PB99-964403
EPAS41-R99-055
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
California Gulch Site OU 9
Leadville, CO
9/2/1999
-------
STATE OF COLORADO
.
Iii Ow-. CcMmot
... Eo""'" Exec'" Chaw
:a.~v.w III",...,., alld ...,.,.",1I8e ~ ... em.iantNIIC :/rIte ,...of~
,JoG a...,., 0teIc Dr. S. l~ .,,6 WIIian StMces 0Msi0n
)8!W8r. Cole,. 8Q2.... 1 ~]O 3100 LcMry Dt.1I.
!IhDM \1OS) 82-2000 o.:mc, CD IDQUH,Z.
Locad In~, Colorado. ~O)) M2~
COIoado ~iwdlvY
~~.-
mIP:I/wwI-- c:odpIIe.ft8.CD.u8 -
Septeobcr 2, 1999
William P. YeUowtail
'R8pmai ~tI...mi&tt8tor
EPA Region VIII
999 1" Street, suite sao
Daverp CoIondD .10202-2405
. DecMr. Yenowtai1:
Subject:
CoDr-Imc::nce in dID SeJlGtOd RemlOtli.1 Altemative at Operable UDit 9, R.esideQli.1
Popu1atecl~, Califomia 0u1ch SupmNnd Site, ~il1e, ColODdo
.. On behalf oftbc Colorado DepartmeDt of Public Health me! Environment. I am plcasec1 to com;ur
in tb£ seJe=d remedial altcmative for Opcnble Uait 9 of1he Califomia Gulch Superfumi site.
This is . aipifignt milcstoDC in the CEkCLA process iD Leadville. I CODp8IU1ate BP A for
listaiDa to local ntpRiCDWivcs and working to ~roodatc 111- aeccls. The remedy is the
resu1t of this 'WOrk aDd retlecrs 'the iaoaa local iDtereat in a remedy which meeu Leadville's
UDiquc cin::umstlmccs.
AI you blow, then are several issues which we will continue to 'WOdt on toged1er in the.desi8D
and implcmootation of this remedy. Representatives of our departmeDt look forw8rd to work;iDs
with you, local represc:otatives. aDd the miDiDg companies 011 these issues so that the remedy, as
it is ciosianed'and implaneuted. CODtinucs to JH'OtC't public hN11h aod the caviromncm whUe
mee.iDg local concems and inta'eSta. .
SiIaR1y,
~ .,.. .yt ",..
lau No:tDn
ExcGudvc Director .
co:
Lake Ccnmty Commissioaas
.K8D Cblouber. State Senator .
CBI'l Miller. Sta Reprcscntatiw
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
RESIDENTIAL POPULATED AREAS
OPERABLE UNIT 9
CALIFORNIA GULCH SUPERFUND SITE
LEADvnLE,COLORADO
September 1999
u.s. ENVIRONMENT AI.. PROTECTION AGENCY
999 18111 STREET SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
-------
{
RECORD OF DEQSION
RESIDENTIAL POPULATED AREAS OPERABLE UNIT 9
CALIFORNIA GULCH SUPERFUND SITE
LEADVILLE, COLORADO
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the concurrence of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), presents this Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Residential Populated Areas Operable Unit 9 (OU9) of the California Gulch
Superfund Site in Leadville, Colorado. ResidentiaVpopulated area soils include those in
residential yards, vacant lots, parks, school yards, playgrounds, and community use areas,
including unpaved streets and alleys. The ROD is based on the Administrative Record for OU9.
including the Residential Soils Feasibility Study, the Proposed Plan, the public comments
received, including those from the potentially responsible parties (pRPs), and EPA responses.
The ROD presents a brief summary of site characteristics, actual and potential risks to human
health and the environment, and the Selected Remedy. EPA. followed the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, the National Contingency
Plan (NCP). and appropriate guidance in preparation of the ROD. The three purposes of the
ROD are to:
1.
Cenify that the remedy selection process was carried out in accordance with the
requirements of the Comprehensive EnvironmentaJ Response, Compensation, and.
Liability Act, 42 U. S. C. 960] et seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (collectively, CERCLA), and, to the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan (NCP);
2.
Outline the engineering components and remediation requirements of the Selected
Remedy; and
3.
Provide the public with a consolidated source of infonnation about the history,
characteristics, and risk posed by the conditions ofOU9, as well as a summary of the
remedial alternatives considered, their evaluation, the rationale behind the Selected
Remedy, and the agencies' consideration of, and responses to, the comments received.
The ROD is organized' into three distinct sections:
1.
The Declaration section functions as an abstract for the key infonnation contained
in the ROD and is the section of the ROD signed by the EP A Regional Administrator
and the CDPHE Director.
2.
The Decision Summary section provides an overview of the OU9 characteristics, the
alternatives evaluated, and the analysis of those alternatives. The Decision Summary
also identifies the Selected Remedy and explains how the remedy fulfills statutory and
regulatory requirements; and
-------
3.
The Responsiveness Summary section addresses public comments received on the
Proposed Plan, the Residential Soils Feasibility Study, and other information in the
Administrative Record.
'-
2
-------
DECLARA nON
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the Selected Remedy for OU9 within the California Gulch
Superfund Site in Leadville, Colorado. EPA, with the concurrence ofCDPHE, selected the
remedy in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP.
This decision is based on the Administrative Record for OU9 within the California Gulch
Superfund Site. The Administrative Record (on microfilm) and copies of key documents are
available for review at the Lake County Public Library, located at 1115 Harrison Avenue in
Leadville, Colorado, and at the Colorado Mountain College Library, in Leadville, Colorado. The
complete Administrative Record may also be reviewed at the' EP A Superfund Record Center,
located at 999 1811\ Street, 511\ Floor, Nonh Terrace in Denver, Colorado.
The State of Colorado concurs with the Selected Remedy, as indicated by their concurrence letter
dated September 2', 1999.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Soils at the Site have elevated levels of heavy metals as a result of mining and smelting operations
in the Leadville area. Although metals other than lead are not present at concentrations that
present risk, levels of lead, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this
ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The California Gulch Superfund Site is divided into twelve media and geographically-based
operable units (OUs) within the Site. Operable Unit 9, designated as the residential populated
areas, addresses concentrations of lead in soil, dust, paint, and water that exceed a specific set of
trigger criteria. The purpose of this response action is to reduce the risk of lead exposure to
children in LeadviIJe and surrounding areas. Remedial actions taken within OU9 are intended to
be consistent with the remedial action objectives and goals identified for the entire California
Gulch Superfund Site and other OU investigations.
3
-------
The selected remedy for addressing residentiaJ populated areas is the Lake County Community
HeaJth Program (LCCHP), presented in the FinaJ Feasibility Study (ASARCO, 1998) as
Alternative 7. This is similar to the Lead Risk Reduction Program and the Kids First Program,
described in the Consent Decreel. The Kids First Program is currently being implemented. The
Selected Remedy combines blood lead monitoring, education., community awareness, and
residence-specific response actions to reduce the risk oflead exposure to children in Leadville and
sUITounding residential areas. This program will address lead from soil and dust, interior or
exterior paint, leaded plumbing fixtures, and other potential sources beyond an individual
residence.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
An extensive education and intervention program to manage lead exposure at the
site. The education program will focus on raising public awareness about risks
from lead and encourage panicipation in the Lake County Community Health
Program.
.
Continued voluntary blood lead monitoring (with financial incentives, as
appropriate) for all children age 6-72 months and voluntary blood lead monitoring
for pregnant and nursing women.
.
If the concentration of lead in blood of a child or a pregnant or nursing woman
exceeds the blood lead criterion, or if the concentration oflead exceeds a specified set
of trigger criteria for one or more of the environmental media at a residence, then
appropriate actions will be taken to address the exceedance. These trigger criteria are
summarized below:
.
Blood Lead
Soil
Dust
Paint
~ap Water
greater than or equal to)O ~gldL
greater than or equal to 3,500 ppm
greater than or equal to 2.000 ppm
Interior or exterior paint, in poor condition. with the
following lead levels:
greater than or equal to 1 mglcm2
Education
greater than or equal to 6 mglcm2
Active Remediation
greater than or equal to 15 ~gIL
IOn August 25, 1994, a ConsentDcc:rce between the United States, State of Colorado, ASARCO.lnc. (ASARCO) and Rcsum:ction
Mining Company was entered in U.S. District Court in Denver. The Consent Decree defmes areas of responsibility for these two
companies as well as the U.S.
4
-------
.
When one or more of the trigger criteria are exceeded, a range of different response
actions, as provided in the Decision Summary, will be' evaJuated. The most
appropriate response actions will be determined by evaluating the nature and extent
ofthe exceedance, overall protectiveness of the action, compliance with applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements, long-term effectiveness and permanence,
shon -term effectiveness, irnplementability, cost -effectiveness, and community impacts.
Views of the property owner will a150 be considered. No response action will be
conducted without the permission of the property owner.
.
The selected remedy also includes institutional controls, discussed in detail in the
Decision Summary, to ensure effectiveness of the LCCHP and to provide a
notification system for property owners.
.
Since the LCCHP is considered a "pilot project" that involves a number of innovative
approaches, it includes ongoing review to ensure. that the program 1S operating as
intended and that human health is being adequately protected. In addition, the
program will be evaluated by a group of outside scientists. And, as with any remedy
where waste is left in place, EP A will conduct five-year reviews to ensure that the
remedy is protective of human health and the environment. Any problems with the
program will be identified and adjusted as necessary.
STATUTORY DETERMINA nONS
The Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environmenf It complies with federal
and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action and is cost effective. Although this alternative does not satisfy the statutory preference for
a remedy that employs treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants as a
principal element, this remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource
recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Because this decision will result in
hazarQous substances remaining on site, above health-based levels, five-year reviews of this
response action will be required. These reviews will be conducted during site-wide five-year
reviews. The next five-year review is scheduled to be performed not later than February 2001.
~~
Max H. Dodson, Assistant Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency, Region vm
'/,t/9'1
/ I
Date
5
-------
Data Cenification Checklist
The fonowing infonnation is included in the Decision Summary section of this Record of
Decision. Additional infonnation can be found in the Administrative Record file for this site.
.
Chemicals of concern (COCs) and their respective concentrations
Baseline risk represented by the COCs
Cleanup levels established for COCs and the basis for their levels
Current and future land and groundwater use assumptions used in the baseline risk
assessment and ROD
Land and ground-water use that will be available atthe site as a result of the
Selected Remedy
Estimated capital, operation & maintenance (O&M), and total present wonh costs;
discount rate; and the number of years over which the remedy cost estimates are
projected
Decisive factor( s) that led to selecting the remedy
.
.
.
.
6
-------
1
DECISION SUMMARY
7
-------
..
:
TABLE OF CONTENTS .
Section
Title
Plfe
I.
SITENAME,LOCATION,ANDDESCRIPTION ......................9
II.
OPERABLE UNIT AND ENFORCEMENT ACTMTIES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
m.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
v.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
. VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
VII.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
VIII.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
IX.
SUMMARY OF COMP ARATIVE ANALYSIS
OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
x.
SELECTED REMEDY. . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
XII.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . . ... . . . . .. . . .. . . . 36
XIII.
REFERENCES..... . . .. ... ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
APPENDIX A -
SITE LOCATION MAP, FIGURE 1
APPENDIX B-
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX C -
A"PPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS (ARARS)
8
-------
1
DEOSION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
RESIDENTIAL POPULATED AREAS
CALIFORNIA GULCH SUPERFUND SITE
LEADVILLE, COLORADO
l.
SITE NAME, LOCA nON, AND DESCRIPTION
The California Gulch Superfund Site (EPA ID #COD980717938) consists of an approximately
18.5-square-mile area that is pan of the historic Leadville Mining District in Lake County,
Colorado. This site is located in the Colorado Mineral Belt, a highly mineralized area of the
Colorado Rocky Mountains. Ore mining, mineral processing, and smelting activities have
produced lead, zinc, gold, and silver from this world-class mineral deposit for more than 130
years.
The elevation of the California Gulch Site ranges from 9,448 feet at the confluence of Lake Fork
Creek and the Arkansas River at the southwestern boundary of the site to over 12,000 feet above
mean sea level n~r Ball Mountain east of Leadville, Colorado. Two parallel, nonh-south .
oriented mountain ranges, the Sawatch Range on the west and the Mosquito Range on the east,
fonn a long, narrow valley in which the Residential Populated Area is located. Leadville is
located on the eastern side of the valley created by these tWo mountain ranges. The eastern
ponion of the site is composed of the steep foothills of the Mosquito Range. The California
Gulch flows along the southern boundary ofLea~ville, passing to the north of Stringtown. and
then flows west-southwest before entering the Arkansas River near the Lake Fork Trailer Park.
This Record of Decision (ROD) applies to areas of the Site that have been designated as Operable
Unit 9 (OU9) Residential Populated Areas. These areas include ponions of the site where the
land use is residential or that are currently zoned as residential-populated areas and as low-density
residential areas (Appendix A). The selected remedy is necessary to prevent the aCtUal or the
potential release of lead contamination which could impact public health.
n.
OPERABLE UNIT mSTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The California Gulch Superfund Site is located in and around the community of Leadville,
Colorado, about 100 miles southwest of Denver. The Leadville area was the site of extensive
mining, milling, and smelting operations beginning about 1860. Most of the facilities ceased
operations around 1900, although several facilities continued operations into the 1920s (Western
Zinc) and the 1960s (AV Smeher) (Walsh, 1993). Nearly all of the mines within the Site
boundaries are presently inactive, and all of the mills and smelters have been demolished.
