EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Smeltertown Site EPA ID: COD983769738 OU 02 Salida, CO


                                    EPA/ROD/R08-98/080
                                    1998
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     SMELTERTOWN SITE
     EPA ID: COD983769738
     OU02
     SALIDA, CO
     06/04/1998

-------
EPA 541-R98-080

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466

JUN 24 1998

To Addressees Listed on Attachment

SUBJECT: Smeltertown Superfund 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 Superfund 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.

Enclosure
cc: Martin O'Grady, CDPHE

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, Esguire
Till & 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

-------
                       Smeltertown Superfund Site
                    Former Koppers Wood Treating Site
                             Salida, Colorado
                           Record of Decision

                             TABIiE OF CONTENTS

List of Acronyms	ii-1

The glossary of Terms	iii-1

Tables	iv-1

Figures	V-l

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     Site Summary	2-1

3 . 0     Site 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 Site 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 Obj ectives	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 Site 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    EPA' 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,
                Retired	13-3
        13.2.4  Comments from Shannon K. Craig,  Program Manager of
                Beazer East, Incorporated	13-5
        13.2.5  Comments from Randy L.  Sego,  Tilly & Graves Attorneys at Law,  on
                behalf of Butala Construction Company	13-8

-------
                                list of Acronyms
AOC -
ARARs -
CDPHE -
CERCLA -
COG -
CTE -
DNAPL -
EPA -
FFS -
HHBRA -
HRS -
MCLs -
MCLGs -
MRA -
NCP -
NPL -
PAH -
PCB -
ppb -
ppm -
PRG -
PRP -
POTWs -
PWC -
RA -
RAO -
RCRA -
RD -
RI -
RME -
ROD -
SARA -
TBC -
TPH -
TSCA -
Administrative Order on Consent
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
Chemical of Concern
Central Tendency Exposure
Dense, Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
Environmental Protection Aqency
Focused Feasibility Study
Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment
Hazard Rankinq System
Maximum Contaminant Levels
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
Mininq Restriction Area
National Continqency Plan
National Priorities List
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
parts per billion
parts per million
Preliminary Remediation Goals
Potentially Responsible Party
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Present Worth Cost
Remedial Action
Remedial Action Objectives
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Desiqn
Remedial Investiqation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
To be considered
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
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 Reguirements: Those cleanup standards, standards or control, and other substantive
reguirements, 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 reguirements may be applicable.

Aguifer: A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation capable of yielding a
significant amount of groundwater to wells or springs.

Capital Costs: The costs of items such as buildings, eguipment, engineering, and construction.
Construction costs include labor, eguipment 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 eguivalent 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-Agueous Phase Liguids (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 10 -4 to 1 X 10 -6 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 guantify (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.

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 EPAs 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.

-------
Offsite: The area located outside of the physical boundaries of the Smeltertown site.

Onsite: The area within the physical boundaries of the Smeltertown site.

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)/parts 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 Biphenyl (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 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 Reguirements: Those cleanup standards, standards of control, and
other substantive reguirements,  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 CERCIA
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 reguirements 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
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 reguires 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.

                                         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

                                          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 Glacial/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

-------
                                          Section  1.0
                           DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

1.1 Site 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-agueous phase liquids (DNAPL)  within the groundwater.

The major components of the selected remedy include the following:

       •      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.

       •      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.

-------
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 Mosguito 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 cottonwood 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.

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 (ft 3/sec). The average annual
discharge from 1991 to 1993 is approximately 590 ft 3/sec. 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 aguifer, lower terrace aguifer, Arkansas River alluvial aguifer and underlying all
three of these aguifers are the glacial and basin-fill deposits. Groundwater beneath the Site in
the Upper Terrace Aguifer moves to the south. Water levels in monitoring wells on Site completed
in this aguifer have been measured on a guarterly 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
Aguifer 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 Aguifer,
-------
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.

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-VIII-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
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
particulate 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 reguest
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 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 I 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 II 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
groundwater 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 areal extent of the wood treating subsite. The Response
Action for the smelter subsite calls for containment of contaminated soils under an engineered
cap with groundwater 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 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.

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.
-------
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:

• OU One: 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 groundwater by ensuring no further migration of the DNAPL plume or dissolved
PAHs in the Upper Terrace Aguifer.

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 budding, 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 subseguent 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
budding, on the north side of the old Chaffee 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 budding, retort and storage tanks. The lagoons were backfilled but are stiff
identifiable from aerial photographs. In the process area, sods 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 sods were removed from the Site by Beazer in 1992. Sods
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 Aguifer
-------
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 leavinq a residual coatinq of DNAPL on
the surface of the aquifer material. The remaininq DNAPL at the base of the aquifer miqrated
alonq the upper surface of the qlacial/basin fill deposits that qenerally slopes to the east.
Dissolved wood-treatinq constituents, on the other hand, moved in the direction of qroundwater
flow to the south and southwest towards the bluff (see fiqure 2-7).

DNAPL is present in Sprinq 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 sprinq and the soils in the immediate vicinity
(within 15 feet) are currently the only location where visible, free phase DNAPL is found at the
qround surface. The source of this DNAPL is probably the former storaqe tanks west of the
process buildinq.

Soil

Surface soil collected from qridded samplinq locations contained less than 100 mq/kq total PAHs
(TPAH) with the exception of one location near the laqoons. Near-surface soil (2 to 5 feet in
depth) collected from the qridded samplinq locations contained lower levels of TPAH with the
exception of one location on the east side of the Site where the qrid location is on or near a
former railroad qrade.

Visually impacted soils were found in the process areas and the laqoons extendinq from just
beneath the qround surface to the bottom of the upper terrace aquifer at a depth of about 40
feet. No visually impacted soils were seen within the qlacial/basin-fill deposits which underlie
the upper terrace aquifer. Visually unimpacted soils immediately adjacent to both areas
contained TPAH at levels less than 100 mq/kq.

The pole plant was an isolated facility for treatinq 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 mq/kq TPAH. TPAH concentrations of approximately 15,000 mq/kq were found
in the sample associated with wood fraqments and a sample from the base of the Upper Terrace
Aquifer contained 121 mq/kq TPAH.

Investiqation of the upper terrace area where Butala has reportedly buried creosote-impacted
surface soil revealed the presence of at least four trenches containinq buried soil impacted
with wood-treatinq constituents. The trenches do not extend beyond a depth of about 20 feet, and
thus are above the water table. Available evidence suqqests that constituents have not miqrated
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 mq/kq found in subsurface soil.

A statistical summary of individual PAH concentrations by area are found in Tables A-l throuqh
A-13 in the appendix A of Focused Feasibility Study Former Koppers Wood Treatinq Site, Salida,
Colorado dated Auqust 1997.

Groundwater

Three qroundwater monitorinq wells were installed by USEPA at the Site (KRMW-1, KRMW-2, and
KRMW-4) and seven wells were installed by Beazer. (KRMW-5, KRN4W-6, KRMW-7S, 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
qlacial/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 hiqh
levels were detected and small droplets of floatinq product were observed durinq samplinq of the
well. KRMW-6 is located down qradient of the laqoons. Low levels of COPCs were detected in
KRMW-7D within the qlacial/basin-fill deposits at the elevation of the river. The levels of
COPCs detected in water from KRMW-7D collected durinq two samplinq events do not exceed MCLs;
not all compounds, however, have correspondinq 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 uq/1). B(a)P was detected at Sprinq No. 5 (7.9 uq/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 (1.1 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 Aguifer 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 Aguifer or the Arkansas River Alluvial Aguifer. 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 Aguifer.

The movement of COPCs dissolved in groundwater is likely to be very slow due to their tendency
to adsorb to aguifer 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 Aguifer. 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.

6.1.1 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 guotient 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 egual 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.
Table 1: Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Soil

Constituent Concentration (mg/kg) 1

Benzo(a)anthracene 780
Benzo(a)pyrene 78
Benzo(b)flouranthene 780
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 78
Indeno(1,2,3-ed)pyrene 780
Pentachlorophenol 4,768
HpCDD 0.2
HxCDD 0.02
HxCDF 0.02
OCDD 2 .0

[1 Concentrations were calculated for a 1 in 10,000 target risk level under an
industrial worker scenario.]

6.1.2 Subunits

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
reguire 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 aguifers and represents the down gradient termination of the perched
aguifer. Because the aguifer 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:

• 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).
-------
Subunit 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 aguifer. 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.

Subunit 3 - Saturated (30 to 40 feet) Soils

Subunit 3 consists of those soils that are beneath the upper level of the perched aguifer,
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 aguifer as well as the Upper Terrace
Aguifer. 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 reguire
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.

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 COG 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 VIII 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:
-------
• Evaluating if the chemical concentration in each sample is
greater than the chemical concentration expected under natural background
conditions;
• Determining the freguency with which a particular chemical is detected;
• Using the toxicity-concentration screen, identifying those chemicals, by
media, that have concentrations that exceed generic preliminary remediation goals;
• Exceedance of applicable or relevant and appropriate reguirements (ARARs); and
• 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(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, pentachlorophenol,
phenanthrene, HpCDD, HpCDF, HxCDD, HxCDF, OCDD, OCDF, and PeCDD. COPCs 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
reguired for household use of groundwater on parcels smaller than 35 acres in size. A domestic
well permit is reguired 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 particulates 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:

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 seeps/springs originating from the perched aguifer

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 Toxicitv 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.

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 day 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 -6 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.
Table 2: Historic Wood Treating
Summary of Estimated Cancer Risks

Scenario/Exposure Pathway RME CTE

Current Sand & Gravel Worker Scenario
-Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil 1 x 10 -4 9 x 10 -6
-Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil 2 x 10 -6 1 x 10 -7
CUMULATIVE TOTALS 1 x 10 -4 9 x 10 -6
Potential Future Construction Worker Scenario
-Incidental Ingestion of Subsurface Soil 5 x 10 -6 7 x 10 -7
-Inhalation of particulates from Subsurface Soil 2 x 10 -8 5 x 10 -9
CUMULATIVE TOTALS 5 x 10 -6 7 x 10 -7

Potential Future Residential Scenario
-Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil 5 x 10 -4 5 x 10 -5
-Inhalation of particulates from Surface Soil 6 x 10 -6 1 x 10 -6
-Ingestion of Groundwater from the Regional Aguifer 7 x 10 -7 1 x 10 -7
CUMULATIVE TOTALS 5 x 10 -4 5 x 10 -5
The potential for occurrence of any adverse systemic effects is estimated by dividing the
chemical intake by its RfD. If the resulting "hazard guotient" is less than one, the potential
for toxic effects is low. If the guotient exceeds one, this is an indicator that toxic effects
may occur.

To assess multiple chemical exposure using the RfD, EPA developed the "hazard index." This
involves adding up the individual hazard guotients. If the sum exceeds one, it indicates a
higher potential for adverse effect. Any single chemical with a hazard guotient greater than one
will cause the hazard guotient to exceed one.
-------
Table 3: Historic Wood Treating
Summary of Estimated Noncancer Hazard Index

Scenario/Exposure Pathway RME CTE

Current Sand & Gravel Worker Scenario
-Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil 2.4E-01 1.1E-01
-Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil 3.2E-02 8.9E-03
CUMULATIVE TOTALS 2.7E-01 1.2E-01
Potential Future Construction Worker Scenario
-Incidental Ingestion of Subsurface Soil 2.1E-02 2.9E-03
-Inhalation of particulates from Subsurface Soil 1.4E-02 4.3E-03
CUMULATIVE TOTALS 3.5E-02 7.2E-03

Potential Future Residential Scenario
-Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil 9.1E-01 3.0E-01
-Inhalation of particulates from Surface Soil 7.7E-02 5.1E-02
-Ingestion of Groundwater from the Regional Aguifer 2.3E+01 1.1E+01
-Ingestion of Seeps/Springs originating from the
Perched aguifer (child) 2.1E-02 4.9E-03
CUMULATIVE TOTALS 2.4E+01 1.1E+01
The HHBRA identifies a risk from ingestion of lead in groundwater within the Regional Aguifer
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 arithmetic mean of 896 ug/L for total lead. The
other monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-6 and MW-3) have an arithmetic 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 Aguifer 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
• Fate and transport estimation
• Exposure estimation
• Toxicological 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 conseguently, 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 guantitative evaluation of risk to the terrestrial and aguatic 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 reguirements 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 guantifies, 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 aguatic 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 aguatic
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 aguatic 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
aguatic ecosystem.

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 reguired 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, reguired 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 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:

Subunit 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.

Subunit 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 egual 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 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
reguire, 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, reguirement, criteria, or limitation." Thus, this section
of CERCLA reguires that applicable and relevant and appropriate reguirements (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 reguires 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 reguirements, unless otherwise specified. Permit applications and
other administrative procedures such as administrative reviews and reporting and record keeping
reguirements are not considered ARARs for actions conducted entirely onsite. Offsite actions
must comply with all legally applicable reguirements, both substantive and administrative.

"Applicable" reguirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection reguirements, 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 reguirements may be applicable. Applicable reguirements must be met to
the full extent reguired by the law, unless a waiver has been applied for and is granted.

"Relevant and appropriate" reguirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and
other substantive environmental protection reguirements, 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 reguirements may be relevant and appropriate.

EPA's guidance classifies ARARs into three types: chemical-specific, action-specific, and
location-specific reguirements. Chemical-specific reguirements 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 reguirements are
performance- or activity-based reguirements or limitations on actions taken with respect to
hazardous substances. Action-specific reguirements set controls on particular kinds of
activities related to the management of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Location-specific reguirements are restrictions placed on the concentration of hazardous
substances or the conduct of activities solely because they occur in special locations.
-------
Specific ARAR

National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations

Colorado Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Colorado Groundwater
Standards
Table 4: CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site

Reguirement

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.

Establishes a system for classifying
groundwater and adopting water guality.
standards to protect existing and potential
beneficial uses.
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
-Reguires that a source not exceed
NAAQS or State AAQS.
Citation

40 CFR Part 141,
including Subparts
B and G.

5 CCR 1003-1
5 CCR 1002-8,
Sec. 3.11.0
40 CFR Part 50,
National Primary
and Secondary
Ambient Air
Quality Standards

Colorado Air
Quality Control
Regulations, 5 CCR
1001-3, Regulation
3, Section IV D.
Comments

See below.
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 Aguifer (perched
aguifer) and the Regional Aguifer
(Arkansas River Alluvial Aguifer 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

Air pollution regulations are applicable to
the control of fugitive dust and particulate
emissions at the Site. The NAAQS
standards are not enforceable in and of
themselves, but rather emission
standards, which are promulgated to attain
the NAAQS, are directly enforceable as
ARARs. Those standards and reguirements
include the fugitive dust standard, standards
as to particulate emissions, and an analysis
to assure that any emissions will not cause
the air guality to degenerate beyond any
pertinent level. Ongoing gravel mining and
future construction could release
particulates to the air at the Site.
Additionally, there are air issues with the
recycling alternative. These are addressed
in the Action-Specific ARARs.
-------
Table 5: ACTION-SIECIFIC ARARS
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Action
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
Comments
Identification of
hazardous wastes
Generation of hazardous
wastes.
Requires the identification of
hazardous wastes as listed
wastes or testinq to
determine characteristic
hazardous waste.
Sets out requirements for
qenerators of hazardous
waste.
Generation of solid
waste that may be a
listed or
characteristic
hazardous wastes.
Generation of listed
or characteristic
hazardous wastes.
40 CFR 261,
Subparts B-D,
6 CCR 1007-3,
Part 261, B-D.
40 CFR 262,
Subparts A, C
and D.
6 CCR 1007-3
Part 262, A, C
and D.
Applicable to asphalt recyclinq
alternative. No action or institutional
controls will not result in the qeneration
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
characteristics wastes are present

Relevant and appropriate requirements
Applicable if testinq demonstrates the
presence of RCRA characteristic waste
May be applicable to samplinq and
investiqation-derived wastes.
Transportation of
hazardous waste.
On-site treatment and
storaqe of hazardous
waste.
On-site storaqe of
hazardous waste in
waste piles.
Sets standards and
requirements for transporters
of hazardous waste.
General,
preparedness/prevention and
continqency/emerqency
standards for owners and
operators of hazardous waste
treatment, disposal and
storaqe facilities.

