PB98-964405
EPA 541-R98-080
October 1998
EPA Superfimd
Record of Decision:
Smeltertown Site OU 2
Former Koppers Wood Training Site
Salida, CO
6/4/1998
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
999 18th STREET • SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2468
JUN 24 1998
8EPR-SR
To Addressees Listed on Attachment
SUBJECT: Smeltertown Superfiind Site, Former Koppers Wood Treating Site located near Salida,
Colorado - Record of Decision
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Public
Health and the Environment (CDPHE) have made a remedial decision regarding the Former Koppers
Wood Treating Site of the Smeltertown Superfiind Site located near Salida, Colorado. This decision
is documented in the enclosed Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD explains the basis and the
purpose of the selected remedy and is based on the administrative record file for this Site. EPA and
CDPHE considered each of the comments received from the public in making this decision and have
provided responses to each of the comments in the Responsiveness Summary which is part of the
ROD. EPA and CDPHE appreciate the involvement of the commenters and encourages continued
involvement throughout the implementation of this decision.
Sincereh
'endolyn Hoou
meltertown Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: Martin O'Grady, CDPHE
Printed on Rmcydud Pmp*r
-------
Addressees:
Jack E. Watkins, President
Poncha Sports, Inc.
Marketing-Management-Financial Consulting
P.O. Box 97
Poncha Springs, Colorado 81242
Frank C. McMurry, Chairman
The Board of County Commissioners of Chaffee County
P.O. Box 699
Salida, Colorado 81201
David C. Williams
COL U S Army (Retired)
1020 F Street
Salida, Colorado 81201
Shannon K. Craig, Program Manager
Beazer East, Inc.
One Oxford Centre, Suite 3000
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Randy L. Sego, Esquire
Tilly & Graves, P.C.
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive
1001 Ptarmigan Place
Denver, Colorado 80209
Martin O'Grady, State Project Officer
Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
4300 South Cherry Creek Drive
Denver, CO 80222
Printed on Rmcyctod Pmper
-------
Smeltertown Superfund Site
Former Koppers Wood Treating Site
Salida, Colorado
Record of Decision
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms ii-1
The glossary of Terms iii-1
Tables iv-1
Figures v-1
1.0 Declaration for the Record of Decision 1-1
1.1 Site Name and Location 1-1
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose ; 1-1
1.3 Assessment of Site 1-1
1.4 Description of the Selected Remedy 1-1
1.5 Statutory Determinations 1-2
2.0 She Summary 2-1
3.0 She History, Studies and Enforcement Activities 3-1
4.0 Highlights of Community Participation. 4-1
5.0 Scope and Role of Operable Units 5-1
6.0 Summary of Site Characteristics 6-1
6.1 Extent of Contamination in Affected Media 6-1
6.1.1 Preliminary Remediation Goals 6-4
6.1.2 Subunits 6-5
7.0 Summary of She Risks 7-1
7.1 Human Health Risks 7-1
7.1.1 Chemicals of Concern 7-1
7.1.2 Summary of Exposure Assessment 7-2
7.1.2.1 Current Exposure 7-2
7.1.2.2 Potential Future Exposure 7-2
7.1.3 Summary of Toxicity Assessment 7-3
7.1.4 Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment 7-6
7.2 Summary of Environmental Risks : 7-7
8.0 Description of Remedial Alternatives 8-1
8.1 Remedial Action Objectives 8-1
8.2 Preliminary Remediation Goals 8-2
8.3 ARARs 8-3
-------
8.4 Description of Alternatives for Current and Future Uses 8-13
8.4.1 Alternative A - No Action 8-15
8.4.2 Alternative B - Limited Action 8-15
8.4.3 Alternative C - Reuse as Asphalt Aggregate 8-17
8.4.4 Alternative D - On-Site Containment 8-18
8.4.5 Alternative E - On-Site Disposal 8-18
8.4.6 Alternative F - Off-Site Disposal 8-19
9.0 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of
Alternatives 9-1
9.1 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives 9-4
9.1.1 Threshold Criteria 9-4
9.1.2 Balancing Criteria 9-4
9.1.3 Modifying Criteria 9-8
10.0 Selected She Remedy 10-1
10.1 Final Remediation Levels and Compliance Boundary
During Remediation 10-2
10.2 ARARs 10-4
10.3 Five-Year Reviews 10-4
10.4 Cost of the Selected Remedy 10-4
11.0 Documentation of Significant Changes 11-1
12.0 Statutory Determinations 12-1
12.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 12-1
12.2 Compliance with ARARs 12-1
12.3 Cost Effectiveness 12-2
12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies (or Resource Recovery Technologies) to the
Maximum Extent Practicable 12-2
12.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 12-2
12.6 EP A's Selection of the Remedy 12-3
13.0 Responsiveness Summary 13-1
13.1 Public Meeting Transcript 13-1
13.2 Response to Comments on the Proposed Plan for
former Koppers Wood Treating Operable Unit 13-2
13.2.1 Comments from Jack E. Watkins, President of Poncha Sports Inc.,
Marketing-Management-Financial Consulting 13-2
13.2.2 Comments from Frank C. McMurry, Chairman, Chaffee
County Board of Commissioners, The Board of County
Commissioners of Chaffee County 13-3
13.2.3 Comments from Colonel David C. Williams, U S Army,
i-2
-------
Retired 13-3
13.2.4 Comments from Shannon K. Craig, Program Manager of
BeazerEast, Incorporated 13-5
13.2.5 Comments from Randy L. Sego, Tilly & Graves Attorneys at Law, on
behalf of Butala Construction Company 13-8
i-3
-------
List of Acronyms
AOC - Administrative Order on Consent
ARARs - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
CDPHE - Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
COC - Chemical of Concern
CTE - Central Tendency Exposure
DNAPL - Dense, Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
FFS - Focused Feasibility Study
HHBRA - Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment
HRS • Hazard Ranking System
MCLs - Maximum Contaminant Levels
MCLGs - Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
MRA - Mining Restriction Area
NCP - National Contingency Plan
NPL - National Priorities List
PAH - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCB - Polychlorinated Biphenyl
ppb - pans per billion
ppm - parts per million
PRG - Preliminary Remediation Goals
PRP - Potentially Responsible Party
POTWs - Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PWC - Present Worth Cost
RA - Remedial Action
RAO - Remedial Action Objectives
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD - Remedial Design
RI - Remedial Investigation
RME - Reasonable Maximum Exposure
ROD - Record of Decision
SARA - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
TBC - To be considered
TPH - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
TSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act
-------
The Glossary of Terms
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC): A legal agreement between EPA and one or more
potentially responsible parties whereby the potentially responsible party or parties agree to
perform or pay the cost of site investigations or cleanup.
Administrative Record: A file established and maintained by the lead agency that contains all the
documents used by EPA to make a decision on the selection of a remedial action. The
administrative record is available for public review and a copy is established at or near the site,
usually at one of the information repositories.
Alternative: A cleanup option for reducing site risk by limiting or eliminating the exposure
pathway by reducing, removal, containment or treatment of the contamination.
Applicable Requirements: Those cleanup standards, standards or control, and other substantive
requirements, criteria or limitations promulgated under federal environmental or state
environmental or facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site. Only
those state standards that are identified by a state in a timely manner and are more stringent than
federal requirements may be applicable.
Aquifer A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation capable of yielding a
significant amount of ground water to wells or springs.
Capital Costs: The costs of items such as buildings, equipment, engineering, and construction.
Construction costs include labor, equipment and material costs.
CERCLA: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
Chemicals of Concern: The most prevalent and toxic site-related chemicals identified and released
at a Site.
Chemicals of Potential Concern: Potentially, the most prevalent and toxic site-related chemicals
identified and released at a Site.
Colorado Hazardous Waste Act (CHWA): The Colorado law regulating the procedures used in
the generation, treatment, transportation, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes.
Compliance Boundary: The boundary at the Site where chemical-specific remediation levels and
performance standards must be met. Not necessarily equivalent to the physical ownership or site
boundary, but rather defined by the nature and extent of the contamination at the site.
-------
Contingency Measures: Measures that detail the action to be taken in response to a remedy
component failure.
Dense, Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPL): A group of compounds which are heavier than
water. When released to the environment, they often form a "plume" which sinks to a less
permeable surface within the groundwater. Includes or may include, hazardous substances or
contaminants, as the primary material or trapped within a matrix.
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk: The incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over
a lifetime as a result of exposure to a potential carcinogen. A cancer risk of 1 X 10"6 is one
additional case of cancer (over background levels) per million people exposed (a one in a million
chance of having cancer). The NCP specifies the 1 X 1CT4 to 1 X 10^ risk level as a "target range"
within which to manage risk at Superfund sites.
Exposure: Contact of a chemical with the outer boundary of a human (skin, nose, mouth, skin
punctures and lesions) to include dermal, ingestion and inhalation exposures.
Exposure Parameter Factors such as body weight, breathing rate, or time/activity that may be
needed to quantify (calculate) human exposure to a contaminant.
Exposure Pathway: The course a hazardous substance (including chemicals of concern) takes
from a source to a receptor. An exposure pathway describes a unique mechanism by which an
individual or population is exposed to chemicals or physical agents at or originating from a site.
Exposure pathway includes a source or release from a source, an exposure point, and an exposure
route.
Exposure Point: A geographical location of potential contact between a receptor and a chemical
or physical agent, e.g., an industrial worker ingesting soil containing PCBs.
Exposure Point Concentration: Concentration at the point where receptors may be exposed.
Exposure Route: The way a chemical or physical agent comes in contact with a receptor, that is,
inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact, e.g., ingestion of pentachlorophenol in the groundwater by
a hypothetical future residential worker.
Exposure Setting: A combination of potential land uses and exposure routes that describe the
ways by which a specific type of receptor can contact contaminants, for example, residential
setting, occupational setting, recreational setting.
Feasibility Study (FS): A study undertaken to develop and evaluate options for remedial action.
The FS emphasizes analysis of alternatives and is generally performed concurrently and in an
interactive fashion with the remedial investigation (RI), using data gathered during the RI. The
study results are published in a report referred to as the Feasibility Study.
iii-2
-------
Fund or Trust Fund: The Hazardous Substance Superfund established by Section 9507 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Groundwater: As defined by Section 101(12) of CERCLA, water in a saturated zone or stratum
beneath the surface of land or water.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The method used by EPA to evaluate the relative potential of
hazardous substance releases to cause health or safety problems, or ecological or environmental
damage.
Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment (HHBRA): A study used by EPA to evaluate the
potential risks to human health if nothing is done to remediate a site or eliminate the risks. The
BRA considers current use and hypothetical future use of the site.
Hydrogeologic: Relating to the science of hydrogeology, which studies the interactions of
groundwater and geologic formations.
Intake: The measure of exposure expressed as the mass of a chemical that crosses an outer
boundary of a human or the chemical per unit body weight per unit time, i.e., milligrams of
chemical per kilogram of body weight per day.
Institutional Controls: Rules, regulations, laws, or covenants that may be necessary to assure the
effectiveness of a cleanup alternative. Examples of institutional controls include, but are not
limited to, deed restrictions, water use restrictions, zoning controls, and access restrictions.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs): Standards established under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, which identify the highest allowable levels of contaminants in drinking water sources. MCLs
are often used to determine when remedial action would be appropriate to address a release of
hazardous substances.
Mining Restriction Area (MRA): Represents an area of 6.6 acres where the waste exceeds the
Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) which are based upon the industrial scenario.
National Contingency Plan (NCP): The EPA's regulations governing all cleanups under the
Superfund program. Published at 40 CFR Part 300.
National Priorities List (NPL): The list, compiled by EPA pursuant to CERCLA Section 105, of
uncontrolled hazardous substance released within the United States that are priorities for long-
term remedial evaluation and response.
Oflsrte: The area located outside of the physical boundaries of the Smeltertown site.
Onsite: The area within the physical boundaries of the Smeltertown site.
iii-3
-------
Operation and Maintenance: Measures required to maintain the effectiveness of the selected
remedy including the cost of operating labor, maintenance, materials, energy, disposal, and
administrative activities.
Parts per billion (ppb)/paits per million (ppm): Units commonly used to express concentrations of
contaminants. For example, one ounce of trichloroethylene (TCE) in one million ounces of water
is one ppm; one ounce of TCE in one billion ounces of water is one ppb.
Performance Standards: The standards, specified by EPA, that the remedy must meet. For
treatment, these standards are concentrations that the treatment must achieve for identified
contaminants. For disposal, these standards define the concentrations of wastes to be removed (in
volume). For containment, these standards are the concentrations of wastes that are monitored at
the containment boundaries to ensure the integrity of the containment system.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH): A class of organic (carbon-based) compounds which
are associated with manufacturing and petrochemical wastes.
Polychlorinated Biphenyi (PCB): A class of organic (carbon-based) compounds which are widely
found mixed with transformer oils. PCBs have been identified as a cancer-causing agent, or
carcinogen.
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): An individual or company (such as owners, operators,
transporters, or generators of hazardous waste) potentially responsible for, or contributing to, the
contamination problems at a Superfund site, pursuant to CERCLA.
Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs): The goals set during the development of the feasibility
study for the chemicals of concern at a site. These goals can be derived from policy, regulations,
risk-based science, technology, or to-be-considered guidance or criteria. These goals become
performance standards when presented in the Record of Decision.
Present Worth Cost (PWC): An analysis of the current value of all costs. Also known as Net
Present Worth, the PWC is calculated based on a 30-year time period and a predetermined
interest rate.
Proposed Plan: A document that summarizes EPA's preferred cleanup strategy, the rationale for
the preference, and all of the alternatives presented in the detailed analysis of the feasibility study.
The Proposed Plan solicits review and comment on all alternatives under consideration.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW): A municipal or local facility that collects, manages,
and treats wastewater.
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME): The RME is the highest exposure that is reasonably
expected to occur at a site. It is the product of a few upper-bound exposure parameters with
primarily average or typical exposure parameters so that the result represents an exposure that is
iii-4
-------
both protective and plausible. The exposure includes exposure point concentration and exposure
frequency and duration, with a mixture of distributions (averages, 95th percentile, etc.) to reflect a
90th percentile.
Receptor: Any organism (such as humans, terrestrials, wildlife, or aquatic) potentially exposed to
chemicals of concern.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that explains the remedial action plan for a
Superfund site. A ROD serves several functions:
• It certifies that the remedy selection process was carried out in accordance
with CERCLA and with the NCP;
• It describes the technical parameters of the remedy, specifying the
treatment, engineering, and institutional components, as well as
remediation goals;
• It provides the public with a consolidated source of information about the
site and the chosen remedy, including the rationale behind the selection;
and
• The ROD also provides the framework for the transition into the next
phase of the remedial process, Remedial Design (RD).
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements: Those cleanup standards, standards of control, and
other substantive requirements, criteria or limitations promulgated under federal environmental or
state environmental or facility siting laws that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location or other circumstance at a CERCLA site,
address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that
their use is well suited to a particular site. Only those state standards that are identified in a timely
manner and are more stringent than federal requirements may be relevant and appropriate.
Remedial Action (RA) or Remedy: Those actions consistent with a permanent remedy taken
instead of, or in addition to, a removal action in the event of release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance into the environment to prevent or minimize the release of hazardous
substances so that they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to present or future public
health or welfare or the environment.
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs): Objectives developed by EPA, after providing the State
with a meaningful and substantial involvement, at individual Superfund sites that, in connection
with chemical-specific remediation goals and performance standards, define acceptable levels of
risk.
Remedial Design (RD): The technical analysis and procedures which follow the selection of
iii-5
-------
remedy for a site and result in a detailed set of plans and specifications for implementation of the
remedial action.
Remedial Investigation (RI): A study undertaken to determine the nature and extent of the
problem presented by a release of hazardous substances at a Site. The RI emphasizes data
collection and site characterization, and is generally performed concurrently and in an interactive
fashion with the feasibility study. The RI includes sampling and monitoring, as necessary, and the
gathering of sufficient information to determine the necessity for remedial action and to support
the risk assessment evaluation of remedial alternatives.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): A Federal law that requires safe and secure
procedures to be used in treating, transporting, storing and disposing of hazardous wastes and
solid wastes.
Respondent: Identifies the party entering into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC or
Consent Order) with EPA.
Subtitle C: A program under RCRA that regulates the management of hazardous waste from the
time it is generated until its ultimate disposal.
Subtitle D: A program under RCRA that regulates the management of solid waste.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA): Amendments to CERCLA,
enacted on October 17, 1986.
Total Extractable Hydrocarbons (THE): A measure of the amount of petroleum-based
contaminants present.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH): A measure of the amount of petroleum-based
contaminants present.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): A Federal law which regulates the manufacture,
processing, import, distribution, use, and disposal of toxic substances.
Vertical Migration: The ability of media such as water, to move vertically upwards or downwards
through various subsurface strata.
iii-6
-------
Tables
Table 1: Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Soil
Table 2: Historic Wood Treating, Summary of Estimated Cancer Risks
Table 3: Historic Wood Treating, Summary of Estimated Noncancer Hazard Index
Table 4: CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS, Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Table 5: ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS, Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Table 6: POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS, Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Table 7: TO BE CONSIDERED CRITERIA ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE, Operable Unit
#2, Smeltertown Site
Table 8: Final Remediation Levels for Soil
Table 9: Remedy Cost - Monitoring and Institutional Controls
iv-1
-------
Figures
1 -1 Location Map of Smeltertown Superfund Site and Former Koppers
Property
1 -2 Site Topography, Former Koppers Facility, Salida, Colorado
2-7 Elevation of Top of Galcial/Basin-Fill Deposits, Former Koppers Facility, Salida,
Colorado
5-1 Area of Mining Restriction, Former Koppers Facility, Salida, Colorado
5-2 Proposed Monitoring Well and Spring Locations, Former Koppers
Facility, Salida, Colorado
5-3 Fencing Location, Former Koppers Facility, Salida, Colorado
v-l
-------
Section 1.0
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
1.1 She Name and Location
Smeltertown Superfund Site
Chaffee County
Colorado
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action (RA) for the former Koppers Wood
Treating Operable Unit (OU2) at the Smeltertown Superfund Site (the Site), which was chosen in
accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the
basis and the purpose of the selected remedy and is based on the administrative record file for this
Site.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) concurs on the
selected remedy.
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present a current or potential threat
to public health, welfare, or the environment.
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Former Koppers Woodtreating Operable Unit is the second of three operable units. The first
operable unit (OU1) at this Site addresses the contamination from the smelting activities
conducted by the Ohio and Colorado Smelting and Refining Company from 1902 to 1919 and is
identified as the Historic Smelting Operable Unit. The third operable unit (OU3) addresses the
contamination from the active Colorado Zinc Company (CoZinCo) industrial facility. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environmental are currently negotiating with the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
of OU1 to implement the selected response action documented in the Action Memorandum dated
September 27, 1996. CDPHE currently oversees the active CoZinCo Site (OU3) under the State
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). CDPHE anticipates a selected corrective
action for OU3 in early summer 1998. This action addresses the wood-treating contaminants
from the tie treating operations at the former Koppers Wood Treating Operable Unit that were
conducted by Koppers Company, Inc. (now known as Beazer East, Inc.) from 1924 through
-------
1953. This remedy calls for the containment of soils contaminated at low levels and monitors the
effect of the contaminants in the soils, dissolved polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) within the groundwater.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
o Institutional controls (deed restrictions) and engineering controls (fence) to ensure that the
contaminated area remains undisturbed and the Site is not developed for residential use. A
mining restriction would be imposed upon 6.6 acres where subsurface impacts from wood-
treating activities remain.
o Groundwater monitoring will be conducted to ensure no further migration of the
dense non-aqueous phase liquid or dissolved PAH constituents and to measure the
long-term effectiveness of the remedy.
1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal
and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action (or justifies a waiver of any Federal and State applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements that will not be met), and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes institutional and
engineering controls for the containment of low-level contaminants as preferred by the National
Contingency Plan.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based
levels, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
MaxH. Dodson
Assistant Regional Administrator
Ecosystems Protection and Remediation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIE
1-2
-------
Section 2.0
Site Summary
The Smeltertown Superfund Site (SMT) is located in Township 50 North, Range 9 East, in the
southeast quarter of Section 25 approximately one mile northwest of Salida in Chaffee County,
Colorado. The 118-acre site is situated south of Chaffee County Highway 150, west of County
Highway 152. See Figure 1-1 location map of Smeltertown Superfund Site and Former Koppers
Property. A predominant feature of the area is the 365-foot smokestack, which stands just
outside the southeast boundary of the former Koppers property and was placed on the National
Register of Historic Places in 1976. The Smeltertown Superfund Site is subdivided into three
subsites based on historical and current industrial operations. These subsites or operable units are
not mutually exclusive and there is considerable overlap between them. The Smelter subsite
(operable unit one) of the historic Ohio and Colorado Smelting and Refinery Company occupies
the Site's central region. The CoZinCo subsite (operable unit three) lies in the Site's eastern
region and is occupied by the active CoZinCo, Inc. facility. The former Koppers Wood Treating
subsite (operable unit two) in the western region was occupied by the former Kopper's creosote
treatment facility and is the focus of this decision document. This subsite is currently used by
Butala Construction for storage of sand and gravel material and includes approximately 60 acres
of the 118-acre site.
SMT is surrounded by residences and a variety of industries operate on or adjacent to SMT..
Colorado-Ute Electric Association operates a substation located approximately midway along the
northern border of SMT. Butala Construction is actively quarrying gravel from the valley fill in
the west and northwest portion of SMT. E&R Trucking, Inc. (E&R), which is currently not
active, occupied part of the smelter subsite. E&R was a hauling operation which used the
property as a staging area for semi-trailers. A peat moss packaging facility, which uses peat
hauled in from elsewhere, is located southwest of the zinc facility operated by CoZinCo
Incorporated (CoZinCo). Salida Auto Salvage operates a facility open to the public south of
CoZinCo. There are two residential properties within the area of study, the Kimmett family
residence and the Graff rental properties. As of the spring of 1996, the ownership of the Graff
rental properties changed to Poncha Development Company, and the new owner has no tenants.
SMT is generally zoned industrial. However, Chaffee County's industrial zoning allows
residential development, as evidenced by the continued approval for construction of new homes in
the area.
Land use in the general area of SMT consists of the following:
o Residential;
o Industrial operations (CoZinCo);
o Quarrying and rock-crushing related activities (Butala
Construction);
o Commercial activities, such as river rafting, a bed and breakfast, an
automobile salvage yard, and a peat moss packaging and sales
2-1
-------
company;
o Public use (fish hatchery);
o Recreational use (fishing);
o Agricultural use, such as fields, livestock, horse farms; and,
o A utility company (Colorado-Ute Electric Association, which
operates a substation immediately north of SMT).
Although SMT is largely industrial in character, there are approximately 50 homes located
adjacent and within the southern and eastern portions of SMT. The homes within SMT include
private homes and at least three mobile homes. Much of SMT is readily accessible to the public.
During a site visit conducted September 1st and 2nd of 1992, the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) staff observed that there was little evidence of small children in
the immediate area. This observation was supported by community resident statements during the
"public availability session" held during an SMT visit. According to a census conducted in 1990,
the town of Salida had a population of about 4,700 people. The block group in the census tract
encompassing SMT had a 1990 population of 332 people. It should be noted, however, that this
block group comprises an area much larger than SMT; it is estimated that about one third of the
block group's population resides in the immediate SMT vicinity. Approximately 5,200 people live
within four miles of SMT, and about 200 people live within one mile of SMT.
The chief topographic features of the area are two parallel, northwest trending mountain ranges
that border the Arkansas River Valley. The Sawatch Range rises to over 14,000 feet in elevation
and borders the western margin of the Valley. The Mosquito Range rises to over 10,000 feet in
elevation and borders the eastern margin of the Valley.
The Site is on a relatively flat terrace on the northeast bank of the Arkansas River, about 90 to
100 vertical feet above the river. The Arkansas River flows southward from its headwaters near
Leadville, Colorado, approximately 50 miles to the north. Locally, the river flows southeastward
along the west side of the Site and then turns to the east along the south edge of the Site
approximately two miles upstream of Salida, Colorado.
Land-surface elevation at the Site ranges from approximately 7,050 to 7,200 feet above mean sea
level (MSL). The majority of the Site is on a river terrace about 90 vertical feet above the river at
an approximate elevation of 7180 feet. Annual precipitation in the area is approximately 10 to 12
inches/year. Native grasses are the only vegetation on the terrace surface. No trees and few
buildings are present, and several large boulders, approximately 6 to 8 feet in nominal diameter,
lie on the terrace surface. Between the terrace surface and the Arkansas River, there is a steep
bluff that is vegetated with cortonwood trees and various species of underbrush. Approximately
30 to 40 vertical feet below the terrace surface along the bluff face (at an elevation of
approximately 7,140 to 7,150 feet above MSL) there are several areas of diffuse seepage and
springs of very low flow rate. An old slag pile is located about another 10 to 15 vertical feet
down the bluff face. The upper surface of the slag pile is relatively flat, and extends about 5 to 10
feet horizontally outward toward the river from the bluff face. The slag is from the former
smelter operation and is not related to wood-treating activities.
2-2
-------
A Colorado Division of Water Resources streamflow gauging station is located 0.75 mile
downstream from the site. Based on a period of record from 1909 to 1980, the average annual
discharge at the gauging station is 634 cubic feet per second (ftVsec). The average annual
discharge from 1991 to 1993 is approximately 590 ftVsec. Streamflow is characterized as high in
the spring and early summer due to runoff of snowmelt from the surrounding high mountains, and
relatively moderate flows for the rest of the year.
Most of the water used for irrigation of hay meadows in the area is obtained by direct diversion
of Arkansas River water via unlined ditches that flow across the river valley, rather than from the
pumping of groundwater from wells. Two such canals, the Salida Ditch and the Williams Hamm
Ditch, are present to the northwest, north, and northeast of the Site and flow southeasterly across
the valley. Infiltration from these ditches is probably a source of shallow groundwater beneath the
Site. The irrigation season occurs from approximately May through September of each year.
Four distinct hydrologic units have been identified at the Site within the valley-fill deposits: upper
terrace aquifer, lower terrace aquifer, Arkansas River alluvial aquifer and underlying all three of
these aquifers are the glacial and basin-fill deposits. Groundwater beneath the Site in the Upper
Terrace Aquifer moves to the south. Water levels in monitoring wells on Site completed in this
aquifer have been measured on a quarterly basis from April of 1994 to January of 1995 and show
that the direction of groundwater movement (perpendicular to potentiometric contours) is
generally from north to south across most of the former Koppers Wood Treating Operable Unit.
However, on the western edge of the area of investigation (i.e., near the bluff), the groundwater
flow direction has a southwesterly component, due to the fact that the Upper Terrace Aquifer is
truncated at the bluff, thus inducing flow toward the bluff where it discharges as springs and
seeps. The general direction of groundwater movement in the Lower Terrace Aquifer, the
Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, and the glacial/basin-fill deposits is toward the Arkansas River
and parallel to it.
Groundwater in the Upper Terrace Aquifer, which moves generally to the south, discharges
predominantly: •
• To a series of springs and diffuse seeps at various locations along the 90-foot high bluff at
the southwestern edge of the Site; and
• To the Lower Terrace Aquifer and/or a series of springs and diffuse seeps at various
locations along the 40-foot bluff that separates the upper terrace from the lower terrace
along the south and southeastern edges of the Site.
An estimate of the volumetric flow through the Upper Terrace Aquifer indicates that all the
springs and diffuse seeps, together, discharge about one gallon per minute (gpm) of groundwater.
Some of this water is likely consumed through evapotranspiration by vegetation growing on the
bluff. Field observations in April 1994 indicate that no discrete streams of water were observed
emanating from spring discharge locations and flowing down the slope of the bluff
2-3
-------
Section 3.0
Site History, Studies and Enforcement Activities
Industrial activity at the Smeltertown Superfund Site began in 1902 with the construction of a
lead-zinc smelter by the Ohio and Colorado Smelting and Refining Company. The smelter
operated from 1902 to 1919, was dismantled in 1920, and the area was cleared of most structures
except two buildings and a 365-foot smokestack. A portion of the property, including the smelter
office building, was utilized by a series of railroad tie-treating companies (Koppers and its
predecessors), beginning in 1926 and ending in 1953 when the wood-treating plant was closed.
Koppers sold the property in 1962 to the H.E. Lowdermilk Company (Lowdermilk).
The former Koppers Wood Treating Operable Unit (OU 2) was purchased from Lowdermilk by
Butala Construction, a sand and gravel mining and processing company, which continues to
operate a sand and gravel quarry including producing decorative residential and commercial rock.
Operable Unit 2 adjoins other property owned by Butala to the south where most of the active
sand and gravel mining activity occurs. Operable Unit 2 has been cleared of most remnants of
past activity. The only structures remaining are the plant office building and a water storage tank,
both on the upper terrace, and a gutted pump house near the Arkansas River. Butala
Construction uses portions of the Site for stockpiling of sand, gravel, and other materials.
The remaining portion of the Smeltertown Superfund Site was not used for wood-treating
activities and includes the former site of lead-zinc smelter operations and the active Colorado Zinc
Company (CoZinCo) industrial facility. The 365-foot smokestack, which still stands just outside
the southeast boundary of the former Koppers property, was placed on the National Register of
Historic Places in 1976,
SMT was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) in February 1992. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not taken any final action at this time
to include SMT on the NPL.
EPA first focused its attention on the Site in 1986 as the result of delivery of creosote-impacted
soil from the Site to the Chaffee County Landfill by Butala Construction. Thereafter, Beazer
removed over 5,000 tons of creosote-stained soil from the Site and disposed of the soils in a
permitted hazardous waste management facility. In October 1995 Beazer signed an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Focused Feasibility
Study (RI/FFS) (EPA Docket No.: CERCLA-Vm-96-11) of the former Koppers Wood-Treating
Subsite (Operable Unit 2) at the Smeltertown Superfund Site. The AOC became effective in
January 1996.
Butala Construction is the current owner of Operable Unit 2 and operates a sand and gravel
mining operation. Butala scraped much of the creosote-stained surface soil from OU 2 and
reportedly buried portions of this material both on OU 2 and on adjacent Butala property. Two
3-1
-------
specific burial locations were identified: one location on the upper terrace and one on the lower
terrace adjacent to the Arkansas River. The. upper terrace location was reported by Butala
Construction to include six trenches roughly 100 feet long, 10 feet deep, and 12 to 14 feet wide.
On the basis of earlier investigations, USEPA speculated that the lower terrace location may
potentially hold the same volume of creosote-stained soil. Beazer conducted investigation
activities in both areas.
Numerous investigations have been conducted on OU2 and the CoZinCo portions of the
Smeltertown Superfund Site. In 1987, Water, Waste & Land, Inc. (WWL) was retained by a
group of homeowners in the Salida area to investigate the current extent and potential for future
pollution of soil, water, and air in the immediate area due to the zinc-sulfate manufacturing
facility, CoZinCo, which is located near their homes. WWL collected groundwater, spring water,
soil, and air paniculate samples in the area of CoZinCo, and produced a report of results that
included a preliminary conceptual model of groundwater flow in the area of CoZinCo.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. conducted investigations for both the CoZinCo and the Koppers
portions of the Smeltertown Superfund Site on behalf of the USEPA. These investigations
included extensive sampling of surface and subsurface soils, the installation and sampling of 7
monitoring wells, extensive spring water sampling, and presentations of the results with
interpretations of the impact to soil and groundwater.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. conducted additional investigations on behalf of USEPA involving additional
soil and water sampling. The purpose of these investigations was to characterize the sources of
potential environmental degradation, evaluate the pathways for movement of these compounds,
and collect data for the assessment of human health risk.
CH2M Hill prepared a work plan report on behalf of USEPA that evaluated the procedures for
continued investigation of the nature and extent of constituents at the Smeltertown Superfund
Site. The investigation conducted by CH2M Hill was focused on those portions of the
Smeltertown Superfund Site not being addressed by a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP).
ENSR prepared a companion work plan report on behalf of Beazer East, Inc. that enumerated
plans for continued investigations at the Site. The work plan focused only on those portions of
the Site potentially impacted by wood-treating constituents (creosote) used by Koppers. ENSR
submitted a draft Remedial Investigation (RI) Report in October 1994 which was finalized in
March 1996. ENSR submitted two drafts and a final Focused Feasibility Study dated July 1996,
November 1996, and August 7, 1997, respectively, with replacement pages submitted at the
request of EPA and CDPHE on September 4, October 15, October 23, and December 17, 1997.
A fund-lead emergency removal action (Removal Action #1) was initiated on May 26, 1993, to
provide bottled water to five rental units due to zinc in the groundwater beneath the CoZinCo
subsite. The Action was completed on May 23, 1994.
EPA issued a unilateral administrative order (UAO) (Removal Action #2, CERCLA 94-09) on
3-2
-------
April 28, 1994, to CoZinCo for the purposes of providing replacement water supplies to residents
where water was contaminated by zinc; however, violations of the UAO led EPA to take over the
work. The UAO was in effect from May 24, 1994 to November 1, 1995.
Phase I of a time-critical removal action (Removal Action #3) was initiated on September 27,
1993, to remove the creosote-contaminated sludge from four residential driveways; lead-
contaminated soil from five residential yards; a slag, cinder, and debris pile from one residential
property; and metal-contaminated soil next to the smelter. The contaminated soils were
stockpiled on SMT, previously referred to as the existing waste pile. Two homes were
decontaminated from lead and arsenic dust.
Phase n of a time-critical removal action (Removal Action #3) continued the actions initiated
under Phase I. These actions included constructing a fence around the stockpiled waste pile on-.
site; reapplying a dust suppression polymer to the on-site waste pile; removing creosote-
contaminated sludge from one more residential property; decontaminating rails removed and
stockpiled by the landowner near a residence; removing the surface lead and creosote
contamination on the upper terrace of SMT; and removing the mixture of cinder (high lead
content) and creosote-contaminated material that was located on the banks of the Arkansas River.
Phase n was completed on November 1, 1995.
To assist in the activities of Removal Action #3, EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) (CERCLA 95-08) (Removal Action #4) with Butala Construction on January 10, 1995, to
provide in-kind services. Butala provided equipment and personnel to assist in the excavation and
stockpiling on-site of contaminated soils. Butala Construction's involvement began on February
27, 1995, and ended on June 8, 1995.
EPA initiated a fund-lead time-critical removal action (Removal Action #5) on November 1,
1995, to provide alternative water supplies to residences affected by the spread of zinc in the
ground water from the CoZinCo facility. The action was completed February 8, 1996.
EPA and CDPHE released a Cleanup Proposal, describing the results of the Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) of the smelter subsite and EPA's preferred alternative, to the
public in a fact sheet dated September 1995. Public comment period ended on October 5, 1995.
The Action Memorandum, dated September 27, 1997, describes EPA's selection of the response
action for the smelter subsite, creosote contaminants within the existing on-site waste pile and
soils contaminated with metals within the area! extent of the wood treating subsite. The Response
Action for the smelter subsite calls for containment of contaminated soils under an engineered cap
with ground water monitoring to assist in determining the effectiveness of the cap.
While in negotiations with EPA and CDPHE to perform the smelter subsite removal action,
Cyprus Amax Minerals Company volunteered to investigate and evaluate the nature and extent of
the slag pile bordering the Arkansas River to determine if further action was warranted. PTI
Environmental Services (PTI) conducted the investigation and evaluation, on behalf of Cyprus
Amax Minerals Company, and submitted a report titled Data. Summary and Risk Evaluation
3-3
-------
Report: River Corridor Exposure Unit at the Smeltertown Site dated January 1998. The
exposure scenario was based upon the frequency and time that a future recreational user would be
exposed to contaminants at the site. The recreational user was considered to be a fisherman. This
report concludes that action is not warranted for either the current (industrial) and the reasonable
maximum exposure (RME) future use of the area.
The CoZinCo facility is currently under a CHWA order issued by CDPHE to monitor and
mitigate releases from the operating units at the facility. A number of source areas at the facility
have been closed under CHWA orders. The State is currently reviewing a Corrective Measures
Plan to address the CoZinCo contaminants within the soils and groundwater.
3-4
-------
Section 4.0
Highlights of Community Participation
EPA conducted community interviews on September 1 -2, 1992. A Community Relations Plan
was developed, based, in part, upon the results of the community interviews, and finalized on
December 15, 1993. Several fact sheets have been published and distributed to the local area to
inform the citizenry of EPA's activities at the Smeltertown Site. Other public outreach activities
included numerous formal and informal meetings with citizens and town officials, responses to
telephone inquiries and informative conversations with local media.
EPA established a local repository at the Salida Public Library to make available to local
residents documents that detail the investigations conducted at the site. These documents
represent the information EPA has considered to make the remedy selection described in this
decision document. EPA has also set up a repository at the EPA Superfund Records Center
located within the Regional Office in Denver, Colorado.
The Notice of Availability for the RI/FS report and other documents in the administrative record,
and the Proposed Plan were published in The Salida Mountain Mail in October 20, 1997. A
public meeting was held in the Salida Senior Citizens Center. The nature and extent of
contamination and the developed alternatives were presented to the public by EPA and CDPHE.
The public meeting was well attended, and many participated by asking questions and providing
opinions and comments regarding the remedies. A transcript of the public meeting is provided
with this decision document. A public comment period was held from October 22 to November
21, 1997. Six comment letters were received. Responses to each of the comments are found in
the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision.
4-1
-------
Section 5.0
Scope and Role of Operable Units
The operable units at the Smeltertown Superfund site were derived from the distinctly different
activities that lead to the Site being contaminated by different contaminants. These operable units
are:
• OUOne: Smelter subsite
• OU Two: Former Koppers Wood-Treating subsite
• OU Three: CoZinCo subsite
As discussed above, EPA has already selected a response action for OU 1, and CDPHE
anticipates selecting a corrective action for OU 3 in the summer of 1998. These actions will
occur within the areal extent of each operable unit with some overlap of contamination.
