FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA SUPERFUND SITE
SILVER BOW AND DEER LODGE COUNTIES, MONTANA
ST*.
&
£
<
ao
%
^4 PRO^
ro
z
LLI
e>
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
Denver, Colorado
BETSY
S MIDIN G E R q9:0 T :55.06,00,
Digitally signed by
BETSY SMIDINGER
) Date: 2021.08.30
Betsy Smidinger, Director
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
-------
Table of Contents
LIST 01 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS v
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Sitewide Background 2
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM 6
Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews 6
II. STREAMSIDE TAILINGS OPERABLE UNIT (SSTOU) 8
RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 10
PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 15
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 17
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 22
IS SUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 23
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 24
NEXT REVIEW 24
III. BERKELEY PIT/MINE FLOODING OPERABLE UNIT (BMFOU) 24
RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 27
PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 38
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 39
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 44
IS SUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 46
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 47
NEXT REVIEW 47
IV. WARM SPRINGS PONDS ACTIVE (OPERABLE UNIT 4) AND INACTIVE (OPERABLE UNIT 12) 48
RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 50
PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 57
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 58
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 62
ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 63
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS 64
NEXT REVIEW 64
V. ROCKER TIMBER FRAMING AND TREATING PLANT OPERABLE UNIT (ROCKER OU) 65
RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 67
PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 71
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 73
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 76
ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 77
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 77
NEXT REVIEW 77
VI. BUTTE PRIORITY SOILS OPERABLE UNIT (BPSOU) 78
RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 80
PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 94
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 96
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 102
ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 105
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 107
NEXT REVIEW 107
VII. WEST SIDE SOILS OPERABLE UNIT 108
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST A-l
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY B-l
APPENDIX C - SITE MAPS C-l
i
-------
APPENDIX D - PRESS NOTICES D-l
APPENDIX E - COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT E-l
APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTS F-l
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS G-l
APPENDIX H- BPSOU SCREENING-LEVEL RISK EVALUATION II-l
APPENDIX I - SSTOU DATA TABLES 1-1
APPENDIX J - WARM SPRINGS PONDS OUS DATA TABLES J-l
APPENDIX K - ROCKER OU GROUNDWATER DATA K-l
Tables
Table 1-1: Site OUs 1
Table 1-2: OU Descriptions 3
Table 2-1: SSTOU RAOs 10
Table 2-2: SSTOU Tailings and Impacted Soil Removal Goals 14
Table 2-3: SSTOU Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs) 15
Table 2-4: SSTOU Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2016 FYR Report 16
Table 2-5: SSTOU Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report 16
Table 3-1: BMFOU COCs in Groundwater and Surface Water 27
Table 3-2: BMFOU Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs) 34
Table 3-3: BMFOU Water Treatment Component Capacity 36
Table 3-4: BMFOU Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2016 FYR Report 38
Table 3-5: BMFOU Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report 38
Table 3-6: BMFOU POC Locations and December 2019 Water Level Elevations 41
Table 3-7: Berkeley Pit Surface Chemistry (1 to 5 Feet) 42
Table 4-1: Warm Springs Pond Active OU: Pond 2 Discharge Standards 52
Table 4-2: WSPOUs Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs) 55
Table 4-3: WSPOUs Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2016 FYR Report 57
Table 4-4: Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report 58
Table 5-1: Rocker OU Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs) 70
Table 5-2: Rocker OU Protectiveness Determination/Statement from the 2016 FYR Report 71
Table 5-3: Rocker OU Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report 72
Table 5-4: Rocker OU Protectiveness Determination/Statement from the 2018 FYR Report Addendum 73
Table 5-5: Rocker OU Groundwater Monitoring Wells 74
Table 6-1: BPSOU RAOs and Remedy Components 81
Table 6-2: BPSOU Soil COC Action Levels 83
Table 6-3: BPSOU Groundwater COC Cleanup Goals 83
Table 6-4: BPSOU In-Stream Chronic Surface Water Performance Standards and Proposed Waived-to Chronic
Performance Standards (Base Flow and Normal High Flow Conditions) 84
Table 6-5: BPSOU In-Stream Acute Surface Water Performance Standards and Proposed Waived-to Acute
Performance Standards (Wet Weather Conditions) 85
Table 6-6: BPSOU Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs) 91
Table 6-7: BPSOU Protectiveness Determination/Statement from the 2016 FYR Report 95
Table 6-8: BPSOU Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report 95
Table 6-9: BPSOU Residential Abatements and Assessments, 2016 to 2020 96
Table 6-10: BPSOU Effluent Water Quality Standard Exceedances 102
Table B-l: Site Chronology - Sitewide B-l
Table H-l: Evaluation ofNoncancer Toxicity Values used in the 2006 BPSOU ROD Cleanup Levels H-l
Table H-2: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Toxicity Values Used in the 2006 BPSOU ROD Cleanup Levels H-l
Table 1-1. Difference in Average Groundwater Arsenic Concentrations Between Background and Monitoring
Wells of the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019 1-1
li
-------
Table 1-2. Difference in Average Groundwater Cadmium Concentrations Between Background and Monitoring
Wells of the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019 1-2
Table 1-3. Difference in Average Groundwater Copper Concentrations Between Background and Monitoring
Wells of the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019 1-3
Table 1-4. Difference in Average Groundwater Lead Concentrations Between Background and Monitoring Wells
of the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019 1-4
Table 1-5. Difference in Average Groundwater Zinc Concentrations Between Background and Monitoring Wells
of the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019 1-5
Table J-l Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Concentrations, 2015-2019 J-l
Table J-2. Warm Springs Ponds 2019 Groundwater Monitoring Data J-14
Table K-l. Rocker OU Groundwater Concentrations K-l
Figures
Figure 1-1: OU Map 5
Figure 2-1: SSTOU Site Map 9
Figure 2-2: SSTOU Surface Water Sampling Locations 18
Figure 2-3: Contaminant of Concern Concentration Gains and Losses Among Eight Reaches of the Streamside
Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019 19
Figure 2-4: SSTOU Groundwater Sampling Locations 20
Figure 3-1: BMFOU Boundary 26
Figure 3-2: BMFOU Features 29
Figure 3-3: BMFOU Water Management Features 32
Figure 3-4: BMFOU Institutional Control Map 35
Figure 3-5: Berkeley Pit Hydrograph 1995-2019 40
Figure 4-1: Warm Springs Ponds Active OU and Inactive OU 49
Figure 4-2: WSPOUs Controlled Groundwater Area 56
Figure 4-3: WSPOUs Sampling Points 59
Figure 4-4: WSPOUs Arsenic Concentrations at Discharge SS-5 60
Figure 4-5: WSPOUs Copper Concentrations at Discharge SS-5 60
Figure 4-6: WSPOUs pH Concentrations at Discharge SS-5 61
Figure 5-1: Rocker OU Site Map 66
Figure 5-2: Rocker OU Controlled Groundwater Area 70
Figure 5-3: Rocker OU7 Monitoring and 2017 Plume Map 75
Figure 6-1: BPSOU Boundary 79
Figure 6-2: BPSOU Detailed Map 89
Figure 6-3: BPSOU Controlled Groundwater Area 92
Figure 6-4: BPSOU Overall Distribution by Years of Blood Lead Levels for Children 12 Months to 60+ Months
Old 98
Figure 6-5: BPSOU Trend in Percentage of Children 12 Months to 60+ Months Old with Blood Lead Levels
Above 5 (ig/dL 99
Figure C-l: Site Vicinity Map C-l
Figure C-2: BMFOU Potentiometric Map for East Camp Alluvial Aquifer C-2
Figure C-3: BMFOU Potentiometric Map for East Camp Bedrock Aquifer C-3
Figure C-4: BMFOU West Camp Monitoring Sites C-4
Figure C-5: BMFOU Outer Camp Monitoring Sites C-5
Figure C-6: BPSOU 2020 ROD Amendment Surface Water Remedy Components C-6
Figure C-7: BPSOU 2020 ROD Amendment Additional Reclamation Areas C-l
Figure C-8: BPSOU Groundwater Technical Impracticability Waiver Zone C-8
Figure C-9: BPSOU BRES Quadrants C-9
Figure J-l. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Flow, 2015-2020 J-2
Figure J-2. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Arsenic Concentrations, 2015-2020 J-3
in
-------
Figure J-3. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Cadmium Concentrations, 2015-2020 J-4
Figure J-4. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Copper Concentrations, 2015-2020 J-5
Figure J-5. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Iron Concentrations, 2015-2020 J-6
Figure J-6. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Lead Concentrations, 2015-2020 J-7
Figure J-7. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Mercury Concentrations, 2015-2020 J-8
Figure J-8. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Selenium Concentrations, 2015-2020 J-9
Figure J-9. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Silver Concentrations, 2015-2020 J-10
Figure J-10. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Zinc Concentrations, 2015-2020 J-l 1
Figure J-l 1. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Total Suspended Solids Concentrations, 2015-2020 ...J-12
Figure J-12. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent pH, 2015-2020 J-13
Figure K-l. Rocker OU RH-62 Arsenic Concentrations K-5
Figure K-2. Rocker OU RH-65 Arsenic Concentrations K-6
IV
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ALM
Adult Lead Methodology
amsl
Above Mean Sea Level
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BLM
Biotic Ligand Model
BMFOU
Berkeley Pit/Mine Flooding Operable Unit
BMP
Best Management Practice
BPSOU
Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit
BRES
Butte Reclamation Evaluation System
BSB
The City and County of Butte-Silver Bow
BTL
Butte Treatment Lagoons
CaC03
Calcium Carbonate
CCC
Criterion Continuous Concentration
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
cf
Conversion Factor
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CFS
Cubic Feet Per Second
CIP
Community Involvement Plan
CMC
Criterion Maximum Concentration
COC
Contaminant of Concern
CSF
Cancer Slope Factor
CSM
Conceptual Site Model
CTEC
Citizens' Technical Environmental Committee
CWL
Critical Water Level
cy
Cubic Yard
days/yr
Days Per Year
DNRC
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESD
Explanation of Significant Differences
FS
Feasibility Study
FYR
Five-Year Review
g/day
Grams Per Day
gpm
Gallons Per Minute
HEPA
High Efficiency Particulate Air
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HsBWTP
Horseshoe Bend Water Treatment Plant
IC
Institutional Control
IEUBK
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children
IUR
Inhalation Unit Risk
LAO
Lower Area One
LOD
Level of Detection
MBMG
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MDEQ
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
1-ig/dL
Micrograms Per Deciliter
l-lg/L
Micrograms Per Liter
(ig/m3
Micrograms Per Cubic Meter
mg/kg
Milligrams Per Kilogram
mg/L
Milligrams Per Liter
MGD
Million Gallons Per Day
V
-------
MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSD
Metro Storm Drain
MWRR
Mine Waste Relocation Repository
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NHANES
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OU
Operable Unit
POC
Point of Compliance
PRP
Potentially Responsible Party
PWL
Protective Water Level
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
RAAR
Remedial Action Adequacy Review
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfC
Reference Concentration
RfD
Reference Dose
RI
Remedial Investigation
RMAP
Residential Metals Abatement Program
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
SMCL
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
SSTOU
Streamside Tailings Operable Unit
ssws
Superfund Stormwater Structures
STARS
Streambank Tailings and Revegetation Study
su
Standard Unit
TI
Technical Impracticability
T/IS
Tailings/Impacted Soils
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
UAO
Unilateral Administrative Order
UU/UE
Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure
VI
Vapor Intrusion
WSP
Warm Springs Ponds
YDTI
Yankee Doodle Tailings Impoundment
VI
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to
determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods,
findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports such as this one. In addition, FYR reports
identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section
300.430(f)(4)(h)) and considering EPA policy.
This is the fifth FYR for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site (the Site). The triggering action for this
statutory review is the completion date of the previous FYR. The FYR has been prepared because hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).
The Site consists of seven operable units (OUs).1 This FYR Report addresses six of these OUs (Table 1-1).2 The
remedy for OU13 (West Side Soils OU) is not assessed in this FYR because the EPA has not selected a remedy
for it yet. A remedial investigation is ongoing at the West Side Soils OU, and a feasibility study which will
analyze potential remedial actions at the site is planned to begin in mid to late 2021.
Table 1-1: Site OUs
()l Number
()l Niinu-
Included in
IYK?
Noles
1
Streamside Tailings OU (SSTOU)
Yes
None
3
Berkeley Pit/Mine Flooding OU (BMFOU)
Yes
None
4
12
Warm Springs Ponds Active OU
Warm Springs Ponds Inactive OU
(WSPOUs)
Yes
Combined for FYR purposes
7
Rocker Timber Framing and Treating Plant OU
(Rocker OU)
Yes
None
8
Butte Priority Soils OU (BPSOU)
Yes
Includes previously separate
OUs 2,5,6, 10 and 11
13
West Side Soils OU
No
Remedial Investigation in
progress
EPA remedial project managers (RPMs) Nikia Greene (OUs 3, 7, 8 and 13), Ken Champagne (OU1) and Allie
Archer (OUs 4 and 12) led the FYR. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) participated in
this review as the support agency representing the state of Montana for all OUs except the SSTOU, where it is the
lead agency. Potentially responsible parties (PRPs) finance and implement cleanup at the Site, with the exception
of the Streamside Tailings OU (SSTOU) where MDEQ is implementing the remedy using funds provided by the
PRP. MDEQ has reviewed all supporting documentation for this report and provided input to the EPA during the
FYR process. The PRPs were notified of the initiation of the FYR. The review began on 5/28/2020.
1 The Clark Fork River OU (OU9) became part of the Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund Site.
2 The EPA has formally deferred Superfund action at an additional OU, the Active Mining Area, which is regulated by
MDEQ pursuant to an active mine permit.
1
-------
The EPA has decided in this report that the cleanup activities completed to date at the Streamside Tailings OU
are protective in the short term. This means the current remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. The removal of tailings-impacted soils is complete, and sampling of surface water and
groundwater monitors contaminant levels, which are expected to decrease. MDEQ and the EPA will
determine if any adjustments to monitoring or performance goals are needed. Access and use restrictions are
being considered to further protect the public.
The EPA has decided in this report that the cleanup activities completed to date and additional planned
cleanup activities at the Berkeley Pit/Mine Flooding OU will be protective once complete. In the meantime,
contaminated mine water is contained and prevented from entering into the alluvial aquifer and Silver Bow
Creek. Institutional controls are in place to restrict the use of groundwater in the Butte Water District
Controlled Groundwater Area.
The EPA has decided in this report that the cleanup activities completed to date at the Warm Springs Ponds
Active and Inactive OUs will be protective when the final remedy is selected and implemented. In the
meantime, the initial cleanup activities protect human health and the environment. Currently, water from
Silver Bow Creek is treated and monitored prior to leaving the ponds into Clark Fork River, and systems are
in place to ensure no groundwater contamination leaves the area.
The EPA has decided in this report that the cleanup activities completed to date at the Rocker Timber Framing
and Treating Plant OU are protective in the short term. This means the current remedy is protective of human
health and the environment. Currently, groundwater and surface water are monitored to ensure no
unacceptable exposures, the waste area is fenced, and institutional controls are in place to restrict the domestic
use of groundwater. The EPA will determine if additional actions are needed to improve the cleanup.
The EPA has decided in this report that the cleanup activities completed to date and additional planned
cleanup activities at the Butte Priority Soils OU will be protective once complete. Further cleanup work will
address stormwater and snowmelt runoff, further groundwater control, and floodplain and contaminated
sediment protection. Under the Residential Metals Abatement Program, residential properties throughout the
OU and beyond are being cleaned up. Continued maintenance of the non-residential cleanup areas protects
human health and the environment from waste that remains in place. Institutional controls are in place to
restrict use of contaminated groundwater and prevent disturbing areas with waste left in place. Blood lead
level monitoring shows improvement and will continue to be implemented and improved.
Sitewide Background
The Site is one of four contiguous Superfund sites in the upper Clark Fork River Basin in southwestern Montana.
The other Superfund sites are the Anaconda Co. Smelter site, the Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River
site and the Montana Pole and Treating Plant site. The Site covers about 85 square miles. It includes the entire
length of Silver Bow Creek and associated land contamination from above the confluence with Blacktail Creek,
westward about 26 miles. The Site also includes the Berkeley Pit and the underground mine workings of the
historic Butte Mining District (Butte Hill), the urban centers of Butte and Walkerville, rural areas outside of Butte
where mining took place, and the treatment/settling ponds at the Warm Springs Ponds (Figure 1-1).
Mining activities occurred in Butte, Montana, and in surrounding areas for over 100 years. Underground mining
was extensive in Butte and Walkerville. Silver milling, followed by the extensive operation of copper and zinc
smelters and mills, generated a variety of wastes. By the late 1880s, Butte became one of the nation's prominent
copper mining centers. Mining crews disposed of wastes generated from mining, milling and smelting operations
directly into Silver Bow Creek and Blacktail Creek and across Butte Hill. These waste disposal practices
contaminated soil, sediment, groundwater and surface water with arsenic and heavy metals, leaving the natural
landscape largely devoid of vegetation and wildlife.
2
-------
The landscape surrounding the Site is characterized by high mountain peaks that reach elevations above 10,000
feet. Surface water and groundwater resources receive the most recharge in the spring and early summer due to
melting mountain snowpack and spring rains. Beneath the Site, groundwater occurs in an alluvial aquifer and a
bedrock aquifer. Additional details on the groundwater systems beneath the OUs are provided in each OU
subsection of this FYR report.