Establishes requirements to
protect releases to
qroundwater from waste
piles. Requires liner to
prevent miqration to
qroundwater and leachate
collection and removal
system.
Transport of
hazardous waste.
Storaqe 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.
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,
Subpart L
6 CCR 1007-3,
Part 264, L.
Relevant and appropriate requirements
Applicable if testinq demonstrates the
presence of RCRA characteristic waste
May be applicable to samplinq and
investiqation-derived wastes.

Applicable, if material is characteristic
hazardous waste, to cold-mix asphalt
production (excavation and recyclinq)
alternative which will recycle impacted
creosote soils on site. Relevant and
appropriate if it is not.
Applicable if testinq demonstrates the
presence of RCRA characteristic waste
Relevant and appropriate if it is not
-------
Action

On-site treatment in
tanks.
Discharge of water to
surface water bodies
Discharge to
Publicity-Owned
Treatment Works
("POTW")
Table 5: ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Page 2 of 3

Reguirement

Establishes reguirements 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
reguirements.

Reguires National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permit and
substantive reguirements for
discharges to waters of the State of
Colorado. If discharge is
contained on-site no permit is
reguired; however, the substantive
reguirements 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
reguirements.

RCRA permit-by-rule
reguirements must be complied
with for discharges of RCRA
hazardous waste to POTWs.
Prereguisite

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
Chaffee 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 reguirements 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 on recycling.
-------
Action

New Source
Performance
Standards ("NSPS")
Emission of
Hazardous Air
Pollutants ("HAPs")
Table 5: ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Page 2 of 3

Requirement

These are source specific
standards which apply to new
sources and which limit the
amount of criteria pollutants,
including particulates 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.
Prerequisite

Emissions from
new sources
Discharge of
hazardous air
pollutants.
Citation

New Source
Performance
Standards
(NSPSs)
40 CFR Part
Chapter 1
5 CCR 1001-6
60,
National
Emissions
Standards for
Hazardous Air
Pollutants
(HAPs)
40 CFR Part 60
5 CCR 1001-8.
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 initiated, an evaluation must be
conducted to determine whether there
are HAP standards which are
applicable or relevant and
appropriate.
Air emissions
Regulates particulates, smoke and
opacity limits for new and existing
stationary sources.
Emissions from
stationary source
Emission
Control
40 CFR Part 60
5 CCR 1001-1
Applicable to cold-mix asphalt
production (excavation and recycling)
alternative, if initiated.
Emission of odors
Restricts the emission of odorous
air contaminants based on
detection in residential and
industrial areas.
Emission of
odorous air to
atmosphere
5 CCR 1001-2
Applicable to cold-mix asphalt
production (excavation and recycling)
alternative, if initiated.
-------
Table 6: POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Page 2 of 2
Standard, Requirement, Criteria Description
or Limitation
Evaluation
Historic Site, Buildings,
Antiquities Act
16 USC Section 461-467
and 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.
Colorado Mined Land
Reclamation Act

CRS 37-90-101-141
Establishes requirements for mined lands
mine generated waste piles.
and
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 1976. No other historic
landmarks or properties exist on or near
Smeltertown Superfund Site.

Applicable for the recycling/cold-mix asphalt
production option and for any mining operations at
the site.
-------
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
Eguivalent 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., g 1*, Carcinogen Assessment Group (GAG) 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 aguifer 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 (Part A)
EPA 540/1-89/002, December 1989. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B: "Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals") OSWER Directive 9285.7-01B. December 13, 1991. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part C: Risk
Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives). OSWER Directive 9285.7-01C, December 13, 1991.
• Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factors", OSWER Directive
9285.6-03, March 25, 1991.
U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
• EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group (GAG) potency factors.
• Federal Sole Source Aguifer reguirements.
-------
Table 7: TO BE CONSIDERED CRITERIA ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
Operable Unit #2, Smeltertown Site
Page 2 of 3

ACTION-SPECIFIC

CERCLA off-site Policy. (May 12, 1986), Revised November 1, 3 1987, OSWER Dir. 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.
-------
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 1998) 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 and 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 Reguirements at POTWs.
• Application of Corrective Action Reguirements 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.
-------
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 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 farther refine the boundaries of the MRA potentially reducing
the area to less than 6.6 acres.

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 SVOCs 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 on 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
reguirements 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 eguipment to be used, and develop a monitoring
program to ensure that workers are protected;

• Discharge Permit: In the event that groundwater within the Upper Terrace Aguifer
is encountered during excavation and subseguently discharged to surface water
such as the Arkansas River or to groundwater recharge wells, the mining operator
will be reguired to obtain a discharge permit from CDPHE. Depending on the
condition of the water encountered, treatment may be reguired; and

• Mining Permit: Mining and reuse operations will reguire 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
guality and guantity 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 reguire 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 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 aguifer (KRMW-7D); and alluvial aguifer (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.

8.4.3 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, in 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 reguired if mining continues from the vadose zone into the 30
to 40 feet deep saturated zone (or subunit 3). Groundwater impacted by PAHs may reguire
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
reguired to treat groundwater to within state water guality criteria. For costing purposes, the
total volume of water to be treated was assumed to be 4.8 million gallons based on the aguifer
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.

8.4.4 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 reguirements 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), groundwater management will be reguired 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 reguirements 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
-------
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.

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 reguired 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 Reguirements 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
reguirements and relevant and appropriate reguirements 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
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 Toxicity, 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 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 eguipment, 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 egually 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, eguipment, labor, land purchases) and indirect capital
costs (engineering, licenses, or permits). Long-term O&M costs include labor, materials,
energy, eguipment 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.

9.1 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 and 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 reguirements (ARARs) is a threshold
criteria that must be met by the selected remedy. Compliance with ARARs reguires 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, 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 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

• 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 Acceptance

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.

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.

Section 10.0
Selected Site Remedy

Based upon consideration of the reguirements 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 groundwater 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 freguency, 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
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 VIII 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:

Table 9: Final Remediation Levels for Soil

Constituent Concentration (mg/kg) 1
Benzo(a)anthracene 780
Benzo(a)pyrene 78
Benz o(b)f1ouranthene 780
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 78
Indeno(1,2,3-ed)pyrene 780
Pentachlorophenol 4,768
HpCDD 0.2
HxCDD 0.02
HxCDF 0.02
OCDD 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/1(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

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 guality 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 Aguifer (perched aguifer) and the Regional Aguifer (Arkansas River
Alluvial Aguifer 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).
-------
Description

Legal Fees

Monitoring well
Installation

Fence Installation

Subtotal

Health and Safety

Mobil/Demobil

Legal/Permit

Constr.
Admin/Supervision

Engineering and Design

Total
Table 9: Cost of Remedy - Monitoring and Institutional Controls

Unit Cost Method Material and Labor Method
Costs

.ntity
2
2
1

10%
5%
25%
10%
0%

Material
Unit Unit Price Cost Quantity Unit
Is 10000.00 20,000
ea 2500.00 5,000
ea 2000.00 2,000
27,000
2,700
1,350
6,750
2,700
0
40,500

Unit Price Cost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Labor
Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

20,000
5,000
2,000
27,000
2,700
1,350
6,750
2,700
0
40,500
-------
Description
GW Sampling &
Analysis (5 wells, 2
springs)

Annual Report

Fence Repair Labor

Subtotal

Present Worth Cost
Table 9: Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimate

Unit Cost Method Material and Labor Method

Material Labor
Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Quantity Unit Unit Price
1500.00
10,500
1

12
ea 3000.00 3,000

hour 25.00 300

13,800

Cost
0
0
0
0

Annual
O&M
Costs

10,500
3,000
300
13,800
253,000
-------
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.

Section 12.0
Statutory Determinations

EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund 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
qranted. The selected remedy must also be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technoloqies or resource recovery technoloqies to the maximum extent
practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that employ treatments that
permanently and siqnificantly 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 Conductinq Remedial Investiqations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA
(1988) indicates that protectiveness may be achieved by reducinq exposure throuqh actions such
as containment, limitinq access, or providinq an alternative water supply. The remedial actions
described for the selected remedy reduces the exposure to the impacted soil by restrictinq
residential development and mininq 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 throuqh exposure to contaminated
qroundwater and soil durinq well installation and samplinq 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 qroundwater at the Site does not currently pose a siqnificant human health risk
because the qroundwater is not presently beinq used for drinkinq water or other domestic uses.
Thus, there are no completed exposure pathways. The qroundwater monitorinq will ensure that
miqration of contaminated qroundwater and DNAPL plume does not miqrate further. Groundwater
monitorinq will allow for evaluatinq the performance of the selected remedy and the need for
additional action.

12.2 Compliance with ARARs

Under Section 121(d)(1) 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.

12.3 Cost Effectiveness

Section 300.430(f)(1)(ii)(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 evaluatinq the followinq three
of the five balancinq criteria to determine overall effectiveness: lonq-term effectiveness and
permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume throuqh 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 qravel and sand operations to continue with a
restriction of mininq 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)(1)(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.

12.5 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 groundwater monitoring program will allow for evaluation of changes in groundwater
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.

12.6 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.
-------
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.

13.2 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 guestionable
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
acguiring cancer. In short, EPA is protecting the one person in 10,000 persons who might acguire
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 guantity. 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 guantity of
creosote at this Site. It is the concentration and guantity 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.

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. McMurrv, 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 adeguate 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
eguipped 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 adeguate, 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.

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 eguipment available (e.g., the audio eguipment). 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
guestions. 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 guite a number of types of earth removal, i.e.,
guarry, glory hole, etc. I 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 Superfund 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 order of 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.
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, CDPBE 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 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 Site 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 ("PRAP").

Page 3 - It appears that the fist 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
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 Superfund 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 aguifer. 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 FFS) - 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").

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 guestion which came up in the public meeting. At the
public meeting, a local resident asked about groundwater (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.

2 0) 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 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.

2 4) 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 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.

-------
1 PUBLIC MEETING

2 re:

3 PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE FORMER
KOPPERS WOODTREATING SITE
4
******
5
SMELTERTOWN SUPERFUND SITE
6
October 27, 1997
7
Senior Center
8 305 F Street
Salida, Colorado
9
10

12
13 Presented by: GWEN HOOTEN (8EPR-SR)
EPA Remedial Proj ect Manager
14 999 18th Street
Suite 500
15 Denver, Colorado 80202-2466
Telephone: (303) 312-6571
16

17
MARTIN O'GRADY
18 State Project Manager
Colorado Department of Public
19 Health and Environment
HMWMD-B2
20 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246
21 (303) 692-3366

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 (Proceedings, Monday, October 27, 1997 7:00 p.m.

2 *****

3 MS. HOOTEN: This is Lisa, our court

4 reporter, and she is going to record everything

5 that we're saying tonight.

6 We would like you to ask guestions

7 during the presentation. So if you have a

8 guestion, please ask it at the time. I think it

9 would be much easier for us to answer the

10 guestion at the time that you have it.

11 When you ask a guestion, would you

12 please state your name so Lisa can get it

13 recorded? okay?

14 This is part of our public outreach.

15 It is a step reguirement for CERCLA, the

16 Comprehensive Environmental Response,

17 Compensation and Liability Act, otherwise known

18 as Superfund. And we're here to talk about

19 Operable Unit 2, which is the woodtreating

20 element at the Smeltertown Site.

21 Now, you all know this area much better

22 than I, because you're right in the heart of

23 Colorado. And this is the area where old County

24 Road 150 is and the Arkansas River. It is this

25 area that we're here to talk about tonight.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 I'm going to go through and describe to

2 you how we had split this site up for purposes of

3 the study. And it's primarily because of the

4 activities that took place in the different

5 operable units that -- where we designed what

6 operable unit it would be.

7 For instance, Operable Unit 1 is this

8 area right here where the smelting activities

9 occurred in the earlier part of the 1900s. And

10 it shut down in 1919. Even though some of these

11 operable units would -- would overlap each other,

12 generally speaking, the smelter operable units,

13 we looked at contaminants coming from that

14 particular activity; things like metals, lead,

15 arsenic, our primary concern at this site.

16 Operable Unit 2 is the area that has

17 the slash marks. And Operable Unit 2 we

18 primarily looked at the woodtreating PAHs, or

19 things that you would find in gasoline or used

20 oil or primarily in creosote.

21 And then Operable Unit 3 is CoZinCo.

22 And that's an active facility. And I think some

23 of you are very familiar with that facility. We

24 have that being studied by the State of Colorado.

25 So just real guick, I've got an aerial
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 picture of it.

2 Operable Unit 1, again, was the

3 smelting activity where the Ohio and Colorado

4 Smelting and Refining Company initiated actions

5 in the early 1900s. They processed ore to

6 produce gold, silver, lead and copper, and they

7 ceased operations in 1919.

8 Operable Unit 2, it's about 80 acres.

9 It would -- it was leased to a timber company in

10 1924. Koppers Company, Incorporated, was the

11 last owner and operator of the property, and they,

12 ceased operations in 1953. Koppers changed their

13 name several times. They are now known as

14 Beazer, Incorporated. Beazer East, Incorporated.

15 In 1962 Koppers sold the property to

16 the H.E. Lowdermilk Company, which then sold to

17 the Butala Construction Company.

18 And Operable Unit 3 is the CoZinCo

19 facility which began its operations in 1977 and

20 continues its operations today. It's currently

21 under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,

22 Known as RCRA. It is a cradle-to-grave oversight

23 that the regulatory agencies look to ensure

24 that contamination is taken care of at a

25 generation point and then at its disposal point.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 And so this is done -- it's under RCRA.

2 Okay. Some of the regulatory history.

3 Because of the level of contamination at the

4 Site, we proposed this Site for what we refer to

5 as our National Priorities List. That is a list

6 of Superfund sites that we find at a certain

7 level of contamination that render it to be

8 contaminated enough that they make this

9 Priorities List.

10 In May of 19 — May of 1993 we

11 initiated a fund we call Classic -- our classic

12 Emergency Removal Action. What a Classic Removal

13 Action is to us is one that we deem that action

14 has to occur immediately. And for a government

15 time frame, we're saying less than six months.

