhalation of constituents of concern at the aW/EADA au.
Meteorological information, including wind speed, wind direction, and the standard deviation
of the horizontal wind direction, were collected at the aW/EADA au for three annual
periods (August 1989-June 1990, July 1990-June 1991, and July 1991-June 1992). Results
indicate that the predominant wind direction is from the west and the average wind speed is
approximately 8-9 miles per hour (mph).
PM-lO sample filters collected at Teressa Ann Terrace and Kortem Storage stations were
analyzed every sixth day for PM-lO mass and trace metals (total arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc). The highest 24-hour concentration of PM-lO mass
observed was 46 p.g/m3 (Tables 1 and 2), the highest 24-hour arsenic concentration was
0.0890 ILg/m3, and the highest arsenic annual mean concentration was 0.0077 p.g/m3. The
analytical results were compared to the National and State of Montana Ambient Air Quality
Standards/Guidelines (Table 3). The analytical data collected indicate applicable federal and
state air quality standards and health guidelines were not exceeded during the 3-year
monitoring period at the aW/EADA au.
Table 4 shows dustfall bucket samples collected at two stations (DF-8 and DF-9) in the
aW/EADA au which were analyzed for settled particulate matter (SPM) and trace metals
(arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc). Three exceedances of the State of
Montana Ambient Air Quality Standard for SPM (10 g/m2/month) were measured during the
monitoring periods in June 1991 (22.53 g/m2/month), April 1992 (18.2 g/m2/month), and
May 1992 (18.5 g/m2/month). All three of the exceedances were observed at Station DF-8,
and the results are considered questionable due to sample contamination by bird and insect
residues.
Results of air resource monitoring conducted at the aW/EADA au from 1989 to 1992
indicate that PM-lO trace metal concentrations in air are below state and federal health
standards.
Waste
Waste materials identified at the aW/EADA au consist of Upper and Lower Works
demolition debris, flue debris, Miscellaneous Waste Piles (including Waste Piles 1-8), Heap
Roast Slag, Floodplain Wastes (Jig Tailings), Red Sands, Mixed Wastes (primarily Red
Sands and Jig Tailings mixed with soil), and railroad beds. The locations of waste material
within the OW/EADA au are presented on Figure 8.
Rccord of Decision OWIEADA OU
OJ08294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-13
. ~... ._.~~~....,,--- -
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
Activities characterizing waste materials at the aw IEADA au were completed during four
investigations: Master Investigation (TetraTech 1987), Solid Matrix Screening Study (CDM
1987), Old Works EE/CA (ARCa 1991a), and the Remedial Investigation (ARCa 1993a).
More than 300 waste samples were collected from one of three types of sampling stations
(hand excavated pits, backhoe pits, and auger boreholes) to determine the magnitude and
extent of metals in waste materials, to determine physical and chemical properties of waste,
and to provide necessary data to determine potential health and environmental risks from
ingestion of waste material at the aw IEADA au.
A summary of the analytical results from sampling activities at the aW/EADA au is
provided in Table 5. The maximum concentration of arsenic measured from all waste
material at the OW/EADA au was 10,400 mg/kg observed from a sample of flue debris.
The maximum concentrations of other metals observed from waste material were 398 mg/kg
cadmium (flue debris), 59,200 mg/kg copper (Heap Roast Slag), 2,900 mg/kg lead
(Floodplain Wastes), and 62,100 mg/kg zinc (Upper Works demolition debris).
Mean concentrations of arsenic ranged from 508 mg/kg (Upper Works waste) to 1,200
mg/kg (Red Sands). Mean concentrations for cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc ranged from
1.6 mg/kg (Floodplain Waste-Subarea 2) to 7.7 mg/kg (flue debris); 571 mg/kg (Floodplain
Waste-Subarea 3) to 6,250 mg/kg (Waste Piles 1-8); 136 mg/kg (flue debris to 437 mg/kg
(Red Sands); and 313 mg/kg (Floodplain Waste-Subarea 3) to 5,170 mg/kg (Heap Roast
Slag), respectively.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis was performed on samples
collected from Waste Piles 2, 5, and 6; flue debris; and Red Sands. The results presented in
Table 6 indicate that none of the contaminants present in the waste materials characterized by
TCLP exceeded EPA regulatory limits (40 C.F.R. Part 261). These limits apply to the
characterization of a material as a hazardous waste.
Soil
Characterization of soil in the OW IEADA au was conducted during five investigations:
Master Investigation (TetraTech 1987), Solid Matrix Screening Study (CDM 1987), Old
Works EE/CA (ARCa 1991a), Smelter Hill Data Summary/Data Validation/Data Usability
Report (ARCa 1991b), and Remedial Investigation (ARCa 1993a).
More than 800 surface (0-2 inch depth) and subsurface (2-24 inch depth) soil samples were
collected and analyzed from the OW/EADA au from hand excavated pits, backhoe pits, or
auger boreholes, to determine the magnitude and extent of metals in soil, and to determine
physical and chemical properties of metal-laden soil. The information collected was used to
determine potential health and environmental risk posed through ingestion of metal-laden soil
at the site.
R«mdofD«diooOWffiADAOU
0308294/owrod8 .fml dd-czvb
DS-14
. .. -.... 0-"-'.
-------
.,
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMl\.fARY
A summary of the analytical results of metal concentrations for surface soil samples,
subsurface soil samples, and subsurface soil samples below waste material at the OW/EADA
OU is provided in Table 7. Approximate surface arsenic concentrations determined
geostatistically are shown on Figure 9.
The maximum arsenic concentration observed in surface soil in the OW/EADA au was
3,050 mg/kg at a sample location in Subarea 6. The maximum concentrations of cadmium,
copper, lead, and zinc observed in surface soil were 68.8 mg/kg (Subarea 4), 27,200 mg/kg
(Subarea 3), 3,310 mg/kg (Subarea 2), and 16,600 mg/kg (Subarea 4), respectively. The
mean concentration of arsenic in surface soil ranged from 81.7 mg/kg (Subarea 5) to 897
mg/kg (Subarea 6). Mean concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in surface soil
ranged from 1.6 mg/kg (Subarea 5) to 13.5 mg/kg (Subarea 6); 126 mg/kg, (Subarea 5) to
4,500 mg/kg (Subarea 6); 72.3 mg/kg (Subarea 5) to 490 mg/kg (Subarea 1); and 349 mg/kg
(Subarea 1) to 2,300 mg/kg (Subarea 4), respectively.
The maximum arsenic concentration observed in subsurface soil was 2,220 mg/kg at a
sample location in Subarea 3. The maximum concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, and
zinc observed in subsurface soil samples were 16.5 mg/kg (Benny Goodman Park), 14,400
mg/kg (Subarea 5), 8,440 mg/kg (Subarea 5), and 8,760 mg/kg (Subarea 2), respectively.
Mean concentrations of arsenic in subsurface soil samples ranged from 92.1 mg/kg
(Subarea 1) to 257 mg/kg (Benny Goodman Park). Mean concentrations of cadmium,
copper, lead, and zinc in subsurface soil samples ranged from 1.1 mg/kg (Subarea 3) to 4.3
mg/kg (Benny Goodman Park), 68.6 mg/kg (Subarea 6) to 502 mg/kg (Subarea 2), 20.8
mg/kg (Subarea 6) to 213 mg/kg (Benny Goodman Park), and 98.2 mg/kg (Subarea I-Upper
Works) to 723 mg/kg (Subarea I-Lower Works), respectively.
The maximum arsenic concentration observed in subsurface soil below waste material was
6,260 mg/kg below reclaimed waste in the East Anaconda Yard. The maximum
concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc observed in subsurface soil below waste
material were 67 mg/kg (below Floodplain Waste-Subarea 2), 55,600 mg/kg (below Heap
Roast Slag), 60,000 mg/kg (below reclaimed waste East Anaconda Yard), and 5,500 mg/kg
(below Heap Roast Slag), respectively. The mean concentration of arsenic in subsurface soil
below waste material ranged from 29.5 mg/kg (below flue debris) to 194 mg/kg (below
Floodplain Waste-Subarea 2). Mean concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in
soil below waste material ranged from 0.7 mg/kg (below flue debris) to 3.1 mg/kg (below
reclaimed waste East Anaconda Yard), 162 mg/kg (below flue debris) to 2,960 mg/kg (below
Red Sands), 15.7 mg/kg (below Heap Roast Slag) to 184 mg/kg (below reclaimed waste-
Subarea 5), and 73.8 mg/kg (below flue debris) to 807 mg/kg (below Red Sands),
respectively.
Results of the soil investigation at the aW/EADA au indicate that elevated metal
concentrations attributable to aerial deposition are generally found in the upper few inches of
soil. Subsurface samples collected from 2-24 inches below grade in these areas (portions of
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
0308294/owrod8.finldd-czvb
DS-15
. ~ ..- ... -.-. -n ..
-------
.~
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
Subareas 3, 4, and 6) consistently exhibit decreasing metal concentrations compared to
surface soil concentrations. A good example is Subarea 6, which demonstrates the highest
mean arsenic concentration for surface soil samples, but the lowest mean arsenic
concentration for subsurface soil samples collected at the site (Table 7).
Soil below waste materials commonly showed elevated concentrations of copper and zinc,
and to a lesser extent lead and arsenic, compared to soil located within the same subarea.
Elevated geometric mean concentrations of copper were found below the Waste Piles 1-8
(2,390 mg/kg), Heap Roast Slag (1630 mg/kg), Floodplain Waste (782 mg/kg), the Red
Sands (2,960 mg/kg), and the reclaimed waste in Subarea 5 (350 mg/kg). The highest
geometric mean zinc concentration was found below the Red Sands (807 mg/kg), and in
reclaimed waste in Subarea 5 (662 mg/kg).
Ground Water
A ground water monitoring well network consisting of 21 water quality monitoring wells and
13 additional water-level monitoring wells was installed in the OW /EADA OU to
characterize ground water quality, estimate physical characteristics of ground water flow, and
to collect data in support of a baseline risk assessment (Figure 10). Ground water quality
and water level elevations were monitored quarterly for a period of at least one year for all
wells in the OW /EADA ground water network. In addition, continuous water level recorders
were installed in monitoring wells at the Tl and T2 transects located on Warm Springs Creek
to observe fluctuations in ground water levels in conjunction with stage and discharge
measurements of the creek to determine stream-aquifer interactions in the OU.
Ground water investigations in the OW /EADA OU indicate that an unconfined alluvial
aquifer underlies a majority of the OU's approximately 1,300-acre surface area. The
thickness of the alluvial aquifer ranges from approximately 20 feet in the western portion of
the study area to greater than 100 feet near the OU's eastern boundary. Estimates of the
aquifer's hydraulic conductivity, based on numerous slug test results and a constant discharge
pump test at the 12 transect, range from 50 feet per day to greater than 500 feet per day.
Depth to ground water in the area ranges from approximately 15 feet in the west to
approximately 70 feet in the eastern portion of the OU. The principal direction of ground
water flow is from west to east along the axis of the Warm Springs Creek valley. The
hydraulic gradient is approximately 0.015 ftlft. The alluvial aquifer continues laterally
beyond the east and west boundaries of the OW/EADA OU. However, near the OU's north
and south boundaries, the alluvial aquifer is truncated by bedrock aquifers located beneath
Smelter Hill (to the south) and Stuckey Ridge (to the north). The bedrock aquifers adjacent
to the OW IEADA OU consist of a fractured Tertiary volcanic tuff and consolidated
sedimentary deposits. Although the hydraulic gradient of the bedrock aquifers is
approximately one order of magnitude greater than that of the alluvial aquifer, the hydraulic
conductivity of the bedrock aquifer is considerably less than that of the alluvial aquifer. The
Rccord of Decision OWIEADA OU
0308294/owrOO8.fmldd-czvb
DS-16
- -~ ....- ..- ... .-'" .
.", -. ~...-----_.- --
,n.._.'" .. ~ -
. ... ..-.-.--
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
interaction of the bedrock and alluvial aquifers within the OW /EADA OU is not well
documented.
Ground water quality within the OW /EADA OU is based on data collected during eight
sampling events conducted between November 1990 and June 1992. Ground water samples
were analyzed for total and dissolved metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, zinc, iron, lead,
manganese, mercury, silver, and selenium), selected anions, nitrates, temperature, pH,
specific conductance, and redox potential. Ground water in the alluvial aquifer is
predominantly a calcium bicarbonate water type. A calcium sulfate water type is exhibited in
the alluvial aquifer in the vicinity of the Old Works Tailings Ponds (MW-203) and in the
extreme northeastern portion of the study area (MW-209). A calcium sulfate water is also
exhibited in the bedrock aquifer at the base of Smelter Hill (A2BR). A sulfate water type
has often been identified throughout the ARWW OU in association with elevated metal
concentrations.
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) were
exceeded in the alluvial aquifer at several locations in the OW/EADA OU. The MCL for
cadmium (5 /lg/L) was exceeded in the vicinity of the Red Sands and Arbiter Plant located in
Subarea 4 and area east of the Draft Strip in Subarea 6. The MCL for arsenic (50 /lg/L) was
exceeded in the alluvial and bedrock aquifers beneath the East Anaconda Yard in Subarea 5
(Figure 11). Elevated concentrations of copper and zinc persist throughout most of the
alluvial aquifer beneath the interior portion of the OW/EADA OU. Possible sources of
cadmium loading to ground water in areas where the MCL is exceeded include the Red
Sands and the now-excavated Old Works Tailings and Arbiter Ponds. Possible sources of
copper and zinc loading to ground water include Heap Roast Slag, floodplain tailings, Red
Sands, Old Works Tailings Ponds, and Arbiter Ponds. Possible sources of arsenic loading to
ground water in the East Anaconda Yard include recharge to the alluvial aquifer from the
contaminated bedrock aquifer, contaminated runoff from Smelter Hill, and reclaimed waste
in the East Anaconda Yard.
Surface Water
Continuous stage monitoring was conducted at three sites along Warm Springs Creek in the
OW/EADA OU. Station WS-2 is located at the OU's upstream boundary, T-2 is located
within the OU, and WS-3 is located near the OU's downstream boundary (Figure 10). Data
from stations equipped with continuous water-level recorders were reported in quarterly data
summary reports for the ARWW OU. Intermittent (direct) discharge and stage
measurements were made to establish a rating curve for each station.
Ground and surface water data collected from the OW/EADA OU ground water monitoring
well and surface water monitoring network indicate that ground water does not discharge to
Warm Springs Creek within the boundary of the QU. During baseflow conditions, the
Record of Decisioo OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fmldd-czvb
DS-17
.-., .~._~... ~. ".- -
. .. . ..' ,"-...."..- ..
-------
.~
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
ground water elevation at Station T-2 was approximately 15 feet below the surface water
elevation of Warm Springs Creek. When the maximum rise in ground water elevation at the
site was observed in July 1991, the ground water elevation at Station T-2 was approximately
10 feet below the stream surface. Results of both continuous streamflow monitoring and
direct discharge measurement indicate no discemable net gains or losses of surface water
flow within the OU along Warm Springs Creek. However, ground water mounding observed
beneath Warm Springs Creek at Transects TI and T2 suggests that Warm Springs Creek may
lose water through seepage to the underlying alluvial aquifer within the OW/EADA OU.
During the 1992 reporting period (ending June 30, 1992), the mean discharge for WS-2, T-2,
and WS-3 was 59, 55, and 55 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively.
~i .
Water quality sampling and analysis at the site was conducted during 13 sampling events
during the period of April 1985 through June 1992. Water quality entering and exiting the
OW/EADA au is characterized as a calcium bicarbonate water type, low in total dissolved
solids, low in suspended solids, and generally low in total and dissolved metals. Total and
dissolved median metal concentrations of arsenic, copper, zinc, and lead were compared and
found to be different at Station WS-2 (water entering the OU) vs. Station WS-3 (water
exiting the aU). Median total copper and zinc concentrations were observed to increase in
Warm Springs Creek from Station WS-2 to WS-3, while median total arsenic and lead
concentrations generally remained constant. With the exception of zinc which increased
slightly at Station WS-3, dissolved metal concentrations remained stable in Warm Springs
Creek within the OU. Cadmium concentrations were not compared because concentrations
of cadmium were generally below detection limits (0.2-3.9 J.LglL) during the reporting period.
A list of water quality exceedances of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the OW/EADA
OU is presented in Table 8. General primary SDWA standards were not exceeded in
samples collected from Warm Springs Creek from April 1985 to June 1992. Furthermore,
arsenic and zinc concentrations did not exceed chronic and acute water quality criteria during
the reporting periods. Chronic and acute aquatic water quality criteria for copper, lead,
mercury, and silver were exceeded in several samples collected at the site. One exceedence
for mercury and silver and two exceedances for copper and lead were observed at Station
WS-3 (exiting the OU) which did not occur at WS-2 (entering the OU).
Vadose Zone
Vadose zone investigations at the OW/EADA OU were initiated in December 1990 in an
attempt to determine the amount of precipitation that is available for the recharge of the
alluvial aquifer and to predict the vertical movement of solutes through the vadose zone at
the site.
Soil moisture monitoring occurred at Station VZ-2 from December 1990 through September
1991 (Figure 10). Soil moisture samples were manually collected at 6-inch intervals using a
bucket auger to a depth of 30 inches. Twelve sampling events occurred from December
Record of Decision OWIEADA OU
0308294lowrod8.fmldd-<:zvb
DS-18
. -.,_'h -, .'..
'-.'-" . '._" '. --.
-------
.,
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
1990 through September 1991. Results are presented graphically on Figure 12 and suggest
infiltration and percolation of precipitation occurred to a depth of at least 30 inches at the
VZ-2 site under normal conditions of precipitation.
In June 1992, two suction lysimeters were installed beneath the Red Sands and Old Works
Tailings Ponds (Subarea 4). Soil samples were collected at approximately 2-foot intervals to
a depth of 23 feet at the Red Sands, and 18 feet at the Old Works Tailings Ponds during
installation of the lysimeters and were analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and
zinc. Analytical results are presented in Table 9. Elevated concentrations of copper and
zinc were observed throughout the soil profile at both locations. Depth to ground water in
the vicinity of the Red Sands and Old Works Tailings Ponds is approximately 30 feet. A
suction lysimeter at the Red Sands station was installed at a depth of 7 feet, below the
soil/waste interface. A lysimeter in the tailing ponds was installed at a depth of 4.5 feet.
Pore water samples were collected at both sites in June 1992 and September 1992. A third
pore water sample was collected from the Red Sands lysimeter in November 1992. Pore
water samples were analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc and results are
presented in Table 10. High concentrations of copper (5,300 to 267,000 p.g/L), zinc (12,000
to 180,000 p.g/L), and cadmium (28.5 to 322 ILg/L) were exhibited in pore water collected
from directly below waste material at the Red Sands and Old Works Tailings Ponds. Ground
water monitoring in Subarea 4 has exhibited elevated levels of copper, zinc, and cadmium
downgradient of these two potential source areas.
A simulation of two 24-hour, 1oo-year successive storm events occurring within a 56-hour
period of time was conducted at two sites located in the Jig Tailings (Subarea 2), and the
Heap Roast Slag (Subarea 2). Four suction lysimeters and two pan lysimeters were installed
at 2- to 4-foot depth intervals to a maximum depth of 6 feet at the Jig Tailings site, and 12
feet at the Heap Roast site to monitor pore water chemistry during the experiment. Two
neutron access ports were installed at each location, a shallow port to a depth of 3 to 4 feet
and a deeper port installed to a depth of 16 feet at the Heap Roast site and 31 feet at the Jig
Tailings site. Neutron probe readings were obtained periodically during a 54-day period to
monitor advancement of the wetting front generated by the simulated precipitation event
(SPE) and displacement of pre-existing pore water at each site. The results of the SPE
experiment demonstrate that applied precipitation generated movement of pore water to a
depth of at least 15 feet at the Jig Tailings site and at least 12 feet at the Heap Roast Slag
site. Copper and zinc exhibited greater mobility during infiltration and percolation of
precipitation during the study. Cadmium was less mobile than copper and zinc although pore
water concentrations of cadmium were observed at depth beneath Jig Tailings. Arsenic
concentrations in pore water generally decreased with depth at both sites, suggesting
relatively low mobility compared to other metals observed.
The evaluation of vadose zone monitoring results at Station VZ-2, Red Sands, Old Works
Tailings Ponds, and the SPE site in conjunction with ground water monitoring results
indicate recharge to the alluvial aquifer does occur in the OW/EADA au under normal
Record of Decision OWfEADA OU
0308294/ owrod8.fml dd-czvb
DS-19
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
conditions of precipitation. Furthermore, infiltration of precipitation provides a pathway for
loading copper and zinc, and in local areas, cadmium and arsenic, to ground water at the
site.
Vegetation
Vegetation within the aW/EADA au is composed almost entirely of secondary growth
consisting of weedy forbs, grasses, and shrubs that have revegetated the drier disturbed
areas. Large portions of the aW/EADA au are bare or lack appreciable vegetation because
of conditions limiting root development, repeated disturbances to soil, and adverse soil
conditions. The riparian zone appears to revegetate rapidly due to remnant vegetation and
adequate supply of available moisture.
Three vegetation surveys were conducted which provided the necessary data to identify plant
communities and species in the study area, estimate concentrations of metals in plant tissue
of selected plant species, compare metal concentrations of selected plants to concentrations of
metals in plants at uncontaminated sites, and compare metal concentrations to the
recommended mineral tolerances for domestic animals.
A regional vegetation survey was conducted under the ARWW investigation which is
presented in the 1991 Preliminary Site Characterization/or the ARWW OU (ARCa 1992a).
More than 80 plant species were identified in the vicinity of the aW/EADA au as a result
of this survey.
A phytotoxicity study was conducted at the Smelter Hill au in 1989 and 1990, at which time
23 sites located in the East Anaconda Yard (Subarea 5) were sampled. Results of the study
are reported in the Smelter Hill RIfFS Phytotoxicity, Surface Water and Ground Water
Investigations Data Summary/Data Validation/Data Usability Report (ARCa 1990).
Finally, a vegetation survey was completed as part of the aW/EADA au RIfFS in August
1992. Twenty-four vegetation samples were collected at nine stations located in Subareas 2
and 3 representing five different vegetation types: riparian, grassland, weedy/grassland,
undisturbed soil, and shrub/grassland. Delineation of vegetation-type areas in Subareas 2, 3,
and 5 as a result of the 1989 and 1990 phytotoxicity study and the 1992 vegetation survey is
presented on Figure 13.
Results of tissue analysis for each of the vegetation-type areas indicate that except for
arsenic, levels of metals concentrations are similar to levels throughout the western United
States (Table 11).
The potential for contaminated vegetation in this au to have an adverse effect on the
environment was determined by comparing the results of the plant tissue to the mineral
tolerances for cattle, sheep, and horses. Chemical-specific recommendations for mineral
Record of Decision OW/EADA au
0308294/owrod8. fmldd-czvb
DS- 20
-------
.,
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUM:MARY
tolerances for domestic animals are presented in Table 12. Exceedances of cadmium,
copper, and zinc concentrations recommended by the National Academy of Sciences were
observed in the three subareas. The exceedances were generally less for the grasses and
forbs than for the shrubs and trees.
Discussion of Fate and Transport
Historical release mechanisms and transport pathways for metals of concern at the
OW/EADA au included:
.
Operational procedures including discarding waste materials;
.
Aerial deposition from stack emissions;
.
In situ leaching of the Red Sands to extract metals;
.
Fluvial erosion and redeposition of wastes in Warm Springs Creek floodplain;
and
.
Demolition of structures.
Each of the transport pathways listed above are either no longer active or, in the case of
fluvial redeposition within the floodplain, the cuuent migration rate along the pathway is
greatly diminished.
Existing pathways for potential migration of the metals of concern include air, surface water,
infiltration, and ground water. The air pathway, which historically was the predominant.
pathway for the stack emissions that affected surface soil in all areas, is cuuently not a
significant pathway for the transfer of metals. The air quality results for the air monitoring
stations within the OW/EADA OU also indicate that dust re-suspension and transport is not a
significant pathway. Although fugitive dust movement has been observed and continues to be
a potential transport mechanism of concern, metals concentrations in dust samples do not
exceed federal or state standards. For these reasons, the air transport pathway is not
considered further in the fate and transport evaluation, and is not included in the remedial
alternatives evaluated.
Fluvial deposition of metals occuued historically from overland runoff from Subareas 1
and 2, and from flooding of Warm Springs Creek. Engineering controls designed to prevent
overland runoff from Subareas 1 and 2 from entering Warm Springs Creek during the
lO-year precipitation event have been recently implemented. In addition, levees and other
stream bank improvements along Warm Springs Creek generally prevent overflow from a
100-year design flood event. Although overland runoff for certain storm events is cuuently
Record of Decisioo OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fmJdd-czvb
DS-21
. --,-. ... ... ... _.-
---_..~. ."-.' . .
'.- n-_.__-...-.- '-""."w ...
-------
.~
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
contained, runoff from larger storm events, runoff to other areas, or runoff over the long
term continue to be transport mechanisms of concern.
Bioaccumulation is a potential pathway for the transfer of metals from waste materials or
metals-laden soil to receptors. This pathway was evaluated via plant collection. For the
majority of plants, metals concentrations are not elevated over applicable literature values.
Several cadmium, copper, and zinc plant concentrations were found to exceed levels
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.
The remaining. pathways evaluated were infiltration and ground water transport. Infiltration
of water is generally not limited at the aW/EADA OU by high evapotranspiration potential
relative to available precipitation because most of the area is ~nvegetated. It is likely that
precipitation infiltrates and accumulates beneath the depth of effective evapotranspiration
during average precipitation events at the OW/EADA OU, and over time advances to the
saturated zone by additional moisture fronts. During precipitation events at the OW/EADA
au, water can percolate downward beneath the root zone, displacing pore water through the
unsaturated zone. This process may continue as subsequent precipitation events occur,
generating percolation below the root zone. Depending upon the concentration and solubility
of metals present in soil and waste material, pore water chemistry, attenuation/sorption
capacity of the underlying soil and contact time, metals may mobilize and migrate to ground
water during percolation of precipitation through the vadose zone at the OW/EADA OU.
Once in the ground water system, contaminants migrate with the ground water.
Potential human and ecological receptors may be exposed to waste sources and soil exhibiting
elevated metals concentrations, as well as metals redistributed to plants, the vadose zone,
ground water, and surface water, by the transport pathways discussed previously. Exposure
pathways at the OW lEAD A QU include direct contact, ingestion of soil, surface and ground
water, and inhalation of respirable soil particles.
The Baseline Risk Assessment conducted by the EP A (Section VI of the RI/FS) indicates that
the potential exists for increased cancer and/or non-cancer risks from human exposure to the
metals of concern (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead and zinc) at the OW/EADA QU. In
addition, elevated concentrations of the metals of concern could potentially impact terrestrial
and/or aquatic organisms at the site. .
Based on the results of media specific investigations, it is apparent that air and surface water
are not significant pathways for transport of the metals of concern at the QW/EADA QU.
Metals of concern were observed at various concentrations in waste materials, soil, the
vadose zone, ground water, and vegetation throughout the au suggesting that these transport
pathways do pose a potential threat to human health and the environment. This ROD
addresses remedial actions for waste materials and soil.
Record of Decision aWIEADA au
0308294/owrocl8 .fml dd-czvb
DS-22
- ~ ... .,. . -. .
-_..~-----.. ,n.'.
.. . .- .."-..-...
-------
..
..
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
Estimated Volumes of Contaminated Materials
A summary of the aerial extent of wastes and waste volumes in the aW/EADA au is
presented in Table 13. Figure 8 illustrates the present location of waste material within the
au. The largest volume of waste material at the aW/EADA OU occupies the Red Sands
which is estimated at 606,700 cubic yards. Floodplain Wastes in Subareas 2 and 3 contain
approximately 440,000 cubic yards of tailings. Heap Roast Slag in Subarea 2 contains
298,390 cubic yards of waste material, and the eight miscellaneous waste piles located in
Subareas 1 and 2 contain a total of approximately 31,780 cubic yards of waste material.
Approximately 285,000 cubic yards of waste were removed from the Arbiter Ponds and aId
Works Tailings Ponds during the Old Works Expedited Removal Action in 1992.
An estimated volume of ground water contamination at the aw IEADA au has not been
determined because a decision concerning remediation of contaminated ground water at the
aw IEADA au was deferred to investigations under the ARWW au. Furthermore, due to
the nature of soil contamination as a result of aerial deposition of stack emission (shallow,
widespread, low-level metal contamination), the removal option for contaminated soil was
eliminated during Phase I (ARCO 1993b) of the OW/EADA OU FS. As a result, a volume
estimate for contaminated soil is not provided.
Site Characterization Summary - Mill Creek Operable Unit
As part of the previous Mill Creek Rl (ARCa 1987), data were collected to characterize the
soil, surface water, and ground water systems. These data were analyzed and used in the
calculation of the risks to the previous residents of Mill Creek. Additional soil data was
collected by ARC a in July 1993. The results of these investigations are summarized below.
Air
Airborne particulate concentration data collected during the previous Mill Creek RI indicated
that contaminated materials were being re-entrained. Re-entrainment of contaminated
materials, primarily flue dust, was a significant concern during the Mill Creek investigation
and remedy selection decision. Flue dust remediation was started in 1993 and will be
completed in 1994.
Air monitoring data collected from the Mill Creek station over a three-year period showed no
exceedances of federal or state ambient air quality standards, indicating that air quality is not
adversely affected by contaminated soil/wastes present at the site.
Soil
A compilation of surface and profile soil metals data from the 1987 Mill Creek RI is found
in Attachment A of the Mill Creek Addendum (OW/EADA RI/FS Volume VI, ARCa
Rccord of Dccisioo OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fmldd-czvb
DS-23
. -- ~.,_._. ~...
-------
.~
OWfEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
1993a). The geometric mean surficial concentrations (mgfkg) for arsenic, cadmium, and
lead in the study area were 638, 25, and 508, respectively.
Soil profile data provided a vertical distribution of soil concentrations for the area. Summary
statistics and frequency distributions indicated that arsenic concentrations were below 100
mgfkg at 18 inches and approached background concentrations at 24 inches in most of the
profiles. Cadmium and lead concentrations were elevated in the top 6 inches, but decreased
rapidly with depth. Cadmium concentrations were generally below detection limits beneath 9
inches and lead concentrations were generally at background levels beneath 6 inches.
In addition to previous sample collection efforts, soil samples were collected in the Mill
Creek area in July 1993 and analyzed for total arsenic, cadmium, and lead. A total of 25
soil samples were collected and analyzed. Individual arsenic results are shown on Figure 14.
Arsenic, lead, and cadmium results for the 1993 soil investigation were similar to the 1986
Mill Creek RIfFS soil results.
Surface and Ground Water
Arsenic is the only trace metal consistently present in the surface water of Mill Creek in
concentrations above analytical detection limits (4 p.g/L). Arsenic concentrations ranged
between 12 and 32 p.g/L. Zinc has been detected with values ranging up to 18 pog/L.
Quaternary alluvial deposits underlie Mill Creek and supply domestic well water for the area.
Several older, hand-dug wells in the area were found to have arsenic concentrations above
detection limits. Two wells (Figure 14) sampled in May 1986 were found to have arsenic
concentrations above the federal primary SDW A MCL of 50 pogfL. Cadmium and lead
concentrations were generally at or below detection limits.
Water table elevations for five domestic wells in the area show the ground water gradient
under Mill Creek to be 140 feet per mile. The gradient at the mouth of Mill Creek Valley is
approximately 50 feet per mile.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. rmldd-czvb
DS-24
-------
.~
- .
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The Baseline Risk Assessment provides the basis for taking action and indicates the exposure
pathways to be addressed by the remedial action. It serves as the baseline for indicating
risks that would exist if no action were taken at the site. This section of the ROD reports the
results of the Baseline Risk Assessment for the OW/EADAOU.
As part of the RIfFS, a human health and ecological Baseline Risk Assessment was
developed to assist EP A and MDHES in developing actions necessary to reduce actual and
potential risks from hazardous substances at the site. The Baseline Risk Assessment was
conducted at the site with the following objectives:
.
Provide an analysis of baseline risk (potential risk if no remedy occurs) and
help determine the need for action;
.
Provide a basis for determining cleanup or action levels (concentrations) that
are protective of public health and the environment;
.
Provide a basis to compare potential public health and ecological impacts of
various cleanup alternatives; and
.
Provide a consistent process to evaluate and document potential public health
and ecological threats at the site.
Chemicals of Potential Concern
Although mine wastes contain a number of metals, experience at other mining and smelting
sites and through previous Anaconda risk assessments (Le., Mill Creek, Flue Dust) has
shown that risks to humans and the environment are dominated by the presence of arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc. Although some studies did collect data on other metals
that might conceivably contribute to risk (e.g., antimony, radium, barium, beryllium,
manganese, mercury), the relative contribution of these other chemicals to total risk is
believed to be sufficiently small compared to the risks from the primary chemicals of concern
that they were not considered further.
Therefore, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc were the main focus of sampling, and
the analytical efforts performed at the site were selected for evaluation in the risk assessment.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fmldd-czvb
DS-25
.-. ..~ . -~ -_.- -".
. - -.-. ---- ----- . ".---." . .
.. -"u .--.-
-------
.,
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
Human Health Risk Assessment
Exposed Populations
Under current site conditions, there are no human populations residing within the confines of
the aW/EADA au. However, there are residential neighborhoods adjacent to the site, and
nearby residents may visit the site during activities such as dirt bike riding, hiking,
exploring, or fishing in Warm Springs Creek. In addition, there are several businesses
which operate within the site boundaries of the aW/EADA au and workers at these
businesses may also be exposed. In the future, it is possible that some areas of the site may
be developed for residences, but it is most probable that the aW/EADA au will be
developed mainly for recreational and/or commercial land use. Based on these
considerations, this risk assessment evaluated the potential risks to the following human
populations:
.
Current or future recreational site visitors (dirt bike riders were selected to
represent the maximally exposed recreational visitor); and
.
Current or future on-site workers (e.g., shopkeepers, business professionals,
office staff).
As noted above, it is also possible that some portions of the aW/EADA au might be
developed for residential land use in the future. However, this population is not considered
in this risk assessment for the following reasons:
.
The likelihood of residential development is relatively low, at least for most
locations in the aW/EADA au.
.
Future RIs will address risk to the residential population for the entire
Anaconda Smelter site.
Exposure Pathways
Visitors or workers could be exposed to contaminants in the aw IEADA au by a number of
pathways. These are summarized on Figure 6. Based on screening level calculations, the
following exposure pathways were judged most likely to be of health concern:
.
Direct ingestion of dust, soil, or surface wastes (on-site workers and
recreational visitors).
.
Inhalation exposure to respirable particulate matter (PM-lO) resulting from
mechanical erosion of surface materials (recreational visitors only).
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294lowrod8 .fllll dd-czvb
DS-26
~. . . no- - .. -.
-------
.~
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
.
Ingestion of contaminants in ground water used for drinking (workers only).
Human Exposure Assumptions
In general, it is expected that different people living or working in an area may have
different levels of contact with various contaminated media and, thus, result in different
levels of exposure. Therefore, it is appropriate to think of exposure of a population as a
range or distribution of values, rather than as a single value. In order to account for this,
EP A calculates exposure both for an average person and for someone at the upper end of the
distribution (approximately the 95th percentile). The latter is termed the Reasonable
Maximum Exposure (RME). Both estimates are useful in understanding exposures and risks
which can exist at a site.
Tables 14 and 15 list parameters needed to calculate average and RME daily intake levels for
each of the contaminated media for each of the populations of potential concern at the site.
Some of these values are reasonably well established (e.g., body weight, water intake,
exposure frequency of workers), but other values are based on limited data (e.g., soil intake
by workers, exposure frequency of dirt bike riders, averaging time for workers). Other
values (e.g., soil intake by dirt bike riders) are based mainly on professional judgment.
Thus, there is uncertainty in exposure estimates based on these values.
Exposure Point Concentrations
An exposure point is an area within the site where humans are expected to come into contact
with one or more contaminated media. Typically, the boundaries of an exposure point are
selected to represent an area over which exposure of an individual is expected to be
approximately random. Based on this, the exposure point concentration for a chemical is
defined as the upper 95th confidence limit of the arithmetic mean (AM-95) of the measured
values for that chemical within the exposure area (calculated based on the assumption of log
normal distribution of measured values). A somewhat different approach was taken at this
site because the OW IEADA is so large and workers or site visitors could conceivably be
exposed nearly anywhere on site. Rather than selecting specific exposure points for
evaluation, exposure and risk were assessed over the entire site.
Generally, environmental data were used to estimate the exposure point concentration (i.e.,
soil, waste, ground water). Other exposure point concentrations (e.g., indoor dust, dirt bike
dust) were calculated using models or equations.
Quantification of N oncancer Risks
Noncancer risks from a chemical are usually described in terms of the Hazard Index (HI).
The HI is the ratio of the estimated daily intake (DI) of a chemical received by a human
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owr0d8. fmldd-czvb
DS-27
. . ~-~ .~.... ..--. -- -
-------
.~
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
exposed at the site, compared to a Reference Dose (RID) that is believed to be without
appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects.
If the value of HI is equal to or less than one, it is concluded that the chemical does not pose
a noncancer risk. If the value of HI is greater than one, then there may be a risk of
noncancer effects. In general, the likelihood of effect increases as HI increases, but HI
values greater than one do not imply an effect will necessarily occur.
Table 16 lists the characteristic noncancer effects of the chemicals of concern at this site, and
gives available RID values for sub chronic and chronic oral exposure. No inhalation RIDs
are available.
Figure 15 shows locations within the OW /EADA OU where chronic exposure of workers
would yield HI values greater than 1.0 for arsenic. As shown, there are two locations in
Subarea 2 where the HI value reaches a value of 2.0 under RME conditions (top panel), with
the remainder of the site being below a level of concern (HI ~ 1.0). For dirt bike riders,
there are no areas of the site where arsenic yields an HI value above 1.0.
Cadmium, copper, and zinc do not appear to pose unacceptable noncancer risks to either
workers or dirt bike riders at any location on site.
Risks from lead are assessed by using an uptake/biokinetic (UBK) model to predict blood
lead (PbB) levels in exposed humans. To date, the model is only applicable to residential
children, and there is no standard method for evaluating risks to workers or site visitors.
However, it is currently believed that levels of up to 500 parts per million (ppm) in soil are
acceptable to residential children under default conditions. It is concluded that the levels of
lead on site (most below 500 ppm, nearly all below 1,000 ppm) are very unlikely to be of
significant health concern to these populations because workers and dirt bike riders are
believed to be less sensitive than children.
There are no locations on site where measured levels of cadmium, copper, or zinc in ground
water pose a noncancer risk to workers. Arsenic is also below a level of concern in all areas
of the site except for the southern portion near Smelter Hill. In this area, the estimated
RME HI values for a worker range from 2.0 to 30.0.
Quantification of Cancer Risks
Cancer risk is described in terms of the probability that a person exposed under a specified
set of conditions will develop a tumor before the age of 70 as a result of that exposure. For
example, if the probability were one out of one million (1/1 ,000,000), this is expressed as
IE-06. Typically, EPA considers remedial action at a site when excess cancer risk to any
current or future population falls within or exceeds a risk range of lE-04 (1110,000) to lE-06
(1/1,000,000).
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-28
.'__n.- . ...~.
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
When data permit, EP A derives numeric values useful in quantifying the toxicity and
carcinogenity of a compound. Slope factors (SF) are route-specific estimates of the slope of
the cancer dose response curve at low doses.
Table 17 lists the carcinogenic effects of the chemicals of concern at this site and presents
available SF values.
Cancer Risks from Arsenic in Surface Soils
For workers, RME cancer risks range between 2E-05 to 4E-04. Cancer risks to workers and
dirt bike riders are summarized in Figures 16 and 17, respectively.! Under average
exposure conditions, cancer risks to workers range between 2E-06 and 6E-05. RME arsenic
risks to dirt bike riders range from 7E-05 to less than 1E-04 over most of the site
(Figure 17), with several zones (located in Areas 1, 2, 4, and 6) where RME risks exceed
1E-04 (maximum of 3E-04). Under average exposure conditions, risks to the dirt bike riders
range from less than 1E-06 up to 1E-05. These risks to dirt bike riders are due mainly to
the ingestion pathway, with only a small contribution from the inhalation of PM-lOs.
Cancer Risks from Arsenic in Ground Water
As noted above, concentrations of arsenic in shallow ground water vary somewhat across the
site, but a level of about 4 p.g/L is typical for most areas. This concentration is well below
current regulatory limits for arsenic in drinking water and is probably natural in origin. A
concentration of 4 p.g/L corresponds to risk levels of IE-06 (average) to 3E-05 (RME) for
workers. However, wells in and east of Subarea 5 have clearly elevated levels of arsenic.
The highest risk level is associated with Well A2BR, located in the southeast corner of
Subarea 5. The AM-95 concentration of arsenic detected in this well is 1,040 J.Lg/L,
corresponding to an RME cancer risk level of 7E-03 for workers. Levels in two other wells
in Subarea 5 are 94.6 p.g/L and 50.3 p.g/L corresponding to RME cancer risks to workers of
3E-04 to 6E-04. A well east of Subarea 5 has a concentration of 62.9 J.Lg/L. The source of
these high arsenic values is not known, but could be due to leaching from flue dust or other
wastes on Smelter Hill.
Cancer Risks from Cadmium in Surface Materials
Cadmium is considered to be carcinogenic only by the inhalation route and not by ingestion.
As noted earlier, screening level risk calculations based on measured levels of cadmium in
air (0.0005-0.0015 p.g/m3) indicated that risk levels were of little concern « 1E-06) even
under residential exposure conditions. However, dirt bike riders may be exposed to elevated
levels of particles displaced into air by mechanical disturbance of soil or waste. However,
'Because cancer risks are expressed to only one significant figure (USEPA 1989a), the concentration values used to define the
boundaries between risk levels are the lowest which round up to the risk values shown. For example, the concentration corresponding to a
risk of O.9SE-OS was used to define the edge of the lE-04 cancer risk contour.
Record of Decision OWIEADA au
0308294/owrod8. fml dd-czvb
DS- 29
.- ..-. ,..-. ..-.....-.- nHO
---....--- -....--.
-------
.,
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
even these risks appear to be minor, with a maximum RME risk level of lE-06 occurring in
Subarea 5 near Smelter Hill.
Uncertainties
There are a number of data limitations which introduce uncertainty into these risk estimates.
The most important of these are as follows:
.
Not all exposure pathways were evaluated. This could result in an
underestimate of total risk, but the underestimate is probably small and is not a
major source of uncertainty.
.
Not all chemicals were evaluated. This too could result in an underestimate of
total risk, but it is believed that the five chemicals evaluated account for the
majority of risk at the site.
.
Data are on the frequency and extent of some exposure pathways are limited
or absent. For example, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the
amount of soil ingested by workers and recreational visitors. The intake
estimates employed in the risk assessment probably tend to be conservative,
but true exposure levels are not known.
.
The precise relationship between dose of a chemical and likely health effect is
often uncertain. To account for this, EPA typically uses conservative
assumptions when quantifying these dose-response relationships. This means
that estimated risks are usually more likely to be high than low. In the case of
arsenic (the primary contaminant of concern at this site), there is an extensive
. data base on the effects in humans, but there is still debate regarding the true
dose-response relationships. For example, data on the detoxification of arsenic
by methylation suggest the cancer SF could be too high, while data on the
occurrence of internal cancers suggest the SF may be too low. This is an
important source of uncertainty in this assessment because arsenic is the
primary source of cancer risk at this site.
.
The metals present in mine wastes may sometimes occur in forms that are not
well absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. Based on data from a single
study of arsenic absorption from soil near the OW/EADA, it was assumed that
arsenic in on-site surface materials is absorbed 50 percent as well as soluble
arsenic compounds. It is not known if this assumption leads to an
overestimate or an underestimate of exposure and risk.
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS- 30
""----.....--- -
-'."--'--.-"'--."." .
" . ...._----. -.--
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
Summary/Conclusions
As discussed above, the dominant contributor to cancer risk at the OW /EADA au is arsenic
in surface materials. The contribution of cancer risk from other sources such as cadmium
(inhalation route) was determined to be insignificant (less than 1/1,000,000). Ground water
concentrations of metals at the site are typically below MCLs, except for arsenic in portions
of Subarea 5 and cadmium in Subarea 4. Cadmium is considered to be carcinogenic only
through the inhalation route and not by ingestion. Institutional controls will prohibit the use
of ground water as a drinking water source throughout the OW/EADA au; thus, human
exposure is unlikely. A municipal drinking water supply is already available in the East
Anaconda Yard and Arbiter plant portion of the aW/EADA au. No exceedances of MCLs
were observed in surface water of Warm Springs Creek. Therefore, analysis of total cancer
risk for each population at the site is defined as cancer risk from arsenic in surface materials.
Arsenic could pose RME cancer risks above lE-04 to hypothetical future workers over some
portions of the site. Under average conditions, risks to workers are expected to be less than
lE-04. Only a few small areas of the site would be of possible noncancer concern, and this
only under RME conditions. Therefore, future development of the site for occupational land
use will require remedial actions in some locations.
For dirt bike riders, none of the chemicals appear to be of noncancer concern and only a few
small areas of the site pose cancer risks exceeding lE-04 under RME conditions. These risk
values should only be viewed as approximate because these risk estimates for dirt bike riders
are based mainly on estimated oral and inhalation exposure rates. Other types of recreational
visitors (e.g., hikers, fishermen) are likely to have somewhat lower risks.
The aw IEADA Baseline Risk Assessment also addresses risk at the Mill Creek au. Risk
calculated for recreational and commercial/industrial exposure would be the same at Mill
Creek au. Therefore, future development at Mill Creek for occupationa1land use also will
require actions in some locations.
Action Levels
Arsenic action levels for surficial soil and waste material have been determined to be 1,000
ppm for recreational land use areas and 500 ppm for areas identified for an occupationa1land
use. These correspond to an excess cancer risk of 7E-05 and 6E-05 for recreational and
occupational use, respectively. These levels are within EPA's acceptable risk range of lE-04
to lE-06.
These action levels have been developed based on evaluation of the risk assessment for this
site. These action levels also consider the following risk management issues:
Rccord of DccisiOD OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-31
. -'-"~'-.'." .. .. .
"~-' ..-~..-_..- "..-
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMl\1ARY
.
Currently, no individuals reside within the confines of aw /EADA au. In the
future, it is possible that some areas could be developed for residences, but it
is more likely that the aW/EADA au will be developed primarily for
recreational and/or commercial use. Residential action levels will be
determined under the Community Soils au.
.
It is likely that recreational visitors (i.e., golfers, fishermen) would have lower
exposure and, therefore, lower risks as compared to the dirt bike riders used
in the risk assessment. .
.
There is greater uncertainty with exposure factors for recreational and
commercial/industrial users.
.
The action levels approach lE-06 under average exposure conditions.
.
Technical and cost limitations would be significant to achieve an incremental
risk benefit.
Ecolo2ical Risk Assessment
The waste materials present in the aW/EADA au pose a potential risk not only to humans,
but also to other species. This includes plants, soil invertebrates, various terrestrial species
(mammals, birds, etc.), and aquatic organisms living in Warm Springs Creek. Most of the
Warm Springs Creek corridor is outside this au, but is included in the ARWW au.
Therefore, aquatic ecological resources in Warm Springs Creek are only evaluated
qualitatively for the aw /EADA au. Full ecological assessments for ecological resources
potentially impacted by releases from the aW/EADA au are planned for Warm Springs
Creek under the ARWW au and for terrestrial habitats in the Anaconda Smelter NPL sites
under the Anaconda Soils au.
Identification of Potential Ecological Receptors
Terrestrial Vegetation. Six types of plant communities have been described for the
Deer Lodge Valley: disturbed, crop land, meadow/pasture, riparian woodland shrub,
rangeland, and forest. The waste piles and surrounding land are largely devoid of
vegetation, a pattern that has been observed around other copper smelters.
Wildlife. Endangered wildlife species such as the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon
and the Rocky Mountain wolf are occasionally observed in the vicinity of the aw /EADA
au, but the area is not believed to be a critical habitat for these species. Bald eagles winter
downstream from the site near the Warm Springs Ponds. ather animal species considered as
potential residents of this region include mule and white-tailed deer, elk, moose, pronghorn
(antelope), Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, mountain goats, mice, voles, rabbit, grizzly
Record of Decision OWfEADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-32
-------
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
bears, small birds, and various raptors. Insects and other invertebrate organisms living in
soil and in above-ground habitats are also ecologically important receptors, since they
represent food organisms for terrestrial vertebrates.
Recreationally important terrestrial species which utilize the OW IEADA OU or adjacent
areas display specific habitat preferences. Foothills and high elevation habitats are occupied
by mule deer, while white-tailed deer are encountered at lower elevations in land adjacent to
Warm Springs Creek. Elk are found at higher altitudes to the south, east, and north of
Anaconda.
Warm Springs Creek. Warm Springs Creek is a tributary to the upper Clark Fork
River and constitutes one of the principal drainages of the Deer Lodge Valley. The creek
originates west of Anaconda in a narrow, mostly forested, valley. As the creek flows
towards the confluence with Mill, Willow, and Silver Bow Creeks, the watershed becomes
less vegetated with the dominant vegetation being riparian willows and cottonwoods
associated with the creek. The distance between the mouth of Warm Springs Creek and
Cedar Street at the western edge of Anaconda is slightly more than 11 miles. Approximately
2.8 miles of Warm Springs Creek is within the boundaries of the OW/EADA OU and was
channelized and confined by levees during the 1880s.
Sampling surveys indicate that Warm Springs Creek supports both a fishery and a diverse
aquatic invertebrate community.
Contaminants of Potential Concern
For purposes of consistency, contaminants of potential concern for the screening-level
ecological assessment for the aW/EADA au are the same as those selected for the human
health evaluation (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc).
Exposure Assessment
The exposure pathways likely to be of concern for both terrestrial and aquatic populations for
the OW/EADA OU are presented in Figure 18. Direct contact, ingestion, and inhalation are
likely exposure routes for terrestrial animals. Plants may be exposed by direct root uptake or
uptake of metals from dust deposited on leaves. Food chain transport is also a route of
exposure for higher tropic levels. If metal contaminants enter the stream, exposure routes
such as direct uptake, bioconcentrations, and ingestion may affect aquatic populations.
Bioavailability in water is affected by metal speciation and water hardness.
Ecological Risk Characterization
Terrestrial Plants and Soil Invertebrates. Table 18 presents general threshold soil
concentrations that have been identified from studies at other sites either as causing toxicity
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. rmldd~zvb
DS- 33
.". .-.-.----. .."
-------
.4
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
to terrestrial plants, or as no observed effects concentrations (NOECs) for soil invertebrates,
and compares these values to concentration values measured in surface materials in the
OW/EADA OU and background soil levels. While nearby background soil concentrations
are well below threshold levels, it is apparent that on-site levels greatly exceed reported
phytotoxicity values and soil invertebrate NOECs in essentially all cases. This is consistent
with the direct observation that plant growth is sparse or absent over much of the site.
It can be speculated that several physical characteristics of microenvironments created by
waste materials within the OU may limit growth and survival of terrestrial organism directly,
or in combination with substrate toxicity. Waste materials at the surface are likely to have
poor water-holding capacity, resulting in drought effects on plants and animals. Organic
content and nutrients may be low enough to limit plant growth. Waste materials are likely to
be unstable or, in some areas where surface materials harden, hard enough to prevent root
penetration. The absence of vegetation further enhances extreme temperature fluctuations,
which are likely to be harmful to native plant and animal species.
Terrestrial Wildlife. Although physical disturbance of the terrain by human
activities and the lack of vegetative cover have not allowed establishment of ail on-site
terrestrial ecosystem typical for this region, it can be speculated that any terrestrial wildlife
species that enter the OW/EADA OU would likely be exposed to toxic metals in surface
wastes. However, the absence of data on tissue concentrations of metals in animals within
the OW IEADA OU prevents quantitative evaluation of terrestrial impacts associated with
metal contamination. Also of potentially lower concern are terrestrial species living
downwind of the site, which could be exposed via airborne transport and deposition of
contaminated dust particles under a future "no-action" alternative. Future site development
could also result in mechanical erosion of contaminated material, and this could also be of
concern to downwind species in the future.
Aquatic Species. Information on the aquatic organisms in Warm Springs Creek
indicate that a healthy, reproducing trout population is present. The brown trout population
continues to have local recreational value in spite of the disturbance in the OW/EADA OU.
Similarly, a qualitative evaluation of the aquatic invertebrate community indicates that Warm
Springs Creek supports a diverse food base for the fishery.
Given the importance of Warm Springs Creek as a spawning habitat for Clark Fork River
brown trout and potential exposure of progeny during egg incubation (November to April)
and rearing stages (spring), elevated metal concentrations during the April to June period
appear to be the single largest risk to the biota of Warm Springs Creek. No evidence is
available documenting any fish kills within Warm Springs Creek, but it is important to note
that the most susceptible fish would be small and therefore their deaths might go unnoticed.
Reported fish kills in another Clark Fork River drainage (Mill-Willow Bypass) were
associated with precipitation runoff from mine tailings. In this instance, the runoff was both
acidic (near pH 4.5) and contained copper concentrations two orders of magnitude greater
Rccord of DecisiOD OW/EADA OU
03082941 owrod8 .finldd-czvb
DS-34
~ ..- . .... .-- --. ..-
. " .. . ~ .
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
than the acute toxicity criterion. Given the proximity to Warm Springs Creek of both the
Floodplain Wastes in Subareas 2 and 3 and the Red Sands wastes, as well as their highly
acidic character, these areas appear to pose a threat to the aquatic biota in the event of
catastrophic failure of interim engineering controls. In such a scenario, acidic runoff could
contain high concentrations of copper and zinc, capable of causing localized, acutely toxic
effects.
Under current conditions, containment levees lining Warm Springs Creek apparently prevent
transport of toxic metals to the stream during typical runoff events. However, under the "no
action" alternative, deterioration of these structures could be expected to occur over time,
and future ecological risks to the aquatic community in Warm Springs Creek could occur via
increased runoff due to overland flow and flooding.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fUlldd-czvb
DS- 35
'"-- . .., ~ ~- . ..
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
VIT.
DESCRIYfION OF ALTERNATIVES
Summary of Alternatives
A brief description of the site cleanup alternatives that were considered in the OW/EADA
Feasibility Study (FS) report (ARC a 1993a) is provided below. As discussed in Section IV,
Scope and Role of Operable Unit, the remedy in this ROD covers only contaminated soils
and wastes at the OU. Final remedial actions for ground and surface water will be
developed under the ARWW OU.
Alternatives for soils and wastes were developed from potentially applicable technologies and
process options that were identified and screened in the Remedial Action Objectives,
Treatment Technology Scoping, and Development of Alternative Report, Phase I FS (ARCO
1993b). Based on the technologies and options presented in this document, the Initial
Alternatives Screening Document (ARCa 1993c) presented seven alternatives to be evaluated
for the aw IEADA OU. Evaluation of these alternatives, based on their effectiveness,
implemeptability and cost, screened two alternatives from further consideration. One
alternative, which relied solely on surface and institutional controls, was eliminated as not
being effective in protecting human health or the environment as waste would remain
exposed at the site. The other alternative, which proposed large scale removal of wastes,
was eliminated because of implementability and cost concerns. The remaining five
alternatives underwent a detailed analysis in the FS report prepared by ARCO in September
1993 (ARCO 1993a).
In addition to the five alternatives evaluated in the FS report, EP A and MDHES developed a
Preferred Alternative which was presented and evaluated in EP A's Proposed Plan in
September 1993. The five FS alternatives and the Preferred Alternative proposed different
combinations of engineered covers, revegetation, and surface and institutional controls
(Table 19) and are summarized in this section.