Historically, Silver Bow Creek began at the Continental Divide and flowed through the area that is now the
Berkeley Pit and the active permitted mine area.3 Mining activity has permanently altered this uppermost reach of
Silver Bow Creek. Currently, there is no surface water flow in the Silver Bow Creek channel above Blacktail
Creek except during storm runoff or snowmelt conditions. Downstream of Butte, Silver Bow Creek flows west
into Durant Canyon, mainly fed by Blacktail Creek. Within the canyon, the creek turns northward and enters the
Southern Deer Lodge Valley and continues to flow for another 6.5 miles before entering the Warm Springs Ponds.
Table 1-2 provides a brief description of each OU. Figure 1-1 shows each OU on a map.
Table 1-2: OU Descriptions
Opcmhlc I nil
()l Description
OU1: Streamside Tailings OU
(SSTOU)
The SSTOU consists of about 26 linear miles of Silver Bow Creek floodplain and
in-stream surface water, and fluvially deposited tailings, which were once found
along and in the creek, from just outside of Butte to the Warm Springs Ponds. It also
includes associated groundwater contamination. Historically, the creek was used to
dispose of smelter and mill tailings, and other waste products, and conveyed wastes
out of Butte. Mining wastes carried from Butte were deposited in the floodplain,
impacting water quality throughout Silver Bow Creek.
OU3: Berkeley Pit/Mine Flooding
(BMFOU)
The Berkeley Pit is the BMFOU's major feature. It is 1,780 feet deep and
encompasses 675 acres. The BMFOU consists of contaminated water in the
Berkeley Pit, contaminated water in approximately 10,000 miles of associated
underground mine workings (beneath the city of Butte and town of Walkerville as
well as beneath the Montana Resources permitted active mine area), and other
contaminated inflow to the BMFOU. Active mining continues in the Continental Pit
nearby, in the Montana Resources permitted area, which is directly adjacent to the
BMFOU. The active mining operations use Horseshoe Bend treated BMFOU water,
which affects the water balance in the BMFOU.
OU4 and OU12: Warm Springs
Ponds Active OU and Inactive OU
(WSPOUs)
The Warm Springs Ponds surface area includes three historic tailings ponds, at the
downstream end of the Site, that treat Silver Bow Creek water before discharge to
the Clark Fork River. The Warm Springs Ponds OUs also include associated
groundwater contamination and the nearby Mill-Willow Bypass. The WSPOU
complex covers about 2,500 acres and contains 19 million cubic yards of mine
waste.
OU7: Rocker Timber Treating and
Framing OU
The Rocker OU surface area covers about 16 acres and is located south of U.S.
Interstate 15/90 near Rocker, Montana, about 3 miles west of Butte (Figure 1-1). It
includes soil and groundwater contamination associated with the former Rocker
Timber Framing and Treating Plant. The surface boundary of the Rocker OU adjoins
the SSTOU on one side.
OU8: Butte Priority Soils OU
(BPSOU)
The BPSOU surface area covers a 5-square-mile area and encompasses the town of
Walkerville and a large portion of the city of Butte, as well as associated alluvial
aquifer contamination and the floodplain and surface water of Silver Bow Creek and
Blacktail Creek. It is located a few miles west of the Continental Divide at an
elevation range about 5,400 to 6,400 feet above mean sea level. The BPSOU is
centered on Butte Hill, the location of the historic Butte Mining District.
OU13: West Side Soils
The West Side Soils OU lies generally to the north and west of the BPSOU. It
includes other historic mining- and metals-impacted areas within the West Side
Soils OU not addressed under the BPSOU, the BMFOU or the active mining area.
3 Montana Resources operates an active permitted mine in the Continental Pit area.
3
-------
Land use in the area of the Site is diverse and includes neighborhoods, rural areas, commercial areas and
industrial districts of Butte. The Site also encompasses the entire active mining area east of the Butte Hill. West
and north of Butte, the Site includes stream and streamside habitat along the length of Silver Bow Creek between
Butte and its confluence with Warm Springs Creek. Land in the Silver Bow Creek corridor is mostly privately
owned and consists of sparsely populated open land used primarily for agriculture. The Warm Springs Ponds offer
habitat for migrating waterfowl and breeding areas for dozens of songbird species and osprey. The Warm Springs
Ponds area is a designated wildlife management area administered by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks.
The EPA designated the original Silver Bow Creek site as a Superfund site and listed it on the Superfund
program's National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983. Work began on a site-wide remedial investigation
(RI) in 1984. Preliminary results indicated that upstream sources were partly responsible for the contamination
observed in the creek. After a thorough analysis of the relationship between the two areas (Butte and Silver Bow
Creek), the EPA concluded that they should be treated as one site under CERCLA. The EPA subsequently
modified the Silver Bow Creek site to include the Butte Area, and the formal name was changed to the "Silver
Bow Creek/Butte Area" Superfund site in 1987.
Screening studies and risk assessments identified contaminants of concern (COCs) and quantified human health
and environmental risks from these COCs in solid media (including tailings, waste, sediment, soils and indoor
dust), surface water and groundwater. Through OU-specific RI/FS studies, OU-specific action levels were
established for site COCs (i.e., all OUs that have RODs developed).
Appendix A provides a list of the resources used during the development of this FYR Report. Appendix B
provides the Site's chronology of events. This FYR Report is organized by OU. Each OU section includes the
following sections: background, response actions, implementation, institutional controls, operations and
maintenance (O&M), data review and technical assessment.
4
-------
Figure 1-1: OU Map
WlarklFork]
jtYankee]
iBodSlej
^Tailings
ZtBoundaryltom
]6&DeteJrnined{
.Berkeley
¦BitM
ISily.erJBo.Wi
ptemM
Rocker - OU7
IBIacktaill
¦CreeM
. . J» - > . • • IS S
v/
. • 1
•a
. wA
I 1
Miles
Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye. Earthstar Geographies.
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, the GIS User
Community, CH2MHHI, the Butte-Silver Bow Planning Department,
2016 FYR, the 2017 Rocker Conceptual Site Model, the 2019 Draft
BMFOU RAAR Technical Memorandum and the 2020 AROD.
Legend
Streamside Tailings - OU1
Berkeley Pit/Mine Flooding
-OU3
Warm Springs Ponds -
OU4& OU12
Rocker - OU7
Butte Priority Soils - OU8
. . | West Side Soils-OU13
I Site Features
^Skeo O
v ~ NORTH
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site
City of Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the
Site.
5
-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Region: 8
State: Montana
City/County: Butte/Silver Bow and Deer Lodge
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Has the Site achieved construction completion?
No
Lead agency: EPA
Author name: EPA RPMs Nikia Green (OU3, OU7, OU8, OU13), Ken Champagne (OU1) and Allie
Archer (OU4 and OU12)
Author affiliation: EPA Region 8 with contractor assistance from Skeo
Review period: 5/28/2020 - 8/30/2021
Date of site inspection: 9/15/2020 - 9/18/2020
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 5
Triggering action date: 8/30/2016
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 8/30/2021
Community Notification. Community Involvement and Site Interviews
Community involvement is an important and meaningful component of the activities at the Site. The EPA is
aware that the size and location of the various parts of the Site have a range of potential effects on community
members. Community members are in a position to share information that may not otherwise come to light during
an FYR process. The EPA maintains and implements Community Involvement Plans (CIP) for the Site, maintains
a site profile page for the Site, works with the Citizens' Technical Environmental Committee (CTEC), and helps
make sure information is provided for the PitWatch.org website and periodic fact sheets. The EPA also released
an environmental justice action plan for the site in December 2020. Currently the EPA is revising the OU8
(BPSOU) Community Involvement Plan and will include sections for OU3 (BMFOU) and OU7 (Rocker). As
MDEQ is the lead for the SSTOU, it maintains and implements the CIP and State profile page for OU1. As part of
this FYR, the EPA informed the community that the FYR was taking place. The EPA encouraged the public to
contact EPA staff with information that could inform the EPA's determination regarding the protectiveness and
effectiveness of the implemented remedies at the Site.
Public notices were published in the Montana Standard and Butte Weekly on September 9, 16 and 22, 2020
(Appendix D). They stated that the FYR was underway and invited the public to submit any comments to the
6
-------
EPA. In addition, the EPA directly contacted over 80 community stakeholders to invite them to participate in an
interview. The EPA will make the final FYR Report available to the public. The EPA will place copies of the
document in the designated site repositories: CTEC's office at 27 West Park Street in Butte, the Montana Tech
library at 1300 West Park Street in Butte, and the EPA Records Center in Helena. Upon completion of the FYR,
EPA will place public notices in the local newspapers to announce the availability of the final FYR Report in the
Site's document repositories and on its Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area website and will also post a notice of
availability on the Site's profile page: www.epa.gov/supcrfund/silvcr-bow-buttc.
The FYR process included stakeholder interviewees, community members, the current landowners and regulatory
agencies involved in or affected by site activities. The purpose of FYR interviews is to document the perceived
status of the Site and any perceived problems or successes with the phases of the remedy implemented to
date. During the FYR process, 17 people participated in interviews by phone or provided written comments. All
issues raised were considered, reviewed and incorporated as appropriate into evaluations during this FYR. The
interviews are summarized in Appendix E and discussed as appropriate in the technical assessments for each
individual OU.
7
-------
II. STREAMSIDE TAILINGS OPERABLE UNIT (SSTOU, Operable Unit 1)
Background
The SSTOU consists of about 26 linear miles of Silver Bow Creek and its floodplain and fluvially deposited
tailings along the creek as well as contaminated railroad beds located near the creek. The surrounding areas
include residences and ranches. Silver Bow Creek originates in Butte and flows west and north before entering the
Warm Springs Ponds. Blacktail Creek is located upstream of Silver Bow Creek. Historically, the creeks were used
to dispose of and impound smelter tailings and other mining waste and conveyed wastes out of Butte. The SSTOU
boundary begins at the upstream end just outside of the Butte city limits and continues until Silver Bow Creek
enters the Warm Springs Ponds (Figure 2-1).
Mining wastes and contamination carried from Butte were deposited in the floodplain, impacting water quality
throughout Silver Bow Creek. The EPA estimated that 2.5 million to 2.8 million cubic yards (cy) of tailings and
contaminated soils covered about 1,300 acres in the OU. In some areas, the tailings were several feet thick.
Mining wastes caused acidic conditions and contaminated Silver Bow Creek and its floodplain with arsenic and
metals including cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc.
The SSTOU is divided into four subareas based on geologic and topographic features. Each remedial subarea is
further divided into five remedial "reaches," each about one mile in length, for a total of 20 remedial reaches
within the SSTOU, which are identified longitudinally from upstream to downstream by the letters A-T (Figure 2-
1).
Groundwater occurs in both bedrock and shallow alluvial aquifers within the SSTOU. Generally, alluvial
groundwater flows toward and into Silver Bow Creek. Movement of groundwater within bedrock aquifers is
controlled by open fractures and joints in the rock. Shallow alluvial aquifers in the SSTOU are typically impacted
by mining-related contaminants.
8
-------
Figure 2-1: SSTOU Site Map
SUBAREA 4
REACHES P-T
kCKERVILLE
J5 FAIRMONT HOT SPRINGS_
REACH 0
SUBAREA 3
REACHES K-0
SUBAREA i
REACHES F-
SUBAREA 1
REACHES A-E
NISSLER
BUTTE
RA COMPLETION
LEGEND:
NOTE:
FIGURE 1
SSTOU
RESIDUAL TAILINGS
RA CONTRACT
COMPLETION YEARS
PftlWEPASi
SjZOMEi MSP
TOWN
REACH BREAKS
STREAM
HIGHWAY
] 2016
] 2017/2018
1. NO RESIDUAL TAILINGS RA
CONSTRUCTION WAS REQUIRED
IN REACHES L THROUGH T
]2016/2017
] 2017
7/fC7JA'/CA/. S/Xy/CBS, //VC
201 E. BROADWAY. SUITE C
HELENA, MT 59638
(406) 457-8252
DATE: 05-14-20
\C«R OVERALLXCCR I
Source: Figure 1, 2020 SSTOU Preliminary Close Out Report, Addendum 1
9
-------
RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
EPA initiated environmental investigations in the vicinity of the SSTOU in 1982 to address mining impacts along
Silver Bow Creek. Contamination was found in tailings and impacted soils, instream sediments, railroad bed soils,
groundwater and surface water. In 1995, the PRP submitted a Phase II RI/FS to the EPA and MDEQ that
incorporated all relevant pre-1991 Phase IRI data. The 1995 human health risk assessment identified potential
exposure to arsenic in soils and groundwater as the primary risk to people living in or near the area. The EPA
determined the risks posed by lead contamination in soils were generally within the acceptable range based on the
risk model used in Butte.
The contaminated in-stream sediments of Silver Bow Creek are a critical contaminant pathway to impacted
surface water and aquatic biota, and particularly, benthic macroinvertebrates. Contaminants in sediment posing a
high risk to the environment are arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc.
Many near-stream tailings and impacted soil areas were devoid of vegetation. The primary contaminants in
surface soils include arsenic, copper, lead and zinc.
Potential risks to ecological receptors were evaluated by comparing current or predicted conditions and chemical
concentrations in exposed media against known conditions that lead to adverse effects. At the time of the
assessment, Silver Bow Creek was devoid of fish and most other aquatic life forms due to the presence of mine
waste contamination. The assessment found that these contaminants affect both the water quality and instream
sediments in Silver Bow Creek and create a toxic environment for fish and most benthic macroinvertebrates.
Surface water has been severely impacted throughout the length of Silver Bow Creek and serves as a contaminant
pathway to the aquatic environment. Surface water contaminants that pose the greatest risk to the health of the
stream include copper and zinc.
Response Actions
The EPA and MDEQ selected the remedy for the SSTOU in the November 1995 Record of Decision (ROD) and
1998 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD). The ROD describes the final remedial action objectives
(RAOs) for the five media of concern at the SSTOU (Table 2-1).
Table 2-1: SSTOU RAOs
Medium
RAO
Tailings/Impacted Soils (T/IS)
• Prevent human exposure to T/IS from residential or occupational activity in the
SSTOU. This will be accomplished, in part, through institutional controls that
will require the entire SSTOU to be developed as a recreational corridor.
• Prevent erosion or migration of inorganic contaminants of concern in T/IS into
Silver Bow Creek or into groundwater that would prevent attainment of
groundwater, surface water and sediment remediation levels.
• Protect all solid waste in the SSTOU from flood displacement, washout or
erosion in accordance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs).
• Prevent the saturation of T/IS by groundwater during any period of the
hydrologic year or by bank storage of high-flow stream discharge.
• Prevent migration of contaminants of concern in T/IS that would cause
phytotoxicity in terrestrial vegetation.
10
-------
Medium
RAO
In-Stream Sediments
• Remove all tailings and the majority of the contaminant load from the streambed.
• Prevent exposure of aquatic species to instream sediments with concentrations of
contaminants in excess of published (in peer-reviewed journals) risk-based
concentrations.
• Improve Silver Bow Creek over time to a condition that supports a self-
reproducing fishery for trout species.
Railroad Materials
• Prevent exposure by recreational users of the railroad beds in excess of
acceptable cancer and non-cancer risks from arsenic. Risks will be adequately
reduced by removal of ore concentrate spills and other impacted railroad
materials exhibiting arsenic concentrations in excess of 2,000 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg).
• Prevent erosion of contaminated railroad bed materials into Silver Bow Creek to
the degree that surface water standards would be exceeded, or instream sediments
would be contaminated, or vegetation on adjacent relocation or Streambank
Tailings and Revegetation Study (STARS)3 treated areas would be adversely
impacted.
Groundwater
• Attain compliance with applicable MDEQ Circular WQB-7 standards, federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and federal non-zero maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for all OU groundwater.
• Prevent discharge of groundwater that would prevent attainment of Silver Bow
Creek Circular WQB-7 ambient standards or instream sediment remediation
goals.
Surface Water
• Meet the more restrictive of the aquatic life or human health standards for surface
water identified in MDEQ Circular WQB-7, through application of Is-
classification requirements.b
• Prevent exposure of humans and aquatic species to instream sediments with
concentrations of inorganic contamination in excess of risk-based standards. A
physical criterion is used to define those sediments posing the greatest risk to
receptor species. A contingency is established to develop metal-specific
concentrations that would be risk-based and allow sediment cleanup standards if
the physical criterion standard cannot be employed appropriately.
• Provided that upstream sources of Silver Bow Creek contaminants are
eliminated, meeting the two remediation standards identified above should attain
the remedial action objective to improve the quality of Silver Bow Creek's
surface water and instream sediments to the point that Silver Bow Creek could
support the growth and propagation of fishes and associated aquatic life, one of
the designated goals for an Is-class stream, including a self-sustaining population
of trout species.
Notes:
a. Lab, greenhouse and field studies led to the development of a technology specifically for consideration at the SSTOU
involving chemically amending floodplain tailings, commonly referred to as STARS.
b. Silver Bow Creek (mainstem) from the confluence of Blacktail Deer Creek to Warm Springs Creek is currently
classified "Is" for water use. The MDEQ undertook an effort to reclassify the stream some years ago but has not finally
acted on that reclassification. The goal of the state of Montana is to have these waters fully support the following uses:
drinking, culinary and food processing purposes after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming and recreation; growth
and propagation of fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water
supply.
The major components of the SSTOU remedy, as described in the 1995 ROD, include:
• Removal of tailings and impacted soils, including the stream, streambanks, and near streambanks, from
most areas in the 100-year floodplain.
• Excavated tailings and impacted soils will be placed in mine waste relocation repositories at locations to
be determined during the remedial design/remedial action. To meet RAOs, removal will include tailings
11
-------
and impacted soils where: (a) they are saturated by groundwater; (b) in-place treatment would not be
effective because of thickness of tailings or lack of buffer material between the tailings and groundwater;
or (c) treated tailings and impacted soils could be eroded into Silver Bow Creek.
• All waste left in place will be STARS-treated and protected from washout or erosion from lateral stream
migration and flood flows.