16 You have less than a six-month time frame to go

17 out and implement the emergency action.

18 In this case we found that there was

19 zinc in the groundwater, and we provided bottled

20 water to residents located downgradient.

21 In 1994 we issued a unilateral order to

22 CoZinCo to supply bottled water.

23 In November of '95, we completed that

24 work under that UAO.

25 In September of '93, we initiated the
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 first phase of a Time-Critical Removal Action.

2 We removed some creosote-contaminated sludge from

3 four residential driveways, lead-contaminated

4 soil from five residential yards, a slag and

5 debris pile and metal-contaminated soil next to

6 the smelter. We completed that action in

7 November of 1995. And some of those actions that

8 we completed were constructing a fence around a

9 stockpiled waste from Phase I.

10 Some of you who have -- who are very

11 familiar with the Site will know that we have

12 nicknamed this pile "Pete's Pile," because Pete

13 was the OSC that was conducting the work at the

14 time.

15 We removed some creosote-contaminated

16 sludge from one more residential property, and we

17 removed surface lead and creosote contamination

18 on the Upper Terrace and from the banks of the

19 Arkansas River.

20 January 10, 1995, Butala Construction

21 provided in-kind services under AOC. They

22 provided eguipment and personnel to assist in the

23 excavation and stockpiling of contamination,

24 on-site contamination, and to the area known as

25 Pete's Pile.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 November 1, 1995, EPA initiated a

2 Fund-Lead Time-Critical Removal Action to provide

3 alternate water supplies to residents.

4 September of '95, we released a Cleanup

5 Proposal for Operable Unit 1. Again, the Smelter

6 Operable Unit.

7 On September 27, 1996, we published an

8 Action Memorandum describing the cleanup that

9 would occur in Operable Unit 1, the Smelter Unit.

10 October of 1997, we released a Proposed

11 Plan. And I'm sure that some of you have

12 received that Proposed Plan. That is what we are

13 going to be talking about tonight is the

14 alternatives that are discussed in that Proposed

15 Plan.

16 For any of those who did not receive

17 one, I have extra copies up here, and I would ask

18 that you pick them up. If you want to see them

19 now...

20 Anybody else?

21 We completed several studies, several

22 to support the removal actions that we just

23 described. But we wanted to talk about the

24 studies that we have completed. And when I say

25 "we," it's not necessarily EPA, but EPA with a
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 PRP group under order with EPA to conduct the

2 work.

3 Beazer East, Incorporated, which is a

4 Potentially Responsible Party, they have

5 completed the Remedial Investigation dated March

6 of 1996, and they have completed a focused

7 Feasibility Study on the Site, and we have some

8 October amendments to that August 1997 document.

9 These are available in the -- in the Salida

10 Library for your review.

11 In addition to these studies, EPA did a

12 site-wide Human Health Risk Assessment. That

13 looked at the level of contamination, the

14 exposure pathways, which we have determined to be

15 an industrial exposure, for the Site. And that

16 is to say we don't expect that residents will

17 build there. Our understanding is that the local

18 zoning will allow residents to build there. So

19 we restrict residents from building there. And

20 we -- we would look at an industrial exposure,

21 which means a person that would be on site for

22 five days a week for a certain number of years --

23 Jane...

24 MS. MITCHELL: It's typically

25 twenty-five.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MS. HOOTEN: - twenty-five years and

2 his exposure to the contaminants of the Site. We

3 quantify that to come up with a level of risk.

4 And our level of risk is defined as anywhere

5 between one in -- one in ten thousand to one in a

6 million is EPA's acceptable risk range for the

7 contaminants that would enhance your contracting

8 cancer. So it's a one in ten thousand to one in

9 a million chance we -- is our acceptable risk

10 range.

11 Anything higher than that, say if it's

12 more than one in ten thousand, we have defined

13 that as an unacceptable risk. And we're looking

14 at the unacceptable risk to warrant action.

15 In order to describe the Site, we

16 subdivided -- we subdivided -- we subdivided it

17 into these three subunits: Subunit 1 occurring

18 at Spring No. 5 -- and Martin's going to discuss

19 the level of contamination that we found at the

20 Site -- Subunit 2, which is the surface and

21 subsurface soils for depths of 30 feet, and then

22 saturated soils at 30 to 40 feet.

23 Now, Martin's going to describe to you

24 the level of contamination. And I need to

25 introduce Martin. He is a project manager for
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 the State of Colorado. He is my counterpart.

2 And I forgot to introduce myself. I am

3 Gwen Hooten with the Environmental Protection

4 Agency.

5 MR. BIGLOW: Ma'am, I have just one

6 guestion with respect to the 30-40 foot depth.

7 MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.

8 MR. BIGLOW: What happens after 40

9 feet?

10 MS. HOOTEN: Well, this — this 30 to

11 40 feet? What we're looking at is groundwater

12 contamination on saturated soils. So we're

13 looking here -- primarily we did not find

14 groundwater problems under this operable unit.

15 We do have zinc in the groundwater --

16 (Reporter interruption)

17 MS. HOOTEN: We didn't find groundwater

18 contamination under Operable Unit 2. We found

19 groundwater contamination under operable Unit 3,

20 the CoZinCo Facility.

21 We had one hit in groundwater. And so

22 that's -- typically you find more than that in an

23 investigation. So we're not seeing that the

24 groundwater is a problem at this time. There is

25 potential that it could become a problem. So
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 Martin will discuss a little bit the level of

2 contamination and describe what the contamination

3 would be.

4 MR. O'GRADY: I might be able to answer

5 the question, too, sir. We'll get into this a

6 little bit with the diagrams.

7 Well, I need to -- in order to help us

8 all get our thinking caps on to review the next

9 section of the presentation, I just wanted to

10 give you all a few points to ponder.

11 This first one is kind of silly.

12 Next one: "If it's a tourist season,

13 why can't we shoot them?" That's kind of cute,

14 but, you know, as workers of -- those of us that

15 are employed by the government, we realize where

16 we fall on the order of things relative to

17 tourists, and it's a little bit below that. We

18 sometimes disguise ourselves as tourists when

19 we're out in the field.

20 This next one, if anybody has read the

21 Proposed Plan, or the Focus Feasibility Study,

22 then they have noticed that there are six

23 alternatives that are presented in that and

24 evaluated.

25 Alternatives 1 and 2, and then
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 Alternatives C through F. So this -- this is a

2 good guestion to ask us a little bit later as to

3 why we developed that nomenclature for the

4 alternatives.

5 I'm going to describe the nature and

6 extent of contamination, as we know it, for

7 Operable Unit 2, which is basically contained in

8 the Remedial Investigation that was written in

9 1996. Actually, the fieldwork for it was done in

10 the spring of '94, and it was finalized in 1996.

11 So this will take about two, three hours -- no,

12 about — hopefully about ten minutes.

13 This is just a map that gives us an

14 overview of the Site. Here is the Arkansas

15 River. Operable Unit 2 that we're describing,

16 that we're here to talk about this evening, is

17 basically in this location. Gwen mentioned or

18 made reference in her discussion of Operable Unit

19 1, which is the Smelter Subsite. That's located

20 generally in this area here.

21 And then, of course, CoZinCo - the

22 CoZinCo facility is located in this position and

23 is Operable Unit 3.

24 I want to show just a little closer up

25 view map of Operable Unit 2.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 But first of all, when we are

2 investigating the nature and extent of

3 contamination — we knew a lot going into this

4 project. Or I should say Beazer, who performed

5 the work, their contractor on this was ENSR out

6 of Ft. Collins, knew a lot about the Site

7 already.

8 We know, for example, that the main

9 woodtreating product that was used at the Site

10 was creosote. And creosote is used commonly

11 throughout the United States -- or was used

12 commonly throughout the United States — in

13 woodtreating facilities. It's a dense,

14 non-agueous phase liguid, or what we refer to as

15 a DNAPL. It's made up of polynuclear aromatic

16 hydrocarbons; sixteen of them to be exact.

17 Sixteen specific compounds. It's a mixture of

18 those compounds -- little bit redundant, but it's

19 heavier than water, so when it goes down into the

20 ground and does eventually get to the water

21 table, it will tend to sink. And it doesn't mix

22 with the water, and it's a very viscous, oily

23 Substance.

24 A little closer look at Operable Unit 2

25 from historic records and air photos, it was
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 known that the there were some specific areas on

2 the Upper Terrace where -- where there were

3 specific source areas. One was the process area,

4 which is generally in here. It included a

5 building, which contained retort -- retorts,

6 which are basically steel cylinders into which

7 the wood that was being treated was put in for

8 pressure treating to impregnate the wood product,

9 wood preservative.

10 There was also some working tanks

11 located just north of the process building, as

12 well as some storage tanks over here.

13 And then insignificantly there were

14 railroad tracks. After the -- after the material

15 was treated it was brought out and allowed to

16 drip on the ground surface onto the drip tracks

17 before them being stored elsewhere on the Site.

18 Another discrete source area on the

19 site are these process or -- excuse me -- lagoons

20 that are located in this area where processed

21 waters were disposed of. These were unlined.

22 Another source area is not shown on the

23 map, but it's generally in this area right here,

24 where some materials and creosote-contaminated

25 material was actually moved to this area after
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 the woodtreating operations were over.

2 And then finally, we have a pole plant

3 area to the east where telephone poles were --

4 were treated.

5 This next map just shows the

6 location -- or let me go back. I have another —

7 I just wanted to make a couple comments on what

8 the investigation included, and that was surface

9 sampling, as well as near-surface soil sampling.

10 The area of the entire Operable Unit was gridded

11 and certain sampling freguencies and samples were

12 obtained from near-surface, and then -- or excuse

13 me -- from surface, and then from near-surface.

14 There were also a number of trenches

15 installed for all of the known source areas. And

16 there were soil bores that were drilled down to

17 the base of contamination and deeper. And there

18 were monitoring wells that were installed. And

19 samples from all of these were analyzed, and the

20 results of that are basically what are contained

21 in the Remedial Investigation.

22 And additionally, springs were sampled

23 along the -- the bluff here adjacent to the

24 river.

25 So this map shows Operable Unit 2
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 again, and some lines on the map that are lines

2 of cross-sections that are constructed through

3 the -- through the subsurface control what we

4 have from the trenching and from the well

5 installation.

6 And the next graph that -- or next map

7 I'm going to show you is a Cross-section A-A

8 Prime. It goes from southwest to northeast

9 through the west side of the process area.

10 Okay. So this is Cross-section A-A

11 Prime. And this is the typical -- picture's

12 worth a thousand words. We could actually have

13 our entire discussion based on this one diagram,

14 because this does summarize pretty much what is

15 known of the Site.

16 Southwest to northeast appears the

17 Arkansas River. And then as we traverse toward

18 the northeast, go way up on the Upper Terrace,

19 which is about 90 feet vertically above the

20 elevation of the river -- I should point out that

21 the -- this diagram is sgueezed horizontally.

22 It's exaggerated five times. So that's why it

23 looks sgueezed to this dimension.

24 A couple of things on here just to

25 orient some of you that are familiar with this --
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 with the Site. The slag material, the black slag

2 material, that's a byproduct of the smelting

3 operation is depicted right here in the lower

4 part of the -- of the cliff.

5 Up on the Upper Terrace, which is where

6 the Operable Unit is located, this particular

7 cross-section goes through two wells: Well 7S,

8 which is the -- 7S is for the shallow well, and

9 7D is for the deep well. And this gets back to

10 your guestion as to what's going on beneath the

11 40 feet.

12 You can see the scale over here -- this

13 is a hundred feet from here to here. Probably

14 the most significant component of this site is

15 the fact that we have this Upper Terrace Deposit

16 that is about 40-feet thick. The lower 10 feet

17 of it is saturated, so it's considered or

18 designated as the Lower -- excuse me. This

19 deposit is the Upper Terrace. The lower ten feet

20 of it would comprise the Upper Terrace Aguifer.

21 At the base of that aguifer there's a

22 change in permeability. The material that

23 underlies it is much less permeable. It forms a

24 permeability barrier. And the contaminants, as

25 they have seeped down from the ground surface and
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 gone into groundwater and then eventually hit

2 that permeability barrier, spread out laterally.

3 And they don't, for the most part, get below that

4 contact. And that actually serves as a mechanism

5 to try to help contain the extent of

6 contamination as it's been defined.

7 What's depicted schematically on here,

8 this would be the location of the storage tanks.

9 This darker area here is residual creosote --

10 creosote-contaminated soil. This lighter area

11 here is -- is stained with creosote.

12 The Site has been characterized in

13 terms of its hydrogeology, and the slide shows

14 three of the hydrogeologic units that have been

15 defined for the whole Site. One is the Arkansas

16 River Alluvial Aguifer.

17 Another would be the Upper Terrace

18 Aguifer that we talked about earlier already.

19 And a third would be this deposit that

20 underlies that, that is known as Glacial and/or

21 Basin-fill Deposits. These deposits tend to be

22 finer grained, somewhat cementic and just not as

23 forcible and permeable as the Upper Terrace

24 deposits.

25 And finally, there's another deposit
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 that we will see in a couple of our

2 cross-sections that is called the Lower Terrace

3 Deposits that we just can't see on this

4 particular line or section.

5 Basically this evidence that the

6 permeability barrier exists at the Site is based

7 on a number of lines of evidence. Perhaps one of

8 the more telling is the fact that in the -- in

9 the -- in the bluff adjacent to the Upper Terrace

10 are a number of springs, a line of springs that

11 basically emanate as a result of the groundwater

12 being perched or top -- or trapped on top of that

13 permeability barrier. And they can -- the

14 groundwater just daylights in the form of

15 springs.

16 In fact, one of the springs, Spring

17 No. 5, which Gwen alluded to in her list of

18 Subunits -- considered to be separate subunits --

19 is Subunit 1, because it does contain some

20 creosote material -- creosote product based on

21 testing.

22 Another line of evidence is from the

23 soil bores and wells that were drilled through

24 the Upper Terrace and into the lower -- into the

25 underlying deposits. The contamination, for the
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 most part, stopped at the base of the Upper

2 Terrace Aquifer.

3 Another line of evidence that this

4 schematic, or this model -- model holds up is the

5 fact, that the groundwater encountered in the

6 shallow well in the Upper Terrace at a depth of

7 about 30 feet — as I said, the lower ten feet of

8 the Upper Terrace Aquifer is saturated with

9 qroundwater. And then the material that

10 underlies it still has porosity and some

11 permeability. But it's -- it's dry. And it's

12 not until we qet down to the depths that we

13 encounter qroundwater aqain. So the qroundwater

14 that we do encounter up here is also not qettinq

15 into the underlyinq units.

16 Geochemical testinq, qeochemical

17 speciation of the qroundwater suqqests that it's

18 a different species; that the two are not, you

19 know, in communication or contact. So we feel

20 like overall the evidence is pretty qood that,

21 for the most part, the basic contamination is

22 contained at the base of the Upper Terrace

23 Aquifer.

24 MR. BIGLOW: Sir?

25 MR. O'GRADY: Yes.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. BIGLOW: Can I ask a couple of

2 questions?