Common Elements of All Alternatives
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls include items such as public land use and ground water controls,
controls through private land ownership, dedicated developments, historic preservation, and
restrictions of on-site access. Different types of institutional controls may be combined to
provide strict control of the site, alternative methods of enforcement, and assurance of long-
term effectiveness and enforceability. For example, Anaconda-Deer Lodge County (ADL)
has adopted a Land Use Master Plan and regulations in the form of the Development Permit
System (DPS) which will institute controls over future actions (e.g., well drilling) throughout
the entire site. Institutional controls, such as deed restrictions, covenants, and/or easements
Record of Decisioo OWIEADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-36
~ ,-- ,--- ..."
-------
'4
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
to limit future land uses by any party, will be instituted on private property. ARCO is the
major property owner at the site (Figure 19).
Institutional controls may also include dedicated developments (Figure 2). Pursuant to
agreements being negotiated among ARCO, ADL, and the Anaconda Local Development
Corporation on use restrictions, certain existing dedicated developments will likely continue
permanently and new dedicated developments may be created or allowed on the site. These
may include a golf course and the Old Works Historic Trail. Dedicated developments would
institute certain controls to manage use of the land to be protective of human health and the
environment. Also, if constructed, these developments may require the use of a variety of
special engineering controls, such as multi-media covers, to protect human health and the
environment.
Historic Preservation
All of the proposed alternatives, except the "no action" alternative (Alternative 1), include
preservation of historic features which would minimize potential impacts to the Old Works
structures, flues, and railroad beds, all or portions of the Heap Roast Slag and Red Sands,
and the Interstate Lumber buildings. An historic trail system, created to mitigate
unavoidable impacts to some of the historic features, would restrict access to contaminated
materials in these areas of the site.
Surface Controls
Surface controls include erosion, drainage, and dust control and would be implemented under
all the alternatives to manage surface water runoff from Stuckey Ridge through the Old
Works areas, Heap Roast Slag, Red Sands, and other areas as required. Drainage would be
directed to containment areas on site. Control of runoff would prevent contaminants from
reaching surface waters and erosion of remediated areas.
Stream Channel Controls
With stream channel controls, the Warm Springs Creek flood levees would be replaced,
upgraded, or repaired as necessary to safely route the lOO-year peak flood event. This work
would also include replacement, upgrade, or repair of the existing Landfill Road bridge and
culverts. Control of the stream channel would prevent contaminants from being remobilized
by flooding.
Monitoring
A monitoring program would be formulated during the remedial design phase. Routine
visual inspection of engineered covers would detect any areas requiring maintenance in
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
0308294/ owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-37
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
advance of failure. Strategic ground water monitoring wells and surface water stations would
continue to be sampled under the remedial action for the ARWW au.
DescriDtion of Alternatives Considered for OW IEADA OU
Alternative 1: No Action
Estimated present worth cost: $0
Implementation time: Not applicable
This is the "no action" alternative required under CERCLA and is used as a baseline against
which other alternatives are evaluated. Under Alternative 1, no new engineering or
institutional controls would be undertaken. The potential for direct human and environmental
contact with waste materials would not be reduced from present conditions. Development
activities on the site would be regulated by the ADL's adopted land use Master Plan and land
use regulations of the DPS already in place.
Alternative 2
Estimated present worth cost: $8.9 million
Implementation time: 2 years
In addition to the common components listed previously, this alternative would include the
use of revegetation treatment techniques from the Anaconda Revegetation Treatability Study
(ARTS) (e.g., chemical and physical soil amendments, such as lime additions and deep
tilling) to reduce arsenic concentrations to below the appropriate action level and to establish
productive and self-sustaining vegetation.
A total of 415 acres would be revegetated in the following areas:
.
The area north of the ball fields, Teressa Ann Terrace and floodplain tailings
south of the inactive railroad spur near Warm Springs Creek;
.
The area north and northwest of the Arbiter Plant, the Old Works and Arbiter
ponds;
.
Unreclaimed areas adjacent to the East Anaconda Yards area, adjacent to the
railroad tracks, including the former Acid Plant site; and
.
Areas along the highway (Subarea 5).
An engineered cover would be constructed over the Miscellaneous Waste Piles and Heap
Roast Slag (Subarea 2). Prior to cover placement, the wastes would be consolidated as
practicable. After placement, the covers would be revegetated. The total engineered cover
area would be about 60 acres.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fmldd-czvb
DS- 38
.- -. ..~
.-....-..---.--.. .
-------
-~
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
The surface of the Red Sands (Subarea 4) would receive minimal grading, excavating, and
backfilling needed to control surface runoff (i.e., most surface features would remain).
Alternative 3
Estimated present worth cost: $9.9 million
Implementation time: 3 years
This alternative includes the actions described in Alternative 2, as well as the following
additional actions:
Revegetation treatment techniques would be extended along Warm Springs Creek and would
include the waste between the Arbiter Plant and the sewage treatment ponds (Subareas 2, 3,
and 4).
The total estimated area revegetated under this Alternative would be approximately 470
acres.
The engineered cover would be extended to include the unreclaimed area around the former
Acid Plant (Subarea 5). The total engineered cover area would be about 75 acres.
Depressions in the Red Sands (Subarea 4) would be covered with fine grained soil and
crushed limestone. Other areas of the Reds Sands and the drag strip grandstands area would
be covered with crushed limestone. The total area covered with crushed limestone would be
approximately 20 acres.
Alternative 4
Estimated present worth cost: $10.8 million
Implementation time: 3 years
This alternative is similar to the actions described in Alternative 3, except for the following
modifications:
Revegetation treatment techniques would be extended to include areas around the sewage
treatment pond and drag strip areas (Subareas 4 and 6). The total estimated area revegetated
would be approximately 660 acres.
The engineered cover would be extended to include the exposed Red Sands material south of
the railroad spur (Subarea 4). The total engineered cover area would be approximately 85
acres.
A crushed limestone cover would be placed over the Red Sands pile and material north of the
railroad spur (Subarea 4). Prior to limestone placement, the surface of the Red Sands pile
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS- 39
.--h-_.._.. . .
- -.. ._.._~-_...-.--,
-------
..,. - .-. -
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
would be graded, excavated, and filled as required to construct a smooth surface to control
surface runoff. The estimated area for crushed limestone would be approximately 35 acres.
Alternative 5
Estimated present worth cost: $14.4 million
Implementation time: 3 years
This alternative is similar to the actions described in Alternative 4, except for the following
modifications:
Revegetation treatment techniques would be extended to include all Red Sands material south
of the railroad spur (Subarea 4). In addition, revegetation would be utilized around the
sewage treatment pond and drag strip areas (Subareas 4 and 6). The total estimated area
revegetated under this Alternative would be approximately 675 acres.
The engineered cover would be extended to the Red Sands north of the railroad spur and
areas adjacent to the active railroad bed near the Acid Plant (Subarea 5), as well as areas
around the Interstate Lumber buildings, Teressa Ann Terrace, the ball fields, and the
Industrial Park (Subarea 3). The total engineered cover area would be about 240 acres.
No crushed limestone covers would be used in this Alternative.
Preferred Alternative
Estimated present worth cost: $11. 4 million
Implementation time: 3 years
EP A's Preferred Alternative is a modification of Alternative 3 (Figure 20). The primary
difference between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 is the inclusion of an
engineered cover over portions of the Red Sands piles and the use of revegetation treatment
techniques for the area west of Mill Creek.
The Preferred Alternative includes the following actions:
Revegetation treatment techniques will be used to reduce soil arsenic concentrations to below
1,000 ppm, with some exceptions, in current and potential recreational areas within the site.
This generally includes the following areas:
.
Applicable portions of Subareas 1 and 2;
.
The waste between the Arbiter Plant and the sewage treatment ponds and along
the highway in Subarea 4;
.
Unreclaimed areas in the East Anaconda Yards in Subarea 5; and
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fmi dd-czvb
DS-40
~ .---._.. -- ..-.
. ... .. .-.. ...- -. .
. --. -.-~...._-' -..-.... -
-------
.,
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
.
The area along the public highway and Warm Springs Creek in Subarea 6 as
shown on Figure 20.
The total estimated area to be revegetated is approximately 500 acres.
Exceptions include portions of Subarea 1 (i.e., historic structures and steep hillsides) and
Subarea 6 where construction-related impacts to existing vegetation may outweigh cleanup
benefits. Remediation of these areas will rely primarily on the use of surface and
institutional controls.
Revegetation treatment techniques will also be used to reduce soil arsenic concentrations to
below 1,000 ppm, with some exceptions, in future or potential commercial or industrial
areas. This generally includes the following areas:
.
The area north of the ball fields, Teressa Ann Terrace, and floodplain
tailings south of the inactive railroad spur in Subarea 3;
.
The area north and northwest of the Arbiter Plant, the Old Works Tailings
Ponds, and the Arbiter Waste Ponds in Subarea 4; and
.
The area west of the highway in the Mill Creek area (Figure 21).
Upon development of these areas, additional cleanup will be required through the DPS to
attain a level of 500 ppm. The total estimated area for additional revegetation is
approximately 40 acres. Additionally, any current commercial or industrial area will require
immediate reduction of soil arsenic concentrations to below 500 ppm.
An engineered cover will be constructed over portions of the Waste Piles 1-8, Jig Tailings
and Heap Roast Slag in Subareas 1 and 2, and portions of the Red Sands in Subarea 4. Prior
to cover placement, the waste materials will be consolidated as practical. Also crushed
limestone would be placed near the drag strip grandstands in Subarea 6. The total
engineered cover area is approximately 110 acres.
Proposed Alternative for Mill Creek Operable Unit
The Mill Creek area was identified by ADL as a potential commercial/industrial area and has
been zoned as such in the Anaconda-Deer Lodge Master Plan. A portion of the Mill Creek
OU was proposed for inclusion in the Preferred Alternative for the OW/EADA OU since the
anticipated land uses and site characteristics of this au are similar to areas in the
aW/EADA au (Figure 21). EPA is proposing to remediate a portion of the Mill Creek
area along with the aw IEADA au.
Record of Decisioo OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fmldd-czvb
DS-41
-------
"
OW fEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
The Mill Creek OU was previously assessed under a'RIfFS completed in September 1987 by
ARCO. The ROD directed that Mill Creek residents be permanently relocated and that the
buildings and structures be razed. This action occurred in 1988.
A decision to remediate flue dust located on Smelter Hill, thought to provide a primary
source of contamination to the Mill Creek area, has been finalized and the remedial action is
currently underway. The Mill Creek site is currently fenced and patrolled with use restricted
until a final response action is taken at the site.
Included with the OWfEADA RIfFS is the Mill Creek Addendum (Volume VI)
(ARCO 1993a). This addendum summarizes the status of the Mill Creek OU, including
sample results from data collected in July 1993. Unlike the previous FS, which addressed
only remedial alternatives for residential land use, this addendum provides an analysis of
three remedial alternatives for recreational and commercialfindustrialland uses for
approximately 40 acres west of Highway 274 (Figure 21). Residential land use would not be
permitted under any of the alternatives.
The three alternatives considered were: (1) no action; (2) revegetation treatment techniques;
and (3) construction of engineered soil cover. Institutional controls, surface controls, and
monitoring (as previously described) were included with each of these alternatives.
Description of Alternatives Considered for Mill Creek Operable Unit
Alternative JL: No Action
Estimated present worth cost: $0
Implementation time: 0 years
Superfund law requires that agencies consider the "no action" alternative. This alternative is
used as a baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. Under Alternative 1, no
further action would be undertaken at the Mill Creek site. The potential for direct human
and environmental contact with contaminated soils and waste materials would not be reduced
from present conditions. The existing potential for metals migration to surface and ground
water and fugitive emissions from wastes and contaminated soils would also remain
unchanged. Only the fence already installed would limit trespasser access to the site.
Development activities on the site would be regulated by the ADL's adopted land use Master
Plan and land use regulations of the DPS.
Alternative 2
Estimated present worth cost: $0.4 million
Implementation time: 2 years
This alternative uses revegetation treatment techniques that utilize soil amendments (lime,
reducing agent, neutralizing agent, or other material), deep tilling as necessary, and
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8,fmldd-czvb
DS-42
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
revegetation to limit the mobility and direct exposure to inorganic constituents in the
impacted soils media. Although soils/waste would remain in place, protection of human
health would be achieved by the use of these techniques to provide a vegetation cover to
create a barrier to soils/wastes and to reduce the toxicity and/or mobility of metals at the
surface. Protection of the environment would be accomplished by the same barriers in
combination with surface controls to reduce potential infiltration, erosion, and sedimentation
runoff from the site.
Alternative 3
Estimated present worth cost: $0.7 million
Implementation time: 2 years
This alternative would involve installation of an engineered vegetated soil cover to create a
barrier to contaminated soils and wastes, thus reducing toxicity and/or mobility of metals at
the surface and minimizing human exposure to these materials. Protection to the
environment would be accomplished by the same barriers in combination with surface
controls to reduce potential infiltration, erosion, and runoff from the site.
Preferred Alternative
EPA's Preferred Alternative for Mill Creek is Alternative 2, the use of revegetation
treatment techniques to revegetate the site.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fml dd-czvb
DS-43
'--'.... .._~ ..' .".... - .
-------
"4
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUM:MARY
Vill. SUM:MARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 300.430(e)(9) of the NCP requires that the agencies evaluate and compare the
remedial cleanup alternatives based on the nine criteria listed below. The first two criteria,
(1) overall protection of human health and the environment and (2) compliance with
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), are threshold criteria that must
be met for the Selected Remedy. The Selected Remedy must then represent the best balance
of the remaining primary balancing and modifying criteria.
Evaluation and Comparison Criteria
Threshold Criteria
1.
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a
remedy provides adequate protection and describes how potential risks posed through
each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or institutional controls.
2.
Compliance with ap,plicable or relevant and appropriate requirements addresses
whether or not a remedy will comply with identified federal and state environmental
laws and regulations.
Primary Balancing Criteria
3.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time.
4.
Reduction of toxicity. mobility and volume through treatment refers to the degree that
the remedy reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contamination.
5.
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to complete the remedy
and any adverse impact on human health and the environment that may be posed
during the construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.
6.
Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,
including the availability of materials and services needed to carry out a particular
option.
7.
Cost evaluates the estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and
present worth costs of each alternative.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8" fm/ dd-czvb
DS-44
~. n_.n_.. . ...-.
""--"'-.".- -....-. .
.-- -. -. - -... '" _...-._-
-------
-~
OW/EADA OU ROD - OECISION SUMMARY
Modifying Criteria
8.
State aCeta'tance indicates whether the State (MDHES) concurs with, opposes, or has
no comment on the preferred alternative.
9.
Community acceptance is based on whether community concerns are addressed by the
Selected Remedy and whether or not the community has a preference for a remedy.
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives for OW /EADA ODerable Unit
The following is a summary of the agencies' evaluation and comparison of alternatives.
Additional detail evaluating the alternatives is presented in the FS. This comparative analysis
is summarized in Table 20.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
--
All the alternatives, except Alternative 1 (no action), would provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment. Because the "no action" alternative is not protective of
human health and the environment, it is not considered further in this analysis as an option
for this site.
Although waste materials and contaminated soils would remain on site, residual risks would
generally be reduced under all action alternatives to achieve protection of human health via:
.
The use of engineered covers to provide a barrier to wastes; and/or
.
The use of revegetation treatment techniques to reduce the surface
concentrations; and/or
.
The use of institutional controls to restrict access to contaminated materials.
Risks under all alternatives would be reduced for recreational and occupational users at the
site to within EP A's acceptable risk range by isolating waste sources and reducing soil
contaminant concentrations to levels determined not to pose a health or environmental risk or
by restricting human contact with untreated waste.
Environmentally, covers and vegetation would also reduce runoff and infiltration and thereby
improve plant coverage and terrestrial wildlife populations. Protection of Warm Springs
Creek would be achieved through on-site control of runoff and sediment. The site would be
protected against flooding by upgrading the levees along Warm Springs Creek and replacing
the Landfill Road culvert to safely route flows up to the loo-year peak flood event.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/ owrod8 .fm! dd-czvb
DS-45
.. ~. -. ....-._~ ...
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
The primary difference between the alternatives is the increased protectiveness provided by a
progressively greater application of revegetation treatment and engineered covers (Table 19).
Alternative 5 provides the greatest overall protection to human health and the environment
with respect to the total areas revegetated and covered (675 and 205 acres, respectively).
Alternative 4 provides the next greatest total area with 660 acres revegetated and 50 acres
covered. However, the Preferred Alternative provides greater protection than Alternatives 2,
3, and 4 by covering the Red Sands which contain some of the highest contaminant
concentrations at the site. Alternatives 2 and 3 are also less protective since smaller areas
are revegetated and covered.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
All of the action alternatives would comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate
federal and state environmental laws and regulations for the site. Although Alternative 5
would meet ARARs, it would have the greatest impact on historical resources by covering all
Red Sands and Heap Roast Slag.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All alternatives are expected to achieve a permanent reduction of soil concentrations through
the use of revegetation treatment techniques and/or provide long-term permanence through
the effective use of engineered covers. In addition to engineering controls, all alternatives
would utilize a long-term maintenance and monitoring program, supplemented by institutional
controls, to ensure reliability, long-term effectiveness, and permanence. Institutional controls
would include public and private land use controls, ground water controls, dedicated
developments, historic site preservation, restricted site access, and deed restrictions.
The Preferred Alternative, together with Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, have a distinct advantage
over Alternative 2 for long-term effectiveness because Alternative 2 leaves more waste
unremediated.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment
All of the action alternatives utilize treatment to reduce the toxicity and mobility of
contaminants in soil. Revegetation treatment utilizes techniques such as lime additions, soil
amendments, and deep tilling to reduce the toxicity and mobility of contaminants in surface
soil. None of the alternatives would reduce the volume of soil or waste materials.
Since the most extensive use of revegetation treatment techniques would be conducted in
Alternatives 4 and 5, these alternatives have an advantage over the remaining action
alternatives (Table 19).
Record of Dccisioo OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmidd-czvb
DS-46
-------
.~
OW IEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
Short-term Effectiveness
All of the action alternatives will result in potential short-term risks to the community from
increased truck traffic during the transport of cover, treatment, and other materials as well as
incidental increases in dust generated during construction of surface controls and engineered
and vegetation covers. Fugitive dust will be monitored and controlled.
For all action alternatives, exposure of workers would be controlled through the use of
appropriate engineering controls, such as dust suppression, protective equipment as necessary
and work health and safety training programs. Other risks to workers will be limited to
standard construction risks associated with similar projects.
Environmental impacts for all alternatives are expected to be limited. Any existing
vegetation or riparian habitat removed during construction would be replaced. The potential
for discharge of waste materials to Warm Springs Creek during construction would be
minimized through the use of sedimentation basins, silt fences, and other appropriate
protective measures as necessary.
The time required to complete construction and reclamation activities is expected to be 2
years for Alternatives 2 and 3, and 3 years for the Preferred Alternative and Alternatives 4
and 5.
All alternatives will utilize surface and institutional controls in Subarea 1 to minimize
impacts to historical structures and reduce erosional impacts to the hillside caused by
construction activities. Similarly, in Subarea 6, with the exception of Alternative 5, surface
and institutional controls will be utilized to reduce impacts to trees and shrubs which might
otherwise be damaged by construction activities.
Alternatives 2 and 3 have an advantage over the Preferred Alternative and Alternatives 4 and
5 in the time needed to complete construction. Alternative 5 is also less effective due to
potential environmental impacts to trees and shrubs in Subarea 6.
Implementability
All action alternatives are technically feasible and would utilize standard construction
techniques and materials. Adequate quantities of suitable soil material for covers would have
to be identified, particularly for Alternative 5. The Preferred Alternative may also require
significant amounts of soil for covers.
Institutional controls would also need to be sufficiently funded in order to be properly
implemented for each of the alternatives. ADL is already actively developing the necessary
controls to supplement and protect engineering controls proposed under the Preferred
Alternative. Therefore, EP A believes that the institutional control component of the
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-47
-------
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
Preferred Alternative is implementable. EP A will m'onitor this closely and implement
additional active measures if any institutional controls fail.
The Preferred Alternative and Alternatives 4 and 5 are rated slightly lower than
Alternatives 2 and 3 because of the uncertainty regarding the availability of sufficient soil
cover.
Cost
Cost figures in Table 18 represent the total cost of the remedy over time, including operation
and maintenance (O&M), at today's prices. This is referred to as present worth cost. Cost
estimates for the alternatives range from $9.0 million (Alternative 2) to $14.0 million
(Alternative 5). The Preferred Alternative is estimated to cost $11.4 million.
State Accep1tance
MDHES has been consulted throughout this process and is in agreement with EP A on the
selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Community Acceptance
Public comment on the RIfFS and Proposed Plan was solicited during a formal public
comment period extending from September 23, 1993 to October 22, 1993. Comments
received from the community indicate widespread support for the Preferred Alternative.
Responses to the community comments are found in the Responsiveness Summary. ARCO
generally supported the Preferred Alternative, although they did not support an engineered
cover on the Red Sands.
ComDarative Analvsis of Alternatives for Mill Creek ODerable Unit
The following is a summary of the agencies' evaluation and comparison of alternatives for
the Mill Creek Site. A comparative matrix is provided in Table 21 to summarize the
evaluation of the performance of the alternatives for each of the evaluation criteria.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment. Because the "no action" alternative is not protective of human health and the
environment, it is not considered further in this analysis as an option for the site.
Although contaminated soils would remain on site under both alternatives, residual risks
would be greatly reduced through the creation of a protective barrier and/or reduction of
toxicity at the surface. Protection of the environment would be accomplished by the same
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-c:zvb
DS-48
_. _0. ----.. -..
--"-..... .---------.-.-.... ..
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
protective barriers in combination with surface controls to reduce infiltration, erosion, and
runoff from the site.
The primary difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 is the increased protectiveness provided
by an engineered vegetative cover constructed of clean fIll material (Alternative 3) versus the
protectiveness provided by soil amendments, deep tilling, and a vegetative cover provided by
Alternative 2.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Alternatives 2 and 3 would comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and
state environmental laws and regulations for the site.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence of Alternatives 2 and 3 would be achieved through
the establishment of a self-sustaining cover of vegetation. A long-term maintenance program
would be necessary under both alternatives to maintain adequate vegetation cover and surface
controls. Institutional controls would provide necessary limitations on land use, development
and access. Alternative 3 provides increased long-term effectiveness and permanence over
Alternative 2 since the potential for failure resulting in an increased risk to human health
and/or the environment is considered less for an engineered cover than revegetation
treatment.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment
Alternative 2 would provide limited reduction in the toxicity and mobility of metals in
contaminated soils. Although volume would not be reduced under this alternative, the
toxicity and mobility of metals in contaminated soils treated by the addition of soil
amendments and/or deep tilling methods would be reduced to levels supporting healthy and
sustainable plant growth. Alternative 3 would not utilize treatment.
Short-term Effectiveness
Alternative 2 provides greater short-term protectiveness than Alternative 3 due primarily to
the time needed for implementing revegetation treatment techniques at the site versus the
time required for construction of an engineered cap. Furthermore, Alternative 3
demonstrates greater short-term risk due to increased truck traffic on public roadways during
the transport of cover materials. Risks would be minimized under both alternatives by the
implementation of an appropriate site-specific health and safety plan. The potential for a
temporary increase in risk due to the particulate emissions during grading, soil cover
placement and reclamation activities would be controlled through the use of appropriate dust
suppression techniques under both alternatives.
Record of Decision aWIEADA au
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-49
-------
.~
OW fEADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
Implementability
Alternatives 2 and 3 are technically feasible and would utilize standard construction
techniques and materials. Adequate quantities of suitable soil material for covers would have
to be identified for Alternative 3, a disadvantage compared to Alternative 2.
Cost
A comparison of alternatives presented in Table 20 indicates the present worth cost for
Alternative 2 is $0.4 million, and the present worth cost for Alternative 3 is $0.7 million.
State Acceptance
MDHES has been consulted throughout this process and is in agreement with EP A on the
selection of Alternative 2 as the preferred remedy.
Community Acceptance
Public comment on the Mill Creek Addendum to the RIfFS and Proposed Plan was solicited
during a formal public comment period extending from September 23, 1993 to October 22,
1993. Comments received from the community indicate overwhelming support for the
preferred remedy. Responses to the community comments are found in the Responsiveness
Summary .
Record of Decision OWIEADA au
0308294/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
DS-50
. ..- ... .--.----- .pO
-------
.~
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
IX.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of CERCLA requirements, the detailed analysis of alternatives, and
public comments, EP A and MDHES have determined that the Preferred Alternative as
presented in the Proposed Plan, with modifications, is the appropriate remedy for the
aW/EADA QU, including the Mill Creek au. This Selected Remedy will achieve the
following:
.
Reduction of risk to human health through:
Reduction of surface soil arsenic concentrations to acceptable levels,
and
Prevention of direct human contact with waste materials exceeding
acceptable levels.
.
Reduction of risk to the environment through:
Minimization of infiltration and deep percolation of metal-laden pore
water to ground water, and
Minimization of erosion and metal loading via transport of waste and
contaminated soil to Warm Springs Creek.
.
Preservation, to the extent practical, of historic features at the site.
While certain other alternatives may better satisfy certain individual selection criteria, the
Selected Remedy best meets the entire range of selection criteria and achieves, in the
determination of both EPA and MDHES, the appropriate balance considering site-specific
conditions and criteria identified in CERCLA and the NCP, as provided in Section X,
Statutory Determinations. The Selected Remedy is generally illustrated in Figure 22. Final
areas of remediation will be determined in Remedial Design. The Selected Remedy provides
the following:
Remedv for Waste Sources
The Selected Remedy will address all remaining waste sources within the site, including the
following:
Red Sands
Floodplain Wastes (Jig Tailings)
Heap Roast Slag
Miscellaneous Waste Piles (including Waste Piles 1-8)
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
03082941 owrod8. fml dd-czvb
DS-51
. ~-"'_. ,.-.
-_.~.__.__. -..
-------
OW /EADA OU ROD -bECISION SUMMARY
Upper and' Lower Works Demolition Debris
Flue Debris
Railroad Beds
Mixed Wastes
Engineered covers and/or revegetation treatment techniques will be used to reduce surface
arsenic concentrations to below the recreational action level of 1,000 ppm in current and
potential recreational use areas and potential commercial/industrial use areas. Wastes
generally exceeding 1,000 ppm arsenic include the Red Sands, Jig Tailings, Miscellaneous
Waste Piles, Heap Roast Slag, Mixed Wastes, and Railroad Beds.
An engineered cover, generally soil, will be used to prevent direct human contact with waste
sources in areas where revegetation treatment techniques alone will not reduce arsenic
concentrations to below the recreational action level (1,000 ppm). Revegetation treatment
techniques such as deep tilling, lime additions and soil amendments will be used if proven
effective to reduce arsenic concentrations to below 1,000 ppm, stabilize waste material, and
promote a permanent vegetative cover. Wastes will be consolidated and graded as necessary
to reduce infiltration and control runoff (minimize erosion).
Portions of the Red Sands and Heap Roast Slag will remain uncovered to preserve historic
integrity at the site. Also, wastes associated with historic structures in Subarea 1 will be left
in place and uncovered because of inaccessibility and limited land use. Institutional controls,
discussed below, will be used when wastes are left uncovered to minimize human contact by
restricting access and regulating land use at the site. Drainage controls will be used to
minimize runoff in Subarea 1.
All current commercial/industrial areas will be remediated to the 500 ppm arsenic action
level. Future remediation of arsenic contamination to the 500 ppm level in potential
commercial/industrial use areas will be implemented through the ADL DPS (see institutional
controls below) at the time development occurs, except as otherwise determined by EPA,
MDHES, in consultation with the affected landowner.
Remedy for Soils
Revegetation treatment techniques have been selected as the remedy to reduce arsenic
concentrations in contaminated soils exceeding 1,000 ppm in current and potential
recreational areas. Revegetation treatment techniques will also be used, as appropriate, in
potential commercial/industrial areas, including Mill Creek. Revegetation treatment
techniques, such as deep tilling with lime and soil amendments, will be used to reduce
surface concentrations to below the recreational action level of 1,000 ppm arsenic, stabilize
contaminants, and create a suitable growth medium for a permanent vegetative cover.
Revegetation treatment techniques and/or engineered covers will be used to reduce arsenic
concentrations in contaminated soils exceeding 500 ppm in current commercial/industrial
Record of Decisioo OWfEADA OU
0308294fowrod8, fmf dd-czvb
DS-52
- "-.. ".-." - _. ----
.-----.'"....-.."
-_.. ....-..-... -." .
-------
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
areas. Final remediation of arsenic contamination in commercial/industrial areas to the
action level of 500 ppm will be implemented through the ADL DPS (see institutional controls
below) at the time development occurs, except as otherwise determined by EPA, MDHES, in
consultation with the affected landowner.
Surface Controls
Surface controls will be implemented to manage surface water runoff from Stuckey Ridge
(drainage through Old Works areas), Smelter Hill (drainage through East Anaconda Yard
area), and within the site (drainage from Heap Roast Slag, Red Sands and other waste
sources). Surface controls will be implemented in conjunction with site grading and
revegetation to prevent contaminated runoff from degrading the existing water quality of
Warm Springs Creek and minimize the migration of contaminated soils and/or metal-laden
pore water. Surface controls include three primary components (erosion control, drainage
control, and dust control):
.
Erosion control will consist of erosion protection (e.g., riprap, lined ditches,
and vegetation), waste consolidation or isolation, sedimentation containment
(e.g., check dams, basins), and runoff management (e.g., runoff routing);
.
Drainage controls will be implemented to control storm water runoff, minimize
water ponding to reduce infiltration, and control sediment transport. In
addition to the erosion controls above, existing and man-made drainage
systems for Stuckey Ridge and the East Yard Area will be upgraded as
necessary to safely route the appropriate design storm event. Open pits and
depressions that are subject to water ponding will be backfilled and/or drainage
routed away; and
.
Dust control in disturbed or barren areas will be addressed through the use of
vegetation and other dust suppression techniques as necessary.
Stream Channel Controls
The Warm Springs Creek flood levees will be replaced, upgraded, or repaired as necessary
to safely route the lOO-year peak flood event. Contaminated material susceptible to erosion
will be covered or moved where necessary. This work will also include replacement,
upgrade, or repair of the existing Landfill Road bridge and culverts. The Warm Springs
Creek stream channel controls will be implemented to prevent the washout of waste material
at the site.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/ owrod8. fu>ldd-czvb
DS-53
. ..'" ..--. .~.- .~-
. '..-" ....~ u-...
-------
OW/EADA OU ROD -"DECISION SUMMARY
Institutional Controls
A number of institutional controls will be used in conjunction with the above engineering
controls, primarily public land use and ground water controls, controls through private land
ownership, dedicated developments, and restricted access.
ADL has adopted a land use Master Plan and the DPS to control future actions at the site
including the drilling of wells. Any proposed new development activity or land use
anywhere on the site, such as drilling wells, excavation, or new construction, will be
regulated by the County under the DPS, irrespective of land ownership. The DPS will:
.
Assure that future land and water use at the site is consistent with EPA's
determination of the health and environmental risks posed by contaminants left
on site;
.
Provide for the preservation and maintenance of Superfund remedial structures
on the site, including but not limited to caps, berms, waste repositories and
vegetated areas;
.
Require that future development at the site employ construction practices that
are consistent with the protection of public health and the environment, as
determined by Superfund remedial actions;
.
As development occurs at the site, implement the remediation of soil arsenic
contamination to levels appropriate for the intended use, as determined by
Superfund remedial actions; and
.
Provide for implementation of other laws applicable to development, such as
subdivision and floodplain requirements.
Institutional controls will also be imposed by means of deed restriction within the site. Deed
restrictions, covenants, and/or easements will be implemented to limit future uses by any
party to those consistent with the Selected Remedy. In addition to imposing requirements
similar to those in the DPS, deed restrictions shall provide for access for remedial purposes
to ARCO, EPA, and MDHES. Subsequent conveyances of the property shall impose the
same deed restrictions.
Temporary ground water use restrictions will be imposed to prevent its use for drinking
purposes. Other uses will be granted only by EPA and MDHES if deemed protective.
Ground and surface water restrictions promulgated pursuant to the OW /EADA remedial
action will be subject to revision based upon the EPA ROD for the ARWW OU. Additional
institutional controls, such as establishment of State controlled ground water areas, may be
imposed at that time.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fml dd-czvb
DS-54
-------
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECIS.ION.SUMMARY
Dedicated developments may also be used to ensure that land and water development is
consistent with the aW/EADA remedy. Such developments may include a golf course. To
ensure that dedicated developments do not interfere with Superfund remedial actions at the
site, design approval shall be obtained from EPA and MDHES. Other developments will be
regulated through the DPS.
Historic Preservation
The Regional Historic Preservation Plan (RHPP), developed by a variety of parties, including
EPA, MDHES, the State Historical Preservation Officer, ARCa, and local historic groups,
has identified arid designated uses for certain cultural historic resources within the site.
These resources include the remains from the Upper and Lower Works, the Interstate
Lumber buildings, Red Sands, and Heap Roast Slag. Consistent with the RHPP the Selected
Remedy will provide for the protection of certain resources to the maximum extent possible
and mitigate the loss or impact to others.
Foundations and remains in the Upper and Lower Works along with certain waste piles will
be avoided where practicable, as well as the Interstate Lumber buildings. However, the
majority of the Red Sands and Heap Roast Slag will be consolidated, graded, and covered.
A portion of these features will remain uncovered in order to preserve the historic integrity
of the site.
To mitigate the loss of some historic features, including impacts to the Red Sands and Heap
Roast Slag,. a historic interpretive trail will be constructed on the site to provide controlled
access to remaining historic features, as well as interpretive signs explaining the significance
of these features to the mining and smelting history of the area. Access will be restricted to
covered trails through the area. Access to other areas, including areas not fully remediated,
will be restricted through the use of fencing, barriers, security systems, or other means.
Compliance Monitorine Proeram
A program for monitoring the remedial actions and determining compliance with the
performance standards will be implemented during the remedial action. Based on the fact
that the soil cleanup levels established in this ROD are health-based standards for recreational
and occupational land use (and do not provide for unlimited use with unrestricted exposure
because waste materials will remain on site) and due to the fact that the cleanup is expected
to take several years to complete, the Selected Remedy will require a five-year review under
Section 121(c) of CERCLA and Section 300.430(t)(4)(ii) of the NCP, as well as applicable
guidance to assure the long-term effectiveness of the remedy.
Design testing demonstration plots and/or confirmation sampling will be necessary to verify
that soil arsenic levels have been reduced to acceptable levels. Inspection of areas of
revegetation will be required to ensure that adequate and sustainable vegetative cover is
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. ftnidd-czvb
DS-55
-------
OW /EADA OU ROD ":1)ECISION SUMMARY
maintained upon completion of the remedy to minimize the effect of erosion, as well as to
minimize infiltration and mobilization of metals capable of percolating to ground water.
Routine visual inspection of engineered covers and other remedial structures will be
necessary to detect any areas requiring maintenance in advance of failure. Strategic ground
water monitoring wells and surface water stations will continue to be monitored under Q&M
or the ARWW OU investigation to determine whether degradation of ground and surface
water resources at the site is occurring during implementation and upon completion of the
Selected Remedy.
Institutional controls will be reviewed by EPA and/or MDHES on a routine basis to ensure
that development at the site is occurring in a protective manner.
Cost
The total present worth cost of the Selected Remedy in the OW /EADA QU was estimated at
$14.2 million (Table 22). The estimated present worth cost of the Selected Remedy for the
Mill Creek site was estimated to be $0.4 million.
Remediation Requirements
The remediation requirements for soils and waste material is to reduce surface arsenic
concentrations to below health standards for existing or designated future land use. Since no
federal or state ARARs exist for arsenic in soils or waste material, action levels were
determined based upon the site-specific baseline risk assessment. Arsenic action levels for
surficial soils and waste materials have been determined to be l, 000 ppm for recreational
land use and 500 ppm for industrial/commercial land use. These levels are within EPA's
acceptable risk range of 1E-04 to 1E-06.
As noted previously in this document, final remediation requirements for surface and ground
water at the OW /EADA OU are not within the scope of this action, but rather will be
determined under the ARWW QU. However, remediation goals for this project do include
(1) minimizing infiltration and deep percolation of soil moisture through contaminated waste
material which may cause degradation of existing ground water quality in the shallow alluvial
aquifer; and (2) minimizing erosion and transport of contaminated soil and waste material
which may cause degradation of existing surface water quality of Warm Springs Creek.
The specific remediation requirements for the Selected Remedy are:
.
Reduce arsenic concentrations at the surface to below 1,000 ppm using a
combination of revegetation treatment techniques and! or engineered
covers.
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
0308294/ owrod8. fml dd-czvb
DS-56
...".- "... ..,.." ...",. ..-..'. '..
-------
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION .SUMMARY
Revegetation techniques, which may include deep tilling, lime additions
and soil amendments, shall reduce surface soil arsenic concentrations to
below 1,000 ppm and establish a diverse, effective, and permanent
vegetative cover.
Engineered covers shall be designed to provide an effective and
permanent barrier to waste materials. Soil covers shall be stabilized
with revegetation that provides a diverse, effective, and permanent
cover.
Waste sources associated with structures in Subarea 1 are excluded in
order to preserve the historic integrity at the site.
.
Reduce arsenic concentrations at the surface to below 500 ppm in current
industrial or commercial areas using a combination of revegetation
techniques and/or engineered covers.
Revegetation techniques, which may include deep tilling, lime
additions, and soil amendments, shall reduce surface soil arsenic
concentrations to below 500 ppm and establish a diverse, effective, and
permanent vegetative cover.
Engineered covers shall be designed to provide an effective and
permanent barrier to waste materials. Soil covers shall be stabilized
with revegetation that provides a diverse, effective, and permanent
cover.
.
Minimize any discharge, seepage, infiltration, or flow from waste sources
(i.e., Miscellaneous Waste Piles, Heap Roast Slag, Jig Tailings, and Red
Sands) to prevent the degradation of existing water quality by
consolidating and grading wastes, surface controls and using a
combination of vegetative and/or engineered covers.
Consolidation and grading shall reduce areas of infiltration and promote
drainage off of or away from waste materials while minimizing
sedimentation, erosion, and instability of waste materials.
Surface controls shall be designed using Best Management Practices,
such as described in Montana Sediment and Erosion Control Manual,
MDHES, May 1993 (MDHES 1993), to control storm water runoff
from the site to Warm Springs Creek.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrOO8. fu1idd-czvb
DS-57
.. -.,.. ~- - ..-. .- .
-------
OW!EADA OU ROD ':''':DECISION SUMMARY
Vegetative covers shall be designed to stabilize soil covers and reduce
infiltration through evapotranspiration.
.
Minimize washout of waste materials from the Warm Springs Creek 100-
year peak flood event through the upgrade or repair of levees adjacent to
Warm Springs Creek and the replacement of existing culverts as necessary
to safely pass the l00-year flood event.
Stream channel controls shall be designed and constructed to minimize
potential erosion from a flood of lOO-year frequency as well as safely
withstand up to a flood of lOO-year frequency.
Stream channel controls shall be designed to not increase the elevation
of the lOO-year frequency flood, increase erosion upstream,
downstream, or across stream.
.
Institutional controls shall be developed to restrict and manage future land
and ground water use.
Assure that future land and water use at the site is consistent with
EPA's determination of the health and environmental risks posed by
contaminants left on site;
Provide for the preservation and maintenance of Superfund remedial
structures on the site, including but not limited to caps, berms, waste
repositories, and vegetated areas;
Require that future development at the site employ construction
practices that are consistent with the protection of public health and the
environment, as determined by Superfund remedial actions;
As development occurs at the site, implement the remediation of soil
arsenic contamination to levels appropriate for the intended use, as
determined by Superfund remedial actions; and
Provide for implementation of other laws applicable to development,
such as subdivision and floodplain requirements.
.
Preserve, to the extent practicable, historic features in the Old Works
Historic District and! or mitigate loss of historic features pursuant to the
approved historic resource mitigation agreements.
Record of Decision OW/EAD~ OU
0308294/ owrod8. fml dd-czvb
DS-58
-------
.~
OW /EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUl\1MARY
Design and construction shall avoid, to the extent practicable, historic
features or design to maintain historic integrity.
An Historic Trail System shall be designed and constructed to mitigate
the unavoidable loss of or impact to historic features.
Contineency Measures
In the event institutional controls fail to meet remediation requirements identified in the
ROD, additional measures (e.g., engineering controls or other institutional controls which
may prohibit access and/or development) will be taken to assure protection of the remedy and
protection of public health and the environment.
Treatment of soils, via revegetation treatment techniques, is fully expected to meet
remediation requirements. However, if the remedial design or action phase indicates that this
treatment will not reduce soil arsenic levels to below the appropriate action level, additional
measures (e.g., soil removal, covers) will be taken as necessary to meet this requirement.
In the event the Old Works golf course is selected as a dedicated development, the golf
course will be constructed to incorporate engineering controls required by the Selected
Remedy to meet the remediation requiremerits. In addition to these engineering controls,
impermeable or drainage layers may be required to prevent irrigation water from contacting
waste materials. Monitoring will be designated in the O&M plan to evaluate impacts of golf
course irrigation.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. flDldd-czvb
DS-59
-------
.... - ....- -
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
x.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, EPA must select a remedy that is protective of human health
and the environment, complies withARARs, is cost-effective, and utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that
include treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous wastes as a principal element. The following sections discuss how the
Selected Remedy meets these statutory requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The Selected Remedy protects human health and the environment through reduction of
toxicity and mobility of contaminants at the site. The Selected Remedy balances the use of
engineered covers, revegetation treatment technology, and institutional controls to effectively
reduce direct contact, ingestion, and inhalation of all contaminants, but particularly arsenic,
to reduce risk to less than 7E-05, which is within EPA's acceptable risk range of lE-04 to
lE-06.
Engineered covers will be used to prevent contact with the highest concentrated wastes at the
site, including Red Sands, Jig Tailings, and Miscellaneous Waste Piles. Risks at these
sources will be effectively reduced to close to lE-06 with the use of clean cover material.
Although some of these wastes will remain uncovered (for historic integrity), access to and
use of the area will be actively managed through institutional controls and/or dedicated
developments to effectively reduce contact with these wastes.
Revegetation treatment technology will be used to reduce the toxicity of arsenic and other
contaminants in contaminated soils to at least a risk level of 7E-05 through the use of deep
tilling, soil amendments, and lime. Deep tilling demonstrated contaminant reductions of 30
to 86 percent in the Mill Creek RI report (ARC a 1987). Soil amendments and lime will not
only reduce the toxicity of contaminants in the soil, but will also reduce the mobility of
contaminants and stabilize the soil such that a permanent vegetative cover can be achieved.
Environmentally, engineered covers and revegetation will significantly reduce infiltration and
minimize the loading of contaminants to ground water as well as reduce erosional effects and
the release of contaminants through surface water runoff. In addition to covers and
revegetation, other surface controls (i.e., sedimentation controls and runoff routing) will
further minimize contaminants from impacting Warm Springs Creek. Stream channel
controls (i.e., dikes, levees) will prevent flood waters from eroding contaminants into Warm
Spring Creek.
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
0308294/ owrod8. fm! dd-czvb
DS-60
.-. ~...... -. ..... - ...
-.. ._n. -. .
-------
.~
OWfEADA OU ROD - -DECISION SUMMARY
There are no short-term threats associated with the Selected Remedy that cannot be readily
controlled through applicable health and safety requirements, monitoring, and standard
construction practices.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The Selected Remedy will comply with all ARARs identified in Appendix A to this ROD and
as clarified in the RIfFS. No waiver of ARARs is expected to be necessary. Final
Performance Standards and compliance points will be determined in Remedial Design.
Cost Effectiveness
EP A and MDHES have determined that the Selected Remedy is cost effective in mitigating
the principal risks posed by contaminated wastes and soils. Section 300.430(f)(ii)(D) of the
NCP requires evaluation of cost effectiveness. Overall effectiveness is determined by the
following three balancing criteria: long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of
toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment; and short-term effectiveness. Overall
effectiveness is then compared to cost to ensure that the remedy is cost effective. The
Selected Remedy meets the criteria and provides for overall effectiveness in proportion to its
cost. The estimated cost for the Selected Remedy is $14.6 million.
To the extent that the estimated cost of the Selected Remedy exceeds the cost for other
alternatives, the difference in cost is reasonable when related to the greater overall
effectiveness achieved by the Selected Remedy.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technoloeies (or Resource
Recovery Technolo2ies) to the Maximum Extent Possible
EP A and MDHES have determined that the Selected Remedy represents the maximum extent
to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective
manner at the OWfEADA OU. Of those alternatives that are protective of human health and
the environment and comply with ARARs, EP A and MDHES have determined that the
Selected Remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term effectiveness
and permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved through treatment,
short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost, while also considering the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element and considering state and community
acceptance.
While the Selected Remedy does not provide revegetation treatment to the extent that of
Alternative 5, it will significantly reduce risks to within EPA's acceptable risk range. The
Selected Remedy will have less short-term impact to areas already supporting vegetation,
trees, and shrubs which would be eliminated under Alternative 5. Furthermore, these areas,
if developed, would be remediated under ADL's DPS. The Selected Remedy will also not
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/ owrod8. fmJ dd-czvb
DS-61
__H....'.---- .. .... .
. -. --.. -".--."-.--."
'.""""'" ,...-'.'
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
cover portions of waste features in order to preserve some historical integrity of the site in
compliance with ARARs. Any soils or waste material not covered or revegetated will be
actively managed through the use of institutional controls.
The Selected Remedy includes treatment of contaminated soils which will permanently and
significantly reduce the toxicity and mobility of contaminants contained in the soil.
Engineered covers, particularly where used in conjunction with a dedicated development, will
also permanently prevent contact with the waste materials that pose a principal threat. The
Selected Remedy provides for the most effective use of engineered covers in consideration of
potential dedicated developments which provide a greater degree of certainty and
effectiveness. The use of engineered covers under the Selected Remedy may exceed the use
of engineered covers proposed under Alternative 5.
Preference for Treatment as a Princioal Element
By treating contaminated soils through revegetation treatment techniques, the Selected
Remedy addresses one of the principal threats posed by the site through the use of treatment
technologies. Therefore, the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element is satisfied.
R~ord of D~isioo OW/EADA OU
0308294/ owrod8 .fmldd-clNb
DS-62
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
XII.
REFERENCES
Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO). 1987. Mill Creek Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Final Remedial Investigation Report, Mill Creek, Montana, Anaconda Smelter
Superfund Site, First Operable Unit prepared by Anaconda Minerals Company for EPA. .
September 1987.
ARCO. 1990. Smelter Hill Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Phytotoxicity, Surface
Water and Ground water Investigations Data Summary/Data Validation/Data Usability
Report. prepared by PTI Environmental Services for ARCO. November 1990.
ARCO. 1991a. Old Works Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Data Summary/Data
Validation/Data Usability Report, prepared by PTI Environmental Services for ARCO. June
1991.
ARCO. 1991b. Smelter Hill Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Data Summary/Data
Validation/Data Usability Report, prepared by PTI Environmental Services for ARCO.
September 1991.
ARCO. 1992a. 1991 Preliminary Site Characterization for the Anaconda Regional Water
and Waste Operable Unit, prepared by Environmental Science & Engineering for ARCO.
March 2, 1992.
ARCO. 1992b. Clark Fork Basin Standard Operating Procedure, prepared by Canonie
Environmental Services for ARCO. September 1992.
ARCO. 1993a. Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, Old Works/East Anaconda
Development Area Operable Unit, Remedial Investigation Report, prepared by PTI
Environmental Services for ARCO. September 1993.
ARCO. 1993b. Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area
Operable Unit, Remedial Action Objectives, Treatment Technology Scoping and
Development of Alternative Report, Phase I Feasibility Study, prepared by Canonie
Environmental Services for ARCO. January 1993.
ARCO. 1993c. Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area
Operable Unit, Preliminary Draft Initial Alternatives Screening Document, prepared by
Environmental Science & Engineering for ARCO. May 21, 1993.
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM). 1987. Final Data Report for Solid Matrix Screening
Study Anaconda Smelter Site, Anaconda, Montana, prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee,
Inc. for EPA. March 1987.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8.fmidd-czvb
DS-64
_.._-..~. --.
..40 . _u ... .
-------
.~
OW/EADA OU ROD - DECISION SUMMARY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (BPA). 1993. Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). On-Line. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria
and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA. 1992a. Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Conceptual Management Plan. May 1992.
EPA. 1992b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary technical report for the
field survey and on-site, in-situ and laboratory evaluations for Milltown Reservoir wetlands,
Missoula County, Montana. Corvalis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA. 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Risk assessment guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human health evaluation
manual. Supplemental guidance. "Standard default exposure factors." Interim final.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
EP A. 1990. National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse (NA TISH) Database Report.
July 1990. Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
EPA. 1989a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. Risk assessment guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (part A). Interim [mal. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA. 1989b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment. Exposure factors handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA/600/8-89/043.
MDHES. 1993. Montana Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, prepared by Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. May 1993.
Peccia & Associates. 1992. Anaconda Deer Lodge County Comprehensive Master Plan,
prepared by Peccia & Associates and Lisa Bay Consulting for Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
Planning Board, December 1990. Revised June 1992.
TetraTech. 1987. Anaconda Smelter Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Master
Investigation Draft Remedial Investigation Report, prepared by TetraTech.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency references can be found under EPA.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
0308294/owrod8. fmldd-czvb
DS-65
. '... _. ,...".. -".,..
. - '." . h. ..- ...-
-------
~...---_..- ...-.
TABLES
. .- ."-,'u'''-''.'.'
-------
.~
TABLE 1
PM-10 MASS CONCENTRATION AND METALS ANALYSIS:
TERESSA ANN TERRACE STATION
Analyte
Concentration
Highest (24-hrl
Date
Concentration
Second Highest (24-hr)
Date
Annual Mean
Concentration
Aug. 1989-June 1990
PM-1 0
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
July 199O-June 1991
PM-1 0
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
July 1991-June 1992
PM-10
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
39
0.0281
0.0017
0.0178
0.1097
0.0294
0.1636
42
0.0284
0.0018
0.0070
0.2301
0.0364
0.0821
30
0.0170
0.0006
0.0056
0.1558
0.0139
0.0703
__a
12/24/89
10/19/89
11 /30/89
12/24/89
11 /30/89
11/30/89
12/25/90
06/29/91
01/12/91
01/06/91
06/29/91
01/06/91
06/29/91
02/04/92
02/06/92
09/15/91
01/19/92
11/02/91
11/02/91
09/21/91
39
0.0269
0.0015
0.0116
0.1091
0.0191
0.1250
34
0.0083
0.0018
0.0031
0.2103
0.0155
0.0791
29
0.0064
0.0005
0.0040
0.0647
0.0135
0.0673
02/28/90
09/01/90
12/18/89
10/19/89
03/24/90
12/24/89
1 2/07/90
12/07/90
02/05/91
06/29/91
09/20/90
12/07/90
01/06/91
12/30/91
and
02/06/92
05/06/92
04/12/92
02/06/92
02/06/92
02/06/92
__8
--b
12
0.0038
0.0006
0.001 5
0.0362
0.0066
0.0349
11
0.0022
0.0009
0.0005
0.0306
0.0049
0.0206
12
0.0021
0.0003
0.0006
0.0236
0.0046
0.0221
Source:
Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPl Site. OW/EADA Operable Unit
Remediellnvestigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
All concentrations reported as pg/m3.
8 39 pg/m3 was measured on 9/15/89, 9/17/89. 11/22/89, and 1/19/90.
b Beryllium concentration of 0.0005 pg/m3 was recorded for three samples during the monitoring
period.
Record of Decision OW/EADA au
030894/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
-------
TABLE 2 PM-10 MASS CONCENTRATION AND TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS: KORTEM STORAGE STATION
PM-10 "A" IPrimaryl Sampler PM-10 "B" ICollocatedl Sempler
Highest Second Highest Annual Maan Highest Second Highest Annual Mean
Anatyte Concentr8tlon 08te Concantr8tion 08te Concentr8tion Concentr8t1on 08te Concentration 08te Concentration
AutJJat 1888~u.. 1880
PM-10 38 08/02/88 28 11/30/88 13 38 08/02/89 26 08/08/89 13
end
06/04/90
Arsenic 0.0878 06/17/80 0.0437 02/28/80 0.0077 0.0890 06/17/90 0.0636 02/28/90 0.0070
Beryllium 0.0018 10/18/89 0.0016 10/26/89 0.0006 0.0018 10/26/88 0.0016 10/19/89 0.0007
Cadmium 0.0180 11/30/89 0.0106 12/18/89 0.0018 0.0106 12/18/89 0.0067 04/17/90 0.0013
Copper 0.3611 12/18/88 0.1772 06/17/90 0.0824 0.2488 12/18/89 O. 1867 06/17/90 0.0610
lead 0.0909 11/30/89 0.0362 06/17/90 0.0117 0.0378 12/24/89 0.0364 02/28/90 0.0093
Zinc 0.1646 11/30/89 0.1477 06/17/90 0.0406 0.1604 06/17/90 0.1491 12/24/89 0.0390
July 1B80-June 1881
PM-10 42 07/16/90 33 01/06/91 13 39 07/16/90 36 01106/91 . 13
Arsenic 0.0344 06/29/91 0.0284 01/30/91 0.0041 0.0337 06/29/91 0.0333 01/30/91 0.0042
Beryllium 0.0016 -- . 0.0016 -. . 0.0009 0.0016 -- b 0.0016 -- b 0.0009
Cadmium 0.0082 01106/91 0.0038 06/29/91 0.0008 0.0081 01106/91 0.0039 06/29/91 0.0008
Copper 0.2409 06/29/91 0.2064 12/13/90 0.0483 0.4886 12/13/90 0.2628 06/29/91 0.0621
lead 0.0619 01/30/91 0.0269 01/06/91 0.0071 0.0620 01130/91 0.0261 01106/91 0.0073
Zinc 0.1109 06/29/91 0.0641 01/30/91 0.0229 0.0876 06/29/91 0.0673 01130/91 0.0196
July 1B91-June 1882
PM-10 46 12/26/91 33 09/21/91 14 46 12/26/91 33 09/21/91 14
Arsenic 0.0108 02/06/92 0.0076 10/16/91 0.0027 0.0082 02/06/92 0.0081 04/30/92 0.0029
Beryllium 0.0006 07/06/91 0.0006 .- c 0.0003 0.0006 __d 0.0006 -- d 0.0003
Cadmium 0.0062 01/19/92 0.0041 04/12/92 0.0007 0.0070 01/19/92 0.0041 04/12/92 0.0007
Copper 0.2213 11/02/91 0.0813 02/24/92 0.0367 0.2060 11102/91 0.0799 02/24/92 0.0391
le8d 0.0149 10/03/91 0.0136 02/18/92 0.0066 0.0136 11/02/91 0.0134 12/26/91 0.0066
Zinc 0.0647 08/22/91 0.0642 10/09/91 0.0206 0.0607 01119/92 0.0601 11/02/91 0.0192
(foornores on fo/Iowing pege.1
Record of Decision OW/BADA OU
030894/owrOO8. ftnldd.czvb
-------
TABLE 2
(coot.)
Source:
Dra't Flnel Anaconde Smelter NPL Site. OW/EADA Opereble Unit
Remedlellnv..tluatlon Report (ARCO 19938) .
All concentrations reported " IIGlm3
. The beryllium concentration of 0.0016 pu/m3 (taken by the primary sampler I was measured for eight of the samples collected from December 7, 1990, through
February 1" 1991.
b The beryllium concentration o' 0.0016 pu/m3 (taken bV the collocated sampler I was measured for seven of the samples collected from December 13, 1990, through
February ", 1991.
C The beryllium concentration of 0.0005 pg/m3 (taken by the primary samplerl was measured for six of the samples collected throughout. the annual period.
d The bervllium concentration o' 0.0005 pg/m3 (taken by the collocated sampler I was measured 'or 'ive o' the samples collected throughout the annual period.
.i
Record of Dcci!ion OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8. r mIdd-czvb
-------
",.