9
-------
EP A placed the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 primarily due to concern over
the impact of mine drainage on surface waters in the California Gulch and the Arkansas River.
Subsequent site investigations reveaJed the presence of heavy metals in soils and in waste piles in
and around the current residential and commercial areas of Leadville.
Numerous investigations have been conducted at the Site. These include remedial investigations
conducted by EP A, the State of Colorado, Resurrection and ASARCO beginning as early as
] 986. Remedial investigations included detennination of nature and extent of contamination in
the following media: surface water, groundwater, air, tailings (both fluvial and impounded), waste
rock, slag, and soils. Other remedial investigations which have been conducted include: metals
speciation, aquatic ecosystem, terrestrial ecosystem. and the evaluation of sources of lead in and
around residential homes. Current activities at the Site include completion of feasibility studies
evaluating remedial alternatives, remedial design. and construction.
A summary of enforcement activities at the site includes:
On December 9, 1983, the State of Colorado filed an action for injury, destruction.
or loss of natural resources associated with the release of hazardous substances
and the cost of assessment of such injury from the Yak TUMel and associated mine
workings. The State amended its complaint on April 8, 1985, to include additional
claims for reimbursement of costs incurred and to be incurred in response to the
release or threat of release of hazardous substances at the Yak TUMel, associate
mine workings, California Gulch, and ponions of the Arkansas River.
On August 6, 1986, the United States of America filed an action seeking injunctive
relief for performance of responsibilities consistent with the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) and for reimbursement of costs incurred and to be incurred by the U.S.
in response to the release or threat of release of hazardous substances at the Site.
On February 3, )987, the federal and state actions were consolidated into one
proceeding.
.
Counter-claims were assened for contribution against both the United States and
the State in this consolidated action.
.
On March 9, 1988, EP A issued a ROD selecting the remedial action for the Yak
TUMel Operable Unit. This ROD has subsequently been amended. The
defendants are conducting this' work under a Unilateral Administrative Order
(DAD) issued by EP A.
10
-------
~
.
In response to a release, or a substantial threat of a release, of hazardous
substance(s) at or from the Site, EPA commenced (or administratively ordered
various parties to commence) various remedial investigations and feasibility studies
or other work consistent with the NCP:
.
On September 28, 1990, EP A and the Settling Defendants entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for the perfonnance of soils sampling and
air monitoring.
.
On December 14, 1990, EPA and the Settling Defendants entered into an AOC for
perfonnance of site improvement activities at the Garibaldi Workings, the Nonh
Mike Workings. the Oregon Gulch Tailings Pond, and the Starr Ditch.
.
On August 29, 1991, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) that
required ASARCO to conduct studies and complete Rls related to the foUowing:
Demographics Work Plan~ Final Sampling Plan for Sampling and Analysis of Lead
Occurrence Within and Immediately Adjacent to Residences~ Soil Investigation Work
Plan; Mine Waste Pile Remedial Investigation; Tailing Disposal Area Remedial
Investigation Work Plan and Surface Water, Bed Material and Aquatic Ecosystem
Data Collection Program Work Plan. A First Amendment to this UAO, issued on
October 8, 1991, required ASARCO to conduct and complete the Hydrogeologic
Work Plan. A Second Amendment to the UAO, issued November 21, 1991, required
ASARCO to conduct and complete the Smelter Site Investigation Work Plan. A
Third Amendment to this UAO, issued September 8, 1992, required ASARCO to
conduct and complete the Work Plan for Terrestrial Ecosystems Evaluation. A
Fourth Amendment to this UAO, issued on March 9. 1993, required ASARCO to
conduct and complete the pre-mining Soil Geochemistry Remedial Investigation (RI).
The remaining work perfonned by ASARCO under UAO 91-19, as amended was the
final Rl report for each of the above activities.
.
To date. ASARCO has submitted final RJ repons for Mine Waste, Tailing
Disposal, Surface Water, Terrestrial Ecosystem Evaluation, Smelter Site Remedial
Investigation, Hydrogeologic Remedial Investigation Report, Soil Inventory and
Geology, with Data Amendments, Demographics Data Report, and Data Report
for Lead Occurrence 1nI Adjacent to Residences.
.
On September 10, 1991, EPA issued a UAO that required Resurrection Mining
Company to conduct and complete the final Soils Investigation Work Plan. Field
work under this UAO was completed in summer 1992. Resurrection submitted a
final RJ report to EPA pursuant to this UAO on July 15, 1994.
11
-------
.
On September 12, 1991, EPA and the Hecla Mining Company ("Hecla") entered
into an AOC for preparation of an Engmeering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
("EE/CA") for the StringtownlMaita Gulch Tailings portion of the California
Gulch Superfund Site. Pursuant to this AOC, Hecla was also required to
determine the nature and extent of any releases of the Malta Gulch Tailings and
any appropriate response activities to address such releases. On January 6, 1993, a
, Partial Consent Decree between the United States and Hecla was entered by this
Court. A final EEICA was issued on August 2, 1993, for public review and
comment.
.
. On December 3, 1992, EP A and The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad
Company ("D&RG") entered into an AOC for the performance of a remedial
investigation/feasibility study on lead slag piles and performance of specified
studies on one zinc pile at the California Gulch Superfund Site. D&RG submined
the "Final RI Repon for Lead Slag Pile Remedial Investigation " to EP A on
December 4, 1993, and submined a "Final linc Slag Pile Remedial Investigation"
to EPA on December 11, 1993.' .
.
On September 24, 1992, EP A entered into an AOC with ASARCO and
Resurrection for performance of a metals speciation program. The Metals
Speciation Data Report was issued in September, 1994 and updated in May 1996.
.
A consent decree between the United States and D&RG was lodged with the
Court on September 15, 1993, and entered on December 15, 1993. Pursuant to
the terms of this decree, D&RG paid a ponion of the United States' response costs
and agreed to conduct the remedial actions at the slag piles and railroad yard and
easement known as OU3 (D&RG Slag PileslRailroad EasementlRailroad Yard).
.
A proposed consent decree between the United States and Hecla addressing the
Malta Gulch tailings and Hecla's claims against the United States was lodged with
the Court in April 1994.
.
A partial Consent Decree among the United States, the State, and the Senling
Defendants settling the U.S. and the State's claim for their past response costs
incurred prior to February 1, 1991, and February 1, 1992, respectively, was
entered by the Court on September 4, 1993.
.
On August 25, 1994, a Consent Decree with ASARCO and Resurrection was
entered in U.S. District County in Denver. The Consent Decree defined areas of
responsibility for these two companies as well as the U.S. Government.
12
-------
1
t\ summary of interim actions at the site includes:
An Engineering Evaluation/Cost AnaJysis work plan was prepared in November 1994 (ASARCO,
1994) to evaJuate lead concentrations in soils within parks and playground areas in OU9. Based
on the finding that soils at aJl identified play areas were below the trigger level of 3 500 ppm lead,
EPA approved no further action for the areas addressed by the work plan. Subsequently, one
additional play area was identified on East 6fh Street at St. Patrick Street. Soils at tlUs play area
exceeded 3500ppm lead in soil so this area requires remediation. Contaminated soils will be
excavated, disposed in a suitable repository, and replaced with clean till.
An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis was prepared in 1995 (ASARCO, 1995) to evaluate
removal action alternatives for 38 mine waste piles identified in the populated areas of eastern
Leadville, within OU9, in accordance with the ASARCO Work Management Plan (W AMP)
(Appendix B to the Consent Decree). An Action Memorandum issued by the EPA in August
1996 selected a non-time-critical removal action requiring the removal of 14 piles with surface
lead concentrations greater than 3,500ppm. Removal of these piles prevents direct exposure to
high lead concentrations and protects.surface water by removing the potential for transport of
metals away from the source area and, therefore, reduce metals impact to surface water or other
areas. Implementation of this removal action began in 1997 with the removal of four mine waste
piles. The removal of the remaining ten mine waste piles is scheduled for 1999. The selected
removal action is consistent with the performance of the finaJ remedial action selected for OU9
and will be considered as the final remedy for mine waste piles within OU9 when complete.
The Kids First Program is an interim response program designed to address sources of
environmental lead at individual residential properties within OU9 (Woodward Clyde Consultants,
1994). The program has been implemented by ASARCO, with assistance from Lake County,
since 1995. Trus voluntary program targets households with cruldren under 6 years old and
includes blood lead monitoring, testing of potential environmental sources of lead, and, when
necessary, the. development and implementation of risk-based response actions to reduce
significant lead risks in and aro.und the home. Lake County performs the blood lead monitoring
and some education components of the program. Since 1995, soil remediation has been
performed at 37 properties in accordance with Action Memorandums prepared for each property. .
In addition, dust abatement has been.performed at 16 properties, paint remediation performed at 6
properties and drinking water addressed at 2 properties. All actions and no-action determinations
have been developed and approved by the IGds First work group and accepted by the property
owner. All interim response actions for paint, drinking water, and soil perfonned under the IGds
First Program are consi.dered consistent with the final remedial action selected for OU9.
13
-------
m
IDGHLIGBTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout EP A's work at the California Gulch Superfund Site, contact with members of the
community has been maintained through public and neighborhood meetings, open houses,
briefings for local officials, press releases, fact sheets, and other informal communication. EP A
and the other parties involved in the Superfund project have also established local offices in
Leadville so the community can speak directly with the project representatives.
Community groups are an important component of the community relations effort at the
California Gulch Superfund Site. The Lake County EnvironmentaJ Task Force (LCETF) is an
open membership group of individuals interested in environmental issues in the Lake County area.
The LCETF obtained a $50,000 technical assistance grant trom EPA that enables the group to
hire consultants and technical experts. These expens comment on technical documents and
evaluate the scientific data on the Site for the community.
EP A's community relations activities at the Site i~cluded a series of risk assessment workshops
conducted for community leaders and health professionals. In addition, a lead awareness
program was begun in February 1990 to teach parents and children about the hazards ofJead.
,
Several groups have formed as a result of the Superfund activities in LeadviUe. These groups
provide opponunities for the citizens to take an active role in the consultation and decision-
making process for the Site. A brief description of each of these groups is provided below.
t
.
Technical Assistance Committee. The Technical Assistance Committee (T AC)
was formed in 1991 and provides a forum for community representatives,
companies working at the site, EP A, the State of Colorado, and their technical
expens to discuss and evaluate the technical issues related to the Site. T AC
meetings are open to the public and are held in LeadviUe and Denver. Any T AC
member may call a meeting and prepare an agenda for discussion. Minutes from
the T AC meetings are made a part of the Administrative Record for the Site.
.
Site Activities Coordinating Committee. The Consent Decree between the
responsible parties at the Site recognized that different groups would be working
on various remediation projects at the same time. The panies doing remediation
want to ensure that their work does not interfere with the numerous civic and
tourism events in town. In order to coordinate these work effons with civic
events, a Site Activities Coordinating Committee (SACC) was formed. The
members of the committee meet with representatives from the City and County
monthly (or as-needed) to coordinate all on-going and pending Site activities and
to minimize disruption to the community.
14
-------
.
Kids Fint Work Group. The Kids First Work Group, fonned in 1994, provides
direction for the Kids First Program. Public health officials and representatives of
the City of Leadville, Lake County, State of Colorado, ASARCO, and EPA each
have membership in the Kids First Work Group. The Work Group oversees the
development of informational materials and plans, and monitors and evaluates the
progress of activities being implemented under the Kids First Program.
Extensive outreach efforts by both the Lake County Health Department and ASARCO have
played a key role in the implementation of the Kids First Program. The program began with a
public meeting on May 25, 1995. Newspaper advertising introduced the program and continues
with weekly lead education "tips" for residents and encouragement for blood lead testing of
children under 72 months and pregnant/nursing women. lnformation to promote safe remodeling
tips is displayed at local hardware stor:es. Door to door contacts were made to recruit families in
areas with soil lead concentrations estimated at or above 3,500 ppm in 1995, 1996 and 1997.
Presentations have been made to community groups to explain the Kids First Program.
Educational sessions have also been conducted at public daycare centers, private licensed day care
centers and at the elementary school. Periodic updates continue at these facilities and educational
brochures are available both for the child-care providers and the families they serve. The program
has also worked with other preschool groups to combine efforts. The Health Department works
with the immunization program and the Head Start and Women. Infants and Children (WlC)
organizations to recruit children for blood lead testing. Reminder cards are mailed to families to
encourage annual blood lead screening. .
The LCCHP will continue similar outreach efforts and may pursue alternate outreach approaches
as new ideas develop or as needed to maintain awareness and participation.
AU of the information upon which selection of this remedy is based is included in the
Administrative Record. The Administrative Record is available for review at both the Lake
County Public Library and the Colorado Mountain College Library in Leadville and at the EP A
Superfund Records Center in Denver.
The public reviewed the Proposed Plan associated with this ROD. Public comments and EPA's
responses are included as Attachment A.