3 MR. O'GRADY: Absolutely.

4 MR. BIGLOW: With respect to this

5 columnar effect of this contaminated area, I

6 mean, what's the effect of time of that rascal

7 slumping down to here and leaving that clean?

8 MR. O'GRADY: Right. You mean up above

9 it?

10 MR. BIGLOW: Uh-huh.

11 MR. O'GRADY: Well, we know that this —

12 this product does move fairly slowly, even though

13 it's been about 40 years or so since the

14 operations -- woodtreating operations have shut

15 down. The soil — this — the DNAPL, the

16 creosote product that initially went --

17 originated at the surface and seeped down, edged

18 on through this zone already, because we don't

19 see any free -- free -- what we call free-based

20 DNAPL product in that material. So — but

21 presumably, over time, yes, it would continue to,

22 you know, I suppose, dissipate somewhat. Yes.

23 Please.

24 THE COURT REPORTER: Could I have your

25 name, please?
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. BIGLOW: Robert Biglow.

2 B-i-g-1-o-w.

3 What's the estimated volume of that

4 contaminated area in terms of tonnage?

5 MR. O'GRADY: Well, Glen will get into —

6 Gwen will get into that when we talk about the

7 alternatives. But about 76,000 tons. We've

8 identified an area of contamination that is -- of

9 concentrated contamination that is about 6.6

10 acres, which equates volumetrically, I believe,

11 to about 760,000 cubic tons. And we — we

12 estimated about ten percent of that is

13 contaminated above levels that would be

14 considered safe for an industrial exposure, say

15 exposure for a sand and gravel worker.

16 So we feel like there's about 76 tons

17 that would need to be managed, if you will. It's

18 not a significant volume overall relative to the

19 overall volume of the materials in the Upper

20 Terrace. It's fairly focused, very discrete.

21 You know, it doesn't move a lot until it gets

22 down to the water, and then it tends to move

23 along this interface and in the direction of

24 groundwater.

25 MR. HILL: Again, clarify what you just
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 said. You said 76,000 — 760,000 tons was the

2 total volume?

3 MR. O'GRADY: 600 — about 6.6 acres —

4 MR. HILL: Yeah.

5 MR. O'GRADY: - equals 760,000 cubic

6 tons.

7 MR. HILL: I thought I heard you said

8 10 percent of that was contaminated --

9 MR. O'GRADY: Yes.

10 MR. HILL: So you're saying the ten

11 percent of that would be 76,000 tons? Wouldn't

12 it be 76- --

13 MR. O'GRADY: Right.

14 MS. HOOTEN: Right. 76,000.

15 MR. HILL: You said 76 tons.

16 MR. O'GRADY: I'm sorry. You're right.

17 MR. HILL: Just wanted to be sure we're

18 on the same page.

19 MR. O'GRADY: Yeah. Okay. You're

20 right. I'm sorry.

21 This is the same slide that you saw

22 before, definition of the Subunits.

23 Subunit 1 being the spring which does

24 contain contaminated groundwater in the Upper

25 Terrace Aguifer.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 Subunit 2 would be the Upper Terrace

2 Deposits where they're not saturated from zero to

3 30 feet.

4 And then Subunit 3 would be the

5 saturated component, as well as the groundwater

6 that's contained therein.

7 I want to just quickly show a couple of

8 additional maps and cross-sections. The next map

9 that, I'm going to show is a map of this surface

10 here, the upper -- the water table, basically.

11 The top of the water table. And this is based on

12 ten wells that have been installed as part of the

13 Remedial Investigation.

14 Groundwater flow direction is basically

15 along these lines here; basically toward the

16 river, which is what you would normally expect in

17 a water table pocket situation. And also it's in

18 this location that the springs -- it's a full

19 series of springs where these — where these

20 lines intercept the Mesguite Bluff. On the

21 southwest side is where the springs are, where

22 the water daylights.

23 Okay. Quickly, two more profiles of

24 cross-sections through the Site. This next one

25 is D-D Prime, which is pretty much straight
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 north/south and goes through the -- starts out at

2 the lagoons up here and then goes through -- this

3 is the material that was buried in trenches

4 on-site and other -- is another source area.

5 These are the railroad tracks or dirt

6 tracks here.

7 And this section and the next one,

8 you'll begin to see that hydrogeologic lagoon

9 that I described, which would be the Lower

10 Terrace, which begins right over here.

11 And then finally, E-E Prime, again,

12 straight north/south, to the east goes through

13 the pole plant area, source area.

14 And this gets a little bit better

15 again. All of these are sgueezed horizontally.

16 The difference between the Upper Terrace Aguifer,

17 which is located in this position, and then

18 there's the topographic slope here. And we go

19 through the Lower Terrace Aguifer, which is

20 located in this position here. And it's

21 guestionable as to what the separation is in

22 terms of the flow of the water between the Upper

23 Terrace Aguifer and the Lower Terrace Aguifer.

24 Okay. The RI, Remedial Investigation,

25 included the collection of hundreds of samples
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 and thousands of analyses. And I'm going to try

2 and just guickly summarize that.

3 You remember I mentioned the sampling

4 program that included grading surface soils, and,

5 for the most part, the surface soils were

6 contaminated with PAHs to a level of less than a

7 thousand parts per million, as well as the

8 near-surface soils, also less than a thousand

9 parts per million, which is about the level of

10 cleanup for most woodtreating sites around the

11 country.

12 In the process area, where the -- where

13 the building was and the retorts and the drip

14 tracks and things like that, the highest level of

15 contamination encountered was significantly

16 higher, about 6,400 parts per million, which is,

17 like, .6 percent. Or is it .06? I don't want to

18 get my decimal point in the wrong spot. And this

19 is from one of the trenches. It's not surprising

20 that the highest levels of contamination for the

21 investigation were found from the trenches,

22 because they were in the -- in the known source

23 areas. And also we were able to high grade those

24 samples for analysis. In other words, find the

25 samplings that looked to be the most contaminated

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 and identify those for analysis.

2 In the lagoon area, the highest level

3 encountered in the soils was about -- a little

4 over 2,000 parts per million, et cetera.

5 The pole plant, we had a little bit of

6 a spurious reading, because there was actually

7 some wood fiber contained, as noted in the sample

8 log, contained in this sample. So it was a high

9 number.

10 And then the bury area on site, the

11 highest level was less than a thousand parts per

12 million.

13 As far as the groundwater is concerned,

14 a number of groundwater and spring samples were

15 taken. In the Upper Terrace Aguifer, above --

16 above 40 feet, the highest level we saw was

17 10,875 parts per billion total PAHs. So all

18 creosote constituents combined.

19 In the ground -- groundwater in the

20 deeper aguifer, we did have a low-level detection

21 of 3.4 parts per billion total PAHs.

22 And then in Spring 5, or Subunit 1, the

23 maximum contamination encountered was less than

24 40,000 parts per billion. But that was the

25 highest detection in the groundwater we detected.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 DR. DICKERSON: Question.

2 MR. O'GRADY: Yes.

3 DR. DICKERSON: If you were to

4 reconvert that into parts per million --

5 MR. O'GRADY: Parts per million, you'd

6 divide by a thousand.

7 DR. DICKERSON: So that would be 10.8?

8 MR. O'GRADY: Correct. So this would

9 be 10.8, this would be 38.9. That's right. For

10 comparison with the soil numbers.

11 DR. DICKERSON: Right.

12 MR. O'GRADY: Okay. That's all I had.

13 I'm going to turn it back over to Gwen now. And

14 Gwen is going to go over the results of the

15 Feasibility Study, which, for the most part, is

16 summarized in the Proposed Plan. It presents the

17 six different alternatives that -- that we have

18 considered, evaluates them and discusses the one

19 that's been selected or is being proposed.

20 Yes, sir.

21 MR. BIGLOW: Would you summarize what

22 you Just said for the lay people? In other

23 words, I have no clue whether that's high or low.

24 I have no clue whether that's something that is

25 highly hazardous --

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. O'GRADY: Right.

2 MR. BIGLOW: - or where does it relate

3 to the norm? Or is Gwen going to give us that

4 summary?

5 (Reporter interruption)

6 MS. HOOTEN: I was just telling him I

7 can summarize that for you in discussing the

8 alternatives, because we do look at a baseline,

9 which is called the No Action Alternative. So

10 just to kind of give you a feel for the level of

11 contamination and what warrants action or not.

13 Okay. I was telling you about what

14 EPA's acceptable risk range was. We were talking

15 about additional cancer -- contracting cancer.

16 We were talking about one in ten thousand to one

17 in a million being EPA's acceptable risk range.

18 Well, what we found is for an industrial exposure

19 for the industrial worker on-site, that we didn't

20 have anything on the surface soils that exceeded

21 our acceptable risk range. So we find it

22 acceptable for the surface contamination.

23 However, if you were to build a house

24 on there and have a residence there, we would

25 find that level of risk unacceptable. And the

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 reason for that is that a resident spends more

2 time at their home. So their exposure to these

3 contaminants is longer. And we find that

4 residents on the site would be an unacceptable

5 risk. It would be greater than one in ten

6 thousand.

7 And for that reason, we find that the

8 No Action is not protective -- not a protective

9 alternative. We feel like we would have to

10 restrict residential development in the Site in

11 order to be protective.

12 So Alternative 2 looks at restriction.

13 Looks at restricting residential development

14 on-site.

15 In addition to that, we looked at the

16 subsurface soils. And Martin showed you a lot of

17 graphics that showed you that the contamination

18 has migrated from the surface to depth. Now, the

19 contamination at depth is not within the

20 acceptable risk range for an industrial exposure.

21 If we were to mine that stuff, which the Site

22 right now is a mining operation for sand and

23 gravel -- if you were to mine that, there would

24 be an unacceptable risk for that sand and gravel

25 worker. If you were to sell that stuff in its

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 present state, there would be an unacceptable

2 risk to the user. So we would prohibit mining in

3 an area that we have identified as 6.6 acres.

4 Let me show you that real quick.

5 Martin outlined for you some of the areas, and he

6 showed you where the lagoons were. He showed you

7 where the storage tanks and the working tanks

8 were. All of those cross-sections that he showed

9 you where there was contamination at depth we've

10 identified as a Mining-Restricted Area. And we

11 refer to it in the Proposed Plan as MRAs. All

12 right?

13 For Alternative 2, it talks about

14 restricting residential development, providing

15 warning fences and signs to let people know that

16 there is some contaminants in that area, and

17 monitoring the groundwater to determine whether

18 or not we are going to see any contamination of

19 the groundwater. Martin already described to you

20 we have not seen anything in the deeper aguifer.

21 We are seeing something in the Upper Terrace

22 Aguifer. We would continue to monitor that to

23 ensure that it did not further migrate beyond its

24 present extent. Right now there is no one using

25 that groundwater. So we're — we're -- we're
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 comfortable that that would be protective under

2 its current uses.

3 However, if you were to look into

4 mining it, mining that 6.6 acres where we found

5 contamination at depth, we looked into that, and

6 we think there are ways that we could recycle

7 that waste. It's -- it's primarily creosote

8 contamination. There's a lot of PAHs that Martin

9 described to you. It is the same kind of

10 contaminants that we find in an asphalt mixture.

11 So we think that this material, if mined

12 properly, could be recycled in an asphalt cold

13 plant. And that's what Alternative 2 — or C

14 looks at.

15 We looked at an alternative that is

16 kind of a piggy-back on this one where there

17 would be some temporary on-site containment.

18 This looks at -- there are some discussions that

19 we had that sometimes the operations would be

20 such that a cold plant would have to have

21 continuous feed, and you might not be mining that

22 guickly. So this alternative looks at mining it

23 and placing it in a temporary stockpile until

24 you've got enough to have a continuous operation

25 in a cold asphalt plant.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 We looked at alternatives as to, "Well

2 what if we just picked up the stuff and

3 constructed a hazardous landfill or a

4 nonhazardous landfill on site?" EPA has a

5 definition of hazardous waste that's defined by a

6 certain test that we do called -- some call it

7 the TCLP leaching method. And what we would do

8 is if we conducted this test and we found that we

9 did have leaching from this test, we would define

10 that waste as hazardous. To date, we have not

11 found any waste on the Site that failed the TCLP

12 method. But we don't know that that might not be

13 the case, or we would look to test it again in

14 the field if we have contacted this.

15 We also considered a solid waste

16 landfill on-site, or a disposal unit on-site. If

17 it was a hazardous waste and we find that it did

18 leach, the construction methods would be much

19 more stringent than a solid waste, a waste that

20 did not leach.

21 And finally, we looked at off-site

22 disposal. "What if you just mine the area and

23 dispose it off-site, either into a hazardous

24 landfill or a nonhazardous landfill?"

25 And these costs are in your Proposed

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 Plan.

2 But just to kind of give you an idea,

3 Alternative 1, which is No Action, we're not

4 going to do anything; of course, zero dollars.

5 But we found that to be not protective.

6 Alternative 2, if we restricted mining,

7 and if we monitored to ensure that there is no

8 further migration of the current contamination,

9 we found that our capital costs would be about

10 42,000. Our O&M cost would be about 13,000 per

11 year. And our present worth cost, the amount of

12 money that we have to put away today to ensure

13 that we had financing throughout the life of

14 this, would be about 255,000.

15 Alternative C -- and I need to correct

16 this. Our latest addendum shows that this is

17 eleven years, not eight. We would look at mining

18 the area, 6.6 acres, 760,000 tons -- of which we

19 expect that 76,000 tons of it would be

20 contaminated -- to -mine it and to have a -- and

21 to recycle it in a cold asphalt plant where there

22 would be continuous operation, would be about

23 735,000, with about $7,000 of O&M, for a total

24 cost of 770,000.

25 I need to make it clear to you that the

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 cost that you're seeing that we're describing is

2 the additional cost of handling this material in

3 the manner that EPA deems fit to be protective.

4 It does not include the mining costs of -- well,

5 just mining of the Site. So it's the additional

6 measures that you would have to take to mine this

7 material and to perform the type of operations

8 that we would deem protective of that worker.

9 Okay?

10 And Alternative D, we do have a

11 temporary storage, it's a little bit higher at

12 814,000, with the same O&M. So that the present.

13 worth cost is about 851,000.

14 Alternative E, if it was nonhazardous,

15 the capital cost would be about 2 million to

16 build a facility on-site and dispose of it

17 on-site with an O&M of about 5,900, for a total

18 cost of 2,129,000.

19 If it was hazardous, we're looking at

20 about 3 million. We're looking at an additional

21 cost in the O&M of about $10,000 per year.

22 For Alternative F, if we're going to

23 dispose of it off-site, if we found that it was

24 nonhazardous, the total cost would be about 2

25 million. If we found that it was hazardous, then

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 we're up into the $18 million to dispose of this

2 76,000 tons off-site. Now, this figure is also

3 in the Proposed Plan, and it weighs these

4 alternatives.