The remaining former Koppers Wood Treating operable unit's remedy is described in this Record
of Decision. The contaminants within this operable unit include dioxin isomers,
pentachlorophenol (penta) and the major components of wood-treating which are primarily
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from creosote. The purpose of this response is to
prevent current and future exposure to the contaminated soils and to reduce contaminant
migration into the ground water by ensuring no further migration of the DNAPL plume or
dissolved PAHs in the Upper Terrace Aquifer.
5-1
-------
Section 6.0
Summary of Site Characteristics
This section provides an overview of contamination at the former Koppers Wood Treating
Operable Unit Two (OU2), including the source, nature and extent, concentrations, and volumes
of contamination. Actual routes of exposure and exposure pathways are discussed in Section 7.0.
A general overview of the OU2 is presented in Section 2.0.
6.1 Extent of Contamination in Affected Media
Releases of hazardous substances within operable unit two occurred during the wood-treating
operation of Koppers and its predecessors from 1926 to 1953. Tie treating operations at the Site
included a creosote treating retort, drip tracks, storage tanks, pole plant and lagoons. In the
retort building, railroad ties and other lumber products were pressure-treated with creosote in
steel cylinders. The treated materials were then moved from the retort building onto drip tracks
where they were temporarily stored until subsequent storage was arranged elsewhere on the Site.
Historical drawings of the Site indicate four storage tanks were located west of the retort
building, and an additional three working tanks were located adjacent to the north side of the
building. At the pole plant, located north of the office building (still standing) and east of the
retort, the butt-ends of telephone poles were dipped in creosote to preserve the wood. Historical
aerial photographs also suggest the presence of two lagoons, northeast of the retort building, on
the north side of the old Chafifee County Road 150.
The principal source areas of contamination were the former process area and the lagoons. Figure
1-2 identifies the location of the source areas from the former Koppers Facility activities. As
mentioned earlier, the Site has been cleared of most remnants of past activity including the
process building, retort and storage tanks. The lagoons were backfilled but are still identifiable
from aerial photographs. In the process area, soils impacted with creosote were found in the
location of the former drip tracks, process building and near the storage tanks. The fluids
historically present in the lagoons were probably process waters which consisted of an emulsion
containing droplets of creosote and water with near-saturation concentrations of dissolved wood-
treating constituents. The active sources of creosote and process waters were eliminated in the
early 1950s when the Koppers facility was permanently closed. Approximately 5,000 tons of
creosote impacted soils were removed from the Site by Beazer in 1992. Soils containing wood-
treating constituents were excavated and buried on-site or removed to the county landfill by
Butala.
From the historic sources in the process area and the lagoons, wood-treating constituents moved
downward through the vadose zone to the water table within the perched Upper Terrace Aquifer.
Creosote, a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL), which is denser than water, continued to
move downward to the bottom of the Upper Terrace Aquifer leaving a residual coating of
DNAPL on the surface of the aquifer material. The remaining DNAPL at the base of the aquifer
migrated along the upper surface of the glacia^asin fill deposits that generally slopes to the east.
Dissolved wood-treating constituents, on the other hand, moved in the direction of groundwater
6-1
-------
flow to the south and southwest towards the bluff (see figure 2-7).
DNAPL is present in Spring No. 5 which is located on the west side of the Site about one third of
the distance down the bluff from the top. This spring and the soils in the immediate vicinity
(within 15 feet) are currently the only location where visible, free phase DNAPL is found at the
ground surface. The source of this DNAPL is probably the former storage tanks west of the
process building.
Soil
Surface soil collected from gridded sampling locations contained less than 100 mg/kg total PAHs
(TPAH) with the exception of one location near the lagoons. Near-surface soil (2 to 5 feet in
depth) collected from the gridded sampling locations contained lower levels of TPAH with the
exception of one location on the east side of the Site where the grid location is on or near a
former railroad grade.
Visually impacted soils were found in the process areas and the lagoons extending from just
beneath the ground surface to the bottom of the upper terrace aquifer at a depth of about 40 feet.
No visually impacted soils were seen within the glacial/basin-fill deposits which underlie the upper
terrace aquifer. Visually unimpacted soils immediately adjacent to both areas contained TPAH at
levels less than 100 mg/kg.
The pole plant was an isolated facility for treating the butt ends of power/telephone poles and was
located east of the main process area. With the exception of two samples, all soil samples
contained less than 15 mg/kg TPAH. TPAH concentrations of approximately 15,000 mg/kg were
found in the sample associated with wood fragments and a sample from the base of the Upper
Terrace Aquifer contained 121 mg/kg TPAH.
Investigation of the upper terrace area where Butala has reportedly buried creosote-impacted
surface soil revealed the presence of at least four trenches containing buried soil impacted with
wood-treating constituents. The trenches do not extend beyond a depth of about 20 feet, and
thus are above the water table. Available evidence suggests that constituents have not migrated
from the base of the trenches. In the lower terrace area where Butala also reportedly buried
creosote-impacted soil, stained soils were encountered at shallow depths. Maximum TPAH
concentrations were 144 mg/kg found in subsurface soil.
A statistical summary of individual PAH concentrations by area are found in Tables A-l through
A-13 in the appendix A of Focused Feasibility Study Former Koppers Wood Treating Site, Salida,
Colorado dated August 1997.
Groundwater
Three groundwater monitoring wells were insialled by USEPA at the Site (KRMW-1, KRMW-2,
and KRMW-4) and seven wells were installed by Beazer (KRMW-5, KRMW-6, KRMW-7S,
6-2
-------
KRMW-7D, KRWM-8, KRMW-9, and KRMW-10) for a total of 10 wells on or adjacent to the
Site. KRMW-4 and KRMW-9 were completed in the Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer, KRMW-
7D was completed within the glacial/basin-fill deposits, and all other wells were completed in the
Upper Terrace Aquifer. Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) were not detected in wells
KRMW-1, KRMW-4, and KRMW-9. Low levels of COPCs were detected in all other wells with
the exception of KRMW-6 in which high levels were detected and small droplets of floating
product were observed during sampling of the well. KRMW-6 is located down gradient of the
lagoons. Low levels of COPCs were detected in KRMW-7D within the glacial/basin-fill deposits
at the elevation of the river. The levels of COPCs detected in water from KRMW-7D collected
during two sampling events do not exceed MCLs; not all compounds, however, have
corresponding MCLs.
COPCs were detected within the uppermost, perched aquifer beneath the Site (known as the
Upper Terrace Aquifer). Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) was detected at four locations within the Upper
Terrace Aquifer at levels in excess of the MCL (0.2 ug/1). B(a)P was detected at Spring No. 5
(7.9 ug/1 to 310 mg/1) and KRMW-7S (1.1 to 2.0 ug/1). B(a)P was also detected in wells
KRMW-5 (I-1 to 1.9 ug/1) and KRMW-6 (16 to 18 ug/1). Both KRMW-5 and KRMW-6 are
down gradient of the lagoon area. B(a)P was not detected in well KRMW-10 which is located
about 400 feet down gradient of wells KRMW-5 and KRMW-6. The Upper Terrace Aquifer is
currently not used as a drinking water supply and is not a potentially useable drinking water
supply.
Available evidence from one deep well suggests it is unlikely that Site activities have impacted
either the Lower Terrace Aquifer or the Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer. Low-level
concentrations of a limited number of COPCs were observed at one location in the glacial/basin-
fill deposits that occur beneath the Upper Terrace Aquifer.
The movement of COPCs dissolved in groundwater is likely to be very slow due to their tendency
to adsorb to aquifer and soil solids. This slow rate of transport in groundwater is likely to result
in demonstrable-biodegradation of the COPCs along a transport flow path of any great length. At
other wood-treating sites fate and transport analyses and groundwater sampling has shown that
COPCs dissolved in groundwater are below detectable levels within 150 feet of DNAPL source
materials. Historically, past migration of COPCs in pure phase was likely the predominant
mechanism of transport. Not only is pure-phase velocity higher than dissolved-phase transport
velocity, but attenuation mechanisms (e.g., biodegradation) are not significant in the pure phase.
Based on available data and the length of time since operations ceased at the former Koppers
facility, significant migration of pure-phase DNAPL does not appear to be occurring today.
Residual DNAPL from past migration probably is a continuing source of dissolved COPCs to
groundwater in the perched Upper Terrace Aquifer. Consistent with this, the highest
concentrations of dissolved COPCs were observed in the immediate vicinity of Spring No. 5 and
in monitoring well KRMW-6 immediately down gradient from the lagoon area. Historically, the
tank area located near Spring No. 5 and the lagoon area located near KRMW-6 are the source
areas of concentrated creosote .
6-3
-------
6.1.1 Preliminary Remediation Goals
Constituents of concern (COCs) are a subset of the COPCs which were identified in the Human
Health Baseline Risk Assessment (HHBRA). In identifying COCs, only those potentially
carcinogenic wood-treating compounds in a particular scenario that significantly contribute to a
total risk of more than 1 in 10,000 for each exposure pathway were considered. Individual
compounds that were calculated to contribute an incremental risk of less than 1 in 1,000,000
were not considered to be COCs.
For non-carcinogenic compounds the Hazard Quotient (HQ) is used as a guide in evaluating the
effects of a single non-carcinogenic compound. The HQ is the estimated daily intake of a
compound based upon Site-specific exposure point concentration data divided by the reference
dose for the compound above which health effects are observed. An HQ greater than one
indicates the potential for an adverse health effect. The sum of all HQs for a particular pathway
provides the Hazard Index (HI) which, if greater than one, indicates the potential for adverse
health impacts from a mixture of compounds through a single exposure pathway.
As noted in EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.0-
30 "where the cumulative carcinogenic site risk to an individual based on reasonable maximum
exposure for both current and future land use is less than 1 in 10,000, and the non-carcinogenic
hazard quotient is less than 1, action generally is not warranted unless there are adverse
environmental impacts." The HHBRA identified only one exposure scenario which could lead to
human health risks that exceed the criteria set forth above:
• Incidental ingestion of surface soil by a potential future resident leading to an
excess cancer risk of 5 in 10,000 due primarily to exposure to arsenic and, to a
lesser extent, dioxin, benzo(a)pyrene, and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene.
A full description of the current land use is in Section 7.1.2.2. Under the current and most likely
future land use scenario (industrial) considered by the HHBRA, there would be no unacceptable
risks from wood-treating constituents. However, the HHBRA did not consider risk, if any, to a
hypothetical future sand and gravel worker due to exposure to subsurface soils should the Site be
mined. Neither did the HHBRA evaluate the risk to users of subsurface soils mined from the Site.
Therefore, because Butala may seek to expand mining activities into the Site, preliminary
remediation goals (PRGs) were established for subsurface soils. The PRGs were established for
only those COPCs that were observed at the Site in concentrations equal to or greater than that
which presents a risk greater than 10*6 under the current sand and gravel worker scenario. The
PRGs were calculated as the concentration that presents a risk of 1 in 10,000 under USEPA's
default industrial scenario.
6-4
-------
Table 1 : Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Soil
Constituent
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)flouranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -ed)pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
HpCDD
HxCDD
HxCDF
OCDD
Concentration (mg/kg)1
780
78
780
78
780
4,768
0.2
0.02
0.02
2.0
1 Concentrations were calculated for a 1 in 10,000 target risk level under an industrial worker
scenario.
6.1.2 Subunhs
Based on the nature and extent of the COPCs, the fate and transport of these constituents, and the
potential exposure pathways, three subunits have been identified for evaluation of the alternatives.
Subunits are defined as areas of the Site that exhibit similar characteristics and require similar
remedial alternatives. The subunits for the Site are described below including a discussion of the
logic behind inclusion of each subunit.
Subunit 1 - Spring No. 5
Subunit 1 consists of discharge from Spring No. 5 located about one-third of the way down the
steep bluff on the west side of the Site. Available data suggest flow to this spring is isolated from
other groundwater aquifers and represents the down gradient termination of the perched aquifer.
Because the aquifer discharging at the Spring is isolated, of limited aerial extent and has a low
volumetric flow rate, exposure through use as a drinking water source is unlikely. Access to
Spring No. 5 is poor due to the steep, rocky, wooded slope and, therefore, exposure is unlikely.
The Spring is identified as a subunit of the Site because the Human Health Baseline Risk
Assessment (HHBRA) and the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) have identified the potential
for exposure to Spring No. 5 and because:
6-5
-------
• It includes the only area of the Site where DNAPL is found on the surface;
• The discharge at Spring No. 5 (about 1.0 gpm) contains detectable PAH
concentrations; and
• DNAPL in Spring No. 5 is not readily visible due to vegetative cover from grasses
and shrubs; however, the DNAPL can be seen if leaf litter is moved in the area of
the Spring. Spring No. 5 is intermittent (seasonal) and the low flow of water
results in a small wet area on the side of the bluff.
The volume of contaminated soil surrounding Spring No. 5 is estimated at 100 cubic yards (cy).
Subiinit 2 - Surface and Subsurface (0 to 30 feet) Soils
Subunit 2 consists of soil in the vadose zone above the level of the perched aquifer (approximately
30 ft in depth) which is impacted by contaminants exceeding the PRGs. The majority of impacted
soil in this subunit is made up of soils primarily from the process area and the former lagoons.
The majority of impacted soil in this subunit is found below the ground surface and may continue
to affect the perched aquifer. The process area includes visually impacted soils exceeding the
PRGs and extending to depths of 15 to 40 feet below ground surface including areas along the
former rail line, drip tracks, process building, working and storage tanks The total estimated
volume of the material exceeding PRGs is approximately 61,000 tons (assuming 1.80 tons/bank
cubic yard [BCY]) from 0 to 30 feet below ground surface.
These soils are categorized as a subunit solely in order to identify and evaluate alternatives and
technologies should a mining permit be sought for the Site in the future.
Subunh 3 - Saturated (30 to 40 feet) Soils
Subunit 3 consists of those soils that are beneath the upper level of the perched aquifer, saturated
by water and bounded below by a confining layer. This subunit includes soils impacted by
migration of constituents from source areas assumed to be the process area and the former
lagoons. These soils may continue to affect the perched aquifer as well as the Upper Terrace
Aquifer. The process area includes visually impacted soils exceeding the PRGs and extending to
depths of 15 to 40 feet below ground surface including areas along the former rail line, drip
tracks, process building, working and storage tanks. The total estimated volume of the material
exceeding PRGs is approximately 15,000 tons (assuming 1.80 tons/bank cubic yard [BCY]) from
30 to 40 feet (saturated zone). As with Subunit 2, these soils are categorized as a subunit solely
in order to identify and evaluate alternatives and technologies should a mining permit be sought
for the Site in the future. Because these are saturated soils, mining would require additional
activities over those for Subunit 2 including de-watering, possible treatment and effluent
discharge. For these reasons, these soils are included as a separate subunit.
6-6
-------
Section 7.0
Summary of Site Risks
A Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment was developed and finalized April 1995, by CH2M
Hill on behalf of EPA. An Ecological Risk Assessment for the Site was developed and finalized in
April 1995 by CH2M Hill on behalf of EPA. The following describes the development and results
of these studies.
7.1 Human Health Risks
CERCLA and EPA guidance delineates the role of the Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment
(HHBRA) in the Superfund remedy selection process. The HHBRA is initiated to determine
whether the contaminants of concern at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health
and the environment in the absence of any remedial action. A site conceptual model for the site
was developed and included potential current and future exposure pathways. Carcinogenic and •
noncarcinogenic cumulative risk resulting from multiple contaminants, and/or multiple pathway
exposure scenarios were evaluated. The evaluation of the risk involves the selection of the
chemicals of concern; identification of an exposure (to include receptor and pathway); an
assessment of the toxicity of the COCs; and a calculation of the risk for each COC and exposure
pathway typically referred to as the risk characterization of the site.
7.1.1 Chemicals of Concern
COCs were selected from a list of all potentially site-related chemicals using specific guidelines
developed by Region Vm EPA in the HHBRA. The list of potentially site-related chemicals
included chemicals detected at least once in any site-specific sample from data collected as part of
the EPA ERT investigations, EPA's RI/FS investigation (as summarized in the RI Report for the
smelter subsite), and Beazer East investigation of the historic wood treating subsite. Selection
criteria were as follows:
o Evaluating if the chemical concentration in each sample is
greater than the chemical concentration expected under natural background
conditions;
o Determining the frequency with which a particular chemical is detected;
o Using the toxicity-concentration screen, identifying those chemicals, by
media, that have concentrations that exceed generic preliminary
remediation goals;
o Exceedance of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs); and
o Historical evidence
Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) retained in surface and subsurface soil from wood-
treating include acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, pentachlorophenol,
phenanthrene, HpCDD, HpCDF, HxCDD, HxCDF, OCDD, OCDF, and PeCDD. COPCs
7-1
-------
retained in perched and Regional groundwater from wood-treating include acenaphthene,
acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno( 1,2,3-
c,d)pyrene, naphthalene, pentachlorophenol, phenanthrene and pyrene.
7.1.2 Summary of Exposure Assessment
7.1.2.1 Current Exposure
Under current zoning and land use, most of the Site is used for industrial purposes. Butala Sand
and Gravel, Colorado Ute Electric Association, CoZinCo, Glacier View Peat Company, Salida
Auto Salvage, Samara Restaurant, and an auto repair shop are examples of industrial and
commercial activities present on and adjacent to the Site.
Zoning places few restrictions on area land use. Residential development can and does occur on
property the County has zoned for industrial use. This includes a number of homes located on
Chaffee County Highway 150, on both the east and west sides of the road. Current zoning
regulations restrict industrial development on land zoned for residential use. There are no
residences within the areal extent of operable unit 2 - Historical Woodtreating subsite.
No child care facilities, schools, hospitals, or senior care facilities are located in the vicinity of the
Site or immediate surrounding area.
Groundwater resource use in the area falls under the jurisdiction of the State Engineer's Office
due to over appropriations in the Arkansas Valley. Private groundwater wells supply many
households in the area; however the only private groundwater well within SMT is the former
Graff rental property groundwater well which has been abandoned. A household well permit is
currently required for household use of groundwater on parcels smaller than 35 acres in size. A
domestic well permit is required for groundwater use on parcels 35 acres or more and includes the
right to irrigate 1 acre of land and provide water supply for animals. The following exposure
pathway was evaluated in the HHBRA:
Current Sand and Gravel Worker
• Incidental ingestion of surface soil
• Inhalation of participates from surface soil
7.1.2.2 Potential Future Exposure
Future land use is not considered to be substantially different than current land use conditions.
The HHBRA assumes that future residential development could hypothetically occur on the Site.
Zoning does not prohibit residential land uses on land zoned for industrial use. It is not likely that
the demand for housing will displace currently operating industrial facilities. The following
exposure pathways were evaluated in the HHBRA:
7-2
-------
Potential Future Construction Workers
• Incidental ingestion of subsurface soil
• Inhalation of particulates from subsurface soil
Potential Future Residents
• Ingestion of surface soil
• Inhalation of particulates from surface soil
• Ingestion of groundwater from the regional aquifer
• Ingestion of s6eps/springs originating from the perched aquifer
To estimate risks from media evaluated in the baseline HHBRA based on assumed exposure to
COPCs, concentrations of COPCs were estimated based on sampling data, and for dust inhalation
exposures, using a simple, conservative air transport model. Exposure point concentrations were
used in combination with assumptions associated with daily intake of media containing COPCs,
the frequency of contact with the media and the duration of contact.
Conservative exposure assumptions were used to estimate a reasonable maximum exposure (or
RME). The RME exposure point concentration represents the highest exposure that could
reasonably occur at the site. The RME is a conservative estimate of exposure that is within the
range of possible exposures, but is higher than the typical exposure.
The central tendency exposure (or CTE) was estimated by combining the 95 upper confidence .
level (UCL) of the average concentration of a COPC with CTE exposure conditions.
7.1.3 Summary of Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment describes the association between cause and effect of exposure to the
chemicals of concern discussed in Section 7.1.1. The detection of a chemical in soil,
groundwater, or air does not, by its presence alone, represent a risk. Whether or not a toxic
response occurs following exposure depends on the chemical, the physical properties of the
chemical and the susceptibility of an individual to a toxic effect.
Some individuals are more sensitive to the toxic effects of chemicals than others. For example,
children, the elderly, or the sick may be more susceptible to toxic effects than the general healthy
population. Other sensitive individuals include pregnant women and nursing mothers. EPA
accounts for these individuals when developing critical toxicity values. Critical toxicity values
tend to be conservative to protect sensitive individuals.
The toxicity assessment contains two parts: (1) hazard identification, and (2) dose-response
evaluation. Hazard identification is the process of identifying adverse health effects resulting from
chemical exposure. Dose-response evaluation examines the relationship between the level of
exposure and the occurrence of adverse health effects.
7-3
-------
Health effects from chemical exposure are divided into two broad groups: those chemicals that
elicit carcinogenic effects and those that elicit noncarcinogenic (or systemic) effects.
Compounds classified as carcinogenic by EPA have the potential to cause cancer as a result of
exposure. Systemic toxicants, or those that cause noncarcinogenic effects, may adversely impact
organs or organ systems. Even though chemicals are classified as carcinogens or systemic
toxicants, some chemicals are associated with both types of effects. Therefore, the risks from
exposure can be expressed both as carcinogenic risk and the potential for adverse effects due to
systemic impacts.
The dose-response relationship for carcinogens and noncarcinogens is expressed in terms of
critical toxicity values. Values used in this HHBRA to evaluate human health impacts were
developed by EPA. Two kinds of critical toxicity values are used: (1) cancer slope factors for
carcinogens, and (2) reference doses (RfD) to assess the potential for noncarcinogenic effects.
EPA defines the cancer slope factor as the plausible upper-bound estimate of the probability of a
carcinogenic response per unit intake of chemical over a lifetime. The RfD is an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps as much as an order of magnitude or more) of a daily exposure level
for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime.
EPA estimates the excess lifetime cancer risk by multiplying the chemical intake times the cancer
slope factor. EPA assumes that if exposure to more than one carcinogen occurs, the resulting
risks can be added to account for the multiple exposures.
Excess lifetime cancer risk is estimated by multiplying the chemical dose by the cancer slope
factor. If exposure to more than one carcinogen occurs, the resulting risks are assumed to be
additive to account for exposure to multiple chemicals. Excess lifetime cancer risk is the
incremental increase in the probability of developing cancer during one's lifetime over the
background probability of developing cancer (i.e., if no exposure to site-related COPCs
occurred). For example, a 10"* excess lifetime cancer risk means that for every 1 million people
exposed to the carcinogen at the defined exposure conditions, the average incidence of cancer is
increased by one case of cancer.
7-4
-------
Table 2: Historic Wood Treating
Summary of Estimated Cancer Risks
Scenario/Exposure Pathway
Current Sand & Gravel Worker Scenario
- Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
- Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil
CUMULATIVE TOTALS
Potential Future Construction Worker Scenario
- Incidental Ingestion of Subsurface Soil
- Inhalation of] particulates from Subsurface Soil
CUMULATIVE TOTALS
Potential Future Residential Scenario
- Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
- Inhalation of particulates from Surface Soil
- Ingestion of Groundwater from the Regional Aquifer
CUMULATIVE TOTALS
RME
IxKT1
2X10-6
1 xlQ4
SxKT*
2x 10-8
5x10*
SxlO"4
6x ID"6
7 x 10'7
Sxltf4
CTE
QxlO-6
1 x 10'7
9x10-*
7 x lO'7
5 x lO'9
7xi
-------
Table 3: Historic Wood Treating
Summary of Estimated Noncancer Hazard Index
Scenario/Exposure Pathway
t ' - ' ' '
Current Sand & Gravel Worker Scenario
• Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
- Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil
CUMULATIVE TOTALS
Potential Future Construction Worker Scenario
- Incidental Ingestion of Subsurface Soil
- Inhalation of particulates from Subsurface Soil
CUMULATIVE TOTALS
Potential Future Residential Scenario
- Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
- Inhalation of particulates from Surface Soil
- Ingestion of Ground water from the Regional Aquifer
- Ingestion of Seeps/Springs originating from the
Perched aquifer (child)
CUMULATIVE TOTALS
XME
2.4E-01
3.2E-02
2.7E-01
2.1E-02
1.4E-02
3.5E-02
9.1E-01
7.7E-02
2.3E+01
2.1E-02
2.4E+01
C1E
1.1E-01
8.9E-03
1.2E-01
2.9E-03
4.3E-03
7.2E-03
3.0E-01
5.1E-02
1.1E+01
4.9E-03
1.1E-K)!
The HHBRA identifies a risk from ingestion of lead in ground water within the Regional Aquifer
at an average concentration of 746 ug/L resulting in more than 99 percent of the exposed
population (future residential) having a blood-lead level greater than 10 ug/dL. The data from
the shallow well located near the slag on the banks of the Arkansas River (MW-4) was found to
be the major contributor to the risk with an arithemetic mean of 896 ug/L for total lead. The
other monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-6 and MW-3) have an arithemetic mean of 6.27 ug/L for
total lead. Upon further sampling of MW-4 after the HHBRA was completed, EPA found that
the dissolved concentration of lead within MW-4 was 6.2 ug/L which is below the action level of
15 ug/L. Therefore EPA has determined that no further action will be taken with respect to the
remediation of lead within the Regional Aquifer beneath the Site.
7.1.4 Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment
HHBRAs are associated with a number of inherent uncertainties. Uncertainty can also be added
when making simplifying assumptions. The HHBRA is subject to uncertainty for various sources
including:
• Sampling, analysis, and data evaluation
7-6
-------
• Fate and transport estimation
• Exposure estimation
• lexicological data
One of the major areas of uncertainty in the risk assessment process is the prediction of human
activities that lead to contact with environmental media and exposure to contaminants. Activities
that differ from those used in the exposure assumptions could lead to higher or lower intakes than
those estimated in the HHBRA. If the activities do not occur or occur for a shorter period of time
than used to estimate exposure, the chemical intake would be lower than that calculated, and
consequently, the risk would be lower. The degree to which the exposure parameters assumed in
this assessment actually represent real-world conditions is a major factor that influences the
degree of uncertainty associated with the risk estimates.
Risks estimated in this assessment are conservative and likely to overestimate actual risk. Actual
risk from exposure to COPCs detected onsite could range from the estimated value to zero.
7.2 Summary of Environmental Risks
A quantitative evaluation of risk to the terrestrial and aquatic ecology within the Smeltertown
Superfund Site (the site) was conducted in accordance with EPA guidance as described within
EPA, 1989 and 1993. The ecological risk assessment (ERA) was prepared in order to meet the
applicable regulatory requirements and provide the information needed to evaluate whether
remedial action is warranted at the site, based on actual or potential ecological risks.
The ecological risk assessment addresses and quantifies, where possible, the effects to the biotic
environment caused by exposure to contaminants from the site. The ecological risk assessment
was conducted as part of the RI/FS process to evaluate if the contaminants of concern (COCs)
from the site pose a risk to the environment in the absence of remedial action.
The ERA was conducted for the segment of the Arkansas River that spans the length of the site,
as well as for the immediately surrounding riparian, wetland and terrestrial environments. The
riparian area was emphasized since it provides the most suitable habitat for terrestrial organism
occurrence. An evaluation of the smelter subsite, smelter subsite downwind soils area and the
former Koppers Wood Treating subsite was also conducted as a future exposure area for
terrestrial organisms.
A "site-wide" ERA was conducted since the aquatic and terrestrial habitat areas overlap operable
unit boundaries, and thereby allow receptors to potentially become exposed to site-related
contamination from all contaminant sources. Each media type (surface soil, surface water,
sediment and seep/spring water) was addressed as a potential exposure media. The ERA
evaluated specifically, the potential impact of surface soil (from the riparian area, smelter subsite
downwind area, and the former Koppers wood treating subsite), surface water and seep/spring
contaminant exposure to terrestrial life. An evaluation of surface water and sediment, as well as
confluence areas between seep/springs to the Arkansas river was conducted for aquatic
7-7
-------
organisms.
Direct ingestion of soil was evaluated for terrestrial organisms. The dermal and inhalation
pathways were considered highly uncertain and incomplete, and were not addressed. All routes of
exposure to aquatic organisms was considered for the ERA.
Results of the terrestrial evaluation indicated the following:
• Surface water, sediment, and seep/spring COCs contribute little to no risk;
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds in soil do not contribute risk;
• In general, the riparian soils do not appear to cause as great a risk to terrestrial
receptors as the smelter subsite soils. The smelter subsite downwind soils
contribute risk to plants due to the presence of aluminum and zinc. The smelter
subsite downwind soils also contribute risk to birds due to the presence of zinc,
and risk to small herbivores due to the presence of lead; and
• The presence of lead and zinc from the historic wood treating subsite is of
potential concern to small mammals.
In conjunction with the exposure/toxicity assessment, bioassay analysis of surface water and
sediment was conducted to support the findings of the assessment. The bioassays were conducted
at the confluence points between seep/springs and the Arkansas River. These seep/springs were
determined to potentially contribute the majority of the site-related contaminant source to the
aquatic ecosystem.
7-8
-------
Section 8.0
Description of Remedial Alternatives
A Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) was conducted to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives
for soils, DNAPL and groundwater. Several alternatives were assembled from the applicable
remedial technology process options and were screened for their effectiveness, implementability
and cost. The alternatives passing this screening were then evaluated in further detail based on
the nine criteria required by the NCP. This section provides a description of each alternative that
was retained for the detailed screening analyses in the FFS. The no further action alternative,
required by the NCP, was evaluated against the nine criteria to provide a point of comparison for
the other alternatives.
The selected remedy for the Site must adequately reduce or eliminate the risks to human health
and the environment. Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, if not
addressed by the preferred alternative or other measures considered, may present a current or
potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment. The EPA and CDPHE has
developed chemical-specific cleanup goals for the Site. These objectives and goals define
acceptable levels of risks. The cleanup goals include prevention of human exposure to
contaminants and prevention of offsite migration of contaminants in excess of the cleanup goals.
These goals were based on the results of the Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment (HHBRA)
and an evaluation of the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
specified in Federal and State environmental laws and regulations. Both the objectives and goals
were analyzed to identify the selected alternative. In addition, the EPA and CDPHE's detailed
analysis considered eight remedial alternatives, including the "No Further Action" Alternative
(Alternative A). EPA and CDPHE are required to evaluate a no action alternative in order to
provide a basis for comparing the benefits of other alternatives.
8.1 Remedial Action Objectives
Remedial action- objectives (RAOs) are Site-specific goals that define the extent of action required
and are based largely on the results of the risk assessment and on the Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) evaluation. RAOs form the basis for developing and
evaluating remedial action alternatives. RAOs for the Site are developed and described below.
As part of the development, a number of important factors on the nature of the Site have been
considered. This information includes:
• The Site is zoned industrial and, while not currently permitted for mining, is used
as a storage area in support of a gravel mining operation on adjacent property;
• Significant amounts of material impacted by wood treating constituents have
already been moved off-Site and disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill;
• The risk assessment prepared for the Site indicates that under an industrial scenario
wood treating constituents in the surface soils do not represent a threat to human
8-1
-------
health or the environment; and
• Soils in the subsurface exceed the PRGs and would represent a threat to human
health or the environment if mined.
The RAOs identified for the Operable Unit 2- former Koppers Wood-Treating Subsite formed
the basis for the development of remedial alternatives and are as follows:
Subunh 1: Spring No. 5
• Prevent human contact with Spring No. 5;
• Prevent off-Site migration of water from Spring No. 5; and
• Prevent additional impact to soils around Spring No. 5.
Subunh 2: Surface and Subsurface Soils
• Prevent public exposure to surface soils with concentrations of COCs in excess of
risk levels; and
• Protect human health and the environment from COCs in excess of the risk levels
in the event that mining of DNAPL-impacted soils occurs.
Subunit 3: Saturated Soils and Upper Terrace Aquifer Groundwater
• Protect human health and the environment from COCs in excess of the risk levels
in the event that mining of DNAPL-impacted soils occurs; and
• Prevent public use of the perched aquifer as a drinking water supply.
8.2 Preliminary Remediation Goals
Under the current and most likely future land use scenario (industrial) considered by the HHBRA,
there would be no unacceptable risks from wood-treating constituents. However, the HHBRA
did not consider risk, if any, to a hypothetical future sand and gravel worker due to exposure to
subsurface soils should the Site be mined. Neither did the HHBRA evaluate the risk to users of
subsurface soils mined from the Site. Therefore, because the owner of the property may seek to
expand mining activities into the Site, preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) were established for
subsurface soils. The PRGs were established for only those Chemicals of Potential Concern
(COPCs) that were observed at the Site in concentrations equal to or greater than that which
presents a risk greater than 1 in 1,000,000 under the current sand and gravel worker scenario.
The PRGs were calculated as the concentration that presents a risk of 1 in 10,000 under USEPA's
default industrial scenario. A table within Section 6.1.1 lists the Preliminary Remediation Goals
8-2
-------
for Soil.
8.3 ARARs
Section 121(d)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(2), provides that for "any hazardous
substance, pollutant or contaminant that will remain onsite ... the remedial action selected . . .
shall require, at the completion of the remedial action, a level or standard of control for such
hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant which at least attains such legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation." Thus, this section of
CERCLA requires that applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) be
identified and attained during the development and implementation of remedial actions. For
contaminants that will be transferred ofFsite, Section 121 (d)(3) of CERCLA requires that the
transfer be to a facility which is operating in compliance with applicable federal and state laws.
Offsite activities contemplated under each alternative must comply with the Revised Procedures
for Implementing OfFsite Response Actions, OSWER Directive 9834.11, dated November 13,
1987 (the "Offsite Policy").
Onsite actions need comply only with the substantive aspects of ARARs, not with the
corresponding administrative requirements, unless otherwise specified. Permit applications and
other administrative procedures such as administrative reviews and reporting and record keeping
requirements are not considered ARARs for actions conducted entirely onsite. OfFsite actions
must comply with all legally applicable requirements, both substantive and administrative.
"Applicable" requirements are 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 circumstance at a CERCLA site. State standards that are more
stringent than Federal requirements may be applicable. Applicable requirements must be met to
the full extent required by the law, unless a waiver has been applied for and is granted.
"Relevant and appropriate" requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and
other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under Federal or State law that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant at a CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the CERCLA site such that their use is well suited to the particular site. State
standards that are more stringent than Federal requirements may be relevant and appropriate.
EPA's guidance classifies ARARs into three types: chemical-specific, action-specific, and
location-specific requirements. Chemical-specific requirements are health-, risk-, or technology-
based values that establish an acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that may be found
in, or discharged to, the ambient environment. Action-specific requirements are performance- or
activity-based requirements or limitations on actions taken with respect to hazardous substances.
Action-specific requirements set controls on particular kinds of activities related to the
management of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Location-specific
8-3
-------
requirements are restrictions placed on the concentration of hazardous substances or the conduct
of activities solely because they occur in special locations.
While ARARS are promulgated, enforceable requirements, other types of information may be
useful for designing the remedial action or necessary for determining what is protective of public
health or the environment. Non-promulgated advisories or guidance issued by the Federal or
State government that provides useful information is termed criteria "to be considered" (TBC).
TBCs will be considered along with ARARs in determining the necessary levels of cleanups and
are enforceable when selected as part of the remedy.
The remedial alternatives presented for detailed analysis in the FFS were assessed to determine
whether they would attain applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements under Federal
environmental and State environmental and facility siting laws or provide grounds for invoking an
ARARs waiver.
With the exception of the No Further Action Alternative, each of the alternatives meets ARARs.
8-4
-------
Table 4: CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Specific AKAR
Requirement
Citation
Comments
National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations
Colorado Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Establishes health based standards for
drinking water supplies in public water
systems. Standards are established as
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs), Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) and Secondary MCLs (protects
water aesthetics). Colorado has primacy
40CFRPart 141,
including Subparts
BandG.
5 CCR 1003-1
See below.
Colorado Groundwater
Standards
Establishes a system for classifying
groundwater and adopting water quality
standards to protect existing and potential
beneficial uses.
5 CCR 1002-8.
Sec. 3.11.0
Applicable; the Colorado Department of
Public Health & Environment (CDPHE),
Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Division (HMWMD) has
determined that their groundwater organic
chemical standards found in Table A,
Regulation No. 41 (Basic Standards for
Groundwater) are applicable to water within
the Upper Terrace Aquifer (perched
aquifer) and the Regional Aquifer
(Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer and
glacial/basin fill deposits) at the site. The
following standards are applicable for the
following compounds detected in the
groundwater monitoring program:
• Pentachlorophenol - 0.001 mg/1
Benzo(a)pyrene - 0.0002 mg/1
Primary and Secondary
Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Colorado Air Quality
Control Regulations
Clean Air Act
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Colorado Air Quality Control Act
- Requires that a source not exceed
NAAQS or State AAQS.
40 CFR Part 50,
National Primary
and Secondary
Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Colorado Air
Quality Control
Regulations. 5 CCR
1001-3, Regulation
3, Section IVD.
Air pollution regulations are applicable to
the control of fugitive dust and paniculate
emissions at the Site. The NAAQS
standards are not enforceable in and of
themselves, but rather the emission
standards, which are promulgated to attain
the NAAQS. are directly enforceable as
ARARs. Those standards and requirements
include the fugitive dust standard, standards
as to paniculate emissions, and an analysis
to assure that any emissions will not cause
the air quality to degenerate beyond any
pertinent level. Ongoing gravel mining and
future construction could release
participates to the air at the Site.