.~
tABLE 3. NATIONAL AND STATE OF MONTANA AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY ST ANDARDS/GUIDELINES
:-,
National AmbientS State of Montanab
Air Quality Standards Ambient Air Quality Guidelines
Substance 24-hr Annual Other 24-hr Annual Other
PM-10 150 50 NA (1501C (501C
Arsenic NA NA NA 0.39 0.07 NA
Beryllium NA NA NA 0.016 0.003 NA
Cadmium NA NA NA 0.39 0.07 NA
Copper NA NA NA 1.57 0.26 NA
Lead NA NA 1.50 NA NA (1.50Ic
Zinc NA NA NA 39.3 6.55 NA
SPMc NA NA NA NA NA 10
Note: Concentrations reported as pg/m3 for PM-1 0 and metals and as g/m2-month
for SPM.
NA
SPM
- no guideline recommended
- not applicable
. settled particulate matter
. EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR Part 50) for 24-hour and
annual exposure. The annual standard for PM-10 is the annual arithmetic mean.
The standard for lead is the arithmetic mean averaged quarterly (90-day average).
b State of Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards exist for lead (ARM 16.8.815)
and PM-1 0 (ARM 16.8.821). The standard for lead is the arithmetic mean average
quarterly (90-day average). State of Montana Ambient Air Quality Guidelines are
obtained from the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse (NA TICH) Database
Report on State, Local, and EPA Air Toxics Activities (U.S. EPA July 1990) for
arsenic, cadmium, copper, and zinc. The ambient air quality guideline for beryllium
is calculated using threshold limit values as described in the NATICH report (U.S.
EPA July 1990).
C Value in parentheses is a State of Montana Air Quality Standard.
Source:
Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OW/EADA Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a) .
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
. . r. u, .... ...-... _.~
-------
.~
TABLE 4
SETTLED PARTICULATE MATTER RESULTS
Annual Period
DF-8
2.6
DF-9
1.4
August 1989-June 1990
June 1990-June 1991
July 1991-June 1992
4.5
4.7
1.5
2.4
Note: Concentrations reported as g/m2-month.
Source:
Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OW/EADA Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report (ARC a 19938)
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8 .fmf dd-czvb
-..-..-- ..0_-
~._~..... .....
-------
TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE MATERIAL AT THE OWIEADA OPERABLE UNIT
Location No. of Maximum Geometric Maximum Geometric Mean Maximum Geometric Mean Maximum Geometric Mean Maximum Geometric Mean
Samples Arsenic Mean Arsenic Cadmium Cadmium Copper Copper Lead Lead Zinc Zinc
-Upper Works 35 2360 508 20.0 5.6 19800 4540 2640 189 62100 889
Lower Works 21 3720 773 23.1 5.6 12400 3570 1200 299 2990 614
Flue Debris 36 10400 1030 398 7.7 37100 5830 639 136 2140 334
Railroad Bed 11 2310 1060 7.0 3.4 13300 4150 973 392 7270 645
Waste Pilcs 1-8 23 8110 934 IL2 1.9 32100 6250 990 209 1660 513
Heap Roast Slag 53 7120 578 13.4 2.0 59200 4720 1200 354 18100 5170
Floodplain Wastc 94 8070 1010 172 5.7 19000 1480 2900 328 1900 441
(Subarea 2)
Floodplain Waste 39 1940 526 17.3 1.6 6700 571 1200 254 3910 313
(Subarea 3)
Red Sands 20 2640 1200 13.3 2.1 7180 2920 1010 437 10700 3640
NOTE: All concentrations in mglkg
Information for this table compiled from Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. OW/EADA Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8tb. fmldd-czvb
-------
TABLE 6 TCLP RESULTS FOR OLD WORKS/EAST ANACONDA DEVELOPMENT AREA WASTE MATERIALS
Sample Type Number
Station Waste of
location Material Samples Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Copper lead Mercury Silver Zinc
FL5-3 Flue debris 1 1,850 59.1 6.7 6.7 13,900 40 1.3 6.0 1,460
WP2 Waste piles 2 MIN 0.53 0.20 0.01 0.003 NA 0.02 0.001 0.004 NA
MAX 1.49 0.247 0.03 0.003 NA 0.03 0.002 0.004 NA
WP5 Waste piles 2 MIN 30 0.38 0.003 0.003 NA 0.02 0.0002 0.004 NA
MAX 41.4 0.42 0.04 0.003 NA 0.02 0.0002 0.004 NA
WP6 Waste piles 2 MIN 0.04 0.16 0.004 0.003 NA 0.02 0.0002 0.004 NA
MAX 0.22 0.35 0.06 0.003 NA 0.02 0.0002 0.004 NA
RS1 Red Sands 2 MIN 0.03 0.247 0.009 0.003 NA 0.02 0.0002 0.004 NA
MAX 0.03 0.295 0.04 0.004 NA 0.136 0.0002 0.004 NA
RS2 Red Sands 2 MIN 0.03 0.24 0.009 0.003 NA 0.02 0.0002 0.004 NA
MAX 0.03 0.29 0.04 0.004 NA 0.13 0.0002 0.004 NA
TClP NA NA 5,000 100,000 1,000 5,000 NA 5,000 200 5,000 NA
Standard.
Note: Concentrations reported in pglL.
NA - not applicable
TClP - toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
. Source: 40 CFR Part 261.
Source: Draft Final Anaconda Smalter NPl Site, OW/EADA Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Raport (ARCa 1993al ,;
Record of Decision OW/I!ADA OU
030894/owrod8.fU1ldd-czvb
-------
TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL SAMPLES, SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES AND SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES BELOW WASTE MATERIAL
AT TIlE OW/EADA OPERABLE UNIT (Units in msr/kR)
Location No. of Maximum Geometric Maximum Geometric Mean Maximum Geometric Mean tv.aximum Geometric Mean Maximum Geometric Mean
Samples Arsenic Mean Arsenic Cadmium Cadmium Copper Copper Lead Lead Zinc . Zinc
Surface Soils
Subarea I 6 380 277 9.6 6.0 2340 1240 200 95.1 842 349
43 2000 411 7.6 9120 2330 662 490 1630 1020
Subarea 2 10 1330 151 10.0 3.5 3250 742 3310 226 9260 639
'Subarea 3 23 2070 335 10.2 5.3 27200 1970 633 165 4530 695
Subarea 4 13 2700 678 68.8 8.0 9100 3030 783 337 16600 2300
Subarea 5 87 769 81.7 30 1.6 4780 126 651 72.3 3170 405
Subarea 6 12 3050 897 26.5 13.5 12400 4550 1270 465 5210 1730
Subsurface Soils
Subarea I 6 405 105 2.6 1.4 2400 895 61.3 31.4 36.6 98.2
3 139 92.1 9 1100 1040 185 122 1310 72.3
Subarea 2 12 1150 102 7.5 1.9 2500 841 2720 346 8760 329
Subarea 3 38 2220 64 4 1.\ 11600 1450 372 53.4 2920 190
Subarea 4 16 862 60.6 14.7 1.3 2840 721 251 52.5 1770 225
Subarea 5 163 744 95 18 1.4 14400 382 8440 204 1830 376
Benny Goodman 14 640 257 16.5 4.3 2700 1150 851 299 2200 602
Park
Subarea 6 6 75 26.8 7 1.4 1730 319 30 21.5 698 101
Subsurface Soils Below Wastes
Subarea I 5 39.9 29.5 3 0.7 6730 162 27.8 23.4 359 73.8
Subarea 2 18 1300 83.1 5.7 1.\ 28000 2390 423 27.7 972 237
(Waste Piles 1-8)
Subarea 2 20 1670 45.9 18.8 1.2 55600 1630 209 27.7 5550 374
(Heap Roast)
Subarea 2 59 4900 194 67 2.4 22000 782 2100 15.7 1700 128
(Floodplain)
Subarea 3 19 1640 137 14.3 0.8 1440 285 398 26.1 1280 92:,3
(Floodplain)
Subarea 4 8 1400 48.1 13 2.7 25000 2960 550 37.9 5100 807
(Red Sands)
Subarea 5 35 6260 176 11.2 3.1 2310 350 60000 184 2110 662
(Reclaimed wastes)
NOTE: Information for this table compiled from Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OW/EADA Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8tb. fonldd-czvb
-------
TABLE 8 EXCEEDANCES OF EPA AMBIENT WATER aUAlIW CRITERIA
FOR THE OW IEADA OPERABLE UNIT
A WQC to prOtect Fresh water Water Sampling
Aquatic Life ResullS
AnaIytjca1 Sampling Date Sampled Hardness(mgIL) Chronic ~g/L) Acute (;£g/L) Totals ~g/L)
Parametrs Location
Copper WS-2 Jun.5,1991 71* 8.8 12.8 16.1
Copper WS-3 Oct. 28, 1985 14.62(a) 24
Copper WS-3 Jun.5,1991 71* 9.Z 13.4 23.5
Copper WS-3 Jun.16,1992 91 10.9 16.2 22
Lead WS-Z Jun. 5,1991" 71* 2.1 52.7 3.2
Lead WS-2 Mar. 16, 1992 130 4.4 114 10
Lead WS-2 Jun. 16,1992 100 3.2 8.2 3.8(j)
Lead WS-3 April 29, 1986 3.93(a) 6
Lead WS-3 June 5, 1991 " 71* 2.2 55.7 3.2
Lead WS-3 June 14, 1992 112 3.1 79 7(j)
Lead WS-3 June 16, 1992 91 2.8 72 9.2(j)
Mercury WS-l July 24,1985 0.012(b) 2.4(b) 0.5
Mercury WS-l Oct. 28, 1985 0.0l2(b) 2.4(b) 1.6
Mercury WS-Z July 24, 1985 0.012(b) 2.4(b) 1.0
Mercury WS-3 July 24, 1985 0.012(b) 2.4(b) 0.5
Mercury WS-3 Oct. 28, 1985 0.012(b) 2.4(b) 0.8
Mercury WS-3 June 8, 1992 0.0l2(b) 2.4(b) 1.8"
Silver WS-1 April 17, 1985 1.9(b) 5.8
Silver WS-Z April 17, 1985 1.9(b) 6.1
Silver WS-3 April 17 , 1985 1.9(b) S.s
Silver WS-3 May 26, 1991 1.9(b) 4.2
a = water bardness, mg/L CaC03
b = criteria not based on bardness
* = historical mean
.. = contamination from nitric acid samle preserevative
j = qualified as estimated
Source:
Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPl Site, OW/EADA Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993el
Record of Dccisioo OWIEADA OU
030894/owrod8.fml dd-czvb
-------
.~
TABLE 9 . SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR THE RED
SANDS AND OLD WORKS TAILINGS POND LYSIMETER LOCATIONS
Sample Depth Concentration
Station Interval
Results (in.) Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc
RSLY 0-24 2,610 3U 2,790 838 4,240
RSLY 84-108 20 3.U 1,110 15 181
RSLY 168-185 8U 3U 7,750 78 559
RSLY 252-276 14 3U 3,320 20 541
TPLY 0-12 4,010 3U 5,240 1,900 318
TPLY 12-24 2.400 3U 889 14 U 138
TPLY 84-108 238 3U 408 23 98
TPLY 120-144 168 3U 441 28 91
TPLY 156-180 18 3U 373 23 103
TPLY 192-216 8U 3U 1,230 40 301
Note: Metals concentrations reponed as pans per million.
RSLY - Red Sands Iysimeter
TPLY - Old Works tailings pond Iysimeter
Quarlfer: U - undetected
Source: Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPl Site, OWIEADA Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993al
Record of Decisioo OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8. fmldd-<:zvb
.- .-- ...'
---- .....--. ._-.".
- . ...... .. .. - '-
-------
.~
. TABLE 10 PORE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TARGET METALS AT THE
RED SANDS AND OLD WORKS TAILINGS POND LYSIMETER LOCATIONS
Station Date Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Zinc
RSLY 06/26/92 5.3 28.5 5,300 1.0 U 12,100
RSLY 09/04/92 6.0 75.8 39,800 3.0 35,100
RSLY 11/18/92 8.5 322.0 267.000 1.1 180.000
TPLY 06/26/92 54.8 67.8 82.900 1.0 U 19.000
TPLY 09/04/92 21.6 58.5 58.500 1.0 U 1 7, 1 00
Note: Metals concentrations reported as pg/L
RSLY - Red Sand Iysimeter
TPLY - Old Works tailings pond Iysimeter
Qualifer: U. undetected
Source:
Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OWIEADA Operable Unh
Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
R~ord of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8. ftnldd-czvb
.. - . _n_. .,." ... .
-------
.~
TABLE 11 COMPARISON OF METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN
VEGETATION FROM THE OLD WORKS/EAST ANACONDA
DEVELOPMENT AREA OPERABLE UNIT WITH REGIONAL DATA
Concentration Range
OW/EADA Smelter Hill Western
Analyte Operable Unit Operable Unit United States
Arsenic 0.3-23 0.5-239 <0.05-20.0
Cadmium 0.1-3.5 0.2-14 < 0.009-80
Copper 5-137 3.0-1,500.00 0.34-1,000
Lead 0.3-14 0.4-239 0.20-700
Zinc 18-369 11.6-1,570.0 5.7-2,400
Note: Concentration,s reported as mg/kg dry weight.
Source: Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OW/EADA Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993al
Rccord of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrodS .fmldd-czvb
-------
.~
TABLE 12 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MINERAL TOLERANCES FOR
DOMESTIC ANIMALS'
Species
Element Cattle Sheep Horse
Arsenic (inorganic) 50 50 50
Cadmiumb 0.5 0.5 0.5
Copper 100 25 800
Leadb 30 30 30
Zinc 500 300 500
Note: Concentration report in mglkg
Information for this table was from Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OWIEADA Operable
Unit Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
. Information from Mineral Tolerance of Domestic Animals, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C. 1980.
b Levels based on human food residue considerations.
Record of Decision OW/FADA OU
030894/owrod8tb .fmidd-czvb
. - . '0" ..-.
..--... .--.. - .....
-------
TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF OLD WORKS/EAST ANACONDA"
DEVELOPMENT AREA WASTE VOLUMES AND AREAS
Site
Waste piles
Feature
Waste Pile No.1
Waste Pile No.2
Waste Pile No.3
Waste Pile No.4
Waste Pile No.5
Waste' Pile No.6
Waste Pile No.7
Waste Pile No.8
Surface Area Volume
(acres) (Yd3)
0.19 3,950
0.44 2,850
0.09 640
0.11 920
2.88 19.970
0.05 310
0.22 2,320
0.15 820
4.13 31.780
7.04 174.830
6.43 123,560
13.47 298,390
NC NC
Total
-Heap roast- slag
Northern heap roast slag pile
Southern heap roast slag pile
Total
Floodplain wastes
Wastes in modified 1 OO-year
floodplain
Total wastes in study areaa
- Jig tailings
- Heap roast slagb
- Mixed waste and soil
Total
Flues
Flue Nos. 1-6
71.8 NC
8.3 NC
20.3 NC
100.40 440,000
21.0 283,700
NC 323,000
21.00 606,700
Oe: Oe:
NC NC
Oe: Oe:
Oe: Oe:
Oe: Oe:
Oe: Oe:
Oe: Oe:
Red Sands
Above ground level
Below ground level
Total
Old Works waste ponds
West and East ponds
Arbiter ponds
PO,nd Ie: (waste removed in 1985)
Pond lie:
Pond me:
Total
Arbiter bunkers
Bunkers A through De:
Not.:
NC - not calculated
. Include. the .outhern "heep roest" slag pile end adjacent dispersed surface sleg.
b Include8 the eree between Ceder Street and the city dump roed; excludes waste piles.
e Removed during Arbiter Plent Accelereted Removal; remedial investigation and feasibility study activitias have
included weste ramovel confirmation.
Source:
Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OWIEADA Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
Record of DccisiOll OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8. fmldd-ezvb
-------
TABLE
14
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
Medium
Pathway
Dirt-Dike Hider Worker
Parameter ~ RHE ~ -1Y1L-
Body wetaht (Ita) 70(a) 70(a) 70 (a) 70(a)
Exposure duration (yr) 9(a) 30(a) 7(d) 2S(c)
Averaaina Lime (noncancer) (yr) 9(a) 30(a) 7(d) 2S(c)
Averaaina time (cancer) (yr) 70(a) 70 (.e) 70(a) 70(a)
Intake rate (ma/day) SOld) 100(d) 2S(d, f) SO(c,!)
ALL
General
Flood plaIn
t.e1l1nlls, aolls
InllesLion
Exposure frequency (days/yr)
13(e)
26(e)
2S0(c)
2S0(c)
Veil. Inaest.ion
Tot.el intake (a/day)
Fraction home-llrown
Waste Plles,
HU18ide Flues
InllesLion
Inllestion rate (mil/event.)
SOld) 100(d)
13(e) 26(e)
0.8(b) 2.S(b)
2(e) S(e)
O.S(d) 1.0(c)
2S0(c) 2S0(c)
PHIO InhaLeLion
Exposure frequency (event.s/yr)
Inhalation rat.e (m3/hr)
Exposure t.ime (hr/day)
Drinkinll Water
InaesLion
Inaestion rate (L/day)
Exposure frequency (days/yr)
(e) DeCeult value recommended in USEPA 198ge
(b) Default. velue recommended in USEPA 1989b
(c) Default velue recommended in USEPA 1991
(d) Velue based on proCassional Judllement.
(e) Based on responeee t.o survey of act.ivit.y patterns of
(f) Totel intake from aoil plus duat. Assumed to be 501
,i
residents in Anaconda
soU, 501 dust..
Source:
Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OW/EADA Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
Record of Decision OW/I!ADA OU
030894/owrod8. ftnldd-czvb
-------
TABLE 15 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ABOUT DIRT BIKE RIDING IN
THE VICINITY OF THE ANACONDA SMELTER(a)
Parameter
A verage (Range)
30 (13-65)
20 (4-47)
2.2 (0.5-4.0)
2.2 (0.5-6.0)
4.8 «0.5-18.0)
0.8 (0.25-2.0)
2.2 (0.25-7.0)
Age Now (Years)
Age Started (Years)
Rides/Week (Total
Hours/Ride
Hours/Week (Total)(b)
Rides/Week at Old Works (c)
Hours/Week at Old Works(d)
NOTE:
Information for this table compiled from Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OWfEADA
Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
Information compiled from interviews with residents of Anaconda into who rides dirt/mountain bikes at
present or in the past.
Calculated as hours/ride multiplied by rides/week.
Average and range for only three respondents. Others did not provide sufficient quantitative data to
estimate rides/week at Old Works.
Average and range for two respondents. Others did not provide sufficient quantitative data to estimate
hours/week at Old Works.
(I)
(b)
(e)
(d)
Record of Decision OWIEADA OU
030894/ owrod8tb. fmidd-czvb
-------
.,
TABLIE 16
SUMMARY OF NONCANCER EFFECTS AND REFERENCE DOSES
Chemical
Characteristic
Noncancer Effects
Oral Reference Dose
(mg/kg-day)
Arsenic
Skin lesions (keratosis. hyperpigmentation)
Renal injury; proteinuria
Subchronic Chronic
3.0x10-4 3.0x10-4
NA 1.0x10-a.
3.7 x 10-2 3.7 X 10-2
- b - b
3.0x10-1 3.0x10'
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Gastrointestinal irritation
Zinc
Neurological. effects
Hematological effects
Note:
NA - not available
. Value applies to cadmium in food. It is assumed the same value applies to cadmium in soil. A value of
5.0 x 10-4 is used for cadmium in water.
b Risks from lead are evaluated using an uptake biokinetic model developed by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
Source:
Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OW/EADA Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
Record of Decisioo OW/EADA OU
030894/awroo8.fmldd-czvb
-------
.~
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS AND CANCER SLOPE FACTORS (a)
Weigh~ of Oral Exposure Inhalation Exposure
Chemical Evidence Tumor Tvpe SF (mE/kE/d)-l. Tumor Tvpe SF (mE/kE/d) -1.
Arsenic A Skin l.8E+OO Lung l.SE+Ol(b)
Cadmium B1 eo (c) Lung 6.1E+OO
Copper
Lead B2 Kidney NA(d)
Zinc
(a) All values are from IRIS database (USEPA 1993), current through April 1993.
(b) Calculated from inhalation unit risk value assuming inhalation of 20 m3/day
by a 70-kg adult.
(c) No evidence for carcinogenici~y.
(d) Not available.
Source:
Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OW/EADA operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fmldd-czvb
-------
TABLE 18 COMPARISON OF SURFACE WASTE CONCENTRATIONS TO GENERAL THRESHOLD SOIL CONCENTRATIONS(a)
Arsenic Cailmiwn Copper Lead Zinc
Par8llleter Location t1!!L -!!L .J1Y... t11n... 6!.L 1:!!!... ..l1in.. ~ .l!!L- t1!n.. A!L .J1!L .l1!n... -!!L ..l1!!-
Phytotoxic NA(b) 15 NA 50 3 NA 8 60 NA 125 180 NA 400 270 NA 400
Concentrat.ion (ma/ka)
Soi1 Invert.ebrat. NA IIA 0.97 NA 154 12.5 IIA 1,304 170 IIA 1,667 72.7 NA 1,120
Toxicit.y (ma/ka)
Maximum Aveuaa 4.5 0.13 NO 11 42
Backaround Syi}
Conc ., mslks e
Measured On-site Area I, Upper 26.1 636 1,340 0.9 8.8 20 60.9 7,590 19,800 25.9 336 1,740 26.7 4,380 39,800
Cone. (ma/ka) Works
Araa I, Lower 184 796 2,000 1.1 9 23.1 754 3,830 12,400 20 456 1,200 112 819 2,990
Works
Area I, Flue 68 2,430 10,400 0.9 27.6 398 184 10,500 37, 100 17 180 639 46 456 2,HO
Debris
Area I, 452 1,040 1,800 1.7 3.9 7 1,110 5,330 13,300 173 472 973 250 2,230 7,270
Railroad 8ed
Araa 2, "Heep 75 853 2,330 0.6 4 13.4 1,410 5,290 8,510 40 499 1,200 1,170 6,900 18,100
Roast." S18S
Area 2, 4S 1,440 8,070 0.6 11.7 112 260 2,130 16,000 16 474 2,200 14 1,060 19,000
Floodplain
Waste.
Area 3, 10.8 788 1,940 0.4 2.8 17.3 27.6 1,090 6,100 9.1 468 1,200 55.4 651 3,910
Floodplain
Wast.es
Area 4, Red 326 1,350 2,610 0,4 3.8 13.3 1,440 3,050 7,180 78.6 47Z 942 1,440 3,610 10,100
Sands
Area 5, 110 1,220 4,290 IIA NA IIA 139 7,170 20,000 122 833 6,190 647 8,440 57,800
Reilroad Bed
Waste PU.. 934 1.9 6,250 209 513
1-8(d)
(a) Source: Phytotoxlclt.y-Kebat.a-Pendiaa and Pendlas 1989; Invert.ebrate No observed errect.s concentrations (HDECs) - Van Straalen 1993; Waste
Concentration - Section 4.
(h) Not evailable.
(c) Source: USEPA 199211. Va llles ilre mean concentrations [rom Table 31. HD a NoL Detected.
(d) Geometric me en plus one standard devietion. Only this velue is shown for purposes oC comparison.
Source:
Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OW!EADA Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report (ARCa 1993a)
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8. rmldd-czvb
-------
.~ . ....'
TABLE 19 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE OWIEADA OPERABLE UNIT
Item All. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Preferred Alt. 4 Alt. 5
Alternative
Institutional controls No new ICs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Preservation of historic features Possible Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Allow golf course & historic trail No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
construction
Surface controls No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Stream channel controls . No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Monitoring No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Revegetation Treatment None 415 acres 470 acres SOO acres 660 acres 675 acres
Techniques at OWfEADA
Engineered soil cover (excluding None 60 acres 75 acres 7S acres 85 acres 205 acres
Red Sands piles)
Red Sands remediation None Drainage Drainage Soil Cover Limestone Soil Cover
Cover
Engineered soil cover (total) None 60 acres 75 acres 110 acres 85 acres 240 acres
Revegetation Treatment None None None 40 acres None None
Techniques at Mill Creek
Cost Minimal $8.9 million $9.9 million $11.4 million $10.8 million $14.4 million
NOTE: Information for this table compiled from Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OWfEADA Operable Unit Remedial
Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
Record of Decisioo OWIEADA OU
030894/owrocl81b. fmidd-czvb
. .. -.,-.. .
-------
TABLE 20 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Alternative
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 0 + + +
Compliance with ARARs + + + + +
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence + + + +
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 0 0 + + +
Short-Term Effectiveness + + + 0 0
Implementability + + + 0 0 0
Cost N/A + 0 0 0
State Acceptance 0 0 + 0 +
Community Acceptance 0 0 + 0 0
Net Rating -4 +2 +4 +6 +4 +3
.;
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8tb. fmldd-czvb
-------
.~
TABLE 21 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES FOR MILL CREEK
Criteria
Alternative 1
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility of
Volume Through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
+
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
o +
+ +
o +
+ 0
+ 0
+ 0
o 0
$0.4 million $0.7 million
+4 +3
Overall Protection of Human Health and
the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Implementability
+
Cost
+
$0
Net Rating
-1
Note: Costs per acre and other information for this table were obtained from the Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site,
OWIEADA Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
Record of Decision OWIEADA OU
030894/ owrod8tb. rml dd-czvb
. - --. -.-...
.~._._-_. ~...._-
-------
TABLE 22 COST ESTIMATE FOR OW/EADA OPERABLE UNIT SELECTED REMEDY
Revegetation Revegetation Costs for Costs for Revegetation
Subarea Treatment Soil Cover Treatment Revegetation Soil Cover Treatment Techniques Additional Total
Techniques (Acres) Technique or Soil Treatment Costs or Soil Cover Costs Costs
(Acres) Cover Techniques ($) ($) ($) ($)
(Acres) ($)
5.0 0.0 0 50,000 0 0 1,670,000. 1,720,000
2 125.0 100.0 0 1,250,000 2,863,700 0 855,50Q2 4,968,500
3 10.0 30.0 0 100,000 858,900 0 0 958,900
4 65.0 35.0 125 1,800,000 1,002,050 2,414,375 90,000" 4,156,425
5 35.0 30.0 0 650,000 858,900 0 0 1,208,900
6 115.0 0.0 0 350,000 0 0 10, oW 1,160,000
Subtotal 355.0 195.0 125 1,150,000 5,582,850 2,414,375 2,265,500 14,172,725
Mill Creek 40.0 0.0 0 400,000 0 0 0 .400,000
Total 395.0 195.0 125 3,950,000 5,582,850 2,414,375 2,801,500 14,572,725
Note: Unit Costs for revegetation treatment techniques $10,000/acre
Unit Costs for soil cover $28,630/acre
Unit Costs for revegetation treatment techniques or soil covers $19,315/acre
Information for this table compiled from Draft Final Anaconda Smelter NPL Site, OW/EADA Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Report (ARCO 1993a)
Interpretive trail, preservation of historic structures, bridge removal, drainage control
Stormwater ponds, improvements to Warm Springs Creek .;
Grading to control drainage
Crushed limestone
Record or Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8tb. Hnldd-czvb
-------
..
FIGURES
. .~ . -. -.- -.
. --.- . _.._-_...~.-- ~ ..-,., -
-------
1
/
1 \
I
4
II
"
..
. ....
.~
\ .
1
f
Figure 1.
Anaconda Area Superfund Operable' Unit Locations
Legend
~""~ Food
r: :..:-'.. "..'1 TIiJiDas
~ S1Ia PDe
II'jgh1vay
OIlIer Road
OIlIer Road
RaiI!oId
Stream
~
I-H-+-I-
Montana State Libra
o 1
r---........
2
3
4
5
1-- 1994 - Map Req\JeIt No: 94BPA29L2
Record of Decision OW IEADA OU
030894/owrod8.fin! dd-czvb
Scale of Miles
-------
c=J Oftice Put
Hoopitality Support
Multi-Pamlly Houaing
~I CoIlllDel'CIaI
c=J Light IIIdUllrial
CompUod tram ftg..... 111-1 ond 17-1~ OI8ft Rnol -.de -- NPL en.. OW/fNJA 011 _ill In~ ...,..,.
Figure 2.
C:=J Waf« Body
~<~ :'::;1 TaiI.Iop
c:::::::::J Building
~ Cooeftte Pad
[==:J Other Strocture
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area
- Old Wcxb .-
m.torio Are8
Operable Unit Dedicated DevelopmentiUrban Desl~n
c::::::J
Golf Coone Club
House '" l'I1tiog
Opco Sp8CO
Lan""''''' TnIl
Syllem
HJIIorlc lllteqntivo
TnIl 8yItem
Paved road
0Ihcr road
RaIlroad
Stream
OIlvert
Contour
Montana State Libra
~
J8II1111)' 1994 . Map ltequeIt No: 94BPA19F2
V""",V~8tu<1y.
Rttord of Decision OW/EADA OU
- zvb
o 1000
r"""'o- ~
Scale of Feet
2000
3000
-------
~ /""'" ," SUBARE,A:/2 ' ~.: " ,I ,'--":"=::ikl'otmer Old W ..~' !'A--1 ""! i" " ..,' ':
' ~~~~~~~!:~,;:~;::;-~~>. Jf?~' .tf~~I,1/fi Tt~:~~?-~.~;~~,;~~~~~:',~ [-~r:~i~}" \>";~,~;:~1""
" .- '", ~ . "'""" '. " "',"""._, -<"'" ','", " " ""',"';", " '., ,,'-' , ,AJbi",', Phiiit'..,,, 0,1,,',,11, 'T~ "'h,' ~" ,-,""'.,.,."" "',-
. !\ '<;-;'~#, (, . ::1 ~~;"'--'i"",~~~EA 4 (' .w~it\",~i - . e.: !
t SUI1AlieA 3 Ii' ,'.,.,;".,"', ,-.,..', ,~,." 1>.1 cO',;::.:'" PondS'" .
<~>
,,'
,:1
\'i
, ,," \.
Figure 3.
Old WorkslEast Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Subareas
Stream
c::=J
1-:':,::':::"1
c=J
[:=J
c=:J
SublllN Boundary
Paved road
Oth~ road
Railroad
.--...--
Watec Body
TaillDp
Building
Concrete Pad
~
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
030894/owrod8, fmldd-czvb
Culvert
Contour
Montana
2000
1&0\181)' 1-994 . Map RequeIt No: 94BPA29A
3000
Other Structure
o 1000
f"""'\--""""
, Scale of Feet
..'iJ
-------
Record or Decision OW/EADA OU
0308 94/owrod8 .ftnldd-czvb
Figure 4
Old Works & Washoe Reduction Works
-------
~
t
6
REFINERY
" 11111111 ,I'/III?- 'i-
~ ~ ~~
.... -- S ."
~ SLAG::' S'I\I~
--"" ~ ~~~ ~
, , I .... 'l'r,.
~- "I"'I~~
-
=--
o
I
SCALE
1000
I
2000 Foot
I
600
I
32
SOc. Soc.
2 I
34 ~36
330368@
. .
-~
B
C
PROPOSED
OLD WORKS
HISTORIC DISTRICT
This site sketch map shows the dist riel
boundary and the buildings which the
presenl foundation ruins repres!:nt.
ANACONUA OLU WOItKS
Key lo NaUoliallte~isler SUe Sketch Map
I. Concentrator
2. Dolin lIouse
3. Smdter'l
4. Ore IIIns
5. Slack
6. Ore lIouse
7. Sm.>ller '3
8. Sml'lter 12
9. Unknown
10. Unknown
II. Unknown
12. Unknown
13. Matte lIouse
14. Concentrator
IS. Dwellings
16. Tllnk lIouse
17. Slum lIouse
18. Unknuwn
III. Unknown
20. Cunvert('r
21. Converter
22. Unknuwn
23. !WIml'lIn!: lIouse
24. New Renlluy
25. Old Ren",'ry
2ti. E'lJ:lnf & U..llrr lIuuse
27. Holler lIoulie
2M. Omce
211. Silver Mill
30. S~I'k
31. S~ck
32. Slack
33. Olillouse
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
030894/owrod8. fmldd-czvb
Figure 5
Anaconda Old Works
34. omee
35. As.'laY omee
36. Machine SIHlp
37. .:lIJ:lnl: & lIoller lIuuse
3M. 'I'link lIouse
311. l'lInk lIouse
40. lloardlllllllouse
41. C.C.C.Co.Slore
42. I>wellln~
43. lIoardllll: lIouse
44. Uwelllng
45. Dwelling
46. Converter
47. Slade:
48. Malte lIouse
411. Concentrillor
50. Tank lIouse
51. IIoUer lIuuse
52. Smelter
53. Sampler
54. Slack
-------
Historic
Operation
MIlling,
Smenlng,
Refining
Record of Decision OW/HADA OU
030894/owrod8. fmldd.czvb
Primary Wastes
.~
Slag
-.J Tailings I
I~
c=J
fFAJ
-
Release and
Transport Pathways
Air
Exposed Population
Recreational
Visitor
Contaminated
Medium
Exposure
Route
. Worker
~~~
-
.---.J-D~Za'I-.I=:
~L~ ~~~Ion .--- .1
Mechanical Erosion
1-------
I
PM10
--.-
.1
PM10
-
~~achln9___--.1 Groundwaler I---FJ~~ ===1
---~c2~~=:
-
~
~~
Runo"
----.~~=:-
--.G--.~
u_- --.
.~=:-
'-I-~:i-.-I=:
= Palhway nol complete: no evaluation required.
Palhway Is or could be complete: However data are lacking and/or pathway Is
lud{led 10 be minor: qualitative analysis only.
= Pathway is or could be complete; data are available and palhway will be quantitied.
Figure 6
Risk Conceptual Site Model
-------
Mill-Willow
Bypass
Old WmksIEast
Development Area 1'"
. ......"....".f
B~1ag ,.,.......," .,....
""",...~_..,.,~..
...(
-------
Figure 7. Air Monitoring
Site 1 Tmesa Ann Temce (5.& Air Monitoring HJghway
Site 2 Station Other Road
Kortem Storup c:::J WaterBocIy Trail
Site 3 Ml11 Cleek P8Ik 1','.".,.'1 Tailings H-++ RaIlroad
Site 4 ZInc Processing Area I:':".::£~ Slag PIle Stream
WIllow
...L'
and Dustfall Station Locations
e.-,J~.!!..ntana__Sta~.J.::!~~!Y._' -'.,
NRIS._.~~~,~~~e ~~:matio~~~~.......
M=b 1994 - Mop Request No: 94HPA29N
o 1 2 3
Record of Uecision OW/EADA OU ~-.J
030894/owrod8.rut/dd.czvb Scale of Miles
~W.i.A .
(Xetit
Compiled from flaul1l 8-1. DnI1 RnoI _ndo Gmellor NPI. Bite. OW/fNJA au Romodlll InveotJootlon ,,"pori.
Valume L
-------
-...
:);(::.,
',,', ",
" ,
..:~ '. ....'
.' '.. ,,~'
.; :::~'~::::""~:~'~::~!Vt::;::;::;:~~!,~.:,:;:;.:-,:-,,: ~',
,;'
>4':,
,~ .~
-,
:'"~
.~ '.
(
I
i
I
r
-,-
1.I.X;'r~1 MJIJoeIl8neoUi WuteI
c=:J, Flue DebriJ
- He8p Rout Slag
c=J Floodplain W88too
I'o~ Red Sanda
Figure 8. Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Waste Areas
:<:~~.:= ~~ ........ = ~ f~s1~~~~
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU r---..."""'\-.d
030894/owrod8,fin/dtl-czvh ,Scale of Feet
~,. H] 'Mixed Willie
O>mpllod '""" ftauro 4-1, Dnft ANI _.do Sm.n.. NPL 81to, CNi/fNJA OU - Invootlgatloo Ropor1. Volumo L
-------
Figure 9.
c=J
1',..1
r:--:-j
~ Concrete Pad
r==J Other Slzuclun>
Old .WorkslEast Anaconda Development Area
Operable Unit Surface Arsenic Isoconcentratlons
Water Body
Tailings
Builclinz
Aneoic Line of
IIoconcentration
Subarea Boundary
Paved tVad
Othll' tVad
Railroad
SIream
Culvert
Contour
~
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030& 94/owrod8 .lin/dd-czvb
,t~~ _.--IY.!m - a. DnIt RnoI _ndo - NP\. 8110. OW/fNJA OU IIomodIal InvlOlloollon IIoport. V.lumo .
o 1000
r-"\.-""""'0.....1
Scale of Feet
2000
3000
-------
"'",......,'
~,(,....~~~k"'.j ,,.'
,,:~~~~,,".~
{'
.:,.::::::::.".::"~.1:~~;"."':
..",~ '~..'
j ,i i.
.~...j :f:;:~'
~. ~
:;..:;,:~.~"::-:-._,.:,,,..7.7.';.
'.
,'; "
'::i'
~;;,:",
{::;,
.
Ground Water Monitor
Well Location
SurI\Ice Water
Ga&iD8 Station
Figure 10. Old WorkslEast Anaconda Development Area Ope...ble Unit
Sample Stations for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Vadose Zone
Paved road !. e'!' "'1 - - M.C?n~~!!~.~~f:1-t.~_J"i.t~r~r.y... '. . .
=d ,\~S_-~~..~~~-~~~~_.~~m....
Stream'; JUIW)' 1994 - Map Requelt No: 94B1'A29B
Culvert
Contour 0 1000 2000 3000
Record of Decision OWIIJADA OU I"""'b"".~
030894/owrod8.fin/d(l-czvb Scale of Feet
VONmt L
c:=::J Water Body
~ TallingI
c;;:IJ BIIiJdiq
c=J Concrete Pad
C:=J Other Structure
00mpI1od from 1Ig"'" 8-1. 7-2. ... .1; Droit ANI _ndo - NP\. 81to, OW/fNJA OU _WlnvOlt",",1on "-"
.
'''v:'
Vadole Zone Monitor
Sta1ion
-------
Figure 11.
c=::J Wat« Body
c::::J
c=J
r:=J Concrete Pad
[=:J OIher SllUcture
Old WorkslEast Anaconda Development' Area Operable Unit MCL Excedances In the Ground Water
c=::J Anenic ow
Bxcedance
[=:J Cadmium OW
. Bxcoclance
Stream
Culvert
Contour
TIlling8
BuildIDa
Paved road
OIher road
lWIroad
!;ompllocl ,..... w- qUlltty - - au Rm Quortor D1IR.
Record of Decision OW!EADA OU
030894/ owrod8. fm/ dd-czvb
'~~._~gmf,m~-...~.t~J~ ...p~r:ary.._.
'i S Natural Resource Infonnation System
'c'-'"-,,. - ...-..... ., -~ ....-..... -, ... ,... - .
ll11uay 1994 - M8p hquelt No: 94BPA29D
o 1000
r-I.----..
Scale
2000
of Feet
3000
-------
30
- 25
r-...
-
..c4
bl)
'u
~ 20
~ -
.0
'--"
u.J
~
~ - 15
.....
V)
.....
0
::; 10
.....:I -
.....
0
V)
~
- 5
o
12/20/90 05/13/91 06/11/91 07/22/91 08/15/91 09/13/91
04/14/91 ! OS/28/91 06/27/91 07/29191 08/28/91 09127191
DATE .
---- 0-6"
-+- 6-12"
~ 12-18" -a- 18-24" ... 24- 30" ...... 30- 36"
,;
Figure 12
Soil Moisture at Site VZ-2 (Old Works)
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8. fmldd.czvb
-------
Old WorkslEast Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Vegetation
c:J . . c:J Water Body .-...- :ed:::
~ = ::::~mmum~ :'.:.:>'. :::: H+j. =d ~ NRIS ~::~:tit~t;:m~~~~"'.'-~
r:::=;J Secondary Growth Sbrob-Gnu Comm~ [==:J CoIICIfIte Pad Culvert IIDU8l)' 1994 - Map. RequeIt No: 94BPA29C
Conlour
IilM Woodland (Willow Stando and RJperian) [CJ Other StNcture. 0 1000 2000 3000
t::::.:~~~l Undi8tutbed SoU . Record of Decision OW/EADA OU F""'\-~ .. ,I
CompIIod from Igu," &-1. DniIt Rn8I -.<10 &moI1or NIl. 8118. OWIFNJA au Romodlol In_gotlon Roport. Volume I 030B94/owrod8.fmldd-czvb Scale of Feet
Figure 13.
Reclalmed Area
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
/
/
I
I
/
/
Mc-5
. 1370
" ,
... " MC-} ,
'. 990,~' "-
""", '. . - , ,.
" "
:'.'. ". ,
.... ......... '
"
/
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
/ -
, ,
/, "
I ,
/ "-
I I',
I I ,
, ,.
."..>
..
- - - - - - - - - .->-' -,.- -. - - - - - - - - - - .
.~.:2};.-: ;- .~ -
..." ~D7 '.
,
,
,
.".'
.".- ,
.~
VI Mal I:ro* _urn.
0ImpI0d .'!,om
11. Dr8II __ndo - NPL SIbo. f1W/fJIDA au - ~ Ropo~ y,"
Town of Mill Creek Soil Arsenic Levels
(Samples of July 15 & 16, 1993)
. MC4 Approximate Sample Location, with
902 m and Anenic Concentmtioo (ppm)
- 900-- I!atim. Anenic Concedtration Isoline
Figure 1 4.
.~ ":)~-3~'
Dome8tic Well willi ~ Con-
ceaIIaIioD in Ground WfIt« above
!be MCL (MIIy 93 IllUDpIe dale)
SurDce WI11m' Gaging SIaIion
~
Base map digitized bv Horizons,. Inc., Rapid Gty. Northwest half of map
dilPtized from 1:6400 scale aerial phOlla6 of 1009/88. Southeast half from
1 :24,000 scale aerial photos of 1118184. Soil sample locations and arsenic
levels provided bv ARCO. lsoIines interpola1l!d from the 4 nearest sampks
within 300 me!I!s's, with the influence c:J each sample inversely proportional
to the wbe c:J ils distmce. Other interpolation methods prodUCE isolines
up to 1 SO feet aw
-------
.,
RME
Town of
Anaconda
Min. - 0.08
Average
Town of
Anaconda
Hazard Index
.$1.0
Min. - 0.04
.2-10
.>10
Figure 15
Noncancer Risks to Workers from Arsenic in Surface Materials
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
030894/owrodS. fm/dd-czvb
. ~.. .~--_. .. n_".
-------
'4
RME
Town of
Anaconda
Average
6
~ Anaconda
Sewage
. Treatment
Ponds
T own of
Anaconda
Cancer Risk
<1 E-06
.
1E-04 10 <1E-03
Min. - 2E-06
.
.
D
1E-0610<1E-OS.
-------
.~
RME
6
~ Anaconda
T=:t
Ponds
Town of
Anaconda
Average
T own of
Anaconda
Cancer Risk
. <1E-Q6 .
1E-06to<1E-QS .
1E-Q4 to <1E-03
.
D
~1 E-03
1 E-OS to < 1 E-04
Figure 17
Cancer Risks to Dirt Bike Riders from Arsenic in Surface Materials
Rccord of Dccision OW/EADA OU
030894/ owrod8. fmldd-czvb
-------
Historic
Oper8l1lon
Milling,
Smelling,
Aufining
J. -.
Contaminated
Medium
Exposure
Route
Exposed Populallons
Terreatrlal Aquallc
Rele..e and Tran.pon Pathways
Deposition
..Q!!~.9!.ntacl --.. 'nver1ebra'esIWildl,'o
Ingestion -~
---.Tpiiike- -~
...J Taitings I
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8. rmldd-czvb
r-'
Wind Erosion
-- ..-.- .--.-
..
Vegetation
~I
Ingeslion
I-.j Inver1ebratosIWlldh'o I
=:llnVUr1UbratusJWw~ .
Mechanical Erosion
- ~ Inver1ebraluslWildlilo
-~ Vegetetion
-~ ,nV0r10bratesIWlldli':;;-]
--~ Vegetation]
~!!ad!!!!ll
Auno"
Auno" ~
Auno"
Figure 18
.1
I.-.j
Inges.ion
Wlldlifo
Dir~!.~!acl --~ Inver1ebratesIWildlilo
. -2.¥!!!~
Uptake
..
Direct Conlact -~I . . I
~ -- --.,..- Inver1ebra.osIWlldldu
Ingoshon -~
Conceptual Site Model for Ecological Assessment
Aquatic PI~
r--F~~h~
Inver1ebralusIFlsh .~]
Aquatic Plan.s
-------
c::::::J
1";':.:>1
c:=J
r.::::::J
!"~:'.'l
Witer Body
TaiIiDga
Building
CoacreIe Pad
c:=J
c=J
c:;::J
r:==J
~ Anaconda Local
Deer LocIp Co. DevelopQlent
ARCO - T- Ann T-
- SIIeam
Slife of MoDIaDa VanoUi Ownen advert
Ueland I\.,,;,\~":J Intentate Lumber Co. Cootour
Other StIuduro.
V. GaI10 [=::J Drag Strip
CampIJod fram flgu.. 111..:1. DI8II AMI _ndo 8- N'l BIte. OWfEN)/I. OIl ~...od'" Invootlptlon........ Volu- V ~ 8tudy.
~
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8. fm/dd..czvb
Montana Stata
18111181)' 1994 .. Map Requelt No: 94BPA29H
o 1000
ro--.--.......
Scale
2000
3000
of Feet
-------
Compllod f..... flgu.. 4. OWIfN)A OU "'-" PIon.
Figure 20.
c=:I Waler Body
1< :,::;"1 Tallinp
[===:J DuUdin.
- Concrete Pad
C=:J Other Stroctllre
ARTS
Cruahed LlmelltOne Cover
PaTed road
Other road
RaIlroad
Stream
Culvert
Contour
3000
Bngineered Cover
Subatea BoundaIy
!
o 1000
r-.....~
Scale
2000
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8 .finl dd-czvb
of Feet,
-------
.
.~ -,\ /...,--..."
'\ ,JJ
\ .--
\'"'\.!"--f'///
\,
\\.
"
"'....
"
,
\\
\\
",
-'\
.,
\
\
\
,
\
~":
"-"
\
"
\,
<....
\
\
_~l'
-~::-)
. \\
,
\
\
)
..)
,...."....., ,./
..' f
,.'
Figure 21.
Mill Creek Area
L, ,~,.:' '1
Legend
Rev~ TreaImeIIt
TecImiqueII
TaiIinP
BuiIdiDg
>-+-+-++-
Paved 10IUI
Other road
Bridge
TDil
Raihoed
Stream
Comour
~
t,',.'.::.1
t,:":''I:~:~''1
E:::J
Other Stmcture
Montana State Ubra
o 1000
1"""""--- """'I
Record of Dccisioo OW/EADA OU
030894/owrOO8 .fml dd-c:zvb
2000
3000
4000
I
MmdI 1994 - Map Requst No: 94BPA29M
Scale of Feet
.- .. - ." ------.
-------
Figure' 22.
c::J : Wilier Body
I' ::.;:.; 'I Tamn,a
c::::J
PJmI
c:::J OthIJl' Sfrucl1ri
Building
Concnte Pad
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable. Unit Selected Remedy
C:=J lt8vegetatioo Treatment Paved road
~~- Oth.road
RaIlroad
riIIIII Quailed IJme&tono Cover - Stream
c:::J ~ Cov. Culvld
Contour
!
IIDII8Iy 1994 - Map. Requoat No: 94BPA29G2
1~~?,b'J1 Reveptalion TreaImont
TocImiquea or Soil eo-
Record of Decision OWlEADA OU
0308941owrod8. ftnldd-czvb
o 1000
..........-...-
Scale of Feet
2000
3000
-------
~. .. --.... - ". ~'-'"'
.,
APPENDIX A
ARARs
-------
.,
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISPOSAL
SITES IN EPA REGIONS VI, VII, AND VIII
u.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0021
FINAL DRAFT
IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRlATE REQUIREMENTS
OLD WORKSIEAST ANACOJl.'DA DEVELOPMENT AREA OPERABLE UNIT
ANACONDA SMELTER NPL SITE
ANACONDA,MONTANA
March 23, 1993
Work Assignment Number.: 37-8P18
Document No.: 7760-037-RT-CPSC
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region Vill, Montana Office
Federal Building, Drawer 10096
301 South Park
Helena, Montana 59626-0096
FiDaJ Draft IdcmificaJjoa of ARARI
032393/_cada6.fmlJt-q>1C
. ,-,-",.'"-'."
-~.. "'P' .--, .. - . _.
,....- '" ".'."'.""
-------
.,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
1.1 OBJECTIVES... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
1.2
SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
2.0 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS. . . .. 5
2.1 ARARS FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
1.3
SITE LOCATION AND HIS TOR Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
8
3.0 FEDERAL ARARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
3.1 FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS ................. 10
3.1.1 Safe Drinking Water Act (Relevant and Appropriate) . . . . . . .. 10
3.1.2 Clean Water Act (Relevant and Appropriate) ............. 11
3.1.3 Clean Air Act (Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
3.2
3.3
2.2
DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
2.3
ARARS APPLICABLE TO OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION. . . . . . .
2.4
SCOPE OF ARARS ANALYSIS FOR OW/EADA REMEDIAL
ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation (Relevant and
Appropriate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2 Clean Air Act (Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.3 Clean Water Act (Relevant and Appropriate) .......... '. . .
3.2.3.1 Clean Water Act - Dredeed or FiIl Material
Applicable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.4 Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act, Subtitle D (Relevant
and Appropriate) ..............................
FEDERAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Applicable) . . . . . .
3.3.2 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (Applicable) . . . . .
3.3.3 Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (Applicable) .....
3.3.4 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.5 Floodplain Management (Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.6 Protection of Wetlands (Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Filial Draft Idcalifalicm of AMRa
032393/owcad86. fiDlrt
-------
.~
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PAGE
3.4
3.3.7 Endangered Species Act (Applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO BE CONSIDERED (TBC) ..........................
18
19
4.0 STATE OF MONTANA ARARS .............................. 24
4.1 OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
4.2
4.3
MONTANA CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
4.2.1 Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 24
4.2.1.1 Water Quality Statutes (Applicable) . . . . . . . . .. 24
4.2.1.2 Surface Water Duality Standards (Ap,plicable) . . .. 25
4.2.1.3 Nondeiradation of Water Duality (Applicable) . . .. 25
4.2.1.4 Well Standards (Applicable) .............. 26
4.2.1.5 Montana Ground Water Pollution Control System
(Applicable) ........................ 26
4.2.2 Air Quality. . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26
4.2.2.1 Clean Air Act of Montana (ApJ'licable) ....... 26
4.2.2.2 Montana Air Ouality Emissions Standards. . . . .. 27
MONTANA ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
4.3.1 Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
4.3.1.1 Water Duality Statutes (Ap,plicable) . . . . . . . . .. 27
4.3.1.2 Surface Water Duality Re~ulations (Applicable) .. 28
4.3.1.3 Nondeiradation of Water Quality (Ap,plicable) ... 28
4.3.1.4 MPDES Permit Regulations (Relevant and
Appropriate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
Well Standards (Applicable or Relevant and
Ap,propriate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
Montana Ground Water PolIution Control System
(Ap,plicable) ........................ 28
4.3.2 Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
4.3.2.1 Air Duality Regulations (Applicable) ......... 28
4.3.2.2 Montana Air Quality Emissions Standards. . . . .. 29
4.3.3 Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (Applicable) .... 29
4.3.4 Solid Waste Management Act (Applicable) .............. 29
4.3.4.1 Solid Waste Management Regulations
(Applicable) ........................ 29
4.3.5 Mining and Reclamation Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
4.3.5.1 Strip Minin~ and Underground Mine Reclamation
Act (Relevant and Ap,propriate) ............ 30
4.3.1.5
4.3.1.6
Filial Draft JdclllificaliCII of ARAIb
032393/owead86. fmlrt-q>IC
11
-------
.~
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
4.3.5.2
Rules and Regulations Governing the Opencut
Mining Act (Relevant and Appropriate) ""'"
4.4
MONTANA LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 Natural Stream Bed and Land Preservation Act (Ap.plicable or
Relevant and Ap'propriate) ........................
4.4.2 Floodplain and Floodway Management Act (Awlicable or
Relevant and Ap'propriate) ........................
4.4.3 Floodplain Mana,~ement Re~ulations (Applicable or Relevant
and Ap.propriate) ..............................
4.4.4 Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.4.1 AntiQuities Act (Relevant and Ap!'>ropriate) .....
4.4.4.2 Cultural Resources Regulations (Relevant and
Appropriate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FiDaI Draft Iclculifacatiaa d ARAb
032393/_cada6.fmlrtoqlC
Ul
PAGE
35
36
36
37
37
40
40
40
.- -- -. n' . ... ..~-. . .~.. .- ~ .-... ._.._0,'"
-------
.' . . '. - .
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
.,
LIST OF TABLES
Page
FEDERAL AND STATE OF MONTANA WATER QUALITY
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION. . . .
13
FEDERAL AND STATE OF MONTANA AIR QUALITY
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION. . . .
14
. FEDERAL APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION. . . .
LIST OF FEDERAL POLICIES, CRITERIA, ADVISORIES OR
GUIDANCE TO BE CONSIDERED IN SETTING REMEDIATION
LEVELS OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS OR
LIMITATIONS TO BE MET FOR THE OW/EADA REMEDIAL
ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
20
MONT ANA APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS OW IEADA REMEDIAL ACTION. . . . . . . . . . .
41
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FiDaI Draft Idculifl:&liOll of ARAb
032393/owcadl6.fmlJt-cp1C
iv
.. '.'--'----.. ,.'...--'"
'-.-'-'-.'.' ...
-------
A/DLHPO
ALDC
AOC
ARARs
ARCO
ARM
ATSDR
BTCA
CERCLA
DNRC
EPA
MCL
MCLG
MDHES
MGWPCS
MPDES
NCP
NAAQS
NHPA
NPL
NPDES
OSWER
OW/EADA
PRP
RCRA
RI/FS
ROD
SDWA
SHPO
SIP
TBC
TU
Filial Draft Idallif IC81ioa of ARAh
032393/_cada6.fmlrt
-------
.,
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this document is to identify and describe potential applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the Old WorkslEast Anaconda Development Area
activities. These activities will occur in the Old WorkslEast Anaconda Development Area
Operable Unit (OWIEADA) of the Anaconda Smelter National Priorities List (NPL) site.
This document is intended for use by the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with the Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences (MDHES). I
This description and identification of potential ARARs focuses on contaminated soil material
(i.e., soils, tailings, and other smelting related wastes), groundwater, surface water and air
pathways in the OWIEADA Operable Unit, and the effect this contamination has or may
have on human health and the environment. These ARARs address the areas and materials
described herein, the implementation of potential remedial actions, the identification of
source areas, and the final disposition of contaminated soil media.
1.2
SCOPE OF TInS DOCUMENT
This document identifies and discusses Federal and State of Montana (State) ARARs. These
ARARs are discussed in a narrative text, which is divided into chemical-specific, action-
specific, and location-specific ARARs. Tables are included at the end of both the Federal
and State ARARs sections which identify those Federal and State ARARs that are either
applicable or relevant and appropriate for the OWIEADA remedial action. Any further
determinations based upon the ARAR waiver provision of Section 121(d)(4) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42
U.S.C. ~ 9621(d)(4), will be made prior to the development of the Record of Decision
(ROD).
1.3
SITE LOCATION AND mSTORY
The Anaconda Smelter NPL Site (Figure 1-1) is located in southwestern Montana, at the
southern end of the Deer Lodge valley, approximately 25 miles northwest of Butte, Montana,
adjacent to and east of Anaconda, Montana. The ore processing facilities at the site were
developed to remove copper from ore mined in Butte from 1884 until the Anaconda Minerals
Company closed the smelter in September 1980.
The smelting processes produced wastes that have elevated concentrations of metals and
metalloids such as arsenic, copper, cadmium, lead, and zinc. These contaminants pose
potential risks to human health and the environment. The Anaconda Minerals Company
PiDaI Draft IdcDtiflC8liao 01 AJtAJta
032393/_C8da6.fmlrt-cp8C
1
. -.,' .. -. ~ .", ~_... ..-
--.-.---. ---------'-"U_'-' .
-------
~[
~!i'
fs.
~-
",8
~~
la'
II A.
>
~
~
IV
"':I
....
10
r:
...