15
-------
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
The California Gulch Superfund Site is divided into tWelve media and geographically-based
operable units (OUs) within the Site. These OU's are designated as:
OU1 - Yak TunnellWater Treatment Plant
OU2 - Malta Gulch Fluvial TailinglLeadviUe Corporation MiUIMalta Gulch Tailing
OU3 - Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Slag PileslRailroad EasementlRailroad Yard
OU4 - Upper California Gulch
OU5 - ASARCO SmelterslSlaglMill Sites
OU6 - Starr DitchlPenrose Dump/Stray Horse Gulch/Evans Gulch
OU7 - Apache Tailing Impoundments
OU8 - Lower California Gulch
OU9 - Residential Populated Areas
OU I 0 - Oregon Gulch
OU 1 I - Arkansas River VaUey Floodplain
OU12 - Site Water Quality
This Selected Remedy for OU9 addresses concentrations .of lead in soil, dust, paint and water that
exceed a specified set of trigger criteria. Exceedance of these criteria could pose a threat to
human health, specificaUy in children age 0-72 months. The purpose of this response'is to reduce
the risk of lead exposure to children in Leadville and surrounding areas. Remedial actions
undertaken within OU9 are intended to be consistent with the remedial action objectives and goals
identified for the entire California Gulch Superfund Site and other OU investigations.
This decision document makes 00 determination on whether surface water or groundwater within
OU9 requires remediation. Pursuant to the August 25, 1994 Consent Decree at this Site, it was
agreed that the decision on remediation of surface water and groundwater site-wide (Operable
Unit 12) would be made onJy after records of decision for source remediation were selected and
implemented at each operable unit. As a result, specific water quality goals for surface streams
and groundwater have not been established at this time.
16
-------
v.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
1. aim.le and MeteoroloeY
The Leadvi11e area has an alpine climate that is of the semi-arid, continental type. The average
annual precipitation is 17.53 inches with the wettest months being July and August and driest
months being December and January. The normal temperature extremes range from 86°F to
-30°F with an average annual air temperature of36.rF. The lowest temperatures occur in
January, and the highest temperatures ar,e in July and August. Based on RI data, the maximum
hourly average wind speed ranges from a minimum of9 miles per hour (mph) in October to a
maximum of 20.4 mph occurring in December; however, wind gusts in excess of 50 mph do
occur. Wind is predominantly from the northwest.
2.
Surface Water Hvdrolo2V
The California Gulch drains approximately 7,400 acres of watershed into the Arkansas River.
The main stream of the Gulch receives water from several ephemeral drainages that include Stray
Horse Gulch, Starr Ditch, Upper California Gulch, Oregon Gulch, Georgia Gulch, and Pawnee
Gulch (CH2M Hill, 1987). Discharges are also received from the Yak Tunnel through the Yak
Water Treatment Plant, and from the Leadville Sewage Treatment Plant.
3.
Geolo2V
The geology of the Leadville Mining District and surrounding area is complex and weD
documented. The elevations in the study area range trom 9,350 feet at the lower Arkansas River
floodplain to over 14,000 feet at the eastern edge of the Leadville Mining District drainage (crest
of the Mosquito Range). In general. the topography is rugged on the western slope of the
Mosquito Range. Timberline is approximately I 1,850 feet. The region bears the
geomorphological features resulting from Pleistocene glacial activity.
Bedrock in the Leadville area consists of Precambrian granite and metamorphic rocks overlain by
quanzite, limestone, dolostone, siltstone, sandstone, and shale of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and
Cenozoic age. Intrusive rocks include porphyry dikes and siUs of T eniary age. The upper
Cambrian Sawatch quartzite unconformable overlies the Precambrian rocks. This quartzite is
approximately 60 feet thick. It is overlain by 45 feet ofshaley beds of late Cambrian Peerless
formation. Ordovician age Manitou Dolomite uncomformably overlays the Peerless formation.
Above this is the Devonian Chaffee formation. These rocks are exposed in the upper reaches of
the Mosquito Range as weU as in the hi11s east of LeadviUe. The LeadviUe limestone (dolomite) of
Mississippian age is exposed in LeadviUe and along some sections ofJower California Gulch.
17
-------
A system of major and minor faults cause significant displacement (100 to 1,000 feet) and
fracturing of bedrock in the area. Faults in the bedrock are generaUy high-angle northerly-striking
fracture zones. Blocks of bedrock betWeen major faults are commonly broken by numerous
minor faults and fissures (Emmons et aI., 1927). The Pendery Fault marks the boundary betWeen
upper and lower California Gulch. The Pendery Fault, wruch trends north-south across California
Gulch, has caused the lower gulch to be filled with trucker deposits of alluvium. These alluvial
deposits are interspersed with thin, interglacial, silty clay lake bed deposits.
The Leadville area is underlain by alluvial deposits and unconsolidated glacial outWash materials
of Pleistocene age. These materials include porphyry, rhyolite, granite, and other igneous rocks.
quanzite, dolomite, limestone, and sandstone. These materials were transported and redeposited
by glacial and fluvial processes. The vertical and lateral extent of these alluvial deposits is not
well defined. The Arkansas River Valley is composed of Holocene stream terrace. stream
channel, and flood plain deposits.
4.
Bvdr02eolo2V
Groundwater in the Leadville Mining District occurs in both bedrock and alluvial aquifers. The
bedrock aquifer consists of Precambrian grarnte overlain by quartzite, porphyry dikes, sandstone,
dolostone, and limestone of Paleozoic age. Groundwater movement is facilitated by penneable
highJy-fractured zones adjacent to major interconnections minor faults, intergranular rock
porosity, and mine workings. Penneability is generally low.
Groundwater in the alluvial aquifer is contained in Tertiary and Quaternary lake bed, glacial
outwash deposits, and stream and terrace deposits. The alluvial aquifer occurs in two
stratigrapruc units, an upper urnt and a lower unit. The alluvial deposits are considered to be
hydraulically connected with the bedrock aquifer through contact, faulting, fTacturing, and
extensive mining activities. . Recharge to the bedrock and alluvial aquifers results from infiltration
of precipitation and surface water.
5.
Land Use and Demoeraphv
The California Gulch Superfund Site, including the town of Leadville, is located in Lake County,
Colorado. Lake County is a relatively small (380 square miles), predorrrinantly rural county with
a 1990 population of 6,007 (U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, 1990). Persons residing within the
Leadville city limits account for approximately half of the county's total population.
The population of Lake County has fluctuated with the mirnng industry. Population peaked at
18,054 in 1890, declined to below 7,000 in 1920, and remained generally at that level until 1960.
18
-------
During the years between 1960 and 1981, population graduaUy increased to approximately 9,000
and then declined throughout the 1980s. The closure of AMAX's Climax molybdenum mine in
1981 and its reduced level of operations upon reopening were major factors contribUting to the
decline. Leadville's population trends have been similar to those of Lake County.
Approximately tWo-thirds of the land in Lake County is federaUy owned. Most of the federal land
is within the San Isabel'National Forest, with the Bureau of Land Management managing most of
the remainder. However, most land in the Leadville Mining District is privately owned.
Land uses surrounding California Gulch are predominantly mining, commercial. and residential. A
small area of rangeland in the Leadville area is directly upstream from the confluence of California
Gulch and the Arkansas River.
Human receptors, potentially exposed to Site contaminants, include the residential population.
RecreationaVcommercial exposures in OU9 have been determined to be insignificant (WESTON.
1996c).
6.
Results of the Remedial Investieations
Soils are the primary pathway of exposure to the residential population at the site. Lead has been.
deternUned to be the only contaminant of concern in OU9. This discussion will focus on soils in
the 0- to 6-inch depth interval on which the risk assessment is based.
The extreme heterogeneity of surface soils (0- to I-inch) in Leadville and Stringtown is also
characteristic of soil lead concentrations in the 0- to 6-inch near-surface composite soils found in
the Leadville and Stringtown communities and in the Lake Fork Trailer Park (Figure 2). This'
. variability in lead concentrations can be anributed to the fact that these soils have been impacted
to varying degrees by historical smelter emissions and mining wastes.
In all soils, the lead concentrations typically decrease with soil depth (Walsh, 1992a). However,
lead concentrations in deep disturbed soils that are higher than the concentrations in the overlying
disturbed surface soil have been reponed in some locations (CDM, 1994; Walsh, 1993). This is
most likely due to the intermixing of soils with mine wastes of highly variable lead content. The
lead concentrations in surface soils and the concentrations of lead at specific soil depth intervals
are discussed in the Soils Investigation and Mapping Report (Walsh, 1992a). There is a lead
concentration gradient observed in near-surface soil within Leadville that has an east-west
orientation, with the maximum lead concentrations appearing in the east, due to historical mining
activities, and dropping in.the westWard direction.
19
-------
The old Downtown Leadville Mining District (Emmons, 1907) located in the eastern part of
Leadville, was found to contain the highest lead concentrations. The soil-lead concentrations in
this area and in the southeastern part of Leadville are likely to exceed 3,500 ppm. Soil-lead
concentrations are also likely higher in StringtOWJ1, where lead concentrations in the 0- to 6-inch
depth interval typically range from 2,000 ppm to greater than 3,500 ppm. In addition, some areas
at the nonh and south ends of the Lake Fork Trailer Park are likely to contain soil with elevated
lead concentrations.
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
During the soils remedial investigation, a baseline human health risk assessment was performed to
estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse human health and environmental
effects from exposure to hazardous substances associated with the Site. The human health risk
assessment foHowed a four-step process:
1.
Contaminant Identification, which identified those hazardous substances of
potential health concern;
2.
Exposure Assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways
(routes where people contact the chemicals), characterized the potentially exposed
. populations, and detennined the extent of possible exposure;
3.
Toxicity Assessment, which considered the types and magnitude of adverse health
effects associated with varying amounts of the hazardous substances of concern;
and,
4.
Risk Characterization, which integrated the three preyjous steps to summarize
the actual current and future potential risks posed by exposure to hazardous
substances at the Site.
. .
Pan A of the human health risk assessment (WESTON, 1996a) examined risks to residents from
lead, focusing specifically on risks to young children (age 0 to 6 years). Children were selected as
the focus of this risk assessment because children typically have higher intake rates per unit body
weight of enyjronmental media than adults, children tend to absorb a higher fraction of ingested
lead from the gastrointestinal tract than do adults, and children tend to be more susceptible to
some of the adverse effects of lead than adults (especially impairment of the nelVous system).
Pan B of the human health risk assessment (WESTON, 1996b) concluded that there are no
locations on site where antimony, barium, cadmium, beryllium, chromium, copper, mercury,
nickel, silver, thallium, or zinc are of significant concern in soil. The risk assessment also
20
-------
concluded that based on the fact that risk exceedances are smaU for arsenic and manganese and
occur only in the most conservative risk calculations, combined with the recognition that the
assumed uptake (bioavailability) of metals used in the calculations may be higher than aCtUal, that
non-lead metals (including arsenic and manganese) in surface soils do not pose a sisnificant health
risk to residents. Thus, the only contaminant of concern is lead.
Risk Assessment Approach for Lead
The risk assessment for lead was supported by a large body of site-specific data that included not
only extensive measurements of lead in soil and dust in residential locations, but also an extensive
demographics survey~ data on lead levels in water and paint (both interior and exterior), data on
the physical and chemical fonns oflead at various locations around the community, and an
infonnative community-wide blood lead study involving 314 children ( about 65% of the total
population of children at the site). These data were used to. support two parallel lines of
investigation and assessment. The first of these employed EPA's Integrated Exposure Uptake and
Biokinetic (IEUBK) model to calculate the expected impact oflead levels in soil and dust on
blood lead levels in area children. The second approach compared the measured blood lead
values in area children with relevant national blood lead statistics in order to help evaluate the
current effects of actual site exposure to lead.
The main findings of the lead risk assessment for residential children are summarized below:
1.
In 1991, geometric mean blood lead levels in children living within the site boundaries
were typically around 5-6J.LgldL, which was about 1-1.5 J.LgldL higher than reported
geometric mean values for children of similar age and sex living in other areas across the'
nation.
2.
In 1991, the site-wide trequency of children exceeding the CDC's health-based blood lead
target of 10 J.lgldL was about 8%, which is slightly higher than the target of no more than
5% above 10 J.LgldL. This was indicative of a situation which exceeded EP A's goal of no
individual child or group of similarly exposed children having a greater than 5% chance of
exceeding a blood lead level of 10 J.LgldL. In some sub-areas of the site, the risk of
exceeding 10 J.LgldL appeared to be substantially higher (10%-25%) than the site-wide
average. Additional blood lead data collected by county health agency trom more than
1 00 children per year for each year between 1991 and the present suggests that the
incidence of children in the community with blood lead levels above 10 J.LgldL is
continuing to fluctuate betWeen 6% and 9%. .
3.
There is a statistically significant correlation between lead levels ranging trom 3,000ppm
to 3,500 ppm in soil and dust and elevated blood lead levels in children.
21
-------
YD.
~.
4:
Both interior and exterior leaded paint contribute to risk of elevated blood lead levels in
children, mainly by adding to the concentration of lead in soil and/or dust in those homes
where lead-based paint is a potential source of lead exposure.
5.
The results of the IEUBK model run using defauJt soiJ and dust ingestion rates predicted
blood lead levels that were higher than observed. It was concluded that soiJ and dust
ingestion rates in dus community were probably somewhat lower than the national average
values, possibly because the ground is &ozen or snow-covered approximately eight months
out of the year. Local effons to mirnmize lead exposure through an extensive education and
intervention program might also explain some of the variation in predicted versus currently
observed blood lead levels.
6.