Additionally, there are air issues with the
recycling alternative. These are addressed
in the Action-Specific ARARs.
8-5
-------
TableS: ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Page 1 of 3
Action
Identification of
hazardous wastes.
Generation of hazardous
wastes.
Transportation of
hazardous waste.
On-site treatment and
storage of hazardous
waste.
On-site storage of
hazardous waste in
waste piles.
Requirement
Requires the identification of
hazardous wastes as listed
wastes or testing to
determine characteristic
hazardous waste.
Sets out requirements for
generators of hazardous
waste.
Sets standards and
requirements for transporters
of hazardous waste.
General,
preparedness/prevention and
contingency/emergency
standards for owners and
operators of hazardous waste
treatment, disposal and
storage facilities.
Establishes requirements to
protect releases to
groundwater from waste
piles. Requires liner to
prevent migration to
groundwater and leachate
collection and removal
system.
Prerequisite
Generation of solid
waste that may be a
listed or
characteristic
hazardous wastes.
Generation of listed
or characteristic
hazardous wastes.
Transport of
hazardous waste.
Storage and
treatment of
hazardous waste on
site.
Non-containerized
accumulation of
solid, nonflammable
hazardous waste or
substance in piles
which are
unprotected from
precipitation or run-
on and contains free
liquids.
Citation
40CFR261.
Subparts B-D,
6 CCR 1007-3.
Part 261, B-D.
40 CFR 262,
Subparts A, C
andD.
6 CCR 1007-3
Part 262, A, C
andD.
40 CFR 263,
Subparts A-D
6 CCR 1007-3
Part 263, A-D.
40 CFR 264,
Subparts A-C
6 CCR 1007-3.
Part 264, A-C.
40 CFR 264,
Subpan L
6 CCR 1007-3.
Part 264, L.
Comments
Applicable to asphalt recycling
alternative. No action or institutional
controls will not result in the generation
of hazardous waste. It has been
determined by USEPA that listed
hazardous wastes are not present at the
site. Excavated material will be
evaluated to determine whether RCRA
characteristic wastes are present.
Relevant and appropriate requirements.
Applicable if testing demonstrates the
presence of RCRA characteristic waste
May be applicable to sampling and
investigation-derived wastes.
Relevant and appropriate requirements
Applicable if testing demonstrates the
presence of RCRA characteristic waste
May be applicable to sampling and
investigation-derived wastes.
Applicable, if material is characteristic
hazardous waste, to cold-mix asphalt
production (excavation and recycling)
alternative which will recycle impacted
creosote soils on site. Relevant and
appropriate if it is not.
Applicable if testing demonstrates the
presence of RCRA characteristic waste
Relevant and appropriate if it is not.
8-6
-------
TableS: ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Page 2 of 3
Action
On-site treatment in
tanks.
Discharge of water to
surface water bodies
Discharge to
Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works
("POTW")
Requirement
Establishes requirements for tanks
used for storage or treatment.
Tanks must have sufficient
strength to prevent collapse or
rupture. Tanks must have controls
to prevent overfilling and maintain
sufficient freeboard. Sets out
inspection and closure
requirements.
Requires National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System
C'NPDES") permit and
substantive requirements for
discharges to waters of the State of
Colorado. If discharge is
contained cm-site no permit is
required; however, the substantive
requirements will apply.
All surface discharges must be in
compliance with Colorado
discharge standards.
Prohibits discharge of pollutants
that pass through POTW without
treatment, interfere with POTW
operations, contaminate POTW
sludge, and endanger the health
and safety of POTW workers.
Must comply with local industrial
pretreatment ordinance including
specific permit provisions,
reporting and monitoring
requirements.
RCRA permit-by-rule
requirements must be complied
with for discharges of RCRA
hazardous waste to POTWs.
Prerequisite
Hazardous waste
temporarily held
in tanks before
treatment, storage
or disposal.
Protection of
surface waters
against
degradation by on-
site discharges.
Discharge of
waste water to
POTW.
Transport of
RCRA hazardous
waste by dedicated
pipe from
CERCLA site to
POTW.
.
Citation
40 CFR 264,
Subpart J
6 CCR 1007-3,
Part 264, J.
40 CFR 122,
125. 129, 133
and 443.
5 CCR 1002-8,
Sec. 6.1.0
(NPDES for
point sources
and stormwater
regulations) and
5 CCR 1002-8,
Sec. 10.1.0
(State Effluent
Regulation).
40 CFR 403.5
5 CCR 1002-20
Chafiee County
Wastewater
Ordinance
Comments
Applicable if testing demonstrates the
presence of RCRA characteristic
waste. Relevant and appropriate if it
is not
Colorado has been delegated to
administer the federal NPDES
program. These requirements would
be applicable if cold-mix asphalt
production (excavation and recycling)
alternative results in generation of
either groundwater which must be
discharged or in the production of
process waste water. Applicable too.
to stormwater discharges from asphalt
facility.
Applicable if the cold-mix asphalt
production (excavation and recycling)
alternative discharges wastewater to
POTW from excavation or recycling.
8-7
-------
Table 5: ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Page 3 of 3
Action
New Source
Performance
Standards ("NSPS")
Emission of
Hazardous Air
Pollutants ("HAPs")
Air emissions
Emission of odors
Requirement
These are source specific
standards which apply to new
sources and which limit the
amount of criteria pollutants,
including particulatcs which the
new source may discharge. The
Colorado regulations supplement
the federal requirements.
These are source specific
standards which apply to sources
of HAPs which limit the amount of
HAPs which may be discharged to
the atmosphere. The Colorado
regulations supplement the federal
requirements.
Regulates particulatcs, smoke and
opacity limits for new and existing
stationary sources.
Restricts the emission of odorous
air contaminants based on
detection in residential and
industrial areas.
Prerequisite
Emissions from
new sources.
Discharge of
hazardous air
pollutants.
Emissions from
stationary source
Emission of .
odorous air to
atmosphere
Citation
New Source
Performance
Standards
(NSPSs)
40 CFR Pan 60,
Chapter 1
5 CCR 1001-6
National
Emissions
Standards for
Hazardous Air
Pollutants
(HAPs)
40 CFR Part 60
5 CCR 1001-8.
Emission
Control
40 CFR Part 60
5 CCR 1001-1
5 CCR 1001-2
Comments
If cold-mix asphalt production
(excavation and recycling) alternative
is initiated, an evaluation must be
conducted to determine whether there
is a NSPS which is applicable or
relevant and appropriate.
If cold-mix asphalt production
(excavation and recycling) alternative
is undated, an evaluation must be
conducted to determine whether there
are HAP standards which are
applicable or relevant and
appropriate.
Applicable to cold-mix asphalt
production (excavation and recycling)
alternative, if initiated.
Applicable to cold-mix asphalt
production (excavation and recycling)
alternative, if initiated.
8-8
-------
Table 6: POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Operable Unit #2, Stneltertown Site
Page 2 of 2
Standard, Requirement, Criteria
or Limitation
Historic Site, Buildings, and
Antiquities Act
16 USC Section 46 1-467
Colorado Mined Land
Reclamation Act
CRS 37-90-101-141
Description
The Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act
states that the existence and location of landmarks
of the National Registry of Natural Landmarks be
considered to avoid adverse impacts on such
landmarks.
Establishes requirements for mined lands and
mine generated waste piles.
Evaluation
Applicable; however, any proposed action will not
affect the adjacent smelter stack and property
which was placed on the National Register of
Historic Placed in 1 976. No other historic
landmarks or properties exist on or near
Smeltertown Superfiind Site.
Applicable for the recycling/cold-mix asphalt
production option and for any mining operations ai
the site.
8-10
-------
Table 7: TO BE CONSIDERED CRITERIA ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Page 1 of 3
The following table identifies those criteria, advisories and guidance which are not ARARs but which have been used, or may be used in
the future, to provide useful information and recommended procedures for developing cleanup standards for the Smeltertown Site. The
draft guidance document entitled "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws" (EPA/540/G-89/006 August 1988) contemplates the need to
supplement standards relating to remedial alternatives throughout the feasibility study process.
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC
Health Effects Assessments (HEAs) and Proposed HEAs, ("Health Effects Assessment for Specific Chemicals", ECAO. U.S.
EPA, 1985).
Reference Doses (RfDs). ("Verified Reference Doses of U.S. EPA". ECAO-CIM-475, January 1986). See also Drinking Water
Equivalent Levels (DWELs), a set of medium-specific drinking water levels derived from RfDs. (See U.S. EPA Health
Advisories, Office of Drinking Water, March 31, 1987).
Carcinogenic Potency Factors (CPFs) (E.g., q,". Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) Values), (Table ii, "Health Assessment
Document for Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene), "U.S. EPA, ONEA/6008-82/005F, July 1985).
Public health criteria on which the decision to list pollutants as hazardous under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act was based.
Guidelines for Groundwater Classification under the EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy.
EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy (August 1984). EPA Guidelines for Groundwater Classification (December 1986)
Designation of a Usable Source for Drinking Water (USDW) (October 1979).
Elements of aquifer identification (October 1979).
OSHA health and safety standards that may be used to protect public health (non-workplace).
EPA Water Quality Advisories, EPA office of Water, Criteria and Standards Division.
U.S. EPA, Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual (October 1986), EPA/540/1 -86-060. Provide Acceptable Intake
Concentration (AIC) reference Dose (RfD) and Minimum Effective Dose (MED).
Health Advisories (EPA Office of Drinking Water)
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final, December
1989, EPA/540/1 -89-002. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Pan A)
EPA 540/1 -89/002, December 1989. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B: "Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals') OSWER Directive 9285.7-0 IB. December 13, 1991. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Pan C: Risk
Evaluation of Remdial Alternatives). OSWER Directive 9285.7-01 C, December 13, 1991.
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factors", OSWER Directive
9285.6-03^^25.1991.
U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) potency factors.
Federal Sole Source Aquifer requirements.
8-11
-------
Table 7: TO BE CONSIDERED CRITERIA ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Page 2 of3
The following table identifies those criteria, advisories and guidance which are not ARARs but which nave been used, or may be used in
the future, to provide useful information and recommended procedures for developing cleanup standards for the Smeltertown Site. The
draft guidance document entitled "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws" (EPA/540/G-89/006 August 1988) contemplates the need to
supplement standards relating to remedial alternatives throughout the feasibility study process,
ACTION-SPECIFIC
• CERCLA off-site Policy. (May 12, 1986), Revised November 1,3 1987, OSWERDir. 9834.11. Revised September 22, 1993,1
Fact Sheet Update. Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions, OSWER 9834.11FSA.
• EPA's RCRA Design Guidelines for Surface Impoundments, Land Treatment Units and Landfill Design - Liner System and Final
Cover.
• RCRA Facility Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities, Phase I
(February 15.1985), EPA 530-SW-85-024.
• RCRA Permit Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Demonstrations, EPA OSWER 9486.00-2 (July. 1986)
» RCRA Permit Guidance on Hazardous Waste Land Treatment Demonstrations, EPA OSWER 9523.00-8D, (June, 1986)
• RCRA Facility Permit Writers Guidance Manual for Subpart F (October 1983).
• RCRA Facility Permit Applicant's Guidance Manual for the General Facility Standards (October 15, 1983) EPA/OSW/00-00-
968).
• RCRA Facility Waste Analysis Plan Guidance Manual (October 15.1984), EPA/530/SW-84-012.
• Draft Minimum Technology Guidelines on Double Liner Systems for Landfills and Surface Impoundments (May 1985) PB
87151072-AS.
• Draft Minimum Technology Guidelines on Single Liner Systems for Landfills and Surface Impoundments (May 1985) PB
8711731159.
• Hazardous Waste Land Treatment (April 1983) OSW-00-00-874.
• Soil Properties, Classification, and Hydraulic conductivity testing (March 1984) OSW-00-00-925, OSWER Dir. 9480.00 70
• Solid Waste Leaching Procedure Manual (1984) OSW-00-00-924.
8-12
-------
Table 7: TO BE CONSIDERED CRITERIA ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
^ Page 3 of 3
The following table identifies those criteria, advisories and guidance which are not ARARs but which have been used, or may be used in
the future, to provide useful information and recommended procedures for developing cleanup standards for the Smeltertown Site. The
draft guidance document entitled "CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws" (EPA/540/G-89/006 August 1988) contemplates the need to
supplement standards relating to remedial alternatives throughout the feasibility study process.
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume Migration ard Mixing.
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes. Third Edition (November 1986) SW-846.
A Method for Determining the Compatibility of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/600-02-80-076.
Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Compatibility
Federal Clean Water Act, Section 304(g) Guidance Document, Revised Pretreatment Guidelines (3 volumes).
Guidance for POTW Pretreatment Program Manual (October 1983).
CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual, EPA 540/2-90/007 (August 1990).
Guidance for Implementing RCRA Permit by Rule Requirements at POTWs.
Application of Corrective Action Requirements at Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
Draft Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment
Program (1987).
Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants (1979).
Water Quality Standards Handbook (1983).
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (1991, 1985, 1983).
NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance manual (June 1981)
Case Studies on Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (May 1983).
Clean Water Act Guidance Strategy (August 1986).
U.S. EPA Manuals from the Office of Research and Development - Lab Protocols Developed Pursuant to the Clean Water Act
State of Colorado - Technical Guidelines for Control of Water from Mine Drainage. WQCC Guideline 9.2.0.
State of Colorado - Guidelines for the Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Mill Tailings Ponds to Prevent Water Pollution
WQCC Guideline 9.1.0.
State of Colorado - Passive Treatment of Mine Discharge. WQCC Guideline 4 5.0.
8.4 Description of Alternatives for Current and Future Uses
This section describes the alternatives selected for further evaluation under the current and most
likely future land use. Mining is not currently restricted at the Site. However, certain portions of
the Site may contain soils with COCs in excess of the PRGs for protection of off-Site users of
mined material. Therefore, a mining restriction area (MRA) shown in Figure 5-1 has been
delineated at the Site within which soils may potentially contain levels of COCs above the PRGs.
This area has been delineated based upon available information from the Remedial Investigation.
The MRA as currently defined encompasses about 6.6 acres and extends from the location of the
former lagoons, west to the bluff near the former storage tanks (process area), east around the
upper terrace soil burial area, and north to the lagoons. Additional sampling within the MRA may
be conducted to further refine the boundaries of the MRA potentially reducing the area to less
than 6.6 acres.
8-13
-------
The entire upper terrace is underlain by a 40-foot thick alluvial deposit that is composed of
boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand and fines that can be mined employing methods currently utilized
by the property owner to mine portions of the lower terrace. There are two areas similar in size
to the current active operation south of the Site that are located to the east and northwest of the
MRA in which mining would not be precluded. Mining in these areas could be conducted despite
the restriction of mining in the area shown on Figure 5-1.
Soils from the MRA will require processing in order to segregate material that could potentially
exceed PRGs from that which is below PRGs. Based on existing information from the RI (ENSR
1996), material which is not visually impacted is consistently below PRGs. Therefore, visual
criteria will be used as an initial screen during mining and processing. After segregating material
by visual criteria and placing into stockpiles, representative samples from both the visually
impacted and visually clean stockpiles, representative samples from both the visually impacted and
visually clean stockpiles will be collected for laboratory analysis of S VOCs to confirm whether the
materials meet PRGs. If the excavated materials are determined to be a characteristic hazardous
waste, then they must be managed in accordance with the substantive requirements of RCRA and
CHWA. It is assumed that visually clean stockpiles will be sampled for a period of 6 months at
which point sufficient data will be available to determine whether visual criteria can adequately
serve as an objective means of segregating materials for sampling. In addition it is assumed that
approximately 10 percent of the samples analyzed for SVOCs also will be tested for dioxin
compounds. Dioxin analyses will be conducted on soil samples with pentachlorophenol
concentrations in excess of 10 mg/kg. These estimated sample numbers are based oh limited
available data from the RI and may require modification as additional data becomes available.
One composite sample will be taken from every 500 cubic yards (900 tons) of stockpiled
materials. Stockpiles that contain material below the PRGs could be sold for use as industrial
aggregate. Processed materials that exceed the PRGs could then be managed as described in each
of the alternatives.
If mining is undertaken, several precautions and regulations must be followed to ensure the health
and safety of workers and the public during implementation of mining and reuse activities. These
precautions include:
• Air Quality Permit and Monitoring: During excavation of impacted soils volatile
constituents may be released that could pose a risk to off-Site receptors; the
mining operator will need to consult with the Colorado Department of Public
Health & Environment (CDPHE) to determine the need for or the sampling
requirements for the proposed activity;
• Health & Safety Plan: Workers may be exposed to unacceptable levels of
constituents during excavation, transportation, and processing of impacted soils;
the mining operator will need to evaluate potential exposures, determine
appropriate personal protective equipment to be used, and develop a monitoring
program to ensure that workers are protected;
8-14
-------
• Discharge Permit: In the event that groundwater within the Upper Terrace Aquifer
is encountered during excavation and subsequently discharged to surface water
such as the Arkansas River or to groundwater recharge wells, the mining operator
will be required to obtain a discharge permit from CDPHE. Depending on the
condition of the water encountered, treatment may be required; and
• Mining Permit: Mining and reuse operations will require modification of the
existing permit for mining and reclamation of the Site on file with the Colorado
Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD). Addition of an asphalt plant on
permitted mine property would be achieved through a Technical Revision to the
existing permit.
A description of six alternatives that flow from No Action to mining of soils that exceed PRGs
follows.
8.4.1 Alternative A- No Action
Under this alternative no further action will be taken for subunits 1, 2 or 3, and the Site will be left
in its current condition. No monitoring will be conducted and no institutional controls will be put
in place to control the future use of the Site. If a permit to extend mining activities to the Site is
obtained, such mining will not be specifically restricted from excavation of impacted soil.
However, if gravel mining is conducted in impacted areas of the Site, exposure to subsurface
constituents would occur. Accidental exposure to subunit 1 or Spring No. 5 will be controlled by
the steep, rocky nature of the slope on which it is located and by the existing vegetative cover.
8.4.2 Alternative B - Limited Action
Based on the location of subunit 1 or Spring No. 5, continued long-term exposure to the COCs
found at this location is not likely. Spring No. 5 is located approximately one-third of the way
down a steep slope. Under the limited-action scenario, the rocky slope and vegetative cover will
provide protection against accidental contact with impacted material and allow for the natural
biodegradation of the COCs over time. As a protective measure, fencing will be placed around
the immediate area of the spring (Figure 5-3). Groundwater monitoring will be used to determine
long-term effectiveness of this alternative by monitoring potential changes in groundwater quality
and quantity to ensure that constituent levels remain the same or decrease.
This alternative includes institutional controls (deed restrictions and fencing) within subunits 2 and
3 to ensure that the MRA is not mined and the Site is not developed for residential use. A 6-foot
cyclone fence would be constructed around Spring No. 5. This would require approximately 100
linear feet of fencing and would include a locked access gate to allow monitoring of Spring No. 5.
The Limited Action Alternative as it applies to Subunits 2 and 3 is premised on the HHBRA and
ERA results that indicate that as long as the Site is not used or developed for residential purposes
and the subsurface soils within the MRA are left undisturbed, the risk to human health and the
8-15
-------
environment is not unacceptable. Therefore, this alternative includes institutional controls (deed
restrictions) to ensure that the area is not used for residential development and remains designated
for industrial use only.
In addition to the deed restrictions to eliminate future residential development of the Site, this
alternative includes a deed restriction preventing mining in an area within subunits 2 and 3 of
potentially about 6.6 acres in size (the MRA) where subsurface impacts (soils above PRGs) from
wood-treating activities remain. This restriction will prevent exposure to material in excess of
PRGs during mining and during use of the materials as a result of sand and gravel extraction.
Groundwater monitoring would be conducted at existing well locations, with new well locations
plus two springs on an annual basis. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for semi-volatile
organic compounds (SVOCs). Results will be used to evaluate whether there is an increased risk
beyond that defined in HHBRA and to monitor potential migration of constituents toward the
Arkansas River.
A monitoring plan, which would be finalized during Remedial Design, is proposed to include
sampling and/or observations of the following:
• Groundwater: Upper Terrace Aquifer (KRMW-1 [up gradient], KRMW-5,
KRWM-6, and KRMW-10), deep/regional aquifer (KRMW-7D); and alluvial
aquifer (KRMW-4), including two new wells: two wells down gradient of Spring
No. 5; and one well up gradient of this well within the alluvial aquifer;
• Point of Compliance: A well (or wells) within the Arkansas River Alluvial Aquifer
down gradient of the perched (or Upper Terrace Aquifer) is proposed to be the
point of compliance (POC) for monitoring levels of B(a)P and penta;
• DNAPL: thickness of DNAPL in the bottom of KRMW-7S and volumetric flow
from Spring No. 5, to include measuring springs up gradient (spring 3) and down
gradient (spring 6); and
• Impacted soil: visual extent of impact surrounding Spring No. 5.
Figure 5-2 shows the locations of existing monitoring wells, proposed monitoring wells and
springs that will be included in the groundwater monitoring program at the Site.
The monitoring/institutional controls alternative would be conducted for perpetuity
or until the contaminants no longer present a risk to human health and the environment. For
purposes of estimating the cost, the remedial time frame of 30 years and interest rate of 5% was
used to derived at a Present Value Cost of $255,000.
8-16
-------
8.4.3 Alternative C - Reuse as Asphalt Aggregate
This alternative consists of the reuse of soil within subunits 2 and 3 (or more specifically the
MRA), market conditions permitting, :n which soil above PRGs would be reused as aggregate for
a cold-mix asphalt batch plant. The material stockpiles that exceed PRGs would be used as
feedstock for a cold-mix asphalt batch plant that could be setup at the Site. Under favorable
market conditions, the asphalt material would then be sold for use as paving material. Material
that tests below PRGs and material that was not visually impacted could be sold as aggregate for
unrestricted use in industrial settings.
Cold-mix asphalt batching is a process whereby crushed aggregate is mixed with asphalt oil
without heating of the aggregate. The process is simple and generates an asphalt product that is
useful for base coating roadways, paving low traffic areas such as parking lots and driveways, as
patching material, and potentially for other paving purposes.
If materials at the Site are determined to be a characteristic hazardous waste, then they will be
managed in accordance with the substantive requirements of RCRA and CHWA. Final use will be
determined by testing the excavated material to determine whether constituent levels are above or
below PRGs set forth in this ROD, and whether it is feasible for the mine operator to operate an
asphalt batch plant at the Site based on an assessment of market conditions.
Asphalt typically consists of an aggregate material such as crushed rock, mixed with either a
petroleum-based or coal tar-based asphalt oil. The distillation of asphalt oil from coal tar is
similar to the process that produces creosote, also a coal tar distillate. As such, asphalt oils
contain percentages of PAHs, similar to those found in creosote. Since the Site contains
creosote-impacted gravel and rock, recycling of the material as asphalt aggregate appears to be a
technically feasible alternative.
Groundwater management will be required if mining continues from the vadose zone into the 30
to 40 feet deep saturated zone (or subunit 3). Groundwater impacted by PAHs may require
treatment prior to discharge under an NPDES permit, or application as a dust suppressant. Costs
included for this alternative assume that water will be directed to an oil/water separator and
thence to a lined surface impoundment for partial evaporation. A treatment system will be
required to treat groundwater to within state water quality criteria. For costing purposes, the
total volume of water to be treated was assumed to be 4.8 million gallons based on the aquifer
storage capacity over the 6.6 acres of the MRA, assuming 25 percent porosity, an evaporative
loss of 10 percent, and a treatment cost of $0.10/gallon. Groundwater volume estimates assume
that perimeter control would eliminate recharge of groundwater to the area of mining restriction.
The estimated remedial time frame for this alternative and present value cost is 11 years and
$770,000, respectively.
8-17
-------
8.4.4 Alternative D - On-Site Containment
This alternative consists of the on-Site containment of subunits 2 and 3 soil above the PRGs.
These soils will be stockpiled and covered with a 1-foot thick layer of clean sand, gravel, and
cobbles from elsewhere on the Site to prevent direct contact and wind-blown movement of the
soils. If any of the soils are determined to be a characteristic hazardous waste, then they shall be
managed according to the substantive requirements of RCRA and CHWA. The soils in on-Site
containment may be accessed in the future for reuse as aggregate for a cold-mix asphalt batch
plant.
As with Alternative C, if mining is continued through the vadose zone and into the saturated zone
(30 to 40 feet deep), ground water management will be required including treatment of
groundwater from the MRA prior to discharge under NPDES permit or reinjection.
The estimated remedial time frame for this alternative and present value cost is 11 years and
$851,000.
8.4.5 Alternative E - On-Site Disposal
Subunits 2 and 3 soils that exceed the PRGs would be placed in an on-Site landfill engineered to
contain either hazardous or non-hazardous materials. The type of landfill would be based upon
analytical results to determine whether the material is a characteristic hazardous waste.
If existing mining operations are expanded into the MRA (see Figure 5-1), which is currently not
permitted for mining, excavated soils that exceed the PRGs would be permanently disposed in
either a solid-waste landfill or a hazardous waste landfill to be constructed on-Site. The
characteristics of the excavated soil will determine the type of disposal unit. Soils below the
PRGs would be sold as aggregate for industrial use. This alternative combines the volume of soils
within each of the subunits for a total of 76,000 tons to be disposed on-Site. This volume is a
very conservative estimate as some of the impacted soil is likely to be below PRGs. Costing for
this alternative only includes estimates for the additional estimated cost of constructing a land
disposal unit permitting, health and safety considerations, and soil analyses.
The hazardous waste landfill would meet the design requirements of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR 264 Subpart N and state CHWA regulations, if more
stringent. The design has a liner system which includes a composite bottom liner and a cover
section. The bottom section includes three feet of compacted clay under a Leak Detection,
Collection and Removal System. The cover section includes two feet of compacted clay, a
geomembrane, one foot of drainage medium, and a soil cover of 30 inches.
The non-hazardous or solid waste landfill would include two feet of compacted clay, a simplified
drainage system and a cover system identical to the hazardous waste unit with the exception of no
geomembrane. The operating cost of mining within the MRA has not been estimated. It is
assumed that the current or future owner would evaluate the potential revenues from the sale of
8-18
-------
products against the cost of on-Site disposal of soils exceeding the PRGs to determine whether
future mining will occur. The O&M and PWC is based upon the estimated mine life of 11 years.
The estimated remedial time frame and present value cost for on-site disposal in a non-hazardous
landfill is 30 years and $2,129,000, respectively. The estimated remedial time frame and present
value cost for on-site disposal in a hazardous landfill is 30 years and $3,099,000, respectively.
8.4.6 Alternative F - Off-Site Disposal
Subunits 2 and 3 soils that exceed the PRGs would be disposed of in an off-Site hazardous waste
(RCRA Subtitle C) landfill or a non-hazardous (RCRA Subtitle D) landfill. The type of landfill
would be based upon analytical results to determine whether the material is a characteristic
hazardous waste.
If existing mining operations expand into the MRA, which is currently not permitted for mining,
the excavated soils that exceed the PRGs would be disposed off-Site in a permitted solid-waste
facility (RCRA subtitle D) or hazardous waste facility (RCRA subtitle C). The characteristics of
the excavated soil will determine whether the excavated soil should be disposed in an off-Site
subtitle D or C facility. Soils below the PRGs would be sold as aggregate for industrial use. This
alternative combines the volume of soils within each of the subunits for a total of 76,000 tons to
be disposed off-Site. Costing of this alternative only includes estimates for the additional cost of
loading, transport and disposal to a permitted facility, soil and water analyses, and groundwater
treatment. The operating cost of mining has not been estimated as it is assumed that the current
or future owner would evaluate the potential revenues from the sale of products against the cost.
of disposal to determine whether future mining will occur. The O&M and PWC is based upon the
estimated mine life of 11 years.
The estimated remedial time frame and present value cost for off-site disposal at a non-hazardous
disposal facility is 11 years and $2,104,000. The estimated remedial time frame and present value
cost for off-site-disposal at a hazardous disposal facility is 11 years and $18,604,000.
8-19
-------
Section 9.0
Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
In this section, alternatives developed for the Site are evaluated and compared to each other using
the nine evaluation criteria required by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP; 40 CFR § 300.430) to identify the alternative that provides the best
balance among the criteria. The comparative analysis provides the basis for determining which
alternative presents the best balance between the EPA's nine evaluation criteria listed below. The
first two cleanup evaluation criteria are considered threshold criteria that must be met by the
selected remedial action. The five primary balancing criteria are balanced to achieve the best
overall solution. The final two modifying criteria that are considered in remedy selection are State
acceptance and community acceptance.
• Threshold Criteria
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment assesses
the protection afforded by each alternative, considering the
magnitude of the residual risk remaining at the site after the
response objectives have been met. Protectiveness is determined by
evaluating how site risks from each exposure route are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled by the specific alternative. The evaluation
also takes into account short-term or cross-media impacts that
result from implementation of the alternative remedial activity.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
addresses whether a remedy will meet all Federal and State environmental
laws and/or provides grounds for a waiver. Section 121(d) of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) mandates that
for all remedial actions conducted under CERCLA, cleanup activities must
be conducted in a manner that complies with ARARs. The NCP and
SARA have defined both applicable requirements and relevant and
appropriate requirements as follows:
• Applicable requirements are those federal and state requirements that would be
legally applicable, either directly, or as incorporated by a'federally authorized state
program.
• Relevant and appropriate requirements are those federal and state requirements
that, while not legally "applicable," are designed to apply to problems sufficiently
similar to those encountered at CERCLA sites that their application is appropriate.
Requirements may be relevant and appropriate if they would otherwise be
"applicable," except for jurisdictional restrictions associated with the requirement.
Other requirements to be considered are federal and state nonregulatory
9-1
-------
requirements, such as guidance documents or criteria. Advisories or guidance
documents do not have the status of potential ARARs. However, where there are
no specific ARARs for a chemical or situation, or where such ARARs are not
sufficient to be protective, guidance or advisories should be identified and used to
ensure that a remedy is protective.
Primary Balancing Criteria
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence refer to the ability of a
remedy to provide reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time. The focus of this evaluation is to determine
the effectiveness of each alternative with respect to the risk posed
by treatment of residuals and/or untreated wastes after the cleanup
criteria have been achieved. Several components were addressed in
making the determinations, including:
Magnitude of residual risk from the alternative;
Likelihood that the alternative will meet process efficiencies and performance
specifications;
• Adequacy and reliability of long-term management controls providing continued
protection from residuals; and
• Associated risks in the event the technology or permanent facilities must be
replaced.
4. Reduction of Toxichy, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment refers to
the preference for a remedy that reduces health hazards of contaminants,
the movement of contaminants, or the quantity of contaminants at the Site
through treatment. This criterion evaluates the ability of the alternatives to
significantly achieve reduction of the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
contaminants or wastes at the site, through treatment. The criterion is a
principal statutory requirement of CERCLA. This analysis evaluates the
quantity of contaminants treated and destroyed, the degree of expected
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume measured as a percentage of
reduction, the degree to which the treatment will be irreversible, the type
and quantity of residuals produced, and the manner in which the principal
threat will be addressed through treatment. The risk posed by residuals
will be considered in determining the adequacy of reduced toxicity and
mobility achieved by each alternative.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to complete
the remedy, and any adverse effects to human health and the environment
9-2
-------
that may be caused during the construction and implementation of the
remedy. Measures to mitigate releases and provide protection is central to
this determination.
6. Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of an
alternative or a remedy. This criterion analyzes technical feasibility,
administrative feasibility, and the availability of services and materials.
Technical feasibility assesses the difficulty of construction or operation of a
particular alternative and unknowns associated with process technologies.
The reliability of the technologies based on the likelihood of technical
problems that would lead to project delays is critical in this determination.
The ability to monitor the effectiveness of the alternative is also considered.
Administrative feasibility assesses the ease or difficulty of obtaining
permits or rights-of-way for construction. Availability of services
and materials evaluates the need for off-site treatment, storage, or
disposal services, and the availability of such services. Necessary
equipment, specialists, and additional resources are also evaluated
in determining the ease by which these needs could be fulfilled. It
also includes coordination of Federal, State, and local government
efforts.
7. Cost evaluates the estimated capital, operation, and maintenance (O&M)
costs of each alternative in comparison to other equally protective
alternatives. Alternatives are evaluated for cost in terms of both capital
costs and long-term O&M costs necessary to ensure continued
effectiveness of the alternatives. Capital costs include the sum of the direct
capital costs (materials, equipment, labor, land purchases) and indirect
capital costs (engineering, licenses, or permits). Long-term O&M costs
include labor, materials, energy, equipment replacement, disposal, and
sampling necessary to implement the alternative.
• Modifying Criteria
8. State Acceptance indicates whether the State agrees with, opposes, or has
no comment on the preferred alternative.
9. Community Acceptance includes determining which components of the
alternatives interested persons in the community support, have reservations
about, or oppose.
The strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives were weighed to identify the alternative
providing the best balance among the nine evaluation criteria.
9-3
-------
9.1 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
9.1.1 Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The overall protection of human health and the environment is a threshold criterion that must be
met for EPA to select the alternative. Protectiveness is achieved by the remedies if residential
development is prohibited and exposure pathways are either eliminated, reduced to acceptable
exposures or controlled through treatment or containment.
All of the alternatives, with the exception of the No Action Alternative (A), protect human health
arid the environment.
Alternatives B, C, D, E and F are protective of human health and the environment.
Alternative B provides protectiveness by restricting access to impacted soils and groundwater.
Alternative C provides protectiveness by recycling impacted soils in a cold-asphalt batch plant.
Alternative D provides protectiveness by temporarily containing soils exceeding PRGs on-Site
until recycling occurs in a cold-asphalt batch plant. Alternative E provides protectiveness by
permanently containing the soils exceeding PRGs on-Site. Alternative F provides protectiveness
by disposing the soils exceeding PRGs off-Site.
Alternative A does not address the existing contamination that would be unprotective to a
resident.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) is a threshold
criteria that must be met by the selected remedy. Compliance with ARARs requires that the
remedy comply with the substance of the environmental Federal and State laws that address the
circumstances of the site and the remediation.
All of the alternatives, with the exception of alternative A, comply with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs).
9.1.2 Balancing Criteria
The balancing criteria include long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost. The
remedial alternatives were evaluated and ranked as to how the balancing criterion are achieved
with respect to the response actions taken within each of the subunits.
9-4
-------
restricted by institutional and engineering controls.
Alternatives C, D, E and F provide a lower level of short-term effectiveness by exposing workers
to approximately 76,000 tons of contaminated soils. Mining of the MRA will increase truck
traffic for a number of years and will increase the accident hazard potential to the community.
Implementability
The alternatives are ranked according to difficulty of construction or operation of the remedy; the
available site-specific data to support the likelihood of success of the remedy; the reliability of the
technologies (to include likelihood of technical problems in the field); the ability to monitor the
effectiveness of the alternative; the reliance upon institutional controls to maintain protectiveness;
and the availability of services, equipment and materials.
The alternatives are ranked with respect to each other and not to other technologies that are not
being considered at the site.
All of the alternatives have access restrictions to the site which may include fencing, signs,
security checks, etc. during the implementation of the remedies.
Alternative B is the most easily implemented, as restricting access to the site through engineering
controls can be completed in much less time than the other alternatives, i.e., in less than one year.
The fence and well drilling materials and equipment to construct are readily available.
Alternative F is readily implemented because subtitle C and D disposal facilities are available.
Heavy equipment to perform the excavation and transport the waste to the off-site disposal
facility is locally available.
Alternatives C, D, and E are more difficult to implement due to the complexity of designing and
operating a cold-asphalt batch plant, and designing and constructing a landfill.
Cost
The alternatives will be ranked in accordance with their Present Worth Cost (PWC) which
includes Capital, and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs for the alternatives. Estimated
costs for alternatives associated with mining and reuse of soils from the area with creosote-
impacted soils in the historic wood-treating subsite were developed. The costs for these
alternative set forth herein are those associated only with those activities which would be
undertaken due to the presence of creosote-impacted soil (i.e., hazardous waste management).
Whether to pursue this alternative will be based upon a business decision by the current owner or
any future landowner. Such a decision will take into consideration mining and processing costs,
the potential revenues from sale of asphalt or aggregate for industrial use, and/or the value of the
property upon completion of the mining operation. Current mining costs were requested from the
9-6
-------
current landowner but have not been provided. An attempt to estimate the operating costs of the
current mining operation without the knowledge of such records is beyond the scope of this
analysis. An estimate of potential revenues from the sale of products comprised of impacted soil
requires an evaluation of current and potential future market conditions which also is beyond the
scope of CERCLA.
Assumptions made in the costing of the alternative associated with mining are as follows:
• Costs for equipment (asphalt batch plant) and materials (fuel and emulsion) for producing
asphalt may be offset by revenue from the sale of asphalt;
• Health and safety precautions for sand and gravel workers will be required to mitigate
exposure to creosote-impacted soils during mining. This will include the development of a
written health and safety plan, OSHA training of workers, monitoring, and periodic
briefings;
• Costs for water treatment are based on an estimated treatment cost of $0.10 per gallon.
Treated water would be discharged under NPDES permit to the Arkansas River.
• Mining of the saturated zone can only be implemented if mining of the unsaturated zone is
conducted first;
• Mining within the MRA will occur at the permitted mining rate (70,000 tons/year) for the
current operation; and
• Costs for a mining permit, engineering, and other related activities that would be
implemented in the course of mining in the absence of creosote impact were not
considered in this analysis.
Incremental costs for the alternatives associated with mining of soils within the MRA were
estimated separately for both the unsaturated and saturated zones.