~
Anaconda Superfund Site Operable Unit Locations
Key to Sue ~ Activroes Legeod Sitt~;dc RlIJ'S Sroping w~
c::J Lob. ~ PIi-r ~ I!m n.a. 0iIi00I a-a: lIodorwo, bp:maJ w- ..., w- Sp
.. ...... - ~ &IIJwIJ - n.a. QibooI I......J ~ "-aDdI IaiII (IDd"""
c::J ~ - c::::J IIqoo6ocI --- Adiao v~ ... ciI7 rI "--10)
~ ... PII8 .... mr &q.diIod --- Adiao c:aa.pI88
- .... - a-I.... c::J IJIPS Ioopiq
-. ....... .... -........ r::::J IJIPS U..-....,.
- De ... 10D Iipod
- ......, AdiDD l""'"
- ......, AdiDD 0aj>I0D
Old llorh/Easl AD3I'on~a Dm!(I!,mrnl Areas
....
I
....
, .
:&
~
Smtllu Hill '
o 5000 10000 15000
(' , <;, ,~ "'""J i-;;;M'{~':;$##.;@
Scole in reet
~_a.l r.tm ,....----
NUS -- -.. --.,..
:-:..:.~ ----=-
J.n, 199
Wop ~'q"ll No.: '2AACOHA I
i
; I
:/
.1
I
-------
.~
estimated that the wastes inc1ude about 185 million cubic yards of concentrated tailings,
about 27 million cubic yards of furnace slags, about 316,000 cubic yards of flue dust and
tens of square miles of contaminated soils. Due to the size of the processing facilities, the
100 year period of operation, the volume of wastes produced, and the dispersion of wastes
via mechanical operations, slurry ditches and aerial deposition, the Anaconda Smelter site is
composed of diverse wastes spread over an extensive area.
The history of pollution problems associated with heavy metal releases at the Anaconda
Smelter site led to the listing of the site on the NFL in September 1983. In October 1984,
the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) entered into an administrative order on consent
(AOC) to conduct thirteen remedial investigations for the Anaconda Smelter site. The draft
Stage 1 remedial investigation reports generally indicated wide scale contamination and a
need for more in-depth study.
In July 1986, EPA entered into an AOC with ARCO to conduct an expedited remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) for Mill Creek. The ROD for Mill Creek was
completed in October 1987. In October 1988, EPA entered into an AOC with ARCO to
conduct additional remedial and removal activities on the Anaconda Smelter site. A general
work plan was developed to address site wide issues such as protected resources, air
sampling, and institutional controls and to provide criteria for identifying additional operable
units for the Remedial InvestigationlFeasibility Study (RIfFS) process.
Currently, EP A is active in the folIowing operable units:
.
Anaconda Soils
Regional Water and Waste
Old WorkslEast Anaconda Development Area
Arbiter/Beryllium
Flue Dust
Smelter Hill
Community Soils Removal
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Anaconda Smelter NFL Site Conceptual Management Plan (May 1992) describes the
current status of the operable units and the coordination of operable unit activities with site-
wide and regional activities. Each operable unit will be addressed in separate but interrelated
RIlFSs.
EP A and ARCO are working to complete RI/FSs for the OW fEADA and Smelter Hill
operable units and to conduct screening studies for the Anaconda Soils and Regional Water
and Waste operable units. Remedial activities are being conducted for the Flue Dust
operable unit and removal activities are underway at the Old Works, Community Soils, and
Arbiter/Beryllium operable units.
FiDaJ Draft IclcDtirlCatioa of AIlAR.a
032393/_C8CII6.fiDlrt-cpIC
3
-. .. ...... ...---.---.
.. ..- - .
-------
.~
These ARARs apply to the Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit
(Figure 1-2). This area includes the historic Red Sands and Old Works areas around the
Teresa Ann Terrace and Cedar Park Homes Subdivisions (but excludes the subdivisions
themselves), the county drag strip, the sewage treatment ponds, the East Anaconda Yard, the
Arbiter Plant site, .the Anaconda Local Development Corporation (ALDC) industrial park,
the flood corridor of Warm Springs Creek through the Old Works and Arbiter Plant areas,
and Benny Goodman Park. The OW /EADA operable unit also extends north to the top of
Stuckey Ridge.
FiDaI Draft IclcalirlC&lioo of ARARa
032393/_cad86.fmlrt
-------
~[
:s!?
i"~
If
~~
:i" 8.
1 SI.
~
VI
t-'
I
....
-
-
sw. I it=' . 1211l1li
,,!,....., l1li
old Works/E~st
blc UnIt
Opera
Area
-------
..
2.0 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
ARARS FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS
2.1
Section 121(d)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ~ 9621(d)(2), requires EPA to ensure that cleanup
actions conducted under CERCLA meet "any standard, requirement, criteria or limitation
under any Federal environmental law ... or any (more stringent) promulgated standard,.
requirement, criteria or limitation under a State environmental or facility siting law...
(which) is legally applicable to the hazardous substance concerned or is relevant and
appropriate under the circumstances of the release of such hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant... ." EP A calls standards, requirements, criteria or limitations identified
pursuant to this section, ARARs, or applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
Remedial actions implemented pursuant to CERCLA must attain all ARARs identified at the
time of the ROD1. A remedial action need not address all environmental problems at a
particular location if it is an intermediate action, but only the ARARs for the specific
environmental problems addressed by the action. Final cleanup or remedial decisions must
comply with all ARARs, unless specific ARAR waivers are invoked.
2.2
DEFINITIONS
ARARs are either "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate." Both types of requirements
are mandatory under CERCLA guidance. 2
Applicable . requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive requirements, criteria or limitations promulgated under federal environmental or
state environmental facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA
site. Only those state standards that are identified by a state in a timely manner and that are
more stringent than federal requirements may be applicable. 3
Relevant and appropriate requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control,
and other substantive requirements, criteria or limitations promulgated under federal
environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws that, while not "applicable" to
hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, remedial actions, locations, or other
circumstances at a CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
1 '0 C.F.R. S 300.'30(f)(1)(i)(A) end (f)(1)(ii)(B).
2 CERCLA S 121(d)(2)(A), '2 U.S.C. S 6921(d)(2)(e). See also, '0 C.F.R. S 300.'30(f)(1)(i)(A).
3 '0 C.F.R. S 300.5.
FiDaJ Draft JclClllifJCl1icJa of ARAItJ
032393/_cad86.fmln
-------
.,
encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well suited to the particular site. Only
those state standards that are identified in a timely manner and are more stringent than
federal requirements may be relevant and appropriate. 4
The determination- that a requirement is relevant and appropriate is a two-step process:
(1) the determination if a requirement is relevant and (2) the determination if a requirement
is appropriate. In general, this involves a comparison of a number of site-specific factors,
including an examination of the purpose of the requirement and the purpose of the proposed
CERCLA action; the medium and substances regulated by the requirement and the proposed
requirement; the actions or activities regulated by the requirement and the remedial action;
and the potential use of resources addressed in the requirement and the remedial action.
When the analysis results in a determination that a requirement is both relevant and
appropriate, such a requirement must be complied with to the same degree as if it were
applicable. 5
ARARs are divided into chemical-specific, action-specific and location-specific requirements.
Chemical-specific requirements govern the release to the environment of materials possessing
certain chemical or physical characteristics or containing specific chemical compounds.
Chemical-specific ARARs generally set human or environmental risk-based criteria and
protocol which, when applied to site-specific conditions, result in the establishment of
numerical action values. These values establish the acceptable amount or concentration of a
chemical that may be found in, or discharged to, the ambient environment.
Action-specific ARARs are usually technology- or activity-based requirements, or are
limitations on actions taken with respect to hazardous substances. A particular remedial
activity will trigger an action-specific ARAR. Unlike chemical-specific and location-specific
ARARs, action-specific ARARs do not, in themselves, determine the remedial alternative.
Rather, action-specific ARARs indicate how the selected remedy must be achieved.
Location-specific ARARs relate to the geographic or physical position of the site, rather than
to the nature of site contaminants. These ARARs place restrictions on the concentration of
hazardous substances or the conduct of cleanup activities due to their location in the
environment.
Only substantive portions of these requirements are ARARs. Administrative requirements
are not ARARs, and need not be attained during or after site cleanups. Administrative
requirements are those which involve consultation, issuance of permits, documentation,
reporting, recordkeeping, and enforcement. The CERCLA program has its own set of
4 40 C.F.R. i300.5.
5 CERClA Comotience with Other laws Manuat, Vol. I, OSWER Directive 9234.1-01, August 8, 1988, p. 1-
11.
FiDaJ Draft Jclc:atiflC&tioa of ARARs
032393/_eada6. rmlftoCplC
7
-------
.~
administrative procedures which assure proper implementation of CERCLA. The application
of additional or conflicting administrative requirements could result in delay or confusion. 6
Provisions of statutes or regulations which contain general goals that merely express
legislative intent about desired outcomes or conditions but are non-binding are not ARARs.7
ARARs must be attained both during the conduct of on-site cleanup activities and at the
conclusion of the cleanup activity, unless specifically exempted. 8
In addition to applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, there are advisories,
criteria, and guidance documents which are To Be Considered (TBC). This means that they
can be identified by the lead and support agencies and considered, as appropriate, in
selecting and developing cleanup actions. Often these documents are tied to the consideration
of whether a particular cleanup action is protective of human health and the environment. 9
Federal TBCs are discussed in Section 3.4.
2.3
ARARS APPLICABLE TO OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION
This document constitutes EPA's final draft ARARs for the OW lEAD A remedial action.
The PRP shall use this document in analyzing various remedial alternatives. Federal ARARs
are discussed herein and are summarized in Table 3. Table 4 lists Federal policies, criteria,
advisories, or guidance to be considered in setting cleanup levels or other requirements,
standards, or limitations to be met for the OW/EADA remedial action. Table 4 also lists
other requirements To Be Considered (TBCs) which may be used by EP A to determine the
appropriate remedial action, or to prepare or evaluate work plans and other documents during
the OW IEADA remedial action. State ARARs are also discussed herein and summarized in
Table 5. Final ARARslPerformance Standards will be developed for the ROD.
This ARARs analysis is based on Section 121(d) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ~ 9621(d); the
memorandum Consideration 01 RCRA. Requirements in Performing CERCLA Responses al
Mining Waste Sites, Henry L. Longest ill, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, EPA (August 19, 1986); CERCLA. Compliance with Orher Laws Manual. Volume
1, OSWER Dir. 9234.1-01 (August 8, 1988); CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual.
Volume 11, OSWER Dir. 9234.1-02 (August, 1989); the Preamble to the Proposed National
6 CERCLA i 121(e), '2 U.S.C. i 9621(e); Preamble to the Final NCP, 55 Fed. Reg. 8756-8757 (March 8,
1990); Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Vol. J, pp. 1-11 through 1-12.
7 Preamble to Final NCP, 55 Fed. Reg. 87'6 (March 8, 1990).
8 Preamble to the Proposed NCP, 53 Fed. Reg. 51"0 (December 21, 1988); Preamble to the Final NCP, 55
Fed. Reg. 8755-8757 (March 8, 1990).
9 '0 C.F.R. f 300.'00(g)(3); '0 C.F.R. f 300."5(1); Preamble to the Final NCP, 55 Fed. Reg. 874'-87'6
(March 8, 1990).
FiDaI Draft JdalIifICalioa of AIlARI
032393/01iwll6.rmlft
-------
.~
Contingency Plan, 53 Fed. Reg. 51394, et. seq. (December 21, 1988); the Preamble to the
Final National Contingency Plan, 55 Fed. Reg. 8666-8813 (March 8, 1990); and the Final
National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 (55 Fed. Reg. 8813-8865, March 8, 1990)
(hereinafter referred to as the final NCP); Compendium CERCLA of ARARs Facr Sheets and
Directives, EPA Publication 9347.3-15 and DOE Publication OEG (CERCLA) 00511091
(October 1991). All references to 40 C.F.R. Part 300 contained in this document refer to
the final NCP, unless noted.
2.4
SCOPE OF ARARS ANALYSIS FOR OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION
The OW /EADA remedial action will address contaminated soil material (i.e., soils, tailings,
slag, and other smelting-related wastes), groundwater, surface water, and air pathways at the
site. Final remediation of air, groundwater, and surface water within the OW/EADA
Operable Unit is not within the scope of the anticipated response action. Though this
document does not provide ARARs for final cleanup of air and water media, it does specifY
ARARs which prohibit degradation of existing air and water quality. Further, this document
specifies that remedial actions under the OW /EADA shall be consistent with the final
response action. This consistency will be achieved through minimization of releases from
surface sources to air and water media. See: Remedial Action Objectives, Treatment
Technology Scoping and Development of Alrernatives Report, Anaconda Smelter NPL Site,
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit, January 1993. Toward this
end, contaminant specific air and water quality ARARs are identified in this document for
the limited purpose of aiding in the identification of sources of contamination to air,
groundwater, and surface water.
Potential cleanup actions address a wide variety of on-site activities, from the creation of
disposal units to capping. Therefore, all applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and
State standards for chemical-, action-, and location-specific ARARs are presented herein.
FiDaI Draft JdcDliflCalioa of ARAR.
032393/_eada6.fmlrt
-------
-~
3.0 FEDERAL ARARS
Potential-Federal applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements for the OW/EADA
remedial action are discussed below and are summarized in Table 3. Though final
remediation of air- and water media is not within the scope of the OW/EADA Operable Unit
response action, this document does specify ARARs which prohibit degradation of existing
air and water quality. Further, this document requires that remedial actions taken shall be
consistent with the Regional Water and Waste Operable Unit, which will be the final
response action. Consistency will be achieved through minimization of releases from surface
sources to air and water media. Toward this end, federal contaminant specific air and water
quality ARARs are identified below for the limited purpose of aiding in the identification of
sources of contamination to air, groundwater, and surface water.
3.1
FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS
3.1.1 Safe Drinking Water Act (Relevant and Appropriate)
CERCLA Section 121(d)(2)(A)(i) requires on-site CERCLA remedies to attain standards or
levels of contact created under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A).
The National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations established under the
SDWA (40 C.F.R. Parts 141 and 143) establish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for
chemicals in drinking water distributed in public water systems. Safe Drinking Water Act
MCLs are not applicable to OW/EADA remedial action because the aquifer at the
OW/EADA Operable Unit is not a public water supply. Currently there is no known public
use of groundwater underlying, or coming into contact with contaminants from the
OW/EADA Operable Unit. These standards may be applicable in the future should EPA
detect an exceedance at a public water outlet.
These drinking water standards are, however, relevant and appropriate because groundwater
in the area is a potential source of drinking water, and because the aquifer feeds Warm
Springs Creek, which is designated as a potential drinking water source.
The determination that the drinking water standards are relevant and appropriate for portions
of the OW/EADA remedial action is fully supported by the regulations and guidance. The
Preamble to the NCP clearly states the MCLs are relevant and appropriate for groundwater
that is a current or potential source of drinking water (55 Fed. Reg. 8750 (March 8, 1990»,
and is further supported by requirements of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. fi 300.430(e)(2)(i)(B).
MCLs developed under the SDW A generally are ARARs for current or potential drinking
water sources. See, EPA Guidance On Remedial Action For ConraminaJed Groundwater at
Supeifund Sifes, OSWER Dir. #9283.1-2, December 1988.
Filial Draft IdcaIifK:lllial of AMRa
032393/_~.fiDI"
-------
'.
..~. .
.~
. .
The MCL standards are:
."
.'
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
.05 (mg/L)
.0058 (mg/L)
.1 b (mg/L)
.015c (mg/L)
',"
F = flllll
Stale MCL is .01 melL.
40 C.F.R. 141.62, Slale MCL is atilJ .05 melL
40 C.F.R. 141.80; Ibis is 811 'actiCllllevel" ratber!ban 811 MCL. Effective December 7, 1992 (See 57 Fed. Ree 28788, 9129/92, cor=tiDg
effective elale ill 1141.80). Stale MCL ia atilJ .05 melL.
3.1.2 Clean Water Act (Relevant and Appropriate)
The Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. ~~ 1251-1376) as amended by the Water Quality
Act of 1987 (public Law 100-4 ~ 103) provides the authority for each state to adopt water
quality standards (40 C.F.R. Part 131) designed to protect beneficial uses of each water body
and requires each state to designate uses for each water body. EP A regulation requires states
to establish antidegradation requirements. EP A has provided guidance to the states for this
purpose, the latest version of which is Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (i.e., the Gold Book).
Pursuant to this authority and the criteria established by Montana water quality regulations'
(A.R.M. ~ 16.20.623), Montana has established the Water-Use Classification system which
specifies discharge limitations for Warm Springs Creek. The B-1 Classification standards are
presented in the section on State ARARs.
These B-1 classification standards reflect consideration and adoption of the federal water
quality criteria numeric standards found in the Gold Book. At this time, EP A is relying on
the State standards. EP A reserves the right to identify federal water quality criteria as
ARARs for this action if appropriate.
40 C.F.R. Part 122 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Section 122. 1 (b)(l) requires permits for the discharge of "pollutants" from any
"point source" into "waters of the United States. II Section 122.26 provides that any "storm
water discharge associated with industrial activity" be permitted. The permitting procedures
themselves are not substantive and are not considered ARARs. However, substantive
requirements such as those at 40 C.F.R. ~ 122.4, which outlines situations in which permits
for discharges are prohibited, 40 C.F.R. ~.122.41-.51, which sets forth permit conditions,
and 40 C.F.R. ~ 125, which sets forth criteria for technology based permit requirements and
criteria for Best Management Practices, may be applicable for any storm water discharge
from any portion of the OW/EADA Operable Unit. Also, the substantive requirements of
general permits for storm water discharges from construction are relevant and appropriate.
~ 57 Fed. Reg. 41236, September 9, 1992. More specific requirements will be identified
at the time of the ROD. Montana has an EPA approved State program (MPDES) that is
discussed in the State ARARs Section 4.3.1.4
FiDa1 Dnft IdeoIiflCatioa of ARARa
032393/oweGa6.fmll'l-epac
11
-------
.,
3.1.3 Clean Air Act (Applicable)
Pursuant to Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. ~ 7409, 7410), EPA promulgated
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (see 40 C.F.R. Part 50). The attainment
and maintenance of these primary and secondary standards are required to protect the public
health and the public welfare. EPA has promulgated NAAQS for the following six pollutants
(called "criteria pollutants"): particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns particle size
(PM-10), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Primary
standards are set at levels to protect public health. Secondary standards are set at levels to
protect public welfare.
According to Section 107 of the Clean Air Act, each State has the primary responsibility for
assuring that NAAQS are attained and maintained. Section 110 requires each State to adopt
and submit to EP A for approval a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and
endorsement (State Implementation Plan (SIP» of the NAAQS. Upon EPA approval, the SIP
becomes Federally enforceable. The State of Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards in
ARM ~ 16.8.801 et~. are applicable to releases into the air from OW/EADA remedial
activities.
Pursuant to Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 D.S.C. ~ 7409, 7410), and implementing
regulations found at 40 C.F.R. Part 50, the following standards are identified as relevant and
appropriate standards for releases into the air resulting from the OW IEADA remedial
activities.
Particulate matter (PMIC~}
150 p.g/m3, 24 hour average; 50 p.g/m3, annual arithmetic mean for particulate matter of less
than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter (40 C.F.R. ~ 50.6, corresponding State
regulation found at ARM ~ 16.8.821). These standards are applicable.
~
1.5 p.g/m3, maximum arithmetic mean over a calendar quarter (40 C.F.R. ~ 50.12,
corresponding State regulation found at ARM ~ 16.8.815). These standards are applicable.
Filial Draft JdcatUlCalioa of AltAR.
032393/OVo1C8d86 .flDln
-------
.~
TABLE 1
FEDERAL AND STATE OF MONTANA WATER QUALITY APPLICABLE OR
RELEVANT A.'ID APPROPRIA TE REQUIREME~'TS FOR TIlE
OW IEADA REMEDIAL ACTION
Reauirement
Citation
FEDERAL
SAFE DRI1\TJaNG WATER ACT
Water Quality Standards
Storm Water Discharge
Dredge and Fill Requirements
40 U.S.C. ~ 300, et seq.
40 U.S.C. Part 141
33 U.S.C. ~~ 1251-1376
40 C.F.R. Part 131
40. C.F.R. Part 122
40 C.F.R. Part 230
National Primary Drinking Water Standards
CLEAN WATER ACT
"
STATE
WATER QUALITY STATUTES
Nondegradation Statute
Anti-Pollution Statute
MCA ~ 75-5-303
MCA ~ 75-5-605
SURF ACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Surface Water Classification
/
. , ,~
Turbidity Levels
Water Impoundments
Nonpollution Requirements
Nondegradation Requirements
ARM ~ 16.20.604(1)
ARM 6 16.20.618
ARM ~ 16.20.205
ARM ~ 16.20.632
ARM ~ 16.20.633
ARM ~ 16.20.702
ARM i 16.20.703
GROUNDWATERQUALITYSTA1\~ARDS
Well Standards
Groundwater Standards
MCA i 85-2-505
ARM ~ 16.20.1002
AR.\f i 16.20.1003
ARM ~ 16.20.1011
Nondegradation Standards
FiDaI Draft Jclcztifocatiaa of ARAlU
032393/_cada6,flll!rt
-------
.~
TABLE 2
FEDERAL A.'l> STATE OF MO~7ANA AIR QUALITY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT
AND APPROPRIATE REQUlREMEr--7S FOR THE OWIEADA REMEDIAL ACTION
Requirement
Citation
FEDERAL
CLEAN AIR ACT
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Particu1ate Matter (PM-10) Concentrations
Lead Concentrations
42 V.S.C. ~ 7409, et seq.
40 C.F .R. Part 50
40 C.F.R. ~ 50.6
40 C.F.R. ~ 50.12
STATE
CLEAN AIR ACT OF MONTANA
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Ambient Air Monitoring
MCA ~ 75-2-101, et seq.
ARM ~ 16.8.801, et seq.
ARM ~ 16.8.807
ARM ~ 16.8.815
ARM ~ 16.8.818
ARM fi 16.8.821
Lead Concentrations
Settled Particulate Matter
Particulate Matter (PM-I0)
AIR EMISSIONS STANDARDS
Particulate Maner, Airborne
Odors
ARM ~ 16.8.1401
ARM ~ 16.8.1427
ARM ~ 26.4.761
Fugitive Dust
FiDaJ Draft Icbtilicaliao of AMRa
032393/_cUl6.rmlrt-cpIC
14
._h..-_h.___- ..
-------
.~
3.2
FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
3.2.1 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation (Relevant and Appropriate)
This Act (30 U.S.C. ~~ 1201-1326) and implementing regulations found at 30 C.F.R. Parts
816 and 784 establish provisions designed to protect the environment from the effects of
surface coal mining operations, and to a lesser extent non-coal mining. The regulations
require that revegetation be used to stabilize soil covers over reclaimed areas. These
requirements are relevant and appropriate to the covering of discrete areas of contamination.
They also require that revegetation be done according to a plan which specifies schedules,
species which are diverse and effective, planting methods, mulching techniques, irrigation if
appropriate, and appropriate soil testing. Reclamation performance standards are currently
relevant and appropriate to mining waste sites.
3.2.2 Clean Air Act (Applicable)
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. ~ 7409, 7410) specifies requirements which are
applicable for releases into the air resulting from OW/EADA remedial activities. These
standards must be met during the design, implementation, and at the conclusion of
OW IEADA remedial activities. See Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards listed in section
3.1.3, chemical-specific ARARs in Table 2. .
3.2.3 Clean Water Act (Relevant and Appropriate)
The Clean Water Act, Section 402, 404, 33 U.S.C. i 1342, et gg., authorizes EPA to issue
permits for the "discharge" of "pollutants" from any "point source." This includes storm
water discharges associated with "industrial activity." ~, 40 C.F.R. ~ 122.1(b)(2)(iv).
Facilities subject to these regulations include those listed at 40 C.F.R. i 122.26(b)(14). The
OW /EADA and activities to be performed there are subject to these requirements.
40 C.F.R. Part 122 establishes the NPDES. Section 122.1 requires permits for the discharge
of "pollutants" from any "point source" into "water of the United States." Section 122.26
provides that "storm water discharges associated with industrial activity" be permitted. The
permitting procedures themselves are not substantive and are not considered ARARs.
However, substantive requirements such as those at 40 C.F.R. ~ 122.4, which outlines
situations in which permits for discharges are prohibited, 40 C.F.R. A 122.41-.51, which sets
forth permit conditions, and 40 C.F.R. i 125, which sets forth criteria for technology based
permit requirements and criteria for Best Management Practices, may be applicable or
relevant and appropriate for storm water discharges from any portion of the OW/EADA
Operable Unit. Also, the substantive requirements of general ~rmits for storm water
discharges from construction are relevant and appropriate. ~ 57 Fed. Reg. 41236,
September 9, 1992. More specific requirements will be identified at the time of the ROD.
Montana has an EP A approved State program (MPDES) that is discussed in the State ARARs
Section 4.3.1.4
Fmal Draft JdealirlC&liaa ol ARAIb
0323!/3/owC8d86.fmln-cpae
15
"- '0,_'4__- .. .. .
. ".".'4'."
..... -.....
-------
.,
3.2.3.1
Clean Water Act - Dredged or Fill Material (Applicable)
40 C.F.R. Part 230 (Guidelines for Spedfication of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill
Material) provides guidelines for the discharge of flil material into aquatic ecosystems and is
therefore considered applicable. Specific requirements will be identified at a later date.
3.2.4 Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act, Subtitle D (Relevant and Appropriate)
The criteria contained in 40 C.F.R. Part 257 (Subtitle D) are used in accordance with RCRA
guidance in determining which practices pose a reasonable probability of having an adverse
effect on human health or the environment. RCRA Subtitle D establishes criteria which are,
for the most part, environmental performance standards that are used by states to identify
unacceptable solid waste disposal practices or facilities.
40 C.F.R. Part 257.3-1.(a) states that facilities or practices in the floodplain shall not result in
the washout of solid waste so as to pose a hazard to human life, wildlife, or land or water
resources.
40 C.F.R. Part 257.3-2 provides for the protection of threatened or endangered species.
40 C.F.R. Part 257.3-3 provides that a facility shall not cause the discharge of pollutants into
waters of the United States; this includes dredged or flU materials.
40 C.F .R. Part 257.3-4 states that a facility or practice shall not contaminate underground
drinking water beyond the solid waste boundary.
3.3
FEDERAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Federal ARARS identified for OW/EADA remedial action are discussed below.
3.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Applicable)
This statute and implementing regulations (16 U.S.C. fi 470, 40 C.F.R. fi 6.301(b), and 36
C.F.R. Part 800), require Federal agencies or Federal projects to take into account the effect
of any federally assisted undertaking or licensing, or any district, site, building, structure or
object that is included in, or is eligible for, the Register of Historic Places. Compliance with
the substantive portions of this ARAR requires EP A to consult with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Anaconda/Deer Lodge Historic Preservation Officer
(A/DLHPO) to identify any cultural resources which are on or near the OW/EADA Operable
Unit. If any cultural resources exist, the SHPO and A/DLHPO assess whether the proposed
cleanup actions will have possible effects on the resources. If the activity is likely to have an
effect, EP A should examine whether feasible alternatives to the proposed actions would avoid
FiDaI Draft Idc:II1iflCalioa 01 AIWtJ
032393/_C8d86.fmlrt-cpac
16
..' -.. .._-.. ...
. . - - ...- .. ,. ¥"
-------
.~
such effects. If effects cannot reasonably be avoided, measures should be implemented to
minimize or mitigate the potential effect.
NHP A regulations reserve formal determination of eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places and "no adverse effects" determinations for Federal agencies. EPA is using
the Upper Clark Fork River Basin Regional Historic Preservation Plan and supplementing
this with site-specific historical inventory and adverse effects determinations. EPA will
continue to consult with the SHPO and A/DLHPO to identify specific mitigative measures, if
necessary .
3.3.2 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (Applicable)
This statute and implementing regulations (16 U.S.C. ~ 469, 40 C.F.R. ~ 6.301(c» establish
requirements for the evaluation and preservation of historical and archaeological data, which
may be destroyed through alteration of terrain as a result of a Federal construction project or
a federally licensed activity or program. This requires EPA or the PRP to survey the site for
covered scientific, prehistorical or archaeological artifacts. The results of this survey will be
reflected in the Administrative Record. Preservation of appropriate data concerning the
artifacts is hereby identified as an ARAR requirement, to be completed during the
implementation of the remedial action.
3.3.3 Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (Applicable)
This Act (16 U.S.C. U 461 ~ ~.; 40 C.F.R. ~ 6.301(a» states that "[i]n conducting an
environmental review of a proposed EP A action, the responsible official shall consider the
existence and location of natural landmarks using information provided by the National Park
Service pursuant to 36 C.F.R. ~ 62.6(d) to avoid undesirable impacts upon such landmarks."
"National natural landmarks" are defined under 36 C.P.R. ~ 62.2 as:
[A]rea(s) of national significance located within [the U.S.] that contain(s) an
outstanding representative example(s) of the nation's natural heritage, including
terrestrial communities, aquatic communities, landforms, geological features,
habitats of natural plant and animal species, or fossil evidence of development
of life on earth.
Under the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to designate
areas as National Natural Landmarks for listing on the National Registry of Natural
Landmarks. To date no such landmarks are identified in the area.
3.3.4 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Applicable)
This standard (16 U.S.C. n 1531-1566,40 C.F.R. ~ 6.302(g» requires that Federal
agencies or federally funded projects ensure that any modification of any stream or other
water body affected by any action authorized or funded by the Federal agency provides for
Filial Draft IckllliflC&lioa of ARAIta
032393/_e8da6.fmlrt
-------
.~
adequate protection of fish and wildlife resources. Compliance with this ARAR requires
EPA to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Resources Agency
of the affected State. Further consultation will occur during the public comment period on
the RIfFS report, and specific mitigative measures may be identified, in consultation with the
appropriate agencies. Spedfic mitigative measures may be specified in the ROD.
3.3.5 Floodplain Management (Applicable)
This requirement (40 C.F.R. Part 6, Appendix A, Executive Order No. 11988) mandates that
federally funded or authorized actions within the 100 year floodplain avoid, to the maximum
extent possible, adverse impacts associated with development of a floodplain.
Compliance with this requirement is detailed in EPA's August 6, 1985 Policy of Floodplains
and Wet/and Assessments for CERCLA Actions. A recommendation of activities which may
minimize any anticipated adverse impacts will occur during the public comment period on the
RIfFS report, and specific measures will be identified in the ROD.
If the remedial action is found to potentially affect the floodplain, the ROD will contain a
Statement of Findings which will set forth the reasons why the proposed action must be
located in or affect the floodplain; a description of significant facts considered in making the
decisions to locate in or affect the floodplain or wetlands including alternative sites or
actions; a statement indicating whether the selected action conforms to applicable state of
local floodplain protection standards; a description of the steps to be taken to design or
modify the proposed action to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain; and a
statement indicating how the proposed action affects the natural or beneficial values of the
floodplain.
3.3.6 Protection of Wetlands (Applicable)
This ARAR (40 C.F.R. Part 6, Appendix A, Executive Order No. 11990) requires Federal
agencies and the PRP to avoid, to the extent possible, the adverse impacts associated with the
destruction or loss of wetlands and to avoid support of new construction in wetlands if a
practicable alternative exists. Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or
saturated by groundwater or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. EPA shall consult with the u.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the extent of wetlands within
the Warms Springs Creek floodplain.
3.3.7 Endangered Species Act (Applicable)
This statute and implementing regulations (16 U.S.C. U 1531-1543, 50 C.F.R. 402, and 40
C.F.R. ~ 6.302(h» require that any Federal activity or authorized activity may not jeopardize
FmaJ Draft JcIcDIif"lCaIiaa 0( ARAb
032393/-cad86 .fiDlrt
-------
.~
the continued existence of any thre
-------
.,
TABLE 3
FEDERAL APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION
Section Standard Requirements, Citation Description Appl icable/
Criteria or Limitation Relevant and
Appropriate
CHEMICAl.SPECIFIC
3.1.1 SAFE DRINKING ~ATER ACT 40 U.S.C. i 300(g)
National Primary Drinking 40 C.F.R. Part 141 Establishes health.based -/Yes
~ater Standards standards for public water
systems (maximum contaminant
levels).
3.1.2 CLEAN WATER ACT 33 U.S.C. ii 1251-1376
Water Quality Standards 40 C.F.R. Part 131, Water Sets standards for water quality -/Yes
Quality Criteria 1980, 1986 based on toxicity to aquatic
life.
NPOES Permit Application 40 C.F.R. Part 122 Regulates stonmwater discharges Yes/Yes
Regulations for Stonmwater through requi red permi ts.
Discharges
3.1.3 CLEAN AIR ACT 42 U.S.C. i 7409, 7410
National Primary and Secondary 40 C.F.R. Part 50 Standards for particulate and Yes/-
Ambient Quality Standards lead emissions to air.
ACTION.SPECIFIC
3.2.1 SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION 3D U.S.C. SS 1201-1326
ACT
Revegetation of All Areas 30 C.F.R. if 816, 784 Requires that revegetation be -/Yes
Where Contemination is Removed used to stabilize soil covers
or Left in Place over reclaimed areas.
Penmanent Program Performance 30 C.F.R. Part 816 Establishes provisions designed -/Yes
Standards to protect the environment from
the effects of surface coal
mining operations and, to a
lesser extent non-coal mining.
3.2.2 CLEAN AIR ACT 42 U.S.C. f 7409, 7410 Establishes standards for release
into the air.
3.2.3 CLEAN WATER ACT 33 U.S.C. ii 1342, !! !£g. Yes/-
NPDES Permit Application 40 C.F.R. Part 122 Regulates stonmwater discharges -/Yes
Regulations for Stonmwater through required permits.
Discharges
Dredge and Fill Requirements 40 C.F.R. Part 230 Regulates disposal and handling Yes/-
of fill and dredge materials.
3.2.4 RESOURCE, CONSERVATION, AND 42 U.S.C. i 6901, !! !£g.
RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Criteria for Classification of 40 C.F.R. Part 257 Establishes standards for -/Yes
Solid Waste Disposal SLbtitle D determining if solid waste
Facilities and Practices disposal facilities pose a
reasonable risk of adverse
effects on health and
envi rerment.
FiDaI Draft JclealiflC8lioD of AMJU
032393/_eada6.fmll1
-------
. ,-. .
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
Section
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
TABLE 3
FEDERAL APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION
Standard Requirements,
Criteria or Limitation
LOCA TION-SPECIFIC
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ACT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ACT
HISTORIC SITE, BUILDINGS AND
ANTIQUITIES ACT
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION
ACT
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
PROTECTION OF WETLANDS
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Citation
16 U.S.C. ~ 470
40 C.F.R. ~ 6.301(b)
36 C.F.R. Part 800
16 U.S.C. ~ 469
40 C.F.R. ~ 6301(c)
16 U.S.C. ~ 461, !! !29.
40 C.F.R. ~ 6.301(a)
16. U.S.C. ~~ 1531-1566
40 C.F.R. ~ 6.302(g)
40 C.F.R. part 6,
Appendix A, Executive Order
No. 11, 988
4D C.F.R., Part 6.
Appendix A. Executive Order
No. 11.990
16 U.S.C. ii 1531-1543
50 C.F.R. Part 200
50 C.F.R. Part 402
Description
Requires federal agencies to take
into account the effect of any
federally-assisted undertaking or
licensing on any district. site,
building, structure, or object
that is included in or eligible
for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places.
Establishes procedures to provide
for preservation of historical
and archaeological data which
might be destroyed through
alteration of terrain as a result
of a federal construction project
for a federally licensed activity
or program.
Requires federal agencies to
consider the existence and
location of landmarks on the
National Registry of Natural
landmarks to avoid undesirable
impacts on such landmarks.
Requires consultation when
federal department or agency
proposes or authorizes any
modification of any stream or
other water body and adequate
provision for protection of fish
and wildlife resources.
Requires federal agencies to
evaluate the potential effects of
actions they may take in a flood
plain. to avoid the adverse
impacts associated with direct
and indi rect developnent of a
flood plain. Regulates
activities within the flood
plain.
Requires federal agencies to take
action to avoid adversely
impacting wetlands wherever
possible, to minimize ~etl8nds
destruction and to preserve the
value of wet lands, and to
prescribe procedures to implement
these policies and procedures of
the Executive Order.
Requires action to conserve
endangered species within
critical habitat upon which
spec i es depend. I nc I udes
consultation with Department of
I nted or.
Appl icable/
Relevant anc
Appropriate
Yes/-
Yes/-
Yes/-
Yes/-
Yes/-
Yes/-
Yes/-
FiDaJ Draft IdaitifiC8liaa of ARAIb
032393/owc.ada6 .fmlrt-ql1C
21
-------
-,
TABLE 4
LIST OF FEDERAL POLICIES, CRITERIA, ADVISORIES OR GUIDANCE TO BE COSSIDERED
IN SETTISG REMEDIATIOS LEVELS OR OTHER REQUlREMElIoo7S, STASDARDS OR
LIMITATIONS TO BE MET FOR THE OWIEADA REMEDIAL ACTION
.
Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1988. Draft, Toxicological Profile for Lead. U.S. Public
Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
.
EPA, 1986. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Federal Register 51(185):34014-34025.
.
EPA, 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. EPA 540/1-86/060, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, D.C.
.
EPA, 1987. Final, Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D.C.
.
EPA, 1988. Final, Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D.C.
.
EPA, 1988. Final, Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D.C. (OSWER Dir. #9285.5-1)
.
EPA, 1988. Integrated Risk Information System. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
.
EPA, 1989. Second Quarter FY 89 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office, OSWER 9200.6-303-(89-1). Cincinnati, OH.
.
EPA, 1989. Regulating Lead: An Update. AWWAJ.81(7):24.
.
EP A, 1989. Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Lead and Lead Compounds in Support of Reportable
Quantity Adjustments Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102. EPA/600/8-89/045A, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Washington, D.C.
.
EPA, September 1989. Interim Guidance on Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites. OSWER Dir.
#9355.4-02.
.
Recommended Agency Policy on the Carcinogenicity Risk Associated with the Ingestion of Inorganic Arsenic, June 21,
1988, Lee Thomas EPA Administrator.
.
EPA, 1988. Special Report on Ingested Inorganic Arsenic-Skin Cancer; Nutritional Essentiality. EPA~25/3-89/0013,
July 1988.
.
EPA, 1989. Interim Final Guidance for Soil Ingestion Rates (OSWER Dir. #9850.4).
.
EPA, 1990. Supplement to Interim Guidance on Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites (OSWER
Dir. #9355.4-02A).
.
EPA, 1990. Risk Assessment Guidance.
FiDaJ Draft IclaltiflC8tiao (J( ARARI
032393/CIIIoIeada6.rmln-cpac
22
-------
.,
TABLE 4 (con't)
LIST OF FEDERAL POLICIES, CRITERIA, ADVISORIES OR GUIDANCE TO BE COSSIDERED
IN SETTING REMEDIATION LEVELS OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS, STA.1\1)ARDS OR
LI1\fiTATIONS TO BE MET FOR THE PRIORITY SOn.S RIfFS
.
EPA, 1990. lDterim Final Environmental Evaluation Manual (OSWER Dir. #9285.7-01); otherwise known as the Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund - Environmental Evaluation Manual.
.
EPA, 1988. EPA's Proposed Drinking Water Standard for Maximum Concentration Limits for Copper and Lead, 53
Fed. Reg. 31516 (August 18, 1988).
.
EPA, 1989. EPA's Proposed MCLG Levels for Cadmium, Mercury, and Selenium. 54 Fed. Reg. 22,062 (May 22,
1989.)
.
EPA's RCRA Design Guidelines for Surface Impoundments.
.
EPA's RCRA Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
.
EP A's RCRA Technical Resource Document for Closure of Hazardous Waste Surface Impoundments.
.
EPA, 1981. EPA's NPDES Guidance Document on NPDES Best Management Practices (June 1981).
.
EPA, 1990. Superfund Guide to RCRA Management Requirements of Mineral Processing Wastes (November 1990).
.
EPA, 1988. EPA's Guidance on Remedial Action for Contaminated Groundwater at Superfund Sites. OSWER Dir. #
9283.1-2, December, 1988.
.
EPA, 1989. EPA's Interim Final Guidance for SoillDgestion Rates, OSWER Dir. # 9850.4, January, 1989.
.
All Health Effects Assessments and Proposed Health Effects Assessments for contaminants of concern at the site.
.
All Reference Doses for contaminants of concern at the site.
.
All Carcinogenic Potency Factors for contaminants of concern at the site.
.
Policy on Floodplains & Wetlands Assessments for CERCLA Actions, August 6, 1985.
.
Superfund Guide to RCRA Management Requirements for Mineral Process Wastes. November 1990. 84473-12FS.
FiDaJ Draft Ide:Dtificalica of ARAJla
032393f_eacI86.fm/rt
-------
.~
4.0 STATE OF MONTANA ARARS
4.1
OVERVIEW
Remedial actions undertaken pursuant to CERCLA must satisfy State and Federal ARARs.
These ARARs, with few exceptions, serve as threshold criteria for site cJeanup. CERCLA
~ 121 provides that for any hazardous substance, poHutant, or contaminant that will remain
on site, remedial actions undertaken pursuant .to CERCLA ~~ 104, 106, 120, or 122 must
satisfy any applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal requirement and any applicable or
relevant and appropriate promulgated State standard, requirement, criterion, or limitation
under State environmental or facility siting law that is more stringent than any Federal
requirement if the State requirement is identified in a "timely" manner. Accordingly, this
section is a list of State ARARs identified by the State of Montana.
4.2
MONTANA CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS
Though final remediation of air, groundwater, and surface water is not within the scope of
the oW/EADA Operable Unit response action, this document does specify ARARs which
prohibit degradation of existing air and water quality. Further, this document provides that
remedial actions taken shall be consistent with the Regional Water and Waste Operable Unit,
which will be the fInal response action. It is expected that consistency for the OW/EADA
will be achieved through minimization of releases from surface sources to air and water
media. Toward this end, state chemical specific air and water quality ARARs are identified
below for the limited purpose of aiding in the identification of sources of contamination to
air, groundwater, and surface water.
4.2.1 Water Quality
4.2.1.1
Water Ouality Statutes (Ap,plicable)
MCA ~ 75-5-303 of this Act establishes Montana's standard for non degradation of water
quality. It is applicable for all constituents for which Warm Springs Creek exceeds water
quality standards, and is relevant and appropriate for all constituents for which Warm
Springs Creek does not exceed water quality standards. This section will also be applicable
if any remedial action constitutes a new source of pollution or an increased source of
poHution to high-quality waters to require the degree of waste treatment necessary to
maintain that existing high water quality.
MCA i 75-5-605 of Montana law makes it unlawful to cause pollution of any State waters,
to place or cause to be placed any wastes in a location where they are likely to cause
poHution of any State waters, to violate any permit provision, to violate any provision of the
Montana water quality statutes, to construct, modify, or operate a system for disposing of
waste (including sediment, solid waste and other substances that may pollute State waters)
FiDaI Draft Jdealilicatioa of ARAb
032393/-cada6.fmln
-------
'4
which discharge into any State waters without a permit or discharge waste into any State
waters.
4.2.1.2
Surface Water Quality Standards (Applicable)
ARM ~ 16.20.604(1) (Applicable) provides that Warm Springs Creek is classified as B-l.
ARM ~ 16.20.618 (Applicable) sets forth specific water quality standards. Waters classified
B-1 are suitable for drinking, culinary and food processing purposes, after conventional
treatment; bathing, swimming and recreation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and
associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water
supply.
ARM ~ 16.20.632 (Applicable) states that existing or new water impoundments must be
operated in the best practicable manner to minimize harmful effects on State waters, and that
new impoundments must be operated so that any temperature variations in receiving waters
will maintain or enhance the existing propagating fishery and associated aquatic life. This
section sets forth maximum and minimum temperature guidelines.
ARM ~ 16.20.633 (Applicable) requires that the State's surface waters be free from
substances that will, inter alia, create concentrations or combination of materials that are
toxic or harmful to human, animal, plant or aquatic life. Moreover, no waste may be
discharged and no activities may be conducted such that the waste or activities, either alone
or in combination with other waste or activities, will violate, or can reasonably be expected
to violate, any of the standards. Leaching pads, tailings ponds, or water, waste, or product
holding facilities must be located, constructed, operated and maintained to prevent any
discharge, seepage, drainage, infiltration, or flow which may result in pollution of state
waters, and a monitoring system may be required to ensure such compliance.
4.2.1.3
Nonde~radation of Water Quality (Ap-plicable)
ARM ~ 16.20.702 (Applicable) applies nondegradation requirements to any human activity
which would cause a new or increased source of pollution to State waters. This section
states when exceptions to nondegradation requirements apply, except that in no event may
such degradation affect public health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild birds, fish
and other wildlife or other beneficial uses, and strictly prohibits degradation in national
resource waters.
ARM ~ 16.20.703 (Applicable) establishes substantive nondegradation standard (quality of
receiving waters whose quality is higher than established water quality standards not to be
degraded by the discharge of pollutants), although administrative (permit) requirements do
not apply. Determination of degradation is to ensure that baseline quality of the receiving
waters will not be degraded at any flow greater than the 7-day, 10 year low flow of the
receiving waters.
FiaaI Draft Ilblif~ of ARAR8
032393/_eada6 .fmIIt-c:ptC
25
-------
.~
4.2.1.4
We]] Standards (Ap,plicable)
MCA ~ 85-2-505 (Applicable) precludes the wasting of groundwater. Any well producing
waters that contaminate other waters must be plugged or capped and wells must be
constructed and maintained so as to prevent waste, contamination, or pollution of
groundwater.
4.2.1.5
Montana Ground Water Pollution Control System (Ap,plicable)
ARM ~ 16.20.1002 (Applicable) classifies groundwater into Classes I through IV based on
the present and future most beneficial uses of the groundwater, and states that groundwater is
to be classified to actual quality or actual use, whichever places the groundwater in a higher
class.
ARM ~ 16.20.1003 (Applicable) establishes the groundwater quality standards applicable
with respect to each groundwater classification. Concentrations of dissolved substances in
certain classes of groundwater which is used for drinking water supplies may not exceed
Montana MCL values for drinking water. Concentrations of other dissolved or suspended
substances must not exceed levels that render the waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to
public health. Maximum allowable concentration of these substances also must not exceed
acute or chronic problem levels that would adversely affect existing or designated beneficial
uses of groundwater of that classification.
Standards for groundwater quality are set forth below:
Arsenic
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
0.05 mg/L
0.05 mglL
0.01 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
ARM ~ 16.20.1011 (Applicable) provides that any groundwater whose existing quality is
higher than the standard for its classification must be maintained at that high quality unless
the board is satisfied that a change is justifiable for economic or social development and will
not preclude present or anticipated use of such waters.
4.2.2 Air Quality
4.2.2.1
Clean Air Act of Montana (Ap,plicable)
Montana Ambient Air Quality Regulations promulgated pursuant to the Clean Air Act of
Montana (MCA i 75-2-102) are discussed below.
FiDaI Draft ldmtif'oeatiaD or ARARs
032393/owQda6.fmln
-------
.~
ARM ~ 16.8.807 (Applicable) Ambient Air Monitoring establishes standards for sampling,
data collection, recording, and analysis to assure compliance with ambient air quality
standards.
ARM ~ 16.8.815 (Applicable) specifies that no person shall cause or contribute to
concentrations of lead in the ambient air which exceed the following: 90-day average--1.5
micrograms per cubic meter of air, 90-dayaverage, not to be exceeded.
ARM ~ 16.8.818 (Applicable) specifies that no person shall cause or contribute to
concentrations of particulate matter in the ambient air such that the mass of settled particulate
matter exceeds the following 30-dayaverage: 10 grams per square meter, 30-dayaverage,
not to be exceeded.
ARM ~ 16.8.821 (Applicable) specifies that no person may cause or contribute to
concentrations of PM-10 in the ambient air which exceed the following standard:
.
24-hour average: 150 micrograms per cubic meter of air, 24-hour average,
with no more than one expected exceedance per calendar year.
.
Annual average: 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air, expected annual
average, not to be exceeded.
4.2.2.2
Montana Air Ouality Emissions Standards
ARM ~ 16.8.1401 (Applicable) establishes emission standards. Emissions shall not exhibit
an opacity of twenty percent (20%) or greater averaged over six consecutive minutes.
ARM ~ 16.8.1427 (Applicable) establishes emission standards for vapors, gases and dust
which create odors that constitute a public nuisance.
4.3
Mom ANA ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
4.3.1 Water Quality
4.3.1.1
Water Ouality Statutes (Apj>licable)
MCA ~ 75-5-303 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.1.1 on page 24 for discussion.
MCA ~ 75-5-605 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.1.1 on page 24 for discussion.
PiDaI Draft Idaltificatiaa of ARARJ
032393/owcad86.rmln-qsc
27
-------
.~
4.3.1.2
Surface Water Quality Re~ulations (Applicable)
ARM ~ 16.20.604(1) and 16.20.618 (Applicable) See Section 4.2.1.2 on page 25 for
discussion.
ARM ~ 16.20.632 and 16.20.633 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.1.2 on page 25 for discussion.
4.3.1.3
Nondegradation of Water Quality (Applicable)
ARM ~ 16.20.702 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.1.2 on page 25 for discussion.
ARM ~ 16.20.703 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.1.2 on page 25 for discussion.
4.3.1.4
MPDES Permit Regulations (Relevant and Appro,priate)
ARM ~ 16.20.925 (Relevant and Appropriate) adopts and incorporates language found in 40
C.F.R. Pan 125 for criteria and standards for the imposition of technology-based treatment
requirements in MPDES permits.
4.3.1.5
Well Standards (Applicable or Relevant and Apj)ropriate)
MCA i 85-2-505 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.1.3 on page 26 for discussion.
4.3.1.6
Montana Ground Water Pollution Control System (ApJ>licable)
ARM f 16.20.1002 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.1.3 on page 26 for discussion.
ARM f 16.20.1003 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.1.3 on page 26 for discussion.
ARM f 16.20.1011 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.1.3 on page 26 for discussion.
4.3.2 Air Quality
Dust suppression and control of certain substances likely to be released into the air as a result
of earth moving, transportation and similar actions will be necessary to meet air quality
requirements. Air quality regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act (MCA f 75-2-102) are
discussed below.
4.3.2.1
Air Quality Re~ulations (Ap,plicable)
ARM f 16.8.807 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.2.1 on page 27 for discussion.
ARM f 16.8.815 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.2.1 on page 27 for discussion.
FiDaI Dnft JlbtiflCaUoa of ARARa
032393/_~d86.fmlrt-cpIC
28
.-. ..n -."
. -. ... -. ...
-------
e ,-. .,
ARM ~ 16.8.818 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.2.1 on page 27 for discussion.
ARM ~ 16.8.821 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.2.1 on page 27 for discussion.
4.3.2.2
Montana Air Ouality Emissions Standards
ARM ~ 16.8.1401 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.2.2 on page 27 for discussion.
ARM ~ 16.8.1427 (Applicable) see Section 4.2.2.2 on page 27 for discussion..
ARM ~ 26.4.761 (Applicable) requires a fugitive dust control program be implemented in
reclamation operations, and lists specific but non-exclusive measures as necessary
components of such a program.
4.3.3 Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (Applicable)
MCA ~ 75-7-102 and ARM U 36.2.404, .405 and .406 (Applicable), which place limitations
on and specify criteria to be considered in approving projects affecting streambeds, would be
applicable (substantive provisions only) if alternatives developed alter or affect a streambed
or its immediate banks.
4.3.4 Solid Waste Management Act (Applicable)
Regulations promulgated under the Solid Waste Management Act, ~~ 75-10-201 et~,
MCA, and the Hazardous Waste Management Act, ~~ 75-10-401 et~, MCA, place
restrictions and requirements on the ultimate disposition of soils to be addressed during the
OW IEADA remedial action.
4.3.4.1
Solid Waste Management Regulations (Ap,plicabJe)
ARM ~ 16.14.504 (Applicable) restricts those various types of wastes that disposal sites may
handle.
ARM ~ 16.14.505 (Applicable) sets forth standards that all solid waste disposal sites must
meet.
ARM U 16.14.520 and 16.14.521 (Applicable) set forth the general and specific operation
and maintenance requirements for solid waste management systems.
ARM ~ 16.14.523 (Applicable) specifies that solid waste must be transported in such a
manner as to prevent its discharge, dumping, spilling or leaking from the transport vehicle.
FiDaI Draft Iclculifacatica 0( ARARa
032393f_cada6.fiDln~
29
..."H'____'--'"
... . ----~..
-------
.~
4.3.5 Mining and Reclamation Requirements
The strip mining reclamation requirements provide guidelines that are relevant and
appropriate for protecting and restoring areas impacted by significant earth moving
operations, as may occur during remediation activities.
4.3.5.1
Strip Minin~ and Under~round Mine Reclamation Act (Relevant and
Appropriate)
MCA ~ 82-4-231 (Relevant and Appropriate) sets forth that each operator shall reclaim and
revegetate the land affected by his operation as rapidly, completely, and effectively as the
most modem technology and the most advanced state of the art will allow. The operator
must grade, backfill, topsoil, reduce highwalls, stabilize subsidence, and control water. In
so doing all measures must be taken to eliminate damage from soil erosion, subsidence, land
slides, water pollution, and hazards dangerous to life and property.
In addition, this section directs the operator to employ various specific reclamation measures
such as:
.
to bury under adequate fill all toxic materials, shale, minerals, or any other
material determined by Department of State Lands (DSL) to be acid
producing, toxic, undesirable, or creating a hazard;
.
to impound, drain, or treat all runoff waters so as to reduce soil erosion,
damage to grazing and agricultural lands, and pollution of surface and
subsurface waters;
.
to stock pile and protect from erosion all mining and processing wastes until
these wastes can be disposed of according to the provisions of this pan;
.
to deposit as much stockpile waste as possible back into the mine voids upOn
abandonment in such manner as to prevent or minimize land subsidence;
.
to minimize disturbances and adverse impacts of the operation on fish,
wildlife, and related environmental values and;
.
to minimize disturbance to surface and groundwater systems by avoiding acid
or other toxic mine drainage by such measures as, but not limited to,
preventing or removing water from contact with toxic-producing deposits and
treating drainage to reduce toxic content which adversely affects downstream
water upon being released to water courses, and;
.
to stabilize and protect all surface areas including spoil piles to effectively
control air pollution.
FiDaI Draft IdcllIificaUaa of AJtAh
032393/oweada6 .fiDlrt-cpIC
., . .._~..~. .. ... .
30
.- .' ."---.--.-...- -..,_...
+ .-.. ..- ." .
-------
.~
MCA ~ 82-4-233 (Relevant and Appropriate) provides that after grading, the operator must
plant vegetation that will yield a diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover of the
same seasonal variety native to the area and capable of self-regeneration. The vegetative
cover must be capable of:
.
feeding and withstanding grazing pressure from a quantity and mixture of
wildlife and livestock;
.
regeneration under the natural conditions prevailing at the site; and
.
preventing soil erosion to the extent achieved prior to the operation.
MCA ~ 82-4-336(7) (Relevant and Appropriate) requires the reclamation of all disturbed
land.
Backfilling and Grading Requirements
ARM ~~ 26.4.501 and 26.4.501a (Relevant and Appropriate) gives general backfilling and
grading requirements.
ARM ~ 26.4.504 (Relevant and Appropriate) provides that permanent impoundments may be
retained under certain circumstances.
ARM ~~ 26.4.505 through 26.4.512 (Relevant and Appropriate) deal with disposition of
waste material and subsequent protective measures to ensure wastes materials do not
contribute to pollution problems.
ARM U 26.4.513 and 26.4.514 (Relevant and Appropriate) give final grading and
contouring requirements.
ARM ~ 26.4.519 (Relevant and Appropriate) state that the operator may be required to
monitor settling of regraded areas.
Hydroloey Reeulations
The hydrology regulations promulgated under the Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation
Act, MCA U 82-4-201 ~ RQ., provide detailed guidelines for addressing the hydrologic
impacts of earth moving projects and are thus relevant and appropriate for addressing these
impacts during OW IEADA remedial action.