Based on the analyses conducted, the risk assessment reached the conclusion that soiJ lead
is a relatively minor source of exposure at locations where lead levels were less than about
1,000 ppm. Exposure via soil probably did not become a dominant source of exposure until
lead levels were above the range from 3,000ppm to 3,500 ppm. Other sources of lead
contributing to current exposure included interior and exterior paint and indoor dust. Lead
levels in the water supplied by the murncipal water system are not of concern, but lead levels
in some portions of the shallow aquifer are high enough that it would not be safe to use that
groundwater as a routine source of drinking water.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
EPA guidance (EPA 1994) statesthat EPA should:
.. .limit exposure to soil lead levels such that a typical (or hypothetical) [potentially
exposed] child or group of similarly exposed cruldren would have an estimated risk
of no more than 5% of exceeding the] 0 ~gldL blood lead level.
In accordance with this policy recommendation, the Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) at this
Operable Urnt agreed to in the Consent Decree (U.S. District Court, ]994) are as follows:
.
.
RAO-]: "No more than five percent of all children (age 0 to 72 months) who live at this site,
either now or in the future, wi)) have blood lead values tUgher than 1 0 ~gldL blood lead
level. "
RAO-2: "Health will be adequately protected if the highest risk level at any sub-location (e.g.,
a yard or home) is a probability no higher than one percent that a population of children (age
o to 72 months) residing at that sub-Io.cation wi)) exceed a blood lead value of 15 ~gldL."
22
-------
RAO-1 and RAO-2 were used to guide the risk management process for OU9 - Based upon the
Part A human health risk assessment (WESTON 1996a), which considered both measured and
predicted blood lead levels, it was determined that RAO-1 and RAO-2 may not be satisfied unless
remedial actions are implemented to reduce exposure and risk. Accordingly, a Feasibility Study
(FS) was conducted to develop and evaluate appropriate remedial action alternatives.
The FS then added the following additional RAO:
.
Reduce the direct exposure oflead incurred by children, which will result in optimal risk
reduction through effective use of resources.
VID. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A Screening Feasibility Study (SFS) was prepared by EPA, for the purpose of identifying and
screerung potentially applicable technologies, as well as general remedial alternatives for each
source. Potential technologies/process options were screened on the basis of effectiveness to
achieve remedial objectives, tecluUcal and administrative feasibility, and cost. Those technologies
or process options that were retained are: no action. deed restrictions, fencing and posted
warnings during construction, infonnation and educational programs, diversion ditches,
channelization, in-site rruxing, revegetation, simple cover, mechanical excavation, truck hauling.
on-site repository, and on-site consolidation. An additional remedial alternative, the Lake County
Community Health Program (LCCHP), proposed by Lake County, was also retained for
consideration in the Feasibility Study. Two options were elirrunated in the initial screening
analysis. These were soil washing and in situ stabilization. Soil washing was not retained as an
option because implementation time would be lengthy, and capital and operation/maintenance
costs would be high. In situ stabilization was not retained as an option because of high capital
and high operation/maintenance costs.
Seven remedial alternatives were analyzed for OU9 (ASARCO, 1998). A description of each of
these alternatives is provided below. In each case, 12 years of implementation was identified to
simplify cost comparison between alternatives. The discount rate is equivalent to the rate of
escalation of future costs, or the inflation rate. It is anticipated that most of the expense will
occur in the first twelve years. In each case (with the exception of No Action) the remedy will be
implemented until perfonnance standards have been satisfied. The duration of a remedy may
exceed 12 years in order to meet perfonnance standards. For example, institutional controls
would be on-going-
Alternative 1: No AcrION.
23
-------
Capital Cost: SO
Operation & Maintenance:
Years of Implementation:
SO
None
The Superfund program requires that the "no action" alternative be evaluated to establish a
baseline for comparison. Under this alternative, EP A would take no further action at the Site to
reduce the risk of exposure to lead.
Alternative 2:. INsTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
Capital Cost: $128.940
Operation & Maintenance:
Years of Implementation:
$0
12
Institutional controls (lCs) may include zoning/deed restrictions, permitting requirements,
temporary access restrictions, and community awareness education. Deed restrictions could
legally limit or prohibit future land use in the source area. ICs alone may be an appropriate
remedial action alternative for some residential area soils source sites. This alternative may also
be an element of other alternatives; if so, temporary access restriction such as fencing and posted
warnings would only be used to physically control access to the residential area soils during
construction activities.
Alternative 3: CONTAINMENT (SURFACE WATER CO~OL)/lCs
Capital Cost: $432.180
Operation & Maintenance:
Years of Implementation:
$187,020
12, or until perfonnance standards are achieved
Alternative 3 for the residential area soils includes the ICs described in Alternative 2 combined
with surface water containment. The containment component ofthis alternative includes surface
water control methods such as diversion ditches and culvens. The diversion ditches would be
constructed to diven surface water flow and run-on away iTom and around the source areas.
Covered culverts would be constructed to conduct surface water flow through more populated
areas. These controls would reduce the potential for transpon of metal~ away from the source
area and, therefore, reduce metals impacts to surface water or other areas. Operation and
maintenance requirements would include maintenance of ditches and culvens, modification of
deeds, permit processing, and educational activities.
24
-------
Alternative 4: CONTAINMENT (SOURCE SURFACE CONTROL)/ICS
Capital Cost: $868,640
Operation & Maintenance:
Years of Implementation:
$308,220
12, or until performance standards are achieved
This alternative includes the ICs described in Alternative 2 combined with methods for source
surface containment. The containment component of this alternative would be based on source
surface control options including soil covers, in situ mixing, and revegetation. Soil cover involves
adding additional fill to isolate the impacted surface soil. In situ mixing involves tilling surface
soiJ with deeper soil to reduce surface soil lead concentrations to acceptable levels. Revegetation
involves planting appropriate cover vegetation to lessen infiltration, leaching, and erosion.
Operation and maintenance requirements would incJude maintenance of vegetation, ditches and
culverts, modification of deeds, permit processing, and educational activities.
Alternative 5: CONTAINMENT (SURFACE WATER CONTROL, SOURCE SURFACE
CONTROL)IICs
Capital Cost: $1,291,450
Operation ~ Maintenance:
Years of Implementation:
$308,220
12, or until performance standards are achieved
Alternative 5 for the residential area soils sources includes the ICs described in Alternative 2 .'
combined with containment of both surface water and source surfaces. Surface water control
may be implemented through diversion ditches and culverts as discussed in Alternative 3. The
source surface control element of containment involves in situ mixing, revegetation, or a soil
cover as discussed in Alternative 4. Operation and maintenance requirements would include
maintenance of vegetation, ditches and culverts, modification of deeds, permit processing, and
educational activities.
Alternative 6: REMOV ALffRANSPORT A TIONlDlSPOSALIICs
Capital Cost: $6,029,894
Operation & Maintenance:
Years of Implementation:
$281,760
12, or until performance standards are achieved
This alternative includes the ICs described in Alternative 2 combined with removal, transport, and
disposal of residential area soils where mean lead levels are greater than 3,500. The residential
area soils would be excavated by hand with the aid of small conventional earth-moving equipment
and replaced with clean fiJl. Excavated materials would be hauled by truck to an on-site
25
-------
repository, consolidated in an existing on-site tailings pile, or removed to some other designated
area. Upgradient areas might also require remediation to prevent re-contamination. Operation
and maintenance requirements would include maintenance of vegetation, ditches and culvens, and
educational activities.
Alternative 7:
LAKE COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAM
(Selected Alternative)
Capital Cost: $3,] 06,800
Operation & Maintenance:
Years of Implementation:
$1,732,450 "
12, or until perfonnance standards are
achieved
Alternative 7 is implementation of the Lake County Community Health Program (LCCHP). The
program combines blood lead monitoring, education, community awareness, and residence-
specific response actions to reduce lead exposure to children in LeadvilJe and surrounding areas.
This program will address lead from soil and dust, interior and exterior paint, leaded plumbing
fixtures, and other potential sources beyond an individual residence. Alternative 7 wilt also
include institutional controls to ensure effectiveness of the LCCHP. Operation and maintenance
activities would include LCCHP administration and the blood lead monitoring" program.
IX.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The following section of the ROD compares the selected alternative and the other alternatives
using the nine evaluation criteria as described in the Feasibility Study (ASARCO, 1998).
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 7 will provide the most comprehensive protection of human health and the
environment from lead, since it addresses not onJy lead in soil but also lead in other sources such
as dust, interior and exterior paint, and drinking water. Alternatives 5 and 6 provide less
protection since they do not address all lead sources. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide fair protection
since they address surface water contamination, but do not address multiple sources oflead.
Alternative 2 would provide fair to poor protection. Institutional controls may be sufficient in
some cases to protect human health, but this alternative would not manage surface water.
Alternative 1 provides no protection. .
26
-------
i
ComDliance with ARARs
Applicable requirements are defined by the NCP as those cleanup standards, standards of control,
and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria. or limitations promulgated
under federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant,
remedial action, location, or other circumstances at a site. It should be noted that while a
requirement may not be applicable as a matter oflaw, a requirement may still be "relevant and
appropriate" if it regulates or addresses problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the subject site that its use is well-suited to the panicular site. ARARs are
grouped into three categories: chemical-specific, action-specific and location-specific. Alternative
1 does not satisfy selected ARARs except in areas with an acceptably low risk for lead exposure.
Location-specific ARARs would be addressed under Alternative 2. Institutional controls would
provide some protection to the community from direct exposure. Under Alternatives 3. location- I
specifi'c and chemical-specific ARARs would not be addressed where sources remain in their
existing condition. Action-specific ARARs would be partially satisfied through storm water
controls. For alternative 4, chemical-specific and location-specific ARARs would be addressed.
Action-specific ARARs would be partially addressed except for storm water control. Alternatives
5,6, and 7 would comply with all ARARs.
Lomz- T erm Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 does not reduce residential risk, while Alternative 2 could be somewhat effective by
controllingl1imiting future use. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 provide a moderate degree ofJong-term
effectiveness, but recontamination is likely and these alternatives do not address all lead sources.
Alternative 6 would provide the highest degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence for
soils; however, it does not address other potential lead sources and would require long-term
operation and maintenance of an on-site repository. Alternative 7 would provide long-term
effectiveness for many lead sources.
Reduction ofToxicitv. Mobilitv. or Volume Throu2h Treatment
None of the alternatives reduce toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment. .
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 has no short-term effectiveness. Alternative 2 would be somewhat effective by
controlling use of some source areas. Alternative 3 could have good short-term effectiveness in
reducing the potentia) for surface water impacts. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 pose higher relative
27
-------
short-term risks to residents and workers compared to other alternatives by virtue of disturbing
contaminated surface soils. Alternative 7 would have the greatest overall short-term
effectiveness by prioritizing intervention and remediation in cases of children with elevated blood
lead levels coupled with proactive identification and abatement of the most significant sources of
lead exposure in residential areas.
Imolementabilitv
Alternative 1 does not require implementation. Community Protective Measures (Alternative 2)
would be easy to implement; however, the administrative aspects such as deed restrictions could
pose difficulties in enforcement. Alternative 3 would be relatively simple to implement since most
of the surface water controls could be implemented on public land or easements. Alternatives 4
and 5 would be relatively easy to implement except for access and space limitations. Alternative 6
would be difficult to implement due to space constrictions in most residential yards. Alternative 7
could be more easily implemented because the framework for the Lake County Community
Health Program (LCCHP) is currently in place, a trust fund has been established to pay for its
operation, and the implementation would be an extension of the current Kids First Program.
Cost
Alternative 1 has no associated cost. Alternatives 2 and 3 have a relatively low cost, but do not
satisfy the remedial objective. Alternatives 4 and 5 are moderately priced, but do not satisfy the
remedial objective. Alternative 6 is the highest cost alternative, but does not address all the
sources oflead. Alternative 7 would satisfy the remedial objective at a moderate cost as
compared to other alternatives.
Support Agencv Acceotance
The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment has panicipated in the decision-
making process and concurs with the implementatjon of Alternative 7 since residential soBs and
additional sources oflead would be controlled.
CommunitY Acceotance
Based on public comments received on the LCCHP proposal, the Community appears to accept
the preferred aJternative. (See Appendix B for public comments and EP A's responses.)
Alternative 7 (LCCHP) has the support of Lake County public health officials and the CDPHE, as
well as elected representatives trom both the City of Leadville and Lake County. Community
participation in, and strong support for the Kids First Program also indicates community
acceptance.
28
-------
x.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of CERCLA requirements, the detajled analysis of alternatives and
public comments, EP A has determined that the LCCHP alternative presented in the Final
Feasibility Study (ASARCO, 1998), as modified below, is the appropriate remedy for residential
populated areas in OU9.
Alternative 7: Lake County Community Health Prol!ram
Description
AJtemative 7, the LCCHP (similar to the Lead Risk Reduction Program defined in the W AMP
[ASARCO 1994]), integrates a variety of lead intervention methods. The LCCHP combines
blood lead monitoring, education, community awareness, and residence-specific response actions
to reduce the risk of lead exposure to children in Leadville and surrounding residential areas. This
program will address lead ITom soil and dust, interior and exterior paint, leaded plumbing fixtures,
and other potential sources beyond an individual residence.
An extensive education and intervention program to manage lead exposure at the site is an
integral pan of the remedy. The education program will focus on raising public awareness about
risks from lead and encourage panicipation in the Lake County Community Health Program.