The following are the costs for each of the alternatives:
• Alternative A
- Capital Costs: $ 0
- Annual O&M $ 0
- 30-year PWC $ 0
• Alternative B
- Capital Costs: $ 40,500
- Annual O&M $ 13,800
- 30-year PWC $ 253,000
9-7
-------
• Alternative C
- Capital Costs: $ 735,000
- Annual O&M $ 7,060
- 30-year PWC $ 770,000
• Alternative D
- Capital Costs: $ 814,000
- Annual O&M $ 7,060
-30-year PWC $ 851,000
• Alternative E
Non-Hazardous
- Capital Costs: $ 2,038,000
-Annual O&M $ 5,900
-30-year PWC $2,129,000
Hazardous
- Capital Costs: $ 2,932,000
-Annual O&M $ 10,900
-30-year PWC $3,099,000
• Alternative F
Non-Hazardous
- Capital Costs: $2,063,000
- Annual O&M $ 4,900
- 30-year PWC $ 2,104,000
Hazardous
- Capital Costs: $ 18,547,000
-Annual O&M $ 6,900
-30-year PWC $18,604,000
9.1.3 Modifying Criteria
State and community acceptance are modifying criteria that shall be considered in the remedy
selection.
State Accept!*Tice
The State supports the selection of alternative B as described in this Record of Decision.
However, in addition, the State of Colorado would like to encourage and facilitate the
implementation of Alternative C which calls for the mining and reuse of creosote impacted
materials as a feedstock for asphalt. The State believes Alternative B, combined with Alternative
C would provide greater long-term effectiveness and permanence to the remedy.
9-8
-------
Community Acceptance
Community input on the alternatives was solicited by EPA and CDPHE during the public
comment period from October 22, 1997 through November 21, 1997. Comments received from
the public were mixed in their support for different alternatives.
Responses to the community and PRP comments are found in the Responsiveness Summary in
Section 13.0 of this ROD.
9-9
-------
Section 10.0
Selected Site Remedy
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the
alternatives, and State and public comments, the EPA, in consultation with CDPHE, has
determined that the most appropriate remedy for the Site is Alternative B -
Monitoring/Institutional Controls.
The purpose of this response action is to eliminate the risk by eliminating the potential pathways
through restricting residential development and restricting mining into the impacted soils.
All specified volumes are estimates derived from the data collected during the RI/FS and are
intended to be approximate volumes for the development of the remedial alternatives. The actual
volumes will be determined during the RA and will include the extent of contamination as defined
by the performance standards.
Components of the Selected Site Remedy
The components of the selected remedy are described and are detailed below:
• Institutional Controls to include a restriction that runs with the land to restrict residential
development and to restrict mining of approximately 6.6 acres of impacted soils.
• A 6-foot cyclone fence would be constructed around Spring No. 5 to include a locked
access gate.
• A ground water monitoring plan to determine the effectiveness of the remedy over the
long-term and to ensure no further migration of dissolved PAHs or DNAPL.
Performance and Compliance Monitoring
A performance and compliance monitoring program shall be developed for the groundwater to
determine the effectiveness of natural attenuation of the groundwater.
A groundwater monitoring plan shall be developed to monitor groundwater contaminants and
ensure no further migration of groundwater contaminants and DNAPL.
The compliance boundary shall be established during the remedial design to ensure that the
contaminants within the groundwater do not migrate at concentrations above the groundwater
performance standards beyond this boundary.
The frequency, locations, constituents, sampling methods, detection limits, analytical methods,
etc. and explicit details of the groundwater monitoring plan for performance and compliance, and
for long-term groundwater monitoring will be determined during Remedial Design (RD) to ensure
10-1
-------
protection of the groundwater outside the area of contamination. The compliance boundary is a
physical boundary that is delineated as the present extent of migration of the site contaminants at
concentrations defined by the groundwater performance standards. The precise location of the
compliance boundary shall be delineated during remedial design.
The Region VHI Superfund performance monitoring guidance for groundwater remedies will be
used to develop the groundwater monitoring plan.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls are non-engineering methods for preventing or limiting access to or use of a
site. Such controls shall be implemented as part of the selected remedy to ensure the effectiveness
and protectiveness of the remedy and to prevent or prohibit all activities that would in any way
reduce or impair the effectiveness and protectiveness of the remedy. All measures shall be
effectively administered, maintained and enforced.
Institutional controls include restricting residential development on the Site and mining in the
MRA. Engineering controls include a fence and warning signs around Spring No. 5. Access and
land use restrictions, to ensure no future activity takes place at the Site that is incompatible or
inconsistent with the selected remedy, shall be established that will run with the land. Water use
restrictions will include coordination with the Colorado State Engineer to restrict water usage and
prohibit well drilling on the site and in the vicinity of the DNAPL plume, with the exception of
wells needed for monitoring purposes.
10.1 Final Remediation Levels and Compliance Boundary During Remediation
The selected remedy for soils and groundwater shall fully comply with, achieves, and maintain the
final remediation levels described in this subsection. A listing of the final remediation levels for
the selected remedy is located in this section.
Soil Final Remediation Levels
The soil final remediation levels are as follows:
10-2
-------
Table 8: Final Remediation Levels for Soil
Constituent :
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo(b)flouranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Indeno( 1 ,2, 3 -ed)pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
HpCDD
HxCDD
HxCDF
OCDD
vjUHcTKniraiiim i nig/ Kg •
"***+? **W -r T -in - ^*»». ^•••QT Of
780
78
780
78
780
4,768
0.2
0.02
0.02
2.0
1 Concentrations were calculated for a 1 in 10,000 target risk level under an industrial worker
scenario.
Groundwater Final Remediation Levels
The final remediation levels based upon a 1 in 1,000,000 residential scenario for groundwater are-
Arsenic - 0.06 ug/1
Lead - 0.05 mg/l(MCL)(0.015 mg/1-action level/SDWA)
Manganese - 840 mg/1
Antimony - 15 ug/1
Pentachlorophenol - 0.56 ug/1
Benzo(a) pyrene - 0.0092 ug/1
Benzo(b) fluoranthene - 0.092 ug/1
Benzo(k) fluoranthene - 0.92 ug/1
Chyrsene - 9.2 ug/1
Dibenz(a,h) anthracene - 0.0092 ug/1
Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene - 0.092 ug/1
Benz(a) anthracene - 0.092 ug/1
10-3
-------
Many of these levels are more stringent than the associated MCL. A more stringent standard may
be needed if multiple contaminants within the groundwater or multiple pathways of exposure
present an extraordinary risk. The existing contamination in the groundwater monitoring wells at
the Site is limited to one or two constituents with the exception of the isolated DNAPL plume.
The constituents specified above have been identified as site-specific constituents that may
migrate from the DNAPL plume or leach from contaminated soils on site. Typically, the
accumulative risk of multiple contaminants or pathways results in site-specific health-based values
that may be more stringent than the regulatory standard set by promulgated regulations. The
potential for multiple contaminants or multiple pathways does not exist at this site therefore the
MCL shall be used when there is a discrepancy between the site-specific health-based value and
the regulatory standard (For example: Pentachlorophenol - 0.001 mg/1 and Benzo(a)pyrene -
0.0002 mg/1).
The selected remedy for groundwater shall meet these groundwater final remediation levels.
10.2 ARARs
Colorado Groundwater Standards, 5 CCR 1002-8, Section 3.11.0 establishes a system for
classifying groundwater and adopting water quality standards to protect existing and potential
beneficial uses. This regulation is applicable in that the groundwater organic chemical standard
found in Table A, Regulation No. 41 (Basic Standards for Groundwater) are applicable to water
within the Upper Terrace Aquifer (perched aquifer) and the Regional Aquifer (Arkansas River
Alluvial Aquifer and glacial/basin fill deposits) at the Site. The following standards are applicable
for the following compounds detected in the groundwater monitoring program:
• Pentachlorophenol - 0.001 mg/1
• Benzo(a)pyrene - 0.0002 mg/1
10.3 Five-Year Reviews
Five-Year Review: As specified in §121 of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and Section
300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP, EPA will review the remedy no less often than every 5 years after
the initiation of the remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being
protected by the implemented remedy (this review will ensure that the remedy is protective and
that institutional controls necessary to ensure protections are in place). An additional purpose for
the review is to evaluate whether the performance standards specified in this ROD remain
protective of human health and the environment. EPA will continue the reviews until no
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above the levels that allow
for unrestricted and unlimited use of the land and groundwater.
10.4 Cost of the Selected Remedy
A detailed cost table has been developed for the selected remedy and is organized by capital costs,
O&M costs and Present Worth Cost (PWC).
10-4
-------
Table 9: Cost of Remedy - Monitoring and Institutional Controls
Description
Legal Fees
Monitoring Well
Installation
Fence Installation
Subtotal
Health and Safety
Mobil/Demobil
Legal/Permits
Constr.
Admin/Supervision
Engineering and Design
Total
UnH Cod Method
Quantity
2
2
1
Unit
Is
ea
ea
tMPA*
10000.00
2500.00
2000.00
Coft
.11 t
20,000
5,000
2,000
27.000
10%
5%
25%
IOH
0%
2.700
1,350
6,750
2,700
0
40,500
Material and Labor Method
Material
Quantity
Unit
IWtPric*
Cost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
**» l;.'i '.:/:':'"' .'v'-'." "•'
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cod
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Costs
20.000
5,000
2,000
27.000
2,700
1.350
6.750
2.700
0
40.500
10-5
-------
Table 9: Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimate
Description
GW Sampling &
Analysis (5 wells, 2
springs)
Annual Report
Fence Repair Labor
Subtotal
Present Worth Cost
V&(teU^^::^'"i '•^••;. •'.-"
Quantity
7
1
12
Unit
ea
ea
hour
Unit >rk*
1300.00
3000.00
25.00
Cost
10.300
3.000
300
13,800
.
Mi^ and Ubor Method ..-.; •/':''; ':.;'r:V ' ' '.
Material v.:::;: :•:-
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
0
0
0
0
Labor' '" •"''' '"'•
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cod
0
0
0
0
Annual
OftM
Cod*
10,300
3,000
300
13.800
233,000
10-6
-------
Section 11.0
Documentation of Significant Changes
To fulfill the requirements of CERCLA Section 117(b), this section discusses the reasons for the
selection of a remedy other than the preferred remedy in the Proposed Plan. EPA has selected
one of the alternatives identified as a preference in the Proposed Plan.
ll-l
-------
Section 12.0
Statutory Determinations
EPA's primary responsibility at Superfimd sites is to undertake remedial actions that protect
human health and the environment. In addition, CERCLA § 121 establishes several other
statutory requirements and preferences. These specify that when complete, the selected remedial
action for a site must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards
established under federal and state environmental laws unless a statutory waiver has been granted.
The selected remedy must also be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that employ treatments that permanently
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances as their
principal element.
12.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
EPA's Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA (1988) indicates that protectiveness may be achieved by reducing exposure through
actions such as containment, limiting access, or providing an alternative water supply. The
remedial actions described for the selected remedy reduces the exposure to the impacted soil by
restricting residential development and mining in the MRA.
Short-term and cross-media impacts due to implementation of the selected remedy are expected -
to be minimal. Potential risks to human health and environment through exposure to
contaminated groundwater and soil during well installation and sampling will be minimized by the
use of appropriate preventive and protective measures. Potential cross media impacts will be
minimized by proper well construction methods.
Contaminated groundwater at the Site does not currently pose a significant human health risk
because the groundwater is not presently being used for drinking water or other domestic uses.
Thus, there are no completed exposure pathways. The groundwater monitoring will ensure that
migration of contaminated groundwater and DNAPL plume does not migrate further.
Groundwater monitoring will allow for evaluating the performance of the selected remedy and the
need for additional action.
12.2 Compliance with ARARs
Under Section 121(d)(l) of CERCLA, remedial actions must attain standards, requirements,
limitations, or criteria that are "applicable or relevant and appropriate" under the circumstances of
the release at the site. All ARARs would be met upon completion of the selected remedy at the
Site.
12-1
-------
12.3 Cost Effectiveness
Section 300.430(f)(l)(H)(D) of the NCP requires that the selected remedial action meet the
threshold criteria of protection of human health and the environment and compliance with the
ARARs, and be cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness is determined by evaluating the following three
of the five balancing criteria to determine overall effectiveness: long-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; and short-term
effectiveness. Overall effectiveness is then compared to cost to ensure that the remedy is cost-
effective. A remedy is cost-effective if its costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness.
This remedy allows the current gravel and sand operations to continue with a restriction of mining
in a small area of the Site. The restriction of residential development will ensure that exposures
do not occur that would render risk.
12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies (or Resource
Recovery Technologies) to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Section 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(E) of the NCP requires that the selected remedy shall utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. This requirement shall be fulfilled by selecting the remedy that
satisfies the threshold criteria and the balancing criteria and provides the best balance of tradeoffs
among alternatives in terms of the five balancing criteria. The balancing shall emphasize long-
term effectiveness and reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. The
balancing shall also consider the preference for treatment as a principal element and the bias
against off-site land disposal of untreated waste. In making the selection, the modifying criteria of
state acceptance and community acceptance shall also be considered.
This remedy prevents the activities that would be unprotective to human health and the
environment by ensuring that residential development and mining into the impacted soils is
prohibited. This remedy is a practical approach to prevent exposure that relies upon institutional
controls.
12.S Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable at the Site.
The ground water monitoring program will allow for evaluation of changes in ground water
quality, the detection of any offsite migration of contaminated groundwater, and the need for
further action at the Site if contaminants migrate offsite.
Because the selected remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on the site, a review
will be conducted at least every five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
12-2
-------
12.6 EPA's Selection of the Remedy
Of the alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and comply with
ARARs, EPA believes that the selected remedy provides the best balance in terms of long-term
effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved through
treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost. The NCP states that EPA expects
to use engineering controls, such as containment, for waste that poses a relatively low long-term
threat, and that the selected remedy shall be cost-effective. The containment of the soils onsite
satisfies the NCP expectation. The containment of low-level contaminated waste, cost-
effectiveness and receipt of public comment supporting alternative B were important criterion in
selecting alternative B as the selected remedy.
12-3
-------
Section 13.0
Responsiveness Summary
13.1 Public Meeting Transcript
The transcript of the Public Meeting conducted on October 27, 1997 at the Senior Citizens Center
located at 305 F Street in Salida, Colorado regarding the presentation of EPA's preferred cleanup
alternative for the Wood-Treating Subsite is enclosed with this decision document.
13-1
-------
13.2 Comments to the former Koppers Wood Treating
Operable Unit Two for the Smeltertown Superfund Site
October 1997
13.2.1 Comments from Jack E. Watkins, President of Poncha Sports Inc., Marketing-
Management-Financial Consulting
1) Comment
It was clear that the data used for arriving at decisions regarding the Site was questionable for
many at the meeting. This was especially true regarding the individual who had worked at the
Site when creosote prevailed, with no ill effects to him or anyone else within his knowledge. I can
only say that to the best of my knowledge, there has never been an illness or fatality assigned to
the creosote situation at the Site.
Response
EPA uses the latest scientific information available from studies conducted with people and
laboratory animals to assess the risk presented by creosote and constituents within creosote. The
preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) are based upon the use of this scientific information in
determining what concentrations of these constituents one could be exposed to under an industrial
exposure and not have more than a 1 in 10,000 additional chance (or 10"4) of acquiring cancer. In
short, EPA is protecting the one person in 10,000 persons who might acquire cancer through
exposure to the contaminants at the Site.
2) Comment
Notwithstanding the designation of creosote as a toxic material, I can't help but feel that the
danger effect assigned to it at the Site is too severe. Asphalt has many of the properties of
creosote, and it has not been designated as a toxic material. The extreme number of railway
cross-ties, and telephone type poles that have been impregnated with creosote has not been
considered dangerous. In my opinion, if creosote is as dangerous as the EPA deems it to be,
every creosote contaminated railway cross-tie, and every creosote contaminated telephone type
pole, should be condemned and destroyed. Avoiding the issue regarding cross-ties and telephone
type poles should not be allowed.
Response
This is a very good comment. Toxicity is based upon dose and dose is directly associated with
concentration and quantity. The reason that this Site is being investigated by EPA is because
there is residue creosote from the massive use of creosote used to treat railway cross-ties. As a
result of the cross-tie treating operations, there is a large concentrated quantity of creosote at this
Site. It is the concentration and quantity of the creosote at this Site that renders risk.
3) Comment
The information provided by the EPA is extremely contrary to the opinions of those at the public
meeting. I suggest that a serious review be made of the entire situation.
13-2
-------
Response
EPA and CDPHE has taken into consideration all the comments received and believe that the
selection of alternative B which restricts mining in 6.6 acres of the Site is the appropriate
alternative for this Site.
13.2.2 Comments from Frank C. McMurry, Chairman, Chaffee County Board of
Commissioners, The Board of County Commissioners of Chaffee County
4) Comment
Commissioner Glenn Everett and Max Rothschild attended the public meeting and with support of
the Board of County Commissioners of Chaffee County support Alternative C Reuse as Asphalt
Aggregate as the most acceptable alternative. Alternative D Reuse and On Site Containment is
also acceptable.
Response
Thank you for your letter and support of alternatives C and D. EPA has determined that
alternative B is the most cost-effective alternative. Alternative B restricts mining of the
contaminated soils on 6.6 acres of the 118-acre site. Mining would be allowed to continue
elsewhere at the site.
13.2.3 Comments from Colonel David C. Williams, U S Army, Retired
5) Comment
There was no public notice of this meeting. One County Commissioner and I found out about it
by word of mouth. If adequate notice had been given, the building would have been full of
people. This, along with the insufficient number of hand-outs, leads me to conclude that you
wanted to slip this by without any real knowledgeable people in attendance.
Response
The meeting was announced in the local newspaper (The Mountain Mail) on October 20, 1997.
The local radio station was also notified of the meeting. EPA maintains a mailing list of people
who have expressed interest in the project and this includes local elected officials. EPA sent the
proposed plan describing the site and the alternatives being considered to the persons on this
mailing list. This mailing list consists of more than 100 people. EPA believes strongly in public
outreach and believes that the actions described above to announce the meeting attest to our
commitment.
6) Comment
Your presentation of the material was very unprofessional to say the least. The room was
equipped with a speakers rostrum, complete with amplifier and mike and although in plain sight,
was not used until it was pointed out at almost the end of the meeting. The stenographer was
located in the wrong position, causing many interruptions during the presentation. The slides
were adequate, but were not presented or explained to the satisfaction of the attendees. I suggest
that taking a course in public speaking would be helpful to you.
13-3
-------
Response
Due to unfortunate circumstances, EPA did not have an opportunity to complete a walk-through
of the facility with a person knowledgeable with the facilities prior to the meeting. EPA was not
familiar with the facilities and equipment available (e.g., the audio equipment). EPA apologizes
for the inconvenience of the interruptions from the stenographer during the presentation. With
respect to the slides, ample opportunity was afforded to all attendees to ask questions. Your
suggestion regarding a public speaking course is so noted.
7) Comment
Your knowledge of the various types of earth removal were wrong. The term mining was used
where open pit should have been used. There are quite a number of types of earth removal, i.e.,
quarry, glory hole, etc. It was obvious to us who grew up with these types of operations that you
had no practical experience in the field.
Response
EPA's interest in the Smeltertown Super-fund Site is focused toward characterizing the nature and
extent of contaminants, pollutants and hazardous substances that may present a risk to human
health or the environment...not to mine the site. The intent of the presentation was to describe to
the public the findings of our investigation and numerous alternatives that would mitigate the risk
that these contaminants present. Several of the alternatives discussed included a description of
the precautions and actions that would have to be taken if mining of contaminated soils occurred.
The actual mining plans would have to be developed by the owner to include the precautions and
activities deemed appropriate by EPA to be protective. The methods of mining, whether open pit,
quarry, bench, etc. were not the focus of the discussion and would not change the measures
described in the meeting to protect the workers and determine the final disposition of the waste.
8) Comment
None of your suggested solutions were acceptable to local people. It was obvious that your
major thrust was to assign blame to the present land owner. It seems to me that your goals are as
follow, in orderof precedence:
a. Bankrupt Mr. Butala
b. Create an even bigger mess of the property
c. Establish job security for yourself and staff.
Response
EPA's goal is the protection of human health and the environment. All of the alternatives
presented at the public meeting, with the exception of the no action alternative, will meet this
goal. Our expressed purpose of the meeting was to gather public comment regarding which
alternative the public prefers.
9) Comment
There are solutions to this entire problem.
a. Hire an open pit expert with at least 30 years experience in the field.
b. Follow his advice for the safe removal and USE of the earth around the property.
13-4
-------
c. Allow Mr. Butala to do this work and let him remain as a productive member of the business
community.
Response
EPA's focus is the protection of human health and the environment by managing or eliminating
the exposure to the contaminants, pollutants and hazardous substances at the site. Several of the
alternatives describe protective actions that must be conducted to mine contaminated soils. Under
these alternatives, if the owner of property chooses to mine the contaminated soils, the owner
would be responsible for hiring qualified persons and would be accountable for the protectiveness
of the workers and the final disposition of the contaminated soils.
EPA, CDPHE and the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), have worked with Mr. Butala to
find solutions that would allow mining while also achieving protectiveness.
10) Comment
Superfund was established to SOLVE problems-instead is rapidly becoming THE PROBLEM. I
suggest you take an inward look at your operation and re-focus your efforts to a more productive
type operation.
Response
The alternatives within the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) present solutions. EPA, CDPHE and
Beazer East Incorporated have worked with Mr. Butala to make the investigations and
remediation as non-intrusive as possible while providing protectiveness.
13.2.4 Comments from Shannon K Craig, Program Manager of Beazer East, Incorporated
11) Comment
Beazer believes that some additional information or clarifications are necessary with respect to
EPA's Proposed Remedial Action Plan ("PRAP").
Page 3 - Second full paragraph. It should be noted that the approximately 5,000 tons which
Beazer removed to a permitted landfill originally had been scraped from the surface and left in a
pile at the Site by Butala Construction Company.
Response
So noted.
12) Comment
Beazer believes that some additional information or clarifications are necessary with respect to
EPA's Proposed Remedial Action Plan ("PRAP").
Page 3- Third full paragraph. Beazer would like to clarify that the soil which was removed by
EPA under an emergency removal was removed because of the presence of metals, not because of
the presence of creosote. In addition, it should be clarified that the stockpile is not located on the
13-5
-------
"upper terrace" rather it is located on a terrace above the lower terrace.
Response
EPA initiated the emergency removal to remove metals, however, during the course of the
removal, the OSC made a command decision to remove creosote contaminated soils from the
banks of the Arkansas River for the protection of human health and the environment. The
location of the stockpile is on a terrace above the lower terrace.
13) Comment
Assessment of She Risks- Beazer recommends that the Record of Decision more clearly reflect
the conclusions of the Baseline Risk Assessment ("BRA") that the Wood Treating Site does not
pose an unacceptable risk to human health under the current use. The ROD should also indicate
that the risk to workers arising from the implementation of mining can be addressed by health and
safety measures.
Under the section entitled ASSESSMENT OF SITE RISKS, third paragraph, last sentence, it is
stated that soils in the Pole Plant exceed PRGs. One of the soil samples reported in the RI does
exceed the PRGs; however, this sample was collected at a depth of one foot and, based upon field
observations of the EPA removal action, was most likely removed from the Site along with soils
identified as containing elevated metals. The remaining 5 soil samples collected at the Pole Plant
from depths ranging from 2 to 38 feet do not contain constituents at levels in excess of the PRGs.
Hence, the reference to the Pole Plant should be deleted.
Response
The Proposed Remedial Action Plan is a brief description of the Site history, characterization,
nature and extent of contamination and remedial alternatives. Thus some general statements are
made. The ROD will have more specific information to include an entire section dedicated to the
description of the risks posed by the contamination at the Site.
14) Comment
Beazer believes that some additional information or clarifications are necessary with respect to
EPA's Proposed Remedial Action Plan ('TRAP").
Page 3 - It appears that the list of Remedial Alternatives set forth at the beginning of this section
is incomplete. If a similar section is included in the ROD, Beazer recommends that the list reflect
all the remedial alternatives which were considered.
Response
The alternatives in the PRAP are the same that will be described in the ROD. The ROD provides
more specificity, but the alternatives are the same. Note that only alternatives that survive the
initial screening are discussed in the ROD.
15) Comment
Beazer believes that some additional information or clarifications are necessary with respect to
13-6
-------
EPA's Proposed Remedial Action Plan ("PRAP").
Page 4- "No Action (Alternative 1)" - This section references the entire 118 acre property which
was formerly owned by Koppers Company, Inc. ("Koppers"); however, the Wood Treating Site
consists of only approximately 60 acres. The remainder of the property formerly owned by
Koppers is not part of the Wood Treating Site or the Superrund Site. Beazer believes that this
discussion should be changed to refer solely to the 60 acre area. This may be particularly
important in light of apparent strong community concern that limitations on land use be minimized
to the extent possible. Such a change may help the community better understand the area
involved.
Response
So noted.
16) Comment
Beazer believes that some additional information or clarifications are necessary with respect to
EPA's Proposed Remedial Action Plan ("PRAP").
Page 4 - "Subunit 1 - Spring 5" - This discussion states that "Springs located up gradient (Spring
2) and down gradient (Spring 6) flows will be measured as well as Spring 5." Beazer suggests
that Spring 3 be monitored instead of Spring 2. The purpose of monitoring Springs along the
bluff is to observe any change in the lateral impact to the perched aquifer. Spring 2 is located
approximately 1,200 feet northwest of Spring 5 and is too far away to be an effective measure of
lateral migration from Spring 5. Spring 3 is located only 100 feet northwest of Spring 5 and,
although it already contains low levels of dissolved constituents, would be a better indicator of
. lateral migration of DNAPL.
Response
So noted. EPA has accepted the change of measured springs from Spring 2 to Spring 3.
17) Comment
Beazer believes that some additional information or clarifications are necessary with respect to
EPA's Proposed Remedial Action Plan ("PRAP").
Page 5 - Reuse as Asphalt Aggregate (Alternative C in EPS) - The remedial time frame should be
11 years rather than 8 years.
Response
So noted.
18) Comment
Beazer believes that some additional information or clarifications are necessary with respect to
EPA's Proposed Remedial Action Plan ("PRAP")
13-7
-------
Page 6 - First complete paragraph - The time frame for the mine life is not given and should be 11
years.
Response
So noted.
19) Comment
Finally, Beazer would like to address a question which came up in the public meeting. At the
public meeting, a local resident asked about ground water (either from Spring 1 or from KRMW-
1, it was not clear to which she was referring). She stated that the Spring or well is located on her
father's property and that it is used for domestic purposes. Beazer does not understand this, since
all the wells and Springs sampled and reported in the Remedial Investigation are located on Butala
property. Furthermore, neither Spring 1 nor KRMW-1 have been developed for use with the
installation of piping or pumps. Therefore, Beazer believes that the resident must have been
mistaken about the source of the domestic water. In any event, both Spring 1 and KRMW-1 are
located up gradient from the impacts of the wood treating operations and sampling has
demonstrated that the water from each source does not contain wood-treating constituents.
Response
So noted.
20) Comment
Beazer supports the two proposed remedial alternatives set forth in the PRAP.
Response
Thank you for your letter and support of alternatives B and C. EPA has determined that
alternative B is the most cost-effective alternative. Alternative B restricts mining of the
contaminated soils on 6.6 acres of the 118-acre site. Mining would be allowed to continue
elsewhere at the site.
13.2.5 Comments from Randy L. Sego, Tilly & Graves Attorneys at Law, on behalf of Butala
Construction Company.
21) Comment
As a general matter, EPA's preferred alternatives unnecessarily restrict and limit the permitted
uses of the Butala property, without Butala's consent. Butala continues to strongly oppose any
unnecessary restriction or limitation imposed by EPA on the property. Additionally, at the public
meeting held on October 27, 1997, there was strong community opposition to limitations on land
use. The selected remedial alternative should not restrict or limit Butala's use of the property
without his consent and/or just compensation.
Response
The alternatives presented in the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) address the contamination at the
Site by eliminating exposure through either restricting access, containing on- or off-site, or
13-8
-------
recycling the waste into a cold asphalt mix. These alternatives mitigate the potential risk posed by
the contaminants. These alternatives do not restrict or limit Mr. Butala's permitted uses as the
Mining Restriction Area (MRA) is currently not permitted.
Restrictions on the land would be sought with Mr. Butala's consent. Mr. Butala, as owner and
operator of the Site, is a potentially responsible party and is liable for the cost of the cleanup of
his property.
22) Comment
With respect to the PRAP, Page 3, second full paragraph: The operations of Butala are referred to
as a "sand and gravel operation." As we have commented in the past with regard to the DFFS,
Butala produces various rock products, including decorative residential and commercial rock.
Response
So noted.
23) Comment
With respect to the PRAP, Page 3, paragraphs 6 and 7: There is no basis for limiting the
evaluation of the remedial alternatives to an industrial use scenario. The Butala property is
currently used for the production of various rock products, including decorative residential and
commercial rock. Additionally, the Butala property is currently zoned as industrial under the
Chaffee County Zoning Resolution, which allows for residential, recreational and commercial
uses. The limitation of the evaluation of remedial alternatives to an industrial use scenario results
in a proposed remedial alternative that unnecessarily restricts the future use of the Butala
property.
Response
The existing use of the property is industrial. The projected life of the mining operation is ten
plus years thus the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) is industrial. The alternatives addressed
in the FFS are based upon the property remaining industrial. There is no compelling reason or
evidence to believe that the future use of property would change to residential. Since the
property is currently industrial and expected to remain industrial, the use of the industrial scenario
does not unnecessarily restrict the use of the property. In addition, the industrial scenario allows
for less stringent cleanup standards than residential scenario and thus is less costly.
24) Comment
With respect to the PRAP, Page 8, second column: EPA's selection of Alternative 2 -
Institutional Controls and Monitoring and Alternative D if mining is expanded into the MRA -
arbitrarily restricts the use of the Butala property.
If Alternative 2 is selected in the Record of Decision as the remedial alternative, it should be
modified to reduce the substantial adverse impact on Butala and the use of the Butala property.
Alternative 2 should be modified so that it applies only to the 6.6 acre MRA, based on the
following rationale: First, there is no basis for subjecting the entire Butala property to a deed
13-9
-------
restriction or other institutional control. The former Koppers site was approximately 60 acres,
and it is our understanding that this site includes any areas of potential concern. Secondly, within
that 60 acres, we believe minimal sampling would show that virtually all of this area, with the
exception of the MRA, would meet residential, recreational and commercial PRGs. To the extent
that small areas do not meet PRGs, the soils can be removed and consolidated into the MRA.
This modest change to Alternative 2 would greatly limit the adverse impacts on Butala and the
Butala property.
Response
EPA is interested in your suggestion and would be willing to work with Beazer East Incorporated
and Mr. Butala, during settlement negotiations, to develop a plan to limit the residential
development restriction only to the area that is contaminated.
13-10
-------
FORMER
KOPPERS
OUTUNE OF
MAPPED AREA
APPROXIMATE
BOUNDARY OF
SMELTERTOWN
SUPERFUND SITE
Rgure 1 -1. Location Map of Smtltertown
Superfund Site and Former
Koppers Property
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1-2
-------
FIGURE 1-2
SITE TOPOGRAPHY
FORMER KOPPERS FACILITY
SAUDA. COLORADO
-------
•*,•-".>>. J * ••*"••••••' - .f «.'.-•.
;.;,...,,«•••:•-"-••'••'•"• * .-.•:-,
CONIU* INICBVM. 2'
or PHOIOGKVHT. n-7-»3
no.
Coniulllng and toglntirlng
FIGURT T^ 7
El EVATION OF TOP OF
GLACIAL /BASIN- Fit L DtPOSIIS
FORMtR KOPPERS FAClllTY
C.AI IDA roi (w«nn
-------
Appio«lmQl. iQcollon of
Burled Cftoiol* Soil
*r«o ol Ptoposid Mining
R«llrlcllon
icovoUd Undvr CPA
lim«- Cflllcol Rol Aellon
Ar«o lo t>* icovol^d Und«r
Propoj«J R«m«d, lor OU f I
Hg - |i.g»>»r> *u Wm*
flgur. 5- |
Ar.o ol Ulninij RltltklK
loim«i Kopp«r» locillly Solldu. Coloiudo
I fttu.
At Shown
Mftwwc MUMMI
-------
•» Monitoring W.ll
4 Spring
- Propot.d Monitoring
W.lf Location
Contour Interval* t
Dotr off Photograph,. 11-7-93
Job No.
Flgur* 5-2
Proposed Monitoring Wall
and Spring Locations
formor Kopp«rs Facility
Sallda. Colorado
-------
\ . .%>. \ 'V •- . V
""." ', > \ -~ \ V '•>
:•."• '-'ir. - \ '^ v \
^ -v\\X\ \ \
<- '• \- . \- v \ \-.
LEGEND
Monitoring Well
Spring
^Proposed Monitoring
Veil/Location
v?
Contour Interval
Dote of Photograony •• l
-lob No. 93132-2
200
N
\
O
o
o
BCAZ06. DWG
1
• ^rid_:.
- /\
oar
Consulting - engineering - Remediation
Figure 5-3
Fencing Location
Former Koppers Facility
Salida, Colorado
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUBLIC MEETING
re:
PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE FORMER
KOPPERS WOODTREATING SITE
*****
SMELTERTOWN SUPERFUND SITE
October 27, 1997
Senior Center
305 F Street
Salida, Colorado
Presented by:
GWEN HOOTEN (8EPR-SR)
EPA Remedial Project Manager
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202-2466
Telephone: (303) 312-6571
MARTIN O'GRADY
State Project Manager
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
HMWMD-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246
(303) 692-3366
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Proceedings, Monday, October 27, 1997 7:00 p.m.)
*****
MS. HOOTEN: This is Lisa, our court
reporter, and she is going to record everything
that-we're saying tonight.
We would like you to ask questions
during the presentation. So if you have a
question, please ask it at the time. I think it
would be much easier for us to answer the
question at the time that you have it.
When you ask a question, would you
please state your name so Lisa can get it
recorded? Okay?
This is part of our public outreach.
It is a step requirement for CERCLA, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, otherwise known
as Superfund. And we're here to talk about
Operable Unit 2, which is the woodtreating
element at the SineItertown Site.
Now, you all know this area much better
than I, because you're right in the heart of
Colorado. And this is the area where old County
Road 150 is and the Arkansas River. It is this
area that we're here to talk about tonight.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm going to go through and describe to
you how we had split this site up for purposes of
the study. And it's primarily because of the
activities that took place in the different
operable units that — where we designed what
operable unit it would be.
For instance, Operable Unit 1 is this
area right here where the smelting activities
occurred in the earlier part of the 1900s. And
it shut down in 1919. Even though some of these
operable units would — would overlap each other,
generally speaking, the smelter operable units,
we looked at contaminants coming from that
particular activity; things like metals, lead,
arsenic, our primary concern at this site.
Operable Unit 2 is the area that has
the slash marks. And Operabile Unit 2 we
primarily looked at the woodtreating PAHs, or
things that you would find in gasoline or used
oil or primarily in creosote.
And then Operable Unit 3 is CoZinCo.
And that's an active facility. And I think some
of you are very familiar with that facility. We
have that being studied by the State of Colorado.
So just real quick, I've got an aerial
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
picture of it.
Operable Unit 1, again, was the
smelting activity where the Ohio and Colorado
Smelting and Refining Company initiated actions
in the early 1900s. They processed ore to
produce gold, silver, lead and copper, and they
ceased operations in 1919.
Operable Unit 2, it's about 80 acres.
It would — it was leased to a timber company in
1924. Koppers Company, Incorporated, was the
last owner and operator of the property, and they
ceased operations in 1953. Koppers changed their
name several times. They are now known as
Beazer, Incorporated. Beazer East, Incorporated.
In 1962 Koppers sold the property to
the H.E. Lowdermilk Company, which then sold to
the Butala Construction Company.
And Operable Unit 3 is the CoZinCo
facility which began its operations in 1977 and
continues its operations today. It's currently
under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
Known as RCRA. It is a cradle-to-grave oversight
that the regulatory agencies look to to ensure
that contamination is taken care of at a
generation point and then at its disposal point.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And so this is done — it's under RCRA.
Okay. Some of the regulatory history.
Because of the level of contamination at the
Site, we proposed this site for what we refer to
as our National Priorities List. That is a list
of Superfund sites that we find at a certain
level of contamination that render it to be
contaminated enough that they make this
Priorities List.
In May of 19 — May of 1993 we
initiated a fund we call Classic — our Classic
Emergency Removal Action. What a Classic Removal
Action is to us is one that we deem that action
has to occur immediately. And for a government
time frame, we're saying less than six months.
You have less than a six-month time frame to go
out and implement the emergency action.
In this case we found that there was
zinc in the groundwater, and we provided bottled
water to residents located downgradient.
In 1994 we issued a unilateral order to
CoZinCo to supply bottled water.
In November of '95, we completed that
work under that UAO.
In September of '93, we initiated the
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
first phase of a Time-Critical Removal Action.
We removed some creosote-contaminated sludge from
four residential driveways, lead-contaminated
soil from five residential yards, a slag and
debris pile and metal-contaminated soil next to
the smelter. We completed that action in
November of 1995. And some of those actions that
we completed were constructing a fence around a
stockpiled waste from Phase I.
Some of you who have — who are very
familiar with the Site will know that we have
nicknamed this pile "Pete's Pile," because Pete
was the OSC that was conducting the work at the
time.
We removed some creosote-contaminated
sludge from one more residential property, and we
removed surface lead and creosote contamination
on the Upper Terrace and from the banks of the
Arkansas River.