ARM ~ 26.4.631 (Relevant and Appropriate) provides for long-term adverse changes in the
hydrologic balance from reclamation activities, such as changes in water quality and quantity,
depth to groundwater, and location of surface water drainage channels shall be minimized.
Water pollution must be minimized and where necessary, treatment methods utilized. Other
FiDaJ Draft JdcDtiflC8tiaa of ARAJb
032393/_cada6. fiDlrt
-------
.,
pollution minimization devices must be used if appropriate, including stabilizing disturbed
areas through land shaping, diverting runoff, planting quickly germinating and growing
stands of temporary vegetation, regulating channel velocity of water, lining drainage channels
with rock or vegetation, mulching, and control of acid-forming, and toxic-forming waste
materials.
ARM ~ 26.4.633 (Relevant and Appropriate) states that all surface drainage from a disturbed
area must be .treated by the best technology currently available (BTCA). Treatment must
continue until the area is stabilized.
ARM ~ 26.4.634 (Relevant and Appropriate) provides that drainage design shall emphasize
channel and floodplain pre mining configuration that blends with the undisturbed drainage
above and below, and provides specific requirements for designing the reclaimed drainage to:
.
meander naturally,
.
remain in dynamic equilibrium with the system,
.
improve unstable premining conditions,
.
provide for floods, and
.
establish a pre mining diversity of aquatic habitats and riparian vegetation.
ARM U 26.4.635 through 26.4.637 (Relevant and Appropriate) set forth requirements for
temporary and permanent diversions.
ARM f 26.4.638 (Relevant and Appropriate) specifies sediment control measures to be
implemented during operations.
ARM ~ 26.4.639 (Relevant and Appropriate) gives requirements for construction and
maintenance of sedimentation ponds.
ARM f 26.4.640 (Relevant and Appropriate) provides that discharge from sedimentation
ponds, permanent and temporary impoundments, and diversions shall be controlled by energy
dissipaters, riprap channels, and other devices, where necessary, to reduce erosion, prevent
deepening or enlargement of stream channels, and to minimize disturbance of the hydrologic
balance.
ARM ~ 26.4.641 (Relevant and Appropriate) sets forth methods for prevention of drainage
from acid- and toxic-forming spoils into ground and surface waters.
ARM f 26.4.642 (Relevant and Appropriate) prohibits permanent impoundments with certain
exceptions, and sets standards for temporary and permanent impoundments.
Filial Draft JdcatiflCllliao 01 AItARI
032393/_eAd86.fmlrtoCplC
32
-------
.~
ARM ~~ 26.4.643 through 26.4.646 (Relevant and Appropriate) provide for groundwater
protection, groundwater recharge protection, and groundwater and surface water monitoring.
ARM ~ 26.4.649 (Relevant and Appropriate) prohibits the discharge, diversion, or
infiltration of groundwater and surface water into existing underground mine workings.
ARM ~ 26.4.650 (Relevant and Appropriate) states that all permanent sedimentation ponds,
diversions, impoundments, and .treatment facilities must be renovated postmining, to meet
criteria specified in the design plan. All such temporary structures shall be regraded to the
approximate original contour.
Topsoil. Revegetation. and Protection of Wildlife and Air Resources Regulations
ARM ~~ 26.4.701 and 26.4.702 (Relevant and Appropriate) require that during the removal,
redistributing and stockpiling of soil (for reclamation):
.
the operator shall limit the area from which soil is removed at anyone time to
minimize wind and water erosion, and the operator shall take other measures,
as necessary, to control erosion;
.
regraded areas must be deep-tilled, subsoiled, or otherwise treated to eliminate
any possible slippage potential, to relieve compaction, and to promote root
penetration and permeability of the underlying layer; this preparation must be
done on the contour whenever possible and to a minimum depth of 12 inches;
.
the operator shall, during and after redistribution, prevent, to the extent
possible, spoil and soil compaction, protect against soil erosion, contamjnation,
and degradation, and minimize the deterioration of biological properties of the
soil;
.
redistribution must be done in a manner that achieves approximate uniform
thicknesses consistent with soil resource availability and appropriate for the
postmining vegetation, land uses, contours, and surface water drainage
systems; and
.
reconditioned soil must be reconditioned by sub soiling or other appropriate
methods.
ARM ~ 26.4.703 (Relevant and Appropriate) states that when using materials other than, or
along with, soil for final surfacing in reclamation, the operator must demonstrate that the
material (1) is at least as capable as the soil of supporting the approved vegetation and
subsequent land use, and (2) the medium must be the best available in the area to support
vegetation. Such substitutes must be used in a manner consistent with the requirements for
redistribution of soil in ARM U 26.4.701 and 26.4.702.
FiDaJ Draft IdalliflC8lKia of AItAJb
032393/oweada6.fmln-cpac
33
- .~_._._'_.-
-------
.~
ARM ~ 26.4.711 (Relevant and Appropriate) requires that a diverse, effective, and
permanent vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety native to the area of land to be
affected shall be established except on road surfaces and below the low-water line of
permanent impoundments. Vegetative cover is considered of the same seasonal variety if it
consists of a mixture of species of equal or superior utility when compared with the natural
(or pre-existing) vegetation during each season of the year.
ARM ~ 26.4.713 (Relevant and Appropriate) provides that seeding and planting of disturbed
areas must be conducted during the first appropriate period for favorable planting period after
final seedbed preparation but may not be more than 90 days after soil has been replaced.
ARM ~ 26.4.714 (Relevant and Appropriate) states that topsoiled areas must be seeded with
a temporary cover until an adequate permanent cover can be established. Mulch shall be
used on all regraded and topsoiled areas. Use of mulching and temporary cover may be
suspended under certain conditions.
ARM ~ 26.4.715 (Relevant and Appropriate) states that after consultation with appropriate
State and Federal wildlife and land management agencies, the permittee must select species
that will fulfill the needs of wildlife including food, water, cover, and space.
ARM ~ 26.4.716 (Relevant and Appropriate) establishes the required method of revegetation,
and provides that introduced species may be substituted for native species as part of an
approved plan.
ARM ~ 26.4.717 (Relevant and Appropriate) gives requirements for tree planting if
necessary to' comply with MCA 82-4-233.
ARM ~ 26.4.718 (Relevant and Appropriate) requires the use of soil amendments and other
means such as irrigation, management, fencing, or other measures if necessary to establish a
diverse and permanent vegetative cover.
ARM ~ 26.4.719 (Relevant and Appropriate) prohibits livestock grazing on reclaimed land
until the seedings are established and can sustain managed grazing.
ARM ~ 26.4.721 (Relevant and Appropriate) specifies that rills or gullies deeper than nine
inches must be stabilized. In some instances shallower rills and gullies must be stabilized.
ARM ~ 26.4.722 (Relevant and Appropriate) states that stockpiled topsoil must be planted
with quick growing plants that provide an effective cover.
ARM ~ 26.4.723 (Relevant and Appropriate) states that the operator shall conduct approved
periodic measurements of vegetation, soils, water, and wildlife during the period of liability.
FiDaJ Draft JcbtUlC8bca cI ARARa
032393/_ead86.fmlrt
-------
.,
..'
ARM ~ 26.4.724 (Relevant and Appropriate) specifies that revegetation success must be
measured by approved unmined reference areas. There shall be at least one reference area
for each plant community type. Required management for these reference areas is set fonh.
ARM ~~ 26.4.726 and 26.4.727 (Relevant and Appropriate) set the required methods for
measuring productivity and canopy cover of revegetated areas.
ARM ~~ 26.4.728 and 26.4.729 (Relevant and Appropriate) set requirements for
measurements of the permanence and diversity of vegetation on reclaimed areas.
ARM ~~ 26.4.730 and 26.4.731 (Relevant and Appropriate) provide that the revegetated area
must furnish palatable forage in comparable quantity and quality during the same grazing
period as the reference area. If toxicity to plants or animals is suspected, comparative
chemical analyses may be required.
ARM ~~ 26.4.733 and 26.4.735 (Relevant and Appropriate) provide additional requirements
and measurement standards for trees, shrubs, half-shrubs, and other woody plants.
ARM ~ 26.4.751 (Relevant and Appropriate) mandates specific measures that must be
undertaken or actions that must be refrained from to enhance or prevent harm to fish,
wildlife and related environmental values.
Alluvial Valley Floors. Prime Farm Lands. and Auger Mining Regulations
ARM ~~ 26.4.801 and 26.4.802 (Relevant and Appropriate) direct that the geologic,
hydrologic, and biologic character of essential hydrologic functions on alluvial valley floors
must be preserved and reestablished through reconstruction in the reclamation process. No
reclamation should impair water quality or quantity of the surface or groundwater of an
alluvial valley floor.
ARM ~ 26.4.804 (Relevant and Appropriate) states that the permittee must monitor alluvial
valley floors to ensure preservation of hydrologic functions and beneficial uses.
ARM fi 26.4.806 (Relevant and Appropriate) sets mandatory criteria for determining whether
the quality and quantity of waters may be impaired by mining operations.
4.3.5.2
Rules and Re~ulations Governing the Qpencut Mining Act (Relevant and
Ap,prQpriate)
ARM ~ 26.4.204 states that:
[N]o excavation will be allowed on any river or live stream channels or
floodways at locations likely to cause detrimental erosion or offer a new canal
to the river or stream at times of flooding except that such excavations may be
FiaaI Dnft Jdcliliracatiaa of ARAJU
032393/_cada6.fiDJn-qtC
35
.. .-.-...-...~--.
-."' .._-.-'.
-------
.~
allowed when necessary to protect or promote the health and safety, or welfare
of the people.
Further, if the site is "likely to contain critical fish and wildlife use areas the department may
require a fish and . wildlife survey covering all seasons of wildlife use. "
4.4
MONTANA LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS
4.4.1 Natural Stream Bed and Land Preservation Act (ApJ>licable or Relevant and
ApJ>ropriate)
MCA ~ 75-7-102 (Applicable). See discussion in Section 4.3.3 on page 31.
ARM fi 36.2.404 (Relevant and Appropriate) states that projects are to be evaluated by the
appropriate conservation district based on the following criteria:
.
the purpose of the project,
.
the necessity and justification for the proposed project,
.
whether the proposed project is a reasonable means of accomplishing the
purpose,
.
whether there are modifications or alternative solutions which are reasonably
possible and which would reduce the disturbance to the stream channel and its
environment and accomplish the purposes of the proposed project,
.
whether the project will pass anticipated sediment loads without creating
harmful flooding or erosion problems upstream or downstream,
.
whether the project will minimize the amount of stream channel alteration,
.
whether the project will be as permanent a solution as possible and whether the
method used will create a reasonably permanent and stable situation,
.
whether the project will minimize effects on fish and aquatic habitat,
.
whether the project will minimize turbidity or other water pollution problems,
and
.
whether the project will minimize adverse effects on the natural beauty of the
area.
Filial Draft Iclc:Dlificalicm or ARAIlI
0323931_eada6 .fmr,,-cpIC
36
- .. '. .-.. ".--.. - .
-------
.~
These criteria are appropriate for consideration in the detailed analysis of alternatives and in
the remedy selection and implementation pursuant to CERCLA. However, this provision is
identified as relevant and appropriate because is would require the criteria to be evaluated in
a permit context, whereas for a CERCLA site remedy that includes project activities
addressed by this :regulation, a permit to construct such project is not required.
4.4.2 Floodplain and Floodway Management Act (Ap.,plicable or Relevant and Ap.,pro.,priate)
MCA ~ 76-5-102 (Applicable) sets forth that it is policy of the State of Montana to restrict or
prohibit uses that are dangerous to health or safety or property in times of flood or which
cause increased flood height or velocities. This section establishes policy with respect to
land uses and activities in floodplain' and flood way areas.
MCA ~ 76-5-401 (Applicable) specifies the uses permissible in a floodway and generally
prohibits permanent structures, fill, or permanent storage of materials or equipment.
MCA ~ 76-5-402 (Applicable) specifies uses allowed in the floodplain, excluding the
flood way , and allows structures meeting certain minimum standards.
MCA ~ 76-5-403 (Applicable) lists certain uses which are prohibited in a designated
flood way , including:
.
any building for living purposes or place of assembly or permanent use by
human beings,
.
any structure or excavation that will cause water to be diverted from the
established floodway, cause erosion, obstruct the natural flow of water, or
reduce the carrying capacity of the floodway, or
.
the construction or permanent storage of an object subject to flotation or
movement during flood level periods.
MCA ~ 76-5-404 (Relevant and Appropriate) sets forth that an unpermitted nonconforming
use in a floodplain is a public nuisance. Moreover, this section establishes that it is unlawful
to alter an artificial obstruction or designated floodway without the express written approval
of the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). This section is
applicable to any action in the designated floodplain or designated flood way in the operable
unit where such action requires more than maintenance.
4.4.3 Floodplain Mana~ement Rel:ulations (Ap,plicable or Relevant and Ap'propriat~)
ARM ~ 36.15.216 (Applicable) specifies factors to consider in determining whether a permit
should be issued to establish or alter an artificial obstruction or nonconforming use in the
floodplain or floodway. While permit requirements are not directly applicable to activities
FiDaI Draft IdclltiftC8lioo of ARARa
032393f_eada6 .fiDlrt-
-------
..... . .,.'
conducted entirely on site, the criteria used to determine whether to approve establishment or
alteration of an artificial obstruction or nonconforming use should be applied by the decision-
makers in evaluating proposed action in the floodplain or floodway. As such, the following
criteria are relevant and appropriate:
,.
.
the danger to life and property from backwater or diverted flow caused by the
obstruction,
.
the danger that the obstruction will be swept downstream to the injury of
others,
.
the availability of alternative location,
.
the construction or alteration of the obstruction in such a manner as to lessen
the danger,
.
the permanence of the obstruction, and
.
the anticipated development in the foreseeable future of the area which may be
affected by the obstruction.
In addition, if the remedial action does not meet the minimum standards in the floodplain
management regulations, alterations of the floodplain or floodway can only be approved if:
.
the proposed use would not increase flood hazard either upstream or
downstream, in the area of insurable buildings;
.
the refusal of a permit would, because of exceptional circumstances, cause a
unique or undue hardship on the applicant or community involved;
.
the proposed use is adequately flood-proofed; and
.
reasonable alternative locations outside the designated floodplain are not
available.
ARM ~ 36.15.603 (Applicable) provides that proposed diversions or changes in place of
diversion must be evaluated by the DNRC to determine whether they may significantly affect
flood flows and, therefore, require a permit. While permit requirements are not applicable
for remedial actions conducted entirely on-site, the following criteria used to determine when
a permit shall !lQ1 be granted are applicable:
.
the proposed diversion will increase the upstream elevation of the tOO-year
flood a significant amount (lh foot or as otherwise determined by the permit
issuing authority);
FiDaJ Draft IcIcII1ifuliaD CJi AJtAJb
032393/f1OIea4A6.fmlrt
-------
.~
.
the proposed diversion is not designed and constructed to minimize potential
erosion from a flood of l00-year frequency; and
.
any permanent diversion structure crossing the full width of the stream channel
is not designed and constructed to safely withstand up to a flood of l00-year
frequency.
ARM ~ 36.15.604 (Applicable) precludes. new artificial obstructions or nonconforming uses
that will significantly increase the upstream elevation of the flood of l00-year frequency (112
foot or as otherwise determined by the permit issuing authority) or significantly increased
flood velocities.
ARM ~ 36.15.605(1) (Applicable), and ARM ~ 36.15.605(2) (Applicable) enumerate
artificial obstructions and nonconforming uses that are prohibited within the designated
floodway except as allowed by permit and includes "a structure or excavation that will cause
water to be diverted from the established floodway, cause erosion, obstruct the natural flow
of water, or reduce the carrying capacity of the floodway ... ." Solid waste disposal and
storage of highly toxic, flammable, or explosive materials are also prohibited.
ARM ~ 36.15.606(2) (Applicable) enumerates flood control works that are allowed with
designated floodways pursuant to permit. Although the permit requirements are not
applicable for activities conducted entirely on site, the following conditions are applicable:
.
flood control levies and flood walls are allowed if they are designed and
constructed to safely convey a flood of l00-year frequency and their
cumulative effect combined with allowable flood fringe encroachments does
not increase the unobstructed elevation of a flood of l00-year frequency more
than 112 foot at any point;
.
riprap, if not hand placed, is allowed if it is designed to withstand a flood of
l00-year frequency, does not increase the elevation of the l00-year frequency
flood, and will not increase erosion upstream, downstream, or across stream
from the riprap site;
.
channeliz4tion projects are allowed if they do not significantly increase the
magnitude, velocity, or elevation of the flood of l00-year frequency
downstream from such projects; and
.
dams are allowed if they are designed and constructed in accordance with
approved safety standards and they will not increase flood hazards downstream
either through operational procedures or improper hydrologic design.
ARM fi 36.15.703 (Applicable) is applicable in flood fringe areas (Le., areas in the
floodplain but outside of the designated floodway) of the site and prohibits, with limited
FiD.aI DrV\ Id=tificaIiaa of ARARa
032393/01101eada6.fiDlrt
-------
.,
exceptions, solid waste disposal, soil absorption sewage systems and storage of highly toxic,
flammable or explosive material.
4.4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4.4.1
Antiquities Act (Relevant and Ap,prqpriate)
MCA i 22-3-424 (Relevant and Appropriate) requires that the identification and protection of
heritage properties and paleontological remains on lands owned by the state are given
appropriate consideration in state agency decision-making. (Applicable only to state lands,
but is relevant and appropriate in decision-making affecting other properties). Heritage
property is defined in MCA 122-3-421, as any district, site, building, structure, or object
located upon or beneath the earth or under water that is significant in American history,
architecture, archaeology, or culture.
MCA 1 22-3-433 (Relevant and Appropriate) requires that evaluation of environmental
impacts include consultation with the historic preservation officer concerning the
identification and location of heritage properties and paleontological remains on lands that
may be adversely impacted by the proposed action. The responsible party, in consultation
with the historic preservation officer and the preservation review board, shall include a plan
for the avoidance or mitigation of damage to heritage properties and paleontological remains
to the greatest extent practicable. (Applicable only to state lands, but is relevant and
appropriate in decision-making affecting other properties).
MCA i 22-3-435 (Relevant and Appropriate) requires any person conducting activities,
including survey, excavation, or construction, who discovers any heritage property or
paleontological remains or who finds that an operation may damage heritage properties or
paleontological remains shall promptly report to the historic preservation officer the
discovery of such findings and shall take all reasonable steps to ensure preservation of the
heritage property or paleontological remains. (Applicable only to state lands, but is relevant
and appropriate in decision-making affecting other properties).
4.4.4.2
Cultural Resources Reeulations (Relevant and Appropriate)
ARM 1 12.8.503 and ARM ~~ 12.8.505 through 12.8.508 (Relevant and Appropriate)
prescribe specific procedures to be followed to ensure adequate consideration of cultural
values in agency decision-making.
Filii! Draft IclcaliflC81iaa ol ARARa
032393/_cad86.finlrkpIC
40
-------
TABLE 5
MONTANA APPUCABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION
Section
Standard Requirements
Criteria or Limitation
Citation
Appl icable/
Relevant and
Appropriate
4.2
CHEMICAL.SPECIFIC
4.2.1
4.2.1.1
WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY STATUTES
4.2.1.2
Surface Water Quality
Standards
MCA 5 75-5-303 Yes/-
MCA 5 75-5-605 Yes/-
ARM 5 16.20.604<1> Yes/-
ARM 5 16.20.618 Yes/-
ARM 5 16.20.632 Yes/-
ARM 5 16.20.633 Yes/-
ARM 5 16.20.702 Yes/-
ARM 5 16.20_703 Yes/-
MCA 5 85-2-505 Yes/-
ARM 5 16.20.1002 Yes/-
ARM 5 16.20.1003 Yes/-
ARM t 16.20.1011 Yes/-
4.2.1.3
Nondegradation of Water
Quality Regulations
4.2.1.4
4.2.1.5
WELL STANDARDS
Groundwater Pollution Control System
4.2.2 AIR QUALITY
4.2.2.1 CLEAN AIR ACT OF MONTANA MCA 5 75-2-102 Yes/-
Ambient Air Monitoring ARM 5 16.8.807 Yes/-
Lead ARM 5 16.8.815 Yes/-
Settled Particulate ARM S 16.8.818 Yes/-
Matter
PM-10 ARM t 16.8.821 Yes/-
4.2.2.2 Montana Air Qual ity Emissions Standards
Airborne Particulate ARM 5 16.8.1401 Yes/-
Matter
Odors ARM S 16.8.1427 Yes/-
4.3 ACTION-SPECIFIC
4.3.1 WATER QUALITY
4.3.1.1 WATER QUALITY STATUTES MCA 5 75-5-303 Yes/-
MCA 5 75.5-605 Yes/-
4.3.1.2 Surface Water Quality Regulations ARM t 16.20.604<1>, Yes/-
16.20.618
ARM 5 16.20.632 Yes/-
ARM t 16.20.633 Yes/-
FiDaI Draft ldaltificatioa of ARAJtJ
032393/oweadl6.fmfn
-------
.~
TABLE 5 (con'tl
MONTANA APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION
Appl icable/
Standard Requirements Relevant and
Section Criteria or Limitation Citation Appropriate
4,3.1.3 Nondegradation of Water ARM ~ 16.20.702 Yes/-
Quality Regulations
ARM ~ 16.20.703 Yes/-
4.3.1.4 MPDES Permit Regulations ARM ~ 16.20.925 -/Yes
4.3.1.5 "'ELL STANDARDS MCA ~ 85-2-505 Yes/-
4.3.1.6 MGWPCS Regulations ARM ~ 16.20.1002 Yes/-
ARM ~ 16.20.1003 Yes/-
ARM ~ 16.20.1011 Yes/-
4.3.2 AIR QUALITY
CLEAN AIR ACT OF MONTANA MCA ~ 75-2-102 Yes/-
4.3.2.1 Air Quality Regulations ARM ~ 16.8.807 Yes/-
ARM ~ 16.8.815 Yes/-
ARM ~ 16.6.818 Yes/-
4.3.2.2 Montane Air Quality Emission Standards
ARM ~ 16.8.821 Yes/-
ARM ~ 16.8.1401 Yes/-
ARM ~ 16.8.1427 Yes/-
Fugitive Oust ARM ~ 26.4.761 -/Yes
4.3.3 NATURAL STREAM BED ANO LAND MCA ~ 75-7-102 Yes/-
PRESERVATION ACT
ARM ~ 36.2.404, 405, 406 Yes/-
4.3.4 SOLID "'ASTE MANAGEMENT ACT MCA ~ 75-10-201, !!...!!Q", Yes/-
MCA ~ 75-10-401, !!...!!Q", Yes/-
4.3.4.1 Solid Waste Management ARM i 16.14.504 Yes/-
Regulations
ARM ~ 16.14.505 Yes/-
ARM ii 16.14.520, 521 Yes/-
ARM i 16.14.523 Yes/-
4.3.5 MINING AND RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS
4.3.5.1 STRIP MINING AND UNDERGROUND MCA i 82-4-231 -/Yes
MINE RECLAMATION ACT
MCA i 82-4-233 -/Yes
MCA i 84-4-336(7) -/Yes
Backfilling .nd Grading ARM i 26.4.501, 501. -/Yes
Requirements
ARM i 26.4.504 -/Yes
FiDaI Draft IdellliflC&lioo d ARA1U
032393/_eada6.fiDlrtoCJllC
42
. . ...~. '~._.~.--~-_.'
-------
.,
TABLE 5 (con'tl
MONTANA APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION
Section
Standard Requirements
Criteria or Limitation
Hydrology Regulations
Applicablel
Relevant and
Citation Appropriate
ARM ~~ 26.4.505-512 -/Yes
ARM ~~ 26.4.513, 514 -/Yes
ARM ~ 26.4.519 -/Yes
ARM ~ 26.4.631 -/Yes
ARM ~ 26.4.633 '/Yes
ARM ~ 26.4.634 -/Yes
ARM 55 26.4.635-637 '/Yes
ARM ~ 26.4.638 -/Yes
ARM 5 26.4.639 -/Yes
ARM ~ 26.4.640 -/Yes
ARM 5 26.4.641 -/Yes
ARM 5 26_4.642 -/Yes
ARM ii 26,4.643-646 -/Yes
ARM S 26_4_6lt9 -/Yes
ARM 5 26.4.650 -/Yes
ARM 5~ 26.4.701, 702 -/Yes
ARM! 26.4.703 -/Yes
ARM! 26,4.711 -/Yes
ARM ! 26.4.713 -/Yes
ARM t 26.4.714 -/Yes
ARM t 26.4.715 -/Yes
ARM ! 26.4.716 -/Yes
ARM t 26.4.717 -/Yes
ARM t 26.4.718 '/Yes
ARM t 26.4.719 -/Yes
ARM t 26.4.721 -/Yes
ARM t 26.4.722 -/Yes
ARM t 26.4.723 -/Yes
ARM 5 26.4.724 -/Yes
ARM 55 26.4.726, 727 -/Yes
ARM it 26.4.728, 729 -/Yes
ARM 55 26.4.730, 731 -/Yes
43
Topsoil, Revegetation,
and Protection of Wild-
life and Air Resources
Regulations
FiDaI Imft IdcaIirJCaIioa of ARARa
032393/_Qd86.fmln
-------
o. ~ . ~..,
..
TABLE 5 (con'tl
MONTANA APPUCABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
OW/EADA REMEDIAL ACTION
Applicablel
Standard Requirements Relevant and
Section Criteri~ or Limitation Citation Appropriate
~.,'
ARM ff 26.4.733, 735 -/Yes
ARM f 26.4.751 -/Yes
Alluvial Valley Floors, ARM ff 26.4.801, 802 -/Yes
Prime Farm Lands, and
Auger Minins Regulations ARM f 26.4.804 -/Yes
ARM f 26.4.806 -/Yes
4.3.5.2 Rules and Regulations ARM f 26.4.204 -/Yes
Governing the Opencut
Mining A~t
4.4 LOCA TlON-SPECIFIC
4.4.1 NATURAL STREAM BED AND LAND MCA f 75-7-102 Yes/-
PRESERVATION ACT
ARM f 36.2.404 -/Yes
4.4.2 FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY MCA f 76-5-102 Yes/-
MANAGEMENT ACT
MCA f 76-5-401 Yes/-
MCA f 76-5-402 Yes/-
MCA f 76-5-403 Yes/-
MCA f 76-5-404 -/Yes
4.4.3 Floodplain Management ARM i 36.15.216 Yes/-
Regulations
ARM t 36.15.603 Yes/-
ARM f 36.15.604 Yes/-
ARM t 36.15.605(1) Yes/-
ARM t 36.15.605(2) Yes/.
ARM t 36.15.606(2) Yes/-
ARM t 36.15.703 Yes/-
4.4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS
4.4.4.1 ANTIQUITIES ACT MCA i 22-3-424 -/Yes
MCA t 22-3-433 -/Yes
MCA t 22-3-435 -/Yes
4.4.4.2 Cultural Resources Regulations ARM tf 12.8.503, 505-508 -/Yes
FiDaI Draft Idaltif"1CaIiaa c( AMRa
032393f_cada6.fiDfrt-cpsc
44
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
--. -- .'.. - . --. .- -
.~
-------
.4
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-1
1.1 SITE BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-1
1.2 SUMMARY OF EPA ACTIONS AT THE ANACONDA SMELTER
SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-2
1.3 SUMMARY OF EPA ACTIONS AT THE OW lEAD A OU ....... RS-4
1.4 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . .. RS-4
1.4.1 PUBLIC MEETING PUBLICITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-4
1.4.2 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-5
1.4.3 DOCUMENT REPOSITORIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-5
1.4.4 CITIZENS GROUPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-5
1.4.5 PROGRESS REPORTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-6
1.4.6 MAILING LIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-6
1.5 CHRONOLOGY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVmES . . " RS-6
1.6 EXPLANATION OF RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY. . . . . . . . .. RS-8
2.0 OVERVIEW OF COMMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-lO
3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-11
3.1 PART I - NON-TECHNICAL COMMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-ll
3.1.1 COMMENTS AT THE FORMAL PUBLIC MEETING. . .. RS-ll
3.1.1.1 Comments from Mr. Tom Hurlock. . . . . . .. RS-ll
3.1.1.2 Comments from Mr. Jim Davison. . . . . . . .. RS-12
3.1.1.3 Comment from Ms. Sandy Stash, ARCO .... RS-13
3.1.1.4 Comment from Mr. Bill Dee ............ RS-13
3.1.1.5 Comment from Mr. Jim Yeoman. . . . . . . .. RS-13
3.1.1.6 Comment from Ms. Natalie Fitzpatrick. . . . .. RS-14
3.1.1.7 Comment from Mr. Bill Crichton. . . . . . . .. RS-14
3.1.1.8 Comments from Mr. Mel Stokke. . . . . . . .. RS-14
3.1.2 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED
DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-15
3.1.2.1 Comment from The Anaconda Chamber of
Commerce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " RS-15
Comment from Anaconda Retired Teachers
Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-15
Comment from The Anaconda Garden Club. " RS-15
Comment from Mr. Ray Lappin. . . . . . . . .. RS-15
Comment from Mr. Edward Sager. . . . . . .. RS-16
Comment from Anaconda-Deer Lodge
Reclamation Advocates (ADRA) . . . . . . . . .. RS-16
3.1.2.2
3.1.2.3
3.1.2.4
3.1.2.5
3.1.2.6
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-i
.. ~ .. ...... ..-. .. ~ ...
. -~ -- . .n..-'
-------
SECTION
3.2
.-
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.1.2.7
3.1.2.8
3.1.2.9
3.1.2.10
3.1.2.11
Comment from Ms. Bonnie Sturm. . . . . . . . .
Comments from Mr. James Milo Manning. . .
Comment from Ms. Rose Nyman. . . . . . . . .
Comments from Mr. George Heath. . . . . . . .
Comments from Mr. Lee Bastian, Regional Park
Manager, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comments from Ms. Nicki Leiss. . . . . . . . .
Comments from Mr. and Mrs. Duane and Cindie
Green. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comments from Ms. Mary Kay Craig, Clark
Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comments from Mr. Don Stoecker. . . . . . . .
Comments from One Anonymous Commenter .
Comment from Mr. Mike Fitzgerald, Upper
Clark Fork River Superfund Technical Specialist
3.1.2.18 Comments from ARCa ...............
PART II - TECHNICAL COMMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 COMMENTS FROM MR. MIKE FITZGERALD, UPPER
CLARK FORK RIVER, SUPERFUND TECHNICAL
SPECIALIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2 COMMENTS FROM MR. DALE HARMS, STATE
SUPERVISOR, MONTANA STATE OFFICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE (USFWS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.3 COMMENTS FROM ARCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.3.1 Comments from ARCa Relating to ARARs . . .
3.2.3.2 Comments from ARCO Relating to the Baseline
Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2.12
3.1.2.13
3.1.2.14
3.1.2.15
3.1.2.16
3.1.2.17
PAGE
RS-16
RS-16
RS-17
RS-17
RS-17
RS-18
RS-18
RS-19
RS-22
RS-22
RS-23
RS-23
RS-25
RS-25
RS-26
RS-26
RS-27
RS- 32
4.0 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. RS-48
Attachment A
Attachment B
Transcript of Formal Public Meeting
Written Comments Received During Public Comment Period
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
,- .....>...-..
RS-ii
.-... .-.. ..."
-------
-.
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADRA
AOC
ARARs
ARCO
ARWW
CERCLA
Anaconda-Deer Lodge Reclamation Advocates
Administrative Order on Consent
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Atlantic Richfield Company
Anaconda Regional Water and Waste (operable unit)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor
dimethyl arsenic acid
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Feasibility Study
Montana Code Annotated
Maximum Contaminant Levels
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
monomethyl arsenic acid
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Old Works East Anaconda Development Area
Probability Distribution Function
10 micron particle size
parts per million
Potentially Responsible Party
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reference Dose
Regional Historic Preservation Plan
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Record of Decision
Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health
State Implementation Plan
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
Time Critical Removal Action
Uptake/Biokinetic
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
C.F.R.
CRAVE
DMA
EE/CA
EPA
FS
MCA
MCLs
MDHES
MMA
NAAQS
NCP
NPL
OW/EADA
PDF
PM-lO
ppm
PRP
RCRA
RID
RHPP
RI
RI/FS
RME
ROD
SEGH
SIP
SMCRA
TCRA
UBK
USFWS
Record of Decision aWIEADA au
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-iii
-------
.,
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (BPA) and the Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences (MDHES) have prepared this Responsiveness Summary to
document and respond to issues and comments raised by the public regarding the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RIfFS) and the Proposed Plan for the Old Works/East
Anaconda Development Area (OW /EADA) operable unit (OU) of the Anaconda Smelter
National Priorities List (NFL) site. Comments were received during the public comment
period from September 23 through October 22, 1993. These comments, and responses to
them, are outlined in this document. By law, the EP A and MDHES must consider public
input before making a final decision on a cleanup remedy. Once public comment is reviewed
and considered, the final decision on a cleanup remedy will be documented in the Record of
Decision (ROD).
SITE BACKGROUND
1.1
The Anaconda Smelter site, located east of the town of Anaconda in southwest Montana, is
the location of the former Anaconda Copper Mining Company ore processing facilities.
These facilities were developed to remove copper from ore mined in nearby Butte during the
period from 1884 through 1980. In 1977, the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCQ)
purchased the assets of the Anaconda Copper Mining Company. In 1980, ARCa ceased
smelting activities in Anaconda.
The aw /EADA au is located immediately adjacent to the town of Anaconda. The
OW /EADA au encompasses approximately 1,300 acres and is bounded by Highway 1 and
the East Anaconda Yard to the south, Highway 273 to the east, Stuckey Ridge to the north,
and Cedar Street in Anaconda to the west. Warm Springs Creek, the area's principal
drainage, flows east through the site. Also, since the anticipated land uses, site
characteristics, and contaminants of concern are similar to areas in the OW/EADA OU, the
Mill Creek OU was included in the selected remedy for the OW/EADA OU. The Mill
Creek OU is approximately 140 acres in size and is located approximately two miles
southeast of the OW/EADA OU, adjacent to the Anaconda Smelter (formerly known as the
Washoe Reduction Works).
The OW/EADA OU contains large volumes of milling and smelting wastes, fallout from
smelter emissions, and other debris that originated from the operation of smelters at the
Upper and Lower Works from 1884 to 1902, and the Washoe Reduction Works from 1902 to
1980. Remnants of six brick flues on the hillside to the north of Warm Springs Creek and
various deteriorated brick foundations, demolition debris, and railroad grades are all that
remain of the original Old Works facilities. The Red Sands, a major Old Works site feature,
consists of tailings and slag generated from the Lower Works smelter.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-I
--..- ..-..
.- ..0. ,."- .. --..
-------
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Several of the structures within the Old Works area are eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places. These structures include two former lumber company buildings,
the various Old Works structures, the Heap Roast slag, and remnants of the Red Sands. The
Anaconda Old Works Historic District is considered significant not only to Anaconda's past
growth into an important turn-of-the-century Montana city, but also to the development of the
Butte/ Anaconda area as one of the largest copper producers in the world. Remnants of the
original Old Works structures are historically significant for their relationship to the
refinements in copper metallurgy developed at the site. The Red Sands and the Heap Roast
slag piles are a significant part of the Old Works structures and are included in the Regional
Historic Preservation Plan (RHPP). The RHPP was developed by a joint committee of
citizens, EPA, MDHES, state and local historic preservation officers, and the local
governments of Anaconda-Deer Lodge, Butte-Silver Bow, and Walkerville, Montana.
The Anaconda Smelter site covers a wide area and is currently organized into the following
OUs:
.
Anaconda Smelter Demolition (Smelter Hill)
Mill Creek Children Relocation
Anaconda Yards Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA)
Arbiter/Beryllium & Repository Construction
Old Works Stabilization
Mill Creek Relocation
Flue Dust
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area
Community Soils
Anaconda Regional Soils
Anaconda Regional Water and Waste
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
The OUs were prioritized based on their potential risk to human health and the environment.
Mill Creek was considered the highest priority because children in Mill Creek had elevated
urinary arsenic levels indicating an excess exposure to arsenic in their environment. Based
on this, EPA relocated Mill Creek residents in 1988. Since then, EPA has also taken action
at several other OUs, including Flue Dust, Arbiter, Beryllium, Community Soils and Old
Works. The OW/EADA OU is considered the next priority because of the potential
exposure of the nearby population to elevated metal and arsenic concentrations and the
potential for economic development within the area.
1.2
SUMMARY OF EPA ACTIONS AT THE ANACONDA SMELTER SITE
The history of pollution problems associated with heavy metal and arsenic releases at the
Anaconda Smelter site resulted in placement of the site on the NPL in September 1983,
under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Rccord of ~ision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-2
---.'-. ..,. ........"
_.-. -..-'-- .'. -
. "~'_.-'_n.~......_'- -" ......-.....
-------
.,
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Liability Act (CERCLA). In October 1984, ARC a entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent (AOC) to conduct a remedial investigation (RI) for the Anaconda Smelter site. The
draft RI reports generally indicated wide-scale contamination and a need for more in-depth
study.
In the initial stages of the Anaconda area investigations, it became apparent that the
community of Mill Creek, located two miles east of Anaconda, was being severely impacted
by contamination. Children in Mill Creek had elevated urinary arsenic levels indicating an
excess exposure to arsenic in their environment. EP A redirected the sequencing of the RIs
on the site to focus on Mill Creek. Young children, the population at greatest risk, were
temporarily relocated from the community in May 1986. At this time, control measures
were initiated on flue dust, the most concentrated arsenic and heavy metal contaminant
source on the site.
In July 1986, EPA entered into an AOC with ARCO, the potentially responsible party
(pRP), to conduct an expedited RI/FS for Mill Creek. The ROD for Mill Creek was
completed in October 1987. The selected remedy was permanent relocation of Mill Creek
residents. This remedy was selected in part because the area had the potential to become
recontaminated from surrounding waste sources. EP A successfully negotiated a consent
decree with ARCO concerning the implementation of the relocation remedy for Mill Creek
residents on January 7, 1988. The permanent relocation of residents was completed in the
fall of 1988.
In September 1988, EPA entered into an AOC with ARca to conduct an RI/FS for the Flue
Dust OU. The ROD was completed in September 1991. The remedy selected was treatment
and disposal of all flue dust located on Smelter Hill. Also in September 1988, EPA entered
into a consent order with ARCa to conduct an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA) for the Old Works OU. The Final EE/CA Report addressing these areas was
approved by EPA in July 1991. The actions taken as a result of the EE/CA have included
stabilizing the Red Sands adjacent to Warm Springs Creek, repair of breaks in Warm Springs
Creek levees, and the installation of fencing to limit access to certain areas of the Old Works
site. Further cleanup actions relating to the Red Sands, as well as the remainder of the Old
Works OU, are included in this au.
A focused investigation of wastes within the ponds and bunkers at the Arbiter Plant site was
conducted for the Accelerated Removals EE/CA in 1991. The waste materials within the
Arbiter ponds and bunkers were removed as part of the Accelerated Removals response
action in 1992.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.rm
RS-3
._~~-.....-. .
- -."-.. _.~........
..-.. ". . ..-.
'." . -~.". '.-. - ,- .
-------
.,
OW fEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF EPA ACTIONS AT THE OWfEADA OU
1.3
A removal action was conducted at the OW fEADA au between April and November 1992.
The aId Works removal action consisted of temporary measures including the repair of the
dikes along Warm Springs Creek to prevent flooding of the adjacent tailings, the construction
of ditches and detention basins to prevent tailings from washing into the creek, site access
control, and removal of some of the Red Sands from the banks of the creek. Three retention
basins to intercept storm flow from the drainages above the Old Works area were
constructed. The existing dike system adjacent to the creek was repaired, and riprap (a rock-
lined erosion control) was placed along areas of erosion. The Red Sands were sloped and
revegetated to prevent erosion and a portion of the Red Sands adjacent to the creek was
removed. A gabion wall (stacked wire baskets filled with rock) was installed as a barrier
between the creek and the Red Sands.
EPA released the RifFS and the Proposed Plan for the OWfEADA au on September 23,
1993. A public comment period was held from September 23 through October 22, 1993.
On September 29, 1993, EPA held an informational meeting in Anaconda to explain the
RIfFS process, outline the Proposed Plan and Preferred Alternative, and to answer questions
regarding the alternatives. A formal public hearing was held in Anaconda on October 14,
1993, to allow the public to submit formal comments. Throughout the public comment
period, EPA has received numerous comments, both oral and written, on the RIfFS and the
Proposed Plan. EP A also received comments from ARCa on the supporting documents.
The Mill Creek au was previously assessed under an RIfFS completed in September 1987
by ARCO. Volume VI (Mill Creek Addendum) of the OWfEADA RIfFS, released on
September 23, 1993, summarizes the current status of the Mill Creek OU, including sample
results from data collected in 1993. In the Proposed Plan, the Mill Creek OU was included
in the Preferred Alternative for the OW fEADA OU since the anticipated land uses and site
characteristics of this au are similar to areas in the OW fEADA OU.
1.4
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BACKGROUND
EP A has conducted community involvement activities for the aw fEADA au in accordance
with state and federal laws and EP A Superfund guidance documents. From the beginning of
the RIfFS process for the OWfEADA OU, EPA has conducted community relations activities
and sought the involvement of the public and the PRP.
1.4.1 PUBLIC :MEETING PUBLICITY
Press releases were sent to the media mailing list to announce each public meeting and the
public comment period. The media mailing list includes the Anaconda newspaper, The
Anaconda Leader, and the Butte newspaper, The Montana Standard. The public meetings
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-4
_. . ..... -.
-. .-. --T--.
-------
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMl\1ARY
were advertised in both newspapers. Print advertisements were display style, conspicuously
large (at least two columns by five inches), and were placed in a widely-read sections of each
local paper.
1.4.2 ADMINISTRA TIVE RECORD
The Administrative Record is the set of documents identified for the OW /EADA QU upon
which the selection of the remedy is based. The Administrative Record is required by
CERCLA ~113(k). The Administrative Record is available for public review at the EPA
Record Center in Helena.
1.4.3 DOCUMENT REPOSITORIES
Documents relating to the QW/EADA QU are available at the County Courthouse in
Anaconda, at the Hearst Free Public Library in Anaconda, and at the EP A Record Center in
Helena.
1.4.4 CmZENS GROUPS
The Anaconda-Deer Lodge Reclamation Advocates (ADRA) organization was formed in
1988 by members of the Citizens in Action and the Anaconda-Deer Lodge Environmental
Advisory Council to work towards economic recovery. ADRA meets regularly with EPA
and ARCO to discuss Superfund activities taking place in the Clark Fork Basin. ADRA has
co-sponsored public Superfund meetings with EP A.
The Arrowhead Foundation is a non-profit community group focusing on the effort to
establish a world-class, Jack Nicklaus-designed golf course in the QW/EADA QU.
In the spring of 1992, EPA, MDHES, the National Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation, the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, and the local governments of
Anaconda-Deer Lodge, Butte-Silver Bow, and Walkerville signed a Programmatic Agreement
calling for a comprehensive approach to addressing the important historic resources
throughout the upper Clark Fork Basin which potentially could be impacted by Superfund
activities. This group developed an RHPP, which includes a comprehensive approach to
historic preservation and specific suggestions for implementation, recommendation for
funding sources, and management alternatives. A joint committee of citizens and
representatives of various agencies and historic preservation groups in both Anaconda and
Butte was formed to implement the concepts and plans for historic preservation as outlined in
the RHPP.
The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition, an environmental advocacy organization
headquartered in Missoula, Montana, has been actively involved in all aspects of Superfund
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-5
-------
".
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
work throughout the Clark Fork Basin. In late 1992, the Coalition hired a staff member to
work on upper Clark Fork issues and have an office located in Butte. The Coalition has
been active in the public participation process for the OW IEADA OU.
1.4.5 PROGRESS REPORTS
Since the NFL listing of the Anaconda Smelter site in 1983, EPA and MDHES have
produced a series of Progress Reports and Fact Sheets that discuss Superfund issues at the
Anaconda Smelter NPL Site. Many of these printed materials have been site-specific and
have discussed issues at specific OUs. Much of the early emphasis was placed on Mill
Creek.
. .
These Progress Reports and Fact Sheets contained information on released documents,
meetings, site activities, completion of projects, sampling results, etc. They were sent to
those people on the site mailing list and extra copies were distributed at public meetings.
Copies of previous progress reports and fact sheets are contained in the Anaconda Smelter
Administrative Record.
1.4.6 MAILING LIST
EP A maintains the OW IEADA OU mailing list on a computer database and updates this list
periodically. EP A actively solicits additions to the mailing list in the Fact Sheets and at
public meetings.
1.5
CHRONOLOGY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
1983-1993
Numerous site-wide community relations activities were conducted at the Anaconda
Smelter site. These included the development of several Community Relations Plans
and revisions to the Community Relations Plans in March 1984, October 1986,
March 1989, and December 1992.
EP A and MDHES officials conducted extensive community relations activities in
Anaconda and Opportunity, Montana, over the years. A part-time Community
Relations Liaison worked in Anaconda for several years. In addition, the EP A
Community Involvement Coordinator has conducted numerous small and large group
meetings and extensive Community Relations activities in Anaconda and Opportunity.
EP A officials were readily available to local news media which resulted in frequent
site coverage in local newspapers.
Record of Decision OW/FADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-6
-------
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
A site-wide Progress Repon was prepared and mailed to those on the Anaconda
mailing list in June 1990.
April 1991
An Accelerated Removal Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Progress Repon was
prepared and mailed to those on the Anaconda mailing list. A public meeting was
held on May 22, 1991, to discuss EPA's removal options for the Arbiter Plant waste,
located in the aW/EADA au.
August 1991
An aId Works Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Progress Repon was prepared
and mailed to those on the Anaconda mailing list. A public meeting was held
August 27, 1991, to discuss EPA's preferred removal option for areas in the
aW/EADA au.
Spring 1992
Several meetings were held to discuss the OW/EADA RI/FS schedule. The
community was explicit in their urgency to accelerate the schedule as much as
possible.
1992
Monthly meetings were held to discuss progress of the aW/EADA au.
May 1993
A site-wide Program Update was prepared and mailed to every household in
Anaconda and Opportunity. A special insert encouraged interested people to sign up
for the mailing list, which resulted in a one-third increase of names to the list. A
well-attended public meeting was held on May 24, 1993, which included extensive
discussion on the aW/EADA au.
September 1993
EP A sent out the Proposed Plan to the site mailing list. A display ad and legal ad for
the Proposed Plan, public comment period, and meeting dates were published in The
Anaconda Leader on September 22 and 24, 1993, and in The Montana Standard on
September 23, 1993.
The Anaconda Leader ran press releases on September 23 and 29, 1993. The
Montana Standard ran a press release on September 25, 1993.
An informational public meeting was held on September 23, 1993, to discuss the
OW/EADA au Proposed Plan.
Record of De<:isi"" OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-7
. .u -0' . h
---.-_. - .... ..,..-
. -. .-. . - .
""--- . "--'.___-_M.-.'
-------
.,
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUl\1MARY
October 1993
The Anaconda Leader ran press releases on October I and 15, 1993, and The
Montana Standard ran a press release on October 15, 1993. A meeting notice ad was
published by The Anaconda Leader on October 8 and 14, 1993.
A formal public hearing was held on October 14, 1993 to receive oral comments.
The transcript of this meeting can be found in Attachment A.
1.6
EX PLANA TION OF RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Four types of comments were received on the Proposed Plan by EP A during the Public
Comment Period. These were:
.
.
.
.
Comments presented at the public meetings held on September 29 and October 14,
1993. The oral comments that were given at the formal public meeting were recorded
and transcribed by a court reporter. A copy of the transcript of the formal public
meeting, including formal comments, is provided in Attachment A.
Written comments received by EPA during the public comment period. Copies of
these comments can be found in Attachment B. Responses to these comments are in
Section 3.1.2, page RS-14.
Written comments received by EPA from ARCO. Copies of these comments are
provided in Attachment B. Responses to these comments are in Section 3.1.2.18,
page RS-23, and Section 3.2.3, page RS-26.
Written comments from State and Federal Government agencies. Copies of these
comments are provided in Attachment B. Responses to these comments are in .
Section 3.1.2.11, page RS-17, and Section 3.2.2, page RS-26.
Written comments were received from the following groups and individuals:
.
Fifteen private citizens
Anaconda-Deer Lodge Local Government
ARCO
Two Local Environmental Groups
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks
Three Local Community Groups
One Montana Environmental Group
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-8
-------
.,
.,
OWfEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
"
"
It should be noted that while only the formal public comments are presented and responded
to in this Responsiveness Summary, EP A has also considered other information in the
remedy selection process. EP A has considered information from meetings held among EP A,
MDHES, ARCO, Anaconda-Deer Lodge local government officials, and other parties during
the RIfFS and during the public comment period. Also EPA, has considered ARCO's
written submittals, including their applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) scoping documents, risk assessment documents, and other correspondence related
to the RIfFS and remedy selection. Specific responses to ARCO's ARARs and risk
assessment comments can be found in Part II, Section 3.2.3, page RS-26.
All comments received, including those provided to EP A outside the comment period, have
been reviewed and considered by EP A in the decision-making process. These comments are
addressed, either explicitly or implicitly, in this Responsiveness Summary and in the ROD.
The comments and responses have been organized into two Parts:
Part I.
Non-technical comments include summaries of most remarks made by
citizens, local government, community groups, and local and state
environmental organizations. Each comment is followed by EPA's
response. Policy comments and responses are generally included with
the non-technical comments.
Partll.
Technical comments provide a comprehensive set of technical and
legal comments and the EP A's detailed response. These comments
include ARCO's comments on ARARs and the Risk Assessment and
comments from the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Record or Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-9
-------
.,
OWfEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
2.0 OVERVIEW OF COMMENTS
The major concerns expressed during the RIfFS process focused on the permanence of the
cleanup and the ultimate land use at the site. Most private citizens and local community
groups expressed strong support for EP A's Preferred Alternative as outlined in the Proposed
Plan.
The Preferred Alternative allows for the local community's desire to develop a golf course
and historic trail. A significant number of comments are related to these proposals.
Although some comments and responses are related to the golf course and historic trail and
are in Section 3.0, many of the comments are related to issues beyond the scope of
Superfund. There are two active community organizations, the Golf Course Authority Board
and First Montana Heritage Park and Partners, Inc., currently working on these unrelated
issues and EP A suggests that these concerns be brought before these groups.
The Golf Course Authority Board has recently been formed to develop and implement the
proposed golf course. The Old Works Historic Interpretive Trail is an active project of the
First Montana Heritage Park and Partners, Inc., a non-profit corporation, whose mission is
to develop a historic and cultural corridor and park in and between both Anaconda and Butte.
Record of Decision OW/EADA au
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-lO
_. .,~ .,..-..---. -_. --...
-------
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The following sections are divided into two parts. Part I lists the public comments that are
non-technical in nature. These include general comments regarding the Preferred Alternative
and the ability of Preferred Alternative to meet permanence criteria, concerns about specific
areas of the aW/EADA au, and concerns about the proposed golf course and historic trail.
Part IT discusses specific technical questions and concerns relating to ARARs, Wetlands, the
RI, and the Risk Assessment.
3.1
PART I - NON-TECHNICAL COMMENTS
The following comments are divided into those received at the formal public meeting and
written comments. Each commenter is identified and, in most instances, the comments are
quoted directly. In some instances, the comments are paraphrased. The EPA responses are
stated after each comment.
3.1.1 COMMENTS AT mE FORMAL PUBLIC MEETING
The following are comments received at the formal public meeting. A transcript of the
"meeting is provided in Attachment A. Each individual commenter is identified and EPA's
responses follow each comment. The comment is italicized and EPA's response is in regular
type.
3.1.1.1
Comments from Mr. Tom Hurlock
Comment A: "We read that there was a proposal for an automobile junkyard at Mill Creek
and we think that's a poor idea. "
Response:
Most areas of aW/EADA au have been designated by Anaconda-Deer Lodge
County for commercial/industrial or recreational uses. From a risk
perspective, the use of the Mill Creek area for a junkyard-type activity would
be acceptable under this land use designation. However, decisions to utilize
property for specific uses rest with landowners or local government.
Comment B: "[ am afraid that the proposed golf course would cost us wildlife habitat and
cost the taxpayers more money. [fear that the golf course would encourage
land development and therefore provide less and less usable wildlife area. "
Response:
Local government has designated the area around the proposed golf course for
commercial/industrial and recreational use, with the exception of the Teressa
Ann Terrace area that has been designated for residential use. The local
government and local business community have advocated for the existence of
Record of Decision OW/EADA au
030894/owrod8.fUl
RS-II
-------
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
a golf course. EP A believes that as long as construction and maintenance of
the golf course is compatible with the selected remedy, then the ultimate land
use is a community decision. The selected remedy identifies revegetation of
about 500 acres of currently barren waste and soil. Although not a specific
goal of the remediation action, this should result in increased habitat and
forage for wildlife.
EPA understands that it is the intention of Anaconda-Deer Lodge County and
the Golf Course Authority Board to prevent any burden to the county
taxpayers as a result of golf course construction.
Comment C: "] would like to know the amount of chemicals that will be used on the
proposed golf course. "
Response:
This concern needs to be brought to the attention of the Golf Course Authority
Board appointed to manage the proposed golf course. However, the potential
use of chemicals (i.e., fertilizers and pesticides) will be evaluated in
determining the appropriate design components (i.e., multi-media caps) for the
golf course area. In addition, the effects of irrigation water will also be
considered in the design.
Comment D: "] hope that the Old Worlcr ruins will be stabilized to prevent further
deterioration. "
Response:
3.1.1.2
Superfund remedies must avoid or prevent damage to historic resources, if
possible, as part of a cleanup. However, stabilization or restoration of historic
resources is generally not within the scope of Superfund. Stabilization or
restoration of these historic resources would be the responsibility of local and
state historic preservation interests. The Anaconda-Deer Lodge Historic
Preservation Officer, Connie Ternes-Daniels, has been working extensively
with various agencies to preserve this important historic resource.
Comments from Mr. .Tim Davison
Comment A: "I'm very supportive of the plan that has been presented and applaud the work
that has gone into it. "
Response:
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comment B: "The creation of action levels has long been requested in the community and
the action level of 1,500 parts per million seemed very appropriate for long-
term concerns. "
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
OJ0894/owrod8.fm
. '"r'-'. -,.'
RS-12
-------
Response:
Comment C:
Response:
3.1.1.3
Comment:
Response:
3.1.1.4
Comment:
Response:
3.1.1.5
Comment:
Response:
.,
OW /EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Arsenic action levels have been, as Mr. Davison noted, determined for
recreational (1,000 parts per million (ppm» and industrial/commercial (500
ppm) land uses. An arsenic action level for residential land uses will be
determined as part of the Community Soils RI/FS.
nWe want to be assured that as Institutional Controls are developed and put
into place that these covers stay intact and that the health and safety of the
environment of the citizens are taken care of, but also that they be proactive to
allow for future growth. n
The Development Permit System is intended to do just that.
Comment from Ms. Sandy Stash. ARCO
nARCO is generally very in support of the Proposed Plan as outlined. We
think this particular Proposed Plan meets a rather unique goal, not necessarily
just Superfund, in that it does provide for cleanup. environmental cleanup. as
well as economic development. and historic preservation. n
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comment from Mr. Bill Dee
n] am very in favor of this Proposed Plan as it is with some reservations. but
the majority of it. I think the people that have worked on it should be
complimented and encouraged to continue in this proactive manner. I think
that EP A has kept business in mind and the economic development of this area
in mind when they have proposed this. n .
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comment from Mr. .Tim Yeoman
n] am in approval and agree with the Preferred Alternative that you have
chosen. I specifically like the idea that it will allow for some dedicated
developments and potential developments because we are trying to all make a
living here. n
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-13
-- -..-...,,-.---. h
. --...",. M..-
-------
3.1.1.6
Comment:
Response:
3.1.1. 7
Comment:
Response:
3.1.1.8
..