Education will include individual face-to-face consultations with residents and customized
recommendations for specific actions that will reduce the r~sidents' risk to lead exposure. The
recommendations made to each resident are based on the results of environmental lead sampling
at their homes and specific information collected by the program about their daily habits and
activities. Follow-up education, consultation, and intervention will continue to be provided to
families with young children by the Lake County Health Depanment through their blood-lead
monitoring program, Women, Infants, and Children (WI C) program and Head Stan.
Residential property owners within OU9 may request an investigation of lead levels in soil, dust,
paint and water on the property. Propeny owners may request a re-investigation if conditions
change.
The LCCHP includes voluntary blood lead monitoring (with financial incentives, as appropriate)
for all children age 6-72 months and voluntary blood lead monitoring for pregnant and nursing
women.
If the concentration of lead in blood of a child or for a pregnant or nursing woman exceeds the
blood lead criterion, or if the concentration of lead exceeds a specified set of trigger criteria for
29
-------
one or more of the environmental media at a residence, then appropriate actions will be taken to
address the exceedance. The trigger criteria were selected by considering the initial triggers used
for the Kids First Program in addition to new information obtained through the baseline human
health risk assessment. These trigger criteria are summarized below:
Blood Lead
Soil
Dust
Paint
greater than or equal to 10 micrograms/deciliter
greater than or equal to 3,500 parts per million
greater than or equal to 2,000 parts per million
Interior or exterior paint, in poor condition, with the following lead levels:
greater than or equal to I milligram/centimeter - Education
greater than or equal to 6 milligram/centimeter - Active Remediation
greater than or equal to 15 microgramslliter
Tap Water
When one or more of the trigger criteria are exceeded, a work group will evaluate a range of
different response actions. The work group, to be established and managed by Lake County, will
evaluate all envirorunental and blood lead data for a property and provide opinions on
appropriate response actions. Membership of the work group will include representatives of Lake
County, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Envirorunent, and ASARCO. The .
opinions of the work group, as approved by EP A, shall constitute the response action under
CERCLA.
The most appropriate response actions will be determined by evaluating the nature and extent of
the exceedance, overall protectiveness of the action, compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements, long-term effectiveness and permanence, shon-term effectiveness,
implementability, cost effectiveness, and community impacts. The work group also will consider
the views of the property owner. No response action will be taken without the permission of the
propeny owner. An extensive education and intervention program to manage lead exposure at
the site will be an integral component of each action considered.
The selected Remedy also includes the following institutional controls, to be developed during
design of the remedy, to ensure effectiveness of the LCCHP. ASARCO and Lake County will be
responsible for implementing and maintaining these institutional controls.
l.
The creation of an overlay district to provide notificatiol1 and information regarding
the LCCHP, including requirements that specify excavation activities or other uses
would result in referral of the property owner to the LCCHP.
30
-------
2.
A data management and tracking system such as a computer database, to maintain
sampling, response action and other information related to individual lots or
properties within OU9. This information would be available to interested parties
subject to notification through the overlay district. The data management system will
be accessible by aU parties of the LCCHP work group.
Since the LCCHP is a "pilot project" that involves a number of innovative approaches, it includes
ongoing review to ensure that the program is operating as intended and that human health is being
adequately protected. The review shall include:
Evaluation of panicipation of area residents in the blood lead monitoring and
environmental media sampling programs.
Special effon to ensure collection of paired blood lead and environmental lead data
whenever possible.
Creation and application of a well-documented quality assurance plan to ensure that
blood lead and environmental data are collected and analyzed in the proper manner,
and that the data are accurately entered into an ongoing database suitable for scientific
evaluation.
Annual reponing of summary statistics.
Given that hazardous substances wiJ) remain onsite under the selected remedy, EP A also will conduct
a five-year review pursuant to Section 121 of CERCLA to ensure that the remedy is protective of
human health and the environment.
In addition, the remedy will be evaluated by a group of outside scientists. Details on how this group
will be selected, operate, and evaluate the program will be included in the work plan for the Lake
County Community Health Program. .
EP A shall establish performance standards to define the process and criteria by which the remedy will
be terminated. The performance standards will be identified in an addendum to the remedial design.
The CDPHE will be provided an opponunity for consultation and concurrence in accordance with
the National Contingency Plail. ASARCO and local officials will also be consulted in the
development of the performance standards.
The following sections discuss response actions associated with each of the trigger criteria. Response
actions would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the work group and may be combined to form
the most effective remedial solution.
31
-------
Blood Lead
The blood lead trigger level is independent of trigger criteria for soil, dust, paint, and water. In the
event that a child or pregnant or nursing woman has a blood lead level greater than or equal to
I O~gldL, appropriate response actions will be taken, regardless of whether media trigger criteria have
been exceeded, to reduce that exposure. The LCCHP will provide for continued monitoring of
ctUldren with elevated blood lead concentrations beyond the age of six. although those children would
be beyond the age group at highest risk from exposure to lead. The response actions to be considered
for identified potential sources of lead exposure, resulting in blood lead concentrations greater than
or equal to I O~gldl, shall include any of the actions described below for soils, dust, paint. and water. .
In addition, other potential lead sources beyond an individual residence, and within OU9, may be
considered by the LCCHP work group for remediation and/or education to address exposure.
Residential Soils
The trigger criterion for residential soil remediation under the LCCHP is: soil-lead concentration
greater than or equal to 3,500 ppm. The following response actions could be taken for residential
soils. .
.
No Action: This response may be implemented if soil-lead concentrations are less than
3,500ppm. .
.
Containment: This option includes the following installation alternatives to contain
soils. Alternatives listed here may be used in combination on any given property. For
example, sod placement could replace existing yard and a concrete cap may be used
to replace a din driveway.
Soil cap: Borrow soil placed over impacted areas.
In situ mixing: Mixing of surficial soils having lead concentration above 3.500
ppm with underlying unimpacted soils could be performed to reduce lead
concentrations to acceptable levels. Homes with, soit-Iead concentrations
greater than 3,500 ppm in the 6-12 inch depth interval are not considered
amenable to this alternative due to the difficulty in mixing to the depths
required to achieve the objective.
Sod placement: Sod placed over impacted soils.
Compacted clay cap: Compacted clay placed over impacted areas with a
minimum one-foot silty or sandy protective layer to maintain cap integrity.
32
-------
. Sprayed asphalt: Sprayed asphalt placed over impacted areas and covered
with soil or opaque reflective paint to protect the asphalt trom ultraviolet light.
and retard o,odarion.
Asphaltic concrete: Asphalt for paving grades or special blends mixed with
weD graded, crushed aggregate, placed over impacted areas.
Concrete cap: Concrete placed over prepared impacted areas.
Multilayered cap: Cap composed of some combination of natural soils, soil
admixtures, clay, spray-on asphah, asphaltic concrete, or Portland cement and
placed over impacted areas.
.
Diversion ditch construction:. Construction of diversions and/or culverts may prevent
run-on to source areas and reduce both erosional and leaching release of the metals
from a source.
.
Removal: Removal of soil would be accomplished through hand excavation with the
aid of mechanical excavation equipment. The removal depth would be decided on a
case-by-case basis based on site-specific information, but would be no more than 12
inches. During excavation and transport, dust suppression may be necessary. After
excavation, borrow material would be transported to the residence and placed. Yards
would be revegetated, generally with sod. In instances where remaining soils may
exceed the trigger criterion, such soils would be subject to institutional controls.
Excavated material could be put to beneficial re-use as non-surficial fill material or
could be removed to a suitable on-site repository.
In-Residence Dust
Potential sources oflead for in-residence dust are: lead-based paint in poor condition, bare soil areas,
gardens, streets and alleys, tailings, and mine waste. Dust is transported into the home by wind or
on items taken outside and then returned inside. The trigger level for in-residence dust is lead
concentrations greater than or equal to 2,000 ppm. Response actions would be:
.
No Action: Residences with dust-lead levels between 500 and 2,000 ppm will be
informed about lead dust abatement methods and offered use of a High Efficiency
Particulate Air (HEP A) vacuum.
.
Phvsical Protective Measures: This response action include sealing off unfinished
basements, attics, or crawl space areas to limit exposure to interior lead-dust.
33
-------
.
Education ProlZl'am: This response may be enacted to educate residents on how to
effectively reduce lead-dust when c1eaning. Demonstrations or brochures may be
used.
.
Removal and DisDosal m: Means Q[ Decontanrination Q! ReDlacement: One or a
combination of the following methods may be considered for removing interior lead-
dust: Vacuum all interior living spaces with a HEPA vacuum. Dust can be disposed
of in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill as it is household waste. Damp mop all floors,
window wells, and other wood work with a trisodium phosphate (TSP) cleaning
solution; clean furnace ducts using the EP A-approved program for duct cleaning; and
placement of mats at entryways so that shoes may be appropriately shaken or wiped
before entering, reducing the amount of soil entering the residence.
Interior and Exterior Paint
Residences may have interior andlor exterior paint that is lead-based. Lead-based paint in poor
condition may contribute to lead exposure through inhalation and ingestion of dust, or direct
consumption of paint chips. Depending on the paint's lead concentration and condition the following
response actions may be considered:
Drinkin2 Water
.
No Action: This response action will be implemented if lead levels are less than
1 mglcm2 or if no lead-based paint is identified.
.
Education. Containment. Coverin2. or Removal: Ifpaint contains lead above I mglcm2
and is in poor condition (peeling, chipping, chalking) or coating a friction-surface,
education. risk counseling, and infonnation on actions they may take themselves will
be provided to residents. If paint has lead levels greater than or equal to 6 mglcm2,
and is in poor condition, active remediation would be recommended. If either
encapsulation or removal is chosen for remediation. the remediated areas will have a
surface paint-lead level no greater than I mglcm2.
.
Communitv Protective Measures: HUD disclosure requirements for lead-based paint
will be relied upon to notify potential future buyers of any potential lead-related risks.
Residences may have drinking water that contains lead. Lead in drinking water may be associated
with lead solder, lead plumbing, or lead alloy fixtures. The action level for lead in drinking water is
lead concentrations greater than or equal to ] 5 1Jg/L. Lead concentrations in drinking water can be
measured and the following response actions may be considered: .
34
-------
..
No Action: This response action could be implemented if the lead concentration in
drinking water is less than 15 f!gI1.
..
Alternative Water ~ This response action could provide the replacement of
unsuitable drinking water with bottled water, municipal water, or a household water
treatment system could be installed.
..
Replacement: The removal and replacement response could be appropriate for
residences with lead in drinking water from lead piping or soldering.
XI.
STA TUTORY DETERMINA nONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, EPA must select a remedy that is protective of human health and the
environment; that complies with ARARs; is cost effective; and utilizes permanent solutions, and
alternative treatment technologies, or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that include treatment which
permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as a
principal element. The Selected Remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedy. The following sections discuss how the Selected Remedy meets,
statutory requireme~ts,
Protection of Human Health and the Environment - The selected remedy is protective
of human health and the environment by addressing additional sources oflead in conjunction
with soil remediation (if required). Treatment is not practical and therefore is not used.
Compliance with ARARs - The selected remedy will comply with all ARARs identified in
Appendix C to this ROD. No waiver of ARARs is expected to be necessary.
Cost Effectiveness - EP A has determined that the Selected Remedy is cost effective in
mitigating the principal risks posed by contamin~ted residential 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 $4.84 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.
35
-------
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Satisfies tbe Preference for Treatment tbat
Reduces Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume - The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions
to the maximum extent practicable but does not satisfy the preference for alternatives that
involve treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminarion.
Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence - Risk to residents would be reduced due to
selection of this remedial action for the reduction of total lead exposures. This remedy would
result in waste being left in place.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volumetbrougb Treatment- The selected alternative
does not involve treatment; however, the total lead exposure for a given residential living
environment will be reduced.
Short- Term Effectiveness - Shon-term risks to workers and residents are acceptable.
Implementability - Implementation of the selected remedy is expected to be successful
based on the suppon of Lake County officials and the CDPHE, as well as elected
representatives from both the City of Leadville and Lake County. Community support for the
Kids First Program also indicates that implementation of the selected remedy will be
successful. This alternative utilizes common construction., home improvement, cleaning.
equipment, and procedures defined in HUD guidance. This alternative allows for flexibility
in selecting the most appropriate response actions on a case-by-case basis, while considering
resident needs and preferences.
Cost - The estimated cost for the LCCHP is $4,839,250. The cost for this alternative is mid-
range with respect to other alternatives.
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
EP A distributed a Proposed Plan outlining the preferred alternatives in November 1998. The
Proposed Plan identified Alternative 7, the LCCHP, as the preferred alternative for the Residential
Populated Areas Operable Unit. No significant changes have been made to the Alternative 7 decision
described in the Proposed Plan. Public comment generally supported implementation of the LCCHP.
Public comments and EP A's responses to those comments are attached as Appendix A.
The remedy will be continually monitored for effectiveness. Any problems with the program will be
identified and adjusted as necessary.
36
-------
xm REFERENCES
References:
1907. The Downtown District of Leadville, Colorado, Samuel Franklin Emmons and John Duer
Irving, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1927. Geology and Ore Deposits of the Leadville Mming District, U.S.G.S.,
S. F. Emmons and 1. D. Irving.
1987. California Gulch Remedial Investigation, Leadville, Colorado, CH2M Hill, May.
1990. U.S. Bureau of Census
1992. Soil Inventory and Map, California Gulch Study Area, Leadville, Colorado, Walsh and
Associates, May.