5 There are nine criteria that EPA looks

6 at. Protection of Human Health and the

7 Environment and ARARs, compliance with ARARs, are

8 what we refer to as threshold criteria. You have

9 to meet these two standards in order to be

10 continued to be evaluated for selection.

11 Then there are five other criteria.

12 There's Short-term Effectiveness, which is

13 nonexposure to workers while they're

14 implementing, or to the surrounding residents or

15 folks in the area from air emissions, those kind

16 of activities that you might be exposed to while

17 we're implementing an alternative, those are

18 weighed.

19 Then there are the Long-term

20 Effectiveness and Permanence, and that looks at

21 what's in the final product and how long-term is

22 it, how effective is it in reducing a mitigating
23 risk.
24 Then there's Reduction of Mobility,
25 Toxicity or Volume, and this is really through

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 treatment. So it looks at, "Are you treating the

2 waste; are you making it less mobile; are you

3 making it less toxic; are you doing anything to

4 reduce its volume?"

5 And then the Implementability, and that

6 talks about, "How difficult is it to perform the

7 alternative that you have in mind?"

8 We did not believe the No Action

9 Alternative had the threshold criteria, so we're

10 not selecting the No Action. And it's not an

11 alternative that we can select.

12 But Alternative 2 we did find that it

13 meets the overall Protection of Human Health and

14 the Environment. It complies with ARARs. We

15 find that there is a high-level of compliance

16 with the Short-term Effectiveness because we're

17 not going to be picking up anything. It will be

18 primarily monitoring what's there and ensuring a

19 restricted access and restricting mining of these

20 subsurface soils.

21 We found that the Long-term

22 Effectiveness met the criteria, as well as

23 Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity and Volume

24 through treatment.

25 The reason you see that it meets it and

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 it doesn't — doesn't have a high level of

2 compliance is because there's no treatment in

3 monitoring and restricting access.

4 For Implementability, it's very easy to

5 implement. We would expect additional monitoring

6 wells to monitor the extent of contamination in

7 the groundwater, and we would expect to see

8 annual monitoring occurring. And we expect it to

9 occur for perpetuity really.

10 Alternative C, you see it meets the

11 threshold criteria. We find that it met the

12 Short-term Effectiveness. We found that the

13 of recycling the contaminated soil into a cold

14 asphalt plant led us into a greater Long-term

15 Effectiveness because you've tied it up and

16 reused the material such that we find that it's

17 an acceptable risk to have that material placed

18 into an asphalt mixture and put to a beneficial

19 use. We also find that that would remove the

20 material from the Site, and it would reduce the

21 volume on the Site. And there would be no

22 mobility element attached to that. So we find

23 that it has a higher element.

24 So, you see, the two Alternatives, C

25 and D, both have a higher level of compliance in

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 terms of Long-term Effectiveness, in terms of

2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume.

3 And then Alternative D, for on-site

4 disposal, and Alternative F, would rank the same,

5 primarily because, again, there's no treatment.

6 But it does meet the criteria for reducing the

7 volume on the site for the off-site, and it does

8 reduce any mobility by containing it on-site.

9 So that's really how EPA looked at

10 the -- looked at the alternatives. And what we

11 prefer is to see Alternative 2, which is

12 monitoring the Site, unless the permit -- the

13 mining permit that Butala Construction Company

14 has is extended into a -- or amended to extend

15 into the area that we've identified that has

16 mining restriction. We would look to ensure that

17 any mining that would occur would be done in an

18 environmentally sound fashion, such that all the

19 precautions that would be needed to ensure the

20 safety of the worker and to ensure that the final

21 product was acceptable for industrial use, we

22 would ensure that that would occur.

23 So we come to you today with really two

24 alternatives: One, that we look at the

25 restrictive use. Currently Butala does not have

SOUTH PARK REPORTING

(719) 395-7611
-------
1 a mining permit for the area that we've

2 identified as a restricted area. But if an

3 arrangement could be made that he would mine it,

4 and he could do it in an environmentally sound

5 fashion, then we would look to that alternative.

6 So that's really what we were here to

7 discuss with you. We'd like to take your

8 guestions now.

9 Yes.

10 MR. EVE: My name is Tom Eve, and you

11 mentioned that -- that the unacceptable risk

12 (sic) was one in ten thousand to one in a

13 million?

14 MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.

15 MR. EVE: What really is that

16 acceptable risk? What are we looking at? In

17 other words, I'm assuming that one in nine

18 thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine is

19 unacceptable?

20 MS. HOOTEN: You know, I'm going —

21 MR. EVE: So where are we on this? How

22 close are we to being acceptable or unacceptable?

23 MS. HOOTEN: Jane, if you will, can you

24 give him a relative feeling about how much a

25 person -- what their chances of contracting

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 cancer is without being exposed to these

2 contaminants and how to give him a feel for that

3 number?

4 MS. MITCHELL: I guess the context you

5 have to think about is -- sure. I'm Jane

6 Mitchell with the State Health Department.

7 The context you would have to think

8 about, I guess, when we're talking about cancer

9 risk is we know it's a pretty common disease.

10 One in three to four people will probably have

11 cancer sometime in their lifetime. What we're

12 looking at when we try to assess environmental

13 risk is, "How much would this contribute to an

14 additional risk?" So we're really looking at

15 somewhere between one in ten thousand to one in a

16 million additional — probability of additional

17 occurrence of cancer.

18 MR. EVE: I understand that. But where

19 did -- where did you come up with the

20 determination that this area was an unacceptable -

21 proposes an unacceptable risk? You had to come

22 up with a number in there somewhere. I'm just

23 asking what that number is.

24 MS. HOOTEN: How did we arrive at one

25 in ten thousand to one in --
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. EVE: No.

2 MS. HOOTEN: - one million is

3 acceptable?

4 MR. EVE: Why did you decide this is

5 unacceptable? What number did you use?

6 MS. HOOTEN: Because it exceeded the

7 one in ten thousand.

8 MR. EVE: What was that number that it

9 was in excess of?

10 MS. HOOTEN: It was — well, I don't

11 think we have a quantified number exactly. But

12 it exceeded one in ten thousand. So it --

13 MR. EVE: By how much is what I'm

14 getting at.

15 MS. HOOTEN: It was still in the level

16 of ten to the minus four.

17 (Reporter interruption)

18 MS. HOOTEN: It was still in the level

19 of ten to the minus four. So it was, like, five

20 times ten to the minus four.

21 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Gwen, I don't think

22 he knows what you mean.

23 MS. HOOTEN: Well, maybe let's talk

24 about what our PPGs were.

25 MR. EVE: What you just said — you
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 used a criteria if it was -- it was an acceptable

2 risk if it was between one in ten thousand to one

3 in one million?

4 MS. HOOTEN: Right.

5 MR. EVE: So what is the number we're

6 talking about here is what I'm saying. Is it one

7 in five hundred or — I mean --

8 MS. HAGAN: It's a probability, it's

9 not a number.

10 MR. EVE: I know that. But they have

11 to use some figure of probability to come up with

12 deciding if it's acceptable or unacceptable.

13 (Reporter interruption)

14 MR. EVE: What I'm trying to figure out

15 is at what point does it become unacceptable?

16 And you mentioned the criteria you use, one in

17 ten thousand to one in a million.

18 MS. HOOTEN: We —

19 MR. EVE: So I'm asking you, what

20 number did you determine this represented, this

21 study? Was it one in five thousand or one in a

22 hundred or one in --

23 MS. HOOTEN: No, no. It was, like, a

24 number like five. Okay?

25 MR. EVE: Okay.

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MS. HOOTEN: So it exceeded one in ten

2 thousand by a number of, like, five.

3 MR. EVE: Thank you. That's what I

4 wanted.

5 MS. HOOTEN: Okay.

6 MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Dave

7 Williams. I'm a lifetime resident of Colorado

8 and of Salida. Born and raised here.

9 And just briefly, my experience with

10 creosote, I happen to be an ex-employee of the

11 Koppers Company. And I actually worked there. I

12 worked through all these entire sites. I watched

13 every one of them in operation.

14 My experience with creosote started

15 when I was born, because I lived down at -- was

16 born here, but I was raised in Wellsville, which

17 is just seven miles down. My house was made out

18 of old creosote ties. And I lived inside of a

19 creosote tie house for 13 years; no adverse

20 effects. I worked for the Koppers Company; no

21 adverse effects. And I found this company to be

22 a very reliable, very good company that complied

23 with every safety regulation that was in

24 existence at the time.

25 After that I become a painting
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 contractor, and I creosoted poles, I used

2 creosote paint. I've taken a bath in the stuff.

3 And if this stuff is so bad, my question is,

4 you've got over a hundred miles of railroad

5 tracks from Leadville clear to Canon City that

6 parallel the Arkansas River. Snow falls on those

7 ties, rain falls, it all leaches in the river.

8 And I've never seen one fish die from creosote.

9 Not one fish. In fact, State Game and Fish

10 Department said it's a very good environment for

11 raising fish. If there was a real problem with

12 leach, those fish would have died. And they're

13 very healthy. I would have died. And believe

14 me, I'm very healthy. I'm 67 years old, and I

15 can out-work most people in this room.

16 So the point I'm saying here, your

17 criteria to use has got some -- some real

18 fallacies in it. Number one, if there's

19 contamination it depends a great deal on the

20 density of contamination. It depends a great

21 deal on how that contamination is ingested and a

22 whole bunch of factors that I don't think you've

23 taken into consideration here.

24 Bottom line is, I don't know of a

25 single person that worked at Koppers Company that

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 ever died as a result of creosote. Not one

2 single American. Most of them died in their

3 eighties, some of them in their nineties.

4 Perfectly healthy people. More people die from

5 smoking than die from creosote. So I'm saying

6 here, I think you've got some -- some bad

7 criteria here.

8 MS. HOOTEN: Let me kind of explain to

9 you the data we used.

10 MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

11 MS. HOOTEN: Let me explain to you the

12 data that we've used. To come up with these

13 numbers, we used experiments that have occurred

14 in laboratories with animals, and we've had some

15 human data that shows that these contaminants

16 present a risk. And the level that we've placed

17 the acceptable risk range is very high. You're

18 correct when you say that more people have died

19 from smoking.

20 MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.

21 MS. HOOTEN: You are correct. The

22 level that has been set for protectiveness has

23 been set very high. The levels that we've given

24 you are probability. It doesn't mean that

25 everyone exposed is going to contract cancer. It

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 means that the probability rises as you get

2 closer to the numbers of one in a hundred or --

3 or one in a thousand or one in ten thousand. So

4 all we're measuring here is the probability of a

5 person contracting cancer. It deals with

6 exposure to these contaminants under the

7 scenarios that we've described. So...

8 MR. WILLIAMS: I've certainly been

9 exposed. In fact, all the wells in Wellsville

10 was between fifty and a hundred yards from the

11 railroad track and downhill on the down side of

12 the track. No one ever died from any

13 contamination.

14 So somewhere we're -- we're putting

15 figures out here, but we're not talking common

16 sense. Common sense tells me that stuff is not

17 as dangerous as you're saying it is.

18 DR. DICKERSON: On the studies on

19 laboratories animals, was that ingested or was

20 that topical or how?

21 MS. HOOTEN: We have a number of

22 studies that took place. And Jane Mitchell is

23 from the State of Colorado, and she is our

24 toxicologist. So she is more gualified to answer

25 that guestion.

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MS. MITCHELL: I can't really address

2 specifically all the studies, but typically with

3 PAHs, which is primarily what we're concerned

4 about. With creosote you see effects from all

5 realms. In other words, generally at the point

6 of contact is when you'll see an effect. So

7 we're not concerned whether it's inhaled,

8 ingested, or whether it's contact by the skin.

9 All of those different routes have been studied.

10 You know, we have some information in

11 worker population, some information in animal

12 study. But all of those are a concern to this

13 particular type of chemical.

14 MR. BIGLOW: As far as animal study,

15 the fact that no fish have died in the

16 Arkansas...

17 DR. DICKERSON: Well, I mean, one

18 point, Ms. Mitchell, you're talking about routes

19 of ingestion. So what was the air samples, say,

20 three inches above to a foot above ground? What

21 parts per million was that versus the ground at

22 one hundred parts per million?

23 MS. MITCHELL: I'm not sure that I can

24 address that specifically. In terms of the exact

25 concentration we saw?

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 DR. DICKERSON: Right.

2 MR. O'GRADY: Well, we didn't do any

3 air sampling as part of this investigation. And

4 for the most part, the contamination, as it does

5 exist, is significantly below the ground surface.

6 So it's unlikely that in this particular case

7 that inhalation would be a route of exposure.

8 DR. DICKERSON: Right. So that would

9 be negligible?

10 MR. O'GRADY: At this Site, yes.

11 MS. HOOTEN: We have — I have a copy

12 of a Human Health Risk Assessment with me if you

13 would like to look at the levels that we've found

14 for each one of the contaminations, contaminants

15 at the locations. Because it did differ as to

16 which scenario we were looking at. More

17 contamination, again, in the subsurface than in

18 the surface.

19 MR. BIGLOW: I, Robert Biglow, would

20 like to enter a statement relative to a

21 particular individual.

22 I've been the son-in-law of C. Stewart

23 McDonald, he resides at 1827 Lake Avenue, Pueblo,

24 Colorado 81002. For 31 years I've been a

25 son-in-law. He's 82 years of age at this
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 particular point in time. For 38 years he was

2 the chief research chemist for Colorado Fuel and

3 Iron Corporation. His primary area of work was

4 in the coal tar products area; creosote day in,

5 day out. Creosote on his clothes, breathing the

6 fumes, on his hands, washing it; day in and day

7 out. The man is in impeccable shape. And -- and

8 every one of his staff is -- is -- has done well.

9 He's never had any cancer problem in that area.

10 Thank you.

11 (Audience clapping)

12 MR. EVERETT: I'm Glenn Everett, and I

13 will add to that.

14 This tail- -- this tailing pond you

15 talked about used to be adjacent to a pasture

16 where cattle run, and when it rained or snowed

17 those ponds would fill with water. And I've seen

18 cattle drinking out of the ponds. As far as I

19 know, it never bothered the cattle.

20 Also, below the Arkansas River, right

21 below where these springs come out there are

22 still a lot of big fish in there. I think

23 there's still a lot of good fishing just right

24 across directly from the -- where the old plant

25 was. That's just part of -- I've never heard of
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 anything getting sick around there.

2 MS. HOOTEN: You know, I need to

3 clarify that we have not seen any creosote

4 contaminant in the Arkansas River. So...

5 Go ahead.

6 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yeah, I'm Max

7 Rothschild. And, of course, I've been working —

8 I would be someone that would be interested in

9 recovering materials for road construction in

10 that area, so I'm going to ask you some

11 guestions, and maybe you can help me.

12 We talk about Alternative 2. Now,

13 that's where we continue to test; is that

14 basically what we're saying?

15 MS. HOOTEN: We continue to monitor —

16 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Okay. Monitor. Okay.

17 Monitor.

18 All right. Can the units that are

19 being monitored be reviewed as a function of

20 time? In other words, building them -- what Bob

21 suggested a while ago, is there a point in time --

22 you have older Superfund sites that are a hundred

23 years old that show a different pattern than you

24 discovered in that one that's 40 years old. Can

25 you find, as a function of time, so that we don't
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 necessarily sterilize anybody's ground, but we

2 have a time frame for doing that; is that a

3 possibility?