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Comment from Ms. Natalie Fitzoatrick
n] am a member of ADRA and of the Arrowhead Foundation and am very
much in favor of the preferred remedy. ] think the work you have done is
outstanding and ]'m sure that the community appreciates not only the cleanup
but the economic development that this will bring to the area. n
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comment from Mr. Bill Crichton
nFor those people that fear any waste or bad effects from chemicals used on
golf courses, ] think they can rest assured that golf courses don't waste
chemicals... ] think that a new golf course in Anaconda would be the finest
asset that could happen to southwestern Montana. n
EP A acknowledges the comment. Also see response to Comment C, Section
3.1.1.1, page RS-l1.
Comments from Mr. Me) Stokke
Comment A: n]'m very much for the program that you have outlined. n
Response:
Comment B:
Response:
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Mr. Stokke expressed both complimentary and critical comments as to EPA's
past public participation efforts. Mr. Stokke stated that EPA did listen to
comments and cited the Warm Springs Ponds OU as an example where public
comment changed EPA's position. Mr. Stokke then discussed concerns he had
about the decisions reached on the Flue Dust main flue. Mr. Stokke cited a
letter sent by him to Ms. Carol Browner, which was not responded to by EPA.
The subject of this Responsiveness Summary is the QW/EADA QU. EPA
values input from the public and makes every attempt to address comments
either orally or in writing.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-14
....---.--..-.-.
...... .... ..". ..... . .'- ..-. - _. '. -
-------
... - .....
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
3.1.2 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD
. 3.1.2.1
Comment:
Response:
3.1.2.2
Comment:
Response:
3.1.2.3
Comment:
Response:
3.1.2.4
Comment:
Response:
Comment from The Anaconda Chamber of Commerce
"The Anaconda Chamber of Commerce supports the efforts of the
Environmental Protection Agency and congratulates them along with ARCO
and the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Commission on their plan for the clean-
up of the OW/EADA. It appears that the plan will not only restore vegetation
to the area but will provide an opportunity for development. "
EP A acknowledges this comment. .
Comment from Anaconda Retired Teachers Association
"We are happy to write to you in support of the Preferred Remedy indicated
for the Old Works/East Anaconda Area OU. We are pleased with the attention
paid to the historic smelter sites in the area as well as to the golf course. "
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comment from The Anaconda Garden Club
"We of the Anaconda Garden Club support the Preferred Remedy for the Old
Works/East Anaconda Development Area operable unit. We are particularly
pleased with the plan to revegetate approximately 1500 acres over a 3-year
period, establish the Jack Nicklaus golf course, and preserve historic resources
with a controlled access trail system. " .
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comment from Mr. Ray LaDDin
Mr. Lappin comments that he supports the Preferred Alternative. He states
that "EPA, ARCO, and Deer Lodge County are to be commended for the
cooperative effort shown in developing a solution to this problem. "
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Rccord of Decision OWIEADA OU
030894lowrOO8.fm
r ~. -. .
RS-15
-.. -~~.. ~~ -
. .-,_.- _u --.--..-...---- ...
-------
3.1.2.5
Comment:
Response:
3.1.2.6
Comment:
Response:
3.1.2.7
Comment:
Response:
3.1.2.8
Comment A:
Response:
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Comment from Mr. Edward Sa2er
"] am in favor and suppon the Proposed Plan (Preferred Remedy) and
recommend speedy action so as to get to the design stage as soon as possible. "
EP A acknowledges this comment and indicates that ARCa has already started
with preliminary design.
Comment from Anaconda-Deer Lod2e Reclamation Advocates (ADRA)
ADRA comments that EPA and the ADRA members have come to a "complete
understanding" of the Proposed Plan and that it is their belief that the whole
community will be in favor of the plan.
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comment from Ms. Bonnie Stunn
"] support the Proposed Plan for the Old Works/East Anaconda Development
Area operable unit. "
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comments from Mr. .Tames Milo Mannine
"As Planning Director of Anaconda-Deer Lodge County, ] support the
Preferred Alternative as recommended by EPA. This alternative provides for
the protection of human health and environment, and yet for the first time in
CERCLA history, it takes into consideration the needs and desires of the
community, both in regard to economic development and historic
preservation. "
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comment B: "] do believe there needs to be additional discussion on those areas with
potential commercial and industrial development that have arsenic levels in
excess of 500 ppm. "
Response:
EP A and MDHES have modified the Preferred Alternative to address concerns
that no remediation in potential commercial/industrial areas would occur until
the time of development. The Selected Remedy will remediate all areas with
waste sources and soils exceeding arsenic concentrations of 1,000 ppm in
Record of Deeisioo OWfEADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-16
.." .-'.- - -".. .... ,_. -.--_. .
-------
3.1.2.9
Comment:
Response:
3.1.2.10
-~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUM:MARY
potential commercial/industrial areas to below 1,000 ppm. Final remediation
to the commercial/industriallevel of 500 ppm would occur through the
Development Permit System at the time of development.
Comment from Ms. Rose Nvrnan
n Please consider allowing a tour 01 the Old Works' by the Historic Resources
Board ... I am hopeful that EPA and/or ARCO will prepare a documentary
video 01 the Old Works' as it is at this time. n
Arrangements can be made through ARCO to obtain a guided tour of the Old
Works area. A documentary video could be a negotiated mitigation measure
as part of the Second Programmatic Agreement for implementation of the
RHPP. EPA suggests that Ms. Nyman contact Connie Daniels, Local Historic
Preservation Officer.
Comments from Mr. Geor2e Heath
Comment A: nYour Proposed Plan looks to be acceptable in controlling further
contamination 01 the ground water. n
Response:
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comment B: nHow -does a construction firm obtain bid information on EPA funded work?
Is Superfund private money or Federal? If Federal, why aren't the jobs
advertised? n
Response:
3.1.2.11
EP A is a federal agency and consequently all procurement laws must be
followed for any work that is done by EP A. However, to date, the work that
has been done in Anaconda has been done by ARCO under EPA order.
Consequently, ARca does the actual hiring of all construction workers. EP A
suggests that Mr. Heath contact ARCa to determine how he might be included
on ARCO's bid list.
Comments from Mr. Lee Bastian. Re2ional Park Mana2er. Montana
Department of Fish. Wildlife and Parks
Comment A: nIt appears that your plan has been thoroughly thought out and well
organized. Your Preferred Alternative sounds logical and should address the
problems. "
Response:
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Record of Decisioo aWIEADA au
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-17
r_. -- ,,-.". -.".
-------
Comment B:
Response:
3.1.2.12
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
"1 am writing to address the Stack and the 2.2 acre site the department
manages. The department would like to suggest that if any development
opportunities arise that will benefit or enhance these two areas or help solve
some of the issues raised at that October 6 meeting, we would appreciate
being involved. "
The stack itself is outside the area of this selected remedy; however, the 2.2
acre site referenced is within the aW/EADA au. Currently the site is paved
and is presently utilized as a parking area. Remediation of this area will not
only be protective of human health and the environment but will consider
future land use by Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Design plans for this and the
surrounding area will be forwarded to Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.
Comments from Ms. Nicki Leiss
Comment A: "] am in agreement with the EPA on the clean-up of the Old Works/East
Anaconda Development Area. "
Response:
Comment B:
Response:
3.1.2.13
Comment:
EP A acknowledges this comment.
"The Proposed Plan calls for only a 75 % cover or 'cap' of the Red Sands and
in order to avoid future problems and costs which will likely happen due to
potential drainage error - a complete ]00% cover or 'cap' would be the
solution of the Red Sands Area. "
EP A believes that an engineered cover best prevents direct human contact to
Red Sands material and reduces the rate of infiltration of water to the Red
Sand material. The EP A believes the Red Sands are a potential source of
metal loading to ground water. As noted, a portion of the Red Sands will
remain uncovered in the interest of preserving the historic integrity of the Red
Sands area. The extent of Red Sands material left uncovered will be
determined by EPA during remedial design. However, EPA and MDHES
agree that uncovered areas of the Red Sands will only include portions of the
steep, well-consolidated walls, which do not readily promote infiltration of
precipitation and wind erosion, while offering an excellent cross-sectional view
of the Red Sands material.
Comments from Mr. and Mrs. Duane and Cindie Green
Mr. and Mrs. Green raise several concerns regarding the proposed golf
course. These relate to the weather often being unpredictable, the cost of the
course, the possibility that some costs may fall to the taxpayers of Deer Lodge
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-18
-------
Response:
3.1.2.14
Comment A:
Response:
.~
OW iEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
County, and suggest that ARCO buy back lands surrounding Anaconda from
the timber companies and give those lands as a gift to Anaconda.
EPA suggests that Mr. and Mrs. Green bring these suggestions to the recently
appointed Golf Course Authority Board or to the Anaconda-Deer Lodge
County Commission. EPA's role in the golf course development is limited to
ensuring that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
The use of this land for a proposed golf course, or anything else, rests with
. the community through the local government.
Comments from Ms. Mary Kav Craie. Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition
"The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Coalition is not in favor of perpetual
'management' of wastes in-situ rather than good permanent clean-up. The
Preferred Alternative can set a precedent for leaving wastes in place. We do
not believe that this is good public policy. The remedy alternatives considered
for this site - engineered covers, revegetation, surface controls, stream
channel controls, monitor, and Institutional Controls... do not give
Supeifund's mandate for 'perman£nce' the weight we believe Congress
intended. We note that some wastes will be left untreated. We are concerned
what permanent controls will be put into place to assure citizens and tourists
don't stray from proposed trails into areas seriously contaminated with
arsenic. "
EP A believes that the selected remedy which utilizes treatment and
containment options meets the criteria for permanence. The selected remedy
also balances other criteria, such as long and short-term effectiveness,
reduction of toxicity, mobility, volume through treatment, cost, and state and
community acceptance, to provide the most appropriate remedy for this site.
All alternatives considered in the feasibility study (FS) would have left waste
in place. However, an alternative to excavate waste material was considered
as a preliminary alternative. This excavation alternative, which would have
still left waste in place, was screened out because it was not determined to be
effective, in proportion to cost, in minimizing metal loading to ground water
and would be difficult to implement.
EP A does not consider off-site disposal preferable to treatment or containment
options. Remedy selection is site specific and does not necessarily set
precedent for future remedial actions at other OUs.
Record of Decisioo OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fUl
RS-19
. -- . -. . .
- .-. '-'--'-.'-'-.'" .
..- -... .--..- ....-. - "."
-------
.~
OW IEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUM:MARY
Institutional controls are considered an element of the selected remedy and are
not intended to be the primary cleanup measure. Institutional controls are
expected to actively manage future land use and activities to protect
engineering controls, facilitate future engineering controls, and restrict access
at the site. These controls will be implemented by the local government and
are considered to be long term. EP A will continue to review the effectiveness
of these controls in protecting human health and the environment. EP A could
require additional engineering measures to be taken if institutional controls are
not deemed protective.
In areas where wastes will not receive engineering controls (along the historic
trail), institutional controls (i.e., trail covers, barriers, fencing andlor security
measures) are intended to restrict access to wastes. In the event that
occasional trespassers contact these wastes, risk is not likely to be excessive.
Comment B: Ms. Craig expresses concern that the addition of lime is not permanent
because it "freezes heavy metal toxins in place." She asks that EPA respond
to the issue of soil attenU£Jtion and its ability to provide a permanent solution.
Response:
Application of lime during implementation of the selected remedy is proposed
in areas designated for revegetative treatment. Generally, areas designated for
revegetative treatment demonstrate contamination by arsenic and metals from
fallout of smelter emissions in surface (0-2") soil materials only. Information
collected during the RI demonstrated that migration of contaminants deposited
by smelter emissions into the subsurface was very limited. While these areas
do not pose a significant threat to ground water at the site, they do present
significant concerns related to direct human contact and migration of
contaminants as a result of wind erosion and surface water runoff. Application
of lime (to neutralize soil pH) and soil nutrients, followed by extensive deep
tilling of near-surface soil material, will permanently reduce arsenic
concentrations at the surface to acceptable levels, as well as promote a
sustainable vegetation cover to minimize erosion. Since metals cannot be
destroyed, changing the form or environment in which the metal exists can
effectively stabilize the material for a very long time.
Conversely, other waste material at the site may pose a potential threat to
ground and surface water. Waste material at the site will not be treated with
lime but will be capped with a sufficiently thick soil cover to promote
sustainable vegetation. The vegetated cap will prevent direct human contact
with unacceptable arsenic concentrations, as well as minimize infiltration and
the rate of deep percolation of metal-laden pore water. However, the ability
of soil beneath waste to attenuate migrating solutes emanating from waste
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
.-.. .--.--.. ~.- ...--..."
RS-20
--'-'''-n.~'- ...._- ,..
-------
.,
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
material will continue to playa significant role in minimizing the rate of metal
entering ground water beneath waste material at the site. Information
presented in the OW/EADA RI Report suggests only limited contamination of
ground and surface water from wastes at OW/EADA. EPA believes that the
selected remedy will address these problems. To ensure the effectiveness of
the remedy, however, long-term monitoring will be implemented.
Comment C: "] would appreciate hearing how in-place management 01 contaminants -- the
preferred remedy for 1 {)() % of this operable unit -- permanently protects
ground water emanating from its sites. "
Response:
Characterization of ground water at the site indicates exceedances of federal
and state drinking water standards are observed on a local scale in the vicinity
of the former Arbiter Plant. Removal of waste in the Arbiter Ponds and Old
Works Tailings Ponds during the Arbiter/Beryllium ERA in 1992 was a source
control measure that also addressed ground water exceedances in the vicinity
of the Arbiter Plant. These wastes were considered primary sources of ground
water contamination at the site because of their location relative to existing
ground water high concentration plume locations and their ability to directly
interact with ground water at the site.
Currently, waste material remaining at the site does not meet characteristic
requirements to be defined as a hazardous waste and does not directly interact
with ground water of the shallow alluvial aquifer. Although data indicate that
some metal loading is occurring in ground water beneath remaining waste
material (Heap Roast, Jig Tailings, and Red Sands) at the site, the current rate
of loading does not result in exceedances of federal and state drinking water
standards. Nevertheless, because ground water quality is impacted resulting in
metal concentrations that might exceed ambient water quality criteria, EP A
believes it necessary to limit leaching of metals to ground water. Since ground
water does not recharge surface water in Warm Springs Creek, ground water
at the site does not pose an immediate threat to water quality conditions of
Warm Springs Creek.
A strategy to minimize the impact of waste material on ground water quality
was adopted in the selected remedy. Implementation of a soil cap of sufficient
thickness to sustain a good vegetation cover on waste remaining at the site is
expected to reduce the rate of infiltration and deep percolation of metal-laden
pore water through waste material, thus improving ground water quality at the
site. A ground water monitoring program is included as part of the selected
remedy. Also, a five-year review to evaluate the protectiveness of the remedy
will be made by EPA.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-21
-------
3.1.2.15
Comment A:
Response:
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUM:MARY
Comments from Mr. Don Stoecker
Mr. Stoecker expresses concern that the metals and arsenic will leach into the
creek from certain areas of the Old Works that were to be planted with grass,
shrubs, or trees. He asks how this would prevent the metals and arsenic from
leaching into the ground or into the creek. He also expresses concern about
the proposed golf course and the irrigation that will occur.
The water quality of the Warm Springs Creek is generally good under the
current conditions of the site. There have been no exceedances of maximum
contaminant limits (MCLs) in surface water of Warm Springs Creek, with
limited exceedances of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms
for copper and lead observed, usually in the spring. The selected remedy
includes protection of the water quality of Warm Springs Creek through the
stabilization of dikes, capping of waste material to prevent erosion, and routing
of runoff from Stuckey Ridge and the Upper and Lower Works basins to
remove sediment and minimize discharge to Warm Springs Creek.
The proposed golf course will use more natural substances for growth
enhancement and will include a computerized state-of-the-art watering system
to minimize water infiltration. In addition, drainage controls such as
containment ponds, will be used at the site.
See also response to Comment C in Section 3.1.2.14, page RS-19, and
Comments B and C in Section 3.1.2.16, page RS-22.
Comment B: Mr. StOecker expresses concern that "weeds and tules were being disrupted
and were going over the dam" at Wann Springs Ponds. .
Response:
3.1.2.16
As this Responsiveness Summary deals with concerns related to the
OW/EADA QU, Mr. Stoecker's concerns regarding the Warm Springs Ponds
were referred to Mr. Scott Brown, EPA Project Manager for the Warm
Springs Ponds.
Comments from One Anonvrnous Commenter
Comment A: "1 was informed that there is a Superfund federal law that states that there can
be no transfer of title to land that is officially Superfund property until that
said land is reclaimed. "
Response:
The transfer of land within a Superfund site is not prohibited. The commenter
may be referring to Superfund liability which states that any owner, operator,
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-22
-------
..
OW/EADA ROD - RFSPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
or transporter of hazardous materials may be held liable by EP A for the costs
of any proposed cleanup activity.
Comment B: The commenter states that it doesn't make any sense to pour hundreds of
thousands of gallons of water on a golf course with contaminated ground under
it.
Response:
3.1.2.17
The selected remedy will consolidate and grade waste sources to minimize the
effects of water (precipitation and irrigation) by routing water away from the
wastes, thus minimizing infiltration. In addition, waste sources that would
receive irrigation water (greens and tee boxes) will be covered with multi-
media caps designed to prevent water from reaching below the waste material.
Impermeable or drainage layers will be incorporated into the cap design.
Irrigation water will be controlled to only provide water to wet the clean soil
cover. This water will be utilized by the plant and/or evapotranspired to the
atmosphere. Moisture-sensing devices will limit water during irrigation to
prevent excess water from migrating below the clean soil zone. In addition,
ground water quality will be monitored to detect any increase of contamination
due to irrigation.
Comment from Mr. Mike Fitz2erald. Upper Clark Fork River Superfund
Technical S{Jecialist
Please note that Mr. Fitzgerald made comments of a technical nature. Mr. Fitzgerald's
technical comments are answered in Section 3.2.2, page RS-26.
Comment:
Response:
3.1.2.18
The Proposed Plan has to be complimented on its display of good
communications between all parties and, as concluded in the Feasibility Study,
appears to be: "1.) An implementable and comprehensive plan that is capable
to deal with the potential human health and environmental problems that exist
at the site, 2.) 1n compliance with the ARARs, and 3.) A cost effective solution
that is flexible in considering the short and long-term community planning
needs. "
EP A acknowledges this comment.
Comments from ARCO
Please note that ARCa also submitted extensive comments of a technical nature. These
comments on ARARs and the Risk Assessment are answered in Section 3.2.3, page RS-26.
Record of Decision OWIEADA OU
030894lowrod8.fm
RS-23
", '.'" -..~._. . .
- . -. - -. -.. __.n...__~" .. . --.
-------
Comment A:
Response:
Comment B:
Response:
.,
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ARCO generally supports EPA's Preferred Alternative identified in the
Proposed Plan to address conditions existing in the OW/EADA OU. ARCO
believes that the Preferred Alternative satisfies the requirements of CERCLA
and the NCP, and at the same time, will not hinder the commercial and
recreational development contemplated for the OW/EADA OU by Anaconda-
Deer Lodge Counly and the Town of Anaconda.
EPA acknowledges ARC a support for the Preferred Alternative and ARCO's
recognition that the Preferred Alternative satisfies the requirements of
CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). EP A believes that the
selected remedy best satisfies the criteria of CERCLA and the NCP.
ARCO requests that EPA reconsider and reject the portion of the Preferred
Alternative which provides for the construction of an engineered cover over a
portion of the Red Sands in Subarea 4. ARCO believes that the Red Sands do
not pose a sufficient threat to human health and the environment to require
construction of an engineered cover over any portion of the Red Sands.
Rather, ARCO believes that the implementation of surface controls, drainage
and dust controls will be sufficient to protect human health and the
environment and will more effectively minimize impacts to the historical
features of the Red Sands.
EP A believes that an engineered cover over portions of the Red Sands
increases the protectiveness of the Preferred Alternative. The engineered
cover will provide an adequate barrier to the majority of the Red Sands, which
contain the highest average arsenic values of any waste in the aW/EADA OU.
In conjunction with institutional controls, this will substantially reduce
exposure to human receptors.
Also, an engineered cover best reduces infiltration of water to the Red Sands
material, which is identified in the RI to be a potential source of metal loading
to ground water.
Finally, EPA believes an engineered cover will provide better long-term
effectiveness by best controlling fugitive dust. Water sprays and other dust
control measures would be effective over the short term during construction,
but long-term dust control, without an engineered cover, would continue to be
a problem. Thus, the selected remedy provides the best balance of criteria.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS- 24
.. '-'-'- ,'--~------"'..'-" .
-------
3.2
.,
OW lEAD A ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
PART n - TECHNICAL COMMENTS
This section contains the comments of a technical nature, along with the respective EP A
responses. All comments received were in written format. Each commenter is identified
and, in most instances, the comments are quoted directly. In some instances, the comments
are summarized.
3.2.1 COMMENTS FROM MR. MIKE FITZGERALD, UPPER CLARK FORK
RIVER, SUPERFUND TECHNICAL SPECIALIST
Comment A:
Response:
Comment B:
Mr. Fitzgerald expresses concern that the Remedial Investigation's usage of
uniformly distributed sampling and mathematical averaging may be misleading
and that this method might possibly result in an erroneous proposal of no-
action for the southeast corner of Subarea 5. He suggests that "the elevated
near-surface and subsurface arsenic values appear to warrant a capping and
combined erosional control remedy at a minimum. "
Although samples may be averaged over an area to characterize that area,
individual sample points or hotspots are also evaluated. The selected remedy,
acknowledging the selected action level, takes into account both average and
individual sample data. This also results in some locations of the sites where
individual samples are below the action level to be remediated.
The selected remedy does not provide for further engineering controls in the
southeast portion of Subarea 5 as this area was previously covered. EP A
evaluated this cover and believes it to be protective and consistent with the
selected remedy. However, surface and institutional controls will be
implemented to protect the existing cover. Additional areas will be covered as
part of the Flue Dust remedial action to match those covers currently existing
in this area.
Mr. Fitzgerald disagrees with the conclusion that the observed increase of in-
stream metal loadings of Warm Springs Creek across the site are solely due to
stream channel configuration. He suggests that there may be a potential data
gap from the lack of overland and surface runoff data. He also suggests that a
non-point source contribution and/or connection needs to be added to the
conclusions for the observed gain in metal loadings across the reach. He
suggests that this point should become an integral pan of the monitoring
program to test effectiveness of the Proposed Plan's surface treatments,
engineering covers, and drainage controls.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-25
-.----.-.. ..
.. --...-. ..- . _no"
-------
"
Response:
.'
..'
"
.~
OW fEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
EP A agrees with Mr. Fitzgerald's assessment of the lack of runoff data
collected at the site during the RI. Several attempts over several years to
collect runoff data were not successful due to the lack of precipitation and
runoff. Although runoff data was limited, EPA believes runoff from the site
to be a potential source of metals in Warm Springs Creek. The selected
remedy will provide for surface controls to minimize runoff as well as
preventing erosional effects due to flooding. Surface water monitoring will be
included in the compliance monitoring program.
3.2.2 COMMENTS FROM MR. DALE HARMS, STATE SUPERVISOR, MONTANA
STATE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT. OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND
Wll..DLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
Comment:
Response:
The USFWS was unable to locate the Preliminary Analysis of Impacts to
Wetlands, as described in ARCO's January 27, 1992, Wetland Issues letter to
EPA cited in the RIfFS, and recommends that one be done prior to final
remedy selection. Also, USFWS identifies two ARARS for inclusion to the
ARARs section of the RIfFS. They believe that the remedial action must
comply with these ARARs. These requirements are The Bald Eagle Protection
Act of 1940, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668, et seq., and The Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918, as amended, 16 U.S. C. 703, et seq.
The only "wetlands" that would be disturbed by any of the alternatives would
be portions of the riparian habitat alongside Warm Springs Creek. The
potential disturbance by all of the alternatives would be associated with the
removal and replacement of bridge(s) across Warm Springs Creek. All of the
alternatives included the same action in regard to this riparian habitat and all
alternatives included the same mitigative measures, which would be the
replacement of any damaged riparian habitat. Therefore, no greater detail or
Preliminary Analysis of Impacts to Wetlands was believed necessary in the
RIfFS.
Both of the above-identified ARARs were inadvertently omitted from the
ARARs list and are considered ARARs for the aWfEADA au. However, it
is not anticipated that mitigative measures will be required for compliance with
these ARARs.
3.2.3 COMMENTS FROM ARCO
The technical comments from ARCa are divided into two parts. The first section presents
ARCa's comments regarding the ARARs associated with the aWfEADA au, and the
second section presents ARCa's comments on the Baseline Risk Assessment.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS- 26
. .-..."." .- ..-- U"-'P . .
-------
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
3.2.3.1
Comments from ARCO Relatine to ARARs
ARCO's comments regarding potential ARARs are found in the following documents:
1.
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study Supplemental Scoping Document Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Under Section 121 (d) of CERCLA
(ARARs) (March 1, 1993) I?OCUMENT 1
2.
Anaconda Smelter Site Old Works Operable Unit Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis Scoping Document, Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements Under Section 121 (d) of CERCLA (February 1990)
DOCUMENT 2
General Comment:
EPA is responding only to those ARCO comments with which EPA is
in disagreement or those that require clarification.
Comment A:
Document 1. Section l.A.. Pace 1. ParacraDh 1 through Pace 3. ParacraDh 1.
ScoDe of ARARs Analysis for OW/EADA OU. ARCO agrees with the statement
in Section 2.4 of the Preliminary Draft Screening Document, dated March 25,
1993, that "minal remediation of air and groundwater and surface water
within the OW/EADA OU is not within the scope of the anticipated response
. action." Remediation of ground and surface water is not within the scope of
the OW/EADA OU and will be addressed, as appropriate, under the Anaconda
Regional Water and Waste (ARWW) OU.
ARCO also agrees that no action will be taken under the remedial action for
the OW/EADA OU that will adversely impact existing air and water quality.
Furthermore, ARCO states that preliminary remedial action goals for ground
and surface water will be developed under the ARWW OU, and that
preliminary remedial action goals include ARARs.
It is ARCO's position then that because remediation of ground and surface
water is oUtside the scope of the OW/EADA OU, and because preliminary
remediation goals for ground and surface water will be developed under the
ARWW OU, it is not necessary nor appropriate to identify ARARs for ground
or surface water under the OW/EADA OU.
ARCO requests that Federal and State surface and ground water requirements
be deleted from the ARARs identified in the Preliminary Draft Screening
Document for the OW/EADA OU.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-27
.--..-- -n - .
. --. .. - ....-.... .-
-------
Response:
Comment B:
Response:
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
EPA identified ground and surface water requirements in the March 25, 1993,
ARARs document for the purposes of 1) prohibiting degradation of these
media by this response action and 2) achieving consistency with the ARWW
au response action. Specifically, these ARARs are intended to aid in the
identification of sources of contamination to ground and surface water and for
developing remedial alternatives.
Since ground and surface water requirements have been scoped out of the
ARARs for the OW/EADA OU, EPA will not further respond to comments
regarding these requirements. However, it is still required that this response
action not degrade existing water quality.
The ground and surface water requirements identified in the March 25, 1993,
ARARs document were not intended to be performance standards or final
ARARs for the OW/EADA au. On this basis, ground and surface water
requirements have not been identified as final ARARs or performance
standards for the OW/EADA au. Consistency between the ARWW OU and
the OW IEADA OU will be achieved through identification of sources of
releases and minimization of releases that would result in unacceptable adverse
impacts to ground and surface water.
Document 2. Pace 15. ParacraDh E and Document 1. Page 3. ParagraDh B.
"Section 121 (d) (2) (A) of CERCLA unambiguously provides that 'the remedial
action selected under Section 9604 or secured under Section 9606 require, at
the completion of the remedial action... [attainment of ARARs}. '" 1t is
ARCO's position that EPA should not impose upon itself a requirement to
invoke a waiver under Section 121 (d)(4) of CERCLA if an ARAR cannot be
attained during a removal action. If the Agency continues to take this
position, the interim measures waiver under Section 121 (d) (4) (A) of CERCLA
may be appropriate for some activities conducted during the removal action for
the OW/EADA au.
Any reference or comments relating to attainment of ARARs during removal
actions will not be addressed by EP A at this time since the removal actions
associated with the OW/EADA au have already been accomplished.
Generally, it is EPA's position that ARARs must be attained for hazardous
substances remaining on site at the completion of the remedial action. In
addition, EP A intends that the implementation of remedial actions should also
comply with ARARs to protect public health and the environment. All
remedial actions should attain action- and location-specific requirements that
have been identified as ARARs while the remedial action is be conducted,
unless a waiver is justified. ARARs used to determine final remediation levels
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-28
- -.,. -,... ~ ..
.-..u...._'. ...
-------
Comment C:
Response:
Comment D:
Response:
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
need be met only at the completion of the remedial action. See, 55 Fed. Reg.
8755.
Document 1. Section [LA. 1. and 2.. Pages 4-7. Safe Drinking Water Act
Requirements. ARCO states that National Primary and Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations 40 C.F.R. Parts 141 and 143, should not be considered
ARARs for the OW/EADA OU according to the reasons previously set out
regarding Federal and State ground and surface water requirements being
deleted from the ARARs identified in the Preliminary Draft Screening
Document for the OW/EADA OU.
EP A will not respond specifically to this comment since EP A has agreed that
ground and surface water requirements have been scoped out of the
QW/EADA QU. However, EPA continues to stress that no implementation of
the remedial action at the QW IEADA QU should adversely affect ground and
surface water, nor be inconsistent with any remedial action conducted under
the ARWW QU.
Document 1. Page 7. ParagraDh No.3. Air Ouality Requirements. ARCO
notes that the Clean Air Act requirements identified in Section 3.1.3 of the
Preliminary Draft Screening Document should not be identified as "applicable"
requirements, and would only be potentially "relevant and appropriate" to
OW/EADA OU remedial activities if those activities qualify as a "major
source. "
ARCO does not anticipate that any of the remedial action alternatives under
consideration for the OW/EADA OU will create a "major stationary source"
that results in an exceedence of a primary or secondary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Clean Air Act regulations for particulate matter and dust control practices that
achieve ambient air quality standards will be met for potential releases into the
air resulting from remedial activities at the QW/EADA QU.
The attainment of NAAQS are required to protect the public health and the
public welfare. EP A has promulgated NAAQS for the following six pollutants
(called "criteria pollutants"): particulate matter equal to or less than 10
micron particle size (PM-lO), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Primary standards are set at levels to protect
public health. Secondary standards are set at levels to protect public welfare.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
. -. "¥ ,....-.-. ......_-
RS-29
. -<,.. _U'., - ..
-------
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
According to Section 107 of the Clean Air Act, .each state has the primary
responsibility for assuring that NAAQS are attained and maintained. Section
110 requires each state to adopt and submit to EPA for approval, a plan for
the implementation, maintenance, and endorsement (known as State
Implementation Plan (SIP» of the NAAQS. Upon EPA approval, the SIP
becomes federally enforceable. The State of Montana Ambient Air Quality
Standards in ARM ~ 16.8.802, et seq., are applicable to releases into the air
from aW/EADA au remedial activities, regardless of whether considered a
"major source."
NAAQS provisions establishing standards for PM-lO and lead emissions to air
are applicable to the remedial activities at aw IEADA au. The corresponding
state standards are found at ARM ~ 16.8.815 (lead) and ARM ~ 16.8.821
(PM-10).
Comment E:
Document 1. Page 8. Paragraph No.4. ARCO agrees with EPA that RCRA
Subtitle C requirements are not applicable to the OW/EADA OU. ARCO
strongly disagrees with the statement made by EPA that, "certain RCRA
standards, and their State counterparts, are relevant and appropriate for the
proposed remedial alternative for the OW/EADA remedial action.
Response:
EP A has stated in its Clarification of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements, Standards, Controls, Criteria, or Limitations for the Anaconda
Smelter Supeifund Site Old Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable
Unit Remedial Action document dated September 16, 1993, that Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D requirements are relevant
and appropriate for the aW/EADA au. Subtitle C requirements are neither
applicable nor relevant and appropriate to the aw IEADA au.
It is EPA's position that RCRA Subtitle C requirements, may in a proper case,
be relevant and appropriate to Bevill excluded waste so long as the conditions
at 40 C.F.R. ~ 300.400(g)(2) are met. See, 55 Fed. Reg. 8764.
Also ARCa cites to United States v. Iron Mountain Mines. Inc.. Civ. No. S-
92-768 MLS (E.D. Cal. 1993), however, in Louisiana Pacific COl:poration. et
al. v. ASARCa Inco11>orated, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 24404, (9th Cir. 1993),
the Court ruled that a waste excluded from regulation under Subtitle C of
RCRA by the so-called Bevill Amendment may nevertheless be a hazardous
substance under CERCLA. See also, Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge, Re: ARC a Partial Motion to Dismiss, February 3,
1993, Magistrate Judge Robert Holter, in United States v. Atlantic Richfield
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-30
. ..-."'-".
------.. .... -.
-------
.~
OW IEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Company. Inc.. and Cleveland Wrecking Company. Inc., No. CV-89-39-BU
(D. Mont. 1994).
40 C.F.R. Part 257 establishes criteria under Subtitle D of RCRA for use in
determining which solid waste disposal facilities and practices pose a
reasonable probability of adverse effects on human health and the environment.
This part is applicable whenever there is a "disposal" of any solid or
hazardous waste from a "facility."
The activities to be performed for the OW IEADA OU remedial action are
expected to comply with the federal requirements found in 40 C.F .R. Part 257
and State requirements found at ARM ~ 16.14.501, et seq.
Comment F:
Document 1. Page 12. Paragraoh B.1. ARCO agrees that the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) requirements are not applicable to any
remedial action which may be undertaken at the OW/EADA au. However,
ARCa contests the assertion that SMCRA requirements may be relevant and
appropriate to the remedial alternatives under consideration for the
OW/EADA ou.
Response:
Although SMCRA is relevant and appropriate at this au, it is not listed as an
ARAR because state requirements found in Montana's Strip and Underground
. Mine Reclamation Act, MCA ~ 82-4-201, are deemed more appropriate.
Comment G: Document 1. Page 35. Paragraoh 3. ARCO states MCA ~75-7-102 is not an
ARAR because this statute does not in and of itself define a level or standard
of control, or degree of cleanup.
Response:
EPA disagrees with ARCO's statement that MCA ~ 75-7-102 is not an ARAR.
It is EPA's position that MCA ~ 75-7-102 is an ARAR; the statute prohibits
sedimentation and erosion. .
Comment H:
Document 1. Page 35. Paragraoh 4. The Montana Solid Waste Management
Act, MCA ~~ 75-10-201 to 233, is neither applicable nor relevant and
appropriate to the OW/EADA OU because the Act specifically excludes
"mining wastes regulated under the mining and reclamation laws... "from the
definition of "solid waste." The remedial action alternatives considered for the
OW/EADA OU do not involve the "disposal" of solid wastes.
Record or Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-3l
-------
-,
OWfEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Response:
Regulations found at 40 C.F.R. Part 257 and Montana Solid Waste
Management Regulations provide criteria for classification of solid waste
disposal facilities and practices. "Disposal" is defined under these regulations
as "the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of
any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such
solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the
environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including
ground waters." "Facility" means "any land and appurtenances thereto used
for the disposal of solid wastes. "
-'
It is the position of EP A and the State of Montana that since the Anaconda
Smelter site is not a permitted mining facility and accordingly, the mining
wastes are not regulated under the mining and reclamation laws, the wastes
located within the aWfEADA au are not excluded from the definition of
"solid waste." Furthermore, the definition of disposal includes the act of
consolidation of wastes.
ARca's comment pertains primarily to disposal in conjunction with Subtitle C
requirements. Since EPA's position is that Subtitle D requirements are
relevant and appropriate to the aWfEADA au, the strict definition of disposal
is irrelevant because Subtitle C requirements are not applicable here.
3.2.3.2
Comments from ARCa Relatine to the Baseline Risk Assessment
The EP A has prepared a Baseline Risk Assessment for the aw fEADA QU of the Anaconda
Superfund Site in Anaconda, Montana. This document was included as Appendix M of the
aWfEADA RIfFS Report (ARCa, 1993). During the preparation of this document, the EPA
received a number of suggestions and comments from ARCa. The following summarizes
those comments and presents EPA's responses.
Scoping Document
In a scoping document prepared in 1990, ARC a provided comments on a number of issues
related to the risk assessment process, including numerous comments related to the evaluation
of exposure and risk of residents. Because the final Baseline Risk Assessment for the
aWfEADA au did not include an evaluation of residents, ARCQ's comments regarding
residential exposure and risk were not considered in this report. EP A will consider these
comments when risks to residents are evaluated. Comments relating to other aspects of the
risk assessment process are presented below.
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrOO8.rm
RS- 32
-------
Comment A:
Response:
Comment B:
Response:
Comment C:
Response:
Record of Decision OW/EADA au
030894/owrod8.fm
,~.. . - ... -, .
. . .- .... .. --.-.
.~
OW /EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
There is an inconsistency betWeen EPA's stated objective of calculating
the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) as the upper 95th percentile
of the exposure distribution curve and the actual means used to derive
the RME value. This is because the product of several 95th percentile
exposure parameters is not equal to the 95th percentile of the product.
One way to solve this problem is to incorporate an estimate of the
likelihood of occu"ence of the assumed exposure conditions. The
second way is to use Monte Carlo modeling. ARCO recommends that
EPA not use the default RME approach. .
The default method used by EP A to calculate RME values is not based
on multiplying a series of 95th percentile exposure parameters together.
Rather, a combination of 95th percentile values and average values are
employed. Typically, the parameters entered as 95th percentile values
are those with the widest variability, and the resulting product will
generally be close to the true 95th percentile of the product. EPA
recognizes that this is a rather simple way to estimate terms that could
be estimated more precisely by Monte Carlo modeling, but does not
feel that data presently available are adequate to define probability
distribution functions (PDFs) for the worker or recreational visitor
scenarios. (These are the only populations considered in the Baseline
Risk Assessment). EPA will consider using Monte Carlo modeling
when evaluating exposure of residents.
Metals in surface soils (top 2-3 inches) are the primary source of
exposure, and the risk assessment should be limited to surface soils.
EP A agrees that surface soil is the chief medium of concern for current
exposure scenarios. In general, if locations exist where subsurface soil
are substantially more contaminated than surface soils, then it is often
appropriate to evaluate possible future exposures to those buried
wastes. At this site, no such locations were identified.
Contaminant concentrations in indoor dust should be based on site-
specific measurements, if possible. If not, the concentrations in indoor
dust should be estimated from algorithms based on data from other
sites.
EP A has used site-specific data collected by ARCa to characterize the
relation between arsenic levels in soil and indoor dust. Because no
site-specific data exist on soil/dust relationships for other chemicals
RS- 33
- ._...._.-,-'-h--
. --.- .----- . - ...-- .
-------
Comment D:
Response:
Comment E:
Response:
Comment F:
Response:
Comment G:
Response:
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
(cadmium, lead), the EPA default assumption (dust = soil) was used
for these chemicals.
The risk assessment should distinguish betWeen three types of waste,
including 1) flue dust in the remnants of flues, 2) tailings piles, and
3) slag piles.
EP A agrees that exposures to these different types of wastes may differ
and has used different exposure assumptions for the different waste
locations.
Evaluation of risk from airborne contaminants should be based on long-
term (quarterly or yearly) average values measured at several on-site
monitoring stations.
EP A agrees that inhalation risks should be based on long-term average
concentration values in air. At this site, available monitoring data
indicate that inhalation exposure to wind-eroded particles is not of
significant concern, so this pathway was not evaluated quantitatively in
the Baseline Risk Assessment. However, mechanical disturbances of
soil or wastes piles (such as might be caused by dirt bike riding) could
lead to much higher local concentrations, so this pathway was evaluated
for the dirt bike rider scenario.
The concentration of contaminants in indoor air should be estimated
using an algorithm that accounts for entry of dust particles from
outside, the occurrence of respirable dust particles indoors, and the
resuspension of indoor dust.
EPA has concluded that the inhalation pathway is likely to be of minor
concern at this site, so estimation of contaminant concentration in
indoor air was not required.
Because a municipal drinking water system exists, drinking water is not
a significant route of exposure. If EPA does evaluate drinking water, a
sampling protocol similar to that in Appendix B of ARCO's scoping
document (ARCO, 1990) should be used.
EP A recognizes that it is fairly unlikely that ground water from beneath
the OW/EADA OU will be used for drinking water, at least in the near
future. Nevertheless, this does not mean that wells might not be
installed in the future, and there are a number of locations not far from
RS-34
--'~' H___-." .._" . ..--
'--......-".-... -._". . " ...
-------
Comment H:
-
Response:
Comment I:
Response:
Comment J:
Response:
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
. ..' -. ~-- .. ...
.... - ....<
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
the site where wells are currently in use. Thus, EP A believes that it is
reasonable and appropriate to evaluate potential future risks from the
drinking water pathway. Note that this does not necessarily oblige
EP A to include the risks from ground water when considering soil
remedial actions at the site. The protocol referred to in Appendix B is
useful for evaluating current residential wells but is not useful for
assessing exposure from hypothetical future wells. This can be done
only by consideration of data from on-site monitoring wells.
For evaluation of human exposure to contaminants in surface water via
swimming, average concentration values should be used.
The Baseline Risk Assessment evaluates risks to workers and dirt bike
riders, and neither of these populations is assumed to be exposed to
surface water by swimming. This comment will be considered when
evaluating exposure of area residents who may occasionally swim or
play in Warm Springs Creek.
Fish ingestion is not expected to be a significant route of exposure. If
EPA does pursue a quantitative assessment of this pathway, the
concentration of contaminants in edible tissue should be estimated using
the bioconcentration factors for trout.
The Baseline Risk Assessment evaluates risks to workers and dirt bike
riders, and neither of these populations is assumed to be exposed to fish
from Warm Springs Creek. This comment will be considered when
evaluating exposure of area residents who may occasionally fish in
Warm Springs Creek.
Home-grown fruits and vegetables are not likely to be a source of
exposure. If EPA chooses to quantify this pathway, contaminant
concentrations should be measured rather than modeled, if possible. If
not, calculation of vegetable concentrations should take site-specific
data into consideration.
The Baseline Risk Assessment evaluates risks to workers and dirt bike
riders, and neither of these populations is assumed to be exposed to
home-grown garden vegetables. This comment will be considered
when evaluating exposure of area residents who may consume fruits or
vegetables from local gardens.
RS-35
-~ . .. - - . -.' .
."- ... "."- h. -.
-------
Comment K:
Response:
Comment L:
Response:
Comment M:
Response:
Comment N:
Response:
Comment 0:
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
. .. .~.... .. -w .~
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The primary populations with potential exposure in the Old Works are
1) current residents of Teressa Ann Terrace and Cedar Park Estates,
2) workers in on-site businesses, and 3) recreational visitors to Benny
Goodman Park and publicly accessible lantls.
The definition of the au has been revised since the time this comment
was written, and the aW/EADA au no longer includes Teressa Ann
Terrace or Cedar Park Estates. Thus, the EP A has included an
evaluation of on-site workers and recreational visitors (dirt bike riders)
as suggested, but has deferred an evaluation of future on-site residents.
Recreational use scenarios must be developed using site-specific data.
EP A agrees and has done so in this case.
The averaging time for lifetime exposure should be 75 years.
Current EP A guidance specifies that a value of 70 years should be
used, and this was employed in the Baseline Risk Assessment.
For the recreational land use exposure scenario, the amount of soil and
dust intake should be extrapolated from the residential scenario based
on the assumption that one third of all outdoor activity is away from
home.
EP A does not agree that simple time proration is an appropriate means
for estimating soil intake rates during recreational activities because soil
intake while at a location depends not only on time but also on activity
pattern and intake rate per unit time. For example, Stanek and
Calabrese (1993) found that children derive about 50% of their total
intake from outdoor soil, even though the total time spent outdoors was
only a small fraction of the total time awake. In the absence of data on
actual soil intakes by recreational visitors, EP A believes that an
assumed intake range of 50 (average) to 100 (RME) mg/day is
reasonable and appropriate.
The dose-response curve for cancer following oral exposure to arsenic
is nonlinear due to methylation of arsenic at low doses so the cancer
slope factor is likely to overestimate cancer risk at low exposure levels.
This is supported by the fact that no increase in skin cancer incidence
has been observed in several epidemiological studies in the US,
including a study in Deer Lodge and Silver Bow Counties. Available
RS-36
-.-. --_.-
-------
Response:
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
data on methylation and arsenic detoxification should be incorporated
into procedures for quantifying arsenic toxicity and risk.
EP A is aware of and has evaluated available toxicokinetic data on the
methylation of arsenic. While it is generally accepted that methylation
represents a detoxification of arsenic, actual data on the chronic toxicity
and carcinogenicity of methylated forms of arsenic are sparse.
Assuming that the methylated forms are significantly less toxic after
chronic exposure than the inorganic forms, then the key issue becomes
the ability of the liver to methylate (detoxify) arsenic as a function of
dose. Since this is an enzymic process, it is logical to expect that the
process will be saturable.
The critical issue with respect to the validity of the EP A cancer slope
factor is were the doses ingested by the populations studied by Tseng,
et al. (1968) located to the right of the "saturation point" (in which
case the slope estimate would be too high to describe risks at lower
doses) or were the doses to the left of the "saturation point" (in which
case the slope would be appropriate for low dose calculations, but
would underestimate risk at higher doses). The average daily intakes
by the exposed Taiwanese populations were estimated to be 595, 1,645,
and 2,800 p.g/day, assuming ingestion of 3.5 Llday of water. Thus,
the question becomes this: is the "saturation point" for arsenic
methylation above or below the 600 to 3,000 p.g/day range?
Data regarding the "saturation point" in humans are extremely sparse.
The only study that provides direct information was performed by
Buchet, et al. (1981), and the results from this study have been
interpreted somewhat differently by several different groups:
.
The authors of the report (Buchet, et al., 1981) concluded that
the data "indicated that the arsenic methylating capacity of the
human body was not yet saturated even with an oral dose of
1,000 p.g As."
.
Marcus and Rispin (1988) concluded that "saturation of
methylating activity occurs just above 500 p.g/day in healthy
adult males."
.
The Science Advisory Board (Loehr, et al., 1989) concluded
"daily doses of 250 to 1,000 p.g AsH/person/day or less may be
largely detoxified."
RS-37
- ... -.--.. - .--.--. - .
. -.~. ----- --.. .
-------
Comment P:
Response:
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
030894/owrod8.fm
.~
OW IEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
.
The EPA Risk Assessment Forum (BPA, 1988) concluded "the
body's ability to form dimethyl arsenic acid (DMA) seems
hampered at exposures in excess of about 500 p.g/day, without
affecting the excretion of inorganic arsenic or monomethyl
arsenic acid (MMA) in the urine. If this is the case, then total
urinary excretion of arsenic may be compromised at high doses
leading to increased tissue levels. "
As these varying interpretations indicate, the raw data are so limited
that it is very difficult to draw a firm conclusion regarding the
"saturation point" for arsenic methylation. In particular, it should be
noted that each data point in the study by Buchet, et al. (1981) is based
on only one analysis of the urine from one person exposed at each dose
level. Consequently, even relatively small variations in analytical
results or in individual metabolism could change the data dramatically.
After considering these data, along with other data on the genotoxicity
of arsenic, the Risk Assessment Forum (EPA, 1988) concluded:
While consideration of these data on the
genotoxicity, metabolism, and pathology of
arsenic has provided information on the possible
mechanism by which arsenic may produce
carcinogenic effects, a more complete
understanding of these biological data in relation
to carcinogenesis is needed before they can be
factored with confidence into the risk assessment
process.
Finally, it should be noted that the negative epidemiological studies
(that is, those studies which did not detect an increased incidence of
cancer in arsenic-exposed populations) do not constitute convincing
evidence that the cancer slope factor is too high, since the incidence of
cancer predicted by the slope factor is lower than would have been
detectable in these studies.
It is important that the risk assessment present information on the non-
lethal nature of arsenic-induced skin cancer so that the risk manager
can consider this.
EP A agrees and this information is presented in the Baseline Risk
Assessment. However, it is important to remember that simply because
RS-38
, -.. ~ o. . .. ~ '" .
-------
..
OW IEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
most skin cancers are not lethal does not mean that a risk manager must
treat arsenic differently than other carcinogens. It should also be
remembered that arsenic appears to increase the risk of several types of
internal cancers (these are often fatal) as well as the risk of skin cancer.
Comment Q:
Arsenic may be beneficial at low doses. This observation, along with
the non-lethality of arsenic-induced skin cancer, suggests risk estimates
derived ignoring these factors are likely to overestimate actual risks.
Response:
This comment confuses risk characterization with risk interpretation.
The magnitude of the cancer risk does not depend on whether or not
arsenic is beneficial and whether or not the cancers are fatal.
However, EP A agrees that this information is relevant in the risk
interpretation process and the Baseline Risk Assessment does include a
discussion of the possible beneficial effects of arsenic.
Comment R:
The bioavailability of arsenic in soil is likely to be less than in other
media. Available data suggest that afactor of 50% should be used to
adjust for this.
Response:
The EP A believes it is appropriate to be cautious in extrapolating the
results of bioavailability measurements across different media and
across different locations, since the bioavailability of arsenic or metals
may vary significantly as a function of waste characteristics. In this
case, ARCa provided EP A with a supplemental report which compared
the geophysical characteristics (including mass percentage by grain
type) of the material that was tested in animals to the characteristics of
several types of on-site waste. Based on this, the EP A has concluded
that it is reasonable to include a quantitative adjustment factor of 0.5
(50 %) in the amount of arsenic in soil that is available for absorption
and has incorporated this into the Baseline Risk Assessment.
Comment S:
Data on the bioavailability of cadmium in soil should be used in
estimating health risks from ingestion of cadmium in soil.
Response:
EP A is not aware of any biological tests or data on the bioavailability
of cadmium in mine wastes or contaminated soils. If such data become
available, they will be considered.
Comment T:
Soil lead cleanup standards must be derived using models such as the
Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health (SEGH) or the
UBK that incorporate site-specific and generic data regarding
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS- 39
..'-'.. .-...-. - ..
...' - ~ .- . .
".~--,~ '-"-'_._--~ -..
-------
Response:
Comment U:
Response:
Comment tZ.
Response:
Comment W:
Record of Decisioo OWfEADA au
030894fowrod8.fm
- ~ .~... - . ,...... .
-,
OW IEADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
environmental lead concentrations and their relationship to blood lead
levels. In particular, data specific to mining and smelting sites must be
used. In addition, determination of cleanup levels must specify the
percentage of the population to be protected and the health endpoint of
concern and must be developed using exposure scenarios that
consistently relate the blood lead level, health endpoint, and population
of concern.
Derivation of cleanup goals is not a normal component of the baseline
risk assessment process and no cleanup goal for lead has been derived
for this site. Nevertheless, EP A agrees with the spirit and general
concept of this 'comment, although it does not agree with a number of
the specific recommendations provided in the comment. A more
detailed response will be provided when EP A derives a cleanup goal
for lead at this site.
For the recreational scenario, evaluation of risks should consider
accessibility of various areas, the type of terrain, and the types of land
uses that occur.
EP A agrees in concept and has attempted to do this. However, this is
largely a subjective process, since reliable exposure data for various
types of recreational visitors are sparse.
Unless risks associated with regional concentrations of arsenic are
subtracted, risk estimates will be total rather than incremental.
EP A recognizes the distinction between total and incremental risk and
believes that an estimate of total risk is the most appropriate endpoint
for a baseline risk assessment. If total risk is judged to be
unacceptably high, then an assessment of the fraction of the total that is
due to natural sources and the fraction that is due to on-site wastes (the
incremental risk) will be an important element in the risk management
process.
The major sources of uncertainty in the risk results should be identified
and quantified to the extent possible. The three critical areas of
uncertainty are: 1) soil ingestion rates, 2) bioavailability of arsenic,
and 3) the slope factor for arsenic.
RS-40
...--.._--_. u- .
-. - "'- n --.. ......--
-------
.,
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Response:
EP A agrees each of these is an important source of uncertainty and has
provided a discussion of each of these topics, along with other sources
of uncertainty.
ARC a Comments on the Draft Baseline Risk Assessment
Comment A:
FUture residential land use in the OW/EADA OU is highly unlikely, and
inclusion of this scenario in the baseline risk assessment is not
appropriate.
Response:
Evaluation of the residential scenario is reasonable and appropriate at a
location where future residential land use is at least plausible. In view
of the fact that the current community of Anaconda is immediately
adjacent to the aw IEADA au, and that two current housing
subdivisions actually intrude into the area, at least limited future
residential land development is considered possible. Nevertheless, EP A
has not included the residential scenario in the final Baseline Risk
Assessment for the following reasons:
.
The likelihood of widespread residential development in the
aW/EADA au is relatively low, at least based on current land
use plans.
.
The University of Cincinnati is presently completing a study of
human exposure to arsenic in current residential areas. Thus,
the results of any residential risk estimates performed at present
might need to be revised in the future based on the findings of
this study.
.
There will be a detailed evaluation of risks to current residents
of Anaconda performed separately and the results of this Risk
Assessment can be used to evaluate any potential concerns
regarding future residents in the aW/EADA, as needed.
Comment B:
Data from the study perfonned by the University of Cincinnati indicate
that the concentration of arsenic in indoor dust is less than in oUtdoor
soil and this infonnarion should be used to improve the arsenic
exposure assessment for on-site occupational workers.
Rccord of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-41
-------
Response:
Comment C:
Response:
Comment D:
Response:
Comment E:
Response:
Comment F:
Response:
Comment G:
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
030894/owrod8.fm
.~
OW /EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
EP A agrees that this is a reasonable approach and has estimated indoor
dust concentrations in workplaces based on the observed relationship
between arsenic in soil and dust in the current residential areas.
The weighting factor for the intake of soil by workers should be based
on the amount of time spent outdoors by workers.
EP A does not believe that the weighting factor for soil intake should be
based only on the time spent outside, since intake depends not only on
time but on specific activity patterns and the associated intake rate per
unit time. In the absence of data on actual indoor/outdoor soil/dust
intakes by workers, EPA believes that an assumed 50% contribution for
soil is reasonable and appropriate.
Ground water is unlikely to be a drinking water source because a
municipal drinking water system is available and because a county
management plan requires a permit before a new well can be drilled.
EPA recognizes that it is fairly unlikely that ground water from beneath
the OW /EADA OU will be used for drinking water, at least in the near
future. Nevertheless, this does not mean that wells might not be
installed in the future, and the existence of an institutional control such
as a permitting system does not alter this. Thus, EP A believes that it is
reasonable and appropriate to evaluate potential future risks from the
drinking water pathway. Note that this does not necessarily oblige
EP A to include the risks from ground water when considering soil
remedial actions at the site.
Documentation is needed on the dirt bike rider survey conducted by
EPA.
Additional information and description of this survey was added as
requested.
The risk assessment should distinguish between debris associated with
tire historic flues and flue dust.
EP A agrees and has distinguished between these two different types of
waste.
The risk assessment should incorporate available data on the
bioavailability of arsenic in residential soil taken at Teressa Ann
RS-42
-------
Response:
Comment H:
Response:
Comment I:
Response:
Comment J:
Response:
Comment K:
Response:
Record of Decision aW/EADA au
030894/owrod8.fUl
.,
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Terrace into the arsenic exposure and risk calculations for workers and
recreational visitors at the OW/EADA OU.
As noted above, EP A has used these site-specific data as the basis for
an adjustment factor of 0.5 in the absorption of arsenic from site soils.
Use of arsenic intake assumptions recently applied by EPA to the
derivation of the reference dose for arsenic would result in a 60%
decrease in the slope factor for arsenic.
EP A Region VIII recognizes the differences in the exposure
assumptions used to derive the reference dose (RID) and the slope
factor for arsenic and has recommended to the headquarters Carcinogen
Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) committee that this
issue be addressed. However, Region vm does not believe it is
appropriate to act unilaterally on this issue and to recalculate the slope
factor as recommended in the comment. The Risk Assessment already
discusses the uncertainty in the slope factor for arsenic.