1993. Final Smelter Remedial Investigation Report, California Gulch Site, Leadville, Colorado, Walsh
and Associates, April.
1994. Final Soils Investigation Data Report, California Gulch CERCLA Site, Leadville, Colorado, .
Volume 1, Text, Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. July.
1994, Consent Decree between the United States, State of Colorado, ASARCO and Resurrection,
Lodged in U. S. District Court in Denver, May 17, 1994.
ASARCO, 1994. Work Management Plan for ASARCO Inc. at the California Gulch NPL Site,
Leadville CO. Prepared by Woodward Clyde. Appendix B to the Consent Decree.
ASARCO, Incorporated, 1994. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Parks and Playground
Areas, Operable Unit 9, California Gulch, Leadville, Colorado. Prepared by Woodward Clyde
Consultants, November.
ASARCO, Incorporated, 1995. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Mine Waste Piles, .
Operable Unit 9, California Gulch Superfund Site, Leadville, Colorado. Prepared by Golder
Associates. December.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Final Screening Feasibility Study for Remediation
Alternatives at the California Gulch NPL Site, Leadville, Colorado. September.
37
-------
~
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A). 1996a. Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment California
Gulch Superfund Site. Leadville. Colorado. Part A -- Risks to Residents nom Lead. p. 8-6. Prepared
by Roy F. Weston, Inc. January 1996.
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A). 1996b. Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
California Gulch Superfund Site, Leadville, Colorado, Part B -- Risks to Residents nom
Contaminants Other than Lead. Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. January 1996.
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A). 1996c. Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
California Gulch Superfund Site, Leadville, Colorado, Part C -- Evaluation of Worker. and
Recreational ,User Scenarios. Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. January 1996
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A). 1996d. Interim Status Report, Consolidated Findings of
Soil-Lead Investigations at the California Gulch NPL Site. Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. June.
Woodward Clyde Consultants, 1994. Final Work Plan for Kids First Program, California Gulch NPL
Site, Leadville, Colorado. Prepared for ASARCO, Incorporated, Denver, Colorado.
Golder Associates, 1998. Final Residential Soils Feasibility Study, California Gulch Superfund Site,
Leadville, Colorado. Prepared for ASARCO, Incorporated, Denver, Colorado. .
38
-------
Appendix A
SITE LOCATION MAP
-------
... . I : 11810
01& lUG 015
I ... - 0.1 ....
-'-"'-'
1.81'1nd
. -.... -o"'''VJI3IJUI'.'''
<. \ill"'" I ;:811n
11)Wt"",tly
- (~....., l~l.
1111"""""
- - UII..uy 1t:o"''I'
RJ «'UI'~tt'UI
AIel> <.\.JIIII""~
H"...- 1,..1111«
l )
I~..J
W1\l~ R.d
T"III~ 10'''8&)'''.'
::J
It
~£iI SI.,
.
SUL:ho IJI~"I'a
Operable Units and
Areas of Responsibility
".'-'--."
_-_-4 4-_____---
.-.---.--- ---.--
OpelMl" Urtill
We><1< ""- l.8nd U.
-_._---_.~ ---~--_.- ---
- 1\.\';'lU ~ "''''''.UhI8C'.t r'f\~'J)'
~ Roi8TU"'11 UIDru ,.",.....y B..dll"..
- I~, ~ ~&),..n.~ t.".I1~
- 1i.1. r0Z1 R&111~.i.n"
CJ 1LaI\'1~ e"I'." 1:;:;:1 I!okk.,a,~ L", I ~,"'Iy
ApaJIt. ""II (~IIB t::J nlY ul I l""Atulk
~trII )111....".."
--- _._---
(1.11 - r.. hl".1IW.~ .111:.1111". "...
(lP. - M.IIIa GlAtl H,,,,. '.lu\fllx:LI\.1k
Clip. ,..IW.Uu OA" bill'$!
1n,,"..J"'!:It>
1 I.rt .. u.tJ!Ij SI., I""-..'kol..", btalrrll
lUll...... '."11
I." ltrrr UllhnJiJ hlkh
I I)~ ..0\._11 ~nd"""".~'11 S"""
I ,.11\ .. S/;ft LI~!k Lb".
SIllY Ii..., u.IctII1:..... ILlc1\
(I.n - "'can: ,''''. InpUI"_,
I U« - UMCI (18111...... Utttl
« HI - ~., 1\"",,0>.1 M.'~
(I..JlO .. 1)q:o.II CAiUI
«1111 . NUnI.\S MJ"" "ollcy h...'bn
H1I2 .. 'iaIc: w..." IJ.
-------
AppeDdix B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RespoDsiveDess Summary
In November 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a Proposed Plan
describing the Agency's preferred alternative to address risks to residents iTom lead in soils and
other sources within Operable Unit 9 of the California Gulch Superfund Site in Leadville,
Colorado. A public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan was held in Leadville on November 19,
1998. Public comment on the Proposed Plan was accepted iTom November 12, 1998 through
December] 4, 1998.
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to provide all comments received on the
Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan. or during the public meeting and provide the Agency's response
to those comments. All comments are included in the Administrative Record for this project.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Following are comments from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) on the Feasibility Study. Each CDPHE comment is followed by EPA's response.
CDPHE Comment 1
The text for Alternative 7 should be revised to more accurately reflect the current Kids First
Program's practice of accommodating the homeowner's preferences as pan of the Kids First Work
Group deliberative process of remedy selection. Typically, the deliberative remedy selection
process associated with Alternative 7 should be in accordance with the property owner's
preference. In addition, the property owner should fully understand any institutional controls that
would be associated with leaving wastes on hislher property.
Response 1
Alternative 7 is based on the Kids First Program and has been designed to fully consider the
views of the property owner. No response action will be conducted without the pennission of
the property owner. An extensive education and intervention program to manage lead exposure
at the site will be an integral component of each action considered.
CDPHE Comment 2
Section 3.4.3.5 of the FS mentions various institutional controls such as land use controls, deed
restrictions, permitting, etc., that could be used as a separate remedial alternative or as a .
component of various other remedial alternatives. However, the FS fails to present an in-depth
discussion of this issue. A more detailed discussion of all the potential institutional controls is
needed, especially a discussion of how they would apply to remedial Alternative 7 (see previous
comment). Such specifics as: which institutional controls will be employed for the various
-------
alternatives, how they will be employed, and by whom they will be employed should be fully
discussed. In order for the FS to adequately evaluate effectiveness, irnplementability and cost,
this crucial issue should not be deferred until the design phase of the remedial process. (Also see:
CDPHE General Comment #2 in correspondence to EPA dated May 28, 1996, on the Draft
residential Soils FS and General Comment #7 in correspondence dated January 8, 1997, on the
Redraft of Alternative 7a and 7b.) Also, please refer to EPA's Draft Reference Manual on
Institutional Controls, March 1998, for early integration of institutional control considerations.
Response 2
Alternative 7, the Selected Remedy, includes the following institutional controls, to be developed
during design of the remedy, to ensure effectiveness oCthe Lake County Community Health
Program (LCCHP). ASARCO and Lake County will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining these institutional controls.
1.
The creation of an overlay district to provide notification and information
regarding the LCCHP, including requirements that specify excavation activities or
other uses would result in referral of the property owner to the LCCHP.
2.
A data management and tracking system such as a computer database, to maintain.
sampling, response action and other information related to individual lots ro
propenies within OU9. This information would be available to interested panies
subject to notification through the overlay district. The data management system
will be accessible by all panies of the LCCHP work group.
CDPHE Comment 3
An on-site repository for the disposal of residential soils is mentioned, however, there is no
discussion of where the repository will be located. The specific location, including size and a
discussion of siting criteria, should be included. Accordingly, State Solid Waste Regulations
penaining to Solid Waste Disposal Site and Facilities (6CCRJO07-2) Sections 2 & 3 should be
included as a potentiaUy relevant and appropriate ARAR.
Response 3
Any excavated soils will be removed to a suitable on-site repository. The specific location and.
size of an on-site repository will be addressed during remedial design. Please refer to Appendix C
to the Record of Decision for a complete listing of all applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements. Specific State Solid Waste Regulations are identified as ARARs.
CDPHE Comment 4
The CDPHE, APCD, Regulation 19 is currently being evaluated as potentiaUy applicable or
relevant and appropriate (ARAR) for lead-based paint abatement (i.e., remediations). The
CDPHE, as you know, is currently actively working with EP A Region vm lead-based paint
-------
program representatives to determine which elements of this regulation may affect remedial
activities in OU9. Any issues in this context will be resolved as soon as possible.
Response 4
Comment noted. The agreed upon provisions from Regulation 19 have been included in the
ARARs table, Appendix C.
CDPHE Comment 5
In their Comment 5, CDPHE identified a number of ARARs for inclusion in the summation of
ARARs for Operable Unit 9.
Response 5
Please see Appendix C to the Record of Decision for a complete listing of aU applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements. CDPHE has concurred with the compilation of ARARs.
PROPOSED PLAN
F oHowing are comments from CDPHE on the Proposed Plan. Each CDPHE comment is
foHowed by EPA's 'response:
CDPHE Comment 1
CDPHE's suppon that the ROD be revised to confonn with CDPHE's understanding of the Kids
First Program's practice of accommodating the homeowner's preferences and concerns in the Kids
First Workgroup's deliberative process of remedy selection.
Response 1
Please see EPA's response to CDPHE's Comment 1 on the Feasibility Study.
CDPHE Comment 2
To the extent possible, and in confonnance with EPA Institutional Control (IC) guidance. likely
ICs associated with the selected remedy should be identified and discussed in the ROD. Trus
would facilitate a better understanding by the panies (and panicipating property owners) of any
duties, obligations, or potential liabilities that may be associated with the implementation of the
selected remedy.
Response 2
Please see EPA's response to CDPHE's Comment 2 on the Feasibility Study.
-------
Following are comments from ASARCO on the Proposed Plan. Each ASARCO comment is
followed by EP A's response.
ASARCO General Comment 1
Throughout the Proposed Plan it states that .11 sources of lead will be addressed. Generally,
Asarco supports addressing aU sources of lead, but as we have discovered through the
implementation of the Kids First Program this is impractical, if not impossible. The LCCHP will
address primary sources of lead exposure to children (i.e., soil, dust, paint, and water) and attempt
to identify other potential pathways of lead exposure.
Response 1
EP A recognizes soil as the primary pathway of exposure to the residential population at the site.
Dust, paint and water are other pathways of exposure. Other potential lead sources beyond an
individual residence, and within OU9, may be considered by the LCCHP work group for
remediation andlor education to address exposure.
ASARCO General Comment 2
As there has been some concern raised regarding the accuracy of the Superfund Site and Operable
Unit boundaries on the map attached to the Proposed Plan, ASARCO supports using the
Operable Unit boundary map included in the Consent Decree, Appendix C, Attachment 1 (also
presented as Figure 2-1 in the Feasibility Study).
Response 2
The map included as Appendix C to the Consent Decree will be used to identify Operable Unit
and Site boundaries for the Record of Decision.
ASARCO Specific Comment I
The proposed plan states, "The second approach compared the measured blood lead values in
area children with relevant national blood lead statistics in order to help evaluate the current
impacts of actual site exposures to lead. "
The comparison to national blood lead statistics was a minor part of the way in which EPA
used the measured blood lead levels in the risk assessment. It would be more accurate to
emphasize that the blood lead levels were analyzed along with corresponding environmental
data for soil, dust, water, paint and other factors to help evaluate the current impacts of actual
site exposures to lead.
Response 1
Comment noted.
-------
ASARCO Specific Comment 2
The proposed plan states, "ID 1991, geometric mean blood lead levels in children living within
the site boundaries were typically around 5-6 IIg/dI... "
The geometric mean blood lead level is a single vaJue for a specific group, not a "typical"
value in a range. The geometric mean blood lead level for the 284 children age 0- 72 months
who were living within the site in 1991 was 4.7 #-ig/dl, as reported on page 5-3 of the Baseline
Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA), Part A. The range of 5-6 #£g/dl does not
correspond with the values reported for subareas from the University of Cincinnati stUdy used
in the BHHRA. Geometric mean blood lead levels within the subareas designated A-G ranged
from 3.9 to 6.6 #£g/dl; geometric mean blood lead levels for the tWo subareas within Lake
County but outside of the Superfund Site boundaries were 3.1 and 6.0 #£g/dl.
Response 2
Comment noted.
ASARCO Specific Comment 3
Item 2 states in part that "Additional blood lead data collected by [the] county health agency
, from more than 100 children per year for each year between 1991 and the present suggests that
the incidence of children in the commurrity with blood lead levels above 10 #-ig/dl is continuing'
to fluctUate between 6 % and 9 % ." This statement appears to overstate the current commurrity
blood lead levels observed in Leadville. Using the guidelines for data reduction established in
the memo to EPA from Dr. Bill Brattin, EPA's .toxicology consultant (December, 1997), we .
fmd that in 19975.8% (14 children) of all 240 children tested and living within the site had
blood lead levels over 10 #£g/dl.
Response 3
Comment noted.