January 10, 1995, Butala Construction
provided in-kind services under AOC. They
provided equipment and personnel to assist in the
excavation and stockpiling of contamination,
on-site contamination, and to the area known as
Pete's Pile.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
November 1, 1995, EPA initiated a
Fund-Lead Time-Critical Removal Action to provide
alternate water supplies to residents.
September of '95, we released a Cleanup
Proposal for Operable Unit 1. Again, the Smelter
Operable Unit.
On September 27, 1996, we published an
Action Memorandum describing the cleanup that
would occur in Operable Unit 1, the Smelter Unit.
October of 1997, we released a Proposed
Plan. And I'm sure that some of you have
received that Proposed Plan. That is what we are
going to be talking about tonight is the
alternatives that are discussed in that Proposed
Plan.
For any of those who did not receive
one, I have extra copies up here, and I would ask
that you pick them up. If you want to see them
now...
Anybody else?
We completed several studies, several
to support the removal actions that we just
described. But we wanted to talk about the
studies that we have completed. And when I say
"we," it's not necessarily EPA, but EPA with a
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PRP group under order with EPA to conduct the
work.
Beazer East, Incorporated, which is a
Potentially Responsible Party, they have
completed the Remedial Investigation dated March
of 1996, and they have completed a focused
Feasibility Study on the Site, and we have some
October amendments to that August 1997 document.
These are available in the — in the Salida
Library for your review.
In addition to these studies, EPA did a
site-wide Human Health Risk Assessment. That
looked at the level of contamination, the
exposure pathways, which we have determined to be
an industrial exposure, for the Site. And that
is to say we don't expect that residents will
build there. Our understanding is that the local
zoning will allow residents to build there. So
we restrict residents from building there. And
we — we would look at an industrial exposure,
which means a person that would be on site for
five days a week for a certain number of years —
Jane...
MS. MITCHELL: It's typically
twenty-five.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HOOTEN: — twenty-five years and
his exposure to the contaminants of the Site. We
quantify that to come up with a level of risk.
And our level of risk is defined as anywhere
between one in ••— one in ten thousand to one in a
million is EPA's acceptable risk range for the
contaminants that would enhance your contracting
cancer. So it's a one in ten thousand to one in
a million chance we — is our acceptable risk
range.
Anything higher than that, say if it's
more than one in ten thousand, we have defined
that as an unacceptable risk. And we're looking
at the unacceptable risk to warrant action.
In order to describe the Site, we
subdivided — we subdivided — we subdivided it
into these three subunits: Subunit 1 occurring
at Spring No. 5 — and Martin's going to discuss
the level of contamination that we found at the
Site — Subunit 2, which is the surface and
subsurface soils for depths of 30 feet, and then
saturated soils at 30 to 40 feet.
Now, Martin's going to describe to you
the level of contamination. And I need to
introduce Martin. He is a project manager for
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the State of Colorado. He is my counterpart.
And I forgot to introduce myself. I am
Gwen Hooten with the Environmental Protection
Agency.
MR. BIGLOW: Ma'am, I have just one
question with respect to the 30-40 foot depth.
MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.
MR. BIGLOW: What happens after 40
feet?
MS. HOOTEN: Well, this — this 30 to
40 feet? What we're looking at is groundwater
contamination on saturated soils. So we're
looking here — primarily we did not find
groundwater problems under this operable unit.
We do have zinc in the groundwater —
(Reporter interruption)
MS. HOOTEN: We didn't find groundwater
contamination under Operabile Unit 2. We found
groundwater contamination under Operable Unit 3,
the CoZinCo Facility.
We had one hit in groundwater. And so
that's — typically you find more than that in an
investigation. So we're not seeing that the
groundwater is a problem at this time. There is
potential that it could become a problem. So
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Martin will discuss a little bit the level of
contamination and describe what the contamination
would be.
MR. O'GRADY: I might be able to answer
the question, too, sir. We'll get into this a
little bit with the diagrams.
Well, I need to — in order to help us
all get our thinking caps on to review the next
section of the presentation, I just wanted to
give you all a few points to ponder.
This first one is kind of silly.
Next one: "If it's a tourist season,
why can't we shoot them?" That's kind of cute,
but, you know, as workers of — those of us that
are employed by the government, we realize where
we fall on the order of things relative to
tourists, and it's a little bit below that. We
sometimes disguise ourselves as tourists when
we're out in the field.
This next one, if anybody has read the
Proposed Plan, or the Focus Feasibility Study,
then they have noticed that there are six
alternatives that are presented in that and
evaluated.
Alternatives 1 and 2, and then
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Alternatives C through F. So this — this is a
good question to ask us a little bit later as to
why we developed that nomenclature for the
alternatives.
I'm going to describe the nature and
extent of contamination, as we know it, for
Operable Unit 2, which is basically contained in
the Remedial Investigation that was written in
1996. Actually, the fieldwork for it was done in
the spring of '94, and it was finalized in 1996.
So this will take about two, three hours — no,
about — hopefully about ten minutes.
This is just a map that gives us an
overview of the Site. Here is the Arkansas
River. Operabile Unit 2 that we're describing,
that we're here to talk about this evening, is
basically in this location. Gwen mentioned or
made reference in her discussion of Operable Unit
1, which is the Smelter Subsite. That's located
generally in this area here.
And then, of course, CoZinCo — the
CoZinCo facility is located in this position and
is Operable Unit 3.
I want to show just a little closer up
view map of Operable Unit 2.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
But first of all, when we are
investigating the nature and extent of
contamination — we knew a lot going into this
project. Or I should say Beazer, who performed
the work, their contractor on this was ENSR out
of Ft. Collins, knew a lot about the Site
already.
We know, for example, that the main
woodtreating product that was used at the Site
was creosote. And creosote is used commonly
throughout the United States — or was used
commonly throughout the United States — in
woodtreating facilities. It's a dense,
non-aqueous phase liquid, or what we refer to as
a DNAPL. It's made up of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons; sixteen of them to be exact.
Sixteen specific compounds. It's a mixture of
those compounds — little bit redundant, but it's
heavier than water, so when it goes down into the
ground and does eventually get to the water
table, it will tend to sink. And it doesn't mix
with the water, and it's a very viscous, oily
Substance.
A little closer look at Operable Unit 2
from historic records and air photos, it was
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
known that the there were some specific areas on
the Upper Terrace where — where there were
specific source areas. One was the process area,
which is generally in here. It included a
building, which contained retort — retorts,
which are basically steel cylinders into which
the wood that was being treated was put in for
pressure treating to impregnate the wood product,
wood preservative.
There was also some working tanks
located just north of the process building, as
well as some storage tanks over here.
And then insignificantly there were
railroad tracks. After the — after the material
was treated it was brought out and allowed to
drip on the ground surface onto the drip tracks
before them being stored elsewhere on the Site.
Another discrete source area on the
site are these process or — excuse me — lagoons
that are located in this area where processed
waters were disposed of. These were unlined.
Another source area is not shown on the
map, but it's generally in this area right here,
where some materials and creosote-contaminated
material was actually moved to this area after
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
the woodtreating operations were over.
And then finally, we have a pole plant
area to the east where telephone poles were —
were treated.
This next map just shows the
location — or let me go back. I have another —
I just wanted to make a couple comments on what
the investigation included, and that was surface
sampling, as well as near-surface soil sampling.
The area of the entire Operable Unit was gridded
and certain sampling frequencies and samples were
obtained from near-surface, and then — or excuse
me — from surface, and then from near-surface.
There were also a number of trenches
installed for all of the known source areas. And
there were soil bores that were drilled down to
the base of contamination and deeper. And there
were monitoring wells that were installed. And
samples from all of these were analyzed, and the
results of that are basically what are contained
in the Remedial Investigation.
And additionally, springs were sampled
along the — the bluff here adjacent to the
river.
So this map shows Operabile Unit 2
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
again, and some lines on the map that are lines
of cross-sections that are constructed through
the — through the subsurface control what we
have from the trenching and from the well
installation.
And the next graph that — or next map
I'm going to show you is a Cross-section A-A
Prime. It goes from southwest to northeast
through the west side of the process area.
Okay. So this is Cross-section A-A
Prime. And this is the typical — picture's
worth a thousand words.' We could actually have
our entire discussion based on this one diagram,
because this does summarize pretty much what is
known of the Site.
Southwest to northeast appears the
Arkansas River. And then as we traverse toward
the northeast, go way up on the Upper Terrace,
which is about 90 feet vertically above the
elevation of the river — I should point out that
the — this diagram is squeezed horizontally.
It's exaggerated five times. So that's why it
looks squeezed to this dimension.
A couple of things on here just to
orient some of you that are familiar with this —
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with the Site. The slag material, the black slag
material, that's a byproduct of the smelting
operation is depicted right here in the lower
part of the — of the cliff.
Up on the Upper Terrace, which is where
the Operable Unit is located, this particular
cross-section goes through two wells: Well 7S,
which is the — 7S is for the shallow well, and
7D is for the deep well. And this gets back to
your question as to what's going on beneath the
40 feet.
Y.ou can see the scale over here -.- this
is a hundred feet from here to here. Probably
the most significant component of this site is
the fact that we have this Upper Terrace Deposit
that is about 40-feet thick. The lower 10 feet
of it is saturated, so it's considered or
designated as the Lower — excuse me. This
deposit is the Upper Terrace. The lower ten feet
of it would comprise the Upper Terrace Aquifer.
At the base of that aquifer there's a
change in permeability. The material that
underlies it is much less permeable. It forms a
permeability barrier. And the contaminants, as
they have seeped down from the ground surface and
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gone into groundwater and then eventually hit
that permeability barrier, spread out laterally.
And they don't, for the most part, get below that
contact. And that actually serves as a mechanism
to try to help contain the extent of
contamination as it's been defined.
What's depicted schematically on here,
this would be the location of the storage tanks.
This darker area here is residual creosote —
creosote-contaminated soil. This lighter area
here is — is stained with creosote.
The Site has been characterized in
terms of its hydrogeology, and the slide shows
three of the hydrogeologic units that have been
defined for the whole Site. One is the Arkansas
River Alluvial Aquifer.
Another would be the Upper Terrace
Aquifer that we talked about earlier already.
And a third would be this deposit that
underlies that, that is known as Glacial and/or
Basin-fill Deposits. These deposits tend to be
finer grained, somewhat cementic and just not as
forcible and permeable as the Upper Terrace
deposits.
And finally, there's another deposit
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we will see in a couple of our
cross-sections that is called the Lower Terrace
Deposits that we just can't see on this
particular line or section.
Basically this evidence that the
permeability barrier exists at the Site is based
on a number of lines of evidence. Perhaps one of
the more telling is the fact that in the — in
the — in the bluff adjacent to the Upper Terrace
are a number of springs, a line of springs that
basically emanate as a result of the groundwater
being perched or top —'or trapped on top of that
permeability barrier. And they can — the
groundwater just daylights in the form of
springs.
In fact, one of the springs, Spring
No. 5, which Gwen alluded to in her list of
Subunits — considered to be separate subunits —
is Subunit 1, because it does contain some
creosote material — creosote product based on
testing.
Another line of evidence is from the
soil bores and wells that were drilled through
the Upper Terrace and into the lower — into the
underlying deposits. The contamination, for the
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
most part, stopped at the base of the Upper
Terrace Aquifer.
Another line of evidence that this
schematic, or this model — model holds up is the
fact that the groundwater encountered in the
shallow well in the Upper Terrace at a depth of
about 30 feet — as I said, the lower ten feet of
the Upper Terrace Aquifer is saturated with
groundwater. And then the material that
underlies it still has porosity and some
permeability. But it's — it's dry. And it's
not until we get down to the depths that we
encounter groundwater again. So the groundwater
that we do encounter up here is also not getting
into the underlying units.
Geochemical testing, geochemical
speciation of the groundwater suggests that it's
a different species; that the two are not, you
know, in communication or contact. So we feel
like overall the evidence is pretty good that,
for the most part, the basic contamination is
contained at the base of the Upper Terrace
Aquifer.
MR. BIGLOW: Sir?
MR. O'GRADY: Yes.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BIGLOW: Can I ask a couple of
questions?
MR. O'GRADY: Absolutely.
MR. BIGLOW: With respect to this
columnar effect of this contaminated area, I
mean, what's the effect of time of that rascal
slumping down to here and leaving that clean?
MR. O'GRADY: Right. You mean up above
it?
MR. BIGLOW: Uh-huh.
MR. O'GRADY: Well, we know that this —
this product does move fairly slowly, even though
it's been about 40 years or so since the
operations — woodtreating operations have shut
down. The soil — this — the DNAPL, the
creosote product that initially went —
originated at the surface and seeped down, edged
on through this zone already, because we don't
see any free — free — what we call free-based
DNAPL product in that material. So — but
presumably, over time, yes, it would continue to,
you know, I suppose, dissipate somewhat. Yes.
Please.
THE COURT REPORTER: Could I have your
name, please?
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BIGLOW: Robert Biglow.
B-i-g-1-o-w.
What's the estimated volume of that
contaminated area in terms of tonnage?
MR. O'GRADY: Well, Glen will get into —
Gwen will get into that when we talk about the
alternatives. But about 76,000 tons. We've
identified an area of contamination that is — of
concentrated contamination that is about 6.6
acres, which equates volumetrically, I believe,
to about 760,000 cubic tons. And we — we
estimated about ten percent of that is
contaminated above levels that would be
considered safe for an industrial exposure, say
exposure for a sand and gravel worker.
So we feel like there's about 76 tons
that would need to be managed, if you will. It's
not a significant volume overall relative to the
overall volume of the materials in the Upper
Terrace. It's fairly focused, very discrete.
You know, it doesn't move a lot until it gets
down to the water, and then it tends to move
along this interface and in the direction of
groundwater.
MR. HILL: Again, clarify what you just
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said. You said 76,000 — 760,000 tons was the
total volume?
MR. O'GRADY: 600 — about 6.6 acres —
MR. HILL: Yeah.
MR. O'GRADY: — equals 760,000 cubic
tons.
MR. HILL: I thought I heard you said
10 percent of that was contaminated —
MR. O'GRADY: Yes.
MR. HILL: So you're saying the ten
percent of that would be 76,000 tons? Wouldn't
it be 76
MR. O'GRADY: Right.
MS. HOOTEN: Right. 76,000.
MR. HILL: You said 76 tons.
MR. O'GRADY: I'm sorry. You're right.
MR. HILL: Just wanted to be sure we're
on the same page.
MR. O'GRADY: Yeah. Okay. You're
right. I'm sorry.
This is the same slide that you saw
before, definition of the Subunits.
Subunit 1 being the spring which does
contain contaminated groundwater in the Upper
Terrace Aquifer.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Subunit 2 would be the Upper Terrace
Deposits where they're not saturated from zero to
30 feet.
And then Subunit 3 would be the
saturated component, as well as the groundwater
that's contained therein.
I want to just quickly show a couple of
additional maps and cross-sections. The next map
that I'm going to show is a map of this surface
here, the upper — the water table, basically.
The top of the water table. And this is based on
ten wells that have been installed as part of the
Remedial Investigation.
Groundwater flow direction is basically
along these lines here; basically toward the
river, which is what you would normally expect in
a water table pocket situation. And also it's in
this location that the springs — it's a full
series of springs where these — where these
lines intercept the Hesquite Bluff. On the
southwest side is where the springs are, where
the water daylights.
Okay. Quickly, two more profiles of
cross-sections through the Site. This next one
is D-D Prime, which is pretty much straight
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
north/south and goes through the — starts out at
the lagoons up here and then goes through — this
is the material that was buried in trenches
on-site and other — is another source area.
These are the railroad tracks or dirt
tracks here.
And this section and the next one,
you'll begin to see that hydrogeologic lagoon
that I described, which would be the Lower
Terrace, which begins right over here.
And then finally, E-E Prime, again,
straight north/south, to the east goes through
the pole plant area, source area.
And this gets a little bit better
again. All of these are squeezed horizontally.
The difference between the Upper Terrace Aquifer,
which is located in this position, and then
there's the topographic slope here. And we go
through the Lower Terrace Aquifer, which is
located in this position here. And it's
questionable as to what the separation is in
terms of the flow of the water between the Upper
Terrace Aquifer and the Lower Terrace Aquifer.
Okay. The RI, Remedial Investigation,
included the collection of hundreds of samples
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and thousands of analyses. And I'm going to try
and just quickly summarize that.
You remember I mentioned the sampling
program that included grading surface soils, and,
for the most part, the surface soils were
contaminated with PAHs to a level of less than a
thousand parts per million, as well as the
near-surface soils, also less than a thousand
parts per million, which is about the level of
cleanup for most woodtreating sites around the
country.
In the process area, where the — where
the building was and the retorts and the drip
tracks and things like that, the highest level of
contamination encountered was significantly
higher, about 6,400 parts per million, which is,
like, .6 percent. Or is it .06? I don't want to
get my decimal point in the wrong spot. And this
is from one of the trenches. It's not surprising
that the highest levels of contamination for the
investigation were found from the trenches,
because they were in the — in the known source
areas. And also we were able to high grade those
samples for analysis. In other words, find the
samplings that looked to be the most contaminated
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and identify those for analysis.
In the lagoon area, the highest level
encountered in the soils was about — a little
over 2,000 parts per million, et cetera.
The pole plant, we had a little bit of
a spurious reading, because there was actually
some wood fiber contained, as noted in the sample
log, contained in this sample. So it was a high
number.
And then the bury area on site, the
highest level was less than a thousand parts per
million.
As far as the groundwater is concerned,
a number of groundwater and spring samples were
taken. In the Upper Terrace Aquifer, above —
above 40 feet, the highest level we saw was
10,875 parts per billion total PAHs. So all
creosote constituents combined.
In the ground — groundwater in the
deeper aquifer, we did have a low-level detection
of 3.4 parts per billion total PAHs.
And then in Spring 5, or Subunit 1, the
maximum contamination encountered was less than
40,000 parts per billion. But that was the
highest detection in the groundwater we detected.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. DICKERSON: Question.
MR. O'GRADY: Yes.
DR. DICKERSON: If you were to
reconvert that into parts per million —
MR. O'GRADY: Parts per million, you'd
divide by a thousand.
DR. DICKERSON: So that would be 10.8?
MR. O'GRADY: Correct. So this would
be 10.8, this would be 38.9. That's right. For
comparison with the soil numbers.
DR. DICKERSON: Right.
MR. O'GRADY: Okay. That's all I had.
I'm going to turn it back over to Gwen now. And
Gwen is going to go over the results of the
Feasibility Study, which, for the most part, is
summarized in the Proposed Plan. It presents the
six different alternatives that — that we have
considered, evaluates them and discusses the one
that's been selected or is being proposed.
Yes, sir.
MR. BIGLOW: Would you summarize what
you just said for the lay people? In other
words, I have no clue whether that's high or low.
I have no clue whether that's something that is
highly hazardous —
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. O'GRADY: Right.
MR. BIGLOW: — or where does it relate
to the norm? Or is Gwen going to give us that
summary?
(Reporter interruption)
MS. HOOTEN: I was just telling him I
can summarize that for you in discussing the
alternatives, because we do look at a baseline,
which is called the No Action Alternative. So
just to kind of give you a feel for the level of
contamination and what warrants action or not.
Okay. I was telling you about what
EPA's acceptable risk range was. We were talking
about additional cancer — contracting cancer.
We were talking about one in ten thousand to one
in a million being EPA's acceptable risk range.
Well, what we found is for an industrial exposure
for the industrial worker on-site, that we didn't
have anything on the surface soils that exceeded
our acceptable risk range. So we find it
acceptable for the surface contamination.
However, if you were to build a house
on there and have a residence there, we would
find that level of risk unacceptable. And the
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reason for that is that a resident spends more
time at their home. So their exposure to these
contaminants is longer. And we find that
residents on the site would be an unacceptable
risk. It would be greater than one in ten
thousand.
And for that reason, we find that the
No Action is not protective — not a protective
alternative. We feel like we would have to
restrict residential development in the Site in
order to be protective.
So Alternative 2 looks at restriction.
Looks at restricting residential development
on-site.
In addition to that, we looked at the
subsurface soils. And Martin showed you a lot of
graphics that showed you that the contamination
has migrated from the surface to depth. Now, the
contamination at depth is not within the
acceptable risk range for an industrial exposure.
If we were to mine that stuff, which the Site
right now is a mining operation for sand and
gravel — if you were to mine that, there would
be an unacceptable risk for that sand and gravel
worker. If you were to sell that stuff in its
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
present state, there would be an unacceptable
risk to the user. So we would prohibit mining in
an area that we have identified as 6.6 acres.
Let me show you that real quick.
Martin outlined for you some of the areas, and he
showed you where the lagoons were. He showed you
where the storage tanks and the working tanks
were. All of those cross-sections that he showed
you where there was contamination at depth we've
identified as a Mining-Restricted Area. And we
refer to it in the Proposed Plan as MRAs. All
right?
For Alternative 2, it talks about
restricting residential development, providing
warning fences and signs to let people know that
there is some contaminants in that area, and
monitoring the groundwater to determine whether
or not we are going to see any contamination of
the groundwater. Martin already described to you
we have not seen anything in the deeper aquifer.
We are seeing something in the Upper Terrace
Aquifer. We would continue to monitor that to
ensure that it did not further migrate beyond its
present extent. Right now there is no one using
that groundwater. So we're — we're — we're
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comfortable that that would be protective under
its current uses.
However, if you were to look into
mining it, mining that 6.6 acres where we found
contamination at depth, we looked into that, and
we think there are ways that we could recycle
that waste. It's — it's primarily creosote
contamination. There•s a lot of PAHs that Martin
described to you. It is the same kind of
contaminants that we find in an asphalt mixture.
So we think that this material, if mined
properly, could be recycled in an asphalt cold
plant. And that's what Alternative 2 — or C
looks at.
We looked at an alternative that is
kind of a piggy-back on this one where there
would be some temporary on-site containment.
This looks at — there are some discussions that
we had that sometimes the operations would be
such that a cold plant would have to have
continuous feed, and you might not be mining that
quickly. So this alternative looks at mining it
and placing it in a temporary stockpile until
you've got enough to have a continuous operation
in a cold asphalt plant.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
We looked at alternatives as to, "Well
what if we just picked up the stuff and
constructed a hazardous landfill or a
nonhazardous landfill on site?" EPA has a
definition of hazardous waste that's defined by a
certain test that we do called — some call it
the TCLP leaching method. And what we would do
is if we conducted this test and we found that we
did have leaching from this test, we would define
that waste as hazardous. To date, we have not
found any waste on the Site that failed the TCLP
method. But we don't know that that might not be
the case, or we would look to test it again in
the field if we have contacted this.
We also considered a solid waste
landfill on-site, or a disposal unit on-site. If
it was a hazardous waste and we find that it did
leach, the construction methods would be much
more stringent than a solid waste, a waste that
did not leach.
And finally, we looked at off-site
disposal. "What if you just mine the area and
dispose it off-site, either into a hazardous
landfill or a nonhazardous landfill?"
And these costs are in your Proposed
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plan.
But just to kind of give you an idea,
Alternative 1, which is No Action, we're not
going to do anything; of course, zero dollars.
But we found that to be not protective.
Alternative 2, if we restricted mining,
and if we monitored to ensure that there is no
further migration of the current contamination,
we found that our capital costs would be about
42,000. Our O&M cost would be about 13,000 per
year. And our present worth cost, the amount of
money that we have to put away today to ensure
that we had financing throughout the life of
this, would be about 255,000..
Alternative C — and I need to correct
this. Our latest addendum shows that this is
eleven years, not eight. We would look at mining
the area, 6.6 acres, 760,000 tons — of which we
expect that 76,000 tons of it would be
contaminated — to mine it and to have a — and
to recycle it in a cold asphalt plant where there
would be continuous operation, would be about
735,000, with about $7,000 of O&M, for a total
cost of 770,000.
I need to make it clear to you that the
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cost that you're seeing that we're describing is
the additional cost of handling this material in
the manner that EPA deems fit to be protective.
It does not include the mining costs of — well,
just mining of the Site. So it's the additional
measures that you would have to take to mine this
material and to perform the type of operations
that we would deem protective of that worker.
Okay?
And Alternative D, we do have a
temporary storage, it's a little bit higher at
814,000, with the same O&M. So that the present
worth cost is about 851,000.
Alternative E, if it was nonhazardous,
the capital cost would be about 2 million to
build a facility on-site and dispose of it
on-site with an O&M of about 5,900, for a total
cost of 2,129,000.
If it was hazardous, we're looking at
about 3 million. We're looking at an additional
cost in the O&M of about $10,000 per year.
For Alternative F, if we're going to
dispose of it off-site, if we found that it was
nonhazardous, the total cost would be about 2
million. If we found that it was hazardous, then
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we're up into the $18 million to dispose of this
76,000 tons off-site. Now, this figure is also
in the Proposed Plan, and it weighs these
alternatives.
There are nine criteria that EPA looks
at. Protection of Human Health and the
Environment and ARARs, compliance with ARARs, are
what we refer to as threshold criteria. You have
to meet these two standards in order to be
continued to be evaluated for selection.
Then there are five other criteria.
There's Short-term Effectiveness, which is
nonexposure to workers while they're
implementing, or to the surrounding residents or
folks in the area from air emissions, those kind
of activities that you might be exposed to while
we're implementing an alternative, those are
weighed.
Then there are the Long-term
Effectiveness and Permanence, and that looks at
what's in the final product and how long-term is
it, how effective is it in reducing a mitigating
risk.
Then there's Reduction of Mobility,
Toxicity or Volume, and this is really through
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
treatment. So it looks at, "Are you treating the
waste; are you making it less mobile; are you
making it less toxic; are you doing anything to
reduce its volume?"
And then the Implementability, and that
talks about, "How difficult is it to perform the
alternative that you have in mind?"
We did not believe the No Action
Alternative had the threshold criteria, so we're
not selecting the No Action. And it's not an
alternative that we can select.
But Alternative 2 we did find that it
meets the overall Protection of Human Health and
the Environment. It complies with ARARs. We
find that there is a high-level of compliance
with the Short-term Effectiveness because we're
not going to be picking up anything. It will be
primarily monitoring what's there and ensuring a
restricted access and restricting mining of these
subsurface soils.
We found that the Long-term
Effectiveness met the criteria, as well as
Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity and Volume
through treatment.
The reason you see that it meets it and
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it doesn't — doesn't have a high level of
compliance is because there's no treatment in
monitoring and restricting access.
For Implementability, it's very easy to
implement. We would expect additional monitoring
wells to monitor the extent of contamination in
the groundwater, and we would expect to see
annual monitoring occurring. And we expect it to
occur for perpetuity really.
Alternative C, you see it meets the
threshold criteria. We find that it met the
Short-term Effectiveness. We found that the idea
of recycling the contaminated soil into a cold
asphalt plant led us into a greater Long-term
Effectiveness because you've tied it up and
reused the material such that we find that it's
an acceptable risk to have that material placed
into an asphalt mixture and put to a beneficial
use. We also find that that would remove the
material from the Site, and it would reduce the
volume on the Site. And there would be no
mobility element attached to that. So we find
that it has a higher element.
So, you see, the two Alternatives, C
and D, both have a higher level of compliance in
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
terms of Long-term Effectiveness, in terms of
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume.
And then Alternative D, for on-site
disposal, and Alternative F, would rank the same,
primarily because, again, there's no treatment.
But it does meet the criteria for reducing the
volume on the site for the off-site, and it does
reduce any mobility by containing it on-site.
So that's really how EPA looked at
the — looked at the alternatives. And what we
prefer is to see Alternative 2, which is
monitoring the Site, unless the permit — the
mining permit that Butala Construction Company
has is extended into a — or amended to extend
into the area that we've identified that has
mining restriction. We would look to ensure that
any mining that would occur would be done in an
environmentally sound fashion, such that all the
precautions that would be needed to ensure the
safety of the worker and to ensure that the final
product was acceptable for industrial use, we
would ensure that that would occur.
So we come to you today with really two
alternatives: One, that we look at the
restrictive use. Currently Butala does not have
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a mining permit for the area that we've
identified as a restricted area. But if an
arrangement could be made that he would mine it,
and he could do it in an environmentally sound
fashion, then we would look to that alternative.
So that's really what we were here to
discuss with you. We'd like to take your
questions now.
Yes.
MR. EVE: My name is Tom Eve, and you
mentioned that — that the unacceptable risk
(sic) was one in ten thousand to one in a
million?
MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.
MR. EVE: What really is that
acceptable risk? What are we looking at? In
other words, I'm assuming that one in nine
thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine is
unacceptable?
MS. HOOTEN: You know, I'm going —
MR. EVE: So where are we on this? How
close are we to being acceptable or unacceptable?
MS. HOOTEN: Jane, if you will, can you
give him a relative feeling about how much a
person — what their chances of contracting
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cancer is without being exposed to these
contaminants and how to give him a feel for that
number?
MS. MITCHELL: I guess the context you
have to think about is — sure. I'm Jane
Mitchell with the State Health Department.
The context you would have to think
about, I guess, when we're talking about cancer
risk is we know it's a pretty common disease.
One in three to four people will probably have
cancer sometime in their lifetime. What we're
looking at when we try to assess environmental
risk is, "How much would this contribute to an
additional risk?" So we're really looking at
somewhere between one in ten thousand to one in a
million additional — probability of additional
occurrence of cancer.
MR. EVE: I understand that. But where
did — where did you come up with the
determination that this area was an unacceptable -
proposes an unacceptable risk? You had to come
up with a number in there somewhere. I'm just
asking what that number is.
MS. HOOTEN: How did we arrive at one
in ten thousand to one in —
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EVE: No.
MS. HOOTEN: — one million is
acceptable?
MR. EVE: Why did you decide this is
unacceptable? What number did you use?
MS. HOOTEN: Because it exceeded the
one in ten thousand.
MR. EVE: What was that number that it
was in excess of?
MS. HOOTEN: It was — well, I don't
think we have a quantified number exactly. But
it exceeded one in ten thousand. So it —
MR. EVE: By how much is what I'm
getting at.
MS. HOOTEN: It was still in the level
of ten to the minus four.
(Reporter interruption)
MS. HOOTEN: It was still in the level
of ten to the minus four. So it was, like, five
times ten to the minus four.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Gwen, I don't think
he knows what you mean.
MS. HOOTEN: Well, maybe let's talk
about what our PPGs were.
MR. EVE: What you just said — you
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
used a criteria if it was — it was an acceptable
risk if it was between one in ten thousand to one
in one million?
MS. HOOTEN: Right.
MR. EVE: So what is the number we're
talking about here is what I'm saying. Is it one
in five hundred or — I mean —
MS. HAGAN: It's a probability, it's
not a number.
MR. EVE: I know that. But they have
to use some figure of probability to come up with
deciding if it's acceptable or unacceptable.
(Reporter interruption)
MR. EVE: What I'm trying to figure out
is at what point does it become unacceptable?
And you mentioned the criteria you use, one in
ten thousand to one in a million.
MS. HOOTEN: We —
MR. EVE: So I'm asking you, what
number did you determine this represented, this
study? Was it one in five thousand or one in a
hundred or one in —
MS. HOOTEN: No, no. It was, like, a
number like five. Okay?
MR. EVE: Okay.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HOOTEN: So it exceeded one in ten
thousand by a number of, like, five.
MR. EVE: Thank you. That's what I
wanted.
MS. HOOTEN: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Dave
Williams. I'm a lifetime resident of Colorado
and of Salida. Born and raised here.
And just briefly, my experience with
creosote, I happen to be an ex-employee of the
Hoppers Company. And I actually worked there. I
worked through all these entire sites. I watched
every one of them in operation.
My experience with creosote started
when I was born, because I lived down at — was
born here, but I was raised in Wellsville, which
is just seven miles down. My house was made out
of old creosote ties. And I lived inside of a
creosote tie house for 13 years; no adverse
effects. I worked for the Koppers Company; no
adverse effects. And I found this company to be
a very reliable, very good company that complied
with every safety regulation that was in
existence at the time.
After that .1 become a painting
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contractor, and I creosoted poles, I used
creosote paint. I've taken a bath in the stuff.
And if this stuff is so bad, my question is,
you've got over a hundred miles of railroad
tracks from Leadvilie clear to Canon City that
parallel the Arkansas River. Snow falls on those
ties, rain falls, it all leaches in the river.
And I've never seen one fish die from creosote.
Not one fish. In fact, State Game and Fish
Department said it's a very good environment for
raising fish. If there was a real problem with
leach, those fish would* have died. And they're
very healthy. I would have died. And believe
me, I'm very healthy. I'm 67 years old, and I
can out-work most people in this room.
So the point I'm saying here, your
criteria to use has got some — some real
fallacies in it. Number one, if there's
contamination it depends a great deal on the
density of contamination. It depends a great
deal on how that contamination is ingested and a
whole bunch of factors that I don't think you've
taken into consideration here.
Bottom line is, I don't know of a
single person that worked at Koppers Company that
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ever died as a result of creosote. Not one
single American. Most of them died in their
eighties, some of them in their nineties.
Perfectly healthy people. More people die from
smoking than die from creosote. So I'm saying
here, I think you've got some — some bad
criteria here.
MS. HOOTEN: Let me kind of explain to
you the data we used.
MR. WILLIAMS: All right.
MS. HOOTEN: Let me explain to you the
data that we've used. To come up with these
numbers, we used experiments that have occurred
in laboratories with animals, and we've had some
human data that shows that these contaminants
present a risk. And the level that we've placed
the acceptable risk range is very high. You're
correct when you say that more people have died
from smoking.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.
MS. HOOTEN: You are correct. The
level that has been set for protectiveness has
been set very high. The levels that we've given
you are probability. It doesn't mean that
everyone exposed is going to contract cancer. It
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
means that the probability rises as you get
closer to the numbers of one in a hundred or —
or one in a thousand or one in ten thousand. So
all we're measuring here is the probability of a
person contracting cancer. It deals with
exposure to these contaminants under the
scenarios that we've described. So...
MR. WILLIAMS: I've certainly been
exposed. In fact, all the wells in Wellsville
was between fifty and a hundred yards from the
railroad track and downhill on the down side of
the track. No one ever died from any
contaminat ion.
So somewhere we're — we're putting
figures out here, but we're not talking common
sense. Common sense tells me that stuff is not
as dangerous as you're saying it is.
DR. DICKERSON: On the studies on
laboratories animals, was that ingested or was
that topical or how?
MS. HOOTEN: We have a number of
studies that took place. And Jane Mitchell is
from the State of Colorado, and she is our
toxicologist. So she is more qualified to answer
that question.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MITCHELL: I can't really address
specifically all the studies, but typically with
PAHs, which is primarily what we're concerned
about. With creosote you see effects from all
realms. In other words, generally at the point
of contact is when you'll see an effect. So
we're not concerned whether it's inhaled,
ingested, or whether it's contact by the skin.
All of those different routes have been studied.
You know, we have some information in
worker population, some information in animal
study. Bujt all of those are a concern to this
particular type of chemical.
MR. BIGLOW: As far as animal study,
the fact that no fish have died in the
Arkansas...
DR. DICKERSON: Well, I mean, one
point, Ms. Mitchell, you're talking about routes
of ingestion. So what was the air samples, say,
three inches above to a foot above ground? What
parts per million was that versus the ground at
one hundred parts per million?
MS. MITCHELL: I'm not sure that I can
address that specifically. In terms of the exact
concentration we saw?
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
DR. DICKERSON: Right.
MR. O'GRADY: Well, we didn't do any
air sampling as part of this investigation. And
for the most part, the contamination, as it does
exist, is significantly below the ground surface.
So it's unlikely that in this particular case
that inhalation would be a route of exposure.
DR. DICKERSON: Right. So that would
be negligible?
MR. O'GRADY: At this Site, yes.
MS. HOOTEN: We have — I have a copy
of a Human Health Risk Assessment with me if you
would like to look at the levels that we've found
for each one of the contaminations, contaminants
at the locations. Because it did differ as to
which scenario we were looking at. More
contamination, again, in the subsurface than in
the surface.
MR. BIGLOW: I, Robert Biglow, would
like to enter a statement relative to a
particular individual.
I've been the son-in-law of C. Stewart
McDonald, he resides at 1827 Lake Avenue, Pueblo,
Colorado 81002. For 31 years I've been a
son-in-law. He's 82 years of age at this
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
particular point in time. For 38 years he was
the chief research chemist for Colorado Fuel and
Iron Corporation. His primary area of work was
in the coal tar products area; creosote day in,
day out. Creosote on his clothes, breathing the
fumes, on his hands, washing it; day in and day
out. The man is in impeccable shape. And — and
every one of his staff is — is — has done well.
He's never had any cancer problem in that area.
Thank you.
(Audience clapping)
MR. EVERETT: I'm Glenn Everett, and I .
will add to that.
This tail- — this tailing pond you
talked about used to be adjacent to a pasture
where cattle run, and when it rained or snowed
those ponds would fill with water. And I've seen
cattle drinking out of the ponds. As far as I
know, it never bothered the cattle.
Also, below the Arkansas River, right
below where these springs come out there are
still a lot of big fish in there. I think
there's still a lot of good fishing just right
across directly :"rom the — where the old plant
was. That's just part of — I've never heard of
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anything getting sick around there.
MS. HOOTEN: You know, I need to
clarify that we have not seen any creosote
contaminant in the Arkansas River. So...
Go ahead.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yeah, I'm Max
Rothschild. And, of course, I've been working —
I would be someone that would be interested in
recovering materials for road construction in
that area, so I'm going to ask you some
questions, and maybe you can help me.
We talk about Alternative 2. Now,
that's where we continue to test; is that
basically what we're saying?
MS. HOOTEN: We continue to monitor —
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Okay. Monitor. Okay.
Monitor.
