I
5
o
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Office of Inspector General

                   At  a  Glance
                                                             09-P-0162
                                                           June 8, 2009
                                                                 Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review

We conducted this review to
determine if the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) allowed
appropriate community
involvement and provided
adequate notice when selecting
the East Mission Flats (EMF),
Idaho, repository location; and
included flood controls in
repository design to minimize
potential for releasing
contaminants.

Background

An environmental organi-
zation located in Kellogg,
Idaho, complained to the
Office of Inspector General
(DIG) Hotline that EPA did
not follow Superfund
requirements in designing the
repository. The group alleged
the public was not notified
appropriately of repository
plans and did not have an
opportunity to provide
comments.



For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202)566-2391.

To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/
20090608-09-P-0162.pdf
Contaminated Soil Waste Repository at
East Mission Flats, Idaho
 What We Found
EPA Region 10 and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ)
provided opportunities for the community to become involved and notified the
public when selecting the East Mission Flats repository site location and soliciting
comments on the proposed plan, location, and designs.

We found that many physical aspects of flooding have been investigated and
considered in the design process. However, we also found that the geochemical
aspects and potential for releasing dissolved contaminants had yet to be
investigated. The proposed repository site is located in an area that floods
annually. Region 10 and IDEQ have not sufficiently analyzed the geochemical
conditions that are expected to form near the repository base, the potential for
annual flooding to introduce water into the repository, and the possibility that
dissolved contaminants will migrate away from the repository. In response to our
concerns, Region  10 and IDEQ prepared a draft scope of work for the needed
analysis.  Much of that work was completed and included in Region 10's response
to our draft report. But the work leaves unresolved the amount of water that will
be introduced into the repository with flooding and rising groundwater levels.
 What We Recommend
We recommended that EPA Region 10 finish analyzing the geochemical and
physical conditions that may lead to contaminants dissolving near the repository
base; then confirm the adequacy of the repository design to prevent dissolved
contaminants from being released under these conditions.

Region 10 concurred with the recommendation and prepared a technical analysis.
We acknowledge that the new work is extensive, especially the unsaturated zone
modeling. However, the Region's analysis included assumptions, with consequent
conclusions, that the OIG believes require technical verification. The Region
should address these issues in its 90-day response to the final report. The
recommendation will remain open.

-------