AS ARC;: 0 Specific Comment 4
In the proposed plan it states, "It was concJuded that soil and dust ingestion rates in this
community were probably somewhat lower than national average rat~s possibly because the
ground is frozen or snow covered approximately eight months out of the year. "
While ASARCO agrees with this conclusion, we would like to clarify that national average
rates for soil and dust iJigestion are not known and that the precise amount of soil ingested
anywhere is not well understood. The assumptions used in the IEUBK model reflect results
from a very limited number of soil ingestion studies along with modifications to estimated soil
ingestion rates by age group so that the predicted blood lead levels appear to match the
observed values. No soil ingestion studies specifically support the age-specific soil ingestion
rates used in the IEUBK model. Other possible reasons why the IEUBK model predictions and
the blood lead observations did not match is that the model may fail to accurately predict UUe
"background" blood lead levels due to non-soil sources, which 'may lead to a failure to
accurately predict blood lead increases due to soil exposure; and the model may overestimate
the importance of soil lead exposure in predicting blood lead levels.
-------
Response 4
Comment noted.
ASARCO Specific Comment S
With respect to the proposed trigger criteria for interior and exterior paint with lead
ooncentrations above 1 mg/cm2 and in poor condition, Asarco would like to reiterate its desire
to implement a tiered approach where: 1) paint remediation abatement is perfonned if lead
paint concentrations are found to be greater than 6 mg/cm2 and paint is in poor condition; 2)
education, and property owner requirements (based on applicable federal laws), would be the
measures taken for homes where lead paint ooncentrations are found to be below 6 mg/cm2 and
above 1 mg/cm2, or where lead paint ooncentrations are above mg/cm2 and paint is in good
condition; and 3) no action is taken if lead paint concentrations are I mg/cm2 or lower.
Education will be perfonned on issues such as: encapsulation, avoidance, care and
maintenance of painted surfaces, and precautions to be taken during future remodeling projects
by homeowner.
Asarco believes that the 6 mg/cm2 and poor condition action criteria cunently being used
under the Kids First Program for remediation of paint is protective of human health and the
environment, and upholds the original intent of the Consent Decree. As indicated in the Work
Area Management Plan (W AMP), the ooncept of community-based lead reduction program
such as the LCCHP was developed as an alternative to wholesale soil removal to address
sources of lead exposure to young children besides soil. Asarco voluntarily agreed to
remediate homes that pose significant lead paint risks (i.e., 6 mg/cm2 or greater and paint in .
poor condition) as part of the overall lead risk reduction program, even though lead paint
abatement is not a CERCLA action. The voluntary nature of the agreement to include lead
paint in a community program atteSts to Asarco's suppon for reduction of lead risks in young
children.
Response 5
The s6lected remedy includes a tiered approach to lead-based paint remediation. If lead levels
are less than I mg/cm2, no action will be taken. If paint oontains greater than or equal to I
mg/cm2 and is in poor condition (peeling, chipping, chalking) or coating a friction-surface,
education, risk oounseling, and information on actiolis they may take themselves will be
provided to residents. If paint has lead levels greater than or equal to 6 mg/cm2, and is in poor
condition, active remediation would be recommended. If either encapsulation or removal is
chosen for remediation, the remediated areas will have a surface paint-lead level no greater
than I mg/cm2. .
ASARCO Specific Comment 6
Asarco feels that "and accessible" should be added to the trigger criteria for soil. The LCCHP
is a risk based program, thus, Asarco feels that the oondition of soils or more specifically the
accessibility to soil is an important part of the trigger criteria for soil. The exposure pathway
for soils is greatest when poor vegetative conditions exist such as a bare area in the yard or a
garden area where bare soils can be exposed for part of the year. If there is a good year round
vegetative cover the pathway is blocked. The LCCHP Work Group should have the
oppo~nity to recommend, and residents should have the opportunity to select, education and
-------
possibly some type of voluntary institutional controls and Dot destroy an existing vegetative
cover. Also for open areas, the Work Group could recommend vegetative enhancement
without destroying the native vegetation that exists.
Response 6
The selected remedy offers a wide range of options to address potential exposure from soils
greater than or equal to the trigger criteria for soil. ContAinment is one of the options and
could rely upon vegetation as a barrier to any exposure.
ASARCO Specific Comment 7
The following reference is missing as referred to on page 4 for (U.S. District Coun, 1994).
"In the United States District Coun for the District of Colorado (U.S. District Coun). 1994.
Consent Decree with ASARCO, Incorporated, Resunection Mining Company,
Newmont Mining Corporation, and the Res-ASARCO Joint Venture. August 25."
Response 7
Reference to the Consent Decree is made in the Record of Decision selecting the remedy for
Operable Unit 9 of the California Gulch Superfund project.
EPA received a number of comments from the genera] public during the public comment
period. Following are comments from the genera] public on the Proposed Plan. The
complete text of each public comment is available in the Administrative Record. Each
comment is followed by EPA's response. In addition to the comments presented below, EPA
received 21 post cards from community residents in suppon of Alternative 7, the Lake County
Community Health Program. No post cards were received in opposition to the preferred
alternative.
Comment 1
As long as actual blood lead levels are used as the initial trigger for further action, I strongly
suppon this proposal.
Response I
Blood lead levels in children are not the only trigger for remedial actions. Residents may elect
to participate in the environmental testing and remediation program without blood lead testing
or to participate without releasing information on their blood lead levels.
Demonstration of attainment of the performance standards for OU9 will, however, be based on
actual blood lead levels in children residing in Leadville. The overall effectiveness of the
LCCHP will be demonstrated through attainment of performance standards.
-------
Comment 2
Institutional controls should, for the most part, be included as part of the Reconi of Decision
regarding this matter to assure that Lake County and other entities are not burdened with
inappropriate long range liabilities. These controls should be developed with the input of all
interested panies to assure that they are reasonable and science based.
Response 2
Institutional controls are discussed further in tbe Record of Decision (ROD) and will be
fmalized during the design phase of the program with local community involvement. EP A and
ASARCO are prepared to work cooperatively with Lake County and the City of Leadville to
develop institutional controls. Discussions regarding the manner in which the LCCHP will be
implemented and additional actions, if any, required or desired once performance standards are
met will be integral to the development of an appropriate institutional controls program at this
site. For this reason, institutional controls will be developed as pan of the remedial design and
presented in detail within the Work Plan for the LCCHP.
Comment 3
The City of Leadville should also be included as an entity to be consulted in the review and
approval process (re: changes or variances to Standard Operating Procedures included in the
LCCHP work plan).
Response 3
We agree that the City of Leadville should be involved with any changes made to the Standard
Operating Procedures for the LCCHP.
Comment 4
Institutional controls which include zoning changes or deed restrictions may have little
community support. In addition, use of lead concentration contour maps to delineate areas
where institutional controls would be implemented is likely to be disputed by home owners.
Response 4
EPA and Asarco are prepared to work directly with Lake County and the City of Leadville to
identify institutional controls that will be both effective and implementable. Several diverse
groups, which include members from the Leadville community, currently provide
opportunities for citizens to take an active role in the consultation and decision-making process
for the site. These groups include the Site Activities Coordinating Comminee and Kids First
Work Group.
EP A does not intend to identify areas for institutional controls based on concentration contour
maps previously presented in the Feasibility Study. Instead, appropriate institutional controls
will likely be tied to the status of remediation at individual properties. For example, if
-------
~nvironmentallead sources have been tested but none of the trigger levels was exceeded, then
1'10 institutional controls would be required specific to that property (such as land use resttiction
e»r deed notice).
CommentS
It might be reassuring to.the community to extend blood lead monitoring beyond the children
presently tested in the voluntary program, so as to evaluate the potential effects of residential
propenies not presently housing children.
Response 5
The LCCHP will be open to all residents in the site regardless of whether or not a child under
6 years old resides at the propeny. Environmental testing at propenies both with and without
children under 6 insures the protection of children who may reside at a propeny in the future.
Comment 6
A sampling program involving the testing of domestic cats might provide a pioneering avenue
of study... This might be a far less expensive and more effective program than resulted from
the inconclusive effon involving swine testing.
Response 6
Several lead researchers have suggesting using cats or dogs as monitors oflead exposure.
Unfortunately their use is still quite experimental, and unsuitable for our purposes. For example,
Philip Berny studied pets living in homes of children in Granite City, n... While dogs and cats had
blood lead levels more or less in the range of childrens' levels, there was no reliable correlation.
If a pet had a blood lead level over 10 J.Lgldl, then there was a chance that a child living in the
house did, as well, but the association was not reliable enough to use the pet's measurement
instead of the children's. Also, it is not really understood what lead exposure is reflected in a
dog's or eat's blood lead level. Dogs kept tied outside are not exposed to house dust like
children are, and cats kept inside are not exposed to yard soil. Cats that go outside may roam
away from the home and may not represent exposure at the home itself. Finally, pets will not be
exposed to direct sources of lead such as old toys or lead-based paint on staircases or window
ledges in the same way that children may be. In conclusion. we now feel that although pets may
be somewhat useful in the future as a screening tool in conjunction with other environmental data,
it win always be more effective to look at lead in the environment from the child's point of view.
Although the first swine-feeding test using Leadville soil was inconclusive on its own, EP A has
done many swine tests and other extraction tests since then to study bioavailability of lead from
many different sites, including recent tests using soils from other sites in Leadville. EP A is
hopeful that the new test results for Leadville will help explain some of the unusual (higher or
lower) blood lead results in different neighborhoods of Leadville and will contribute to our
understanding of the bioavailability ofIead in soils from residential areas of Leadvil1e.
-------
Comment 7
I believe that people are being bribed into testing blood l~d levels [with savings bonds and
gift certificates]. Is this typical nationwide'?
Response 7
There are other communities in the United States, both CERCLA and non-CERCLA sites, that
offer incentives to encourage participation in blood I~d testing programs and to increase the
accuracy and effectiveness of those monitoring programs. The incentives currently used in
Leadville appear to have been effective in maintaining a high level of community participation
in the county's blood l~d monitoring program. It is important to note that the blood lead
program is voluntary under the CERCLA action. Blood lead testing is not and will not be a
requirement for environmental lead testing or, if necessary, remediation.
Comment 8
I wish I could believe that all of this site work is needed and that it does pose an imminent and
substantial endangennent to public health and welfare. I prefer Alternative 1: No Action as
the preferred alternative for the residential area. .
Response 8
EP A agrees that the risk to the citizens of Leadville is moderate as demonstrated by the on-
going blood lead program being conducted by Lake County. EP A prefers the LCCHP,
because it will cause the least amount of disturbance to the community while being protective
to current and future residents at the site.
In addition to written comments received during the public comment period, EP A also received
some verbal comments during the public meeting conducted on November] 8, ] 998. Following
are each of the comments made during the public meeting followed by EP A's response.
Comment I
Are there areas in the Site where children's blood lead levels are higher? Do you see any
clustering of children with elevated blood lead levels?
Response]
Areas of the Site where children are more likely to have an elevated blood lead concentration
include the east side ofLeadvilJe near the historic mining district, Stringtown, and the Lake Fork
trailer park near the confluence of California Gulch and the Arkansas River.
-------
Comment 2
What are the community protective measures, how are they being deveJoped, and is the local
community going to have input on the community protective measures?
Response 2
Alternative 7, the Selected Remedy, includes the fonowing institutionaJ controls, to be developed
during design of the remedy, to ensure effectiveness of the Lake County Community HeaJth
Program (LCCHP). ASARCO and Lake County will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining these institutionaJ controls. .
1.
The creation of an overlay district to provide notification and information
regarding the LCCHP, including requirements that specify excavation activ1ties or
other uses would result in referral of the property owner to the LCCHP.
2.
A data management and tracking system such as a computer database, to maintain
sampling, response action and other information related to individual lots ro
properties within OU9. This information would be available to interested parties
subject to notification through the overlay district. The data management system
. will be accessible by an panies of the LCCHP work group.
Comment 3
The County is opposed to using the 0-6 inch lead in soils distribution map as shown in the
Feasibility Study (Figure 2-2). This map was developed using samples from streets and alley ways
instead of actuaJ yards.
Response 3
Any soil response actions will be based on propeny-specific data, not the lead in soils distribution
map presented in the Feasibility Study.
Comment 4
How will institutional controls be implemented as a voluntary program?
Response 4
EP A and ASARCO are prepared to work directly with Lake County and the City of LeadviHe to
identify institutiona1 controls that will be both effective and implementable. Several diverse groups,
which include members from the LeadviHe community, currently provide opponunities for citizens to
take an active role in the consultation and decision-making process for the site. These groups include
the Site Activities Coordinating Committee and Kids First Work Group. Appropriate institutional
controls willlilcely be tied to the status of remediation at individual propenies.
-------
Comment 5
The County is opposed to institutional controls. Why are they listed in the feasibility study?
Response 5
Institutional controls are listed in the Feasibility Study to investigate these options further. EPA
understands that the County supports implementation of institutional controls as described in the
ROD.
Comment 6
How may properties will need soil remediation?
Response 6
The estimate is 150 homes.
Comment 7
I am opposed to sweeping zoning restrictions. How will vacant lots and new development be
addressed? '
Response 7
The selected remedy will not influence zoning. In the event that deve10pment disturbs
contaminated soils, appropriate measures to manage the soils would have to be taken.
Appropriate measures would depend on eventual land use.
Comment 8
How -were trigger levels established?
Response 8
Risk assessments were relied upon to establish trigger levels.
Comment 9
In the feasibiHty study it says that the program will last for 12 years. After that time, does the
County have to bare the cost?
Response 9
ASARCO is responsibJe for implementing the LCCHP until performance standards have been
met.
-------
Comment 10
Once the blood lead levels goals are met, how many years does the program have to continue?
Response 10
The Program will continue until performance standards have been met. EP A will conduct five
year reviews of the Site to ensure that the remedy remains protective.