• Fine-grained in-stream sediments in depositional areas are to be removed and placed in repositories with
the excavated tailings and impacted soils. After removal of contaminated in-stream sediments, the
channel bed and streambank will be reconstructed.
• All contaminated railroad materials that pose a risk to human health or the environment will be excavated,
treated and/or capped.
• No separate remedial action is planned for groundwater or surface water. Remedial activities for the
SSTOU tailings and impacted soils and for sources of contaminants upstream or off site under other
cleanup actions are expected to reduce contaminant releases to groundwater and surface water, with the
goal of ultimately attaining state water quality standards.
• Development and implementation of an institutional controls program and an operation and maintenance
(O&M) plan.
The EPA and MDEQ updated the remedy in a 1998 ESD. Changes included:
• Increasing the volume of the SSTOU tailings and impacted soil based on additional information.
• Allowing modifications to the alignment and channel profile of Silver Bow Creek.
• Allowing use of a temporary stream diversion to facilitate dewatering and excavation of near-stream
tailings and to enhance floodplain and streambank revegetation efforts.
• Adopting more protective in-stream sediment removal criteria based on other remedial design changes.4
• Adding a soil cover to the mine waste relocation repository design.
• Including sediment basins to capture contaminated overland flows from off-site mine waste sources.
• Eliminating treatment wetlands as the final land use in Subarea 1 was documented.
• Revising the proposed schedule for the SSTOU remedy implementation.
• Increasing the estimated cost of the SSTOU remedy.
The SSTOU ROD estimated that approximately 1,550,000 cy of tailings and impacted soils would be removed
from the floodplain, and approximately 950,000 cy would be treated in situ with the STARS technology. While
treatment would have reduced the leachability and mobility of the metals in the treated tailings and impacted
soils, the ROD remedy would have allowed nearly 40% of the tailings and impacted soils to remain in place as a
continuing potential source of COCs to groundwater and Silver Bow Creek. The ESD increased the over-
excavation safety factor, which substantially increased the estimated volume of tailings and impacted soils in the
OU to be removed and enhanced the overall effectiveness of the remedy.
Status of Implementation
Upon entry of a Consent Decree in 1999, which provided PRP funding for implementation of the ROD as
modified, MDEQ, with approval from the EPA, assumed the lead for implementation of the remedial design and
remedial action. Remedial construction generally proceeded from upstream to downstream (Subarea 1 through
Subarea 4) across the 26-mile OU (Figure 2-1). Excavated materials were transported to the SSTOU Mine Waste
Relocation Repository (MWRR) or off site to the Opportunity Ponds Waste Management Area, which is part of
4 The ROD required that fine-grained (less than one millimeter) in-stream sediments in depositional areas be excavated and
placed in a Mine Waste Relocation Repository (MWRRs). The agencies have determined that the revised criteria are more
protective than the prior ROD criteria because (1) the new criteria address the entire Silver Bow Creek channel in the
SSTOU, rather than just depositional areas, (2) the original criteria were found not to define adequately those contaminated
sediments requiring removal, and (3) the stream bed of the new Silver Bow Creek channel will be constructed of clean,
imported materials and the stream will be more stable geomorphically, reducing potential re-entrainment of and exposure to
contaminated materials in the stream.
12
-------
the Anaconda Co. Smelter NPL site. Placement of the wastes in the Opportunity Ponds Waste Management Area
eliminated the potential for the numerous near-stream repositories to become potential sources of COCs to
groundwater and Silver Bow Creek and reduced the associated ongoing monitoring and maintenance
requirements.
The application of STARS technology using lime amendments for the in-situ treatment of tailings and impacted
soils - were replaced with cost-effective actions that were effective to protect human health and the environment.
In-situ treatment was limited to certain areas with low concentrations located far away from the anticipated
channel migration corridor.
Stream Reconstruction
Throughout much of the SSTOU, Silver Bow Creek was reconstructed and realigned. In some stretches of the
creek, the channel could not be relocated or completely reconstructed due to infrastructure, including active
railroad lines and bridges. The entire stream channel was removed and replaced with a new, non-deformable
channel section in areas where Silver Bow Creek is located directly at the toe of a railroad embankment or
between two active railroads and removal of the railroad material was not feasible.
Deformable channel banks, designed to allow for stream migration over time, were constructed throughout a
majority of the OU. Nearly 2 miles of additional stream length were added, increasing the total length of Silver
Bow Creek from 24 to approximately 26 miles.
Railroad Materials
Remedy implementation included installation of engineered revetments on or adjacent to all contaminated railroad
embankments adjacent to the stream channel to prevent erosion and to protect the embankment. Run-on control
channels and sediment ponds were constructed where larger areas of runoff from railroad bed or rail yards could
impact the floodplain. Clean rock cover was placed over all contaminated railroad embankments adjacent to the
floodplain to prevent direct exposure and minimize erosion onto the floodplain. Portions of the embankment were
removed where feasible and necessary to implement the remedy.
The remedy included excavation of the railroad embankment at bridge abutments to a depth of at least one to two
feet, replacement of the bank with clean backfill material, and armoring. The remedy also included relocation of
the Silver Bow Creek channel to provide for railroad bridge crossings. As part of constructing new bridges,
installing culverts or relocating the bridges at locations along the creek, the entire bridge abutment sections,
floodplain tailings and impacted soils, and the affected portions of the contaminated railroad beds were replaced
with clean fill material. MDEQ also removed three bridges and associated portions of the embankments from the
historic alignment (two in Reach B and one in Reach K) that were no longer needed after stream channel
realignment was completed.
The contaminated railroad beds adjacent to but outside the remediated floodplain were covered by protective rock
to prevent erosion of the underlying materials. The cover is intended to prevent erosion caused by the direct
impact of rainfall on the side of the embankment.
All material removed from the railroad grades was treated as tailings and impacted soils and disposed of in the
Opportunity Ponds Waste Management Area. All new embankments were constructed with clean imported fill
materials.
Tailings and Impacted Soils
The remedy included excavation to a predetermined depth, established during design through test pitting and
sampling, and off-site disposal of the material. The remedial action goal guiding the excavations was to remove
90% of the floodplain tailings and impacted soils with 95% confidence. Contaminant material removal was
13
-------
considered achieved if at least four out of six of the COCs achieved the removal goal (Table 2-2). Verification
sampling to confirm acceptable removal of contaminated material took place in each reach before application of
replacement soil, topsoil and revegetation.
Table 2-2: SSTOU Tailings and Impacted Soil Removal Goals
<¦<><¦
Ki'ino\;il (.(nils (illilliniums
per kji
Arsenic
200
Cadmium
20
Copper
1,000
Mercury
10
Lead
1,000
Zinc
1,000
The initial SSTOU remedial action, conducted from 1999 to 2015, removed the majority of the tailings and
impacted soils deposited in the Silver Bow Creek floodplain in Reaches 1-4. However, because of the project
scale and limitations of field verification sampling, some deposited tailings and impacted soils remained in the
floodplain. The residual tailings remedial action included a secondary pass through Subareas 1 through 2 to
excavate the remaining areas of tailings and impacted soils. In addition to the tailings and impacted soils removal,
areas of poorly performing vegetation were treated with vegetative backfill growth media. Minor streambank
rehabilitation work was completed where necessary.
During this FYR period, final remedial action work in Reach A and B were completed. The Residual Tailings
remedial action began with mobilization by the cleanup contractor to Reach A in January 2016, progressed
downstream and was finished in Reach D in July 2017. In November 2017, work began in Reach E and
progressed through Reach F. From January 2018 to April 2018, remedial action activities continued in Reach G
and Reach H until suspension of work in April 2018 because of high stream flows. Reach I and Reach J were
worked on concurrently from mid-April 2018 through mid-May 2018 before work started in Reach K and
recommenced in Reach G and Reach H. All remedial action work was completed in reaches G through K by
December 2018. Areas where residual tailings remain in place at depth are near utilities and in areas where
existing ponds were expanded. Excavation was not completed in saturated areas where deeper excavation depths
were not practical or safe. The contractor demobilized from the Site in February 2019. The EPA is reviewing the
remedial action report submitted in 2020 and will determine with MDEQ if additional actions are needed.
Current actions consist of regular MDEQ inspections and monitoring of surface water, groundwater, vegetation
cover and additional environmental media, and additional removal activities as needed.
Institutional Control (IC) Review
The 1995 ROD anticipated a need for certain institutional controls based largely on the need to protect areas of in-
situ treatment, the MWRR and prevent shallow groundwater use. Currently, alluvial groundwater is not used for
potable consumption within the SSTOU. MDEQ is currently working with the Greenway District, an entity that
has constructed a trail system along Silver Bow Creek, to create an institutional control plan for the SSTOU, as
required by the ROD.
At the time of this FYR, MDEQ is completing an assessment of compliance with performance standards for the
Site. MDEQ will propose appropriate institutional controls based on final conditions. As a part of the assessment,
MDEQ has prepared a Site Inspection Monitoring and Maintenance Plan that identifies key components of the
remedy and known areas of waste left in place. That plan is under review by the EPA.
14
-------
Table 2-3: SSTOU Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)
Mcdi;i. r.njiinccrcd
( onlrols. iiiid \rc;is
1 h;il Do \o(
Support I 1 /I 1.
I$;iscd on Cimtciii
Conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs Called
lor in (lie
Decision
Dociiinciils
lmp;iclcd
\rc;i(s)
IC
OI>.jcc(i\c
Tide of IC liislriiiiicnl
Implemented iind Diilc
(or pl:i lined)
Areas of in-situ
treatment
Yes
Yes
To be
determined
To be determined
To be determined
MWRR
Yes
Yes
MWRR area
To be determined
To be determined
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
To be
determined
To be determined
To be determined
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The 1995 ROD describes the SSTOU O&M activities, including a long-term plan to monitor, manage and
maintain reclaimed areas and on-site repositories. MDEQ, under its draft Site Inspection Monitoring and
Maintenance Plan, conducts regular inspections for erosion and monitors surface water, sediments, groundwater,
macroinvertebrates, periphyton and fish (see Data Review section below). The monitoring, management and
maintenance program addresses vegetative performance on treatment areas, on-site repositories, remediated
streambanks, streambank stability and channel meander. It also addresses in-stream sediment sampling for
contaminant concentrations and macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity. Repairs to areas damaged or eroded
over time are completed as needed. Vadose zone, saturated zone and overland flow monitoring will promote
documentation of metals immobilization in all remediated areas of the SSTOU.
PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the 2016 FYR Report as well as the
recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report and the status of those recommendations.
15
-------
Table 2-4: SSTOU Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2016 FYR Report
()l #
Prnieclhcness
l)clcrmin;ilion
Pro(ec(i\oness M;ilcmcnl
1
Short-term Protective
The remedy at the SSTOU (OU1) is expected to be protective
of human health and the environment upon completion. In the
interim, remedial activities completed to date have adequately
addressed exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable
risks.
Table 2-5: SSTOU Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report
()l #
Issue
Kccommcii(l;ilions
( II ITCH 1
Sliilus
(' ii itch 1 1 m p lemon 1 ;i 1 io n
Sliilus Description
Complclion
Diilclil'
iippliciihlc)
OU1
An O&M Plan has
been submitted but
not yet approved.
Finalize and
approve the O&M
Plan.
Under
Discussion
The EPA is reviewing the
draft O&M Plan.
Not applicable
OU1
Institutional controls
are not yet
implemented.
Develop and
implement an
institutional
controls plan.
Ongoing
MDEQ is evaluating the
extent of institutional controls
needed, as described in the
1995 ROD, and will propose
an appropriate institutional
control plan based on final
conditions.
Not applicable
OU1
Areas of vegetation
failure remain.
Identify and remove
all remaining hot
spots.
Ongoing
MDEQ continues to address
the remaining hot spots
through completion of the
residual tailings remedial
action.
9/30/2023
OU1
The interaction
between
groundwater and
surface water is not
fully characterized.
Conduct a more
detailed assessment
of how metal COC
concentrations in
groundwater
influence metal
COC
concentrations in
surface water.
Under
Discussion
MDEQ produced a draft
assessment of the
groundwater and surface
water interaction in the
SSTOU, which is currently
under EPA review and
comment. MDEQ will
continue monitoring
groundwater and surface
water as described in the
Sampling and Analysis Plan
for Performance Monitoring
of the Streamside Tailings
Operable Unit.
Not applicable
OU1
The ecological risk
assessment did not
consider the current
fauna now present at
remediated areas.
Evaluate risk to
ecological
receptors.
Under
Discussion
MDEQ produced a draft
assessment Updated
Ecological Risk Assessment
for the SSTOU, which is
under EPA review and
comment.
Not applicable
16
-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Data Review
The ROD identifies remediation goals and performance standards for surface water and groundwater. The purpose
of the surface water and groundwater monitoring program is to assess contaminant trends and provide a long-term
record of environmental conditions in the SSTOU. In addition, MDEQ evaluates a broader range of parameters as
part of the performance monitoring program for the SSTOU. The MDEQ performance monitoring program
includes additional environmental media, not required by the ROD, including in-stream sediment, vadose zone
water, macroinvertebrates, periphyton, vegetation, soils and birds.
Overall, conditions have improved, but elevated concentrations and contaminant loading within the SSTOU
continue. Groundwater and surface water monitoring will continue, and conditions are expected to improve with
the completion of the SSTOU remedial actions and continued remediation of upstream sources. The EPA is
currently reviewing MDEQ's performance standard compliance report and an assessment of groundwater and
surface water interactions. The EPA and MDEQ will determine if modifications are needed to the remedial action,
and the monitoring or the performance standards in order to ensure long-term protectiveness.
Surface Water Monitoring
Surface water sampling has occurred at 13 sites located on Silver Bow Creek within the SSTOU between 2015
and 2019 (Figure 2-2). Each site was sampled on a quarterly basis generally in mid-March, early June, mid-
September and early December.
17
-------
Figure 2-2: SSTOU Surface Water Sampling Locations
Metro
Opportunity
f
Berker
Pit
Storm
Drain
Crackervilk
Yankee
Doodle
Tailings
Ponds
Legend
• Sampling Locations
0 2.5
N
Source: Figure 2-1, 2020 Addendum to Surface
Assessment
5 Miles
_l
Water and
Harm Spring
Ponds
NTANA
Butte Wastewater
Groundwater Interim Performance Standards
SS-04
Overall, MDEQ-reported rates of surface water remedial goal exceedances have declined over time, but the rate of
decline has slowed in the most recent five-year period. MDEQ's 2020 assessment of performance standard
compliance indicates that Subarea 1 remained a source of contamination within the SSTOU during the 2015-2019
period.
Despite general improvements, exceedances of surface water performance goals were common in 2019 in each
subarea. Contaminant loading to surface water occurred heavily in both Subarea 1 reaches (Butte to Rocker and
Rocker to Sand Creek), moderately in the Ramsay Flats and Fairmont to Opportunity reaches, and modestly in the
Upper Durant Canyon reach (Figure 2-3). There was little or no contaminant loading in the Miles Crossing,
Lower Durant Canyon, and Opportunity to Warm Springs Creek reaches.
18
-------
Figure 2-3: Contaminant of Concern Concentration Gains and Losses Among Eight Reaches of the
Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019
180%
« 160%
g 140%
'¦£ 120%
| 100% _
| 30% I J
° II |
40% |_ ¦ ¦ -
Jlllll xi. .i
-20%
« „ ^ ^ Upper Lower ^ .
_e Butte to Rocker to Ramsay Miles „ „ Fairmoi
Fi „ , Durant Durant „
S
es
a
J
Butte to
Rocker
Rocker to
Sand Creek
Ramsay
Flats
Miles
Crossing
Upper
Durant
Canyon
Lower
Durant
Canyon
Fairmont to
Opportunity
Opportunity
to WS
Ponds
¦ Arsenic
10%
6%
26%
-1%
3%
6%
7%
-2%
¦ Cadmium
100%
76%
30%
-2%
17%
4%
40%
-5%
¦ Copper
32%
168%
-1%
-1%
5%
1%
20%
-4%
[¦ Lead
12%
11%
11%
5%
17%
-2%
-2%
6%
¦ Zinc
32%
44%
58%
-1%
20%
8%
19%
0%
Source: 2020 Assessment of Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction in the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit
Overall streamflow levels, as well as peak spring runoff levels, during 2018 and 2019 were among the highest in
the SSTOU over the past 20 years and since remediation efforts began. These conditions mobilize bed sediments
and associated sediment-bound contaminants leading to an increase in metals concentrations in surface water.
These high flow levels affect the ability to distinguish trends in contaminant concentrations due to the remedial
actions, at least over the short term.
Groundwater Monitoring
As of 2019, MDEQ has collected 18 years of groundwater data (2002 to 2019). Sampling was conducted in 27
shallow groundwater wells located within the Silver Bow Creek floodplain of the SSTOU between 2015 and 2019
(Figure 2-4). Wells are clustered in groups of three with two monitoring wells situated within the floodplain and
the remedial work zone and a background well located outside the work zone but in the immediate vicinity.
Some areas of the shallow alluvial aquifer of Silver Bow Creek within the SSTOU are contaminated by COCs,
including areas of persistent contamination. Certain COC concentrations (specifically cadmium, copper and zinc)
in monitoring wells regularly exceeded concentrations in paired background wells by several orders of magnitude.
Average concentrations in monitoring wells and concentrations in paired background wells are included in
Appendix I.