All right. Can the units that are
being monitored be reviewed as a function of
time? In other words, building them — what Bob
suggested a while ago, is there a point in time —
you have older Superfund sites that are a hundred
years old that show a different pattern than you
discovered in that one that's 40 years old. Can
you find, as a function of time, so that we don't
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
necessarily sterilize anybody's ground, but we
have a time frame for doing that; is that a
possibility?
MS. HOOTEN: Are you talking about
natural tenuation of the soils?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yes, ma'am.
MS. HOOTEN: Certainly that can occur.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: So that can continue
to occur?
Now, can — can we forecast a safe
time?
MS. HOOTEN: No.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Is there enough data
to do that?
MS. HOOTEN: We have not selected
enough data for me to tell you what the —
(Reporter interruption)
MS. HOOTEN: We have not selected data
to show you what the degradation component or
natural tenuation would be of those soils.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Okay.
MS. HOOTEN: We do know that they do —
that they can migrate. We have not looked at the
physical characteristics that would promote
degradation. But it is something that could be —
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well, you know, I'm
familiar with some of the things the State Health
Department gets into. They kept me from putting
a certain type of sand on the roads. We've had
all kinds of interesting things go on in
Colorado.
Now, why — are we working on anything
to treat this kind of site? Not necessarily dig
it up, haul it away, bury it. Are we suggesting
there's a way to treat a creosoted site that
we — that can change these parameters of danger
or effectiveness? No one wants anybody
unhealthy. And I learned a long time ago — and
I don't disagree with what all of you are saying,
you understand — but my experience with the
Corps of Engineers and EPA and the State Health
Department, that once they have identified the
problem, the best thing is to find a way to solve
the problem. Not necessarily say to them,
"There's no problem." Because it usually doesn't
go away. That — that's what I've found.
I spent 20 years in Colorado as a
public works director, so I'm familiar with
government — too familiar with government — and
how it works. I've been part of it, in fact.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
Okay. Now, for your information, cold
asphalt plant or a cold mix program does not have
to necessarily have a continuous operation. If
you had a stockpile, then you deem it safe, you
could utilize that stockpile for a project
period. A project period. You understand where
I'm coming from? Then you'd have to establish
another stockpile for another project period.
But I don't think it would be a continuous
treatment.
Now, help me with this 760,000 tons
that we could mine. And that cost, you said, was
$770,000; is that —
MS. HOOTEN:. No. No.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I got that wrong?
MS. HOOTEN: Yeah. It's — 760,000
tons in the 6.6 acres could be mined.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Right. Could be
mined.
MS. HOOTEN: Of that, we believe that
76,000 tons are contaminated.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well —
MS. HOOTEN: Okay? Now, we have not
shown you any cost for the operations of the
mining itself.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Oh, I understand that.
MS. HOOTEN: We've only shown you the
cost of having to deal with that contaminated
material.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Right. So if I were
mining this, if I were going to mine this, I'd
have to build into my cost — if I was going to
mine it all — roughly a dollar a ton?
MS. HOOTEN: You know, I don't know.
You're going to have to ask —
MR. HILL: What he's asking is if it's
$770,000 to treat the 76,000 tons — is that what
that is? He's going to have to add a dollar per
ton into his mining cost?
Who's paying the $770,000 is what I'd
like to know. Who's paying the ticket up here?
MS. HOOTEN: We have a couple of
responsible parties at the Site, those being
Beazer East, Incorporated —
(Reporter interruption)
MS. HOOTEN: Those being Beazer East,
Incorporated, and the owner and operator of the
Site, which is Frank Butala of Butala
Construction.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: One more issue, and
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then I'm done.
Is it possible that Alternate 2 and
Alternate C, in combination, would be acceptable?
Because it looks like that would solve several
problems. I've now got — I've got — now I have
four block dots. I have four black dots in my
system instead of two in one, two in the other.
And I'm getting rid of the problem without
keeping it on-site where it can continue to be a
problem.
MS. HOOTEN: Okay.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Is that —
MS. HOOTEN: Alternative 2 looks at no
mining.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: No, I — okay.
MS. HOOTEN: Alternative 3 asks —
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm asking, could it
be both?
MS. HOOTEN: Well, Alternative 3 looks
at mining — or Alternative C.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Alternative C does?
MS. HOOTEN: Yes. Looks at mining.
MS. TETER: Can I just clarify one
thing?
I'm Joni Teter from EPA.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Alternative 2 also includes the
continued restriction on the residential use.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I understand that.
MS. TETER: So from that perspective,
that continues on through. I just wanted to make
sure everybody understands.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: What I'm trying to
find is a way that we don't sterilize that land
forever. We're too anxious to sterilize property
in this country. And if there's a way we can
finally mitigate it by using Alternative 2,
monitoring, and Alternative C, which is
eliminating the problem, it looks to me like we
don't sterilize a man's land forever. You know?
You've heard of wetlands issue?
They'll kill ya1. I've been through all these
babies; the Corps of Engineers and the world.
I'm trying to find a way to combine so I get four
dots on your line and eventually the problem goes
away.
MS. HOOTEN: So that I understand you
right, you're saying that first we rely upon
natural elimination —
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well, that's part of
your monitoring process.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HOOTEN: — and mine —
MR. ROTHSCHILD: That's right.
MS. HOOTEN: If you recall, the one
figure that Martin put up that had the levels of
contamination at depth, and you saw those
numbers, sometimes were five figures ppm; that's
much more contaminated than what we find at the
surface.
(Reporter interruption)
MS. HOOTEN: That's much more
contaminated than what we find at the surface.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And I agree with him.
I don't disagree with what he's saying.
MS. HOOTEN: No.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: But as I continue to
mine, my surface is changing.
MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh. Right.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: My surface is — maybe
things get better then. You told me you didn't
know that. And I don't know that. We don't have
the data to know that it will get better if the
surface is now ten feet lower. That's all.
I'm just trying to find a way not to
sterilize property in this country. I don't know
if I'm ever going to get it done. I won't live
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
long enough. But I get very frustrated when we
set rules. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I realize you're doing it for health. You know,
I'm not dumb. But we've also got to find a way
to solve the problem. We can't say, "We've got a
problem, and we've got to throw away six acres,"
because next it will be 60, and then it will be
600, and then it will be 6,000. And we've got to
find a way.
Thanks.
MS. HOOTEN: I wanted Dan, if you will,
to describe the process that was — that we went
through to eliminate some of the treatment
components that we looked at, some of the
treatments in the screening process.
MR. GREGORY: Oh, you're stretching my
memory.
I'm Dan Gregory with ENSR.
We looked at treatment in-place. Many
of the treatments that can be used in-place are
not effective because of the viscosity of this
material. It is so sticky, it is just very
difficult to treat this material in place and
actually fully remove it.
There are other treatments that can be
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
done ex situ; that is, after excavating.
Likewise, those treatments have a problem in that
it is difficult to remove entirely all the
contamination from finer-grained portions of that
material.
You also have rocks mixed in. The fact
that this is a course deposit makes it difficult
to handle the material in many of the typical
treatment types of operations.
So I think those are the — the only
other things that we looked at.
It's impossible, for instance, to take
this to an incinerator and burn it, because it's
rock. Much of this is actually rock.
We eliminated in-place treatment
options. Most of them, they would not be
effective.
MS. HOOTEN: Does that help?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yeah, it helps. But I
must have missed something in your presentation
then.
I thought EPA was the one that made the
suggestion that asphalt was very similar to our
problem. And I probably put down a ton or two of
asphalt in my career, and I thought I heard that.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So now you're saying there's no way to treat it.
But every asphalt plant I know runs on heat.
Now, you seen to be saying cold, which
I accept, because we can do it cold now, which
can encapsulate it. So I'm confused. This is
not ? criticism. This is my confusion. Didn't
hear him say asphalt works.
MS. HOOTEN: Let me try and clarify for
you then. We're saying it's treatment, but
really what it is, it's a beneficial reuse. The
same contaminants that we have in this waste is
found in asphalt, such that we could use this
material and blend it into an asphalt mixture and
have a beneficial reuse.
Now, we — we refer to that as
treatment, but really it's a beneficial reuse.
Okay? We don't really treat it per se. But we
want to — it's the closest thing we have to a
treatment in the alternative that I described.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: But it was an
alternative that was suggested?
MS. HOOTEN: Yes. C and B both have
the beneficial reuse conditions.
MR. FAUGHT: My name is John Faught.
When I got very confused is who's property is —
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Reporter interruption)
•
I'm being confused. I thought I knew
before I got here, but I'm confused now. If I
understand correctly, Operable Unit 2 is about 60
acres; is that correct?
MS. HOOTEN: 118 acres, actually.
MR. FAUGHT: And that's a larger area
of this Site, setting aside for a moment the
mining restricted area, the 6.6 acres, that EPA
is proposing to restrict just to industrial use —
MS. HOOTEN: Right.
MR. FAUGHT: — is that correct?
MS. HOOTEN: That's correct.
MR. FAUGHT: Whereas under the local
zoning ordinance, residential use would be
allowed?
MS. HOOTEN: That's correct.
MR. FAUGHT: So there's a restriction
on the larger tract of property?
MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.
MR. FAUGHT: Then on the 6.6 acres
where — the Mining Restricted Area, EPA would
propose to have a restriction that says that that
cannot be mined; is that correct?
MS. HOOTEN: That is correct.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. FAUGHT: And then goes ahead and
says that if, in fact, it is mined, then you
should follow certain procedures to make sure
that it's safe; is that correct?
MS. HOOTEN: That's correct.
MR. FAUGHT: And in that seven — in
that 6.6 acres, when you go into mining, aren't
you really impacting 760,000 tons? Because
that's what you're going to be involved with in
doing the mining, even though there's only
76,000, and maybe — specifically above the
industrial base standards?
MS. HOOTEN: You will have to segregate
the waste. And there are — is a description in
the book of feasibility that talks about visually
separating the waste for a period of time and
then conducting tests on the visually
contaminated waste to see whether or not you can
detect contamination by looking at it visually.
If our tests show that we have some
accuracy in visual detection versus analytical
tests, then we will then do less testing and more
visual inspection.
But the — the entire 760,000 tons that
would be mined would have to be segregated;
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
segregated between contaminated waste and
uncontaminated waste, sampled to ensure that we
know what waste is contaminated. And then the
contaminated waste would have to be either —
well,' our preferred alternative is that it be
recycled into a cold asphalt plant if this area
is mined.
MR. FAUGHT: I think the point the
gentleman was making here, if, in fact, it can be
mined and cleaned up permanently, that that-
should be the best remedy.
Plus some day that Site could be ••— I
don't know what will happen in 50 years. That
might be the greatest place in the world for
someone to have a nice place along the Arkansas
River.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well, if it's
possible. I just hate to see land sterilized,
that's all. If we can solve the problem, if this
is a solution...
MR. HILL: So what's the EPA suggest?
You all have done the tests. What's the
suggestion?
MS. HOOTEN: Well, we would — first of
all, we cannot force mining onto the owner.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HILL: You cannot what?
MS. HOOTEN: Force mining.
MR. HILL: Onto the owner?
MS. HOOTEN: This area, if this was not
a current mining operation, we would call this
waste unacceptable because of its depth, and we
would not be looking at the scenario of mining
and recycling.
MR. HILL: So what would you do; just
leave it there to continue the contamination?
MS. HOOTEN: Because no one is being
exposed, no one is drinking the groundwater.
Okay? No one is drinking that groundwater in the
Upper Aquifer. It's at a level where it is not
affecting the drinking water resource area.
Okay? Resource area. So it's an innocent,
stagnant situation where we're not seeing any
exposure. So we would monitor to ensure that
that was the case for perpetuity.
MR. HILL: Gwen, who pays the cost of
the claim? The landowner?
MS. HOOTEN: The landowner is a — he
is considered a responsible party and Beazer. So
they are both financially liable.
MR. HILL: Is Koppers no longer in
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
existence?
MS. HOOTEN: No, Koppers — Koppers,
the company at the time —
MR. HILL: Was absorbed by —
MS. HOOTEN: — it was in operation,
but Koppers has turned into Beazer.
MR. HILL: So Beazer now absorbs
Koppers' responsibility? Okay.
MS. HOOTEN: Yes.
MR. HILL: And to what extent — since
the current landowner had nothing to do with
causing the contamination then, to what extent is
he responsible?
MS. HOOTEN: He's responsible to the
extent that he knew the contamination was there
when he bought the property.
MR. HILL: And he knew that the —
MS. HOOTEN: He was aware of it.
MR. HILL: And he knew that the
treatment plant was there.
Was he aware of the contamination?
When did this become obvious or apparent or
known?
MS. HOOTEN: He was aware that there
was a woodtreating operation that occurred on the
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property. So he's not what we would refer to as
an "innocent landowner." And then he has
operated — or he has handled some of the waste
on Site. So those two make him liable for the
cleanup, as well.
MR. HILL: Because he knew that there
was a waste treatment plant there?
MS. HOOTEN: Right.
MR. HILL: Let's go back to your one in
ten thousand to one in a million.
Do you know what the population in this
county is? .
MS. HOOTEN: No, I don't.
MR. HILL: It's a little over 15,000
people. So what you're saying is five people out
of fifteen thousand in this county are going to
have to go over there and adjust that and — I
mean, you know, the numbers are ridiculous.
MS. HOOTEN: Yes.
MR. HILL: I mean, if you were talking
about the population of Denver, Chicago, Dallas,
Los Angeles, I could understand the concern. I'm
not demeaning human life or saying human life —
but the numbers out here work differently.
MS. HOOTEN: Well, again, it is a
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
probability. So even though we're talking about
one in ten thousand, it's that one individual in
that ten thousand that we're trying to protect.
MR. HILL: Who's protecting this
landowner and his private property rights? I
mean, what's the weight here? How does it weigh?
How does it weigh?
MR. WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. Let me
answer.
I, for one, would like to hear from Mr.
Frank Butala, because he's the one that's
primarily involved with this. And I'd like to
find out what his position is and how he feels
what's the best way that he can handle this and
still comply with the regulations and safety.
MR. HILL: He's the man paying the
taxes today and has for several years.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And these laws are
hurting him.
MR. BUTALA: Frank is doing awfully
well just sitting here.
MS. HOOTEN: I don't mind. Frank, do
you want to say something?
MR. BUTALA: Well, at this point I
really couldn't say too much, because all of this
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stuff is just garbage to me. I didn't go to high
school. I don't understand any of this stuff
that you're talking about. All I know is that
there's creosote being used all over the ski
areas. I mean, ties for retaining walls and
stuff. It's up and down the railroad tracks, as
he mentioned. And it's not only for a hundred
miles, it's for tens of thousands of miles around
the country.
And about three years ago there was an
article in the local paper that said that 256,000
people use the Arkansas 'River between Buena Vista
and Canon City or Pueblo. They were not all
fishermen, they weren't all boaters or anything.
But these people are running — most of them are
running up and down along the tracks and the
roads and the water with just a swimsuit on.
Some of them have thongs on, and some of them
walk barefooted on there. And I can't see what
the — why this is so dangerous for us when it's
not a danger for the people, and they continually
do that every year. The number's probably higher
than that.
So I — I don't quite follow all this
stuff.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BIGLOW: With respect to Spring
No. 5, within 200 to 250 feet exists a den of
five red foxes. Now, Spring No. 5 occurs right
there also relative to that band where
Cottonwoods grow through there. The spring
provides the water for those Cottonwoods. And
I'd like to suggest that you catch one of these
foxes and check them out for this stuff.
MS. HOOTEN: No, we've done an
ecological risk assessment, and I think it's in
the Proposed Plan that we did not find an
ecological risk.
MR. BIGLOW: One other thing that I
want to —
MS. HOOTEN: So we can leave the foxes.
MR. BIGLOW: I've had some high school
and college and military chemistry courses. And
this was pointed out on one of these charts that
this is a polyhydrocarbon.
Now, we live in an area that has a high
amount of sunlight and a high amount of
ultraviolet light. And as I understand creosote,
a coal tar product, that the hydrocarbons are
subject to breakdown in sunlight. You can step
out here on the Everett Ranch, and I can show you
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
vertical tie posts used in fencing situations.
On the south side of those fence posts the
creosote is completely gone. We're down to wood
fiber all the way through. On the north side of
that post we still have the residual creosote.
And.with respect to degradation, I'm a little bit
of the opinion if we just get it out in the
sunlight, we can eliminate a lot of the problem.
MS. HOOTEN: Again, we did not look at -
(Reporter interruption)
MS. HOOTEN: We did not look at natural
tenuation and degradation in order to quantify.
We are dealing with some long-chain
hydrocarbons who — which their degradation is
not as great as the shorter-chain. We've already
seen Mother Nature doing a good job on this site.
And we didn't see any of the short-chain
hydrocarbons, the benzenes, the toluenes, the
xylenes, we didn't see that. So Mother Nature
already has done a good job at this site. We
have not been able to — or we have not
quantified degradation. But I would agree with
you that degradation can occur. We are really
dealing with the larger-chain hydrocarbons
degradation, not with the shorter-chain
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hydrocarbons.
DR. DICKERSON: Hi. I'm Dr. Dave
Dickerson. Before I became a doctor my degree
was in petroleum chemistry. And you've already
seen that you've got a hundred parts per million
surface, subsurface is higher.
Like Mr. Eve — I mean, Mr. Biglow
mentioned, with ultraviolet light you're going to
see a breakdown. If you start messing with it,
you're going to cause a bigger problem, I
believe, than if you just leave it alone.
MS. HOOTEN: If you mined it?
DR. DICKERSON: Huh?
MS. HOOTEN: If you mined hit?
DR. DICKERSON: Yes, if you went in
there and started mining it, digging it up and
changing the surface areas, you're going to cause
a bigger problem than where it's at right now.
MR. DAVIDSON: My name is Bruce
Davidson. I hope you can hear me, Lisa.
I have a question: According to your
scale, does groundwater leach down through these
76,000 tons in question?
MR. O'GRADY: No. For the most part —
for the most part the 76,000 tons would be above
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the groundwater table.
MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. But surface water
does surface water — how do we get groundwater?
MR. O'GRADY: Oh. Yeah. I'm sorry.
MR. DAVIDSON: Does water flow through
that?
MR. O'GRADY: I'm sorry. Yes. Yes.
MR. DAVIDSON: So it filters through
this contamination, and it cones out throughout
Springs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on and so on?
MS. HOOTEN: Just 5.
MR. DAVIDSON: And what's the status of
that water on Spring No. 5? I can't find it in
here. I suppose it talks about it in the
Feasibility Study.
MR. O'GRADY: Yeah. Well, the — the
rate at which the spring flows is fairly low,
such that —
MR. DAVIDSON: Is that water
contaminated?
MR. O'GRADY: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, it
is.
MR. DAVIDSON: It is?
MS. HOOTEN: Yes.
MR. DAVIDSON: Do we have those
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
figures? To we know how bad that is?
MR. O'GRADY: Yes.
MR. DAVIDSON: There seems to be
questions of how bad that is. I'd like to see
those figures.
If that groundwater is contaminated,
then we know there's real contamination here.
But there seems to be real questions and concerns
over whether there is contamination and enough of
it to do any harm. The EPA seems to think so,
but then there are some local concerns that
don't. I think we need to answer that before, as
Max says, you sterilize the property, which is
another concern.
MS. HOOTEN: We need to tell you our
view, though, of Spring No. 5. It is an isolated
situation, and it is confined to an area of very
low exposure. In other words, it's very small.
So we have defined an ecological risk. The stuff
coming from Spring 5 is contaminated. And there
are some levels, and I think Martin showed you —
yeah, the ppms coming out of that, and you saw
that it was 38,000. So it is fairly
contaminated. But —
MR. DAVIDSON: 38,000 per billion?
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38.970 parts per billion?
MR. O'GRADY: Correct.
MS. HOOTEN: Right. Right.
MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. That answers
my question as to the level of real
contamination.
MS. HOOTEN: Yes.
MR. DAVIDSON: Which is certainly what —
that's why I'm here, to try to find out if it's
contaminated. And that tells me there's an
overconcern on the EPA's part, if that's clear
enough.
MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.
MR. DAVIDSON: Which I hope helps
answer the real contamination that we're dealing
with. And do we sterilize something that's
contaminated at that level?
MS. HOOTEN: You know, maybe I should
clarify. We're not sterilizing this. We're not -
we didn't find —
(Reporter interruption)
MR. ROTHSCHILD: By sterilizing, I mean
make it impossible for a property owner to
utilize his property rights.
MS. HOOTEN: Oh, okay.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your suggestion says
that he has limited use of his property.
MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And that always
concerns me with any — I don't care whether it's
the county government or the federal government.
Whenever we get into that scenario, I get
concerned that we've now traded it. I'd sooner
find a solution so it doesn't have to happen.
And looks to me like you've suggested something.
I don't know whether Frank is interested in those
solutions. That's his decision. But at least
there are some suggestions — you've tried to
make some suggestions to solve the problem.
MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm still not
satisfied that I can't put a couple of them
together. But that's probably for future
discussions when you may be reviewing the
comments from this meeting.
MS. HOOTEN: Okay.
MR. HILL: At what stage is this
decision-making process?
MS. HOOTEN: Well, we're asking that
you send written comments, to be postmarked no
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
later than November 21st, to myself. And that's
my name and address there.
On receipt of your comments —
MR. HILL: This is yours?
MS. HOOTEN: Yes, it's on that front
page.
So upon receipt of your comments, we
will review your comments, find — and what we'll
in reviewing your comments, we will look for any
new information that you have or what — your
community acceptance. That is one of the nine
criteria for the alternatives that have been
presented here.
MR. HILL: One of nine?
MS. HOOTEN: One of the nine criteria.
And we've talked about the weight evaluation and
comparisons of the alternatives. There are nine
criteria that we look at.
The last two are community acceptance
and state acceptance. And so we weigh those
based upon your comments. And then we decide if
that should — if that sways us from the
alternatives that we have referred to as our
preferred alternatives in the Proposed Plan. And
so we then put that decision in what is called a
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Record of Decision. And it's a document that
describes our reasoning for selecting the
alternative that we will issue to implement at
the Site.
And attached to that we will put a
response in a summary which will respond to your
written comments in detail.
MR. HILL: And then who makes the
decision?
MS. HOOTEN: EPA
MR. WILLIAMS: What is the status of
the EPA situation in Leadville? I understand
that the sheriff there ordered you people out of
town by sundown.
MS. HOOTEN: You know, I don't know the
status of Leadville.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll tell you, I
saw a bumper sticker the other day. What this
bumper sticker says is that, "I love my Country;
what I fear is my Government." And that' s true.
We people have a concern here. We have
been overly walked on by government. And at some
point in time we'd kind of like to make a few of
our own decisions. Maybe it's time we go get a
bigger sheriff. Maybe we better talk to Mr.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Miller, maybe we better talk to Ken Chlouber,
maybe we better talk to Scott Mclnnis and see if
we can find a bigger sheriff.
MS. HOOTEN: You know, we encourage you
to talk to your representatives. So please, feel
free to.
MR. WILLIAMS: I will. Believe me, I .
will.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Again, let me say —
let me say in Gwen's defense, I've talked to her,
she will listen. Doesn't mean you've changed her
mind. But that isn't the issue here. We're
trying to get their expertise as professionals to
find a solution to a problem we have in this
community. So we need to discuss with her — and
I found her to be receptive. More so than some
of the folks I've dealt with in the past. And I
wanted to give her that compliment, because we
need her ideas, not — not her foregone
conclusions. And I don't feel that she has
established foregone conclusions.
So I encourage you to put down your
comments in writing, give her an opportunity to
analyze them, and tnen she'll need to talk to
State Health, and maybe that's another issue.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WILLIAMS: There's an old saying:
"The solution to pollution is dilution." And
that's true. You just can't let it concentrate
in areas. What you say is — is very, very true.
I agree with you a hundred percent.
What — we're seeing this all over the
country, particularly in the Forest Service; if
they have a problem with an area, all they do is
fence it, lock it off. And like I told them,
their signs are going to have to be changed. It
say thus and so, "Forest Service, Land of many
uses." We're going to change that to, "Land of
no uses at all."
Who are we saving this ground for? Our
grandchildren? Are they going to open this
ground up to our grandchildren? The answer to
that is no. As the population increases, they
won't.
So you're absolutely correct; if we can
find the solution that uses the property and
helps Mr. Butala, I, as a citizen, and I, as a
taxpayer, am all for it.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Well, this is also a
contradiction to our Chaffee County Planning —
MR. BIGLOW: That hasn't passed yet.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: What I'm talking
about is —
(Reporter interruption)
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: — no residents in
the industrial areas, which is what you're
talking about.
MR. EVE: Again, my name is Tom Eve.
But help me identify this problem
again. I'm still going back to where you've
determined that it is a hazard. And you've used
the criteria that someone has to be exposed to
this material for twenty-five years, five days a
week.
MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.
MR. EVE: Okay. Now, are you talking
about exposed to the 760,000 tons, or only to the
concentration of the 76,000 tons?
MS. HOOTEN: I'm talking about being
exposed to the concentration of 76,000 tons.
MR. EVE: And my point here, just plain
common sense tells you, and anybody that knows
anything about construction or mining, it doesn't
take twenty-five years to mine 76,000 tons of
gravel. You know, it takes, like, a year or a
month or — depending on how much equipment you
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have. So if you reduce the criteria down to
where now we're only talking about a ten-year
exposure, are we back into where we are in the
safe zone again?
MS. HOOTEN: The estimates that we have
from mining are eleven years.
MR. EVE: Yeah. That cuts your
criteria in half. Is that what you used, or did
you use the twenty-five-year criteria?
MS. HOOTEN: For exposures? No, we did
use the 25-year criteria for the exposures.
MR. EVE: And if you cut that down to
eleven, which is what you're saying is really
more close to being right, are we — are we still
in an unacceptable risk factor?
MS. HOOTEN: We did not look at eleven
years exposure. Our risk assessment is
quantified based upon what we thought someone
would be exposed to. So our—
MR. EVE: The Department knows it won't
be that long, because your own number's eleven
years. If you put that in an equation, is it
still unacceptable risk factor? That's my
question.
MS. HOOTEN: And I don't know how much
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that would change.
Jane, can you answer that? If it
changed from twenty-five to eleven?
MS. MITCHELL: It's probably roughly
proportionate. So we might be instead of, you
know, five out of ten thousand down to two or
three out of ten thousand.
But I think your point is well taken in
that, you know, we are trying to look at a risk
that is, you know, reasonable attached to what's
really going on in the community. And I think
that's a really good point that we should look
at: "What is specific to that Site?"
MR. EVE: And again, if you're using
this eleven thousand — I mean, the eleven-year
figure, when in actuality it could be done in one
year with the right equipment, and then does that
eliminate the risk? If all that material would
be handled in one year, is there really any risk
at all?
MR. HILL: And used in asphalt?
MR. EVE: That's what I'm asking.
MS. HOOTEN: It's a valid point.
MR. HILL: Again, let me ask you a
question. I know that the EPA has been on the
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Smuggler Mine Project in Pitkin County for a
number of years. How long has it been there, the
EPA on that job in Pitkin County on the Smuggler
mine?
MS. HOOTEN: You know, you're asking me
questions about —
MR. HILL: I can tell you that they've
been there at least ten years.
MS. HOOTEN: Yes, yes.
MR. HILL: Is that what we're
encountering here to clean this up? Are we
creating government jobs for the next ten years?
MS. HOOTEN: No, I hope not.
MR. HILL: As a taxpayer, I hope not.
MS. HOOTEN: Yeah. Again, if it's
mined, our estimate is eleven years. We would
have to be here ensuring that that material is
handled —
(Reporter interruption)
MS. HOOTEN: We would have to ensure
that that material that's being handled during
that mining process would be done in an
environmentally sound fashion so there won't be
any contamination in there, in the Arkansas
River, or we don't see any in groundwater or we
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
won't see exposure to those workers. So we would
expect to be here during that time.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well, Alternative C,
though, doesn't really lend itself to really
what's being proposed? Alternative C, as I read
it, "Impacted soils that exceed the PRGs on-site
would be temporarily stockpiled for future
use..."
So below a — below a certain number,
whatever that magic number is, would be sold as
aggregate for industrial use?
MS. HOOTEN: Right. We expect that a
large portion of it, you know, most of —
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Would be sold if
mining was done?
I don't know whether they want to mine -
MS. HOOTEN: Right.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: It could be in the
interest of Frank, he'll finally say, "I'll fence
it. What about my business?"
MR. HILL: Is it conceivable that
government and private industry can work together
on this?
MS. HOOTEN: Yeah.
MR. HILL: And government should sit
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
down with Mr. Butala and maybe come up with this
solution that you suggested; that maybe it might
even be something that ends up being profitable
to Mr. Butala — God forbid — and clean up
something that is hazardous? Is that beyond the
realm of comprehension?
MS. HOOTEN: No, it's not. In fact —
MR. HILL: How do — how do we initiate
that?
MS. HOOTEN: Well, in fact, Mr. Butala,
who is here, and Beazer have been encouraged by
EPA to talk to each other.
MS. TETER: Gwen, she can't hear you.
MS. HOOTEN: We'll get a speaker phone
next time.
Mr. Butala and Beazer have been
encouraged by EPA to talk to each other to come
to a resolution.
MR. HILL: But they need to talk to EPA
too?
MS. HOOTEN: They need too talk to EPA
too. And they have been. But this is as much in
their control to solve this problem as it is the
EPA's.
DR. OICKERSON: Again, I have one
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question on how EPA determined that this was a
risk.
MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.
DR. DICKERSON: Was that using the
76-ton — the subsoil surface measurements, or
was that nonsurface measurements?
MS. HOOTEN: No. It's the subsurface
that renders the risk. The surface we find is
acceptable. In other words, an industrial
worker, if all he did was work on the surface, is
an acceptable risk. We find no problem with
that. It's when they start digging into the more
contaminated waste at depth that we find that to
be an unacceptable risk.
DR. DICKERSON: So if he didn't do
anything below, there wouldn't be any
necessary — any need to do anything to the
property?
MS. HOOTEN: Under industrial exposure.
Because of your local zoning laws, we would have
to restrict residential/ because residential
would put it into another exposure, which would
be higher.
DR. DICKERSON: I'm on Planning and
Zoning.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HOOTEN: Oh, okay.
DR. DICKERSON: I don't know who would
buy the property anyway. But — I mean, build a
house.
MS. HOOTEN: Well, is that viable to
not allow residential on industrial zoned
property?
DR. DICKERSON: Right now the county
regulations, if you have a commercial, you can do
anything you basically want with it. So you
could put an apartment complex on it. But you'd
have to sell it first, talk somebody into buying
it.
MR. JOHNSON: We had that problem with —
the airport problem up there in Buena Vista.
MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a land of
beauty out there anyway.
MR. GRAVES: Yes, sir. May I?
I'm Harmon Graves, I also represent
Butala Construction.
As I understand your proposal, 118
acres will be subject to a restriction against
residential use as a consequence of approximately
6.6 acres of contamination; is that a fair
statement?
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HOOTEN: No, I don't think so.
Because the surface — again, there is surface
contamination in areas outside of the 6.6 acres.
Okay? But it happens to be at a level that is
acceptable in an industrial. But if we started
to look at residential, I think it would grow.
Now, I don't believe it's the entire
118 acres that we're talking about. But it would
grow. And we didn't really look at that growth
as to what area would be —
MR. GRAVES: As I understand your
description of the Site, then that would be the
restriction; it's 118 acres? Am I misconstruing
that?
MS. HOOTEN: For residential
development?
MR. GRAVES: Yes.
MS. HOOTEN: We have not — we have
talked about restriction at the Site, naming the
Site — the entire area. But we have not
actually looked at the numbers to see whether it
exists for the industrial — or for the
residential exposure. So...
MR. GRAVES: As proposed, though, it
does not restrict the entire Site to residential
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
development? Isn't that what Mr. Butala must —
must consider?
MS. HOOTEN: That's — yes. That's the
understanding until we look in greater depth at
the levels that we see in residential
development.
MR. JOHNSON: You want to shut this
down until you find this out, right?
MS. HOOTEN: Pardon me?
MR. JOHNSON: You want to shut all this
down now until you find out?
MS. HOOTEN: We want to shut it down —
MR. JOHNSON: You want to stop —
MR. EVE: You're asking her if — they
want to imply the — impose the restriction at
this point in time until the tests are over? Is
that what you're asking?
MR. JOHNSON: Yeah.
MS. HOOTEN: We would intend on asking
for a restriction. We would ask it from the
landowner. And the landowner would have to
engage in settlement with EPA to restrict the
land. And I think that we would derive more
detail in that settlement that would talk about
the restricted area.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. TETER: Again, just to clarify —
Joni Teter again — on the 118 acres, mining is
not restricted except in the 6.6. So Mr. Butala
can mine the rest of the property. He just can't
build homes on some portion of that. And it is
what that portion is that Gwen is talking about
we would be looking at further. So he can do any
kind of industrial activity outside that 6.6
acres. There's no restriction on that.
MS. HOOTEN: You're reading — you're
reading a degree of accuracy in those statements
that was not intended. So it's not the 118; it
is that area that would exceed a residential
risk. Okay? And I don't know what that is.
MR. JOHNSON: But you're going to tie
up this whole 118, right?
MS. HOOTEN: No. I wouldn't intend to
tie up that 118. It'll only tie up that that
would exceed a residential risk. And I don't
know that risk.
MR. JOHNSON: So this goes into a whole
other study, right?
MS. HOOTEN: Dan, have you looked at
that study?
MR. WILLIAMS: Not in detail.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
MS. HOOTEN: We have the information.
I just haven't looked at it to determine what
that area is. Okay?
MR. GRAVES: If one were going to
continue on with the investigation, how would you
anticipate that investigation being undertaken?
How would you reach a determination, for example,
that instead of 118 acres being restricted in
possibly perpetuity to, let's say, 60 acres or
6.6? How would you see that science develop?
MS. HOOTEN: The entire area was
gridded and sampled. We just go in and look at
the PRGs for the residential. There are —
(Reporter interruption)
MS. HOOTEN: The entire area was
gridded so that we have that information. We
would look at the level of risk, the contaminant
level that would be considered unacceptable for
there, residential, find out whether it was
exceeded on the Site and comment on that area. I
understand we have the data. I'm telling you, I
just have not looked at it for that kind of
decision.
MS. TETER: If I can interject for just
a minute. There's a truck parked catty-corner
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
across the street with his lights on. So if
that's anybody in here, you might want to turn
your lights off.
(Reporter changed paper)
MS. HOOTEN: Okay. Lisa has her tape
in. And thanks for the microphone.
MR. BUTALA: I just wanted to point out
one other thing; that Spring No. 5 does not run
all year long. It runs probably about seven
months out of the year. It's from the irrigation
of the fields to the — to the east. And —
MR. O'GRADY: Okay.
MR. BUTALA: It produces a very, very
small quantity going west at times.
MS. HOOTEN: And again, we also believe
that Spring No. 5 is a very discrete area. And
so short of mining in that area, we couldn't —
couldn't be monitoring to ensure that it does not
complete a pathway to the Arkansas River. Right
now there is no evidence that there is PAHs in
the Arkansas River.
Go ahead.
MS. JIMINEZ: My name is Cynthia
Jiminez. Can you — would you tell me the status
of KRMW l, Spring 1?
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. HOOTEN: We didn't see any
contamination from Spring 1.
MS. JIMINIEZ: Okay. Because my father
owns Spring 1.
MS. HOOTEN: Oh, okay. We didn't — we
didn't find any —
MS. JIMINIEZ: And under 2, you would
continue to monitor Spring 1 and — under 2, to
be sure there was no contamination?
MS. HOOTEN: We would monitor all
springs. We're really going to concentrate on
Spring 5 because that's where we see existing
contamination. But we'd continue to monitor all
springs.
MR. GREGORY: Can I respond to that?
MS. HOOTEN: Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead.
MR. GREGORY: You're asking about a
Spring, and KRMW 1 is a well.
MS. JIMINIEZ: Well, we actually own
the well.
MR. GREGORY: And we essentially use
*
that as our background. So it's upgradient from
all the contamination.
MS. JIMINIEZ: The reason I ask is we
drink it, we bathe in it. You know, if we found
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contamination —
MR. GREGORY: It's an upgradient well.
It's uphill. It won't be contaminated.
MS. JIMINEZ: Okay.
MR. GREGORY: So you should be — be
fine.
MS. HOOTEN: Okay. Anyone else?
So now that you can all hear me, Lisa
can hear me, there are no more questions, right?
MR. EVE: Well, I have a question. The
name is Tom Eve again.
It's helpful — you know, when you use
all these figures in so many parts per million
and billion and different chemicals and
everything, it's hard for a lay person to
understand unless you put some of these figures
in perspective.
MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.
MR. EVE: And when we're looking at
surface contamination out there and talking about
restricting it to residential use, it would be
helpful if you could put that in some kind of
perspective. Like, you've already commented that
asphalts contain the same hazardous materials
that exist out there. And if somebody were to
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pave their driveway with asphalt, would they be
imposing on themselves more of a risk than they
would if they had a residence on this particular
piece of property? Something to that effect
or — or something to help people compare what
the risk really is. Because we all know there's
a lot of risk with a lot of different things we
do to our own property.
MS. HOOTEN: And that's a very good
topic, because what we're talking about here is
we, in our everyday lives, manage our risk. The
gentleman was talking about smoking. Exercise,
diet, all of those things, we manage our risk.
When Superfund was set up, the managed
risk, what the agency was tasked with, was
managing that risk between those two number that
I gave you, the one in ten thousand and one in a
million. And that's what we're here talking to
you tonight about is that managed risk. And it's
much higher, or it's much more stringent than
some of the things that you're exposed to every
day. But this is where CERCLA has defined what
the acceptable risk is, and it's our job to
manage within that risk. Okay?