4 MS. HOOTEN: Are you talking about

5 natural tenuation of the soils?

6 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yes, ma'am.

7 MS. HOOTEN: Certainly that can occur.

8 MR. ROTHSCHILD: So that can continue

9 to occur?

10 Now, can -- can we forecast a safe

11 time?

12 MS. HOOTEN: No.

13 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Is there enough data

14 to do that?

15 MS. HOOTEN: We have not selected

16 enough data for me to tell you what the --

17 (Reporter interruption)

18 MS. HOOTEN: We have not selected data

19 to show you what the degradation component or

20 natural tenuation would be of those soils.

21 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Okay.

22 MS. HOOTEN: We do know that they do —

23 that they can migrate. We have not looked at the

24 physical characteristics that would promote

25 degradation. But it is something that could be --
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well, you know, I'm

2 familiar with some of the things the State Health

3 Department gets into. They kept me from putting

4 a certain type of sand on the roads. We've had

5 all kinds of interesting things go on in

6 Colorado.

7 Now, why -- are we working on anything

8 to treat this kind of site? Not necessarily dig

9 it up, haul it away, bury it. Are we suggesting

10 there's a way to treat a creosoted site that

11 we -- that can change these parameters of danger

12 or effectiveness? No one wants anybody

13 unhealthy. And I learned long time ago -- and

14 I don't disagree with what all of you are saying,

15 you understand -- but my experience with the

16 Corps of Engineers and EPA and the State Health

17 Department, that once they have identified the

18 problem, the best thing is to find a way to solve

19 the problem. Not necessarily say to them,

20 "There's no problem." Because it usually doesn't

21 go away. That -- that's what I've found.

22 I spent 20 years in Colorado as a

23 public works director, so I'm familiar with

24 government -- too familiar with government -- and

25 how it works. I've been part of it, in fact.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 Okay. Now, for your information, cold

2 asphalt plant or a cold mix program does not have

3 to necessarily have a continuous operation. If

4 you had a stockpile, then you deem it safe, you

5 could utilize that stockpile for a project

6 period. A project period. You understand where

7 I'm coming from? Then you'd have to establish

8 another stockpile for another project period.

9 But I don't think it would be a continuous

10 treatment.

11 Now, help me with this 760,000 tons

12 that we could mine. And that cost, you said, was

13 $7770,000; is that --

14 MS. HOOTEN:. No. No.

15 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I got that wrong?

16 MS. HOOTEN: Yeah. It's — 760,000

17 tons in the 6.6 acres could be mined.

18 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Right. Could be

19 mined.

20 MS. HOOTEN: Of that, we believe that

21 76,000 tons are contaminated.

22 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well —

23 MS. HOOTEN: Okay? Now, we have not

24 shown you any cost for the operations of the

25 mining itself.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Oh, I understand that

2 MS. HOOTEN: We've only shown you the

3 cost of having to deal with that contaminated

4 material.

5 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Right. So if I were

6 mining this, if I were going to mine this, I'd

7 have to build into my cost -- if I was going to

8 mine it all -- roughly a dollar a ton?

9 MS. HOOTEN: You know, I don't know.

10 You're going to have to ask --

11 MR. HILL: What he' s asking is if it's

12 $770,000 to treat the 76,000 tons — is that what

13 that is? He's going to have to add a dollar per

14 ton into his mining cost?

15 Who's paying the $770,000 is what I'd

16 like to know. Who's paying the ticket up here?

17 MS. HOOTEN: We have a couple of

18 responsible parties at the Site, those being

19 Beazer East, Incorporated --

20 (Reporter interruption)

21 MS. HOOTEN: Those being Beazer East,

22 Incorporated, and the owner and operator of the

23 Site, which is Frank Butala of Butala

24 Construction.

25 MR. ROTHSCHILD: One more issue, and
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 then I'm done.

2 Is it possible that Alternate 2 and

3 Alternate C, in combination, would be acceptable?

4 Because it looks like that would solve several

5 problems. I've now got -- I've got -- now I have

6 four block dots. I have four black dots in my

7 system instead of two in one, two in the other.

8 And I'm getting rid of the problem without

9 keeping it on-site where it can continue to be a

10 problem.

11 MS. HOOTEN: Okay.

12 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Is that —

13 MS. HOOTEN: Alternative 2 looks at no

14 mining.

15 MR. ROTHSCHILD: No, I — okay.

16 MS. HOOTEN: Alternative 3 asks —

17 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm asking, could it

18 be both?

19 MS. HOOTEN: Well, Alternative 3 looks

20 at mining -- or Alternative C.

21 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Alternative C does?

22 MS. HOOTEN: Yes. Looks at mining.

23 MS. TETER: Can I just clarify one

24 thing?

25 I'm Joni Teter from EPA.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 Alternative 2 also includes the

2 continued restriction on the residential use.

3 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I understand that.

4 MS. TETER: So from that perspective,

5 that continues on through. I just wanted to make

6 sure everybody understands.

7 MR. ROTHSCHILD: What I'm trying to

8 find is a way that we don't sterilize that land

9 forever. We're too anxious to sterilize property

10 in this country. And if there's a way we can

11 finally mitigate it by using Alternative 2,

12 monitoring, and Alternative C, which is

13 eliminating the problem, it looks to me like we

14 don't sterilize a man's land forever. You know?

15 You've heard of wetlands issue?

16 They'll kill ya'. I've been through all these

17 babies; the Corps of Engineers and the world.

18 I'm trying to find a way to combine so I get four

19 dots on your line and eventually the problem goes

2 0 away.

21 MS. HOOTEN: So that I understand you

22 right, you're saying that first we rely upon

23 natural elimination --

24 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well, that's part of

25 your monitoring process.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MS. HOOTEN: - and mine —

2 MR. ROTHSCHILD: That's right.

3 MS. HOOTEN: If you recall, the one

4 figure that Martin put up that had the levels of

5 contamination at depth, and you saw those

6 numbers, sometimes were five figures ppm; that's

7 much more contaminated than what we find at the

8 surface.

9 (Reporter interruption)

10 MS. HOOTEN: That's much more

11 contaminated than what we find at the surface.

12 MR. ROTHSCHILD: And I agree with him.

13 I don't disagree with what he's saying.

14 MS. HOOTEN: No.

15 MR. ROTHSCHILD: But as I continue to

16 mine, my surface is changing.

17 MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh. Right.

18 MR. ROTHSCHILD: My surface is — maybe

19 things get better then. You told me you didn't

2 0 know that. And I don't know that. We don't have

21 the data to know that it will get better if the

22 surface is now ten feet lower. That's all.

23 I'm just trying to find a way not to

24 sterilize property in this country. I don't know

25 if I'm ever going to get it done. I won't live
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 long enough. But I get very frustrated when we

2 set rules. And there's nothing wrong with that.

3 I realize you're doing it for health. You know,

4 I'm not dumb. But we've also got to find a way

5 to solve the problem. We can't say, "We've got a

6 problem, and we've got to throw away six acres,"

7 because next it will be 60, and then it will be

8 600, and then it will be 6,000. And we've got to

9 find a way.

10 Thanks.

11 MS. HOOTEN: I wanted Dan, if you will,

12 to describe the process that was -- that we went

13 through to eliminate some of the treatment

14 components that we looked at, some of the

15 treatments in the screening process.

16 MR. GREGORY: Oh, you're stretching my

17 memory.

18 I'm Dan Gregory with ENSR.

19 We looked at treatment in-place. Many

20 of the treatments that can be used in-place are

21 not effective because of the viscosity of this

22 material. It is so sticky, it is just very

23 difficult to treat this material in place and

24 actually fully remove it.

25 There are other treatments that can be
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 done ex situ; that is, after excavating.

2 Likewise, those treatments have a problem in that

3 it is difficult to remove entirely all the

4 contamination from finer-grained portions of that

5 material.

6 You also have rocks mixed in. The fact

7 that this is a course deposit makes it difficult

8 to handle the material in many of the typical

9 treatment types of operations.

10 So I think those are the -- the only

11 other things that we looked at.

12 It's impossible, for instance, to take

13 this to an incinerator and burn it, because it's

14 rock. Much of this is actually rock.

15 We eliminated in-place treatment

16 options. Most of them, they would not be

17 effective.

18 MS. HOOTEN: Does that help?

19 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yeah, it helps. But I

20 must have missed something in your presentation

21 then.

22 I thought EPA was the one that made the

23 suggestion that asphalt was very similar to our

24 problem. And I probably put down a ton or two of

25 asphalt in my career, and I thought I heard that.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 So now you're saying there's no way to treat it.

2 But every asphalt plant I know runs on heat.

3 Now, you seem to be saying cold, which

4 I accept, because we can do it cold now, which

5 can encapsulate it. So I'm confused. This is

6 not a criticism. This is my confusion. Didn't

7 hear him say asphalt works.

8 MS. HOOTEN: Let me try and clarify for

9 you then. We're saying it's treatment, but

10 really what it is, it's a beneficial reuse. The

11 same contaminants that we have in this waste is

12 found in asphalt, such that we could use this

13 material and blend it into an asphalt mixture and

14 have a beneficial reuse.

15 Now, we -- we refer to that as

16 treatment, but really it's a beneficial reuse.

17 Okay? We don't really treat it per se. But we

18 want to -- it's the closest thing we have to a

19 treatment in the alternative that I described.

20 MR. ROTHSCHILD: But it was an

21 alternative that was suggested?

22 MS. HOOTEN: Yes. C and B both have

23 the beneficial reuse conditions.

24 MR. FAUGHT: My name is John Faught.

25 When I got very confused is who's property is —
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 (Reporter interruption)

2 I'm being confused. I thought I knew

3 before I got here, but I'm confused now. If I

4 understand correctly, Operable Unit 2 is about 60

5 acres; is that correct?

6 MS. HOOTEN: 118 acres, actually.

7 MR. FAUGHT: And that's a larger area

8 of this Site, setting aside for a moment the

9 mining restricted area, the 6.6 acres, that EPA

10 is proposing to restrict just to industrial use --

11 MS. HOOTEN: Right.

12 MR. FAUGHT: - is that correct?

13 MS. HOOTEN: That's correct.

14 MR. FAUGHT: Whereas under the local

15 zoning ordinance, residential use would be

16 allowed?

17 MS. HOOTEN: That's correct.

18 MR. FAUGHT: So there's a restriction

19 on the larger tract of property?

20 MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.

21 MR. FAUGHT: Then on the 6.6 acres

22 where — the Mining Restricted Area, EPA would

23 propose to have a restriction that says that that

24 cannot be mined; is that correct?

25 MS. HOOTEN: That is correct.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. FAUGHT: And then goes ahead and

2 says that if, in fact, it is mined, then you

3 should follow certain procedures to make sure

4 that it's safe; is that correct?

5 MS. HOOTEN: That's correct.

6 MR. FAUGHT: And in that seven — in

7 that 6.6 acres, when you go into mining, aren't

8 you really impacting 760,000 tons? Because

9 that's what you're going to be involved with in

10 doing the mining, even though there's only

11 76,000, and maybe -- specifically above the

12 industrial base standards?

13 MS. HOOTEN: You will have to segregate

14 the waste. And there are -- is a description in

15 the book of feasibility that talks about visually

16 separating the waste for a period of time and

17 then conducting tests on the visually

18 contaminated waste to see whether or not you can

19 detect contamination by looking at it visually.

20 If our tests show that we have some

21 accuracy in visual detection versus analytical

22 tests, then we will then do less testing and more

23 visual inspection.

24 But the — the entire 760,000 tons that

25 would be mined would have to be segregated;
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 segregated between contaminated waste and

2 uncontaminated waste, sampled to ensure that we

3 know what waste is contaminated. And then the

4 contaminated waste would have to be either --

5 well, our preferred alternative is that it be

6 recycled into a cold asphalt plant if this area

7 is mined.

8 MR.FAUGHT: I think the point the

9 gentleman was making here, if, in fact, it can be

10 mined and cleaned up permanently, that that

11 should be the best remedy.

12 Plus some day that Site could be -- I

13 don't know what will happen in 50 years. That

14 might be the greatest place in the world for

15 someone to have a nice place along the Arkansas

16 River.

17 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well, if it's

18 possible. I just hate to see land sterilized,

19 that's all. If we can solve the problem, if this

20 is a solution...

21 MR. HILL: So what's the EPA suggest?

22 You all have done the tests. What's the

23 suggestion?

24 MS. HOOTEN: Well, we would — first of

25 all, we cannot force mining onto the owner.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. HILL: You cannot what?

2 MS. HOOTEN: Force mining.

3 MR. HILL: Onto the owner?

4 MS. HOOTEN: This area, if this was not

5 a current mining operation, we would call this

6 waste unacceptable because of its depth, and we

7 would not be looking at the scenario of mining

8 and recycling.

9 MR. HILL: So what would you do; just

10 leave it there to continue the contamination?

11 MS. HOOTEN: Because no one is being

12 exposed, no one is drinking the groundwater.

13 Okay? No one is drinking that groundwater in the

14 Upper Aguifer. It's at a level where it is not

15 affecting the drinking water resource area.

16 Okay? Resource area. So it's an innocent,

17 stagnant situation where we're not seeing any

18 exposure. So we would monitor to ensure that

19 that was the case for perpetuity.

20 MR. HILL: Gwen, who pays the cost of

21 the claim? The landowner?

22 MS. HOOTEN: The landowner is a — he

23 is considered a responsible party and Beazer. So

24 they are both financially liable.

25 MR. HILL: Is Koppers no longer in
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 existence?

2 MS. HOOTEN: No, Koppers — Koppers,

3 the company at the time --

4 MR. HILL: Was absorbed by —

5 MS. HOOTEN: — it was in operation,

6 but Koppers has turned into Beazer.

7 MR. HILL: So Beazer now absorbs

8 Koppers' responsibility? Okay.

9 MS. HOOTEN: Yes.

10 MR. HILL: And to what extent — since

11 the current landowner had nothing to do with

12 causing the contamination then, to what extent is

13 he responsible?

14 MS. HOOTEN: He's responsible to the

15 extent that he knew the contamination was there

16 when he bought the property.

17 MR. HILL: And he knew that the —

18 MS. HOOTEN: He was aware of it.

19 MR. HILL: And he knew that the

20 treatment plant was there.

21 Was he aware of the contamination?

22 When did this become obvious or apparent or

23 known?

24 MS. HOOTEN: He was aware that there

25 was a woodtreating operation that occurred on the
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 property. So he's not what we would refer to as

2 an "innocent landowner." And then he has

3 operated -- or he has handled some of the waste

4 on Site. So those two make him liable for the

5 cleanup, as well.

6 MR. HILL: Because he knew that there

7 was a waste treatment plant there?

8 MS. HOOTEN: Right.

9 MR. HILL: Let's go back to your one in

10 ten thousand to one in a million.

11 Do you know what the population in this

12 county is?