19
-------
Figure 2-4: SSTOU Groundwater Sampling Locations
Subarea 4
Opportunity (near StuartJ
Fairmont
Subarea 2
Miles Crossing
Subarea 1
Mnlfr
Nisster
Rocker
Warm Spring
Ponds
- Frontage Road
Opportunity
Herkcrley
Pit
Metro
Storm
Drain
Yankee
Doodle
Tailings
Ponds
S Miles
J
Legend
Sampling Location
• Background
• Monitoring
t radktn Ilk-
Crackervile'
Colorado Tailings-
MONTANA
Source: Figure 2-2, 2020 Addendum to Surface Water and Groundwater Interim Performance Standards
Assessment for Streamside Tailings Operable Unit
20
-------
Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions
MDEQ has submitted to the EPA an assessment of groundwater and surface water interactions to identify reaches
gaining flow or contaminants and evaluate if groundwater in the adjacent shallow aquifer demonstrated evidence
of similar contaminant levels that could be responsible for the contamination of surface water. Preliminary
findings suggest that the loading of COCs in surface water is likely directly related to groundwater contaminant
mobilization in the shallow alluvial aquifer. However, additional assessment may be warranted.
MDEQ Performance Monitoring
MDEQ performs regular monitoring of additional media, within the SSTOU, including in-stream sediment,
vadose zone water, macroinvertebrates, periphyton, vegetation, soils and birds.
In-Stream Sediment
Sediment monitoring in the SSTOU is conducted to compare sediment COC concentrations to ecological
reference values and to determine the extent to which the streambed may be re-contaminated from upstream or
other sources. Weighted mean sediment COC concentrations in the SSTOU exceeded the reference values in 98%
of the samples for copper and zinc, in 84% of the samples for arsenic, in 77% of the samples for cadmium, in 66%
of the samples for lead, and in 55% of the samples for mercury. The highest concentrations for copper and most
other COCs in sediment often occurred at the Lower Area One sites in the vicinity of the Slag Canyon in Butte
(upstream from the SSTOU). Downstream from the Slag Canyon, sediment COC concentrations tended to
decrease rapidly through Subarea 1 and were lowest in Silver Bow Creek in Subarea 2. Concentrations in Subarea
3 (particularly below German Gulch) were also high, then tended to decrease through Subarea 4.
Vadose Zone Water
Vadose zone water quality is monitored in the vicinity of the MWRR to assess mobility of COCs from the
repository into the underlying groundwater supply and surface water in the SSTOU. In general, concentrations
were similar in 2019 to previous monitoring years. Based on a 10-year time series, concentrations generally do
not appear to be increasing, with a few exceptions. It appears that arsenic concentrations in Lysimeter LYS-03
and copper concentrations in Lysimeter LYS-02 may be increasing over time. Concentrations in both lysimeters
will be monitored in future years to look for continued increasing trends.
Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton
Macroinvertebrate and periphyton samples were collected at each surface water sampling site during the third
quarter of 2019 and compared to reference values from specific bio-indices to evaluate biointegrity. All SSTOU
sampling sites were classified as moderately impaired. In the four sites monitored outside the SSTOU, three were
classified as moderately impaired and one was classified as unimpaired. Stressors implicated as likely
impairments to macroinvertebrate biointegrity in the 12 SSTOU sites included nutrients and habitat disturbance in
all sites, hypoxia in 9 of 12 sites, and metals in 5 of 12 sites.
Periphyton samples were evaluated for an array of metrics and bioindices to evaluate overall condition and
impairments from specific stressors. All sites were assessed as being in either "good" or "excellent" condition
based on the overall biological integrity score. However, certain individual metrics suggested impairment. Based
on interpretation of nutrient-specific metrics, seven sites located in Subareas 2, 3 and 4 were impaired for
nutrients. Nearly all sites were impaired for sediment. Impairment by metals was generally less common but was
suggested by the data at some sites.
21
-------
Vegetation, Soil and Bird Monitoring
Revegetation in each reach or phase of the SSTOU is monitored in temporal rotation starting one decade after
remediation until a reach passes the performance standard or is repaired. Revegetation monitoring was conducted
in 2019 in Reaches B, C, F and G. Soils were monitored in 2017 throughout the SSTOU, and birds were
monitored throughout the SSTOU in 2018 and 2019. Reaches B, C, F and G surpassed vegetation performance
standards, and therefore, monitoring will be discontinued in those reaches. As of 2019, formal bird monitoring is
complete in the SSTOU. Data analysis on bird abundance and diversity indicate increased species counts.
Site Inspection
The site inspection took place on 9/17/2020. Participants included EPA RPM Ken Champagne, MDEQ project
manager Joel Chavez, and Treat Suomi from EPA FYR support contractor Skeo. The purpose of the inspection
was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. The group toured the entire length of SSTOU, including Subareas
1, 2, 3 and 4. The Site was well maintained overall. No issues were noted. The site inspection checklist and photos
are included in Appendices F and G.
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Question A Summary:
The remedy is functioning as intended by the 1995 SSTOU ROD as amended by the 1998 SSTOU ESD. The
removal of tailings-impacted soils was largely completed in 2019. Removal of tailings-impacted soils and the
remedial activities for sources upstream or off site under other OUs' cleanup actions are expected to further
reduce contaminant levels in groundwater and surface water. Long-term monitoring of surface water and
groundwater will assess contaminant trends. MDEQ and the EPA are further assessing the groundwater and
surface water interactions and will determine if any adjustments to planned remedial action, monitoring or
performance goals are warranted.
Contaminant concentrations measured in groundwater samples collected since 2005 exceed the MCL at some
sample locations. However, alluvial groundwater is not used for potable consumption within the SSTOU.
Institutional controls to prohibit groundwater use will be implemented as necessary.
MDEQ is in the process of evaluating the SSTOU remedial action including assessment of compliance with
removal standards, upstream and downstream surface water sampling, identification of potential upstream source
areas, and institutional controls. The SSTOU includes a mix of public and private lands that will require various
institutional controls. Currently, access to the majority of the SSTOU is limited, and public use areas do not
present unacceptable exposures.
During the community involvement interviews, responding community members indicated the restoration has
greatly improved the area.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives
(RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Question B Summary:
The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of the remedy are generally
still valid. Current and anticipated future land uses at the SSTOU have not changed since the ROD and
groundwater is not used for potable consumption within the SSTOU. However, remedial actions have enhanced
instream conditions and upland/riparian habitat at areas previously devoid of vegetation. The remedy selection
22
-------
assumed that wildlife exposures would be limited as wildlife was not expected to frequent the SSTOU. Cleanup
and restoration activities have increased the likelihood that wildlife and recreational users will use the SSTOU
area. In 2020, MDEQ produced a draft assessment Updated Ecological Risk Assessment for the SSTOU, which is
under EPA review and comment.
The ROD states the goals are compliance with standards for surface water and groundwater identified in MDEQ
Circular WQB-7. Since the issuance of the ROD, Circular WQB-7 has been replaced by 2019 Circular DEQ-7
and standards for some COCs have been revised. The new, more stringent standards are currently used to evaluate
compliance for the COCs.
Current and anticipated future land and water uses at, or near, the SSTOU have not changed since the ROD.
Groundwater is not used for potable consumption within the SSTOU.
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of
the remedy?
No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
()l (s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in (lie l-'Yk:
None
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the l-'Yk:
OU:
SSTOU
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: Institutional controls are not yet in place.
Recommendation: Develop and implement an Institutional Controls Assurance
and Implementation Plan and implement required Institutional Controls.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
State
EPA
9/30/2022
OU:
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
SSTOU
Issue: Groundwater and surface water monitoring indicate continued exceedance
of performance goals.
Recommendation: Determine if groundwater and surface water interactions or
residual upstream sources are affecting contaminant trends and implement
response actions, as appropriate.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA
9/30/2023
23
-------
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
SSTOU Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy for Streamside Tailings OU1 currently protects human health and the environment. In
order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, institutional controls are needed to prevent
potential exposures, and a determination of how groundwater and surface water interactions or residual
upstream sources are affecting contaminant trends is needed.
NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for the SSTOU of the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site is required five years
from the completion date of this review and will be included in the site-wide FYR.
III. BERKELEY PIT/MINE FLOODING OPERABLE UNIT (BMFOU), Operable
Unit 3)
Background
The 5,097-acre BMFOU is in the Butte Hill area near Butte and Walkerville, Montana. The BMFOU consists of
waters in the Berkeley Pit, the underground mine workings, the associated alluvial and bedrock aquifers and other
contributing sources of inflow to the Berkeley Pit/East Camp System (including surface runoff, leach pad and
tailings circuit overflows). The Travona/West Camp system and the Outer Camp system (Figure 3-1) was
originally in this OU but was transferred to the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit in the 2002 BMFOU ESD and
the 2006 BPSOU ROD. The surface boundaries of the OU are approximately the Continental Divide to the east,
Silver Bow Creek above and below the confluence of Blacktail Creek to the south, Missoula Gulch to the west
and the Yankee Doodle Tailings Impoundment (YDTI) watershed drainage system to the north.
The Berkeley Pit is the major feature of this OU (Figure 3-1). It is 1,780 feet deep, encompasses an area of 675
acres and contains approximately 49.5 billion gallons of contaminated water. The Berkeley Pit/East Camp System
encompasses approximately 10,000 miles of underground mine workings. The West Camp System, mentioned
above, is in the southwest corner of the OU and includes the Travona, Emma and Ophir mines and associated
underground workings. These two systems are separated by bulkheads installed in the late 1950s. They are
considered to be separate hydrologic systems. The Outer Camp System consists of mine workings extended to the
west and north that were at one time also connected to the East Camp and were hydraulically isolated with
bulkheads many decades ago. The hydraulic separation has allowed Outer Camp System water levels to return to,
or approach, pre-mining conditions. Remediation and maintenance of the West Camp groundwater (through the
Butte Treatment Lagoon System) was transferred to the BPSOU in the 2006 BPSOU ROD and 2002 BMFOU
ESD, and groundwater in the West Camp System is not managed under the BMFOU.
Underground mining, primarily for silver and copper, has been conducted in Butte since the late 1800s, with
open-pit mining beginning at the Berkeley Pit in 1955. To allow historic underground and open-pit mining in the
Butte area, Anaconda Company, now Atlantic Richfield Company (Atlantic Richfield), lowered groundwater by
pumping. In 1982, Anaconda Company ceased operations and turned off the pumps used to control water levels in
the underground mines and Berkeley Pit. Other mining and site operations were suspended in 1983, and
Anaconda Company sold the mine in 1985. Montana Resources resumed mining in the Continental Pit, an open
pit mine near, but separate from, the Berkeley Pit, in 1986, and open-pit mining continues to this day.
24
-------
As a result of cessation of pumping, the artificially lowered groundwater level in the area has been rising toward
pre-mining levels in both the underground mines and the Berkeley Pit. As the water level rises, it comes in contact
with the remnants of Berkeley Pit ore, which is composed of highly altered porphyry copper mineral veins in the
Butte quartz monzonite, is rich in pyrite and has no neutralizing potential. The oxidation of pyrite in the presence
of air and water lowers the pH (resulting in acidic water in the Berkeley Pit) and causes a release of dissolved
metals to the water. If levels were allowed to continue to rise, the hydraulic gradient could change, and
contaminated water could flow out of the East Camp System into the surrounding alluvial aquifer and eventually
to Silver Bow Creek. Remedial actions implemented at the BMFOU are designed to ensure the water levels of the
East Camp System do not exceed a Critical Water Level (CWL, referred to herein as the Protective Water Level
[PWL]).5 A technical impracticability (TI) waiver of groundwater standards, pursuant to section
121(d)(4)(C) 122(f) of CERCLA, is in place for the bedrock aquifer in the BMFOU, based on an extensive
analysis which demonstrated it was not feasible from an engineering perspective to restore the bedrock aquifer to
protective groundwater standards.
5 Critical Water Level (CWL) is used in Site decision documents; however, more recent documents have used the term
Protective Water Level (PWL). This FYR report uses PWL.
25
-------
Figure 3-1: BMFOU Boundary
Note: Vlfesl Camp
responsibilities were
transferred to the BPSOU in
the 20Q2 BMFOU ESQ and
the 2006 BPSOU ROD
Yankee Doodle
Tailings Impoundment
East
Outer /
Camp
Camp
erkelev
Continental
Pit
•!" 1,1
Butte
Legend
I Berkeley Pit/Mine Flooding GU3
Miles
Sources: Esri, DigL'alGiobe. GeoEye. Earth star
Geographies, CNESi'Airijus DS. USDA, USGS,
Aero GRID, IGN. the GIS User Community, the
Butie-Siiver Bow Planning DepartmenI, the
2016 FYF and the 2019 Draft BMFOU RAAR
Technical Memorandum.
Skeo
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site
City of Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
26
-------
RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
The Berkeley Pit is filling with water originating from the underground mines, the surrounding bedrock and
alluvial aquifers, and from surface inflows including surface water runoff and stormwater from the BPSOU. The
water accumulating in the Berkeley Pit is contaminated with arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc and other
hazardous substances in high concentrations and is highly acidic.
The EPA conducted the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) from 1990 to 1994 via an
Administrative Order on Consent with BMFOU Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). As part of the RI/FS
process, the EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment in 1993 to evaluate potential future human health and
ecological risks associated with mine flooding if no remedial actions are undertaken. The COCs, shown in Table
3-1, are found at elevated levels in Berkeley Pit water.
The human health risk assessment, conducted as part of the 1993 baseline risk assessment, concluded that future
residents could be exposed if there was a release of water from the contaminated bedrock system and the Berkeley
Pit into the alluvial system and Silver Bow Creek. A future residential scenario was developed that assumes no
restriction of access to Silver Bow Creek or the alluvial aquifer as a source of drinking water. Exposure pathways
included direct ingestion of contaminated drinking water (groundwater or surface water), incidental ingestion of
contaminated surface water during recreation activities and dermal absorption of contaminated surface water
during recreation activities. Direct ingestion of contaminated drinking water was found to the be predominant
potential exposure pathway.
The 1993 baseline risk assessment also assessed the risks to waterfowl that contact the surface of the Berkeley Pit.
The COCs found in the Berkeley Pit were found up to four orders of magnitude greater than recommended safe
concentrations in drinking water of livestock or poultry.
The ecological risk assessment concluded that future risks to aquatic receptors were possible if contaminated
Berkeley Pit water was discharged to Silver Bow Creek. The primary exposure route for aquatic receptors is
ingestion of surface water/sediment, aquatic vegetation and contaminated prey such as macroinvertebrates. In
accordance with EPA guidance, sediment and surface water were considered as an integrated exposure pathway
because of the complex chemical equilibrium between these two media.
Table 3-1: BMFOU COCs in Groundwater and Surface Water
<¦<><¦
Risk ( ;iK'iior\
Arsenic, cadmium, lead,
sulfate and zinc
Human Health
Aluminum, arsenic,
cadmium, copper, iron, lead
and zinc
Ecological
Response Actions
After listing the BMFOU as part of the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area in 1987, the EPA began sampling and
scoping activities. The EPA conducted an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis for the Travona/West Camp
System in 1988 and 1989, and this formed the basis for a 1989 Action Memorandum that selected a temporary
removal cleanup action for the West Camp System. The EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent and a
Unilateral Administrative Order to PRPs, Atlantic Richfield and Montana Resources, for this action in 1989
which resulted in the control the Travona/West Camp System to prevent unplanned discharges of contaminated
groundwater.
27
-------
The EPA selected the BMFOU remedy in a 1994 BMFOU ROD and revised it in a 2002 BMFOU ESD. The
remedy addresses contaminated water in the Berkeley Pit, contaminated water in associated underground mine
workings and other contaminated inflow to Berkeley Pit. The remedy's primary objective is to protect human
health and the environment from risks posed by contaminated water in the bedrock aquifer and the rising
contaminated waters in underground mines and the Berkeley Pit.
The RAOs established in the 1994 BMFOU ROD are as follows:
• Ensure that the PWLs for the East Camp System (5,410 feet above mean sea level (amsl)) and the West
Camp System (5,435 feet amsl) are not exceeded so that contaminated mine water is contained and does
not discharge to alluvial aquifer or Silver Bow Creek.
• Ensure that treated water discharged to the Silver Bow Creek drainage meets state of Montana and other
pertinent water quality standards.
• Implement institutional controls on the public's access to contaminated bedrock aquifer water to ensure
the protection of public health.
• Implement a comprehensive monitoring program to verify the protectiveness of the PWLs and to ensure
that contaminated water is being contained.
The remedy selected in the 1994 ROD, as amended by the 2002 ESD, included the following components (also
shown in Figure 3-2):
• Control of inflow from the Horseshoe Bend Area, with exceptions for short-term flows to the Berkeley
Pit.
• Routing of stormwater runoff from upper areas of BPSOU to the Berkeley Pit.
• Treatment of surface water and groundwater from the Horseshoe Bend Area and Continental Pit water
through treatment at the Horseshoe Bend water treatment plant (HsBWTP) and the potential use of water
in the mining process or discharge to Silver Bow Creek.
• Placement of HsBWTP sludges in the Berkeley Pit.
• Treatment of West Camp water in the Butte Treatment Lagoons (now part of the BPSOU) starting in
2002.
• If water is discharged to Silver Bow Creek after treatment at the HsBWTP (instead of being used in active
mining operations), it must meet all applicable surface water discharge standards identified in the ROD
and ESD.
• Thorough evaluation of the ability of the HsBWTP to treat additional water from the Berkeley Pit four
years prior to the East Camp System reaching the PWL and pumping or other efforts to divert water from
the Berkeley Pit to the HsBWTP for treatment when the PWL is approached.
• Design and implementation of a long-term, comprehensive monitoring program to track the elevation and
quality of the waters in the East, West and Outer Camp Systems to ensure protection of the alluvial
groundwater system and Silver Bow Creek. This monitoring program includes the protection of
waterfowl.