Any other questions?
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Go ahead.
MR. BIGLOW: Are these, the
cross-sections, exhibits and the mapped exhibits,
are they in our library?
MS. HOOTEN: Yes. And I apologize for
not having those in the library sooner. I know
that some of you did visit the local library, but
I delivered a copy today. So they are there.
MR. BIGLOW: Thank you.
MS. HOOTEN: Any other questions?
(No response)
MS. HOOTEN: We thank you for coming
out. We actually didn't expect this many, and so
we're really grateful for the interest that you
have in this Site. We do encourage you to
provide us your comments; it is one of the nine
criteria.
We will take a serious look at any
comment that you provide to us, and we will
respond to you in the Responsive Summary of the
Record of Decision. And we'd like to — and with
that, we'll convene this meeting, and we'll look
forward to your comments. Thank you.
(Proceedings concluded at 9:02 p.m.)
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Lisa A. Sadler, do hereby certify that
the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate
transcription of my stenotype notes taken by me at the
above stated time and place to the best of my ability.
day of
Dated at Hartsel, Colorado, this
, 1997.
Lisa A. Sadler
Certified Shorthand Reporter
Registered Professional Reporter
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
w
o
R
D
N
D
E
X
-------
SMELTERTOWN SUPERFUNO SITE PUBUC MEETING
$10,000 35:21
(1836:1
7,000 34'23
1770,00054 1355 12.15
935:25
•9* 12:10
•95 5:23 7:4
• 2:2.2.2.2,2
0626:17
$
5,90035:17
SO 64:13
3:74:27:1.5,99:17 11:2512:19
9:19 23:23 27:22 34:3 73:10 93:
25.2594:2.4.8.18
106:2017 1623:8
037527:17
104 28:7.9
1862:688:21 89:8,1391:2,12.
6.1892:8
344:19
3,00034:10
5,00067:14
502:24
82749:23
Bth 1:14
95.10
900*3:94:5
19193:104:7
9244:10
19534:12
9824:15
19774:19
9935:10
1994 5:21
9956:7.207.1
9967:78:612:9.10
9972:1 7:108:8
22:193:16.174:89:2010:1811:
25 12:7.15.25 13:24 15:2524:1
30:1231:1332:1334.635:15.24
37:1239:11 51:1258:2,1357:1,11
62:473:1094:7,8
2.000 27:4
2,129,00035:18
2053:22
20070:2
21«t77:1
25-yoof 82:11
25070:2
255,00034.14
258,00089:11
272:17:7
33:21 4:1810:1912:2324:435:
2058:16.1973:10
3.4 27:21
309:21.22 10:1020:724:3
30-4010:6
3031:21
51:8
31 49:24
50:1
38,000 74:23.25
38428:9
3847075:1
26:17
0,00059:8
6^0026:16
64 22.9 23:3 31.3 32:4 34.18 54:
7 62:9,2) 63:7 88:24 89:3 91 3.8
92:10
60 59.7 62:4 92:9
600 23:3 59:8
745:14
692-33861:21
35,000 34:23
622.1623:12.15
6,00022:723:1.11.1434:1936:2
54:21 55:1263:11 72:23.2581:17.
9,23
•-ton 87 5
60,00022:1123:1,534:1854:11.
663:8.2481:16
770,000 34:24
804:6
80202-2466 1:15
11002 49:24
114,00035.12
8249:25
851,00035:13
8EPR-SR1:13
9016:19
»9 1:14
I.-02 97:24
473:10
409:22 10:8.11 17:11 21:1327:16
51:24
40,000 27:24
4O-(o«t 17:16
42,00034:10
43001:20
5 9:18 19:17 27:22 70:2.3 73:10,
11.1374:16.2093:8,1694:12
D 17:9
S 17:7.8
8
eddttonel 24:6 29:15 35:2.5.20
38:541:14.16.16
addMonaUy 15:22
•ddreeo 4fl 1 24 77 2
edtaoent 15:23 19:9 50:15
edjuet 67:17
44 19,21
aerM 3:25
effecting 65'15
•fteMO:8 14:14.14,2544:2560:1
eg«ln4:27:5 16:1 20:1322:2525:
1/15 33:13 39:5 49:17 67:25 71:9
79:961:7,982:483:14.2484:15
86:2569:291:1.293:1595:11
•galnet 88:22
J» 49:25
Mnclee 4:23
Agency 10:4 96:15
•ggiegale 85:11
jo 51:21 53.1369:10
sree 58:12 71:22 80:5
Seed 51:5 63:1 93:2294:16,16
7:1
air 13:25 36:15 48:19 49:3
airport 86:15
•How 8.18 88:6
14:1562:16
19:17
AlkivW 18:16
72:11
long 15:23 22:23 24:15 64:15 69:
13:7 18:1821:1631:19
1:15,3072:495:23
7:3 56:2,3
Alternative 29:9 30:9.12 31:13 32:
3.15.2234:3.6,1535.10,14.2236
737:7.9.11.1238:1039:3.4.11
40:5 51:12 56:13,16.19.20.21 57:1,
1.1261:19.21 64:578:385:3,5
Aernattvee 7:14 11:23,25 12:1.4
22:7 28:17 29:8 33:1 36:4 38:24
39:10.2477:12,17.23,24
tavy»76:4
•mended 39:14
•mendmenta 8:8
A-A 16:7.10
•Witty 96:6
•Me 11:4 26:23 71:21
•bout 2:18.25 4:8 7:13.23 12 11,
2.12.16 13:0 16:19 17:16 18:18
20:721:1322:6.7,9.11.12.1623:3
26:9.1627:329:13.15.1631:13
34:9.10.14.22.2335:13.15.17.20.
1.24 37:6 40:24 41:5.8.8 42:24
43:6 48:4.18 50:15 51:12 52:4 62:
463:1567:21 68:1 69:3.1073:14
77:16 81:2,6.16.18.22 82:2 84:6
85:20 89:8.19 90:24 91:6 93:9 94:
795:2098:10.12.19
fcove 16:19 21:8 22:13 27:15.16
48:20.2063:1172:2598:6
Abeotulafy21:380:19
~- --«88:4
86:7
61:4
•«• 9:6.9 29:14.17.21.22
30:2d38:1739:21 40:16.2242:3
43:1,1246:1756:387:9.11 89:5
98:23
moe 77:11.19.20
37:1938:3
Awarding 72:21
aoouraey 63:21 91:11
•to 98:4
4:822:1023:331:332:434
18 54:17 59:6 62:5.8.9,21 63:7 88:
2224 89:3.8.13 91:2.9 92:8.9
50:2493:1
Act 2:17 4:21
Action 5:12.13.13,17 6:1.6 7:2.8
9:14 29:9,11 30:8 34:3 37:8,10
actione 4:4 6:7 7:22
active 3:22
actfvttoo3.4.836:16
activity 3:14 4:3 91:8
actuality 83'16
Actually 12:9 14:25 16:12 18:4
27:644:11 59:2460:1462:689:21
94:1997:13
add 50:13 55:13
addendum 34:16
MMNk>n8:11 30:15
American 46:2
•mount 34: 11 70.21.21
«nelyeee26:l
enatyeie 26:24 27:1
analytical 63:21
analyze 79:24
analyzed 15: 19
anoVor 18:20
Angrtaa 67:22
8:11.14
46:1447:19
annual 38 6
14:18.2215:618:17.25
9:22 20:3 25:4 54:8.8 74:14 79:
2587:22
2:911:447:2468:974:12
75:1580:1683:2
75:4
anticipate 92:8
•mdow57:9
nvbody 7:20 11:20 53:1281:21
«ytoay«52 1
Anyone 95:7
Anything 9: 1 1 29:20 31 20 34:4
37:3.1751:1 53:769:1481:2287:
6.1788:10
Miyvwy 88:3.17
•nywnm9:4
AOC 6:21
•p«rtm*nt 86: 1 1
97 5
reea 14:1.3 15:1526.2331 569
72:1780:481:589:3
erent63:7
2:246:19 12:14 16 17
8.1545:648:1650:2051464 15
1284:249319.21
13:15
around 6:8 26:1051:1 698
nt40:3
rrtve~4l:24
rttde 69:11
Ie62'8
2:6.8.11 7:17 12:221:1 51 10 ;
51083:2490:2094:24
aaldng 41:23 43:19 55:11 56 17 I
6:2483:2284:590:14.17.1994 ,
7 |
aaka 56:16 '•
aaphaN 32:10.12.25 34:21 38.14. :
8 54:2 60:23.25 61:2.7.12.13 64:6l
83:2196:1 !
aapnatta 95:24 :
41:12 i
8:1249:12701082 i
6:22
••turning 40 17
attached 38:22 78:5 83:10
Audience 50:11
uguMBS
vaUabte 8:9
venue 49:23
66:18,21.24
•way 34:12 53:9.21 57 20 59 6
awfully 68:20
16:18
•ppnMdmatoty 88:23
Aqulter 17:20^1 18:16.1820:2.8.
23 23:25 25:16.19.23.23 27:15.20
31:20.226514
ARAR* 36:7,7 37:14
____ 2:21.23.25 3:8.16 6:24 12.20
14:3,18.20.22.23.25 15:3.10 16:9
18:9.10 21:5 22:4.8 25:4.13.13 26
12 27:£10 31:3,10.16 33:22 34:18
36:15 39: 15 40: 1 .2 41 :20 50:3.4.9
51:1062:7,9.2264:665:4.15.16
70:20 74: 17 80:8 89:10,20 90.25
91:1392:3.11.15.2093:16.17
B
B-t-g-4-o-w 22:2
b*.bin57:l7
15:6 17:928:1367981 9
82.3
background 94:22
bad 45:3 46:6 74: 1.4
bond 70:4
bank* 6: 16
barefooted 69 19
barrier 17:24 18:2 19:6.13
15:17 17:2120:1.2263 12
16:13 19:6.2024:11 7721
18
29:8
20:21
12:7.1714:615:20195.
1 24:10'14.1551:14 88:10
Baeln-fH1 18:21
bath 45:2
bathe 94:25
NOUty 88'17
4:14,148:313:45519.21
65:2366:6.786:11.16
•eame72:3
•cauat 2:22 3:3 5:3 6: 12 16 14
9:1921:1826:2227:629:637 16
38:2. 1 5 39:5 42:6 44: 1 5 49 1 5 53
2056:459:7.21 60:1361 463:8
65:6.1167:668:11.2579:1882:21
87:20.21 89:294:3.1296:6.10
. 10:2543:1544:256622
14:1723:2262:372374
12
begin 25:8
begin* 25 10
beSeve 22: 10 37:8 45: 13 54 20
72:11 79:789:793:15
11:1718:349:550:20.21
85:9,987:16
17:10
beneficial 38:1861 10.14.16.23
71:18
53:1864:1168:1498:6
2:2125:1458:19.2178:25
batwean 9:5 25:16.22 41:15 43 2
47:1064:1 69:1296 16
beyond 31:23 86:5
_. 72:10.1878:2579:3
_.__OW 10:5.820:2421 1.4.10
22-1.1 28:21 29:2 48:14 49 19.19
70:1.13.1672:780:2597:2.9
billion 27:17.21.2474:2575195
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
Page'
-------
14
Ml 11:1.6,17 12:213:1825:1427:
535:1171:6
Kk 17:1 56:6
biend 61:13
block 56 6
bhiff 15:23 19:924:20
•tare 69:14
Bob 51:20
book 83:15
*ee 15:16 19:23
Born 44.8,15.16
both 38:25 56: IB 61:22 65:24
bothered 50:19
Wed 5:19,22
Bottom 45:24
bought 66:16
breakdown 70:24 72:9
breathing 50:5
briefly 44:9
brought 14:15
Bruoa72:19
Omni 69 12 88 15
buHd 8:17.18 29:23 35:16 55:7 88:
391:5
buMIng 8:19 14:5.11 26:1351:20
bumper 78:18.19
bunch 45 22
burled 25:3
bum 60:13
bury 27:10 53:9
hmlnisi 85:20
tale 4:17 6:20 39:13.25 55:23.
2368:11.20.2480.21 86:1,4.10,16
88:2090:191:393:7.13
buy 88:3
buying 88:12
byproduct 17:2
Chlouber 79 1
dttoen 80:21
Ctty45:569:l3
claim 65:21
•lapping 50'11
aerify 22:25 51 3 56:23 61:8 75
1991:1
5:11.11.12
dean 21:7 64:11 864
cleaned 64:10
Cleanup 7:4.8 26:10 67:5
dear 34:25 45:5 75:11
dm 17:4
40:2282:14
12:2413:2447:2
61:18
clothes 50:5
CUM 28:23.24
coal 50:4 70:23
cold 32:12.20.25 34:21 38:13 54:
1,2.61^464:6
collection 25:25
70:17
Collins 13:6
1:152:233:244:310:1
44:7 47:23 49:24 50:2 53:6.22 98:
11
columnar 21:5
combination 56:3
5:1121:1933:665:5
19:2 29:9 33:6 77:25
2:1217:1219:1321:129:7
37:11 40:2345:1548:2351:11.18,
2452:7.8,10.10.2353 11 56:9.23
57:10 59:20.25 61:4.5 63:18 64:9,
19 66:14 70:15.24.25 71:823 72:
20 79:3 80:19 83:2 84:7 85:22 88:
9 91:4.7 92:24 93:24 94:15 95:8.9
cant 11:13 19:346:1 59:569:19
73:13 76:17 80:3 86:13 91:4
9:829:15,1541:1.8,11.17
46:25 47:5 50:9
62:2464:2565:1
45:569:13
34:935:15
11:6
4:24 76:5
6025
5:1833:1349.665:19
70:7
50:16.18,19
catty-oomer 92:25
72:10.17
.66:12
4:7.12
18:22
CERCLA2:15 96:22
certain 5:6 8:22 15:11 33:6 53:4
63:3 85:9
47:8 52:7 75:8
CERTIFICATE 96:1
Certified 96:21
cetera 27:4
Cheftee 80:24
chance 9:9
anee*4O2S
ang* 17:2253:11 80:1283:1
changed 4:12 79:11 80:1083:3
93:4
changing bo; 16 72:17
charactarizad 18:12
charts 70:18
check 70:8
chemical 48:13
chemical* 95:14
combine 57:18
combined 27:18
com* 9:3 39:23 41:19.21 43:11
46:1250:2186:1,17
73:9
table 32:1
coming 3:13 54:7 74:20.22 97:12
92:2097:19
9523
15:776:20,2577:3.7.
8.9,2178:779:2397:16.23
commercial 88:9
41:947:15.1681:21
ly 13:10.12
communication 20:19
community 77:11.19 79:1583:11
Company 4:4,9.10.16.17 39:13
44:11,2021,22 45:25 66:3
96:5
•on 28:10
cornperleon* 77 17
^——^ Mali i O- 4 ^
complete 93:19
MmpMod 5:23 6:6.8 7:21,24 8:5.
71:3
1:11
^.^ 36:737:1538:2.25
9ompH**37:14
oompNment 79:18
9ompfy 68:15
17:1424:552:19
59:14
13:17.18
86:6
pf*hanehiazi6
chemistry 70:17 72:4
Cherry 1:20
"hteago 67:21
Met 50:2
17:20
85:21
80:394:11
22:9
48:2581:17.19
3:1548:1267:2274:14
78:21
127:1348:3,776:8
74:8.1176:5
concluded 97:24
79:20.21
61:23
1:1
conductad 33:8
conducting 6:13 63:17
confined 74:17
confused 61:5,25 62:2.3
confusion 61.-6
88:23
4:21
con*M*r90:2
consideration 45:23
considered 17:1719:1822:1428
1833:1565:2392:18
con*ttu*nt*27:l8
16:2 33:3
constructing 6:8
Construction 4:17 6:20 33:18 39:
1351:955:2481:2288:20
contact 16:4 20:19 48:6.8
contacted 33'14
18:519:1923:2495:24
id 12:7 14:5 15:20 20:22
24:6 27:7.6
iMnlng39:6
it32:17
itamlnant 51:4 92:17
«amtnants3:139:2.7 17:24
30:331:1632:1041:246:1547:6
49:1461:11
oontsmlnated 5:8 21:5 22:4.13
23.8.24 26:6.25 34:20 38:13 54:21
55:358:7.1163:1864:1.3.473:20
"4:6.20.2475:10.1787:1395:3
contamination 4:24 5:3.7 6:17.23.
248:139:19.24 10:12.16.19 11.2.2
2:6 13:3 15:17 18:6 19:25 20:21
22:6.9 26:15.20 27:23 29:11.22
30:17,19 31:9.18 32:5.8 34:8 38:6
45:19.2021 47:1349:4.1758:5
60.463 1965:1066 12.15.21 73:9
74:7.9 75:6.15 84:24 88:24 89:3
94:2.9,132395:1.20
Inallons49:i4
41:4,7
continually 69:21
contmus 21:21 31:22 51 13.15
52:8 56:9 58:15 65:10 92:5 94:8.
3
continued 36:10 57:2
continues 4:20 57:5
continuous 32:21.24 34:22 54:3,9
46:25
itractJng 9:7 29:15 40:25 47:5
13:545:1
80:24
contribute 41 13
control 16:3 86:23
97:22
7:17
4:6
copy 49:11 97:8
Corporation 50:3
Coras 53:16 57:17
Correct 28:6 34:15 46:16.21 62:5.
2,13.17.24.25 63:4,5 75:2 80:19
corrsctty 624
•34:10.11.2435:1.2,13.15.18.
21.2454:12.2455:3,7.1465:20
33:2534:935:4
70:5,6
eouMnt68.2593:17,18
10:1
26:1157:1058:2469:9
78:1980:7
2:2367:12,1676:680:24
84:1.388:8
15:716:2419:121:124:7
55:1"776:17
12:21 34:451:760:7
170:17
court 2:3 21:24
CoZktCo 3:21 4:18 5:22 10:20 12:
4:22
creating 84:12
- "1:20
M 3:20 6:17 13:10.10 18:9.
11 19.20.2021:1627:1832:744:
10.14.18.19 45:2.6 46:1.5 48:4 SO:
4,551:369:470:2271:3.5
6:2.15
142416 10
45:1 53:10
criteria 36:5.8.11 37:9.22 38:11
39.6 43:1.16 45:17 46:7 77:12.15.
1881:1182:1.8.9.1197:17
criticism 61:6
16:7.10 17:7
>16:219:224:8.24
31:897:3
cubic 22:11 23:5
current 32:2 34:8 65:5 66:11
4:20 39:25
cut 82.12
cut* 11:13
cuts 82:7
14:6
Cynthia 93:23
D-O 24:25
Dallea 67:21
Dsn 59:11.18 91 23
danger S3 11 69:21
dangerous 47 1769:20
darker 18:9
data 46:9.12.15 52:13.16.18 58 21
92:21
date 33.10
dated 6:5 98:11
Deve 44:6 72:2
DAVIDSON 72 19.20 73.2.5.8.12
9.23.2574:3.25754.8.14
day 50:4.5.6.6 64:12 78:18 96 22
96:13
daylights 19:14 24:22
days 8:22 81:12
deal 45:19.21 55:3
dealing 7i: 13.24 75 15
deals 47:5
deatt 79:17
debris 6:5
decide 42:4 77:21
lecjdtng 43 12
•CnVMn 26' 10
76:1277:2578 1.99223
97:21
dedetorHnsWng 76:23
78:24
deem 5:13 35:8 54:4
deems 35:3
17:9
15:1727:2031:20
79.10
define 33:9
defined 9:4.12 18:6.15 33 5 74 19
96:22
definition 23 22 33 5
» 52:19.25 71 6.12.14.
degn
2223
degre* 72:3 91:11
ftmfltimrmrt t
WHWrvB t
.25
97:8
_ 67:23
den 70:2
13:13
density 45:20
Denver 1:15 67:21
Department 41:6 45:10 53 3.17
82:20
depending 81:25
depends 45:19.20
117:3 18:7
17:15.1918:19.25607
18:21.2124 19:3.2524
depth 10:620:630:18.1931 932
558:565:687:1390:4
depths 9.21 20:12 '
derive 90:23
Kribe 3:1 9:15.23 11:2 125
59:12
Hribed 7:23 259 31 19329
47:761:19
Krlbes78.2
describing 7:8 12:15 35:1
description 63:14 89:12
designated 17 18
designed 35
deojO 78:7 90:24 91:25
tact 63:19
tected 27:25 .
detection 27:20.25 63:21
determination 41:20 92:7
lermlne 31:17 43:20 92:2
determined 8:14 81 10871
develop 92:10
developed 12:3 |
development 30:10.13 31 1489
1690:1.6
diagram 16:13.21
dteofVfM 1 lio
DtCKERSON 28.1.3.7.11 47 18
48:1749:1,872:2.3.13.1586:25
874.15.2488:2.8
dMnt 10:17 29:19 49:2 58 19 616
69:1 71:17.1975:2087:15899
94:1.5.697:13
die 45:8 46:4.5
died 45:12,1346:1.2.IB 47 1248
15
diet 96 13
-------
eMriar 49^15
dMfarant 3:4 20:18 28:17 48:951
2395:1496:7
dHtarantty 67:24
dtffteutt 37:6 59:23 60:3.7
dig 53:8
digging 72: 16 87: 12
djCdonBO:2
dtnanalon 16:23
direction 22:23 24 14
directly 50:24
dlractor 53:23
dirt 25:5
dtaagrae53 1458 13
J ad51:24
14:1822:2093:16
9:18 11:1 40:77915
7:14
28:18
diacuaatng 29:7
diacuaiion 12:1816:13
diaouaalona 32:18 76:19
41:9
H1:18
dtopoaal 4:25 33:16.22 39:4
dlapoaa 33:23 35:16.23 36:1
' 14:21
2122
ldMda28:6
ONAPL 13:15 21:15.20
doctor 72:3
doeumant 8:8 78:1
13:2016:1419:1921:1223:
2329:235439:6,7.2543 15494
54:2 56:21 60:18 68:6.7 72:22 73:
3.583:1769:2593:8.18
113:2122:2136:1.146:24
153:2076:979:1181:2285.4
doing 37:3 52:2 59:3 83:10 68:20
71:16
doHar 55:8,13
doiiara 34:4
dona 5:1 12:939:1750:856:1 58:
25 60:1 64:22 70:9 71:20 83:16
84:2285:15
dota 56:6.6 57:19
down 3:10 13:19 15:16 17:2520:
12 21:7.15.17 22:22 44:15.17 47:
11 60:24 69:6,16 71:3 72:22 79:22
B2:l/I26a686:1 90:8.11.12
Idowngradtaflt 5:20
downhill 47:11
15:16 19:23
drink 94:25
drinking 50:18 65 12.13.15
drip 14:16,16 26:13
Drfra1:20
QfivWrVy 9oi 1
idrtvawaya 6:3
dry 20:11
dumb 59:4
during 2 7 84 21 85:2
E-C 25:11
aaeh 3:11 49:14 86:12.17
•ertlar3:918 18
•arty 4:5
aaafer2:9
it 4:14 8:3 15:3 25:12 55:19.21
93:11
•MV 38:4
aootogteal 70:10,12 74:19
adgad2i:l7
•Hoot 21:5,6 48:6 98:4
•ffacttra 36:22 59:21 60:17
acttvanaaa 36:12.20 37:1622
38:12,1539:1 53:12
•Ota 44:20.21 48:4
alght 34:17
eighaea46:3
atthar 33:23 64:4
•lament 2:20 38:22.23
watton 16:20
•tovm 34:17 62:6,13.16.21 83:3,
1584.16
elavan-yaar 83:15
•ttminata 59:1371:8 83:18
•Hmtneted 60 15
•Hmln»tJng57:l3
elimination 57:23
ajaa 7:20^95:7
14:17
19:11
Emergency 5: 12. 17
Hmk«lDin36:lS
11:15
anoauntar 20:13,14
anoountarad 20:5 26:15 27:3.23
encountering 84: 11
anoouraga 79:4.22 97: 15
•noounModB6.li.l7
anda86:3
. _ 80:22
Englnaara53:1657:17
"
29:18 30:2.20 47:6 49:7 65:18 74:
1862:3,1785:1 87:19.2289:23
l«xpo*uraoB2:10.1l
•Xtond39:l4
•xtondod39:l4
•xunt 12:6 13:2 18:5 31:24 38:6
66:10.12.15
7:17
anough 5:8 32:24 52: 13. 16 59: 1
74:975:12
ENSR13:559:1B
•now* 4:23 31:23 34:7,12 39:16.
19.20.2264:265:1884:2093:18
•nouring 37:18 84:17
enter 49:20
15:1016:1344:128324
89:7505592:11,15
entirely 60 3
Environment 1:1936 737:14 45
10
Environmental 2:16 10:341:12
•nvtronmwttatty 39: 16 40:4 84:23
EPA 7: 1,25,25 8: 1.11 33:435:3
36:5 39:9 53:16 56:25 60:22 62:9,
2264:21 74:1078:10.1283:2584:
388:12.17.19,21 87:1 90:22
EPA'* 9:6 29: 14. 17 75: 11 86:24
•quota 23:5
oquotM22:10
oquotkM 82:22
•qiUpmont 6:22 81 :25 83: 17
••••fltlMfy 94^21
•atabHah 54:7
79:21
84.16
aattmatad 22:3,12
825
•127:4
_ _____ _. 11:2436:10
[•valuataa 28:18
77:16
EVE 40:10,10,15.21 41:1842:1.4.
8.13.2S 43:5,10,14.19.25 44:3 72:7
81:7,7,15.2062:7,12,2083:14.22
|90:14 95:10,11. 19
Even 3:10 211263:1068:1 86:3
12:16
eventually 13:20 18: 1 57: 19
ever 46: 147: 12 56:25
EVERETT 50: 12. 12 70:25
•vory 44: 13.23 50:8 61 :2 69:22
9621
•vwybody 57:6
'
*.4 95:15
9:5.75220:3^093:20
«60:1
44:10
1 3: f 6 46:24
«Koett»42:11
"16:22
13:892:7
ci
6:23
65:691:13.19
29:2042:6.1244192:
20
•moot 91:3
42:9
14:1915:1217:18
Enrck«96:l2
IteeUMoi 13 13
loeMKy 3:22.23 4:19 10:20 12:22
35:16
17:1519:8.1820:545:947:9
48:15 53:25 60:6 63:2 64:9 66:7.
10
82:15.23
45:22
Mtod 33:11
folr8824
foWy 21:12 22:20 73:17 74:23
Ml 11: 16
5 18
totts 45:6.7
tomtttor 3 23 6 11 16:2553:2.23,
24
I tor 27:1348:14 50:16
39:1640:564:23
-------
91:6
Owen'* 79:10
H
H.E416
HAQAN 43:8
halt 82:8
handle 60:8 68:14
handled 67:3 83:19 84:16.21
handling 35:2
hands 50'6
Open 44:10 64 1376:9
happens 10:8 89:4
hard 95:15
harm 74:10
Harmon 88:19
Hartael 96:11
hate 64:16
haul 53:9
having 55:3 97:6
hazard 81 10
hazardous 28:25 33:3,5.10.17.23
35:19.2586:595:24
he'll 85.19
•Ml 1:198:1236:6 37:1341:6
49:1253:2.1659:379:25
healthy 45:13,1446:4
hear 61:7 68:10 72:20 86:13 95:8.
9
heard 23:7 50:25 57:15 60:25
heart 2:22
heat 61:2
•vler 13:19
hate 11:7 18:551 11 54:11 60:18
81:898:5
hateful 95:12.22
hates 60:19 75:14 80:21
here 2:1825 3:8 7:17 10:13 12:14.
1620 14:4.12.23 15:23 16:24 17:3.
12.13,1318:7.9.11 20:1421:724:
10,1525:2,6.10,18.20 40:6 43:6
44:8.16 45:16.23 46:6.7 47:4.15
55:1662:364:967:2468:621 70:
2573:1474:775:977:1378:21
79:1281:2084:11,1785:286:11
3:296:10.18
IttPBDV 9B.3
HI 72:2
high 26:23 27:8 28:23 38:1 46 17.
2369:170:162021
high-level 37:15
higher 9:11 26:1635:11 38:23.25
69:22 72:6 87:23 96:20
JJgheet 26:14.20 27:2,11.1625
lUflfuy 28i25
HILL 22:25 23:4,7,10,15.17 55:11
64:21 65:1.3.9.202566:4.7.10.17.
1967:6,9.14,20 68:4,16 76.22 77:
4.14 78:8 83:2124 84:7.10,14 85:
21,2586:8.19
Netorte 13:25
tory 52
hM 10:21 18:1 72:14
holds 20:4
me 30:2
was 91:5
HOOTEN 1:132:39:1 10:3,7.10,
17 23:14 29:6 40:14.2023 41:24
42:2.6.10.15.18.23 43:4.1823 44:
1.546:8.1121 47:2149:11 f I
52:4.7.12.15.1822 54:14.162023
56:2.9.17.21 56:11.13.16.19.2257:
21 56:1,3.10,14.17 59:11 60:18 61:
8,2262:6,11,13.1720.2563:5.13
64:24 65:2.4.11,22 66:2.5.9.14.18,
24 67:8,13.1925 68:22 70:0.1571:
9,11 72:12.1473:112474:1575:3,
7.13.18.25 76:3,1521.24 77:5.15
78:10.15 79:4 81:14.18 82:5.10.16,
25 83:23 84:5.9.13.15.20 85:12.17.
2486:7.10.14.21 87:3.7.1988:1.5
89:1.15.1890:3.9.12.1991:10.17,
2392:1,11.1593:5.1594 1,5.10.16
95:7.1896:997:5,10,12
hope 72:20 75:14 84:13,14
hopefully 12:12
rteontalty 16:21 25 15
hours 12:11
house 29:23 44:17.19 88:4
how 3:2 36:21.22 37:6 39:9 40:21,
24 41:2.13.24 42:13 45:21 47:20
53:25 68:6.7.13 73:3 74:1.4 81:25
82:2584:266:8.887:1 92:5.7.10
However 29:23 32 3
Human 8:12 36:6 37:13 46:15 49
1267:23.23
hundred 17:1340:18437.22454
47.2,1048:2251:2269:772:580:
hundred* 25:25
hurting 68:19
hydrocarbon* 13 1670:2371:14.
18.2472:1
18.1425:8
18:13
I'd 55:6.15 68:12 70:7 74:4 76:8
Idea 34:2 38 12
79:19
Had 22:8 31.3,10 39:15 40:2
53:17
Identify 27:1 81:8
Immediately S: 14
Impacted 85:6
mpecttng 63 8
Impeccable 50:7
mptementS:17 38:5 78:3
tnplamantaMllly 37:5 36:4
mplafiienttng 36:14,17
Imply 90:15
90:15
962
60.1275:23
14:8
6:21
In-p4aca59:19.2060:15
htohea 48:20
Include 35:4
Included 14:4 15:8 25:25 26:4
Includes 57:1
r 4:10.14.148:355:
19.22
80:17
Individual 49:21 68:2
Industrial 8:152022:14 29:18.19
30:2039:21 62:1063:1261:585
11 87:9.1988:689:5,2291.8
Industry 85:22
Information 48:10,11 54: i 77 10
92:1.16
Ingested 45:21 47:1948:8
Inasetlun 48 19
Inhalation 49:7
InhaUd 48:7
InMaUy 21:16
Initiate 86:8
Initiated 4:4 5:1125 7:1
85:1667:2
18
Instgnmoenth/I4:i3
Inspection 63:23
„. 16:5
15:15,1824:12
,3:760:12
_ 56:7 83:5 92.8
90:1991:17
91:12
24:20
85:1997:14
51:87611
535
intsrjsct 9224
Interruption 10:16 29:5 42:17 43
1352:1755:2058:962:1 71:10
75:2181:384:1992:14
Introduce 9:25 10:2
sttng13:2
,*bon8:S 10:23 12:8 15:8.
21 24:1325:2426:21 49:392:5.6
Involved 63:9 68:12
Iron 50:3
Irrigation 93:10
lain 79:1290:1
ad 74:16
55:2557:1578:379:12.25
5:21
ttaatt 54:25 85:4
JIMINEZ 93:23.24 95 4
JIMINIEZ 94:3.7.19.24
ob 71:16.20 84:3 96:23
00*8412
John 61:24
JOHNSON 88:14 90:7.10.13.18
91:15.21
Jonl 56:25 91:2
keeping 56:9
Ken 79:1
kept 53:3
kHl57:16
Und 11:11.1329:10 32:9.16 34:2
36:15 46:8 53:8 78:23 91 8 92:22
95:22
kind* 53:5
knew 13:3.662:266:15.17.1967
6
>w2:21 6:11 11:14 12:6 13:8
20:1921:11,2222:21 31:1533:12
40:2041:943:1045:2448:1050:
19 51:2 52:22 53:1 55:9.9.16 57:
1458:20.20.21.2459:361:264:3.
1367:11,1869:374:1,775.1876:
11 78:15,1579481:2482:2583:
6.9.10.25 84:5 85:13.16 88:2 91:
14.20 94:25 95:12 96:6 97:6
known 2:17 4:13.22 6:24 14:1 15:
15 16:15 18:20 26:22 66:23
knew* 42:22 81:21 82:20
ppera 4:10.12.15 44:11,20 45:
2565:2566:2.2.6
Koppera'66:8
KRMW93:2S94:18
Jane 8:23 40:23 41:5 47:22 83:2
January 6:20
K
Isboratorias 46:14 47:19
lagoon 25:8 27:2
lagoon* 14 1925231 6
Lake 49:23
land 57:8.14 64:18 80:11.12 88:16
90:23
landfill 33.3.4.16.24,24
landowner 65:21.22 66:11 67:2
68:590:2121
85:13
larger 62:7.19
«r-chain7l 24
4:11 77:19
12:277:1
laterally 18:2
13416
68:188720
lay 28:22 95:15
toaeh 33:18.20 45:12 72:22
'45:7
Heetung 33:7.9
lead 3:14 4:6 6:17
6:3
45:578:12.16
53:13
4:9
76:1284:8
leave 65:10 70:15 72:11
21:7
led 38*14
lend 854
5:15.1617:2326:6.827:11.
23 37:2.3 63:22
M 15:6 31:4.15 46:8.11 61:8 68:8
79.9,1080:383:24
M'S 42:23 67:9 92:9
level 5:3.7 8:13 9:3.4.19.24 11:1
26:6.9.14 27:2.11.16 29 10.25 38:
1.2542:15.1846:16.2265:1475:5.
1789:492:17.18
level* 22:13 26:20 46:23 49:13
58:4 74:21 90:5
UabNMy2:17
debt* 65:24 67:4
Library 8:10 97:4.6.7
Hf* 34:13 67:23.23
lifetime 41:11 447
Hgrrt 70:22 72:8
Ugfiter 18:10
Hgrrt* 93 1 3
ttks 2:6 3:14 20:20 22:16 26:14.17
30:9 40:7 42:19 43:23.24 44:2 49
13.20 55:16 56:4 57:1368:10.12
70:7 72:7 74:4 76:10 78:23 80:9
81:2495239721
Ukewte* 60:2
Imlted 76:2
In* 19 4.10.22 20:3 45 24 57 19
M 16 1,1 19.724 15.20
IquM 13:14
• 2:3.1272:2093:5958983.
20
15:5.5.9 19:17
Men 79:11
e 11:1.6.17 12:2.2413 1824 :
25:1427:3.535116714716
hre 58:25 70:20
lived 44:15.18
tvae 98:11
local 8:1762:14 69:11 74 11 87
2097:7
located 5:20 12 19.22 14-11.20
7:625:17.20
location 12:17 156 18:824 18
location* 49 15
lock 80:9
^27:8
long 53:13 59:1 82.21 84 2 93 9
long-chain 71:13 :
Long-term 36:19.21 37:2i 3814 :
39:1
longer 30:3 65:25
look 4:23 8:20 13:24 29:8 32 3 33
1334:1739:16.2440:549:1371
9.1177:9.1882:1683:9.12896.9 :
90:492:12.1797:18.22
fced 3:13.18 8 13262530 15 •
32:5.1533:1.2139:9.1052:2359 '
4,19601189:21912392222 i
aoklng9:l3 10:11.1335 1920
40:1641:12.1449:166319657 :
91:795:19
ka 16:2330:12.1332 14.18.22 '
36:5.2037:156:4.13,19.225713
'6:10
joe 67:22
0(13:3.622:2130:163285022. i
2371:896:7.7 ;
a 78:19
tow 28:23 73:17 74:18
tow-level 27:20
Low4ermllk4:l6
mr 17:3.16.18,19 19:2.24 20 7
25:9.19.2358:22
M
Ma'am 10:5 52:6
12:1813:1540:344 1760
22
magic 85 10
main 13:8
make 5:8 15:7 34:25 57:5 63 3 67
475:2376:1478:23
60:7 78:8
making 37:2.3 64:9
man 50:7 68: 16
men's 57 14
96:11.13.24
22:1798:14.19
1:189:25
managing 96: 16
manner 35:3
Many 59:1960:880:11 95 1397
13
12:13,2514:23 155.2516 1.