13 MS. HOOTEN: No, I don't.

14 MR. HILL: It's a little over 15,000

15 people. So what you're saying is five people out

16 of fifteen thousand in this county are going to

17 have to go over there and adjust that and -- I

18 mean, you know, the numbers are ridiculous.

19 MS. HOOTEN: Yes.

20 MR. HILL: I mean, if you were talking

21 about the population of Denver, Chicago, Dallas,

22 Los Angeles, I could understand the concern. I'm

23 not demeaning human life or saying human life —

24 but the numbers out here work differently.

25 MS. HOOTEN: Well, again, it is a
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 probability. So even though we're talking about

2 one in ten thousand, it's that one individual in

3 that ten thousand that we're trying to protect.

4 MR. HILL: Who's protecting this

5 landowner and his private property rights? I

6 mean, what's the weight here? How does it weigh?

7 How does it weigh?

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Wait a minute. Let me

9 answer.

10 I, for one, would like to hear from Mr.

11 Frank Butala, because he's the one that's

12 primarily involved with this. And I'd like to

13 find out what his position is and how he feels

14 what's the best way that he can handle this and

15 still comply with the regulations and safety.

16 MR. HILL: He's the man paying the

17 taxes today and has for several years.

18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And these laws are

19 hurting him.

20 MR. BUTALA: Frank is doing awfully

21 well just sitting here.

22 MS. HOOTEN: I don't mind. Frank, do

23 you want to say something?

24 MR. BUTALA: Well, at this point I

25 really couldn't say too much, because all of this
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 stuff is just garbage to me. I didn't go to high

2 school. I don't understand any of this stuff

3 that you're talking about. All I know is that

4 there's creosote being used all over the ski

5 areas. I mean, ties for retaining walls and

6 stuff. It's up and down the railroad tracks, as

7 he mentioned. And it's not only for a hundred

8 miles, it's for tens of thousands of miles around

9 the country.

10 And about three years ago there was an

11 article in the local paper that said that 256,000

12 people use the Arkansas River between Buena Vista

13 and Canon City or Pueblo. They were not all

14 fishermen, they weren't all boaters or anything.

15 But these people are running -- most of them are

16 running up and down along the tracks and the

17 roads and the water with just a swimsuit on.

18 Some of them have thongs on, and some of them

19 walk barefooted on there. And I can't see what

20 the -- why this is so dangerous for us when it's

21 not a danger for the people, and they continually

22 do that every year. The number's probably higher

23 than that.

24 So I — I don't guite follow all this

25 stuff.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. BIGLOW: With respect to Spring

2 No. 5, within 200 to 250 feet exists a den of

3 five red foxes. Now, Spring No. 5 occurs right

4 there also relative to that band where

5 Cottonwoods grow through there. The spring

6 provides the water for those Cottonwoods. And

7 I'd like to suggest that you catch one of these

8 foxes and check them out for this stuff.

9 MS. HOOTEN: No, we've done an

10 ecological risk assessment, and I think it's in

11 the Proposed Plan that we did not find an

12 ecological risk.

13 MR. BIGLOW: One other thing that I

14 want to --

15 MS. HOOTEN: So we can leave the foxes.

16 MR. BIGLOW: I've had some high school

17 and college and military chemistry courses. And

18 this was pointed out on one of these charts that

19 this is a polyhydrocarbon.

20 Now, we live in an area that has a high

21 amount of sunlight and a high amount of

22 ultraviolet light. And as I understand creosote,

23 a coal tar product, that the hydrocarbons are

24 subject to breakdown in sunlight. You can step

25 out here on the Everett Ranch, and I can show you
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 vertical tie posts used in fencing situations.

2 On the south side of those fence posts the

3 creosote is completely gone. We're down to wood

4 fiber all the way through. On the north side of

5 that post we still have the residual creosote.

6 And with respect to degradation, I'm a little bit

7 of the opinion if we just get it out in the

8 sunlight, we can eliminate a lot of the problem.

9 MS. HOOTEN: Again, we did not look at —

10 (Reporter interruption)

11 MS. HOOTEN: We did not look at natural

12 tenuation and degradation in order to quantify.

13 We are dealing with some long-chain

14 hydrocarbons who -- which their degradation is

15 not as great as the shorter-chain. We've already

16 seen Mother Nature doing a good job on this site.

17 And we didn't see any of the short-chain

18 hydrocarbons, the benzenes, the toluenes, the

19 xylenes, we didn't see that. So Mother Nature

20 already has done a good job at this site. We

21 have not been able to — or we have not

22 quantified degradation. But I would agree with

23 you that degradation can occur. We are really

24 dealing with the larger-chain hydrocarbons

25 degradation, not with the shorter-chain
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 hydrocarbons.

2 DR. DICKERSON: Hi. I'm Dr. Dave

3 Dickerson. Before I became a doctor my degree

4 was in petroleum chemistry. And you've already

5 seen that you've got a hundred parts per million

6 surface, subsurface is higher.

7 Like Mr. Eve -- I mean, Mr. Biglow

8 mentioned, with ultraviolet light you're going to

9 see at breakdown. If you start messing with it,

10 you're going to cause a bigger problem, I

11 believe, than if you just leave it alone.

12 MS. HOOTEN: If you mined it?

13 DR. DICKERSON: Huh?

14 MS. HOOTEN: If you mined hit?

15 DR. DICKERSON: Yes, if you went in

16 there and started mining it, digging it up and

17 changing the surface areas, you're going to cause

18 a bigger problem than where it's at right now.

19 MR. DAVIDSON: My name is Bruce

20 Davidson. I hope you can hear me, Lisa.

21 I have a guestion: According to your

22 scale, does groundwater leach down through these

23 76,000 tons in guestion?

24 MR. O'GRADY: No. For the most part —

25 for the most part the 76, 000 tons would be above
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 the groundwater table.

2 MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. But surface water —

3 does surface water -- how do we get groundwater?

4 MR. O'GRADY: Oh. Yeah. I'm sorry.

5 MR. DAVIDSON: Does water flow through

6 that?

7 MR. O'GRADY: I'm sorry. Yes. Yes.

8 MR. DAVIDSON: So it filters through

9 this contamination, and it comes out throughout

10 Springs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on and so on?

11 MS. HOOTEN: Just 5.

12 MR. DAVIDSON: And what's the status of

13 that water on Spring No. 5? I can't find it in

14 here. I suppose it talks about it in the

15 Feasibility Study.

16 MR. O'GRADY: Yeah. Well, the — the

17 rate at which the spring flows is fairly low,

18 such that —

19 MR. DAVIDSON: Is that water

20 contaminated?

21 MR. O'GRADY: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, it

22 is.

23 MR. DAVIDSON: It is?

24 MS. HOOTEN: Yes.

25 MR. DAVIDSON: Do we have those
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 figures? Do we know how bad that is?

2 MR. O'GRADY: Yes.

3 MR. DAVIDSON: There seems to be

4 questions of how bad that is. I'd like to see

5 those figures.

6 If that groundwater is contaminated,

7 then we know there's real contamination here.

8 But there seems to be real guestions and concerns

9 over whether there is contamination and enough of

10 it to do any harm. The EPA seems to think so,

11 but then there are some local concerns that

12 don't. I think we need to answer that before, as

13 Max says, you sterilize the property, which is

14 another concern.

15 MS. HOOTEN: We need to tell you our

16 view, though, of Spring No. 5. It is an isolated

17 situation, and it is confined to an area of very

18 low exposure. In other words, it's very small.

19 So we have defined an ecological risk. The stuff

20 coming from Spring 5 is contaminated. And there

21 are some levels, and I think Martin showed you --

22 yeah, the ppms coming out of that, and you saw

23 that it was 38,000. So it is fairly

24 contaminated. But --

25 MR. DAVIDSON: 38,000 per billion?
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 38.970 parts per billion?

2 MR. O'GRADY: Correct.

3 MS. HOOTEN: Right. Right.

4 MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. That answers

5 my guestion as to the level of real

6 contamination.

7 MS. HOOTEN: Yes.

8 MR. DAVIDSON: Which is certainly what -

9 that's why I'm here, to try to find out if it's

10 contaminated. And that tells me there's an

11 overconcern on the EPA's part, if that's clear

12 enough.

13 MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.

14 MR. DAVIDSON: Which I hope helps

15 answer the real contamination that we're dealing

16 with. And do we sterilize something that's

17 contaminated at that level?

18 MS. HOOTEN: You know, maybe I should

19 clarify. We're not sterilizing this. We're not -

20 we didn't find —

21 (Reporter interruption)

22 MR. ROTHSCHILD: By sterilizing, I mean

23 make it impossible for a property owner to

24 utilize his property rights.

25 MS. HOOTEN: Oh, okay.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your suggestion says

2 that he has limited use of his property.

3 MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.

4 MR. ROTHSCHILD: And that always

5 concerns me with any -- I don't care whether it's

6 the county government or the federal government.

7 Whenever we get into that scenario, I get

8 concerned that we've now traded it. I'd sooner

9 find a solution so it doesn't have to happen.

10 And looks to me like you've suggested something.

11 I don't know whether Frank is interested in those

12 solutions. That's his decision. But at least

13 there are some suggestions -- you've tried to

14 make some suggestions to solve the problem.

15 MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.

16 MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm still not

17 satisfied that I can't put a couple of them

18 together. But that's probably for future

19 discussions when you may be reviewing the

20 comments from this meeting.

21 MS. HOOTEN: Okay.

22 MR. HILL: At what stage is this

23 decision-making process?

24 MS. HOOTEN: Well, we're asking that

25 you send written comments, to be postmarked no
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 later than November 21st, to myself. And that's

2 my name and address there.

3 On receipt of your comments —

4 MR. HILL: This is yours?

5 MS. HOOTEN: Yes, it's on that front

6 page.

7 So upon receipt of your comments, we

8 will review your comments, find -- and what we'll

9 in reviewing your comments, we will look for any

10 new information that you have or what — your

11 community acceptance. That is one of the nine

12 criteria for the alternatives that have been

13 presented here.

14 MR. HILL: One of nine?

15 MS. HOOTEN: One of the nine criteria.

16 And we've talked about the weight evaluation and

17 comparisons of the alternatives. There are nine

18 criteria that we look at.

19 The last two are community acceptance

20 and state acceptance. And so we weigh those

21 based upon your comments. And then we decide if

22 that should -- if that sways us from the

23 alternatives that we have referred to as our

24 preferred alternatives in the Proposed Plan. And

25 so we then put that decision in what is called a

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 Record of Decision. And it's a document that

2 describes our reasoning for selecting the

3 alternative that we will issue to implement at

4 the Site.

5 And attached to that we will put a

6 response in a summary which will respond to your

7 written comments in detail.

8 MR. HILL: And then who makes the

9 decision?

10 MS. HOOTEN: EPA

11 MR. WILLIAMS: What is the status of

12 the EPA situation in Leadville? I understand

13 that the sheriff there ordered you people out of

14 town by sundown.

15 MS. HOOTEN: You know, I don't know the

16 status of Leadville.

17 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll tell you, I

18 saw a bumper sticker the other day. What this

19 bumper sticker says is that, "I love my Country;

20 what I fear is my Government." And that's true.

21 We people have a concern here. We have

22 been overly walked on by government. And at some

23 point in time we'd kind of like to make a few of

24 our own decisions. Maybe it's time we go get a

25 bigger sheriff. Maybe we better talk to Mr.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 Miller, maybe we better talk to Ken Chlouber,

2 maybe we better talk to Scott Mclnnis and see if

3 we can find a bigger sheriff.

4 MS. HOOTEN: You know, we encourage you

5 to talk to your representatives. So please, feel

6 free to.

7 MR. WILLIAMS: I will. Believe me, I

8 will.

9 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Again, let me say —

10 let me say in Gwen's defense, I've talked to her,

11 she will listen. Doesn't mean you've changed her

12 mind. But that isn't the issue here. We're

13 trying to get their expertise as professionals to

14 find a solution to a problem we have in this

15 community. So we need to discuss with her -- and

16 I found her to be receptive. More so than some

17 of the folks I've dealt with in the past. And I

18 wanted to give her that compliment, because we

19 need her ideas, not -- not her foregone

20 conclusions. And I don't feel that she has

21 established foregone conclusions.

22 So I encourage you to put down your

23 comments in writing, give her an opportunity to

24 analyze them, and then she'll need to talk to

25 State Health, and maybe that's another issue.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MR. WILLIAMS: There's an old saying:

2 "The solution to pollution is dilution." And

3 that's true. You just can't let it concentrate

4 in areas. What you say is -- is very, very true.

5 I agree with you a hundred percent.

6 What -- we're seeing this all over the

7 country, particularly in the Forest Service; if

8 they have a problem with an area, all they do is

9 fence it, lock it off. And like I told them,

10 their signs are going to have to be changed. It

11 say thus and so, "Forest Service, Land of many

12 uses." We're going to change that to, "Land of

13 no uses at all."

14 Who are we saving this ground for? Our

15 grandchildren? Are they going to open this

16 ground up to our grandchildren? The answer to

17 that is no. As the population increases, they

18 won't.

19 So you're absolutely correct; if we can

20 find the solution that uses the property and

21 helps Mr. Butala, I, as a citizen, and I, as a

22 taxpayer, am all for it.

23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Well, this is also a

24 contradiction to our Chaffee County Planning --

25 MR. BIGLOW: That hasn't passed yet.
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: What I'm talking

2 about is --

3 (Reporter interruption)

4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: — no residents in

5 the industrial areas, which is what you're

6 talking about.

7 MR. EVE: Again, my name is Tom Eve.

8 But help me identify this problem

9 again. I'm still going back to where you've

10 determined that it is a hazard. And you've used

11 the criteria that someone has to be exposed to

12 this material for twenty-five years, five days a

13 week.

14 MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh,

15 MR. EVE: Okay. Now, are you talking

16 about exposed to the 760,000 tons, or only to the

17 concentration of the 76,000 tons?

18 MS. HOOTEN: I'm talking about being

19 exposed to the concentration of 76,000 tons.

20 MR. EVE: And my point here, just plain

21 common sense tells you, and anybody that knows

22 anything about construction or mining, it doesn't

23 take twenty-five years to mine 76,000 tons of

24 gravel. You know, it takes, like, a year or a

25 month or -- depending on how much eguipment you
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 have. So if you reduce the criteria down to

2 where now we're only talking about a ten-year

3 exposure, are we back into where we are in the

4 safe zone again?

5 MS. HOOTEN: The estimates that we have

6 from mining are eleven years.

7 MR. EVE: Yeah, that cuts your

8 criteria in half. Is that what you used, or did

9 you use the twenty-five-year criteria?

10 MS. HOOTEN: For exposures? No, we did

11 use the 25-year criteria for the exposures.

12 MR. EVE: And if you cut that down to

13 eleven, which is what you're saying is really

14 more close to being right, are we -- are we still

15 in an unacceptable risk factor?

16 MS. HOOTEN: We did not look at eleven

17 years exposure, our risk assessment is

18 guantified based upon what we thought someone

19 would be exposed to. So our--

20 MR. EVE: The Department knows it won't

21 be that long, because your own number's eleven

22 years. If you put that in an eguation, is it

23 still unacceptable risk factor? That's my

24 guestion.