• Waiver of groundwater ARARs for the bedrock aquifer based on CERCLA's technical impracticability
waiver provisions, and implementation of an institutional control program to restrict use of contaminated
groundwater using land and water use restrictions, along with access controls.
• A public education program on the BMFOU remedial action.
As noted above, the EPA established a TI waiver for the bedrock aquifer ARAR standards for the BMFOU in the
1994 ROD. The focus of the selected remedy for the BMFOU is containment of the contaminated water followed
by treatment of this water prior to surface water discharge; there are no water quality standards to be met in the
alluvial or bedrock aquifers within the BMFOU boundary.
28
-------
Figure 3-2: BMFOU Features
Source: Figure 2, 2002 Remedial Action Adequacy Review
29
-------
Status of Implementation
To control inflow from the Horseshoe Bend Area, the PRPs instituted an inflow control program in 1996,
capturing and integrating the Horseshoe Bend Area discharge into the mining process at the active Montana
Resources mining operations. In September 2003, the HsBWTP was constructed. All surface water from the
Horseshoe Bend Area is intercepted and treated using a high-density lime precipitation treatment system. During
mining operations, this treated water is recycled back into Montana Resources' mining operations. The lime
sludge generated in the HsBWTP has been added to the Berkeley Pit since the plant began operation in 2003.
The 2002 BMFOU Consent Decree between the EPA, MDEQ and the PRPs (established as Settling Defendants in
the Consent Decree) contains a statement of work that describes the necessary steps to implement the ROD as
modified by the ESD. These steps include remedial design, remedial action and O&M activities for the BMFOU.
In accordance with the Consent Decree, the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) monitors elevations
and water inflows into the East and West Camp Systems and compares to the respective PWLs (as noted above,
the West Camp System monitoring is now required under the BPSOU selected remedy). MBMG use this
information to update the models of the Berkeley Pit and West Camp to provide EPA and MDEQ with a projected
date by which PWLs will be met under the existing water management system.
The statement of work presented in the 2002 Consent Decree specifies that, as the PWL is approached for the East
Camp System, the Settling Defendants will perform a Remedial Action Adequacy Review (RAAR) of the
HsBWTP design and operation. The goal of the RAAR is to assess the adequacy of the plant as a treatment
facility for the combined inflow of Horseshoe Bend Area, Berkeley Pit and Continental Pit waters to maintain the
PWL. The statement of work requires that the RAAR be completed four years before the projected date at which
the water level in the East Camp System is predicted to reach the PWL, with system upgrades identified in the
RAAR to be implemented two years prior to the time the PWL is reached. In early 2019, MBMG predicted that
the PWL would be reached by July 1, 2023. The model was updated in July 2020 and now predicts the PWL will
be reached by May 2024. Based on this prediction, any remedial action upgrades would have to be completed by
May 2022. Today, due to pumping water from the Berkeley Pit described later, the current water level in the pit
has been steady and could potentially move this date out even further.
As part of the RAAR, the Settling Defendants conducted the following four main tasks:
• Developed an integrated water balance and water quality (mass load) model to support the overall water
management for the BMFOU.
• Evaluated optimization of capacity and general operational efficiency of the HsBWTP.
• Implemented pilot studies to evaluate sludge disposal alternatives, alternate influent sources and
alternative treatment enhancements (see below for the description of the Discharge Pilot Project and
Polishing Facility).
• Submitted a draft Technical Memorandum summarizing the RAAR.
Atlantic Richfield and Montana Resources submitted the draft RAAR technical memorandum to the EPA and
MDEQ in November 2019. The draft RAAR included several deliverables, including a water balance (Phase 1
and Phase 2), short-term and long-term optimization reviews to evaluate current operational functions of the plant,
and pilot studies to evaluate sludge disposal and polishing treatment technologies to enable discharge to Silver
Bow Creek. The draft RAAR provided water management scenarios to assist with evaluating the adequacy of the
HsBWTP and associated facilities to treat waters from the site for incorporation into current mining operations or
to treat water from the Berkeley Pit, Horseshoe Bend Area, and Continental Pit and discharge off site following
cessation of mining. The main water management scenarios include conditions during which the mine is operating
and two conditions for when the mine is closed (drain-down and steady-state).
The draft RAAR technical memorandum, and associated components, were reviewed by the EPA and MDEQ and
a comment letter, dated October 6, 2020, was sent to the SDs. The SDs are currently working to revise the
30
-------
documents to address the comments. The EPA will review the revised documents when they are submitted. The
RAAR is not considered final until it is approved by the EPA in consultation with MDEQ.
In accordance with the findings and activities associated with the RAAR, the Settling Defendants began to
implement the Berkeley Pit and Discharge Pilot Project in 2019. The intent of the project is to stop or slow the
rate at which water levels rise in the East Camp System and Berkeley Pit. The Discharge Pilot Project includes the
Polishing Facility, which was completed in 2019. The Polishing Facility provides technology to polish water to
meet the requirements for discharge of treated water off site. The Discharge Pilot Project initiated discharge of
treated water to Silver Bow Creek on September 30, 2019. As part of the Discharge Pilot Project, the Horseshoe
Bend Capture System was started on September 26, 2019. It is designed to capture and pump the Horseshoe Bend
Area flow to the YDTI for treatment while the HsBWTP will predominantly treat water pumped from the
Berkeley Pit. The current water management operating components and infrastructure under the Discharge Pilot
Project are shown in Figure 3-3.
The public education program, required as part of the selected remedy, centers on the PitWatch.org website
(https://pitwatch.org/). It provides detailed, regularly updated information on BMFOU-related activities. The
EPA, MDEQ, city and county of Butte-Silver Bow (BSB), Atlantic Richfield and Montana Resources are working
to further improve the information on PitWatch.org as well as how it is used as an outreach and education tool for
the community.
Slope Stability Evaluation
On August 22, 2012, a rotational-like slump occurred through alluvial sediments in the southeast portion of the
Berkeley Pit. On November 4, 2012, another slope displacement occurred, expanding the slump zone slightly to
the west. As a result, Montana Resources initiated a slope stability study in November 2012. On February 8, 2013,
another slope failure occurred. The main concerns with slope failures are that they could pose a safety risk for
people working near or on the Berkeley Pit water (during sampling or routine operations) and that the slope
failures will result in a water level rise that could impact the surrounding alluvial aquifer.
The 2012 slope stability study report concluded that rising pit water level is expected to have the greatest
influence on potential slope instability in the extreme eastern part of the Berkeley Pit where the thickest sequence
of in-situ alluvium and overlying fill occurs in the Southeast Corner, Pittsmont, Northeast Corner sectors and the
Concentrator sector. The Neversweat sector (along the southwest pit wall) contains other potential instability
areas of mine backfill not influenced by pit water levels. In 2015, the slope stability evaluation was revised, and
additional geotechnical tasks were completed. The results concluded that even at a "worst case scenario" in which
all potential slope instability areas would slide at the same time, the pit water level would rise only about 3.2 feet
(or about 4 months of typical groundwater inflow). As a result of these slope failures and subsequent evaluations,
changes were made to sampling, operations and waterfowl mitigation activities to remove or minimize human
activity near the Berkeley Pit.
31
-------
Figure 3-3: BMFOU Water Management Features
YDTl
^ - • X '- •
f X
.M/
2^^
« 2to !¦ MC-D *V s -
mtIIi
W ' ii, IB
.. l;-4:iv •¦ 1
S,\
V K
U&P - •• J
w ' 3Bnvurc
J*" jj . ~"
^ Cfxriconen: j
Component I ExistingComponent
Proposed Discharge System
Component
txisting Infrastruccu'e
Proposed On-iwte Water Management lnfra*tructu«e
Proposed Discharge System Infrastructure
MGURii J
—»Bl_0(tSwFfcM5ch*M
-------
Waterfowl Mitigation and Protection
In compliance with the ARAR requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and to reduce the risk to waterfowl
from landing on the Berkeley Pit water identified in the BMFOU ecological risk assessment, the 1994 ROD
required a plan addressing bird mortality due to the potential impacts to birds from use of the Berkeley Pit waters.
A waterfowl observation and hazing program has been in place at the Berkeley Pit since 1996. Since 1996, the
Settling Defendants have updated and revised the Waterfowl Mitigation Plan four times (1996, 2002, 2013 and
2020). The 2013 update was the result of a slump event in the Berkeley Pit that was described earlier. After the
2013 slump event, the use of boats for waterfowl protection was suspended indefinitely.
The 2020 revision was in response to a significant waterfowl mortality event in late 2016. On November 28,
2016, between 30,000 and 60,000 waterfowl landed on the Berkeley Pit. Despite intensive hazing efforts,
including flare guns, fireworks, lasers, drone boat and flights, several thousand waterfowl did not respond, and
more than 2,900 waterfowl ultimately died. In response to this event, several interim measures were implemented
during the 2017 and 2018 migration seasons and the Waterfowl Mitigation Plan (now called the Waterfowl
Protection Plan) was updated in 2020. The interim measures included:
• Forming a Waterfowl Advisory Board to review relevant information and provide recommendations on
protection practices.
• Conducting a literature review of deterrent and hazing techniques.
• Testing various deterrent and hazing options.
• Integrating the information into the updated Waterfowl Protection Plan.
The objectives of the 2020 Waterfowl Protection Plan include:
• Minimize, insofar as is practical, the contact of waterfowl with waters of the Berkeley Pit using up-to-date
techniques and expertise to do so.
• Employ observation and hazing programs appropriate for this unique area and in a manner that is
protective of waterfowl and safe for the people responsible for their implementation.
• Re-evaluate the effectiveness of the protection program on an ongoing basis and modify the program
"Adaptive Management" to accommodate changing conditions over time at the area.
• Meeting the BMFOU ROD requirements of developing and maintaining a formal plan.
The 2020 updated plan, which has been approved by the EPA in consultation with MDEQ and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, accounts for changes in waterfowl migration patterns and site conditions that have occurred
since 2002. Recent observations have shown that fall migration is occurring later into the season and that the
Berkeley Pit does not typically freeze over in the winter, whereas other large waterbodies in the area do on
occasion freeze over, limiting stopover locations. The current plan consists of a combination of migration
monitoring, an observation program and enhanced hazing efforts. The Settling Defendants document the
protection and mitigation efforts monthly. The results of these efforts are summarized in the BMFOU Data
Review section of this FYR Report.
Institutional Control (IC) Review
The Butte Alluvial and Bedrock Controlled Groundwater Area was established by the Water Resources Division
of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) in October 2009 (Figure 3-4). This
area was designated as a controlled groundwater area because the alluvial and bedrock aquifers have been
impacted by over a century of mining and associated activities. The restrictions in the Butte Alluvial and Bedrock
Controlled Groundwater Area were established to meet the requirements of the ROD or Consent Decree for the
33
-------
BMFOU and BPSOU. This action under state law prohibits the construction of new groundwater wells for
domestic or other purposes. The controlled groundwater area will not prevent the use of existing domestic and
commercial wells. A program was created by the water district to assist with the abandonment of existing
domestic water wells. The well abandonment program will be implemented to discourage inappropriate uses of
groundwater from existing wells and encourage owners to take existing wells out of service voluntarily in
exchange for being hooked up to public water. An administrative entity will be identified to monitor and enforce
these restrictions. Current, existing wells are tested semi-annually and are below MCL standards.
Table 3-2: BMFOU Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)
Mcriiii. I'.n*iiiiccrcd
( onlrols. iiiul \rc;is
1 liiil l)u \o(
Support I 1 /I 1.
I$;iscd on CiiitciH
( oiidilicuis
ICs
Needed
ICs C;illcd
lor in llie
Decision
Documents
Impiiclcd
Arciis
IC
OI).jec(i\e
Tide of l( Inslriimcnl
Implemented ;ind l);ile
(or pliinncd)
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
BPSOU and
BMFOU
Restrict use of
contaminated
groundwater
Butte Alluvial and Bedrock
Controlled Groundwater
Area, 2009
34
-------
Figure 3-4: BMFOU Institutional Control Map
Butte Alluvial and Bedrock Controlled Groundwater Area
Systems Operations/O&M
Although the BMFOU is not in the O&M phase of the Superfund process, systems O&M is occurring on
operating systems in order to ensure the continued effective operation. Systems O&M is ongoing for the water
treatment systems (including the HsBWTP, Polishing Facility and the Discharge System) and management
systems at the BMFOU in accordance with the 2019 Final Discharge System Operations Assurance Plan and the
2020 Discharge System Work Plan. An overview of the components of the water treatment and management at
BMFOU is provided in Table 3-3 below and shown in Figure 3-3. Additional information regarding O&M
activities for the HsBWTP and the Polishing Facility and Discharge System are provided below.
35
-------
Table 3-3: BMFOU Water Treatment Component Capacity
( cullpoiienl
Design Miixiiniiin (;i|);icil\
( onl'iriiK'd Miixiiniiin
HsBWTP
7.06 MGD Dual Stage high
density sludge
6.02 MGD (January 2018)
Polishing Facility
9.5 MGD Filtration
3.0 MGD reverse osmosis
Permeate
Not yet confirmed
HsB Capture System
/YDTI
Up to 8 MGD
Not yet confirmed
Source: Exhibit 11, Draft BMFOU Remedial Action Adequacy Review
MGD = million gallons per day
HsBWTP
The HsBWTP is the BMFOU's primary remedy component with an ongoing O&M component. The HsBWTP is
a two-stage high density sludge lime precipitation water treatment system consisting of two primary treatment
units and five ancillary process systems. The treatment facility is fully automated with remote alarm indication.
The major treatment components all have redundant systems to eliminate downtime due to equipment failure.
The HsBWTP is also equipped with an automated treated water control loop. If treated water exceeds the
acceptable pH range, this system will automatically recycle water through the plant until the pH is acceptable.
Quarterly reporting on Horseshoe Bend water treatment plant system performance and O&M activities have
continued since the previous FYR.
In 2018 and 2019, the Settling Defendants finalized short- and long-term optimization reports for the HsBWTP.
These reports evaluated the current operational functions of the plant and made recommendations for optimizing
operations. The long-term optimization evaluation determined that the HsBWTP is currently optimized for dual-
stage HDS operations. Evaluations indicate that the plant can operate at the design maximum rate of 7.06 MGD in
dual-stage mode with adoption of the Phase 1 recommendations and not limit overall treatment performance. The
SDs are currently planning to conduct hydraulic testing to demonstrate that the HsBWTP can process this flow
effectively. One recommendation is to optimize the HsBWTP for single-stage HDS operations by increasing the
size of the Stage 2 alkalization tank and increasing alkalization tank hydraulic residence time, which will improve
plant performance during annual cleanout. Reconfiguration of discharge pipe systems to allow dual single-stage
operations will provide increased HDS treatment capacity for greater flexibility of water treatment. Any long-term
modifications to the HsBWTP would be approved by the USEPA and Montana DEQ, with a schedule for
completion of modifications at least 2 years before the PWL is expected to be reached.
The Phase 2 evaluation focused on long-term water treatment system performance and identifying improvements
expected to take more time to plan, design and implement. The improvements and related recommendations were
developed from bench- and pilot-scale technology testing conducted on site, adjacent to the HsBWTP, and off
site. The draft Phase 2 evaluation technical memorandum was reviewed, and commented on, as part of the EPA's
review of the draft RAAR documents and is not yet final.
A pilot-scale, dual-stage high density sludge system that replicated HsBWTP operating conditions was operated
on site to determine if optimal treatment conditions could be identified, to evaluate the impact of different feed
water sources, and to support effluent polishing technology testing. The remedial action adequacy is continuing to
be evaluated as EPA comments are addressed and the Pilot Project continues to operate and gather data.
Pilot Project - Polishing Facility and Discharge System
As part of the Pilot Project, the Settling Defendants initiated off-site discharge on September 30, 2019. The
Discharge System consists of:
36
-------
• Infrastructure to convey YDTI return water to a new water treatment plant (Polishing Facility).
• The Polishing Facility water treatment system.
• Piping infrastructure for transporting treated effluent, off-spec effluent, reverse osmosis brine and multi-
media filtration system waste (i.e., backwash water).
• Pump and piping infrastructure to restart pumping water from the Berkeley Pit. The water is sent through
a copper recovery circuit before being sent to either the HsBWTP or the Horseshoe Bend Capture System.
• Infrastructure to combine treated effluent with Silver Lake water (if necessary, for up to one year) and
discharge to Silver Bow Creek through the Horseshoe Bend Effluent Line and Discharge Structure.6
Silver Lake water was allowed to be used for flow augmentation for one year from the beginning of
discharge on September 30, 2019. A two-month extension was granted in September 2020, but after
November 30, 2020, no Silver Lake water may be used for flow augmentation and has since been
discontinued.
The Polishing Facility treated water met the 2002 BMFOU Consent Decree interim discharge standards during
2019 and 2020. There were no significant issues with the process systems or conveyance infrastructure. Silver
Lake water was used for effluent flow augmentation for two weeks in December 2019, and for a total of two
weeks for the first two quarters of 2020. From July through November 23, 2020, Silver Lake water was used
almost continuously for flow augmentation when the flow in Blacktail Creek was low. The Silver Lake
infrastructure was disconnected and winterized on November 23, 2020, and at this time it is not permitted, or
anticipated, to be used in the future. Reverse osmosis treatment will be used, as necessary, to meet discharge
standards.