6 24:8.9
mapped 97 3
map* 24:8
March 6:5
3:17
Martin 9:25 11:1 30. 16 31:5.19
32:8 58:4 74:21
MartbVa9:18.23
14:14.25 17:1.2.22 19:20
20:9 21 :20 25:3 32: 1 1 35:2.7 38
16.17.20 55:4 59:22.23 60:5.8 61
1381:1283:1884 17.21
14:2422:1951:995:24
Max 51:6 74: 13
majdmum 27:23
May 5:10.10 76:19 88:18
maybe 42:23 51: 11 56:1863 11
75: 18 78:24.25 79: 1 .2.25 86 1 .2
McDonald 49:23
mean 21 6.8 42:22 43:7 46:24 48
17 67: 18.20 68:6 69:5 72:7 75.22
-------
79:11 83:1588:3
8.21 47:1
87:5,6 '
35:6
measuring 47:4
' ' 1B:4
meet36'9396
MEETMQ 1:176:20 97:22
37:13,2538:10
Memorandum 7:8
! 17
12:1726:340:1143:
16 69:7 72:8
MaaquNa 24:20
72:9
!»«O7:223B:11
notat'Contamlnated 6:5
meta»3l4
iMttiod 33:7,12
method* 33:18
microphone 93:6
might 11:4 32:21 33:12 36:16 64:
1483:586:293:2
migrate 31:23 52:23
migrated 30:18
migration 34:8
mUM44:i;
1745:489:8,8
military 70:17
Milter 79:1
minion 9:6.9 26:7.9,16 27:4.12 28:
4,529:1735:15.20.2536:1 40:13
41.16 422 43:3,17 48:2172 67:10
72:595:1398:18
mind 37:7 68:22 79:12
mm* 30:21.23 33:22 34:20 35:6
40:3 54:12 55:6,8 58:1.16 81:23
84:1.485:1691:4
mined 32:11 54:17,1962:2463:2.
2564:7,1072:12,1484:16
mining 30:22 31:2 32:4.4.21.22
34:6,1735.4.537:1939:13.16.17
40:1 54:2555:6.1456 14.20.22
62:9.22 63:7,10 64:25 65:2.5.7 72:
1681:2282:684:2285:1591:2
93:17
Mming-Aeatricted 31:10
mmue 42:16.19 70
mtnula 68:8 9225
1212
mtooonttnHng89:l3
mleead60'20
HtrCHELL. 6:24 41:4.6 47:22 48:
1.18.2363:4
mMgate 57:11
mitigating 36:22
mta 13:21 54:2
mbnd60:6
mixture 13:1732:1038:1861:13
moblli 37:2
MoblWv 36:24 37:23 38:22 39:2.8
model 20:4.4
moment 62:6
Monday 21
money 34:12
- 31:2238:651:15,16.17
65:1894:8.10.13
34:751:19
73:11.24 74:15 75:3.7.13.18.25 76:
3,1571.2477:5.1578:10.1579:4
81:14.18 82:5.10,16.25 83:4.23 84:
5.9.13.15.20 85:12,17.24 86:7.10.
13.14^1 87:3.7,1988:1.589:1.15.
1890:3.9.12.1991:1.10.17.2392:
1.11.15.2493:5.152394:1.3,5.7.
10,16.19.24 95 4.7.1896:997:5.
10,12
much 2:9.21 16:1417:2324:25
33:18 40:24 41:1342:13 56:7.10
6*1468:2581:2582:2586:2296:
20.20
muet 80:20 90 1.2
myeeff 10:2 77:1
2:124:1321:2540:1044:6
61:24721977:281:793:2395:11
naming 89:19
JattonalS'S
natural 52:5.20 57:23 71:11
12:5 13:271:16.19
15:9.12.1326:8
irHy 7:25 52:1 53:8.19 54:
87:17
9:24" 11:7 22:17 34:157551:
2 74:12,15 79:15.19.24 86:19.21
87:17
39:19
negligible 49:9
IT 45:8 50:9.1975
77:10
next 6:5 11:8,1270 15:5 16:6.6
24:8.2425:759:764:1286:15
nice 64 15
nicknamed 6 12
nine 36:5 40:17,18 77:11.14.15.17
97:16
46:3
ninety-nine 40:18
' 1123
13:14'
mentoring 15:1831:1737:1838:
3.5.8 39:12 57:1225 93:18
month 81:25
monthe5:1593:lO
we 6:16 9:12 10:22 19:8 24:23
30:1 33:1946:4,1847:2449:16
55:25 56:7.1063:22 79:16 8214
87:1290:2395:996:270
M 17:14 18:320:1.21 26:5,10.
25 26:15 45:15 46:2 49:4 60:16
69:157224.2585:13
Mar 71:16.19
move 21:12 22:21.22
moved 14 25
MR Ae 31:11
MS 2:3 8:24 9:1 10:7.10,1723:14
29:6 40:14.20.23 41:4.24 42:2.6.
10.15,187343:4.8.187344:1.5
46:8.1171 47:21 48:1.18.2349:11
51:2.15 52:4.7.12,15.18.22 54:14,
16.20.2355:2.9,17.21 56:11.13.16.
19.227357:4.21 58:1.3.10.14.17
59:11 60:1861:8.2262:6.11.13.17
20,2563:5,1364:2465:2,4.11,22
66.2,5.9.14.18.24 67:8.13.19.25
68:2270:9.1571 9.11 72:12.14
N
nonexpooure 36:13
nonhazardoue 33:4.24 35:14.24
1ao»B7:6
norm 29:3
ith/24:16
14:11 71:4
north/south 25:1.12
Mat 16:6.16.18
27:7
note* 96:5
59:266:11
11:22
5:236:77:177:1
New 221 4:13 7:19 9:23 28:13 30:
187231:2436:240:851:1252:10
53:754:1.117356:5.558:2261.1.
3.4.1562:366:770:370721876:
881:1582288:889:790:11 93:
20958
8.2215:1419:7,1027:9.
1441:37273425.8.11 43:5.970.
24 44:2 45:18 47:21 84:2 85:9,10
98:16
• 69:228221
28:1046:1347:258:6
67:18.2489:21
O4M 34:1073 35:12,1771
O-ORADY 11:420:2521:3,8.11
225 23:3.5.9,13,16.19 28:2.5.8.12
29:1 49:2.1072:2473:4.7,16.21
74:275:293:12
lamed 15:12
obvtoue6622
our 5:14 7:9 38:9 39:17.22 52:7,
971:23
occurred 3:9 46:13 66:25
curranea41:17
occurring 9:17 38:8
occur* 70.3
Octobef 2:1 7:108:8
off 80:9 93:3
ofl-ette 33:21.23 35:23 36:2 39:7
Oh 55:1 59:1673:4.21 75:2588:1
94:5
Ohio 4 3
oH3:20
oHy 13:22
CNkay 213 5:2 18:10 23:19 24:23
25:2428:1229:1335:943:2475
44:551:16.1652:21 54:17356:
11.1561:1765:13.1666.873:2
75:2576:21 81:1588:189:491:14
92.3 93:5.12 94:3.5 95:4.7 96:24
old 2:23 44:18 45:14 50:24 51:23.
2480:1
older 51:22
on-efte 6:24 25:4 29:19 30:14 32:
733 16.1635 16.17 39 3.8 5«:»
85:6
53:17
one 5:13 6:16 7:17 9:5,5.5.8.8.12
0:5,21 11:11.12.2014:3 16:13
8:1519:7.1624:2425:72619
26:1829:16.1630:531:2432:16
39:24 40:12.12.17 41:10,15.15.24.
25 42:2.7.12 43:2.2.3,6,16.1771,
217244:1.1345:8.9.1646:1 47:2.
3.3.1248:17.2249:1450:851:24
53:12 55:25 56:7.23 58:3 60:22
65:11.12.1367:9.1068:2.2.10.11
70:7.13.1877:11.14.1583:16.19
86:25 92:4 93:8 96:17.17 97:16
only 55:2 60:10 63:10 69:7 81:16
82291:18
onto 14:16 64:25 65:3
open 80 15
-" 3:1710:18121515:25
Operable 2:19 3:5.6.7.11.12,16.21
4:2.8.18 7:5,6.9 10:14.19 12:7.18,
23,2513:2415:1017:662:4
67:3
117:330:2232:2434:22
44:1354:365:566:5.25
ipeiaUuiie 4:7.12.19.20 15:1 21:
4,14321935:754:2460:9
•aerator 4:11 55:22
opinion 71:7
opportunity 79:23
opttone60:i6
order 5:21 6:1 9:1511:7,1630:11
36:971:12
ordered 78:13
ordinance 6215
ore 4:5
16:25
originated 21 17
OSC8 13
other 3:11 25 4 26:24 28:22 36:11
40:1748:551:2056:759:2560:11
70:1374:1878:1886:12.1787:9
91:2293:896:2597:10
otherwise 2 17
11:18
out 5:17 11 1913:5 14:15 16:20
8:2 25:1 43:14 44:17 47:15 50:5.
7.1871 67:15.2468:1370:8,1875
1:7 73:9 74:22 75:9 78:13 83:6.7
88:17 90:8.11 92:19 93:7.10 95:
207597.13
out-work 45.15
31:5
214
89:391:8
14:1215:1 17:1221:2125:10
27:428:13.1445:467:14.1769:4
74:980:690:16
overaB 20 20 2218.19 37:13
ivereoneem 75:11
part 2:14 3:9 174 18:320 1.21
'4:12 26:5 28:15 49:3.4 50 25 53
2557:2472.24.257511
particular 3:14 17:6 19448 13
49.6.2150:196:3
partteularty 80 7
rtiee 55:18
irts 26:7.9.16 27:4.11.17.21.24
28:4.5 48:21.22 72:5 75 1 95 13
Party 8:4 65:23
ad 80:25
79:17
50:15
pathway 93:19
" 14
pattern 51:23
96:1
paying 55:15.16 68:16
My* 65:20
wopte 28:22 31:15 41 10 45 15
46:4.4.1867:15.1569:12.15.21 78
3.21 96:5
•r 26:7.9.16 27:4.11,17.21.24 28
.534:1035:21 48:21.2255 13
$1:1772:574:2575 1 95:13
22:1223:8.11 26 17805
19:12
Partectty 46:4
perform 35:7 37:6
13:4
Perhaps 19 7
pertod54:8.6.863 16
36:20
64:10
17:22,2416:2 196,
320:11
17:23 18:23
permit 39:12.13 40:1
terpeturty 36:9 65:19 92:9
8:21 40:2545:2547:595
5
met 6:22
overlap 3:11
overty 78:22
oversight 4:22
overview 12:14
own 78:24 82:21 94:19 96:8
owner 4:11 55:22 64:25 65:3 75:
23
own* 94:4
pjn2 1 97:24
23 18776
3:18 26:6 27:17.21 32:848:
393:20
paint 45:2
painting 44:25
paper 69:11 93:4
parallel 45:6
•amatara 53:11
paramat
Pardon 90:9
parked 92:25
•erapecttv* 57:4 95 17.23
6:12
'a 6:12.25
petroleum 72:4
6:1.9 13:14
phone 86:14
13:25
physical 52:24
dak 7:18
netted 33 2
4cWng37:17
4:1
picture's 16:11
96:4
piggy-back 32 16
466:5.12.1:
5.12.12.25
PMdn 84:1.3
3:447:2259:2364:14.15
98:6
38:1746:16
placing 32:23
tain 81:20
•LAN 1:37:11.12,15 11:21 28 16
31:11 34:136:370:1177:24
Planning 80:24 87:24
' -15:225:1327:532:13.20.25
34:21 38:1450:2454:261:2646
86:2067:7
28.1221:23,25795
Plus 64:12
24:17
poM 4:25,25 16:20 26:18 43 15
45:1648:5,1850:1 51:21 64:868
24 78:23 81:20 83:8.12.23 90 16
93:7
70:18
11:10
15:225:1327:5
15:345:1
pottutton 80:2
noryhydrocarbon 70 19
pecynuelaar 13:15
pond 50:14
" 11:10
pondeSO 17 18
popunrtton48 11 67:11,21 80 17
poroalty20:iO
portion 85:13 91:5.6
portlona 60:4
- 12.2225:17.206813
poaalblHty 52:3
-------
quantify 9:3 7Ti2
quantity 93:14
9U»ellon 2:8,10,11 10:611:512:2
17:10 28: 1 45:3 47:25 7*21,23
75:582:2483:2587:195:10
queettoneble 25:21
quaattona £621:240:8 51:11 74:
4.884:695:996:2597:10
quick 3:25 31:4
quickly 24:7.23 26:2 32:22
quit* 69:24
ponlbli 56.2 64:18
poaalbly 92:9
poet7l:S
poatmarkad 76:25
poeta 71:17
potential 10:25
Potentially 8 4
ppm58:6
pome 74:22
precautione39:l9
prater 39:11
' 64:5 77:24
1:1.2434:11 35:1246:
16
pi'»eentaUcin 2:7 11:9 60:20
Presented 1.13 11:2377 13
prMinU28:l6
tve 14:9
14:8
proeumabty 21:21
pratty 16:14 20:20 24:25 41:9
PRO* 42:24 85:6 92:13
3:3.18,2010:1332:737:
1839:548:368:12
primary 3:15 50:3
Prime 16:8.11 24:2525:11
Prtortttee 5:5.9
private 68:5 85:22
probability 41:16 43:8,11 46:24
47:1.468:1
ProbeMy 17:1341:1060:24 69:22
76:1883:493:9
problem 10:24.2545:11 50:953:
18.19.20 56:8.10 57:13.19 59:5.6
60:2.24 64:19 71:8 72:10,18 76:14
79:1480:881:886:2387:11 88:
14,15
10:1456:5
prooeduree 63:3
Proooodlnae 2:1 97:24
14:3.11.19 16:9 26:12 57:
59:12.15 76:23 84:22
4:5 14:20
produce 4:6
arodueee93'13
areduet 13:9 14:8 19:20 21:12.16.
20 36:21 39:21 70:23
products 50:4
Pi oHMlonal 96:22
pratoM4orata79:13
H oBlM 24:23
BfOQfeMn 20:4 54:2
MoMbK31:2
•raject 1:18 9:25 13:4 54:5.6.8
84:1
Nnote 52:24
property 32:12
aroperty 4:11.15 6:16 57:9 58:24
»1:2562:1966:1667:1 68:5 74:13
75:2374 76:2 80:20 87:18 88:3.7
91:496:4,8
MUfMMHOnM A9.9
f»ropoeal 7:5 88:21
pram* 62:23
PROPOSED 1:3 5:4 7:10.12.14
11:21 28:16.1931:11 33.2536:3
70:1177:2485:589:24
41:21
62:10
3
68:4
10:336:637:13
30:8.8.1132:134:535:
8
. fOUeMvimM 46:22
provide 7:2 97:16.19
provided 5:19 6:2172
prawWM70:6
provftdlna 31:14
PRP8:l
PUBUC1:12:145323
puoaahed7:7
Pueblo 49::
49:2369:13
purpoeee 3:2
put 14:7 34:12 38:18 58:4 60:24
76:17 77:25 78:5 79:22 82:22 87:
2286:1195:16.22
putting 47:14 53:3
railroad 14: 14 25:5 45:4 47: 1 1 69
6
rain 45:7
rainMl50:16
44:8.16
raWng 45:11
Ranch 70:25
rang* 9:6,10 29:14,17,21 30:20
48:17
rank 39:4
121:6
rat* 73:17
RCRA 4:22 5.1
ra1:2
reach 92:7
11:2085:5
27:691:10,11
3:2531:445:11.1774:7.875:
5.15
11:1559:3
r*a»y 36:25 38:9 39:9.23 40:6,15
41:1448:161:10.16.1763:868:25
71:2382:1383:11,12,1985:4.4
89:994:1198:697:14
86:6
48:5
30:1.737:2594:24
83:10
_78:2
58:
receipt 77:3.7
^
qualified 47 24
quantified 42:11 71 r22 82:16
7:12
receptive 79: 16
record 2:4 78 1 97:21
0rdod213
orda 13:25
recovering 51:9
Recovery 4:21
recycle 32:6 34:21
recycled 32:12 64:6
recycling 38:13 65:8
rad>0:3
kica 37:4 38:20 39:8 82:1
reducing 36:22 39:6
Reduction 36:24 37:23 39:2
(undent 13:18
ar 5:4 13:14 31:11 36:861:15
67:1
aranee 12:18
referred 77:23
Refining 4 4
RegMored 98:22
regulation 44:23
raguMlone 68:1588:9
11:1622:1840:2449.20
70:4
(7:4.10
44:22
rary 57:22
Ramadlal 8:5 12:8 15:21 24:13
25:24
64:11
.
12.12 6:1 7:2.22
ramova 38:19 59:24 60:3
ramowad 6:2.15.17
randar5:7
randara87:8
rssertsr 2:4 10:16 21.24 29:5 42:
17^43:13 52:17 55:20 56:9 62:1
71:1075:21 81:384:1992:1493:4
98:21.22
REPORTER'S 98:1
rapraaant88:i9
79:5
rtpr»«arr»ad 43:20 _
aquirafiiant 2:15
' 50:2
129:24 96:3
raatdant 30:1 44:7
aildarrtal 6:3.4.16 30:10,13 31:
457:262:1587:21.2188:6,23
89:6.15.23.2590:591:13.1992:13.
995:21
aaMantt 5:20 7:3 8:16.18.19 30:
136:1481:4
49:23
118:971:5
raao4utton86:18
4:21 65:15.16
10:621:470:1 71:6
raapond 78:6 94:15 97:20
RaBBonaa 2:16 78:6 97:11
raaponalbiMy66:8
RaaponaiMt 8:4 55.18 65:23 66:
3.14
RMponarv* 97:20
"91:4
raatrict 6:19 30:10 62:10 87:21
89:25 90:22
34:637:1940:262:9.22
90:2591:392:8
restricting 30:13 31 1437:1938:3
96:21
restriction X: 12 39:16 57:2 62:
873 88:22 89:13,19 90:15.20 91
»
eatrtctive 39:25
19:1146:1
15:2028:14
69:5
14:5
14:526:13
61:10.14.16.23
38:16
: 10 11:8 77:8
ravtawed5l:19
76:1977:9
Rl 25:24 "
rid 56:8
Idicuioua67 18
riant 2:22 3:8 14:23 17:3 21:8 23:
3,14,16,2025:1028:9.11 29:1 30:
22 31:12.24 43:4 46:10.20 49:1,8
50:20.23 51:18 54:16 55:5 57:22
58:2.1762:11 67:870:372:1875:
3.3 82:14 83:17 85:12.17 88:8 90:
891:16.2293:1995:9
rights 68:5 75:24
^ 47:1
Rtt 6:12 9:3.4.6.9.13.14 29:14.
7,21.25 30:5.20.24 31:2 36:23 38:
740:11.1641:9,13,14.21 43:246:
6,17 49:12 70:10.12 74:19 82:15,
7,2383:9.18.1987:2.8.11.1491:
14,19.2092:1796:2.6.7.11.13,15.
16.19.23.24
River 2:24 6:19 12:15 15:24 16:
17.20 16:16 24:16 45:6.7 50:20
51:464:1669:1284:2593:1971
Road 2:24 51:9
53:489:17
Robert 22:149:19
rock 60:14.14
60:6
room 45:15
ROTHSCHU) 51:6.7.16 52:6.8.
13.21 53:1 54:15.187255:1.5.25
56:12.15.17.21 57:3.77458:2.12.
15,1860:1961:2064:1775:2276:
1.4,1679985:3.14.18
rougMy 55:6 83:4
route 49:7
route* 46 9.18
rule* 59:2
run 50:16 93:8
69:15,16
rune 6f:2 93:9
Sedier 98 3 20
88fs 22:14 52:10 54:4 83:4 82:4
ertety 39:20 44:23 68:15
MM 20:7 23:1.1.7.15 28:22 42:25
45:1054:1269:11
SeHda 8:9 44:8
me 23:18.21 32:935:1239:4
61:1195:24
•ample 27:7.8
•empted 15:22 64:2 92 12
•mptee 15:11.19 25.25262427
448:19
•ampHng 15:9.9.11 26 3 49 3
•niMinOai 26.25
eend 22:15 30:22.24 S3 4
76:17
19:2210 1217:17208
4:2.5
awing 80:14
*aw 23:21 27:16 48:25 58 5 74 22
78:16
•ay 7:24 8:16 9:11 13422 1446
648:1953 1959561 7662325
79:9.1080:4.11 85:19929
aaylng 2:5 5:15 23:10 43 6 45 16
46:5 47:17 51:14 53 14 57:22 58
361:1.3.967:15.23801 82 13
•ay* 62:23 63:2 74 13 76 1 78 19
ecale 17:1272:22
eoenerto 49 16 65 7 76 7
47:7
20:4
18:7
*cnooi69:27016
92:10
Scott 79:2
'. 15
ae 61:17
ion 11:12
tton 11:919:425:7
7:1817:1219:1.321 19258
31:1837:2538:7.10.2439 11 48
4.663:1864:1669 1971 17.19
72:9 74:4 79:2 64:25 85 1 8921
90:592:1094:1.12
10:2331:21 35:165:1780
61:3
74:3.6.10
31:2045:850:1751:371 16
72:5
17:2521:17
tt 63i13
eegragatad 63 25 64 1
•elect 37:11
28:1952:15.18
•ejecting 37 10 78:2
••Hetion 36:10
eeH 30:25 88.12
•end 76:25
47:16.1681:21
Ma 19:18
•parating 63:16
leparatton 25:21
September 5:25 7:4.7
' 24:19
97:18
18:4
Service 80:7.11
•ervtoe«6:2l
•et 46:2273 59 2 96 14
eetttnge2:8
eetUement 90:22.24
44:1763.693:9
4:137:21.21 56:468 17
17:820:6
•nape 50 7
•TteTI 79:24
anerffl 78:1375 79:3
11:13
ahort 93:17
•non-chain 71 17
Short-term 36:12 37:16 38:12
ahorter-chain 71:15.25
Shorthand 98:21
•houtd 13:4 16:2063:364:11 75
1877:2283:1285:25955
anew 12:24 16:7 24:7,931 4 51
2352:1963:2070:25
aho»ad 30:16.17 31 6.6.8 74:21
shown 14 22 54:24 55:2
15:57518:1334:164615
•hut 3:10 21:14 90:7.10.12
ate 40.12
atefcSVl
16:924:21 47:1171:2.4
•ionmcant 17 1422:18
•tgnHtcarrtly 26:15 49:5
•Igna 31:1560:10
•my 11:11
•ttv*r4:6
almllar 60:23
-------
•(no* 21:13 68:10
•Ingte 45:2546:2
•Ink 13:21
•1/11:520:2428:2088:18
•ft 85:25
Ste 2:20 3:2.15 5:4.4 6:11 8:7,15.
21 9:2.1520 1214 13:6.0 14:17.19
16:15 17:1,14 18:12.15 19:624:24
27:1030:4.10.21 33:4.11 35:538:
20.21 39:7.1249:1053:8,1055:18.
23 62:8 64:12 67:4 71:16 20 78:4
83:13 89:12.19.20.25 92:20 97:15
8:12
•ft** 5.6 26:10 44:12 51:22
•MUM 68:21
•Ml 60:1
•ttUBtton 24:17 65:17 74:17 78:12
71:1
•taS 15 11:2228:1759:6
eta-month 5:16
13:16,17
•Id 69:4
akin 48:8
6:4 17:1,1
3:17
18:1323:21
•top* 25:18
•tawry 21:12
aludga 6:2.16
•lumping 21:7
•maim: 18 93:14
3:126:67:5.912:19
town 220
•molting 3:8 4:3.4 17:2
•making 46:5.19 96:12
f 84 1.3
6
•nowad 50 18
aoH 6:4,5 15:9,16 18:10 19:2321:
1528:1036:13
•oils 9:21,22 10:12 26:4,5,8 27:3
29:20 30:16 37:20 52:5,20 85:6
MM 4:15.1685:10.14
aoMd 33:15.19
•ohltton 64:20 76:9 79:14 80:2.20
86:2
aoiuttona76:12
aohw 53:18 56:4 59:564:19 76:14
5623
3:10,225:26:2,7.10.157:11
8:7 14:1,10.12.24 16:125 19:19
20:10 27:7 31:5.16 32:17.18 33:6
43:11 45:17,1746:3.6.6,1448:10.
1151:1053:259:13.1463:2064:
1267:369:18.1870:1671:1374:
11.21 76:13.1478:2279:1691:5
95.16.2296:2197:7
aomabody88:1295:2S
51:864:1581:11 62:18
28:2431:21522560:
1676:1086:3,596:4,
41:11
11:1832:1958:6
16:2221:22
41:15.2247:14
aorMrHaw 49:2225
76:8 97:6
aorry 23:1620 73:4.721
•ound 39:18 40:4 84:23
14:3.18.2215:1525:4,13
26:22
South 1:20 71:2
16:8.1624:21
SPEAKER 42:21 68:18 80:23 81:
1,486:14
apaclaBon20:17
apaokM20:1B
~ 13:1714:1.383:13
•pacmcatty 46:2.24 63:11
•panda 30:1
•pant 53:22
•pMt 3:2
•pet 26:18
"18:2
Spring 9:18 12:10 19:16 23:23 27:
142270:1.3.573:13.1774:16.20
93.8.16.2594:2,4.8.12,18
spring* 15:22 19:10,10,15.1624:
18,1921 50:21 73:1094:11.14
•purtotM 27:6
aquaazad 16:21.23 25:15
•tattSftS
•tag* 76:22
•famines: 17
•tatoad 18:11
atandarda36:963:12
72987:12
44:1472:1889:5
25.1
1:182:123:2410:1 31:141:
6 45:9 47:23 53:2.16 77:20 79:25
•MadP<):6
49:20 88:25
91:11
13:11.12
73:1278:11.1693:24
14:6
•tanotypa96:5
•tap 2: 15 70:24
•twtttn 52:1 57:8.9,14 58:24 74:
1375:16
64:18
75:19.22
22
•bckar7B:18,19
•UekyS9'22
atM 20:10 4215.18 50:2223 68:
1571:576:1681:982:1423
atoekpH* 32:23 54:4,5,8
•teekpHid 6:9 85:7
..... 6:23
20:1
Mora* 14: 12 18:8 31 :7 35: 1 1
•torad 14:17
•Wight 24 25 25 12
StnM 1:8.14 93:1
•batching 59: 16
•Mngant33:1996:20
•tudfed 3:24 48:9
7:21248:1147:18.2248:
•tudy 3:3 8:7 11:21 28:1543:21
48:12,1473:1591:2224
•tuff 30:2125 33:2 45:2,3 47:16
69:12.62570:874:19
•UbdMdad9:16.16,16
•ubiact 70:24 88:22
Subatta 12:19
•ubaoU87:5
13:23
9:21 16:330:1637:20
49:1772:687.7
Submit 9:1720 19:1923:2324:1,
427:22
NDUnNa 9:17 19:18,18 23:22
•uen 32:20 38:16 39:18 61:12 73:
18
•uggaat 64:21 70:7
' •'1:2161:2176:1086:
•uggaatlng 53:9
•uggaabon 60:23 64:23 76:1
luggiaMem 76:13.14
20:17
16:1426:228:2129:7
26:16
29:478:697:20
aundown78:l4
•unaght 70.21.24 71:8
Supartund 216 5:6 51:22 96:14
auppaaa7:3
•upport7:22
ppoaa21:2273:14
r* 7:11 23:174-,:5 48:23 57:6
63:394:9
rtaaa 6:179:20 14:16 15:8.13
17:25 21:17 24:9 26:4,5 29:20,22
30:18 49:5.18 58:8,11,16,18.22 72:
6.17 73:2.3 87:5.6.1089:2.2 95:20
aurprlalng26:l9
•unwinding 36 14
•waya 77:22
*wimeutt69:17
13:21 24:10.11.1773:1
taU50:14
ta Woo 50:14
ikaT2:l1
2:11 35:640:760:1281:23
97:18
[ttken4:24 27:1545:2.23 83:898:
takaa 81:24
talk 2:18.25 7:23 12:16 22:6 42:23
51:12 78:25 79:12.5.24 86:12,17.
19.21 88:1290:24
talked 18:18 50:15 77:16 79:10
89:19
talking 7:13 29:14.16 41:8 43:6
47:1548:1852:467:2068:1 69:3
81:1.6.15.1882:289:891:695:20
96:10.12,18
talks 31:13 37:6 63:15 73:14
tank* 14:10.12 18:8 31:7.7
tope 93:5
50:4 70:23
96:15
68:17
taxpayer 80:22 84:14
TCLP33:7,11
15:3
:16 74:15 78:1784:7 93:24
taMng 19:8 29:6.13 92:21
taH» 47:16 75:10 81:21
nporarltyB5:7
temporary 32:17.23 35:11
•n 9:5,8.12 12:12 17:19 20:7 22:
223:1024:1229:1630:540:12
41:15.2542:7,12.16.19,2043:2,17
44:1 47:3 58:22 67:10 68:2.3 83:6,
~ 84:8,12 96:17
tan-year 82:2
tend 13:21 18:21
22:22
69:8
tanuatton 52:520 71:12
18:1322:425:2239:1.148
24
•erraoo6:1B 14:2 16:18 17:5.15.
920 18:17.23 19:2.9.24 20:2.6.8.
2222:2023:2524:1 25:10,16,19.
232327:1531:21
33:6.8.9.1351:13
taaOng 19:21 20:16 63:22
toab) 63:17.20.22 64:22 90:16
TETER 56:23.25 57:4 86:13 91:1.2
9224
Thank 44:3 50:10 75:4 97:9,12.23
Thank* 59 10 93:6
thaf«3:22 10:22 11:13 12:19 16:
22 17:2 24:6 28:9,12.19.23.24 32:
13 33:5 39:9 40:6 44:3 46:20 50:
2551:13.2453:21 57:2458:2.6.10.
22 62:7,13.17 63:5.9 64:19 68:11
75:9.11.1676:12.1877:178:20
79:25 80:3 82:23 83:1222 84:21
90:3.393:294:1296:9.18
thraahold 36 8 37 9 38 11
throughout 13:11.12 34 13 739
throw 59:6
16
tJa 44:1971.1 91.15.18.18
ttad 38:15
ttaa 44:18 45:7 69:5
thnb»r4:9
tbna 2:8.10 5:15.16 6:14 10:24 2i
.21 30:244:2450:1 51:20.21.25
52:2.11 53:1363:1666:378:23.24
85:286:1590:1696:6
Tima-Crttical 6 1 7:2
tlmaa4:13 16:2242:2093:14
oday 4:20 34:12 39:23 68:17 97 8
togathar76:iBB5:22
told 58:19 60:9
aluanaa 71:16
om 40:10 81:7 95 11
ton 55:6.14 60:24
tonight 2:5.25 7:13 96 19
onnaga 22'4
on«227.1 i .16 23:1.6.11.15 34
8.1936:254:11.17.21 55:12636
2472:23.2581:16.17.19.23
3:4 47:22
top 19:12,1224:11
topic 96:10
topical 47:20
Iphte25 18
1:227:17.21 34:2335 17.24
tourM 11:12 :
11:17,18
16:1724:15
78:14
toxic 37 3 :
oxtdty 36:25 37:23 39:2
teotogtt 47:24 :
track 47:11,12
14 14.16255,626 14455
69:6.16
tract 62:19
76:8
1pt98:4
thara'* 17:21 18:2522:1625:18
328 36:1224 38:2 39:5 45:18 50:
2353:102057:1059.261:1 62:18
63:1069:474:775:1080:1 91:9
92:25 96:6
tharaln24:6
Thayl 57:16
thaySw84:7
tfHek 17 16
Mng 53:18 56:24 61:1B 70:13 93:
hlng* 3:14.19 11 16 16:2426:14
53.2,5 58:196011 98:7.13,21
tMnk 2:8 3 22 32 6.1141:5.7 42
11.21 45:22 46:6 50:22 54:9 60:10
64:870:1074:10.12.21 83:8.11
89:1.690:23
thinking 11:8
third 18:19
ihongaQS 18
thoaa6:77 16 11 14 13:1826:23
27:1 31:838:15.1745:6,1248:9.
1250:1752:2055:18.21 58:560:
2.1067470:671:273:2574:576:
11 77:2085:1 91:11 96:13.1697:6
though 3:10 21:12 63:10 68:1 74:
1685:489:24
thought 23:7 90:22.25 62:2 82:18
thouaand 9:5.8.12 16:1226:7.8
27:11 28:629:1630:640:12.18
41:15.2542:7.1243:2,17.21 44:2
47:3.3 67:10.16 66:2.3 83:6.7.15
96:17
thouaanda 26:1 69:6
thnM9:17 12:11 181441:1048:
2069:1083:7
tranaerlptton 98:5
'19:12 i
16:17 I
53:8,1055:1259:2361 1.17
14:7,1515:4 !
14:837:1
37:1.2438:239:554101
59:13.1960:9.1561:9.16.196620 !
67:7
59:15.202560:2
15:1425:326:19.21
ranching 16:4
triad 76:13
truck 92:25
trua 78:20 80:3.4 98:4
try 18:526:1 41:1261 8759
trying 43:14 57:7,18 58:23 68 3
79:1383:9
turn 28: 13 93:2
tumad66:6
wanty-Ava 8:25 9: 1 81 1 2,23 83
wanty-ttva-yaar 829
two 12:11 17:720:1824:2336:9
38:24 39:23 56:7.7 60:24 67 4 77
1983:696:16
typa 35:7 48: 13 53:4
typaa609
typical 16: 11 60:8
typically 8:24 10 22 48 2 _
u
UAO 5:24
Uh-huh10:7 21:10 40:14 58:17
62:20 75:13 76:3,15 81:14 87 3
95:18
ukravtotot 70.22 72:8
unaccaptabla 9:13.14 29:25 30 4.
2431:1 40:11.19.2241:20.21 42:5
43:12.15 65:6 82:15.23 87 14 92
18
uncontamtnatad 64:2 :
undar4:21 5:1.246:21 8:1 10 14. <
18.1932:147:662:1487:19947. ,
8
undoruaa 17:23 18.2020:10
underlying 19:2520:15
understand 41:18 53:15 54 6 55 1
57:3.21 62:4 67:22 69 2 70:22 78
-------
1288:21 89:11 92:21 96 18
undMMndlnge: 17 90:4
JOOftMOMIGo) Of-O
undartakan 92:6
unhMMiy53:13
unilateral 521
UnK 2:19 3.6.7.16.17,21 4:2.8,18
7:5.6.9,9 10:14.18.19 12:7.15,18,
2325 13:24 15:10.25 17:6 33:16
62:4
UnNad 13:11.12
unto 3:5,11,12 18:14 20:1551:18
UNKNOWN 42:21 68:18 60:23 81:
1.4
unkMB39:1295.16
unWM««rtealty22:10
w
Waft 68:6
69:19
78:22
69:5
want 7: IB 12:24 24:7 26:17 61:18
68:23 70:14 85:16 88:10 90:7.10.
12.13.1593:2
7:2311:915:723:1744:4
57:559:1179:1893:7
53:12
warning 31:15
WMTMI9:14
29:11
.50:6
1:932:733:5.10,11.15.17.
19.1937:261:1163:14.16.1864:1
2.3.465:667:3.787:13
watcned 44:12
water 5:2022 7:3 13:19.20.22 22:
2224:10,11,17.2225:2250:1765:
15 69:17 70:6 73:2.3,5,13.19
water* 14:21
way 16:1853 10.1857:8.10.1858
2350:4,961:1 68:1471:4
way* 32:6
Well11:5 77:8 86:14 97:22.22
we're 2:5.1825 5:159:13 10:11.
2.2311:1912:15,1623:1731:25.
25.25 34:3 35:1,19,20.22 36:1,17
37:9.1641:8.11,1443:547:4.14.
4,1548:3.751:1457:961:965:
768:1.371:375:15.19.1976:24
79:1280:6.1282:284:1089:894
1 95:1996:10.1897:14
(Mk 8:22 81:13
weigh 68:6.7 77:20
welBhtd 36 18
weight 36:3
weight 68:6 77:16
Waff 10:10 11:7 14:12 15:9 16:4
7:7.8.9 20:6 21:11 22:5 24:5 26:7
29:1833:1 35:4 37:22 42: tO.23
48:1749:250:853:1 54:2256:19
57:24 64:5.1724 67:5.25 68.21.24
73:16 76:24 78:17 80:23 83:8 85:3
86:1088:594:18.19.2095:2,10
Mile 15:18 17:7 19:23 24:12 38:6
7:9
1647:9
16:993:14
57:15
what's 17:10 18:7 21:6 22:3 36:21
17:1864:212268:6.1473:1283:
085:5
1:10
O, r
Whereaa62:14
whether 28:23.24 31:17 48:7.8
63:1874:976:5,11 85:1689:21
92:19
Who'* 55:15,16 61:25 68:4
18.1545:2291:16.21
wW 6:11 8:16.1811:1 12:11 13:21
9:1 225,6.1737:1740:2341:10
50:1358:21 50:7.7.6.11 63:13,22
64:13 77:8.9 78:3.5.6 79:7,8.11
88:2297:18.19
WILLIAMS 44:6.7 46:1020 47:8
68:878:11.1779:780:188:1691:
25
wttMn 30:19 70:2 96:24
wtttKMM 41:156:8
14:7.8.927:771:3
2:193:1813:9.13
5:12V14 26": 10 68:25
lord* 16:12 26:24 28:23 40:17
48:551:2074:1887:9
work 5:24 6:13 8:2 13:5 50:3 67
2485:2287:10
144:11.122045:25
22:1529:193025358
39:2048:1187:10
11:1436:1385:1
working 14:10 31:7 51:7 53:7
work* 53:2325 61:7
world 57:17 64:14
worth 16:12 34:11 35:13
WouMnt 23:1187:16 91:17
writing 79:23
wrtttan 1Z8 76:25 78:7
wrong 26:18 54:15 59:2
1:19
yi'57.16
rard»6:447:lO
roar 34:11 35:21 69:2281:24 83
17.1993:9.10
yoan 8:22 9:1 21:1334:17 44:19
45:14 49:24.25 50:1 51:23.24 53:
2264:1368:1769 1081 12.2382
6.172284:2.8.12.16
yat 60:25
------- |