Comment 11
What happens 10 years down the road when the program loses momentUm, how will the
remediation be ensured?
Response 1]
Incentives win be offered to ensure adequate participation in the program. EP A will conduct five
year reviews to ensure that the remedy remains protective.
Comment 12
Could the Site be delisted even if all propenies do not have sampling/remediation conducted?
Response 12
Once performance standards have been met, EP A will proceed with delisting.
Comment 13
How long until the LCCHP can be implemented?
Response 13
We anticipate that the program will begin in 1999.
Comment 14
If a property owner refuses to panicipate, will fences be put around the property? .
Response 14
No.
-------
A ppendiI C .
APPLICABLE OR
RELEVANT & APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
-------
:l1i~.WI.;ii'i:j;
..,..:"'.UiOi;Ltmlbltiijij/:r;:s:".
1. Clean Air Act,
National Primary and
Secondary Ambient Air
Quality Standards
2. Colorado Ambient
Air Quality Standards
3, Colorado Air
Pollution Prevention
and Control Act,
Regulation 8
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ARARS
Residential Populated Area (Operahle Unit No.9)
::j:;~=~~~.:::
..J\@ri.iii&
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs
42 USC Sect. 7401-
7642, 40 CFR Put
SO
5 CCR 1001
5 CCR 1001-14;
5 CCR 1001-10
Part C (I),
Regulation 8
F:\MyFiIe8\Documenl8\ WP\Clou9\ARARS. wpd
'::'':I'~~li;
Yes
Yes
Yes
. .
National ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) are implemented through the
New Source Review Program and State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). The
federal New Source Review Prognm
addresses only major sources. See
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Act concerning applicability of
requirements implemented through the
SIP.
Primary and secondary standards for
PM 10 in ambient air. Federal and
State TSP standards have been replaced
with PMIO and PM2.5 standards.
Regulation No.8 sets emission limit.
for lead. Applicants are required to
evaluate whether the proposed activities .
would result in an exceedance of this
standard.
Page I of 5
.- -.
.....
.. .
.. ...
. .
Emissions associated with proposed
remedial action at individual properties
will be limited to fugitive dust
emissions associated with earth moving
activities during soil removals. These
activities will not constitute a major
source. Federal NAAQS more striDgent
than State standards may be applicable.
Compliance with these standards will be
addressed in the Fugitive Emissions
Dust Control Plan. (See #10)
Compliance with ambient air standanb
will be achieved by adhering to a
Fugitive Emissions Dust Control Plan
prepared in accordance with Regulation
No. I (see 110). This plan will discusa
monitoring requirements, if any,
necessary to achieve these standards.
Fugitive dust emissions are expected to
be or limited nature, occur in isolated
areas and for short periods of time.
Lead emissions may occur but are not
expected to exceed the emission levels
for lead. Compliance with Regulation
No.8 will be achieved by adhering to a
fugitive emissions. dust control plan
prepared in accordance with Regulation
No. I (see 110). This plan will discuss
monitoring requirements, if any.
necessary to achieve these standards.
Sec>"""he, 2. t999
-------
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ARARS (Conlinued)
__I.
4. Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Subtitle D
S. Eltecutive Order
11593 - Protection and
Enhancement of the
Cultu~ Environment
6. National Historic
Preservation Act
(NHPA)
,. The Historic and
Arcbaeological Data
Preservation Act of
1914
40CFRPart
258.10-15
16 USC 410
16 USC 1470 ~
g.; 40CFR 1
6.301(b); 36 CFR
Part 63. Part 65.
Part 800
16 use 469
40 CFR 16.301(c)
F:\My Filee\Doc:umenl8\WP\Cgou9\ARARS. "'pet
No
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL tOCA TION.srECIFIC ARARs
Yes
Facilities where treatment, storage or
disposal of solid waste will he
conducted must meet certain location
standards. These include location
restrictions on proximity to airports.
floodplains, wetlands, faull areas,
seismic impact zones, and un!\table
areas.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Federal agencies directed to institute
procedures to ensure programs
contribute to the preservation and
enhancement of non-federally owned
historic resources. Consultation with
the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation required.
Expands historic preservation programs
10 minimize harm to National Historic
Landmarks; requires p~rvation of
resources included in or eligible for
listing on the National Register for
Historic Places (NRHP).
Establishes procedures to preserve
historical and archeological data that
might be destroyed through alteration
of terrain 8.~ a result of a federal
construction project or a federally
licensed activity program.
Page 2 of 5
...:'}~1~;i
May be relevant and appropriate if
interim disposal is conducted or if an
onsite repository is necessary.
See #6 below.
This Act is applicable within the
Leadville National Historic landmark
District. A Programmatic Agreement
exists between the EPA, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. and
the Colorado State Historic Preservation
Officer in accordance with Section 106
and IIO(!) of NHPA.
Remedial Activities may arrect
historical andlor archeological data. A
cultural resources survey will be
performed to identify and evaluate all
historic properties which may be
.ffected by remedial activities.
s..rlemher 2. 1999
-------
"'7~
8. Colorado Historical,
Prehistorical, and
Archaeological
~.esources Act
9. Colorado Register of
Historic Places
10. Colorado Air
Pollution Prevention and
Control Act, Fugitive
Dust Control
Plan/Opacity ,
Regulation No. I
II. Colorado Air
Pollution Prevention and
Control Act, AP~Ns
ReguJation No.3
12. Colorado Air
Pollution Prevention and
Control Act, Odors,
Regulation No.2
Colorado Revised
Statutes (CRS) If
24-80-40 1 to 411,
24-80-1301 to 1305
CRS II 24-80-101
to 108
SUMMARV OF POTmfIAL ARARS (Continued)
.' 'POtentially'" ......:....:~.~.;;,.bt.-....~.....:.:'.'~..'.'t.....181.1n.. .a.t.:.....:
,:;~::~;'!~~'~~:\fAa,~.~:~ .J.
No
Unknown
: ~ptl6n .
.:'~ :"
Unknown
Establishes procedures and requires a
permit for investigation. excavation.
gathering, or removal from the natural
state of any historical, prehistorical, or
archaeological resources on state lands
for the benefit of recognized scientific
or educational institutions. Also
requires an excavation permit and
notification if human remains are found
on state land.
Establishes requirements for prolecting
properties of historical significance.
SUMMARY OF PoTENTIAL ACTION-5PECUIC ARA.R.sITBCi
5 CCR 1001-3;
I m.D.I.b,c,d.
I
In. D.2.a,b,c,e, f,g
Regulation I
.5 CCR.1001-5,
RegulatioD 3
5 CCR 1001-4
F :\MyFiIe8\Doc:umenl8\WP\Clou9\ARARS. wpd
Yes
Yes
Yes
Regulation No. I provisions concerning
fugitive emissions for construction
activities, storage and stockpiling
activities, haul roads, haul trucks, and
tailing ponds.
Establishes emissions control
regulations for construction or
modification of stationary sources.
Applies to any remedial action that may
create regulated odors.
Page 3 of 5
:':./.:::t::;:;:::::.:: .;:~;?:(/ih/;\};:t:;~;::\fgr .
'.:;:;:;\:i:.;_{i~t7.:..
May be relevant and appropriate if
archaeological resources are removed or
human remains discovered during
remedial activities; coordination with
state archaeologist required, but DO
permit is needed within the Superfund
site.
May be applicable if remedial actions
impact any property listed on the
Register of Historic Places.
Only provisions under RegulatioD I
concerning fugitive emissions for
construction activities, including soil
removal, storage, transport and
stockpiling (5 CCR 1001-3; Sections
UI.D.2.b,c,e,f,g.), are applicable.
Substantive requirements of an Air
Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) are
applicable if the removal actions disturb
contaminated soil. An APEN will be
filed. although permitting requirementt
such IS this are notlypicaJly required
under CERCLA.
Planned remedial actions are not
expected to create regulated odors.
Serlemher 2. t999
-------
13. Colorado Air
Pollution Prevention and
Control Act,
Requirements for lead-
Based Paint Abatement
Regulation No. 19
14. Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA)
as amended by RCRA,-
Criteria for
Clusification of Solid
Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices
(Subtitle D)
IS. SWDA as amended
by RCRA Subtitle C
16. H8z.ardous
Materials Transportation
Act, Regulations
17. Colorado Noise
Abatement Act
18; Colorado Water
Quality Control Act
Stormwater Discharge
Regulations
Colorado Revised
Statutes If 2S-7-
1101 -1107,
Regulation 19
42 USC Sect. 6901-
6987,
40 CFR Part 2S7
42 USC Sect. 6901-
6987,
40 CFR Part 264
49 USC Sect. 1801-
1813, .
49 CFR Parts 107,
1710177
CRS If 2S-12-101
to 108
S CCR 1002.2
F:\MyFiIM\DoaImenl8\WP\Clou9\ARARS. ...peI
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ARARS (Continued)
III~I~.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Establishes procedures and
requirements for lead-based paint
abatements greater than 2 square
interior feet and 10 square exterior feet,
including training and accreditation of
individuals and firms engaged in lead-
based paint activities and work practice
standards for performing such
activities.
Establishes criteria for use in
determining which solid waste disposal
facilities and practices pose a
reasonable probability of adverse
effects on health.
Regulates handling, transportation,
storage and disposal of hazardous
wastes.
.Regulates transportation of hazardous
materials.
Establishes maximum permissible noise
levels for particular time periods and
land use zones.
Establishes stormwater control
requirements for construction activities.
Page 4 of 5
Applicable when lead-based paint
abatement activities are performed. 00-
site CERCLA actions are exempt from
administrative and fee requirements.
Subject to project-specific variance per
Sections IV.G and V.M of Regulation
19.
Substantive requirements may be
applicable or relevant and appropriate to
the consolidation of soil removed from
residential areas in an on-aite
repository .
Potentially applicable for lead-based
paint waste debris resulting from
remediation.
Applicable only if the remedial action
involves off-site transportation of
hazardous materials. The regulations
affecting packaging, labeling, marting,
placarding, using proper containers, and
reporting discharges of hazardous
materials would be potential ARAIU.
\1
Applicable if construction activities
occur in residential areas.
Potentially applicable if construction
activities occur as part of the remedial
action.
s..p..mhw 2. 1999
-------
_r__IM1
19. Colorado Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act
20. Colorado
Hazardous Waste
Regulations
21. Colorado Mined
Land Reclamation Act
22. Colorado Primary
Drinkiog Water
Re lation
6 CCR 1007-2
6 CCR 1007-3. Part
264: Sectioo
264.301, (g), (h).
(i) and (j); Section
264.310 (a)(1)
through (a)(4);
Section 264.310,
(b)(I) and (b)(.5)
CRS 34-32-101 to
12.5; Rule 3 of
Mineral Rules and
Regulations
S CCR 1002, CRS
2S-I-107, Section
7.3.2
F:\MyFiI.\Documonl8\wP\Clou9\ARARS. wpd
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Establishes standards for licensing,
locating, constructing and operating
solid waste facilities.
Specific provisions of Section 264.301
concern run-on control, run-orr control,
management of run-on and run-off
control systems and wind dispersal.
Specific provisions of Section 264.310
concern placement of a cover to
minimize infiltration. minimize
maintenance, promote drainage and
minimize erosion and accommodate
settling.
Regulates all aspects of land use for
mining, including the location of
mining operations and related
reclamation activities and other
environmental and socio-economic
impacts.
Requirements to control lead and
copper concentrations in tap water.
Page 5 of 5
Substantive requirements may be
applicable or relevant and appropriate to
the consolidation of soil removed from
residential areas in an on-lite
repository .
These specific proviliODl of the
hazArdous waste regulations may be
relevant and appropriate in certain
circumstances depending on sit~ apecific
conditions. The detenniaatioo of
whether such requirements will be both
relevant and appropriate to the IICtivlti.
to be undertaken in OU9 will be hued
on best professional judgement and is
conducted on a site specific buis takiug
into account the physical nature and
location of the media involved. whether
the requirements are well suited to the
site conditions, and other facton.
No mining or reclamation activities are
planned as part of remedy. If mining
activities are perfonned. then
substantive requirements of selected
portions of Rule 3 regarding
Reclamation Measures. Water-General
Requirements (except portions relating
to sitewide surface and groundwater).
wildlife and revegetation may be
applicable. However, certaiD
provisions of these regulati0D8 may be
relevant and appropriate to the OU9
remedial action.
Tap water sampling requirements are
relevant and appropriate.
Sepcemher 2. t999
-------
'- .
~ 0" Q)
-C'-CD)
~" '- >.-
w CD.- ....
~ CDC.)
UCCJQ)
~caCD""
It-,-Q)
0.- ,""-c
...." v,
U) CI) ;.!!l
E~ E E
SOCDQ)
.- '- """ ....
'I- Q.'-'-
°CDCI)Q)
c:.c=:S
r..-It-u-
... - .- ....
- .- .-
.. ~ ..: '-
Q)"""CDO
laC"
'- 1\
~CI)OC:
EE,-o
...CI)~~
Q) CJ 0'-
Q.ca ~-c
- c
.. Q.CJO
OCl)CC.)
C'-=
..-.-=-c
(I) ........... CI)
Q) . C C)
o ".- cu
-cCCI)e
~"
cnlt-cacu
-eE-c
I- '- c:
Z 0 .!!L-
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information - then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats - from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually. .
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information-U.S. and worldwide
------- |