Starting in October 2020, the Settling Defendants voluntarily transitioned from the interim discharge standards to
the final discharge standards outlined in the 2002 BMFOU Consent Decree. This change was done in accordance
with the Final Discharge System Operations Assurance Plan, dated November 21, 2019. While the majority of the
final discharge standards are the same as the interim discharge standards, there are some differences. In the final
discharge standards, the standard for cadmium is more stringent, a standard for uranium is added, and standards
for radionuclides (radium 226/228, uranium, gross alpha particle and gross beta/photon emitters) are added. The
radionuclide standards are based on federal drinking water standards. Since October 2020, the radionuclides have
been below standards, however, the Settling Defendants are not analyzing for beta/photon emitters. The
performance standard for beta/photon emitters is a dose rather than a concentration. Consequently, to meet the
beta/photon limit, 179 different radionuclides would need to be analyzed. The Settling Defendants will evaluate
the applicability of the radionuclide final discharge standards as well as alternative testing methodology for
beta/photon emitters. Further data collection for radionuclides is proposed; as such, the settling defendants are
planning to request to move back to the interim discharge standards.
In 2019, the Discharge System successfully treated 447 million gallons of water from the YDTI prior to off-site
discharge which, as noted, met interim discharge standards required by the Consent Decree. Additional
components of the Discharge System will continue to be commissioned and demonstrated during 2020. Since the
start of the Pilot Project, and Berkeley Pit pumping in late September 2019, surveys of the water level in the
Berkeley Pit show the water level has remained essentially unchanged with just a 0.04-foot rise from October
2019 to December 2020.
Horseshoe Bend Capture System/YDTI
During mine operating site conditions, captured Horseshoe Bend Area water, or Berkeley Pit water, is conveyed
to YDTI and mixed with lime supercharged mill tailings. The YDTI is currently used as a tailings impoundment
for mining operations. It is recognized as both a storage facility and as a potential pre-treatment polishing basin
that is a component of the Discharge Pilot Project. Prior to the initiation of the Horseshoe Bend Capture System,
the two main sources of influent to this large basin have been freshwater inputs from upgradient drainages and
6 Located west of Anaconda, provides water conveyed via pipeline to BSB for industrial use.
37
-------
water used to slurry mill tailings to the YDTI for disposal. The slurry water includes (return) water from the
YDTI, effluent from the HsBWTP, and additional fresh water from Silver Lake.
Storage in the YDTI supernatant pond provides increased time for gypsum precipitation and particulate settling.
This passive effluent polishing within the YDTI is a beneficial element of the water treatment components for the
site because a reduction in the calcium and sulfate concentrations, to saturation levels, will reduce the O&M
issues associated with potential gypsum scaling in the downstream polishing treatment system (filtration and
reverse osmosis) needed to enable discharge to Silver Bow Creek.
PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determination from the previous FYR Report as well as the
recommendations from the previous FYR Report and the status of those recommendations.
Table 3-4: BMFOU Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2016 FYR Report
()l #
Pr»(ec(i\eiR'ss
DcliTiniiiiilion
Pm(ec(i\eiK'ss Sliiiomonl
3
Will be Protective
The remedy at the BMFOU (OU3) is expected to be protective
of human health and the environment upon completion. In the
interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable
risks are being controlled.
Table 3-5: BMFOU Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report
Issue
Ki'i'umiiH'iHliilions
( iinvnl
Siiiius
( iinvnl Implanon(;ilion
Siiiius Ik-scriplion
( oiii plot ion
Diilo (if
iippliciihlc)
Rotational slumps have
occurred at the
Berkeley Pit and
analysis indicates there
will continue to be
future slumps.
Complete
implementation of
the recommendations
required by the EPA
regarding the 2014
slope stability study.
Completed
Sellliiig Defeiidaiib re\ is>od die
slope stability evaluation in
2015 and continue to monitor
slope stability quarterly. See
Data Review for additional
details on monitoring
activities.
10/22/2015
Sampling of the water
in the Berkeley Pit has
been limited due to
safety concerns of
physically being on the
surface of the water.
Implement current
alternatives that are
being developed.
Completed
Since July 2017, MBMG has
collected water samples from
the Berkeley Pit using a
sampling drone boat.
7/19/2017
A portion of the
Waterfowl Mitigation
Plan has been modified
due to safety concerns
related to slope stability
at the Berkeley Pit.
After implementing
recommendations
required by the EPA
regarding the 2014
slope stability study,
evaluate the remedy
to determine any
needed changes to the
Waterfowl Mitigation
Plan.
Completed
Interim measures were tested
and implemented during the
2017 and 2018 migration
seasons and the updated
Waterfowl Protection Plan was
finalized in 2020.
3/18/2020
38
-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Data Review
During this FYR period, MBMG collected groundwater and surface water data associated with water management
in the East Camp System, as required in the ROD and the BMFOU Consent Decree. Groundwater monitoring is
also conducted in the West Camp and Outer Camp areas to allow MBMG to track the effectiveness of the remedy
and ensure that contaminated water is contained. The Berkeley Pit surface water and depths are also sampled.
Water level monitoring assesses whether the water levels are less than the PWLs for both the East Camp and West
Camp systems. Water level and water quality monitoring, domestic well sampling, and quarterly slope stability
monitoring and results are discussed below. Data collected during ongoing O&M activities for remedial
components are included above in the System Operations/O&M section.
Water Level and Water Quality Monitoring
Long-term monitoring of the Berkeley Pit and all ancillary mine shafts and monitoring wells is ongoing, as
required in the BMFOU Consent Decree. The current monitoring program in the East Camp, West Camp and
Outer Camp consists of 75 sites with 56 monitoring wells, 12 mine shafts and seven surface water sites, including
the Berkeley Pit and the Continental Pit (Figures C-2 through C-5 in Appendix C). MBMG provides monthly and
annual summary reports to site agencies. The reports share monitoring data and trends; data from some of the
monitoring locations date back to 1983 when the Site was first listed on the NPL. This FYR Report includes data
through 2019, as reported in the Water-Level Monitoring and Water-Quality Sampling 2019 Consent Decree
Update (2019 Update).
The 1994 BMFOU ROD and 2002 Consent Decree established PWLs for the East Camp and West Camp bedrock
systems. In addition, the 2002 Consent Decree specified compliance points at which groundwater levels could not
exceed the PWLs. In the East Camp bedrock system, the maximum water level cannot exceed an elevation of
5,410 feet amsl at any of the 14 compliance points. In the West Camp bedrock system, the maximum water level
cannot exceed an elevation of 5,435 feet amsl (USGS NAVD29 datum) at well BMF96-1D. In addition to the
compliance point stipulations, water levels in the East Camp bedrock system must be maintained at lower
elevations than West Camp water levels.
MBMG continued monitoring activities in the Berkeley Pit, East Camp, West Camp and Outer Camp systems.
The East Camp System includes mines and mine workings that drained to the Kelley Mine pump station at the
time mining and dewatering were suspended in 1982. The West Camp System includes mines and underground
workings that historically drained to the East Camp from the southwest portion of the Butte mining district but
were hydraulically isolated from the East Camp by the placement of bulkheads within the mine workings. The
Outer Camp System consists of mine workings extended to the west and north that were at one time also
connected to the East Camp and were hydraulically isolated with bulkheads many decades ago. The hydraulic
separation has allowed Outer Camp System water levels to return to, or approach, pre-mining conditions.
East Camp System
The East Camp System consists of the Anselmo, Belmont, Granite Mountain, Kelley, Steward, Lexington and
Pilot Butte mines and the Berkeley Pit. Water elevations are collected regularly from the Berkeley Pit and the
other mines and compared to PWLs to ensure water continues to flow toward the Berkeley Pit. Surrounding
alluvial and bedrock wells are monitored for elevation and water quality to further ensure the remedy is
functioning to contain contaminated water to the Berkeley Pit.
39
-------
Water Level Elevation Monitoring
Berkeley Pit water level elevations are surveyed each month. A hydrograph showing the Berkeley Pit's water
level rise since 1995 is shown below as Figure 3-5. Also shown in the hydrograph are activities or events that
have impacted the water level rise including the 2013 slump.
Figure 3-5: Berkeley Pit Hydrograph 1995-2019
Berkeley Pit Water Level Elevations
5,550
5,500
5,450
5,400
-£5,350
.o
15,300
_o
Lkl
§5,250
0)
_i
(55,200
(O
5,150
5,100
5,050
Date
Source: Figure 3-18 in the 2019 Update
The 2002 Consent Decree requires water levels in the Berkeley Pit (and all the points of compliance [POCs]) to
be maintained below the PWL at all times so as to maintain the existing hydraulic gradients that enable the
Berkeley Pit to serve as a collection point for surface water and groundwater. The POCs are six mine shafts and
eight bedrock monitoring wells (see Figure 3-2 for POC locations). Selected POCs are listed in Table 3-6 along
with their December 2019 water-level elevations and the depth below the PWL. Based on this information, the
compliance point water level elevation currently closest to the PWL is the Pilot Butte Mine, which is located
about a half-mile north of the Berkeley Pit.
The 2002 Consent Decree also contains a stipulation that the water levels in the POC locations must remain above
the water level in the Berkeley Pit to further ensure that the hydraulic gradient continues to flow toward the pit.
As reported in the 2019 Update, during the entire monitoring period (1983-2019), the highest POC water level
elevation has always been more than 20 feet above the Berkeley Pit water level elevation. The water level at each
POC as compared to the Berkeley Pit was not highlighted in the 2019 Update but this FYR performed this
comparison in Table 3-6 below. POC elevations remain above the level in the Berkeley Pit for these select POCs.
MBMG should consider including these calculations in future monitoring updates.
1995 to the Present
¦ Pit Level
Protective Water Level
Pit Rim
Horseshoe Bend Water-Treatment Plant
Horseshoe Bend Water Comes Online
Diverted to Yankee Doodle
: Tailings Impoundment
Berkeley Pit Landslide Feb
2013
Horseshoe Bend Water Diverted to Pit
Berkeley Pit Landslide Sept
, , , ,1998 , , .
OOOON>N>N)WWOO
h^h^t-^h^OOOOCOOO-t*-£»
WWW
CO CO CO CO CO O
(_n CTt ^ OO CO O
r-or-owwwwr-owfor-ow
CO 00 CO
ooooooooo
l-iMW-t^UlCTl^JOOCO
M
o
40
-------
Table 3-6: BMFOU POC Locations and December 2019 Water Level Elevations
Dooomhor 2019
l'llo\sili(in Ahu\o Pit
\\ silor l.o\ol
Poinl of ( omplisinoo
\\ silcr l.o\ol
r.le\ silion
(fool)
Doplli liolou l>\\ 1.
(fool)
(fool)
Anselmo Mine
5,376.95
33.05
20.81
Granite Mountain Mine*
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pilot Butte Mine
5,382.08
27.92
25.94
Kelley Mine
5,368.72
41.28
12.58
Belmont Well #2
5,367.95
42.05
11.81
Well A
5,368.42
41.58
12.28
Well C
5,361.74
48.26
5.60
Well G
5,371.72
38.28
15.58
Berkeley Pit (not a compliance point)
5,356.14
53.86
N/A
Notes:
Source: Water-Level Monitoring and Water-Quality Sampling, 2019 Consent Decree Update.
N/A = Not applicable
* = Water-level monitoring at the Granite Mountain Mine was suspended mid-2016 and was recently reestablished.
Berkeley Pit Monitoring
Sampling of the Berkeley Pit was suspended after the rotational slumps occurred in 2012 and 2013. Semi-annual
sampling and vertical profiling in the Berkeley Pit Lake resumed in 2017, and continued throughout 2019,
bringing the monitoring program back into compliance with the 2002 Consent Decree. Sampling and profiling are
conducted using an unmanned, autonomous boat (drone boat) developed by the Electrical Engineering
Department at Montana Tech and MBMG. For 2019, samples were collected from four depths during April and
three depths during the November sample events. In addition to collecting samples for inorganic analysis, a
vertical profile throughout the upper portion of the water (~0 to 600 feet) was performed to measure in-situ
physical parameters. The physical parameters measured were pH, specific conductance, temperature, oxidation
reduction potential (reported as Eh), dissolved oxygen and turbidity.
As of December 2019, the Berkeley Pit water is about 850 feet deep and consists of roughly 49.5 billion gallons
of low pH, high salinity water. Physical parameters of pH, specific conductance, oxidation reduction potential
reported as Eh, temperature, and turbidity profiles were performed in April and November 2019, at depths up to
600 feet. Some dissolved constituents and physical parameters from near-surface depths (1 to 5 feet) during 2019
are presented in Table 3-7 below.
Sampling and profiling show continued increasing trends in pH and dissolved oxygen in the water column.
Decreases in iron and arsenic concentrations noted in the 2017 and 2018 sampling/profiling data continued in
2019. Concentrations of copper and zinc remained similar to those seen in 2012, 2017, 2018 and 2019 samples.
41
-------
Table 3-7: Berkeley Pit Surface Chemistry (1 to 5 Feet)
Duii-
pll
Specific
( onriiichincc
Tolill
l)issol\cri
Solids
Tolill
Aci(li(\
Iron
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Siilliile
SI
uS cm ;il 25 ('
inu 1.
mu 1. ;is
( mCO
mu 1.
'I'- I-
in- 1.
'¦
111- 1.
June 2012
2.55
7,652
10,463
3,563
211
49
631
74
7,740
December
2012
2.61
7,632
12,229
3,651
204
49
589
64
9,560
May 2017
3.47
7,510
9,360
3,438
8.4
59
582
5
7,033
July 2017
3.44
7,510
9,511
3,689
11.2
62
607
8
6,895
November
2017
3.93
7,300
9,526
3,532
1.9
57
598
5
6,932
March 2018
4.12
7,620
9,746
3,503
2.7
63
597
8
7,180
September
2018
3.08
6,915
9,835
3,827
4.0
66
604
5
7,210
November
2018
4.13
7,330
9,476
3,882
3.2
59
573
6
7,019
April 2019
3.95
7,070
9,177
3,763
4.1
58
570
4
6,735
November
2019
4.03
7,340
9,585
4,067
2.8
64
571
12
6,974
Notes:
SU = Standard units
|iS/cm at 25°C = Microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius
mg/L = milligrams per liter
CaCCb = calcium carbonate
Hg/L = micrograms per liter
Alluvial and Bedrock Groundwater Monitoring
The East Camp System monitoring network consists of alluvial and bedrock monitoring wells (Figure C-2 and C-
3 in Appendix C). Within the alluvial aquifer, groundwater generally flows toward the Berkeley Pit. Groundwater
in the alluvial aquifer south of the Berkeley Pit is contaminated by historic mining activities and is flowing north,
which means there is no southward migration of contaminated groundwater (Figure C-2). Water quality in the
alluvial aquifer is variable and generally corresponds with proximity to source areas.
Within the bedrock monitoring system, water levels are monitored in the underground mines and the Berkeley Pit.
In 2019, water levels rose between 6.31 and 8.55 feet in the underground mines and 7.21 feet in the Berkeley Pit,
which is consistent with previous years during this FYR period. Based on volume estimates of the underground
mines and December 2018 water level elevations, 85% of the underground workings are flooded. Because about
12% of the underground workings are above the PWL elevation of 5,410 feet, less than 3% of the underground
workings remain to be flooded.
Water level monitoring continues to confirm that the flow of water in the affected bedrock aquifer is toward the
Berkeley Pit. The potentiometric surface map (Figure C-3) for the East Camp bedrock aquifer shows the flow of
water from all directions is toward the Berkeley Pit. Although there have been short-term influences on water
levels in several of these wells, the overall direction of groundwater flow has not changed.
Recent updates to the Berkeley Pit model indicate that as of January 2020, if pumping of the Berkeley Pit (as part
of the Pilot Project) was stopped, the East Camp bedrock system water level will reach the PWL elevation of
5,410 feet in the Pilot Butte Mine in May 2024. However, as pumping of the Berkeley Pit has continued, and the
42
-------
water level has remained steady, that date is extended. As of December 2020, if pumping of the Berkeley Pit were
stopped, the PWL elevation would be reached in April 2025.
West Camp System1
The West Camp System includes mines and underground workings that historically drained to the East Camp
from the southwest portion of the Butte Mining District but were hydraulically isolated from the East Camp by
the placement of bulkheads within the mine workings (Figure C-4 in Appendix C).
Pumping of groundwater in the West Camp System continues to control water levels; water levels were about 12
feet below the PWL at the end of 2019.
Recent data from the West Camp monitoring sites generally indicate either no change, or a small decrease, in
dissolved constituents. Dissolved constituent concentrations remain below values observed during initial flooding
of the West Camp mine workings. Arsenic concentrations exceed the MCL in samples from the Chester Steele
Park well and Travona and Emma mines, while radium exceeds the MCL in the Emma Mine and Chester Steele
Park well. Concentrations in monitoring well BMF96-4 remain low and do not exceed any standards.
Outer Camp System
The Outer Camp System consists of mine workings extended to the west and north that were at one time also
connected to the East Camp and were hydraulically isolated with bulkheads many decades ago (Figure C-5 in
Appendix C).
Water quality in the Outer Camp is better than water quality in the East Camp or West Camp bedrock systems,
based on higher pH and alkalinity and lower metal concentrations. The better quality is attributed to differences in
geology and a geochemical equilibrium being reached. The workings in this area have been flooded for a longer
period, and the groundwater is isolated from the rest of the Butte Hill mines.
Domestic Wells
The domestic well monitoring program included eight wells, and more recently, a combined effort with BPSOU
includes over one hundred domestic wells. There were no water quality exceedances of the five COCs (arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead and zinc) in domestic wells within the Controlled Groundwater Area, which is consistent
with historic results. However, several sites have concentrations above MCLs or SMCLs for other constituents.
Iron, manganese, and sulfate exceeded the SMCL (which is not a health-based standard) at two locations. Nitrate
and uranium exceeded their respective MCLs at five locations. Results were within the same order of magnitude
as the MCL. These findings for non-COC constituents are attributed to local geologic conditions, are likely not
related to rising water levels in the bedrock mine workings and are, therefore, outside the scope of the Site. Each
well owner was sent a letter that described the sampling objectives for the project and included a complete
analytical report of their sample and comparison to the DEQ-7 standards.