The slope factor for arsenic does not account for the effect of
detoxification of arsenic by methylation. An adjustment to account for
this should be made to all cancer risk calculations for arsenic.
A response to this comment has been provided above.
There is significant uncertainty in the amount of arsenic ingested by the
Taiwanese population upon whom the RfD calculation is based. If the
ingested dose was higher than assumed, the RfD should be lower. .
EP A agrees that there is uncertainty in the estimated arsenic exposure
level of the Taiwanese population, both from water and from the diet.
These uncertainties are discussed in the Baseline Risk Assessment so
that the risk manager may consider this information as appropriate.
If EPA chooses to base deductions about the risk of lead on the
calculated soil concentration that yields acceptable exposure levels in
the UBK model, it must be stressed that the concentration is a
geometric mean value and should not be confused with a nnot-to-be -
exceededn value.
EP A agrees that the concentration value stemming from uptake
biokinetic (UBK) model calculations is a mean value and should not be
RS-43
,--. -.-.,- -.--."
- -. .--- --- ..-- .
..".. ----'-'_.'~'-"-'"
-. -' - --.---.".... ...--.-...-..,... .... ." .."
-------
Comment L:
Response:
Comment M:
Response:
Comment N:
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
interpreted as a not-to-be-exceeded value. Note, however, that current
EP A thinking is that the value should be the arithmetic mean, not the
geometric mean.
Because the OW/EADA OU is not likely to be developed for residential
land use, the risks from lead in the OW/EADA OU should not be
assessed using the residential default exposure assumptions employed by
the UBK model.
EP A agrees that the residential UBK model should not be employed to
assess the risks of lead to worker or recreational populations and has
not done so in the fmal Baseline Risk Assessment.
Animal and geochemical studies of mine wastes demonstrate that lead
bioavailability is significantly lower than is assumed in the UBK model.
The results of tests on Butte soil bioavailability in rats should be used
to modify the risk assessment at this site.
EP A recognizes the importance of bioavailability in evaluating exposure
and risk from lead and other metals in mine wastes, and EP A is aware
of both the animal data and the geochemical data on this topic.
However, EPA feels it is not prudent to extrapolate toxicokinetic data
on lead absorption from rats to children, since there are a number of
important physiological differences that may cause the results in rats to
underestimate the true rate of exposure in children. Likewise, EPA
believes that extrapolation of bioavailability data across media and
across sites should not be done without good geochemical data to
demonstrate that materials are similar.
The EPA is presently performing studies of the bioavailability of lead
in a variety of mine wastes, including the Anaconda site, and it is
expected that data from these studies will help improve the reliability of
risk assessments for lead at mining/smelting sites. Because a
quantitative evaluation of lead risks to residents was not included in the
Baseline Risk Assessment for the OW /EADA au, these issues are
largely moot for this OU. However, these issues will be of direct
relevance in the risk assessment for residential soils and will be
considered there.
The RfD for copper used in the risk assessment should be viewed as
having low confidence, since it is derived by extrapolation from an
MCL, and EPA has not derived a verified RfD. It should also be noted
RS-44
-.. .~._._._m-' -
.. ...-..... .
-------
Response:
Comment 0:
Response:
Comment P:
Response:
Comment Q:
R~ord of Decisioo OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
. "'.n .... -..--.---.
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
that the calculated RjD is only four times larger than the recognized
beneficial dose of copper, and that the adverse effect caused by copper
ingestion is only irritation of the gastrointestinal tract. Finally, the
irritation produced by copper ingested in vegetables is likely less than
from copper ingested in water, and the risk calculations should adjust
for this.
EP A is aware of and is in basic agreement with each of these
observations, although it is not clear that sufficient data exist to permit
a reliable quantitative adjustment in the risk estimate for copper
ingested in vegetables. Because copper was not found to pose an
unacceptable risk to either workers or dirt bike riders, these concerns
are largely moot with respect to this au. These concerns will be
addressed in the risk assessment for residents.
Remedial actions are generally not required at sites where excess
cancer risks are less than 1E-04, and the majority of the risks at this
site fall within the range considered acceptable by government
agencies.
The level of cancer risk that is and is not acceptable at a site is a risk
management, not a risk assessment, issue. It is not the proper role of
the risk assessment to make or recommend decisions on remedial
actions.
The ecological risk assessment is incomplete and does not follow the
basic format of EPA risk assessments.
A screening assessment based on effects data on broad groups of
organisms was included in the Draft Baseline Risk Assessment. The
Final Baseline Risk Assessment will also include a screening-level
ecological assessment, but will focus on terrestrial organisms and will
be structured in accordance with EP A guidance. Since the Warm
Springs Creek is not part of the aW/EADA au, it will be
quantitatively evaluated in the ecological assessment for the ARWW
au. A full ecological risk assessment for terrestrial organisms will be
developed under the Regional Soils au. The latter two au efforts
may be combined into one ecological assessment for remaining portions
of the site.
The ecotoxicity values are undocumented and may greatly over estimate
risk.
RS-45
.. .....- .
-------
Response:
Comment R:
Response:
Comment S:
Response:
Comment T:
Response:
Comment U:
Response:
Record of Decision OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
.~
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The limitations of the literature values used in the draft screening
ecological assessment will be clarified in the final document. However,
the literature values reported by CH2M-HilI (1987) may not be
representative of species of plants which are ecologically important at
the site but which have not been tested. Therefore, some degree of
conservatism is warranted on the basis of the need to determine
whether site conditions are hazardous to a wide variety of terrestrial
plant species.
The baseline risk assessment fails to recognize physical habitat
modifications as a factor that accounts for sparse plant growth in
portions of the site.
The need to emphasize the physical impacts of human activities as one
of the reasons for sparse vegetation at the site is important. The text in
the Final Baseline Risk Assessment will be modified accordingly.
Risks to wildlife associated with inhalation of dust are greatly
overestimated.
The assumption made in the comment that wildlife and humans receive
the same exposure and experience similar adverse effects is speculative.
The risks associated with this pathway will be clarified in the Final
Baseline Risk Assessment.
The water quality criteria used in the ecological risk assessment are
undocumented and may not account for site-specific conditions.
Impacts in Warm Springs Creek are being addressed in an ecological
assessment prepared for the ARWW au. A qualitative summary of
potential impacts on aquatic resources in Warm Springs Creek will be
provided in the Final Baseline Risk Assessment.
The discussion of pOtential ecological risks associated with episodic
inputs of metals to Warm Springs Creek during high runoff events is
speculative.
As previously stated, the ARWW au ecological assessment will
provide a more detailed analysis of risks associated with episodic inputs
of metals to Warm Springs Creek. The discussion on potential for
impacts will be retained in the Final Baseline Risk Assessment.
RS-46
-------
Comment V:
Response:
Comment W:
Response:
Comment X:
Response:
Comment Y.'
Response:
Record of Decisioo OW/EADA OU
030894/owrod8.fm
'4
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMl\1ARY
The conclusions of the ecological risk assessment are not supported by
valid technical arguments.
The technical arguments in the Final Baseline Risk Assessment will be
strengthened, up to the limits of the available site-specific data. Thus,
the need for additional studies and assessments will be clearly
identified. Possible impacts on plant communities from stresses other
than metals toxicity (i.e., physical characteristics of the wastes and/or
human activity) will also be discussed in the conclusions.
A vailable data demonstrate that arsenic concentrations in plants from
several regions of the OW/EADA OU do not exceed background
concentrations. This suggests that exposure by the garden vegetable
pathway may not be higher than background.
The garden vegetable exposure pathway was not included in the final
Baseline Risk Assessment because neither workers nor dirt bike riders
are thought to be significantly exposed via ingestion of local vegetables.
These comments will be considered when evaluating the risk to
residents via the garden vegetable pathway.
Some of the arsenic that accumulates in garden vegetables is
methylated, and the risk assessment should accoUnt for this by reducing
the risk estimates for this pathway. [Several literature citations relating
to this issue were also provided.]
As noted above, the garden vegetable exposure pathway was not
included in the final Baseline Risk Assessment for this au. These
comments and the literature reports provided will be considered when
evaluating the risk to residents via ingestion of arsenic in home-grown
garden vegetables.
The risk-specific concentration values shown in Table 5-2 are confusing
and inaccurate because the values are not based on the risk levels
shown but on risk levels that round to the values shown.
EP A addressed this concern by providing the full range of
concentration values that round to the risk levels shown, and by
providing additional explanation regarding the concentration values used
to prepare the risk contour maps.
RS-47
~ . ,~... . -, .,. -.'... .
"- _n - - .
'"'-"--'-"-.
--...... ... .... ---..
-------
OW/EADA ROD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
4.0 REFERENCES
Buchet, J.P., Lauwerys R., Roels, H. 1981. Urinary Excretion of Inorganic Arsenic and Its
Metabolites After Repeated Ingestion of Sodium Meta Arsenite by Volunteers. Int. Arch.
Occup. Env. Health 48:111-118
CH2M-Hill. 1987. Assessment of the Toxicity of Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead, and Zinc in
Soil, Plants, and Livestock in the Helena Valley of Montana for East Helena Site
(ASARCO), East Helena, Montana. Final Report for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Work Assignment No. 68-8L30.0, Contract No. 68-01-7251, prepared by CH2M Hill.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (BPA). 1988. Risk Assessment Forum. Special
Report on Ingested Inorganic Arsenic. Skin Cancer; Nutritional Essentiality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA/625/3-87/013.
Loehr, R.C., Upton, A.C., Carlson, G.P. 1989. Letter to EPA Administrator W. K. Reilly
transmitting the Science Advisory Board's review of arsenic issues relating to the Phase IT
proposed regulation from the Office of Drinking Water. EPA-SAB-EHC-89-038, September
1989.
Marcus, W.L., Rispin, A.S. 1988. Threshold Carcinogenicity Using Arsenic as an
Example. Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology, Volume XV (Risk Assessment
and Risk Management of Environmental Chemicals), pp. 133-158. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Scientific Publishing Co., Inc.
Stanel, E.J., Calabrese, E.J. 1993. Soil Ingestion in Children: Outdoor Soil or Indoor
Dust? Hydrocarbon Contam. Soils Groundwater; 3:519-545.
Tseng, W.P., Chu, H.M., How, S.W., et aI. 1968. Prevalence of Skin Cancer in An
endemic Area of Chronic Arsenium in Taiwan. J. Nat!. Cancer Inst. 40:453-463.
Rccord of Dccisioo OW/EADA au
030894/owrod8.fm
RS-48
. ~. - -.. - ..
-... -- ...._-- ..-.__..
-------
Attachment A
Transcript of Formal Public Meeting
-.
. .._-~-- . . '-- ---. -...'
-------
Anaconda Smelter Superfund Site
~
CANDI NORDHAGEN
RegIstered Professional Reporter
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 22
23
24
2S
NORD HAGEN COURT REPORTING
Conference Room
1100 Utah
3030 Aoral Bllfd.
Butte. Montana 59701
(406) 494-2083
I
2
"
S
7
8
10
11
14
16
BEFORE THE
U.S. ENVlRO!M:NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, !lEGION 8
ANA~ 9£LTER SUPERFUND sIn
OLD 'tIORI S/EAST ANAC01,J},\
DEVELOPfI£NT AREA OPERABLE UNIT
PROPOSED PLAN
F~L PUBLIC
-------
Anconda Smelter Superfund Site Anaconcb Smelter Superfund Site
3 resource and I find It Very diflicuk. I 6nd that the 7 an area that if areas are to be gone In and caps broken
" nation Is a nation run, plumb fuD of 50-,100-, 8 through and soils must be removed, that a pl2c.e, a
s 150-year-old nwunade lhings and most of them are In poor 9 repository be provided for those soDs In the design
6 conditioo. 10 phases. We will have written comment, but generally, we
7 The solution, as I said. to this pollution II think this Is a good pIan.
8 problem here - and dealing with the pollution I know Is 12 MR. COLE.'.fAN: Thank you, Mr. DavIsoo.
9 only part of It - uses a V2St amount of chemicaJs to 13 Next, Sandy SWh.
10 maintain the golf course. As I said before, that's a I" MS. srASH: My name is Sandy SWh. I represent
II concern of ours. I would like to hear the amount of IS the Atlantic Richfield Company, potentially responsible
12 chemicaJs used on this proposed golf course per year. 16 party for this site. And I guess I'm happy to sq this
13 The Old Works ruins has waited for stabilization 17 evening, for once, ARCO is generally Vf!l'j much In support
I" for nearly a century and we would like to see something 18 of the proposed pIan as outlined. We will provide some
IS done to stabilize it. This was already addressed tonight, 19 additional fonnal comments in writing by the October 22nd
16 but I would hope that our U.s. Congressmen and others 20 deadline.
17 would be listening and the communities' leaders would be 21 This particular proposed pIan we think meets a
18 listeoing and start to stabilize the Old Works so that 22 rather unique goal, not necessarily just Superfund. In
19 Instead of crumbling with the freezing and thawing we get 23 that it does provide for cleanup, environmental cleanup,
20 constantly and with the rain whlch we get whlch is simply 2" as well as economic development and historic presemtloo.
21 crumbling this, I hope that we do something. I'm not 2S In that regard, it's probably unique for Superfund.
n saying that it's up to AROO, I will emphasize that. 9
Z3 I will sununarize. Sometimes, and this was a1So I Furthermore, it probably more than any other cleanup
2" addressed, as up on Slucky Ridge above the golf course, 2 action that I viewed through the various sites around the
2S sometimes what's not done - that Is, the lack of 3 country has taken Into account local government 'concerns,
7 " local community concerns, as well as desires for future
I subdivisions up there - what Is restricted and not done Is 5 economic developmenL
2 just as Important, for instance, In creating a historic 6 This may Vf!l'j well stand as one of the very few
3 district as what Is done. And so the controls up there 7 Superfund sites In the country that actually sees
" which are proposed I understand are Vf!l'j much needed. 8 redevelopment because there has been an extensive amount
s The ~ife and I would prefer that the Old Works 9 of - or I should sq "extensive lack of redevelopment".
6 be stabilized and interpreted by the National Parks 10 I think this is a very aitical first step, one that we've
7 Service and the rest of the area. minus whatever little II aD waited for for many, IIW1)' years. I guess I'll do a
8 area we might someday use for whatever industry might 12 linle advertisement for the aitical steps to come, and
9 someday come in here, the rest of the area we would like 13 they involve our work with county government, with the
10 to see revegetated for wildlife. Thank you. 1" newly appointed 3l1thority board, and this community In
11 MR. COLEMAN: Thank: you, Mr. HurloCk. IS making sure that the golf course development as wen as
12 Next will be Jim Davisoo. 16 associated development comes to frultioo.
13 MR. DAVISON: For the record, my name is Jim 17 I guess I would encourage EPA and the SI3te of
14 Davison, Manager of Anaconda Local Defelopment, P.O. Box 18 Montana as well as the local community to kind of hang
IS 8242, Anaconda. Generally, I'm Vf!l'j supportive of the 19 with that over the next six months so that we'n see this
16 plan that has been presented and applaud the work that has 20 thing actually come to fruition next year. Thanks.
17 gone into iL We're particularly supportive of the covers 21 MR. COLEMAN: Thank you, Sandy.
18 and the various approaches to look at the subareas and. 22 Next is Bill Dee.
19 trying to look at an overall management of aD the areas. 23 MR. DEE: My name Is Bill Dee. I'm a long time
20 The creation of action levels has long been 2" resident, born and raised here In Anaconda. I'm a local
21 requested In the community and the action level of 1,500 25 3l1tomobile dealer in town for General Motors and Chrysler
22 seemed very appropriate for long-term concerns. We do 10
23 look forward to action levels for residential areas, also. I products. I'm married. I have four children, and have
2" Also, I said we were broadly supportive of this. There 2 been raised and lived in Anaconda aD my life, or the
2S are several concerns coming out, also, that we are assured 3 majority of iL I'm speaking as a father of four and also
8 4 a businessman who has tried to Invest most of their future
1 that the institutional controls are developed and put into S in Anaconda.
2 place so that these covers stay intact and that the health 6 I am very In favor of this proposed pIan as It
3 and safety of the environment of the dtlzens are taken 7 Is with some reservations, but the majority of It, I think
" care of, but also that they be proactive to allow for 8 the people that have worked on It should be complimented
S future growth. The institutional controls that would 9 and encouraged to continue in this proactive - I think
6 allow for future growth we would also hope would include 10 the EP A, I think they have kept business In mind and the
Pages 6 - 10 NOTcf~ert. Court Reporting - Butte, MT - (406) 494-.2083
---,_._----_..'_._.
---'-'--'-".
. ..._.'..0'-
-------
Anaconda Smelter Superfund Site An<:Ql\da Sm~Iter Superfund Site
II economic development of this area in mind when they have IS of the entire concept Thank you much. I'd like to also
IZ proposed this. I think the originaJ people who proposed 16 say that the Anaconda Garden Club and the Anaconda Retired
13 this Idea should be highly complimented for coming up with 17 Teachers will send in written comments about this in
I" such a aeative use of our land and aJso for economic 18 suppon of the project.
IS development I think with their help, £PA, ARCO, the 19 MR. COLEMAN: Thank you, Natalie.
16 proposed study group and all the indMduals who have 20 I will open it up 21 this time to anybody else
17 worked so hard and many hours to bring this to a 21 who would like to come forward and put a comment on the
18 worthwhile conclusion for everyone should be complimented 22 record, you have an opportunity at this time.
19 and I encoqe that they do that. 23 MR. CRICHTON: I'm Bill Crichton. I'm from Deer
20 In a community as far as a business person here, 2" Lodge. I don'l have any part of your commUDity other than
21 many other areas throughout the COUDtry have developed, 2S at ODe time I did belong and was a member of the Anaconda
22 and for us to invest our savings, employ 25 people, and to 13
23 have a reason to stay here, we have to have some future 1 Golf Club. For those people that fear any waste or bad
2" investment n believe that our environment, our community 2 effedS from chemicals used on golf courses, I think can
2S cosmeticaJJy is veri imponaot for the future. And I 3 rest assured that golf courses don't waste chemicals. I'm
II " thinking in particular of a beautiful golf course along
1 think with this plan, the entrance to our community will s the banks of the Flathead lake, Polson Country Club, Is
2 be helped tremendously. I think the economic impact is 6 right on the edge of the lake. U ODe drop of chemical Is
3 also very Imponaot due to that mODey that can be 7 getting in the way there and getting into the waIer, I'm
" regener21ed, can be placed back Into the community to help 8 sure there would be plenty that you would have heard about
s our environment, to help our historic presemlion, and 9 it before now.
6 our wildlife is important 10 11hi:nk a new golf course in Anaconda would be
7 So as a business person, and we try to employ 25 II the finest asset that could happen to southwestern
8 people, we would like to keep them and their families here 12 Montana. I believe that any course designed by Jack
9 and our schools. It's important that we do this. Our 13 Nicholas will bring people from many, many, many miles
10 dealership is 600 or 700 hUDdred yards from part of this 1" aw1:f to play it I have played a lot of golf courses in
II proposed pbn. And I'm sure it will help it cosmetically IS my day over the last 60 years that I have been playing,
JZ as also our business to grow. So I would like to 16 and the last Nicholas designed golf course I played was
13 compliment meant those, and thank you for this opportunity 17 Girooamo, Ari20na; truly a fine golf course. And I'm sure
1" to speak. 18 that if Jack does this one,lt too would be 2 fine golf
IS MR. CoLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Dee. 19 course. I would certainly like to see you put one in.
16 Next we have Jim Yeoman. 20 MR. COLEMAN: Thank you for your comment
17 MR. YEOMAN: My name is Jim Yeoman. I,like 21 Is there anybody else who would like to get up?
18 Bill Dee, have been born and raised in Anaconda. I have 2 22 MeI1
19 busineSs here and have followed the development of the 23 MR. STOKKE: I didn't say "yes" or "no," I just
20 remediation fur this area for the last, what, five, six, 2" put a slash by my name. I wanted to see how long it was
21 ten years. 25 going to be.
22 I just real quick would like to indicate that I I"
23 am in approval and agree with the preferred aJtern21ive 1 MR. COLEMAN: You've got plenty of time.
2" that you have chosen. I specifically like the idea thai 2 MR. STOKKE: My name is Mel Stokke. I'm 2
25 it will aDow for some dedicated developments and 3 member of, in fact vice chairman of ADM. And aw-lie
12 " Haelfner couldn't be here tonight so he asked me to
1 potential developments because we are trying to aD make a S represent ADRA. Also, I'm a member of the AIDe and 2
2 living here in addition to the nice recreatiOD that we 6 member of Arrowhead. I've got some compliments and I've
3 have. Thank you. 7 got some derogatory remarks. I have worked basicaJJy
" MR. COLEMAN: Thank you. And last but not least 8 behind the scene but we've partidpa1ed a lot with ARCO
s on our list tonight, Natalie rltZpattick. 9 and £PA 00 a lot of the things that have been done and
6 MS. flTZPATRICl: I'm glad not to be the least 10 accomplished and done in a good manner.
7 I've Natalie rllZpattick of Anaconda, a member of the II I'm very much for this program that you have
8 Anaconda. Lodge County Rea-eatiOD Advoc:a1eS and of the 12 laid out here tonight Some of the things that we have
9 Arrowhead FoundatioD which proposed the original golf 13 had in the past on public meetings have been real good.
10' course. And I'm very much, of course, in favor of the I" We've had a lot bigger auendance and we've had a lot more
II preferred remedy. I think the work you have done Is 15 people that were vocal.
12 outstanding md I'm sure tha1 the community appreciates 16 At the time they proposed the tailings pond just
13 not only the cleanup but the economic development that 17 over there by Fairmon!, we had a lot of opposition from
H this will bring to the area. And I'm very much supportive 18 the Opportunity people in the public meetings, we had a
Norc!fia;gt.n Court RtporUT19 - Butte} MT - (406) 494-2083 Pages 10 - 14
-------
Anconda Smelter Superfund Site Anaconda Smelter Superfund Site
19 lot of opposition from the people In the community. And 23 repository.
20 baslally, we were listened to, we were heard, and they 2" "After the dirt cap Is removed, the old problem
21 didn't go ahead with 1ba1 plan. They changed it There 2S will again exist; the dust and other material will be
22 were a lot of proposals l112de on the tailings ponds and we 17
23 had a lot of Input Into those and we were heard, I removed by a cWnshe1l and loaded Into trucks, or onto the
2" esped2Dy the area below No.1 Pond. 2 ground where It will evenOJaDy be treated with cement and
2S There were several proposals at that lime and we 3 lime. Even though hoses will be used to Wet and spray the
IS " dust, there is going to be a lot of dust going into the
I very strongly went for the proposa11ba1they are now S atmosphere and around the working personnel.
2 doing. And I'd like to 5a:f that ARCO and EPA have done a 6 '1 have heard that no personnel will be put down
3 good job, except for one Instance, and that's what I 7 Into the flue but an the work will be done from above by
" wanted to bring to your attention tonight We had a 8 the use of equipment I would like to bring to your
S public meeting, and this has been In my aaw ever since. 9 attention the fact that there are stee1 hoppers In the
6 At !hat time they proposed that they were going to dig up 10 bottom of the flue that we used to remove the dust Under
7 the old flue,the 6O-foot lIue and 120-foot flue, and I II the hoppers were railroad tracks for small rail cars to
8 opposed it At 1ba1 time I wrote a letter, and I wrote it 12 unload the hoppers.
9 to Ms. Browner who Is the EIMronmental Protection Agency 13 "If the dust Is removed by clamshells, then the
10 administr2tor. And I copied Charles Coleman, and I copied I" dust cannot be removed from the hoppers, and if the
II Sandy Scash, and I copied Max Baucus because he was IS process ends at that point, the contaminated dust Is being
12 bringing Ms. Browner In here for a visiJation. 16 left in place. So what has been accomplished? The saying
13 The meeting was called of because of the 17 goes, 'If it Isn't broken, don't fix it!'.
I" sickness and death of Max Baucus's bther - but she's 18 "I think ARCO has a plan to monitor the
IS coming again this Saturday - so we were only allocated ten 19 groundw21er below the main flue for years to come, with
16 minutes at the airport to talk to her. So I knew !hat 20 the provision that if contamination does occur, that he
17 wouldn't be suflident, so I decided to write a letter to 21 would then dig up the material and treat it
18 her and give her the letter so she could read It on the 22 "Now as part of the concerned public, I
19 plane. Whether she read It or not, I've never had an 23 appreciate your visiting our SUperfund site and seeing the
20 answer,l've never had a comment from Charles,l've never 24 accomplishments to date. HopeCully, you will review my
21 had a comment from Sandy, but I did get a letter from Max 2S letter with the thought that this area should not be
22 Baucus, so maybe I got to the top of the stack. But I'd 18
23 like to read this letter to you. ' I dislurbed."
24 "Dear Ms. Browner: On the Superfund project in 2 I have never heard from her or anything, but
2S the Anaconda Area, I feel that the cooperation between 3 there has been an agreement between EPA and ARCO that they
16 " would just go down to the hoppers and the dust then would
I EPA, SWe of Montana and ARCO has been excellent and to S be left in the hoppers and It would be covered over. ThJs
2 date the accomplishments are real assets to our 6 doesn't solve the problem because what arsenic was In the
3 communities. 7 lIue will be removed, but the arsenic in the hoppers and
" '1 worked for the Anaconda Company and ARCO for 8 below will not be removed.
S 34 years at the Smelter, and the last 8 years as General 9 The thing about it is that if you look at the
6 Manager. I believe that EPA has been misinformed when the 10 sheet over there, there are nine prerequisites that the
7 decision was l112de to dig up the main flue and treat the 11 EPA states that should be done. I would 5a:f that digging
8 material for deposit in a repositOlY. IZ up that flue violates at least six of those nine, even
9 "The 60' and 120' flues were in an area where 13 Including costs. I don't know what the final figure on
10 toxic dust was collected from the smelting process. This 14 the cost is, but It's probably in the realm of 15 million.
II dust contains the rollowing: IS M5. STASH: It was on the high end.
12 "Arsenic, cadmium, copper, zinc, bismuth, plus 16 MR. STOKKE: Anyvrirf, the money has been spent
13 other elements. 17 for what? I can't see that it was spent for any good use
14 "During the dismantlement of the flue In 1983 - 18 at all. Now, I asked if the public could go up and
IS 1984, because of the airborne particulates that were put 19 visually see what's taking place on the digging up the
16 into the atmosphere and the workplace, the dedsion was 20 flue and was turned down. So I guess they don't want us
17 made to not remove the toxic dust but to collapse 21 to see what's taking place.
18 everything into the flue and then cover the flue with dirt 2Z Those comments were made at a public meeting,
19 and place a cap over the material. To date, this has been 23 and I'm wondering: Do we rea11y have any weight in a
20 very successCul. Now the dedsion has been made to remove 24 public meeting? Thank you.
21 the dirt, stee1 beants, bricks and dust All of this 2S MR. COLEMAN: Thank you ror your comments.
22 material will have to be treated and placed In a
Pages 14 - 18 Norcfftagen. Court Reportir:q - Butte, MT - (406) 494-.2083
-------
Anaconda Sme1ter Supenund Site
AnC?I!cla. Sm~ter Superfund Site
19
I
2
5
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
IZ
U
14
15
16
18
Is there anybody else that would care to comment.
tonight? Last chance.
(No response.)
MR. COLEMAN: I want 10 thank everybody for
coming IOnight and speaking here your comments and Jetting
us know how you feel. I guess a lot of times we don't
please everybody. We try 10 work within the Superfund law
and strike the !best balance between all the concerns of
die community and meeting environmental concerns and the
Jaws that are before us.
And hopefully, wid! the OJd Works project, with
your comments, and we will address every single one, that
EPA's final decisioD for die OJd Works area which will be
in die Record OfDecisJOD by die end of the year, again,
will be die right decision. I thank everybody for coming
tonighL
.....
zo
I
5 STATE OF IIDNTANA
CERTIFICATE
)
: u.
4 Couoty of Siher Bow)
6 I, Caodl NordbageD, Registered Professlooal Reporter.
7 Notary Public 10 aod for tbe County of SI her Bow, State
8 of M>D\lDa, do bereby cert Ify:
10 Tbat tbe bear log was taken before me II tbe time and
II place berelD Damed; tbat tbe bearing 1I'&S reported by me ID
12 DDcblae sbortbaad and later transcribed by computer, aad
13 tbat tbc (OrCaOIDa DlaclCCD (19) paacs COD laiD a truc
14 record of tbe testilOOD, of tbe wltDess, all dODe to tbe
15 best of my skill aad ablll ty.
16 IN 'l'tTNtSS 'lHEREOF, I buc bercunto set III)' band aDd
17 aU lied my DOtarlll seal tbls - day of
18 1993.
19
ZO
21
Notary Public for tbe State of
M>DtaDa residing at Butte,
M>OtaDa. ~ commlssloD
expires September 15, 1995.
(NOTARIAL SEAL)
Norc!hasm Cou.rt Rtportin;q - Bu.tuJ MT - (406) 494-2083
Pages 18 - 20
-------
Anaconda Smelter Superfund Site Keywords for Public Meeting of Sup~~~d Si~ - October 14, 1993
-- 1 -- 16:4 best (2) 19:8,20:IS clamshells (1) 17:15 copper (1) 16:12
answer (1) 15:20 bigger (1) 14:14 cleanup (4) 8:25,8:25, cosmetically (2) 10:2S,
., 1,500 (1) 7:21 anybody (3) 12:20, 15:21, BILL (2) 2:6, 2~ 9:1,12:15 11:11
120-foot (1) 15:7 19:1 Bill (4) 9:22,9:23, 11:18, Club (3) 12:16,13:I,13:S cost (4) S:19, S:22, S:22,
150-year-old (1) 6:S applaud (1) 7:16 12:23 COLEMAN (12) 1:19, 18:14
appointed (1) 9:14 bill (1) S:25 5:10,7:11,8:12,9:21, 11:15, costs (1) 18:13
appreciate (1) 17:23 bismuth (1) 16:12 12:4, 12:19, 13:20, 14:1, counties (1) S:18
-- 2 -- appreciates (1) 12:12 board (1) 9:14 18:25, 19:4 Country (1) 15:S
Coleman (3) 5:4, 5:18,
22nd (1) 8:19 approaches (1) 7:18 born (2) 9:24,11:18 IS:IO country (4) 4:21,9:5,9:7,
appropriate (1) 7:22 bottom (1) 17:10 collapse (1) 16:17 10:21
approval (1) 11:23 Bow (2) 20:4,20:7 collected (1) 16:10 County (3) 12:8, 20:4,
20:7
-- 6 -- ARCO (9) 6:22,8:17, Box (1) 7:14 Colorado (1) S:15 county (1) 9;13
10:15, 14:8, 15:2, 16:1, 16:4,
17:18, 18:5 bricks (1) 16:21 COMMDI'T [1) 1:14 course (16) 5:8,5:9,5:14,
60-foot [1] 15:7 AR.EA [1) 1:8 Briefly [1) 5:1 comment (8) 3:12, 4:3, 5:22,6:10,6:12,6:24, 9:IS,
Area [1] 15:2S bring (5) 10:17, 12:14, 8:10,12:21,15:20, IS:20, 12:10, 12:10, 13:4, 15:10,
15:15,15:4, 17:8 15:21,19:1 13:12,15:16,15:17,13:19
-- A -- area (13) 5:6, S~, 7:7,7:8, bringing [1) IS:12 COMMENTORS (1] 2:2 courses [3] 13:2, 13:3,
7~, 8:7,10:11,11:20,12:14, broadly (1) 7:24 Comments (2) 4:S,'(:6 13:14
ability [1] 2O:IS 14:24, 16~,17:25, 19:15. cover [1] 16:18
Areas (1) 3:14 broken [2] 8:7,17:17 comments (10]~, 4~,
accepted (1] 4:11 areas (4) 7:19,7:25,8:7, Browner (3) IS~, 15:12, 4:10,4:11,8:19, 12:17, 18:22, covered (1) 18:S
accomplished (2] 10:21 15:24 18:25,19:S,19:12 covers (2) 7:17,8:2
14:10,17:16 ArIzona (1) 13:17 business (5) 10:10, commission (1) 20:21 craw (1] 15:S
accomplishments (2) Arrowhead (2) 12:9, 10:20,11:7,11:12,11:19 c~mmunltles (2) 6:17, c:reat1ng (1] 7:2
16:2, 17:24 businessman (1) 10:4 16:3 creation (1) 7:20
account (1) 9".3 14:6 community (15) 4:19,
Act (2) 3:22, 5:23 Arsenic [1) 16:12 Butte (2) 4:22,20:20.S 4:22, S:13, 7:21, 9:4, 9:14, creative (1) 10:14
action (4) 7:20,7:21,7:23, arsenic (2) 18:6, 18:7 9:18, 10:20, 10:24, 11:1, 11:4, Creek (1) S:I
9:2 artide [1] 5:17 12:12,12:24,14:19,19:9 CRICHTON [2] 2:9,12:23
actively (1) 6:2 asked (3) 4:8,14:4, 18:18 -- C -- Company (2) 8:IS, 16:4 Crichton [1) 12:23
actually (2) 9:7,9:20 asSet (1) 15:11 cadmium [1) 16:12 Compensation (1) 3:21 critical (2) 9:10,9:12
addition [1] 12:2 assets [1] 16:2 called [1] IS:13 compliment [1] 11:13 crumbling [2] 6:19,6:21
additional [1) 8:19 associated [1] 9:16 Candl [1] 20:6 complimented (3) 10~
address [1] 19:12 assured (2) 7:25, 13:3 cap [2] 16:19,16:24 10:13,10:18
addressed (2) 6:IS,6:24 Atlantic [1) 8:IS caps (1) 8:7 compliments [1) 14:6 -- D --
admlnlstrator [1] IS:IO atmosphere (2) 16:16, care [2] 8:4,19;1 Comprehensive [1) clam [1] 5:4
17:S 3:21
ADR.! [2] 14:3,14:S attendance [1) 14:14 cars [1) 17:11 computer [1] 20:12 date [3] 16:2,16:19,17:24
advertisement (1) 9:12 Attendees (1).(:2 cement [1) 17:2 concept [1) 12:1S DAVISON (2) 2:4,7:13
Advocates [1) 12:8 attention (2) I S:4, 1 7~ century (2) S:II,6:14 concern [1) 6:11 Davison (3) 7:12,7:14,
afIlxed [1) 20:17 authority (1) 9;14 CERCLA [1) 3:22 concerned [2] 4:18, 8:12
AGENCY [1) 1:2 automobile (2) S:2,9:25 certainJy (1) 13:19 17:22 day (3) S:24, 15:15, 20:17
Agency (2) 5:17,IS~ certify [1) 20:8 concerns (6) 7:22,7:2S, deadline [1) 8:20
agree [1) 11:23 chairman [1 j 14:3 9:5, 9:4,19:8,19~ dealer [1) 9:2S
agreement [1) 18:3 -- B -- chance [1] 19:2 conclusion [1] 10:18 dealership [1] 11:10
airborne [1] 16:IS changed [1] 14:21 condition [1] 6:6 dealing [1] 6:8
airport [1) IS:16 back [2] H, 11:4 CIIAR.LES [1] 1:19 conducted [1) 5:20 Dear [1) 15:24
AWe [1) 14:S bad [1] 15:1 Charles (3) 3:4, 15:10, Congressmen [1] 6:16 death [1) 15:t4
allocated [1) 15:15 balance [1) 19:8 15:20 constantly [1) 6:20 decided (1) 15:17
allow (3) 8:4,8:6,11:25 banks [1) 15:S Charlie (2) 5:18,14:3 consultation [1) 3:17 DecIsion (2) 4:11,19:14
alternative [1) 11:23 based (1) 4:7 chemical [1) 15:6 contain (1) 20:13 decision (5) 16:7, 16:16,
amended (1) 5:22 basically (2) 14:7,14:20 chemicals (4) 6~, 6:12, contains [1) 16:11 16:20,19:13,19:15
Amendments (1) 5:23 Baucus (2) 15:11,15:22 13:2, 13:3 contaminated [1) 17:15 dedicated [1) 11:25
amount (3) 6~,6:II,9:8 Baucus's (1) 15:14 children (1) 10:1 contamination (1) DEE (2) 2:6,9:23
ANACOI\1>A (3) I:S, 1:7, beams [1) 16:21 chopping [1] 5:6 17:20 Dee (4) 9:22,9:23, 11:15,
3:1 beautiful [1) 13:4 chosen (1) 11:24 continue (1) 10~ ' 11:18
Anaconda (21] 1:16, behind (1) 14:8 Chrysler [1) 9:25 controls (3) 7:5.8:1,85 Deer (1] 12:23
3:14,3:15,3:19,3:25,3:25, believe [3] 10:24, 13:12, chunks [1] 5:6 cooperation [1) 15:25 Denver [2] 5:12,5:17
4:17,7:14,7:15,9:24,10:2, 16:6 dth.ens (1) 8:5 copied (3] 15:10,15:10, deposit [1) 16:8
10:S, 11:18, 12:7, 12:8, 12:16,
12:16, 12:25, 13:10, IS:25, belong [1) 12:25 clamsheJJ [1] 17:1 15:11 derogatory [1] 14:7
I Nord'~", Court Rtporting - Butt<, MT - (406) 494-2083
. -.. "'0 . ,_. ..-"..- "'--.-" . ,-....
-------
". ,-'
., Keywords for Public Meeting of Superfund Site -' October 14, 1993 Anaconda Smeller SUperfund Site
.,
~'. -; design [1] 8~ 10:10, 10:15, 14~, 15:%, 16:1, full [Z] 6:4,6:4 hope [3] 6:16,6:21,8:6 kind [1] 9:18
;-;'; designed [Z] 13:12, 13:16 16:6, 18:3, 18:11 Furthermore [1] 9:1 Hopefully [1] 17:24
desires [I] 9:4 !PAts [Z] 3:18,19:13 future [6] 8:5, 8:6, 9:4, hopefully [1] 19:11
".1 developed [2] 8:1,10:21 equipment [1] 17:8 10:4,10:23, 10:25 hoppers [7] 17~, 17:11, -- L --
' especially [1] 14:24 17:12,17:14, 18:4,18:S, 18:7
DEVElOP~7[I]I:8 lack [2] 6:25, 9~
Development [2] 3:14, evenbig [1] 8:17 hoses [1] 17:3
-' 7:14 eventually [1] 17:2 -- G -- hours [1] 10:17 Iald [I] 14:12
development [8] 8:24, everybody [3] 19:4, 19:7, hlUldred [I] 11:10 Lake [I] 13:S
:~: 9:S, 9:15, 9:16, 10:11, 10:15, 19:15 Garden [1] 12:16 hlUldred-year-old [1] lake [1] 13:6
11:19,12:13 everyone [1] 10:18 General [2] 9:25, 16:S 6:2 Land [1] 5:S
.'. developments [3] 5:5, everything [1] 16:18 Generally [1] 7:15 . hunt [1] 4:25 land [2] 5:7, 10:14
.~ II :25, 12:1 excellent [I] 16:1 generally [Z] 8:10,8:17 HURLOCK [2] 2:3,4:16 Last [1] 19:2
dlft1cnlt [Z] 5:24,6:3 exist [1] 16:25 getting [Z] 13:7,13:7 Hurlock [Z] 4:16,7:11 last [6] 5:11, 11:20, 12:4,
dig [3] 15:6, 16:7, 17:21 expensive [1] 5:15 Gironamo [1] 13:17 13:15,13:16,16:S
digging [2] 18:11, 18:19 expires [1] 20:21.5 give [1] 15:18 later [1] 20:12
directed [1] 4:S extensive [2] 9:8, 9~ glad [I] 12.' -- I -- law [1] 19:7
dirt [3] 16:18,16:21,16:24 extremely [Z] 4:18,4:23 glory [1] 4:20 laws [1] 19:10
dismantlement [1] goal [1] 8:22 Idea [3] 5:3,10:13,11:24 leader [1] 5:13
16:14 Golf [1] 13:1 . Impact [1] 11:2 leaders [1] 6:17
district [1] 7:3 --' F -- golf [18] 5:8, 5~, 5:14, Important [6] 4:23, 7:2, least [3] 12:4, 12:6, 18:12
disturbed [1] 18:1 5:16, 5:22, 6:10, 6:12, 6:24, 10:25, 11:3, 11:6, II ~ left [2] 17:16,18:5
doing [1] 15:2 fact [2] 14:3, 17~ 9:15, 12:9, 13:2, 13:3. 13:4, Include [1] 8:6 less [2] 5:7,5:7
.' drop [1] 13:6 Fairmont [1] 14:17 13:10, 13:14, 13:16, 13:17, Included [2] 4:2, 4~ letter [6] 15:8,15:17,
due [1] 11:3 families [1] 11:8 13:18 including [1] 18:13 15:18, 15:21, 15:23, 17:25
good [5] 8:11,14:10,
DurIng [1] 16:14 far [2] 5:11, 10:20 14:13,15:3,18:17 Indicate [1] 11:22 letting [1] 19:5
during [1] 3:12 father [2] 10:3,15:14 government [Z] 9:3, Indicated [1] 4:4 level [1] 7:21
dust [12] 16:10, 16:11, favor [Z] 10:6,12:10 9:13 individuals [1] 10:16 levels [2] 7:20,7:23
16:17, 16:21, 16:25, 17:4, fear [3] 5:8,5:21, 13:1 ground [1] 17:2 Industry [1] 7:8 LIability [1] 3:22
17:4,17:10,17:13, 17:14, Feasibility [Z] 3:13,4:6 grolUldwater [1] 17:19 Input [I] 14:23 life [I] 10:2
17:15,18:4 feel [Z] 15:25,19:6 group [1] 10:16 Instance [2] 7:2,15:3 lime [1] 17:3
few [1] 9:6 grow [1] 11:12 Instead [1] 6:19 Umlted [1] 4:7
-- E -- figure [1] 18:13 growth [Z] 85,8:6 institutional [Z] 8:1,85 list [1] 12:S
6.naI [2] 18:13, 19:13 Intact [I] 8:2 listened [I) 14:20
EAST [1] 1:7 find [2] 6:3,6:3 Intendees [1] 4:7 listening [2] 6:17,6:18
East [1] 3:14 fine [2] 13:17, 13:18 -- H -- Interested [1] 5:16 little [2] 7:7,9:12
economic [6] 8:24, 9:5, finest [1] 13:11 Interpreted [1] 7:6 lived [1] 10:2
10:11,10:14,11:2, 12:13 first [1] 9:10 bahltat [1] 5:22 Invest [2] 10:4,10:22 living [1] 12:2
edge [1] 13:6 FITZPATRICK [Z] 2:8, Haeffner [1] 14:4 Investigation [2] 3:13, loaded [1] 17:1
effects [1] 13:2 12:6 hand [1] 20:16 4:S Local [1] 7:14
elements [1] 16:13 Fitzpatrick [2] 12:5, hang [1] 9:18 Investment [1] 10:24 local [4] 9:3,9:4,9:18,
elk [1] 5:7 12:7 happened [1] 5:10 Involve [1] 9:13 9:24
emphasize [1] 6:22 five [1] 11:20 happy [1] 8:16 Involved [1] 5:18 Lodge [2] 12:8, 12:24
employ [2] 10:22, 11:7 fix [1] 17:17 hard [1] 10:17 long [4] ~:ZO, 7:20, 9:23,
encourage [4] 5:8,5:15, Flathead [1] J3:S health [1] 8:2 13:24
9:17,10:19 flue [13] 15:7, 15:7, 15:7, hear [1] 6:11 -- J -- long-term [1] 7:22
encouraged [1] 10:9 16:7, 16:14, 16:18, 16:18, heard [5] 13:8, 14:20, look [4] 7:18,7:19,7:23,
end [2] 18:15,19:14 17:7,17:10,17:19,18:7, 14:23, 17:6, 18:2 Jack [2] 13:12,13:18 18;9
ends [1] 17:15 18:12. 18:20 hearing [5] 3:4, 3:24, 4~, JIM [2] 2:4,2:7 lose [1] 5:18
entire [2] 5~, 12:15 fiues [1] 16~ 20:10, 20:11 Jim [4] 7:12,7:13, 11:16, loss [1] 5:11
entrance [1] 11:1 followed [1] 11:19 held [Z] 3:12.3:24 11:17 lot [11] 13:14, 14:8, 14~,
environment [3] 8:3, following [Z] 3:7, 16:11 help [4] 10:15, 11:4, 115, job [1] 15:3 14:14, 14:14, 14:17, 14:19,
10:24, II:S foregoing [1] 20:13 11:11 junkyard [1] 5:2 14:22, 14:23, 17:4, 19:6
ENVIRONMENTAL [1] FORMAL [1] 1:14 helped [1] 11:2
1:2 formal [3] 3:10.3:11,8:19 Herlock [1] 4:15
Environmental [3] forward [2] 7:23, 12:21 High [2] 1:16,3:25 ~- K -- -- M --
3:17,3:21, 15:9 Foundation [1] 12~ high [Z] 5:19.18:15 Kalispell [1] 5:10 machine [1] 20:12
environmental [2] four [2] 10:1,10:3 highly [1] 10:13
8:23,19:9 freezing [1] 6:19 historic [5] 4:18, 4:23, keep [2] 4:19,11:8 made [5] 14:22, 16:7,
EPA [11] 4:10, 4:12, 9:17, fruition [2] 9:16,9:20 7:2.8:24, II 5 kept [1] 10:10 16:17, 16:20, 18:22
Norc!~en. Court Re:ponitJ9 - Bu.tte, MT - (406) 494-2083 I
-------
Anaconda Smelter Superfund, Site Keywords for Public Meeting of Sup~JjQl)d Sit~ - October 14, 1993
i main [2] 16:7, 17:19 Natalie [3] 12:5, 12:7, part [4] 6~, 11:10, 12:24, products [1] 10:1 99
! maintain [1] 6:10 12:19 17:22 Professional [1] 20:6 regard [1] 8:25
maJority [2] 10:3,10:7 nation [2] 6:4,6:4 participated [1] 14:8 program [1] 14:11 regarding [1] 5:1
make [1] 12:1 nation's [1] 5:24 particular [2] 8:21, 13:4 PROJECT [1] 1:19 regenerated [1] 11:(
maJdng [1] 9:15 National [1] 7:6 particularly [1] 7:17 ProJect [1] 3:19 REGION [1] 1:2
management [1] 7:19 natural [1] 5:11 particulates [1] 16:15 proJect [3] 12:18, 15:24, Registered [1] 20:6
MANAGER [1] 1:19 nearly [1] 6:14 party [1] 8:16 19:11 remarks [1] 1.(:7
I Manager [3] 3:19, 7:14, necessarily (1] 8:22 past [1] 14:13 proposal (3] 5:2,5:3, REMEDIAL [1] 1:19
16:6 necessities [1] 5:20 paying [1] 5:25 15:1 Remedial [3] 3:12, 3:19,
manmade [2] 6:1,6:5 never [4] 15:19, 15:20, people [9] 10:8, 10:12, proposals [2] 14:22, .(:5
manner [1] 1.(:10 15:20,18:2 10:22,11:8,13:1,13:13, 14:25 remedJatJon [1] 11:20
married [1] 10:1 new [I] 13:10 1.(:15,14:18,1.(:19 Proposed [2] 3:13,4:6 remedy [1] 12:11
material IS] 16:8, 16:19, newly [I] 9:1.( period [I] 3:12 proposed [12] 6:12,7:(, remember [1] 4:13
16:22,16:25,17:21 newspaper [I] 5:12 person [3] 6:1, 10:20, 8:18,8:21,10:6,10:12,10:12, REMEMBERED [I] 3:3
-, matter (I] 3:3 nice (I] 12:2 11:7 10:16,11:11,12:9,1.(:16,15:6 remove [3] 16:17, 16:20,
I Personal1y (1] 5:23 protect (I] 6:2
I Mu (3] 15:11,15:1.(, Nicholas (2] 13:13, 13:16 17:10
15:21 nlne [2] 18:10,18:12 personnel [2] 17:5,17:6 PROTECI10N (I] 1:2 removed [7] 8:8, 16:24,
may (I] 9:6 nineteen [I] 20:13 phases [1] 8:10 Protec:tlon [2]3:17,159 17:1,17:13,17:1.(,18:7,18:8
meant (1] 11:13 Nordhagen (1] 20:6 place [8] .(:17,8:2,8:8, provide [2] 8:18,8:23 reported (1] 20:11
MEETING (1] 1:14 NOTARIAL (1] 20:215 16:19, 17:16, 18:19, 18:21, provided [1] 8:9 Reporter [1] 20:6
meeting [11] 3:10,3:11, 20:11 provision (1] 17:20 reporter [1] .(:14
notariaI [1] 20:17 placed (2] 11:(,16:22
3:16,3:20, .(:2, 4:3, 15:5, PUBUC [1] 1:14 repository (3] 8:9, 16:8,
15:13, 18:22, 18:24, I'~ Notary [2] 20:7,20:20 Plan [2] 3:13,,(:6 Public [2] 20:7,20-.20 16:23
meetings [3] 3:11, 14:13, number [1] .(:7 plan [9] 7:16,8:11, 8:18, public [12] 3:4,3:10, represent [3] 4:14, 8:14,
14:18 8:21, 10:6, 11:1, 11:11, 14:21, 3:11,3:12, 3:2.(, 14:13, 14:18, 14:5
meets [1] 8:21 17:18 15:5,17:22, 18:18,18:22, reqnested [1] 7:21
MIL [1] 2:10 -- 0 -- plane [1] 15:1' 18:24 requirements [1] 3:20
Mel [2] 13:22, 14:2 occur (I] 17:20 play [1] 13:14 pursuant [1] 3:20 resenatiODS [1] 10:7
member (S] 12:7, 12:25, OCTOBER [1] 3:1 played [2] 13:1.(,13:16 resident (I] 9:24
1.(:3,1.(:5,1.(:6 October IS] 1:16.5,3:(, playing [1] 13:15 residential [1] 7:23
mlc1nIght [1] .(:12 Please [1] 4:13 -- Q -'-
might [2] 7:8,7:8 - 3:25,4:12,8:19 please [3] 4:8,4:13,19:7 residing [1] 20:205
OLD [I] 1:7 quarter [I] 5:11 resOIJ1U [I] 6:3
miles [1] 13:13 Old [6] 3:14,6:13,6:18, plenty [2] 13:8,14:1 quick [1] 11:22 resources [I] 4:23
Mill [I] 5:1 7:5, 19:11, 19:13 plumb [1] 6:( respond (1] 4:10
million (1] 18:14 old [2] 15:7,16:24 plus [1] 16:12 Response (I] 3:21
mind (3] 4:20. 10:10, once [1] 8:17 point [I] 17:15 -- R -- response [1] 19:3
10:11 one [8] 9:6,9:10,12:25, pol1ution [2] 6:7,6::8 responsible [1] 8:15
mlnns [I] 7:7 13:6,13:18,13:19,15:3,19:12 Polson [I] 13:5 rail [I] 17:11 rest [3] 7:7, 7~,13:3
minutes [I] 15:16 open [I] 12:20 Pond [I] 14:24 raliroad (1] 17:11 restoring [1] 4:17
misinformed [I] 16:6 OPERABLE (1] 1:8 pond [1] 14:16 rain (1] 6:20 n:stricted [1] 7:1
money (4] 5:18,5:23, Operable [1]3:1.( ponds [1] 14:22 raised (3] 9:2.(, 10:2, Retired [I] 12:16
11:3,18:16 Opportunity [1] 14:18 poor [2] 5:3,6:5 11:18
monitor (1] 17:18 opportunity [2] 11:13, postmarked [I] 4:12 rather [I] 8:22 revegetated [1] 7:10
MONTANA [2] 3:1,20:3 12:22 potential [1] 12:1 read IS] 5:1, 5:16, 15:18, review [1] 17:24
Montana (10] 3:18, .(:1, opposed [I] 15:8 potentially (I] 8:15 15:19,15:23 Richfield [1] 8:15
4:20, 5:S, 9:18, 13:12, 16:1, opposition (2] 14:17, prefer [I] 7:5 real [3] 11:22.14:13,16:2 Rick [I] 4:18
20:8,20:20.5,20-.21 14:19 preferred [2] 11:23, really (1] 18:23 Ridge [1] 6:24
months [I] 9:19 original [2] 10:12, 12~ 12:11 realm [I] 18:14 right [2] 13:6, 19:15
more (3] 5:23,9:1,14:14 outlined [1] 8:18 prerequisites [I] 18:10 reason [1] 10:23 roads [2] 5:19,5:25
Motors [1] 9:25 outstanding [1] 12:12 presented (1] 7:16 Reauthorization [1] rolns (1] 6:13
mountain [1] 4:21 overall [I] 7:19 preservation [3] 4:19, 3:23 rural [2] 5:18,5:25
8:24, 11:5 recently [I] 5:12
presided [1] 3:16 Record [2] 4:11,19:14
..- N -- -- p -- - presiding [2] 1:19,3:5 record [4] 3:2-',7:13, -- S --
name [9] 3:18,4:14, "=16, proactive [2] 8:(. 10~ 12:22,20:14 safety [1] 8:3
7:13,8:14,9:23,11:17,13:24, page [I] 2:2 problem [3] 6:8, 16:24, Recreation [I] 12:8 SANDY [I] 2:5
14:2 pages [I] 20:13 18:6 recreation [1] 12:2
named [1] 20:11 paper [I] 5:17 proceedings [1] 3:7 recycled [1] 5:( Sanely IS] 8:13.8:14,9:21,
NATALIE [1] 2:8 Parks [1] 7:6 process [2] 16:10,17:15 redevelopment [2] 9:8, 15:11,15:21
I Norcl~m Court ReportiJ19 - ButU, MT - (406) 494-.2083
-------
Keywords for Public Meeting of Superfund Site:' October 14, 1993
.~
Saturday [1] 15:15 STATE [1] 20:3 tImes [1] 19» well [5] 8:24, 9:4, 9:6,
savings [1] 10:22 State [5] 3:18, 9:17, 16:1, TOM [1] 2:3. 9:15,9:18
scene [1] 1~:8 20:7,20:20 Tom [2] ~:15, ~:16 western [2] ~:20, 5:5
School [2] 1:16,3:25 state [I] ~:13 tonight [8] 6:15, 12:5, wet [1] 17:3
schools [1] 11:9 states [1] 18:11 I~~, 1~:12, 15:4, 19:2, 19:5, ,wife [2] ~:16, 7:5
SEAL [1] 20:21.5 stay [2] 8:2, 10:23 19:16 wild [1] UI
seal [1] 20:17 steel [2] 16:21,17:9 top [1] 15:22 wildlife [6] ~:22, ~:25,
second [1] 3:11 step [1] 9:10 town [1] 9:25 5:7,5:22,7:10, II»
see [9] 4:2~, 6:1~, 7:10, steps [1] 9:12 toxic [2] 16:10, 16:17 winter [1] 5:16
9:19, 13:19, 13:2~, 18:17, STOKKE [4] 2:10,13:23, tracks [1] 17:11 wishing [1] ~:3
18:19, 18:21 1~:2, 18:16 transaibed [1] 20:12 WITNESS [1] 20:16
seeing [1] 17:23 Stokke [1] H:2 transaipt [2] ~:3, ~:IO witness [1] 20:14
sees [1] 9:7 strike [1] 19:8 treat [2] 16:7, 11:21 wonderful [1] ~:23
send [1] 12:17 strongly [1] 15:1 treated [2] 16:22,17:2 wondering [1] 18:23
September [1] 20:21.5 Stucky [1] 6:24 tremendously [1] 11:2 work [5] 7:16,9:13, 12:11,
Service [1] 7:7 Study [2] 3:13,4» tried [1] 10:4 17:7, 19:7
set [1] 20:16 study [1] 10:16 trucks [1] 17:1 worked [4] 10:8, 10:17,
several [2] 7:25,14:25 subareas [1] 7:18 true [1] 20:13 14:7, 16:4
sheet [2] 4:4,18:10 subdivisions [4] 5:14, truly [2] 5:3,13:17 . working [1] 17:5
shorthand [1] 20:12 5:15,5:18, 7:1 try [2] 11:7,19:7 workplace [1] 16:16
sickness [1] 15:14 successful [1] 16:20 trying [3] 6:2,7:19, 12:1 WORKS [1] 1:7
sign-up [1] 4:4 su.ft1dent [1] 15:17 turned [1] 18:20 Works [6] 3:14,6:13,6:18,
7:5,19:11,19:13
Silver [2] 20:4,20:7 summarize [2] 4:8,6:23 two (1)3:11 worthwhile [1] 10:18
simply [1] 6:20 SUPERFUND [1] 1:5
single [1] 19:12 Superfund [8] 3:15,3:23. write [1] 15:17
SITE [1] 1:5 8:22.8:25,9:7, 15:24, 17:23, -- U -- writing [1] 8:19
19:7 Written [1] UI
Site [2] 3:15.3:19 support [2] 8:17,12:18 understand [2] 6:1,7:4 written [4] 4:8, 4:9, 8:10,
site [2l8:16, 17:23 supportive [4] 7:15, unique [2] 8:22.8:25 12:17
sites [2] 9:2,9:7 7:11, 7:2~, 12:14 UNIT [1] 1:8 wrote [2] 15:8,15:8
six [3] 9:19,11:20, 18:12 sure [5] 9:15, 11:11, 12:12, Unit [1] 3:14
skill [1] 20:15 13:8, 13:17 unload [1] 17:12
slash [1] 13:24 unused [1] 4:Z3 -- Y --
. small [1] 17:11
smaller [2] 5»,5» -- T -- usable [1] 5:7 yards [1] 11:10
SMELTER (1] 1:5 year [3] 6:12,9:20,19:14
Smelter [3] 3:15,3:19, tailings [2] 14:16, IU2 years [6] 9:11,11:21,
16:5 taken [3] 8:3.9:3,20:10 -- V -- 13:15, 16:5, 16:5, 17:19
smelting [1] 16:10 taking [2] 18:19, 18:21 wIues [1] 5:11 YEOMAN [2] 2:7,11:17
taxpayers [1] 5:23 Yeoman [2] 11:16,11:17
soils [2] 8:8,8:9 Teacliers [1] 12:11 wrlous [2] 7:18,9:2 You've [1] 14:1
solutlol1 [1] 6:7 vast [1] 6:9
solve [1] 18» ten (2) 11:21,15:15 vice [1] 14:3
someday [2] 7:8, 7:9 terribly [1] 5:24 viewed [1] 9:2
something [2] 6:14,6:21 testimony [1] 20:14 violates [1] 18:12 -- Z --
Thank (12) 7:10,7:11.
somewhere [1] 5:13 8:12,9:21. 11:15. 12:3, 12:4, visitation [1] 15:12 zinc [1] 16:12
southwestem [1] 13:11 12:15, 12:19, 13:20, 18:24, visiting [1] 17:23
specifically [1] 11:24 18:25 visually [1] 18:19
spent [2] 18:16, 18:17 thank [3] 11:13, 19:4, vocal [1] 14:15
spray [1] 17:3 19:15
55 [1] 20:3.5 Thanks [1] 9:20
stabilization [1] 6:13 thawing [1] 6:19 -- W --
stabilize [2] 6:15,6:18 thing [3] S:4, 9:20, 18:9
stabilized [1] 7» things [5] 5:19,6:1,6:5, waited [2] 6:13,9:11
stack [1] 15:22 14:9, 14:12 wanted [3] 5:14, 13:24,
stand [1] 9» thought [2] 4:21,17:25 15:4
start [2] 4:15.6:18 tIme [13] 4:20,5:16.5:24, waste [2] 13:1,13:3
STASH [3] 2:5,8:14,18:15 9:23. 12:20, 12:22, 12:25, water [1] 13:7
Stash [3] 8:13.8:14. 15:11 14:1. 14:16, 14:25, 15:6, 15:8, way [1] 13:7
20:10 weight [1] 18:23
Anaconda Smelter Superfund Site
-:
Nan{~e.1t Caurt Re.parting - Butte.} MT - (406) 494-.2083
.. .0 - ._--.-.-
. .., .-. ...-. ..-...-...