25 MS. HOOTEN: And I don't know how much
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 that would change.

2 Jane, can you answer that? If it

3 changed from twenty-five to eleven?

4 MS. MITCHELL: It's probably roughly

5 proportionate. So we might be instead of, you

6 know, five out of ten thousand down to two or

7 three out of ten thousand.

8 But I think your point is well taken in

9 that, you know, we are trying to look at a risk

10 that is, you know, reasonable attached to what's

11 really going on in the community. And I think

12 that's a really good point that we should look

13 at: "What is specific to that Site?"

14 MR. EVE: And again, if you're using

15 this eleven thousand -- I mean, the eleven-year

16 figure, when in actuality it could be done in one

17 year with the right eguipment, and then does that

18 eliminate the risk? If all that material would

19 be handled in one year, is there really any risk

20 at all?

21 MR. HILL: And used in asphalt?

22 MR. EVE: That's what I'm asking.

23 MS. HOOTEN: It's a valid point.

24 MR. HILL: Again, let me ask you a

25 guestion. I know that the EPA has been on the
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 Smuggler Mine Project in Pitkin County for a

2 number of years. How long has it been there, the

3 EPA an that job in Pitkin County on the Smuggler

4 mine?

5 MS. HOOTEN: You know, you're asking me

6 guestions about --

7 MR. HILL: I can tell you that they've

8 been there at least ten years.

9 MS. HOOTEN: Yes, yes.

10 MR. HILL: Is that what we're

11 encountering here to clean this up? Are we

12 creating government jobs for the next ten years?

13 MS. HOOTEN: No, I hope not.

14 MR. HILL: As a taxpayer, I hope not.

15 MS. HOOTEN: Yeah. Again, if it's

16 mined, our estimate is eleven years. We would

17 have to be here ensuring that that material is

18 handled —

19 (Reporter interruption)

20 MS. HOOTEN: We would have to ensure

21 that that material that's being handled during

22 that mining process would be done in an

23 environmentally sound fashion so there won't be

24 any contamination in there, in the Arkansas

25 River, or we don't see any in groundwater or we
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 won't see exposure to those workers. So we would

2 expect to be here during that time.

3 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Well, Alternative C,

4 though, doesn't really lend itself to really

5 what's being proposed? Alternative C, as I read

6 it, "Impacted soils that exceed the PRGs on-site

7 would be temporarily stockpiled for future

8 use..."

9 So below a -- below a certain number,

10 whatever that magic number is, would be sold as

11 aggregate for industrial use?

12 MS. HOOTEN: Right. We expect that a

13 large portion of it, you know, most of --

14 MR. ROTHSCHILD: Would be sold if

15 mining was done?

16 I don't know whether they want to mine -

17 MS. HOOTEN: Right.

18 MR. ROTHSCHILD: It could be in the

19 interest of Frank, he'll finally say, "I'll fence

20 it. What about my business?"

21 MR. HILL: Is it conceivable that

22 government and private industry can work together

23 on this?

24 MS. HOOTEN: Yeah.

25 MR. HILL: And government should sit
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 down with Mr. Butala and maybe come up with this

2 solution that you suggested; that maybe it might

3 even be something that ends up being profitable

4 to Mr. Butala - God forbid -- and clean up

5 something that is hazardous? Is that beyond the

6 realm of comprehension?

7 MS. HOOTEN: No, it's not. In fact —

8 MR. HILL: How do -- how do we initiate

9 that?

10 MS. HOOTEN: Well, in fact, Mr. Butala,

11 who is here, and Beazer have been encouraged by

12 EPA to talk to each other.

13 MS. TETER: Gwen, she can't hear you.

14 MS. HOOTEN: We'll get a speaker phone

15 next time.

16 Mr. Butala and Beazer have been

17 encouraged by EPA to talk to each other to come

18 to a resolution.

19 MR. HILL: But they need to talk to EPA

20 too?

21 MS. HOOTEN: They need too talk to EPA

22 too. And they have been. But this is as much in

23 their, control to solve this problem as it is the

24 EPA's.

25 DR. DICKERSON: Again, I have one
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 question on how EPA determined that this was a

2 risk.

3 MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.

4 DR. DICKERSON: Was that using the

5 76-ton — the subsoil surface measurements, or

6 was that nonsurface measurements?

7 MS. HOOTEN: No. It's the subsurface

8 that renders the risk. The surface we find is

9 acceptable. In other words, an industrial

10 worker, if all he did was work on the surface, is

11 an acceptable risk. We find no problem with

12 that. It's when they start digging into the more

13 contaminated waste at depth that we find that to

14 be an unacceptable risk.

15 DR. DICKERSON: So if he didn't do

16 anything below, there wouldn't be any

17 necessary -- any need to do anything to the

18 property?

19 MS. HOOTEN: Under industrial exposure.

20 Because of your local zoning laws, we would have

21 to restrict residential, because residential

22 would put it into another exposure, which would

23 be higher.

24 DR. DICKERSON: I'm on Planning and

25 Zoning.

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MS. HOOTEN: Oh, okay.

2 DR. DICKERSON: I don't know who would

3 buy the property anyway. But -- I mean, build a

4 house.

5 MS. HOOTEN: Well, is that viable to

6 not allow residential on industrial zoned

7 property?

8 DR. DICKERSON: Right now the county

9 regulations, if you have a commercial, you can do

10 anything you basically want with it. So you

11 could put an apartment complex on it. But you'd

12 have to sell it first, talk somebody into buying

13 it.

14 MR. JOHNSON: We had that problem with --

15 the airport problem up there in Buena Vista.

16 MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a land of

17 beauty out there anyway.

18 MR. GRAVES: Yes, sir. May I?

19 I'm Harmon Graves, I also represent

20 Butala Construction.

21 As I understand your proposal, 118

22 acres will be subject to a restriction against

23 residential use as a conseguence of approximately

24 6.6 acres of contamination; is that a fair

25 statement?

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MS. HOOTEN: No, I don't think so.

2 Because the surface -- again, there is surface

3 contamination in areas outside of the 6.6 acres.

4 Okay? But it happens to be at a level that is

5 acceptable in an industrial. But if we started

6 to look at residential, I think it would grow.

7 Now, I don't believe it's the entire

8 118 acres that we're talking about. But it would

9 grow. And we didn't really look at that growth

10 as to what area would be --

11 MR. GRAVES: As I understand your

12 description of the Site, then that would be the

13 restriction; it's 118 acres? Am I misconstruing

14 that?

15 MS. HOOTEN: For residential

16 development?

17 MR. GRAVES: Yes.

18 MS. HOOTEN: We have not — we have

19 talked about restriction at the Site, naming the

20 Site -- the entire area. But we have not

21 actually looked at the numbers to see whether it

22 exists for the industrial -- or for the

23 residential exposure. So...

24 MR. GRAVES: As proposed, though, it

25 does not restrict the entire Site to residential

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 development? Isn't that what Mr. Butala must --

2 must consider?

3 MS. HOOTEN: That's — yes. That's the

4 understanding until we look in greater depth at

5 the levels that we see in residential

6 development.

7 MR. JOHNSON: You want to shut this

8 down until you find this out, right?

9 MS. HOOTEN: Pardon me?

10 MR. JOHNSON: You want to shut all this

11 down now until you find out?

12 MS. HOOTEN: We want to shut it down —

13 MR. JOHNSON: You want to stop —

14 MR. EVE: You're asking her if — they

15 want to imply the -- impose the restriction at

16 this point in time until the tests are over? Is

17 that what you're asking?

is MR. JOHNSON: Yeah.

19 MS. HOOTEN: We would intend on asking

20 for a restriction. We would ask it from the

21 landowner. And the landowner would have to

22 engage in settlement with EPA to restrict the

23 land. And I think that we would derive more

24 detail in that settlement that would talk about

25 the restricted area.

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MS. TETER: Again, just to clarify —

2 Joni Teter again -- on the 118 acres, mining is

3 not restricted except in the 6.6. So Mr. Butala

4 can mine the rest of the property. He just can't

5 build homes on some portion of that. And it is

6 what that portion is that Gwen is talking about

7 we would be looking at further. So he can do any

8 kind of industrial activity outside that 6.6

9 acres. There's no restriction on that.

10 MS. HOOTEN: You're reading — you're

11 reading a degree of accuracy in those statements

12 that was not intended. So it's not the 118; it

13 is that area that would exceed a residential

14 risk. Okay? And I don't know what that is.

15 MR. JOHNSON: But you're going to tie

16 up this whole 118, right?

17 MS. HOOTEN: No. I wouldn't intend to

18 tie up that 118. It'll only tie up that that

19 would exceed a residential risk. And I don't

20 know that risk.

21 MR. JOHNSON: So this goes into a whole

22 other study, right?

23 MS. HOOTEN: Dan, have you looked at

24 that study?

25 MR. WILLIAMS: Not in detail.

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MS. HOOTEN: We have the information.

2 I just haven't looked at it to determine what

3 that area is. Okay?

4 MR. GRAVES: If one were going to

5 continue on with the investigation, how would you

6 anticipate that investigation being undertaken?

7 How would you reach a determination, for example,

8 that instead of 118 acres being restricted in

9 possibly perpetuity to, let's say, 60 acres or

10 6.6? How would you see that science develop?

11 MS. HOOTEN: The entire area was

12 gridded and sampled. We just go in and look at

13 the PRGs for the residential. There are —

14 (Reporter interruption)

15 MS. HOOTEN: The entire area was

16 gridded so that we have that information. We

17 would look at the level of risk, the contaminant

18 level that would be considered unacceptable for

19 there, residential, find out whether it was

20 exceeded on the Site and comment on that area. I

21 understand we have the data. I'm telling you, I

22 just have not looked at it for that kind of

23 decision.

24 MS. TETER: If I can interject for just

25 a minute. There's a truck parked catty-corner

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 across the street with his lights on. So if

2 that's anybody in here, you might want to turn

3 your lights off.

4 (Reporter changed paper)

5 MS. HOOTEN: Okay. Lisa has her tape

6 in. And thanks for the microphone.

7 MR. BUTALA: I just wanted to point out

8 one other thing; that Spring No. 5 does not run

9 all year long. It runs probably about seven

10 months out of the year. It's from the irrigation

11 of the fields to the -- to the east. And --

12 MR. O'GRADY: Okay.

13 MR. BUTALA: It produces a very, very

14 small guantity going west at times.

15 MS. HOOTEN: And again, we also believe

16 that Spring No. 5 is a very discrete area. And

17 so short of mining in that area, we couldn't --

18 couldn't be monitoring to ensure that it does not

19 complete a pathway to the Arkansas River. Right

20 now there is no evidence that there is PAHs in

21 the Arkansas River.

22 Go ahead.

23 MS. JIMINEZ: My name is Cynthia

24 Jiminez. can you -- would you tell me the status

25 of KRMW 1, Spring 1?

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 MS. HOOTEN: We didn't see any

2 contamination from Spring 1.

3 MS. JIMINIEZ: Okay. Because my father

4 owns Spring 1.

5 MS. HOOTEN: Oh, okay. We didn't — we

6 didn't find any --

7 MS. JIMINIEZ: And under 2, you would

8 continue to monitor spring 1 and -- under 2, to

9 be Sure there was no contamination?

10 MS. HOOTEN: We would monitor all

11 springs. We're really going to concentrate on

12 Spring 5 because that's where we see existing

13 contamination. But we'd continue to monitor all

14 springs.

MR. GREGORY: Can I respond to that?

16 MS. HOOTEN: Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead.

17 MR. GREGORY: You're asking about a

18 Spring, and KRMW 1 is a well.

19 MS. JIMINIEZ: Well, we actually own

20 the well.

21 MR. GREGORY: And we essentially use

22 that as our background. so it's-upgradient from

23 all the contamination.

24 MS. JIMINIEZ: The reason I ask is we

25 drink it, we bathe in it. You know, if we found

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 contamination --

2 MR. GREGORY: It's an upgradient well.

3 It's uphill. It won't be contaminated.

4 MS. JIMINEZ: Okay.

5 MR. GREGORY: So you should be — be

6 fine.

7 MS. HOOTEN: Okay. Anyone else?

8 So now that you can all hear me, Lisa

9 can hear me, there are no more questions, right?

10 MR. EVE: Well, I have a guestion. The

11 name is Tom Eve again.

12 It's helpful -- you know, when you use

13 all these figures in so many parts per million

14 and billion and different chemicals and

15 everything, it's hard for a lay person to

16 understand unless you put some of these figures

17 in perspective.

18 MS. HOOTEN: Uh-huh.

19 MR. EVE: And when we're looking at

20 surface contamination out there and talking about

21 restricting it to residential use, it would be

22 helpful if you could put that in some kind of

23 perspective. Like, you've already commented that

24 asphalts contain the same hazardous materials

25 that exist out there. And if somebody were to

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 pave their driveway with asphalt, would they be

2 imposing on themselves more of a risk than they

3 would if they had a residence on this particular

4 piece of property? Something to that effect

5 or or something to help people compare what

6 the risk really is. Because we all know there's

7 a lot of risk with a lot of different things we

8 do to our own property.

9 MS. HOOTEN: And that's a very good

10 topic, because what we're talking about here is

11 we, in our everyday lives, manage our risk. The

12 gentleman was talking about smoking. Exercise,

13 diet, all of those things, we managed our risk.

14 When Superfund was set up, the managed

15 risk, what the agency was tasked with, was

16 managing that risk between those two number that

17 I gave you, the one in ten thousand and one in a

18 million. And that's what we're here talking to

19 you tonight about is that managed risk. And it's

20 much higher, or it's much more stringent than

21 some of the things that you're exposed to every

22 day. But this is where CERCLA has defined what

23 the acceptable risk is, and it's our job to

24 manage within that risk. Okay?

25 Any other guestions?
SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
1 Go ahead.

2 MR. BIGLOW: Are these, the

3 cross-sections, exhibits and the mapped exhibits,

4 are they in our library?

5 MS. HOOTEN: Yes. And I apologize for

6 not having those in the library sooner. I know

7 that some of you did visit the local library, but,

8 I delivered a copy today. So they are there.

9 MR. BIGLOW: Thank you.

10 MS. HOOTEN: Any other guestions?

11 (No response)

12 MS. HOOTEN: We thank you for coming

13 out. We actually didn't expect this many, and so

14 we're really grateful for the interest that you

15 have in this Site. We do encourage you to

16 provide us your comments; it is one of the nine

17 criteria.

18 We will take a serious look at any

19 comment that you provide to us, and we will

20 respond to you in the Responsive Summary of the

21 Record of Decision. And we'd like to -- and with

22 that, we'll convene this meeting, and we'll look

23 forward to your comments. Thank you.

24 (Proceedings concluded at 9:02 p.m.)

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------
98
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

3 I, Lisa A. Sadler, do hereby certify that

4 the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate

5 transcription of my stenotype notes taken by me at the

6 above stated time and place to the best of my ability.

SOUTH PARK REPORTING
(719) 395-7611
-------

-------