Berkeley Pit Slope Stability Monitoring
Since 2015, Montana Resources has conducted quarterly monitoring at several locations along the Berkeley Pit
highwall. Monitoring activities include surveying monitoring points for movement and operation of dewatering
wells in each sector. The most recent monitoring event was conducted in the fourth quarter of 2019. No
significant movement was noted. Slope stability will continue to be monitored.
7 As noted above, responsibility for West Camp/Outer Camp monitoring and control was transferred to the BPSOU in the
2002 BMFOU ESD, and these activities are now required under the 2020 BPSOU Consent Decree. Data is presented in this
section so that a complete picture of bedrock aquifer monitoring is presented to the public.
43
-------
Site Inspection
The site inspection took place on 9/15/2020. Participants included EPA RPM Nikia Greene, representatives from
Atlantic Richfield and Montana Resources, and Treat Suomi from EPA FYR support contractor Skeo. The
purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.
Site inspection participants met at Montana Resources offices and then took a driving tour of specific OU
features. The first stop was the bird mitigation shelter, referred to as the "Bird Shack," near the Berkeley Pit,
where participants observed the systems in place for migratory bird protection. Participants then observed the
Berkeley Pit and the HsBWTP. The HsBWTP was currently shut down due to an issue with sludge accumulation.
This is a common occurrence and part of regular O&M. The issue was resolved, and the HsBWTP was
operational within two weeks. Site inspection participants observed the Horseshoe Bend Capture System, which
includes over seven miles of new piping. Participants then headed to the YDTI and the Continental Pit. The
inspection concluded at the Polishing Plant where operation staff members joined the inspection. Prior to entering
the plant, a safety briefing was conducted. Participants discussed the system and observed various operational
components. Nikia Greene, Hope Mariska, WSD contractor, and Treat Suomi then traveled to and observed the
discharge structure at Silver Bow Creek and discussed the plan to update the discharge structure to better align
with the overall system design. During the inspection, participants did not observe any issues that call into
question the protectiveness of the ongoing remedial actions and remedy implementation at the BMFOU.
The site inspection checklist and photos are included in Appendices F and G, respectively.
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The remedy is expected to function as intended by the 1994 BMFOU ROD as modified by the 2002 BMFOU
ESD upon completion of the remedial construction. In the meantime, contaminated mine water is contained and
prevented from migrating into the alluvial aquifer and Silver Bow Creek, and institutional controls are in place to
restrict the use of groundwater in the Controlled Groundwater Area. The Berkeley Pit is filling with contaminated
water originating from the surrounding bedrock and alluvial aquifers and also from surface inflows. As the
Berkeley Pit is the lowest elevation in the bedrock system, contaminated mine water is contained and prevented
from migrating off site.
The 2020 Berkeley Pit model filling update predicts the PWL will be reached in May 2024, assuming a start date
of January 2020 and no pumping from the Berkeley Pit. In accordance with the 2002 Consent Decree, the Settling
Defendants have completed the draft RAAR. In addition, the Discharge Pilot Project was designed, constructed,
and commissioned in 2019, including the commencement of the Polishing Plant discharge. When the Discharge
Pilot Project is operating as designed, it will further delay the date when the PWL will be reached. The Pilot
Project includes the Polishing Plant, which was completed in 2019. The Polishing Plant provides technology to
polish water to meet the requirements for discharge of treated water off site. In 2019, the Discharge System
successfully treated 447 million gallons of water from the YDTI prior to off-site discharge. Additional
components of the Discharge System will continue to be commissioned and demonstrated during 2020. In
October 2020, the Settling Defendants transitioned from the interim discharge standards to the final discharge
standards outlined in the 2002 BMFOU Consent Decree. These final discharge standards now include
radionuclides and beta/photon emitters. Since October 2020, the radionuclides have been below standards;
however, the Settling Defendants are not analyzing for beta/photon emitters. The performance standard for
beta/photon emitters is a dose rather than a concentration. Consequently, to meet the beta/photon limit, 179
different radionuclides would need to be analyzed. To ensure compliance with the final discharge standards, the
Settling Defendants should evaluate alternative testing methodology for beta/photon emitters. In addition, the
applicability of the radionuclide final discharge standards should be evaluated. Further data collection for
radionuclides is proposed; as such, the settling defendants are planning to request to move back to the interim
44
-------
discharge standards. The EPA, in consultation with MDEQ, will consider modification and/or deletion of the final
standards of radionuclides, based upon the evaluation of effluent and/or influent monitoring data. In the interim,
there is no reasonable expectation that radionuclides would exceed MCLs for gross alpha, gross beta, radium
226/228 and uranium. In addition, Silver Bow Creek is not currently used for drinking water nor is it a source to
clean water supply.
Water level monitoring confirmed that water levels within the East Camp and West Camp systems are below their
respective PWLs and above the level of the Berkeley Pit water level. During this FYR, the EPA confirmed that all
POC elevations are above the water level in the Berkeley Pit; therefore, contaminated groundwater continues to
move towards the Berkeley Pit. This information was not highlighted in the 2018 Consent Decree Update. In
order to ensure compliance with the 2002 Consent Decree stipulation that all POC water levels must remained
above the level in the Berkeley Pit, this information should be clearly presented in the monitoring updates.
Surface water sampling resumed in the Berkeley Pit using a drone boat in 2017. Slope stability analyses are
ongoing and will continue to monitor and evaluate the potential for slumps within the Berkeley Pit area.
Waterfowl mitigation and protection activities have been updated and activities strengthened to ensure the
protection of waterfowl in the area of the BMFOU.
As noted, an institutional control in the form of a controlled groundwater area (October 2009), which prevents use
of the groundwater for domestic use has been enacted, and no domestic wells currently use the bedrock aquifer.
MBMG, in cooperation with the Butte-Silver Bow Health Department, collects annual water quality samples for
wells associated with the Butte Alluvial and Bedrock Controlled Groundwater Area to ensure contaminants
associated with historical mining operations are not present in harmful concentrations in groundwater supplies.
The results of these monitoring activities confirm that site COCs are not present in groundwater supplies above
their respective standards. Some private wells showed exceedances for analytes that are not COCs for the
BMFOU or the Site. These exceedances are reflective of general groundwater quality in the area and not
attributed to the Site.
During the community involvement interviews, concerns were raised that community members generally do not
understand how water quality is managed at the BMFOU and more transparency is needed. The EPA, MDEQ,
BSB, Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield are working to update and improve the community website
Pitwatch.org to help the community further their understanding of water management at the BMFOU.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives
(RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of remedy selection are still
valid. Current State of Montana water quality standards (Circular DEQ-7) are reflective of the surface water
quality discharge standards identified in the 1994 BMFOU ROD and revised by the 2002 BMFOU ESD, except
for the cadmium standard, which the EPA plans to update in an amendment to the Consent Decree and its
Statement of Work as well as a decision document. No additional exposure pathways were identified during this
review that should be addressed in order to evaluate remedy protectiveness.
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of
the remedy?
No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
45
-------
ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
()l (s) without Issucs/Rccommcndations Identified in (ho l-'Yk:
None
OU:
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
BMFOU
Issue: fn October 2020, the Settling Defendants voluntarily transitioned from the interim
discharge standards to the final discharge standards outlined in the 2002 BMFOU Consent
Decree. The final discharge standards include radionuclides and beta/photon emitters.
Since October 2020, the radionuclides have been below standards, however, the Settling
Defendants are not analyzing for beta/photon emitters. The performance standard for
beta/photon emitters is a dose rather than a concentration. Consequently, in order to meet
the beta/photon limit, 179 different radionuclides would need to be analyzed. Further data
collection for radionuclides is proposed, as such, the settling defendants are planning to
request to move back to the interim discharge standards.
Recommendation: In order to ensure compliance with the final discharge standards, the
Settling Defendants should evaluate alternative testing methodology for beta/photon
emitters. In addition, the applicability of the radionuclide final discharge standards should
be evaluated. The EPA, in consultation with MDEQ, will consider modification and/or
deletion of the final standards of radionuclides, based upon the evaluation of effluent
and/or influent monitoring data.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA
9/30/2022
OTHER FINDINGS
Two additional recommendations were identified during the FYR. These recommendations do not affect current
and/or future protectiveness.
• To ensure compliance with the 2002 Consent Decree stipulation that all POC water levels remain above
the water level in the Berkeley Pit, clearly present this information in the monitoring updates.
• Update and improve the community website Pitwatch.org to help the community further their
understanding of water management at the BMFOU.
46
-------
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Operable Unit:
3
Protectiveness Determination:
Will be Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at BMFOU (OU3) is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion. In the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being
controlled.
NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for the BMFOU at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site is required five years
from the completion date of this review and will be included in the site-wide FYR.
47
-------
IV. WARM SPRINGS PONDS ACTIVE (OPERABLE UNIT 4) AND INACTIVE
(OPERABLE UNIT 12)
Background
The Warm Springs Ponds Active 0U4 and Inactive 0U12 (WSPOUs) are at the lower end of Silver Bow Creek,
about 27 miles downstream of Butte. The WSPOUs cover about 2,500 acres and consist of a series of three
sediment settling ponds. The Anaconda Copper Mining Company constructed the ponds in an effort to prevent
tailings and other sediments from entering the Clark Fork River, which begins about a half-mile below Pond 1.
Ponds 1 and 2 were completed in 1911 and 1916, respectively, and Pond 3 in 1959 (Figure 4-1; see Response
Actions for additional information about the ponds). The Active Area (OU4) consists of Ponds 2 and 3. The
Inactive Area (OU12) consists of Pond 1. Pond 1 no longer plays a role in settling sediments and is essentially
isolated from the active treatment portion of the pond system.
Before remedial action, the Inactive Area OU contained an estimated 3.4 million cubic yards (cy) of contaminated
sediments, tailings and soils (2.9 million cy were in Pond 1 and about 475,000 cy were downstream of Pond 1).
Downstream source materials consisted of over-bank deposits that settled out along Silver Bow Creek before the
construction of Pond 1. Upstream Ponds 2 and 3 contain 4.89 million cy and 11.2 million cy respectively.
The ponds are the primary hydrologic features within the OUs. Three creeks from the south and the west flow
through the OUs. Mill and Willow creeks from the west and south flow into the Mill-Willow Bypass, which
routes the comparatively less contaminated water in these two creeks around the ponds and to the Clark Fork
River. Silver Bow Creek, the longest of the three creeks, flows from the south and enters Pond 3 near the southern
end of the OU. Tailings and other sediments and contaminants from Silver Bow Creek physically settle to the
bottom as the velocity of the incoming water decreases. Water flowing out of Pond 3 goes primarily into Pond 2,
with a smaller volume used to maintain several wildlife ponds between Ponds 2 and 3. The effluent from Pond 2
flows into the Mill-Willow Bypass as a regulated point-source discharge. It then flows down the bypass to the
Clark Fork River.
The shallow groundwater system in the WSPOUs is complex. The presence of the pond system affects shallow
groundwater elevations and groundwater movement within the area. The uppermost aquifer at the site is a 10- to
15-foot-thick sand and gravel unit approximately 10 feet below ground surface. This sand and gravel aquifer
appears to be present throughout the upper Deer Lodge Valley. Groundwater movement through the WSPOUs is
generally south to north, although a significant component of groundwater enters from the Opportunity Ponds
area of the Anaconda Co. Smelter site to the southwest.
48
-------
Figure 4-1: Warm Springs Ponds Active OU and Inactive OU
(Raa3 8
Pump
Station
if Toa.
Clark
For*
Riv'&r
Groundwater
Hnterceptor
Trench
Pond 1
(0U12)
Silver
>Bow
Creek
'Lime Treatment
Building
0.5
I Miles
Sources: Esri, DigitalClobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographies. CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USCS.
AeroGRID, IGN, the GIS User Community, the
Butte-Silver Sow Planning Department, the
1995 ESD and the 2016 FYR.
Legend
Warm Springs Ponds - OU4 & OU12
~ Opportunity Ponds WMA
Skeo
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site
City of Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
49
-------
No domestic wells are located in the WSPOUs. However, several wells are located within a mile east of the pond
system. These wells are in bedrock aquifers that do not appear to be affected by the pond system. The town of
Warm Springs pumps its water from supply wells in unconsolidated Tertiary deposits from depths of about 200
feet. These wells are supplied with water from groundwater resources west of and hydraulically isolated from the
WSPOUs.
The WSPOU complex is designated as a wildlife management area that is administered by the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks under a 2005 lease with Atlantic Richfield. Property within the WSPOUs
is owned exclusively by Atlantic Richfield. Together, the settling ponds and wildlife ponds offer habitat for
migrating waterfowl and breeding areas for songbirds and osprey. The lease allows recreational use of the area but
restricts swimming and limits fishing to catch-and-release only.
RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
Environmental investigations determined sediments, surface water, soils and groundwater were all affected by
contaminants in the WSPOUs. Pond bottom sediments, tailings deposits and contaminated soils contain the
majority of the contaminants. The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences conducted a public
health and environmental risk assessment and identified potential risk to workers or recreators due to ingestions of
arsenic and lead in contaminated soil, sediments and tailings.
In addition, the EPA determined the existing berms protecting the ponds failed to meet current dam safety
standards. Their failure due to a flood or earthquake could result in catastrophic consequences including loss of
life.
Response Actions
Pre-ROD Activities
Anaconda made the first attempt to control the amount of sediment carried into the Clark Fork River from Silver
Bow Creek in 1911 by building a 20-foot-high tailings dam on Silver Bow Creek near the town of Warm Springs.
This effort created Pond 1.
In 1916, Anaconda built another 18-foot-high dam at Warm Springs, upstream from the first dam, creating Pond
2. The dam was subsequently raised 5 feet, to a total height of 23 feet, from 1967 to 1969.
A third, and much larger, 28-foot-high dam was built upstream of Pond 2 by Anaconda between 1954 and 1959,
primarily for sediment control. The structure created Pond 3. The height of the dam was increased by 5 feet to a
maximum height of 33 feet, from 1967 to 1969.
In 1967, Pond 3 was converted into a treatment facility to treat mill waste losses, precipitation plant spent solution
from Butte operations, and overflow from the Opportunity Ponds. Treatment consisted of introducing a
lime/water suspension from the Anaconda Smelter into Silver Bow Creek above Pond 3. The addition of the lime
suspension raised the pH of the creek water to facilitate precipitation of heavy metals in the Pond 3.
Remedial Actions
Active Area (OU4)
Following initiation of a removal action that removed tailings from the Mill-Willow Bypass that was completed in
November 1990, the EPA signed an interim ROD for the WSPOUs in September 1990. The final remedy will be
selected following completion of upstream OU cleanups or as otherwise appropriate.
50
-------
In June 1991, the EPA signed an ESD that identified the Inactive Area of Pond 1 and the area beneath Pond 1 as a
separate action to be addressed under a separate 1992 ROD (OU12). The changes enabled the EPA to proceed
with necessary work on the active portions of the pond system (Ponds 2 and 3) and allowed the EPA to conduct a
more thorough evaluation of various alternatives for closing the inactive portions of the pond system.
The retained elements of the 1990 ROD address Active Area OU4: Pond 2 and Pond 3, the Mill-Willow Bypass
and berms, inlet and outlet structures, treatment improvement features and monitoring systems. The overall RAOs
established for the Active Area OU4 are:
• Prevent releases of pond bottom sediments due to earthquakes or floods.
• Meet ambient water quality standards for aquatic life in the discharge of treated water at the identified
compliance point.
• Prevent ingestion of water containing contaminant concentrations above MCLs and established reference
doses for copper, iron, zinc and cadmium. Also prevent ingestion of water containing arsenic in
concentrations that would cause an excess cancer risk greater than 1 x 10"7 to 1 x 10"4.
• Reduce the potential for tailings in the Mill-Willow Bypass to reach the Clark Fork River through
continuation of the removal action in this area.
• Reduce the potential for tailings in upstream areas of Silver Bow Creek to reach the Clark Fork River.
• Reduce the potential for human exposure to exposed tailings and other surface contamination to satisfy
acceptable intake criteria.
• Reduce the metals contamination in the groundwater downgradient of the ponds to achieve compliance
with MCLs.
Major components of the selected interim remedy for the Active Area OU are:
• Allow the ponds to remain in place; Pond 2 and Pond 3 will continue to function as treatment ponds until
upstream sources of contamination are cleaned up and upstream in-stream standards can be met without
treatment.
• Raise and strengthen all pond berms according to specified criteria to protect against dam failure in the
event of major earthquakes or floods and increase the storage capacity of Pond 3 to receive and treat
flows up to the 100-year flood.
• Construct new inlet and hydraulic structures to prevent debris from plugging the Pond 3 inlet and to
safely route flows in excess of the 100-year flood around the ponds.
• Comprehensively upgrade the treatment capability of Ponds 2 and 3 to fully treat all flows up to 3,300
cubic feet per second (cfs) (100-year peak discharge) prior to discharge and construct spillways for
routing excess flood water into the bypass channel.
• Remove remaining tailings and contaminated soils from the Mill-Willow Bypass (an action begun pre-
ROD under a removal action), consolidate them over existing dry tailings and contaminated soils in the
Pond 1 and Pond 3 berms, and provide adequate cover material, which will be revegetated.
• Reconstruct the Mill-Willow Bypass channel and armor the north-south berms of all ponds to safely route
flows up to 70,000 cfs (one half of the previously estimated probable maximum flood).
• Flood (wet-closure) all dry portions of Pond 2. Wet closure cells are constructed by inundating exposed
tailings deposits by adding a lime slurry and then flooding with water to effectively neutralize acidic
conditions and cause dissolved metals to precipitate and bind to soil particles.