'-"'''~'-''-'-'.'
-------
.~
Attachment B
Written Comments Received During Public Comment Period
. .~.- .-.-.-. .
.->. -....". ....-- .
-------
.." - ....-
306 E. Parl(
Anaconda, MT 59711
Phone (406) 563-2400
October 20, 1993
Charlie Colemari; EPA Project
USEPA, Montana Office
301 South Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626
Manager
Dear Mr. Coleman:
The Anaconda Chamber of Commerce supports the efforts
of the Environmental Protection Agency and congratu-
lates them along with ARca and the Anaconda-Deer Lodge
County Commission on their plan for the clean-up of
the Old Work/East Anaconda Development Area. It .
appears that the plan will not only restore vegetation
to the area but will provide an opportunity for devel-
opment which will allow the Anaconda area to grow.
It is our hope that remediation will continue in a
timely manner.
~'ncerelY'
iJJ4t, .
J an Vest, President
Anaconda Chamber of Commerce
-N\lI~ONN\r.N I~'.".,
..iOiECiiON A.G-I'iV
OC1 ? S \993
rrrll"
,."".,-" ~., ~ .
-------
c;.1~.IhONMI:I'4 ,"-
~P,O'TECTIO~ AGENC;,
OCT 2 2 \993
1.()"ITht-lto I')~rlr
1101 Heather Drive
Anaconda, ~u 59711
October 19, 1993
.'
Charles Coleman, EPA Project
USEPA, Montana Office
301 South park, Drawer 10096
Hele na, MT 59626
j-tanager
Dear Sirs:
We are happy to wri~e you in support of the Preferred Remedy indicated for
the Old Works/East Anaconda Area Operable Unit. During the past three years
we have had several persons as program speakers who have outlined the many
aspects of the clean-up alternatives and plans for our area, so we feel
comfortable with the remedies included in your recom~ended program.
We are pleased with the attention paid to the historic smelter sites in
the area as well as to the golf course. With the economic benefits of
this revitalization, certainly our local government and schools will parti-
cipate in the renewed vigor of our community.
,
We are. interested in receiving some word in regard to the action levels of
arsenic concer:tration, particularly for residential properties.
Yours very truly,
ANAcm~~ RETIR3D TEAC~1S' ASSOCIATION
~ t3 ~lr-
Alice Balcombe, President
. . .-, "-'~' ..
-....." . . ~~- ._----~..
-------
.~
~NV\l~O:~M~N' ,....
:-'F:OTE':TIO~ AGENC\
OCT 2 2 i993
I:f'\"'.1~ l\ t--I" nr-C'lr
1902 T';!!J:Jany
Anaconca,}f.i' 59711
October 19, 1993
Charles Co15Dan, ~?A Project
USE?."., ::"ont::.~a orn ce
301 South ~rk, It-a~er 10096
Helena, ]'5'1' 59626
J'!Cmager
GenU emen:
We. of the Ln::.conda Garden Club s~?port t~e Preferred Re~edy for t~e Old
. . , j-. t' -... 1 t. - 0 . 1 -.. t . co' .
v>or.>.s $£ .-.r.aconJp. .i..o'6Ve-or-;:)e;! J-.rea ,pe::'ao e l.'!U. .)~r.:ce cur org,;rJl::a-
tion's ~5~n purpo~e is civic b€a~tification, ~e are ?::.::,ticularly pleased
tha t t~-.i s c-.lt.er!Ja:i ve goes a 1o~g -de.:' tc,,'ard ii.'J}:rcving our local a:::-ea.
';Ie are l)arti :ularl:,' pleased with the plan t.o re\'eE;'et;. te a~proxi!:ately
1500 acres over a 3-yea~ peri cd , esta~lish ~he :ack 1jck1~us golf coarse,
and ;.:re:.:s=-'!,:-e hist:::ric resc'.,;rces ....:i t~ :. cor.;t:-"ollE:J. C.cce~s ~~a.il s:,ste:::.
1:.11 of .t:'.:e~€ ele'::e~ts .,.:ill i:);-:,,~'ve O':J::.-' CO~:;:'(JT1i :.y' s ~::::.'sical e~:vi=:'r:~ent
~s ,".'€-~l c= c::-:J"t.ri'bute to it.= fC,::::~::;jc '.!ell De::'~-:E.
"~':e c:._~,::':.rE \:;: ,: tE : .C'-.1r
~~;~r~::e~i'~ i~cJ~5i~g t~1:
~:;':;~:J~~ ~/
in i..3
cEC'iE::'cn
~::~: i~: e:
?::'''C:: -:E' ~ .
..""""."C:: ,-E::--" of "0"'" j// ..-
. ."-- -, '-'--.:, ... J
~ ,,-
,-
. ,. ...' ~~<:--. 7 . / ~~~
,...,..,..-::.;-"!1--,....c"", ~::.'~--.
. ;:~~ ~":;: 0.. ~/JI' .e.. t
r....c ~~~ Gc.r~cn ~.~/
..,/ 11
.." .. ---....-- -
-------
r:.N\i'RONM~N' #<\
~ROTECTION AGENC\
OCT? 0 199,)
4n"'I~N" (')[;'~Ir
-b-d- : l ~, 1 ~ '1 "3
c.h~Le... Cct~ EPA- pQpj~ ~~
. \
uS EPA Yt~7~~ a~l~
3ot. s. p~<~ PM-~ \Qoq(.o
\-\- e.1 \Q..k) ~ I V'v1 + . 5 ~ ~ ~ fo
D~ - ~~. ('calerv\A-fJ:
~ ~u...L1 \ \.l~e- To c f= P-~ ~ l S
\ 'e...~ !,.j ~\.l" POrL! 0 r- -~ PIt.~ J '0 Ee.\'L h~ G,. 4N ()
~ s+~ 0t t1 ~~A A-Yl..-e.. \"' 0 ,~ e
c...c\'V\ ~~o~ .\::cfL ~ c...oc ~ ~ Tl ~ ~r;:F-oYt--T
~~~~ \~ C?~~~lILJ(D A- ~"DlLLll~To
~ is ~ {ton l~fV\.. ,
-:L.~ . \1..Jll\ be.. ~~~ '"To t\-Pr~ ~
\:> e Pt-l..\ll !=-, ~o ~ p,..,.e.....u~ \ >-', 0 Au~ N t> A
; .., ~e.o..-o ° \- ltc..- .l~s l) ~ J-?o\.l u?~ )
'{Y\C).':) ~ Sc..~e.. * ~ ~o It...J E:'l-L:SIS"
-. ...L ~k.. ~V'~ ~v ~.'Kecl.~I-
- \ ~ \0 - b ~ l,.::) /~...'" (:) ~ PtI'2.S.'" s~~-
o ~ \) -e..c. dA:li u.I:L l) vu:>'-'!!t\ .
, ~ l,'\J c..~~:J )
-.--- .R~. ~~-~ l ~----_.-
. ----..-",.. .- ..
-------
. ANACONDA SMELTER SUPERFUND SFFE.
OLD 'VORKS/EAST ANACONDA
DEVELOP!\1ENT AREA OPERABLE UNIT
~~o rr.c~
i ft \
~~~i
~ J1"~
+,- ~
«( I'IIO~
PROPOSED PLAN
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Montana Office
Montant1 Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
COM1\mNT SHEET
September 1993
. .
Please wri?y comments that YO~,may have concerning th~ preferred a1ternati~e on this sheet.
\{ ~ ~ ~ '¥-- ~
~ /~ - ~4-<--/ ( ~/~Jl-~.D ~~)
~ ~ /'ipd:.,;r- ."-.....~~, ~ ...a-o "'~,A-"
;t; VJ.k ;& ~ t:bAl-<~~ A--t«ir- ~"" .A6',~
~ (T~--'"
Name:
. - .,....... -=- \..
PROTECTIOS AGENC'
/L.(
Address: .J CV.~ E. ~tf I ~ '.
Phone: St, ~- t, 513
\A()t\lT ANA OF~lr"
.. . ,_._.~-_.. ........ -
. .... ... .....
-------
.,
ANACONDA-DEER LODGE RECLAMATION ADVOCATES
218 EVERGREEN
ANACONDA, MT 59111
October 1. 1993
Charlie Coleman. EPA Project Manager
USEPA. Montana Office
3D 1 South Park. Drawer 10095
. Helena. MT 59626 .
Dear Sir:
This is to inform you that ADRA has come to a complete understanding
that your proposed plan offered to us at the September 29th meeting is
accepted by all. We feel that if other changes come about while doing this
project that we will be informed. The whole community we are sure will
back you on this endesvor. We also know that there is some that are waiting
for you and will ask for more studies. This community want to move forward
and take a step into a new future.
Members of this organization will be at your October 14th meeting willing
to help all take the next step in resolving our superfund
dilemma. Myself will be out of town and would like to be present to back
your proposal.
~ IC.// .
c:arles Haeffn~~
Anaconda-Deer Lodge reclamation
Advocates
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
OCT 4 1993
~ONTANA OFFIcr
-------
.ANACONDA SMELTER SUPERFUND SITE.
. OLD 'VORKS/EAST ANACONDA
DEVELOP!\fENT AREA OPERABLE UNIT
. ~o S7..~
i ft \
i~:
~f.: ~~
+'''' ~~~
PROPOSED PLAN
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Montana Office
Alontana DepartmenJ of Health and Environmental Sciences
COMMENT SHEET
September 1993
Please write any comments that you may have concerning the preferred alternative on this sheet.
\ / ~/,<-d z-k Y;Yo/U?-~ A~~ .
~AC/ p~ dPL (/)~/ ;f-~ h:~~-=:7~
~,<&/---/----/~ ;"'A'/fU 7'.i~ .
-------
.'
. ANACO}lDA SMELTER SUPERFUND sr'fE..
OLD 'VORKS/EAST ANACONDA
DEVELOP1\fENT AREA OPERABLE UNIT
$
-------
ANACONDA SMELTER SUPERFUND SITE-"
OLD 'VORKS/EAST ANACONDA
DEVELOP!\1ENT AREA OPERABLE UNIT
PROPOSED PLAN
. $'~o ~~
f ft \
"~~i
',... #
~I'R~
ENVIAONMt:N1 A..
PROTECTION AGENC~
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Montana Office OCT 1 4 1993 September 1993
Afontana Depcutment of Health and Environmental Sciences \AONTANA OFF'('"
COMMENT SHEET
Please write any comments that you may have concerning the preferred alternative on this sheet.
jl:~)(
".!
JJ j'l,) ~ c:.s, 'CNR /
I .
? J~ " .5 .£.
Wo~/(4
..~, .Jt.1 yO ~ h-J
::::I-
~( ".,
"! P. "t' u..
I
\
t';. C, ' I- '.$
,
k', (.' ," !--ft
1;..' /1.' J-t..
h,ll h"
(-, l.{.'\.
(f1," '" n ~ ,,-' .J-
Name:
h~ ~~
: 1'.': ~,. n.-1" ), ' 1,; (
YCOIA. -10,.. ~I\..' ,f/J~,",SJ.'N;,
/J )1 of' .s -E"""; t~ J.. I ~ AI .
"
e;-.j
.;, '~,.
:) /....~ ~ L-( /,::1' k
/
A N~ tt ~ t'..'d',., S
, ,
-1-4. oS
.::r
-1'"./
~ ,',..; oS. ' d ..£.t. ~ /Ie w . ' N r e- , ..,4 U-t. 7..,t1~ tJ / d
I~ J-!, '$ h n . 'e.. /~ S Co U--t ~ '. Ao;.''',j t/ ~ //'-4..
/IJ d, '11. 'd~.. h t/tkl- ~ (j h A /v1' -Ld ~h fl')~M ~
I '
/; ,~ Jv 4 / -1/1.;. -I E' ~ A .c: AJA0,)~ fi /t lie' L;~' // I
,
d Co f.. ....: ".?l Nv ~. rJ / , 'j ( ,; -II £ tJ l,j VJ ~,., /c.o
jF. II e'
i.P C
~/'...5
-------
. ANACONDA SMELTER SUPERFUND SITE-
OLD 'VORKS/EAST ANACONDA
DEVELOP~1ENT AREA OPERABLE UNIT
PROPOSED PLAN
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regz'on 8, Montana Office
MOl1Jana Department of Health and EnvironmenJal Sdences
COMME1\"T SHEET
~D n..~
i ft \
I~~i
~'''( 1ifI,,p;!
September 1993
Please write any comments that you may have concerning the preferred alternative on this sheet.
, YOl.lr flrU?fI <;.(P C(f /'.k~.. 1(;(u4- /St".... ",,c. - (t:e- "'_"e.......d 'V'-c1"~... .i--
V
c"" 7'rl //,'nf
(/
III (" ,? ",,' "'" --" c- C rl'. ~
o 4W' du_r. r- r L'77 7&""~o£f
r/
r~~r' I,?
t; / v,',;, //$""; 7
.?'-:v"i<
/
/).--
~~ ~ F;04 fu,,/tP/
(i) 7 S -->qp.er ~r7/
,
C? T f
......
..I tV vr- ff {iJ r tl
;.$ 1'U !;f;",tIf' rtJr iJ.'s
Fe ~ r<: I
i~~
.. f,
In s-
v
7'~ttT
if .- e "" 'I
wI, "I
1/
r~ ~" t~ }/.e
.
c; " /75fra..c c.. 1;(7 '1
F,. '7'- r>"'I
t '" /'<-
/'
J f worl/.
Name: bt'b'r< C.
0./
Address: !f(Y
Phone:
7'i' 7 - '1 " ~ 'I
1./". 0 f 17
11./ A.
a I' Pre k".~ 7,..,c.,
J I
/fv
If'n r?'> f~? In >'7 T.
t.-V .. ".-1(
7'i7-1':!1]
A.e.....~.
". -....-- .... -~. .
-------
I ~
,(
FISH AND \\1LDLIFE SERVICE
.
-
.~ - .-, ' TAKE-
United States Department of the Interior =
.- .
- .
IN REPLY Rt:n:1I 1U:
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
100 N PARK, SUITE 320
HELENA, MY 59601
10,143 C
October 21, 1993
Charles Coleman
Remedial Project Manager
, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 S. Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626
Dear Charlie:
CN~/RO."',
JF10TE "",t", , '"
'I CTlO~ AGENC;!
OCi 2 ? 1993
tf)A,,-r- 6 "" L\
, r;l:"r;'r
As part of Interagency Agreement No. 0-AA-60-01430 in which the u.s. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) provides technical support to the Bureau of
Reclamation, we have reviewed the Anaconda Smelter Superfund Site Old
Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit (OW/EADA OU) Proposed Plan
and Final Draft Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.
In the comparison of alternatives, we were unable to locate the "Preliminary
Analysis of Impacts to Wetlands." As described in ARCO's January 27, 1992
letter to the EPA {attached, page 6}, the purpose of this analysis is to .
forecast changes to wetland area and function related to response actions at a
site. The analysis consists of two tasks including a comparison of
quantitative and qualitative impacts to wetlands associated with each
alternative.
The generic information presented in ARCO's Anaconda Smelter NPL Site Wetlands
and Threatened/Endangered Species Inventory with Determination of Effective
Wetland Area (February 1993) is insufficient for an adequate evaluation 'of
alternatives. As discussed in ARCO's January 27, 1993 letter to EPA, this
Inventory is to be only the first step in a four step wetlands assessment
process.
We recommend that the information necessary for completion of the "Preliminary
Analysis of Impacts" be collected and the analysis be completed prior to
remedy selectiQn. This information will also be necessary for completion of
the wetlands assessment Step 3: Detailed Analysis of Impacts and Step 4:
Confirmation of Response Action Impacts, following issuance of the Record of
Decision and Certification of Completion, respectively.
Two applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) pertaining to
the protection of the Service's trust resources were not included in the
Federal ARARs secti9n. We believe that the remedial action must comply with
the substantitive requirements of The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as
amended, 16 U.S.C. 668 et seq., and The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as
amended, 16 U.5.C. 703 et seq. This recommendation was previously made in our
-------
.~
June 28, 1993 letter to you, but the two Acts still have not been included in
the ARARs listing.
These comments are provided as technical assistance only and do not constitute
a position the Department may take in the future regarding possible injury to
natural resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Plan. We look
forward to continued participation in the remediation of the OWIEADA ou.
Please contact Bill Olsen of my staff at 449-5225 if you have any questions
concerning these comments.
t::;;;:. ~J /J A
Dale Harm~
L.State Supervisor
~Montana State Office
Attachment
cc:
Hazardous Waste Coordinator,.MT Projects Office, USBR, Billings, MT
wlo attach
Regional Environmental Officer, OEA, 001, Denver, CO w/o attach.
.~- "-- ...~.
-------
ARca <> .
Posl Office f'I"- '.91 .
Suite 301. A )urity Bank Building
307 East Par.. - AI -
AI'I8COnda. Montana 5971.
TeIephoIl8 .06 S63 5211
Fecaimile
-------
.,
Hr. Donald Pizzini
January 27, 1992
Page -2-
wi thin the Clark Fork River Superfund sites. a The
purpose of this letter is to initiate a dialogue with the
federal and state agencies involved in the review process
and reach agreement on the procedures which will be
adopted to resolve these issues as work progresses at
each site. .
In addition to the WSP Study, ARCO has previously
submitted separate reports delineating wetlands covering
the Rocker' and Streamside Tailings operable units,.
lim! ted areas wi thin the Anaconda Smelter. Hill Site',
and the Montana Pole and Treating Plant Site.6 Each of
these reports will be reviewed and revised, as necessar¥,
following the procedures outlined below. ARCO 1.S
presently preparing a report for the Lower Area One site
. which will delineate and assess existing wetlands, and
include a proposed Mitigation Plan for response actions
at that site. .
At the outset, ARCO' believes application of the
federal no net loss policy, discussed in more detail
below, does not mandate on-site mitigation, i.e.,
replacement within the same operable unit of high value
wetlands which are eliminated by response actions.
Rather, a net loss or gain in wetlands should be measured
regionally across the contiguous Clark Fork River
Superfund Sites. Furthermore, restoration or replacement
of non-vegetated wetlands which presently provide little
value or function as part of response action for a site,
such as the barren tailings surfaces present atWSP, the
Lower Area One and other sites within the Clark Fork
River basin, should be credited against unavoidable
3 This would include the Silver Bow CreekfButte Addition, Montana Pole
and Treating Plant, the Anaconda Smelter, the Clark Fork River, and the Milltovn
Reservoir Sites.
, . Wetlands Delineation and ThreatenedjEndangered Species Inventory for
Rocker Timber Framing and Treatment Plant (EA, July 22, 1991).
. Identification and Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands: Inventory
of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species, Streamside Tailings Operable
Unit (EA, August 15, 1991).
,
Smelter Hill RIfFS ~etland Inventory Report (PTl, March 1989).
. ~etland Delineation Montana Pole and Treating Site, Butte, Montana
(Keystone, July 1990).
..-...----...-
-------
.,
Mr. Donald Pizzini
January 27, 1992
Page -3-
impacts to functioning wetlands arising through
implementation of response actions at these and other
sites. .,
Identification and Delineation of Wetlands at wsp
Revisions to the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (USEPA 1989) were
published as a Proposed Rule in the federal register on
August 14, 1991. (56 Fed. Reg. 44046). More recently,
EPA and the Corps of Engineers have proposed that the
revised federal manual will be codified as part of the
Code of Federal Regulations. (56 Fed. Reg. 65964) The
proposed revisions, if adopted, will substantially modify
the current federal criteria for identification and
. delineation of wetlands. Decisions arising from the
identification and delineation of wetland areas must
nevertheless proceed in the interim pending a final
decision by EPA regardi~g.the proposed revisions.
The WSP study was completed using. the methodology
presented in the Federal Manual (USEPA 1989), and
guidance on specific issues provided by the Corps of
Engineers. In the preamble to the August 1991 Proposed
Rule, EPA indicated that it would continue to use the
Federal Manual until the revisions were adopted in final
form. It is our understanding that EPA has since
determined that it is appropriate to follow the lead of
the Corps of Engineers, and utilize the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wet~and Delineation Manual (1987 Manual).'
. .
ARCO proposes that the 1987 Manual be utilized for
identification and delineation of wetlands for those
sites where field verification of technical criteria has
not yet been initiated. At its option, ARCO may elect t.o
undertake additional field verification necessary to
apply the 1987 Manual criteria to complete the studies in
., Under the Federal Manual and the 1987 Manual, non-vegetated surfaces
such as tailings surfaces do not meet the prerequiSite technical requirements for
delineation of a jurisdictional wetland. However, based upon an informal opinion
provided by the Corps of Engineers such areas were mapped as jurisdictional
wetlands in the WSP Study.
. See attached October 7, 1991 Memorandum and Responses to Questions
and Answers regarding the 1987 Manual, Response to question 6; distributed by the
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, John F. Studt, Chief,
Regulatory Branch.
-------
.~
Mr. Donald Pizzini
January 27, 1992
Page -4-
progress (for example, LAO) using the Federal Manual.
For sites such as the WSP operable unit, Smelter Hill,
Rocker and others referenced above where the Federal
Manual criteria has been applied in development of
reports submitted to the agency, these studies will be
revised, if necessary, for consistency with the
definitions and procedures which will be made part of the
final revised manual. We believe this approach is
consistent with the preamble discussion in the Proposed
RUle, 56 Fed. Reg. at 40457.
Neither the Federal Manual nor the 1987 Manual
provide a satisfactory methodology by which wetland
values and functions may be evaluated. Based upon our
understanding of the federal no net loss policy, this
quality assessment is an integral component of the
delineation task.' In preparation of the WSP Study,
ARCO utilized the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) 2.0
standard method for this quality assessment.' While
useful as a baseline ass'essment tool, our experience has
shown that the generality of the input parameters and
lack of regional/site specifici t¥ generates results which
do not adequately describe or d~fferentiate between the
values and functions provided by wetlands within a
limited geographic area.
In contrast to the WET 2.0 method, the delineation
of wetland habitat area following the USFWS criteria
(Cowardin ~ Al. 1979) provides a more flexible approach
which allows for consideration of local conditions in a
comparative analysis of wetland quality. As described
below in the sequence of tasks for each site, we propose
that future studies at other sites utilize both the 1987
Manual and the USFWS criteria to develop a quantitative
and qualitative assessment of wetlands.
Applying the experience gained in preparation of the
WSP study, ARCO proposes the following process for
delineation of wetlands, assessment of wetland habitat
value and function, and analysis of impacts as work
progresses at a site.
ste9 1 -
De11neation:
Wetland Identification and
The purpose of Step 1 is to
. Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I (August 8, 1988); Section
3.4.4, p. 3-32.
-------
.~
Mr. Donald pizzini
January 27, 1992
Page -5-
quantify baseline (prior to response action)
wetlands area, value and function.
Task No.1: ARCO will delineate
wetlands (using the 1987 Manual
until the Federal Manual is
published in final form) and other
special aquatic sites at each site
where work is performed under an
administrative order or judicial
decree. This task should occur
early in the RI or EE/CA process as
part of site characterization
studies. ..
Task No.2: In addi tion to
delineation of jurisdictional
wetlands using the .1987 Manual
cri teria, wetland habitat will be
delineated, 'value and function
assessed fOllowing the method
adopted by the u.s. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Cowardin ~ gJ...
1979). As has been done for the WSP
study, wetlands data will be
digitized into the Geographic
Information System (GIS).
Task No.3: For each area, maps and
narrative discussion summarizing the
results from the delineation. task
and quality assessment described in
Tasks 1 and 2 will be prepared as a
separate submittal for agency
review. The assessment will both
quantify and characterize wetland
areas present prior to response
actions, separately identifying
those areas having value and
function, and those which do not in
their present condition provide the
value and function normally
associated with wetland habitat.
SteD 2 - Preliminary Analysis of IDlp8ctS: The
purpose of step 2 is to forecast changes to
.wetland area and function related to response
action at a site. The baseline data developed
in Step 1 will be used in preparation of a
.- .. - ,.-.,_._- -.-
-------
.,
Mr. Donald Pizzini
January 27, 1992
Page -6-
preliminary analysis of potential impact to
wetlands from fill activities which may be
part of response actions under consideration.
Task 1: As part of the development
and analysis of response action
alternatives, alternative actions
under consideration will be assessed
and potential impacts to physical,
chemical, and biological components
of wetlands and the associated
aquatic environment described. Both
quanti tati ve and quali tati ve impacts
to wetlands will be described.
Where applicable to the actions
under consideration, the factual
determinations described at 40
C.F.R. 230.1110 which are useful in
understanding' the effect upon the
environment from a proposed
discharge will be presented in
development of this analysis.
Task 2: The analysis of
alternatives conducted during the FS
or EE/CA will include a comparative
analysis of projected impacts and/or
improvements to wetland acreage,
value and function from
implementation of the al tern"ti ve
actions under consideration and
proposed mitigation measures.
Sten 3 Detailed Analysis of ImDacts:
Following publication of a Record of Decision
or Action Memorandum at a site, a more
detailed analysis of potential impacts from
construction activity will be submitted during
the design phase. In this document, a
Mitigation Plan will be presented which
addresses the substanti ve ARAR requirements
for protection of wetlands and associated
aquatic habitat. The Mitigation Plan will
10 The regulations describe factors to be considered such as changes to
the physical substrate, water circulation and effects upon the structure and
function of the aquatic ecosystem. .
. .-. -. --'-'-'
-------
.,
Mr. Donald Pizzini
January 27, 1992
Page -7-
propose practicable mitigation measures to
minimize potential adverse impacts following
the guidelines set forth at 40 C.F.R. Par 230,
Subpart H. Further discussion of replacement
of wetland areas as a mitigation requirement
is presented below. The Mitigation Plan will
be submitted to the agency for review as part
of the ARARs Report generally required during
remedial design, or as part of a Design Report
.where work will be performed under the EPA's
removal action authority.
sten 4 Confirmation of Response Action
Impacts: There is potential that a proposed
final remedial or response action design may
be modified as construction proceeds to
accommodate site-specific conditions. For
sites where such changes are made, ARC~
suggests that it is appropriate to prepare a
final analysis' of l.mpacts following
construction. This final analysis would be
submitted at the completion of remedial action
prior to certification of Completion.11 In
this submittal, a final accounting of acreage
totals, and conclusions presented in the
previous analyses regarding anticipated
changes in wetland values and functions would
be revised to conform with the as-built design
of the selected remedy or response ac~ion.
Replacement of Wetland Areas
The foregoing discussion of mitigation focused upon
section 404(b)(1) requirements related to protection of
downstream and adjacent wetland and other special aquatic
si tes which may be adversely impacted by response actions
at a site. Practicable measures to protect such areas
will be adopted t.o minimize impacts. The issue of
mitigation also encompasses the manner in which EPA and
ARca will address the conversion of jurisdictional
wetlands to non-wetland as a necessary consequence of
response action implementation. The following discussion
addresses restoration and replacement of wetlands as a
mitigation requirement.
11 For the \.'arm Springs Ponds (active area), we propose that this
submittal be made prior to the Certification of Completion of Initial
. Construction.
. -... -.. .-..-
. .,-. .~ --_...--~
-------
..:'>,
. .'
'~
,-
Mr. Donald Pizzini
January 27, 1992
Page -8-
,,'
The Compliance with other Laws Manual describes the
framework for determining compliance with the substantive
requirements of Section 404 (b) (I) guidelines, promulgated
as regulations in 40 C. F .R. Part 230. The Manual
provides that "what constitutes necessary mitigation at
a particular site is a case-specific determination
depending upon such factors as the type of activity, the
type of wetland, how well the wetland is presently
functioning, etc., always keeping in mind the goal of
preserving wetland values at a site. '112 In implementing
the Section 404{b) guidelines for mitigation, the
Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Corps of
Engineers characterizes the goal of the no net loss
policy as no overall net loss of wetland values and
functions.u ' '
"
"
Based upon the discussion of mitigation in the
Compliance with other Laws Manual and the Memorandum of
Agreement, ARCO believes that implementation of the no
net loss policy should-not be v1ewed as an accounting
exercise, requiring the one for one replacement of
degraded wetland areas with higher value wetland.
Where the functioning of the wetland has been
significantly and irreparably degraded,
mitigation would be oriented towards
minimizing further adverse environmental
impacts, rather than attempting to recreate
the wetland's original value on-site or off-
site. Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part
I1 p. 3-j2.
ARCO believes it is inconsistent with EPA policy to
view the loss of wetland areas providing none of the
environmental values normally associated with wetlands as
contrary to the no net loss policy. When such areas are
remediated as functional wetland habitat, EPA should
allow an accounting of these acreages to be banked for
use as offsets against future, unavoidable impacts to
valuable wetland areas where mitigation, I.e. ,
replacement, may otherwise be requir~d to maintain a no
&J Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I, (August 8, 1988); Section
3.4.4, p. 3-32.
&) Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Department of the Army concerning the Determination of Mitigation under
the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. February 7, 1990.
. n.._.~_.-.
-------
."
.~
. .
Mr. Donald Pizzini
January 27, 1992
Page -9-
net loss of wetland value and functions. Thus,
improvements made to wetlands within one operable unit
(creation of new wetland habitat or enhancement of value
and function through restoration of wetland areas present
prior to response actions)' may satisfy compensatory
mitigation for response actions at another operable unit.
This basin-wine approach is consistent with EPA policy
which provides that compensatory mitigation may be
implemented off-site, preferably within the same
watershed.U We believe such an approach is workable
and provides a better framework for evaluation of overall
impact to existing wetlands from response actions in the
Clark Fork River basin.
We look forward to a continuing, frank discussion of
the issues we have framed and the procedures proposed in
this letter. .
cc:
USFWS, Donald Palawski/Bill
. Corps of Engineers
DNRC, Karen Barclay
HDHES, Karen Zackheim .
HDFWP, Glen Phillips
W.R. Williams
Chuck stilwell
Pamela S. Sbar, Esq.
William J. Duffy, Esq.
D. Henry Elsen, .Esq.
Jim Madden, Esq..
Andrew Lensink, Esq.
Olsen
1. If on-site compensatory mitigation is not practicable, off-site
compensatory mitigation should be undertaken in the same geographic area if
practicable (i.e., in close physical proximity and. to the extent possible, the
same watershed. In determining compensatory mitigation, the functional values
lost by the resource to be impacted must be considered. Memorandum of Agreellent,
Section II.C.3, p.4.
...-..... "--
-------
'~
~Ofttarta~
of
FisIL,~e l.&~
3201 Spurgin Road
Missoula, Montana 59801
October 26, 1993
Charlie Coleman ,
USEPA, Montana Office
301 S Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626
Dear Charlie:
Appreciated the opportunity to meet you during the October 6
meeting that Janet Corrish put together to identify interpretation
and visitor access issues. I felt the meeting was very productive
and wil1 lead to solutions for the issues raised that day.
I have, had a chance to, read your proposed plan for the Old
Works/East Anaconda Development Area Operable Unit. It appears
that your plan has been thoroughly thought out and well organized.
Your preferred alternative sounds lo;ical and should address the
problems. '
The main reason I am writing is to address the stack and the 2.2
acre site the department manages. I was not sure where or if those
areas fit into your plan and preferred alternative. Without
'knowing exactly if this plan will affect these two areas, it's hard
to give specific suggestions or recommendations. The department
would like to suggest that if any development opportunities arise
that will benefit or enhance 'these two areas or help solve some of
the issues raised at that October 6 meeting, we would appreciate
being involved.
I am looking forward to working with you as this project proceeds.
Interpretation and access for the visitor will ultimately help to
tell the story.
Thank you for your help and consideration.
Best Regards,
~O~
Lee Bastian
Regional Park Manager'
. .....,. ,,,,,',,;,,,,.,.
';'~:';"~'I'-'" AG!:;,.."
':-IV.~'-" "",.'41: -
OCi ~ ,. 199~ '
. ~ '
LB/pm
~- h .'---_.- -'.,.'.--.' .
. .. -'--"-'W'.-"""'
-------
. ANACONDA SMELTER SUPERFUND SUE.
OLD 'VORKS/EAST ANACONDA
DEVELOPr.1ENT AREA. OPERABLE UNIT
PROPOSED PLAN
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Montana Office
Afontana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
COMMENT SHEET
. ~((f.O ~..~
i ft \
'~i
\:;~ ;I
'" ""Q~
September 1993
. I) /ff3.
a ~~
~ t ~v~ ~7~%
. .(/4,1/ ~
-------
.~
Duane and Cindie Green
211 Warren street
Anaconda, Mt 5971 1
October 13, 1993
Charlie Coleman
Proj ect Manager, us EPA .
301 S. Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, Mt 59626
Dear Mr. Coleman;
We would like -to ccmnent on the develot:ment plans for the Old Works golf course.
ARCD, the EPA, and Deer ~ge county can put all of the time, rroney and effort in
the ~rld into this golf course to make it a world class course, but nothing is
going to change the fact that the weather in this li ttle rrountain valley is .
canpletely unpredictable. A PGA tournament cannot be planned six rronths in advance
and only to be rained out or snowed out in the middle of. July.
What happens to this course the eight rronths of the year that it is to cold
to golf? When it is finally discovered that people fran all over the country aren't
caning to a place with cold weather to golf, the ccmnunity of Anaconda is left
holding the bag as usual. .
As taxpayers, we are not interested in supporting an expensive golf course
for the few people here that golf and the fewer who will be able to afford golfing
there. We don't believe this golf course will be of benefit to the majority of
Anacondans, nor does it reflect an interest of the majority Anacondans.
A suggestion was made in a letter to the editor in the Anaconda Leader, that
instead of giving Anaconda this golf course, ARCD buy back the lands surrounding
Anaconda fran the timber cat1panies and give the lands as a gift to Anaconda. We
believe this would be of much greater benefit to the larger cc::mnuni ty as well as
reflecting better the interests of the majority of the ccmnunity.
l1incerely, /) L /-;' /J
(,v@tUC/ C?~ f:5Ytffi(/v
. Duane and Cindie Green
EN'oiIf\ONMCN1,....
PROTECT10S AGENC'f
OCT 1 ~ '9Q:\
\AONTANA OFFlr-
-------
f.
,
. ~
. w
tHE
Clark Fork
Pend Oreil1e
COALITION
... ~ ~~~.
,~
~:=JI
. P.O. Box 7593
Missoula, MT 59807
40&'542-0539
P.O. Box 4718
Butte, MT 59702
4061723-4061
P.O. Box 1096
Sandpoint,ID.s3864
20~'263-0347
'~
,"
October 22, 1993
Mr. Charlie Coleman, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park. Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626
=r4VIHONMt:11oI1",.
.Jr.OTECTIO~ AGENV,
OCT 2 5 \993
'."~I"""~''', l}C'rlr
RE:
Public Comment - Old Works/East Anac~nda Development
Area Operable Unit Proposed Plan, including Mill Creek
Dear Charlie:
The Clark Fork - Pend Oreille Coalition is not in
favor of perpe~ual "managem~nt" of wastes in-sit~ rather
than good. 'permanent clean-up. The Prefe,rred Alternative
document of September, 1993 for the sizeable Old Works/East
Anaconda O/U can set a precedent for leaving wastes in
place wastes that depend, on continual oversight,
monitoring and maintenance in order' to protect human health
and the environment~ ,We do not believe this is good public
policy.
We believe Institutional Controls may play an interim
role in protecting human health and the environment. but
should not be considered a permanent remedy. In instances
where, technology does not yet exist for a permanent "hands
,off" remedy, it may be necessary to impose permitting
systems and land use restrictions. These should be rar~
circumstances, and should never be called into pl~y when
other. more permanent,' options exist. The remedy
alternatives considered for this site -- engineered covers,
revegetation, surface controls, stream channel controls,
monitoring, and institutional controls involving' land and
water use restrictions ~nd permitting -- do not giv~
Superfund's mandate for "permanence~ the weight we believe
Congress intended. We do not believe it is fair for
generations of the public to be burdened with
responsibilities that are rightfully placed on polluters
under Superfund.
We note that some wastes will be left untreated. We
are concerned what permanent controls will be put into
place to assure citizens and tourists don't stray from
proposed trails into areas seriously contaminated with
Arsenic. Others areas will receive the century-old
"treatment" technology of the addition of lime or other
organics to soils. ,Bec~use' lime merely "freezes" heavy
metal toxins in place, these same contaminants may have to'
be dealt wit~ again at some time in the future. At the
publ ic' meeting in Anaconda S.eptember 29th, questions 'were
asked concerning use of lime also causing release of
lightweight metals such as Arsenic 5. These were answered
-------
"
'/
"
t.
o
.~--._- "..--.
.,
by the PRP ~ith statements that indicated soil
"attenuation" handles the potential problem. As
attenuation is simply anoth~r "holding action," and doesn't
'change the metal into a non-toxic form, we would .appreciate
your addressing this issue as it relates to permanence.
Groundwater issues at this site and other~ in .the
Clark Fork Superfund complex seem to be addressed last,
only after final decisions are made for for soil and
s~rface water issues. ,As groundwater in the Clark Fork
Watershed is a main 'concern of. our' Coal i tion; I " would
appreciate hearing how in-place management of contaminants
-- the preferred remedy for 100% of thi s operable' unit,--
permanently protects groun~water"emanating from its sites.
Remedies that, look "good, compared to ~h~ cur~ent state
of an are~ are not necessarily the best remedies when held
against the permannence criteria.
Thank you for considering these matt~rs.
, ,
Yours very 'truly,
Upper River
.~y~
Field Representative
'cc:
Kar~n Zackheim, MDHES. Helena
----- -"
-------
. .
.. . " .,
ANACONDA SMELTER SUPERFUND SITE
.... . ,""'.
~D nCb.
. . ft ....
{~\
~'CL ~~;1
OLD 'VORKS/EAST ANACONDA
DEVELOP~1ENT AREA OPERABLE UNIT
. . ocr 0 5 1993 .
PROPOSED. PLAN
EN"'RONMLf'41" AL
PROTECTION A~F.Illr.:\'
. .
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Montana OffiUONTANA OFFIC~ September 1993
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences '
COMMENT SHEET
, .
Please write any comments that you may have concerning the preferred alternative on this sheet.
il7-"A.AI,;t;-7 A, ~ t">1~1-f:d 'V" ..47'.1'-,,)'-~
/}k/;f AL, ~~. /tZ~ i('brJlt7.-><-
~ . / /! .- 'l,;
,.- , ~~~. ~ ~." /t~
~;
~ ?
?' . -
~.. ..,,, . c-k. LT'f
~/~./j/~, {~~~.~E7!;~ ~
~ ~ t£J I?" 4f'!.~/1 ~~ 4 ~ ~
?(~~~/..tU2? ~ r:-d//1-t~~~
_~k ~Y1t:h ~~/7~/lA~h-/ ~
.~.'. . t1'
~ ~ r ',' ~~ ,,/
N : ~-
r's: ~ ~/M Y1 (cj--U~ ('o/~ ~J u
hone: ~ /'rXi;.", ~-:-/ /.h:'~ ~ d:. ~/ /1.,-
.' ~ . /
/.;. ,c-'-~~~ te,"
..---.. --.'
-------
~'~~~~'~~-0 ~~ ~.~~
~~;M~~.~ .~..~.d~/,
, tfuL~ A,l.' -;/J ~~ ~.~..-eo ~4 ~~ttz
" xv.-7./..t:AV. j/ N . , / P
.. .-if, U ~' ~ I~?:J ~ ~ J-~ ~ ~
.... ~~ ~~.t7!~. /z;,~ kj¥v~4~
.... ~ ~ ~ 0r~..~~' ~ #<4 ~ fh ~ ~ .
..... ~~. ~~:~I'~.~~~/4-~ ~~~
.. ~(;1~~.~k. ~ ~~d~A/~
~_~7.~ .....~ ~~ rv-~ h- -' / ~
~ , "', ~~~~
.. ~ ~-«-J? ~ -y:>.~ U ~ ~ n
~.. J-2? H': ~~ ~ t? ~ ~.tJJ~;/~
vvif ~'..4,- ~..~ A?-~ d/ f'A...- Ce">v,~.
~'-
-------
./
.." } . .
. ,....' -
. '¥~ ~ ~ . ~-~ ...d'J-1:c4 ~
~7~~~.~ ~ tr-dw~.,,/.
... _--#.:1eT~~ -jV~~ ~7-~-~~~-
.. ........... _. .H?4'L~-'.? ~V_L~ d-h..~l- ~h___~_..
L~ h ,¥~--4..~-~.~~._~~
-u~ -~Ji~.-~~-~-_u44-~ ~~?-~~~
- .--:~z&J~--tf"-4~~ ~-~~-
-. - .~ ~~/ti!-_-;p-~._.J:d,~--_. ~-~.u4f-k
~-~ .¥-d4~ -<-J4;~~ ~~-
.-~~_£~A,_a.J'~j~/~-~-
. . ~-~A.,~-~-~-~-A-P_~"- C4.,/1...Jh.,:/ ....
-ti~_.~~~7-4...14~..-~~.:-!:.~ t{.. k~_.~
.. 4.~..~~, .. .. '...., . n.- nn__...__-- .- ."" ... ..... .-..-..-... .
-- . ... ... .... "--'-.. -- . - .
. - ..... "... '...
.- . .- - - .. "... .. .."
-. .. .. ,-. -. .
, . ..- _. ,.-... - ......
". .... '" ,.---. --. - '." - .... .""
- -_. - -.. --------
.. . . . .-- -. -. -,. _. .
.. -. _. -. ....
.-- -,._- .--
...... ..
- ...-...- -------
. ". .. - . ... .
_. no. . --_..
- .. - . -- - -.
. - . ...-.- .._... -
. - .
. ... . ...
. . 'T~L "'''' ..
eN\R°'8:a~GENC"
. .. .-PROiECi~- ---.. -..------ ....
, at' 0 S '99'S .
',.. .. .. ---- -----..---.. f=\CE' .
MONt ~NA O~
.. . '. '.-.....- .
. ..-.,. . -..'" .--.- ....-.-. M" ...- -
. ~.. '.u..~.."-.... ....--. . .
"-'.... . -- .
-------
.~ ENVIRONMENTA&.
PROTECTION AGENCY
00' 1 5 1993,}
MONTANA OFFICE
: -------~~=;p~~~-~ -~~~~=~--=:~~:~ -=
( -- .tJ.N,q (O~...5..,--~ 19: 1--> L I ~ n-, ('"0 IJ re~ N~
.( w--L:J. ~.J.)-P- . ~U-P.:fA.~J.J~-----:pJL~j.Jr:~--J-1J~1J. ~----I9.PUI'-
.- -"-" ..::r--'-!.L9.5-/~~AL?J e...J_..f/;~-f_----.:f~.i'AJ!::_-./~--L1.-SLJ,&J.btl_:1fju:'Jj
~~:£jq-~L-~A_I.J -L/;.13-_+_~.i~f~.$ -t~~Q.~ ~~~ .be.
.' -.-.-.. . NO +~LS-'-!.$~_4._--ff)~ -/& +/ e -I-~ I~-'V d -/-4!5l-l- 1.5
. : -_oJ~..rJ_GJ~._--~=U-f?.:eA.~.M)fi2 ~-f1A -/-~_-V~-::LL-::I.J,.8 T .
~.~..!.-d--'-R..~..J----.t_s_.-1Z~J~~~~_I_...I.£.. -J~S"_-Ls_~v...e__-
, J~_vj...;-~'+ -I-~ .Q.---f:pA_N-S.:!?~--O~. !,q,."d l~--p.u~e~d.-
.__._---i;:!2_.JGh----G-A_~tJ-~R ~~--f~-L.d.~1l.~~-t::l:..b--O..r.!:JLA,t_()_V-r-._-_.
-:_--- I~~- -LJ~1B__---:r:.JkL~~MY
. . _.__._.~tP~k~P-s.__t.¥ ~~'-__'~\.L'f!Q~..__.'R-':!:lf!"/"-¥~ d c.-J If.._~_-I:: I, e. -2-!9.~/oc)..f .
." ---_.--cD'Y-i.i2.I9.LI./)/J5___~ J_6__~1.I Mf£J-~ ~.$- ..i:J.::l.. ~.e.-li9 L ~..oJ__..
. ._._-_._-----_.2J.eJ;_R-,-.5..~__l~--i:.o.._-_::L~-~-- .-.-.c5-c ~.L b_.~---.::ff/u ~-~7--'-(.J).Q-"
-------
... i:NVIRONMt:NI"'.
'>ROTECTIO~ AGE1-lC'
~
.~
This technica1 evaluation is in response to the EnvironmentaJ Protection Agency (EP A) and the Montana Department
of Health and En\ironmentaJ Science (MDHES) requests for comments on the Old Works lEast Anaconda EcoDomic
Development Area Operable Unit's (OWIEADAOU) Remedial Investigation (RI) which is inclusive of the Risk
Assessment (RA), Feasibility Study (FS), and Proposed Plan (PP).
Criticism:
The RJ's usage of uniformly disttibuted sampling and mathematica1 averaging (i.e. geometric means) appear to be
quite adequate for characterizing smelter emissioD CODtaminants as found across most of the OWIEADAOU.
However, this approach can yield misleading and/or erroneous coDc1usions. Typically, this occurs when non-smelter
emission wastes are incorporated into a gridding and ~ntouring routine as in the" case of this data set. These results
usually manifest themselves as one of the following problems:
J) Near-surface high whotspotsW could be smoothed over; and/or
2) Vertica1 aspect of contamination could be de-emphasized due to the lack of inclusioD and/or wieghting
in the fina] contours.
The best example this occurs in the south~ comer of Subarea 5. Sample D51 represents this loca1 and has
arsenic sample results of2090, 1510, 1180, 1150, and 763 ppms for the depths of 0-2,2-10, 10-24,24-60, and 60-
80 inches, respectively (RI Volume ill: AppeDdix C, Table C-l). However, the near-surface arsenic contour
interval reading is approximately 1500 ppm (RI Volume n, Plate 3).
This is misleading and possibly resulting to an erroneous proposaJ of no-action for this south-east comer of Subarea
5 (referencing the OWIEADAOU map handed out during the September 29, 1993 InformationaJ Meeting). The
eJevated near-surface and subsurface arsenic values appear to warrant a capping and combined erosionaJ control
remedy at a ~um. .
Potential Data Gat):
J disagreed with the RA's conclusion that the observed increase in in-stream metal loadings of Warm Springs Creek
across the site are so1l!ly due to stream channel's configuration. The RA's discussion, that the narrowing of the
stream channel causes an increase in velocity and erosion which there by accounts for the observed Joadings across
the site, is a plausibJe argument; but, it does not accurately describe the initial reason(s) for the loadings.
Thus, it can be percieved that a potential data gap exists from the lack of overland and surface run~ff data which
can preclude and/or be included with the channeJ mechanic's discussion.
The fairly constant stream sediment metals data through out the reach of the site (Rl Volume ill: Appendix J, Table
J-6), combined v.ith the elevated overland samples collected from the Upper 'aDd Lower Old Work areas (RI Volume
ill: Appendix ], Table ]-7 April 1985 samples OW20 and OW21), suggests that a Don-point source connibution
and/or connection n~ to be added to the RA's pJausibJe conclusions for the observed gain in metal loadings across
. .-. .. -"-"- .
. -. -. .'.--.__.-..
-------
. .~...
-,
the r~ch (RI Volume ID: Appendix], Tables ]-3 and 5, Apri1198S samples WS-2 and WS-3).
It sbould be noted some perspective sbould be inserted bere. This is a minor point to cfisagree upon because Warm
Springs Creek has had only two near-cbronic and one near-acute occurrences for metals; and, the overland water
samples referred to only approacb the cbronic water standards for metals. However, it is suggested that this point
becomes an integral part of the monitoring program to test effectiveness of the pP's surface treatments, engineering
covers and drainage controls.
Compliments:
The PP has to be complimented on its cfisplay of good communications between all parties and as concluded in the
. FS, appears to be: - . .
1.) An implementable and comprehensive plan that is capable to deal with the potential human health and
environmental problems that exist at the site,
-.,
2.) In compliance with- die ARAR's, and
3.) A cost effective solution that is flexible in considering the short and long-tem community planning
needs.
In conclusion, because many of the specifics on vegetation types, engineering covers and run~ff controls are not
included in the proposal. it is understood that the long-term effectiveness and peIDlaDence of the remedy will rely
heavily on the design and implementation phases.
Thank you for allowing for comments and I look forward to worJcing with both the EP A and the MDHES on the
continuance of the OW IEADAOU project.
~:2~
Mike Fitzgerald
Upper Clark Fork River
Superfund Technical Specialist
-------
OCT-22-1993 12: 19 FROM
ARCD-DEN .RKY MTN ENV REM
TO
914064495434 . P. 02
~,
ARCO <>
Suite 406. Firs1 Security Bant Building
'Jl17 East ParI!. Street
Anaconda. Mantan:! 59711
Tltlepr\One 406 S63 5211
Facsimile 406 S63 8269
.,
October 22, 1993
Mr. Charlie Coleman .
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA ") .
Montana Office
301 South Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, Montana 59626
Re:
Atlantic Richfie1d Company's COO ARCO") Comments on Old
WorWl=~q Anaconda Develoomcnt Area. Qperable Unit ("OW IE-
ADA aU") Pro,posed Plan .
Dear Mr. Coleman:
This letter presents ARCO's written comments on the OW/EADA OU Proposed Plan
("Proposed Plan") which EPA announced in September, 1993. It is our understanding that the
public comment period on the Proposed Plan runs until October 22, 1993. ARCO requests that
this letter be included in the OWIEADA OU administrative record and considered by EPA in
selecting the final remedy for the OWIEADA ou. ARCO reserves its right to submit additional
. comments during the current. public comment period and in any subsequent public comment
periods provided by EP A.
ARCO has reviewed the Proposed Plan and generally supports the PIe.ferred Alternative
identified in the Proposed Plan to address conditions existing in the OW/EADA QU. ARCO
believes that the Prcfc:rred Alternative satisfies the T'eQuiremCJts of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended ("CERCLA ") and
the National Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 C.F.R. Part 300 and, at the same time, will not
hinder the commercial and recreational development contemplated for the OWIEADA OU by
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County and the Town of Anaconda.
During the OWIEADA au Remedial InvestigationIFeasibility Study (-RI!FS") ARCO
prcpalccfand submitted documents pursuant to the OWIEADA OU Administrative Order on
Consent, Docket No. CERCLA VIn-88-16 and provided EPA with comments and other
communications on studies, risle assessments, ARARs and other documents as part of the
OWfEADA OU RIIFS. For the purpose of this comment Jetter, ARCO incorporates the
comments identified in these documents by reference and requests that EP A include these
6"..". .~.In.,.., ,.,......."
MOOD M1D "
r,_I~
'. h"-\'-
.J \
. M"~ -- -.-.-,.--. --
-------
"
"
OCT-22-1993 12:20 FROM
P.03
ARCO-DEN.RKY MTN ENV R81
TO
914B64495434
.~
Mr. Charlie Coleman
October 22, 1993
Page -2-
comments in the administrative record and consider its selection of the Preferred Alternative in
light of these comments. In particular, ARCO incoIpOrafes its May, June and August comments
that ARCO submitted on the 1993 Baseline Risk Assessment for the OWIEADA OU prepared
by EPA and requests that EPA consider these comments in selecting the final remedy for the
OW/EADA OU. .
As noted above, ARCO generally supports the Preferred Alternative described in the
OW/EADA OU Proposed Plan. However, ARCO requests that EPA reconsider the portion of
the Preferred Alternative which provides for the construction of an engineered cover over a
portion of the Red Sands in Subarea 4. As we have previously communicated in the draft
OW IEADA Feasibility Study, ARCO believes that the Red Sands do not pose a sufficient threat
to human health and the environment to require the construction of an engineered cover over any
portion of the Red Sands. Rather, ARCO believes that the implementation of surface controls,
e.g., erosion, drainage and dust controls, will be sufficient to piotect human health and the
environment at Red Sands. In addition, the use of surface controls, without the construction of
an engineered cover, will more effectively minimize impacts to the historical features of the Red
Sands, thereby supporting the historic preservation objectives for the OWfEADA OU. For these
reasons, ARCO requests that EP A reconsider and reject construction of an engineered cover for
a portion of the Red Sands in Subarea 4 as an element of the final remedy for the OWIEADA
ou.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me.
RJB:lv
TOT~ P.03
-- . .-_. -_..
------- |