• Establish surface and groundwater quality monitoring systems and perform all activities necessary to
ensure compliance with all ARARs.
• Implement institutional controls to prevent future residential development, swimming and consumption of
fish by humans. The 1991 ESD further specified that specific institutional controls shall be initiated in
cooperation with local governments (see Institutional Control Review).
Interim discharge standards for Pond 2 discharge of treated water are included in Table 4-1.
51
-------
Table 4-1: Warm Springs Pond Active OU: Pond 2 Discharge Standards
( oiislitiioiil
l);iil\ M;i\iiiiiiin (inii/l.)
Monllih (mii/1.)
Total Recoverable Arsenic
0.02
0.02
Total Recoverable Cadmium
0.00393
0.00113
Total Recoverable Copper
0.018a
0.012a
Total Recoverable Iron
1.5
1.0
Total Recoverable Lead
0.082a
0.00323
Total Recoverable Mercury
0.0002
0.0002
Total Recoverable Selenium
0.26
0.035
Total Recoverable Silver
0.00413
0.000123
Total Recoverable Zinc
0.12a
0.11a
Total Suspended Solids
45.0
30.0
pH
6.5 to 9.5 standard units
--
Notes:
a. Hardness-dependent standards. This concentration represents the standard calculated at
a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCCb.
Source: Active Area Unilateral Administrative Order
Inactive Area (QUI2)
The 1992 ROD selected an interim remedy for the Warm Springs Ponds Inactive Area OU12. The overarching
remedial action objectives for the Inactive Area OU were to substantially reduce or eliminate risks to human
health and the environment and meet federal, state and local laws. Media-specific remedial action objectives were
as follows:
• Prevent releases of pond bottom sediments during floods or earthquakes.
• Meet ambient water quality standards established pursuant to the Montana Water Quality Act for arsenic,
cadmium, lead, mercury, copper, iron and zinc at a compliance point just above the starting point of the
Clark Fork River.
• Prevent ingestion of water above the Montana Public Water Supply Act's MCLs for arsenic, cadmium,
lead, mercury and silver, and established reference doses for copper, iron, lead, zinc and cadmium.
• Prevent ingestion of water containing arsenic in concentrations that would cause increased cancer risks
greater than 1 in 10,000.
• Substantially reduce the potential for direct contact, inhalation and ingestion of exposed tailings and
contaminated soils. This objective applies to humans, fish and wildlife.
• Reduce the levels of arsenic, cadmium and other contaminant concentrations in the groundwater within
the Inactive Area to preclude off-site migration of water in excess of Montana groundwater MCLs.
Major components of the selected interim remedy for the Inactive Area OU12 are:
• Remove all tailings and contaminated soils from the adjacent portion of the Mill-Willow bypass channel
and from the area below Pond 1 not planned for wet closure. Consolidate the wastes over existing dry
tailings within the western portion of Pond 1.
• Modify, or enlarge if necessary, the adjacent portion of the bypass channel to safely route flood flows up
to 70,000 cfs, which is one half the previously estimated probable maximum flood for the combined
flows of Silver Bow Creek, Willow Creek and Mill Creek.
• Raise, strengthen and armor with soil cement the north-south aspect of the Pond 1 berm.
• Stabilize the east-west aspect and extend and armor the north-south aspect of the Pond 1 berm.
• Relocate the downstream portion of the bypass channel and convert the present channel into a
groundwater interception trench.
52
-------
• Deepen the converted groundwater interception trench and install pumps to allow for a pump-back
system. Pump intercepted water that fails to meet specified standards back to the Active Area for
treatment.
• Construct wet-closure berms to enclose the submerged and partially-submerged tailings and contaminated
soils.
• Chemically fix (immobilize) the tailings and contaminated soils, now enclosed by smaller berms, by
incorporating lime and lime slurry onto or into them.
• Implement long-term ecological monitoring.
• Implement institutional controls to prevent residential development, swimming, domestic well
construction and disruption of dry-closure caps.
• Dry closure measures in the ponds involved pumping out the existing and then protecting the tailings and
contaminated soils from direct exposure by covering with lime & soil barriers, followed by revegetation
with native species.
Final WSPOUs Remedy
A final remedy for Active Area OU4 and Inactive Area OU12 will be selected following completion of upstream
OU cleanups or otherwise as appropriate.
Status of Implementation
Atlantic Richfield conducted the interim remedial actions for both OUs under two Unilateral Administrative
Orders and EPA enforcement and oversight from July 1990 through September 1995. Initial cleanup began with
the Mill-Willow Bypass expedited response action in 1990 and 1991. Work continued through both the Active
and Inactive Areas from 1992 through 1995. The EPA has determined that Atlantic Richfield has met all interim
remedial action construction requirements.
During remedial action, pond embankments were raised and strengthened as necessary to provide treatment
capacity for inflows up to the 100-year peak discharge and to withstand a maximum credible earthquake for the
area; the Pond 3 inlet structure was constructed to safely pass flows up to the 100-year flood and to route flows
greater than the 100-year flood around the ponds; the Mill-Willow Bypass was reconstructed to safely route the
expected flows from up to one-half the probable maximum flood and to enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat;
and wet closures were constructed to submerge tailings and contaminated soils within portions of the WSPOUs.
On March 31, 1993, the new lime treatment facility was brought on-line at the inlet to Pond 3. The treatment
facility added the ability to control the lime feed by four different modes: pH feedback, lime dosage rate (based on
flow rate), constant lime feed rate, and system on/off cycles.
Lime Treatment Pilot Study
A Lime Rate Optimization Pilot Study began in November 2013 to determine if reducing lime addition during
winter and spring months can improve pH and arsenic discharge compliance during summer months, without
negatively affecting arsenic and copper discharge concentrations during the remainder of the year.
The first two years of the Pilot Study (2014 and 2015) were conducted at an approximate 25% reduction in lime
dosage. After observing minor positive results and no negative impacts, lime addition was reduced further, to
approximately 50% relative to pre-study conditions, and with a target post-lime pH range of 8.0 to 8.3 at the
sampling location downstream of the lime addition plant. An extension to the study was requested and approved
in November 2017 in which existing operational conditions would be maintained. Operations have continued
under the approved conditions to the present time. In October 2019, Atlantic Richfield submitted an interim
assessment for 2018 and the first half of 2019 operations. The EPA is currently reviewing the findings.
53
-------
Institutional Control (IC) Review
The OU4 ROD called for institutional controls to prevent future residential development, swimming and
consumption of fish by humans. The 1991 ESD further specified that the following specific institutional controls
shall be initiated in cooperation with local governments at the site:
• Renewal of the lease agreement between Atlantic Richfield and the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, for continuation of use of major portions of the area as a wildlife refuge.
• Implementation of a conservation easement with restrictive covenants by Atlantic Richfield for the Site,
to ensure that future development will not include residential use and will not cause disruption of disposal
areas or waste ponds.
• Implementation of a permit development system, in cooperation with Anaconda-Deer Lodge County and
Atlantic Richfield, which will prevent residential development at the Site. The permit system includes the
development of a master plan, which will designate the ponds as a wildlife refuge.
• Implementation of a water well ban in the area. The well ban shall prohibit water wells within the waste
ponds at the Site permanently and shall temporarily prohibit water wells within the Site in areas outside of
the waste ponds, until such time as ARARs are achieved for the groundwater at the Site.
• Implementation of a ban on swimming in the ponds at the Site, to be accomplished through the posting of
appropriate signs at the Site.
The OU12 ROD called for institutional controls to prevent residential development, swimming, domestic well
construction and disruption of dry-closure caps.
Atlantic Richfield submitted a petition to DNRC for designation of the Warm Springs Ponds Active and Inactive
Area OUs as a controlled groundwater area pursuant to Section 85-2-506(2)(f), Montana Code Annotated. The
petition included a request that DNRC issue an order establishing a permanent water well ban for potable water
supply within these OUs. DNRC approved the petition and established a controlled groundwater area at the WSP,
effective May 25, 1995 (Figure 4-2).
Atlantic Richfield currently owns all property within the WSPOUs. The area is a designated wildlife management
area administered by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, under a 2020 lease with Atlantic
Richfield. The lease allows recreational use of the area but restricts swimming and limits fishing to catch-and-
release only. Signage is posted at entry points to the ponds describing the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks fishing regulations. The current agreement with Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
extends to December 31, 2024
It was originally envisioned that restrictions on future development would be accomplished through a
conservation easement with restrictive covenants. However, that approach proved difficult to implement. Instead,
the implementation of land use restrictions has involved Atlantic Richfield working with Anaconda-Deer Lodge
County and include a development permit system to prevent the Warm Springs Ponds from being used for
residential habitation or in other ways that could disturb the remedy. In addition, the area lies within the 100-year
floodplain, making it subject to building restrictions. Additional institutional controls may be considered in the
final ROD.
54
-------
Table 4-2: WSPOUs Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)
Modiii. r.niiinc'cml
( onirols. iiiid AiTiis
1 h;il Do Not
Support I 1 /I 1.
ISiisod on Curmil
Conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs Called
lor in (lie
Decision
Documents
lmp;iclcd
\rc;i(s)
IC
OI).jec(i\e
Tillc of IC liislriiiiK'iil
liiiplciiK'iilcd iind Diilo
(or pliiniicd)
Surface water
Yes
Yes
OU4 and
OU12
Prevent swimming and
consumption of fish
2005 Property lease
Land use
Yes
Yes
OU4 and
OU12
Prevent future
residential
development
County permit system
OU12 Cover
Yes
Yes
OU12
Prevent disruption of
dry-closure caps
To be determined
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
OU4 and
OU12
Prohibit installation of
potable groundwater
wells
1995 Controlled
Groundwater Area (Figure
4-2)
55
-------
Figure 4-2: WSPOUs Controlled Groundwater Area
Warm Springs Pond Groundwater Closure Area
Legend
Controlled Groundwater Area
Disclaimer: Information presented
here is a representation of the
information included in the Final
Order.
See Final Order for exact details.
0.30.15 0 0.3 Miles
Location
N
A
I "i TP \ T J V-10
i-H
\ V y._j—1
Copyright:© 2013 Esri
Systems Operations/O&M
The O&M plan was updated and approved in 2019 to reflect current operations.
System Overview
The primary objective of the Active Area OU4 system rs to treat the incoming water so that water leaving the
system meets established water quality standards. This objective is accomplished through integrated operation of
the full system that includes Pond 3, Pond 2 (including the wet closure facilities), the facilities to bypass around
Pond 2, the Pond 1 wet closure facilities, the three wet closure cells below Pond 1, and the Groundwater
Interception and Pumpback System. Pond 3 is the primary treatment pond, with Pond 2 serving to enhance
performance under nonnal flow conditions.
The processes at Active Area OU4 involve two primary active operational controls: chemical (lime) precipitation
and hydraulic controls. First, the quantity of lime added to the influent stream can be adjusted. The dissolution
and mixing of the lime that occurs in Silver Bow Creek and in Pond 3 produces a desired pH adjustment. Second,
hydraulic controls can be altered so that the water surface elevations (and volumes) of Ponds 3 and 2 are raised or
lowered. Water flows can also be routed differently between or around the ponds and wet closures to modify
detention times and improve removal efficiencies.
56
-------
Flows entering the system vary greatly. Flows from Silver Bow Creek enter the Pond 3 at the inlet structure where
the pH is adjusted by lime addition. Flow passes through Pond 3 and Pond 2 prior to discharge from the outlet
structure. Flows from Mill and Willow Creeks are diverted into the Mill-Willow Bypass above the inlet structure.
Other system flows include the effluent from the Inactive Area Pumpback Station, which pumps water from the
Groundwater Interception Trench back to Pond 2. In addition, a small flow is maintained from Pond 2 into Pond 1
of the Inactive Area, which is subsequently returned to Pond 2 as part of the pumpback discharge.
Inspection and Monitoring
Regular inspection and maintenance are required for embankment, water conveyance and hydraulic structures
facilities, including monitoring related to dam safety, piezometers, dry closure areas and hydraulic facilities.
The Data Review section discusses surface water and groundwater monitoring results. Surface water monitoring
includes flow, levels, water characteristics (e.g., pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen), lime usage and weather,
which could be used in evaluating impacts on pond system performance. Groundwater monitoring includes both
water quality and groundwater level. Both sets of data are used for compliance monitoring to verify that
contamination is contained during the time the Pumpback System is in use. Data are further used to establish the
point in time when the Groundwater Interception Trench and Pumpback System can be terminated.
PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the 2016 FYR Report as well as the
recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report and the status of those recommendations.
Table 4-3: WSPOUs Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2016 FYR Report
()l #
Pr»(ec(i\i'iiess
l)cliTinin;ilion
PmUiiheness M;iK-iik-iiI
4
Will be Protective
The final remedy at Warm Springs Ponds Active OU (OU4) is
expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have
adequately addressed exposure pathways that could result in
unacceptable risks.
12
Will be Protective
The final remedy at Warm Springs Ponds Inactive OU (OU12) is
expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have
adequately addressed exposure pathways that could result in
unacceptable risks.
57
-------
Table 4-4: Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report
()l
#
Issue
Koci tin inciidiil itiiis
( urmil
Siiiius
( iinvnl 1 inplomcMil:ilion Siiiius
Description
( o nip Id ion
Diilo (if
iippliciihlo)
4
Arsenic surface
water standard
seasonally
exceeded in
effluent.
Complete arsenic
treatment
optimization
studies, and then
determine if
additional remedial
action is needed
and if meeting
RAOs is feasible.
Under
Discussion
The Lime Rate Optimization Pilot
Study is ongoing. An extension to the
study was requested and approved in
November 2017. In October 2019,
Atlantic Richfield submitted an interim
assessment for 2018 and the first half
of 2019 operations. EPA is currently
reviewing the findings and will assess
if meeting RAOs is feasible.
Not
Applicable
4
and
12
New exposure
pathways for
wildlife/aquatic
life may now be
present.
Evaluate
contaminant
pathways.
Considered
But Not
Implemented
EPA anticipates considering all human
and ecological exposure pathways
during the final remedy decision
process.
Not
Applicable
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Data Review
This FYR data review includes surface water sampling data at four points in the Active Area OU4 flow path,
including the discharge, as well as Inactive Area groundwater monitoring. Overall, data are consistent with prior
years of monitoring. In addition, results of the watershed biological monitoring and the five-year dam safety
inspection are discussed in this section.
Surface Water
As illustrated in Figure 4-3, surface water quality is monitored at Pond 3 Inlet (SS-1), Pond 3 discharge (SS-3)
and Pond 2 discharge (SS-5). In addition, pH is monitored downstream of lime addition (SS-2), Data collected at
SS-5 are used to evaluate Pond 2 performance as well as comply with the monitoring requirements. Surface water
standards at the WSPOUs are applied to effluent composite samples taken at SS-5. Grab samples are collected
from this location on a daily basis during active lime treatment to assure the target pH is being met.
The standards contain daily maximum and monthly average limitations for the total recoverable concentrations of
nine trace elements (arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, selenium, silver and zinc), total suspended
solids (TSS) and pH.
Through June 2019, Pond 2 discharge SS-5 was in compliance with the Final Daily Maximum Standards for all
constituents, with the exception of arsenic, copper and pH exceedances (Figures 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6). Influent and
effluent data for January 2015 through December 2019 are presented in Appendix J. Arsenic and copper are the
only constituents to exceed the monthly performance standards during this review period. Although the discharge
from the Pond 2 exceeds the performance standard seasonally, human health is protected. The arsenic standard is
set to protect human health through drinking water and no people are consuming the Pond 2 effluent or using the
upper Clark Fork River as a potable water source.
58
-------
Figure 4-3: WSPOUs Sampling Points
MPSfii
0.5
I Miles
Sources: Esri, DigitaiGlobe GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
jAeraGR/D, /GW. the GIS User Community, the
Butte-Siiver Bow Planning Department, the 2016
FYR and the 2018 WSP Lime Rate Optimization
Pilot Study Interim Report.
Legend
Warm Springs Ponds - OU4 & OU12
~ Surface Water Sampling Locations
^ Skeo
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site
City of Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
59
-------
Figure 4-4: WSPOUs Arsenic Concentrations at Discharge SS-5
Arsenic at SS-5
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
_ 0.06
E
y 0 05
'c
-------
Figure 4-6: WSPOUs pH Concentrations at Discharge SS-5
pH at SS-5
ll
10.5
10
9.5
9
5. 8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1
Day of Year
Source: ARCO, 2019. Warm Springs Ponds Operable Unit of the Silver Bow Creek Area NPL Site, Docket No. CERCLA-VIII-91-25 -
Warm Springs Ponds (WSP) Lime Rate Optimization Pilot Study Interim Report, 2018 Through .Time 2019; Prepared/submitted October 8.
Groundwater
The objective of the Inactive Area groundwater monitoring program is to verify compliance with the specified
groundwater quality performance standards at wells immediately north of the groundwater interception trench.
Semi-annual groundwater monitoring activities were conducted during the reporting period. Groundwater quality
results are well below standards and are presented in Appendix J.
Biological Monitoring
Although not part of the interim remedy monitoring requirements, annual benthic macroinvertebrate-based
monitoring has been performed at stream reaches with ongoing or future remedial actions from Silver Bow Creek
upstream of the Warm Springs Ponds, downstream through the upper Clark Fork River. In addition to
providing current assessments of ecological conditions, these sampling events extend the long-term data set for
evaluating water quality trends and the effectiveness of remedial activities.
Sampling locations at the WSPOUs include Silver Bow Creek at Opportunity, upstream of Pond 3 (SBC Station
2.5), Silver Bow Creek below the Pond 2 discharge (SBC Station 4.5) and Mill-Willow Bypass above Pond 2
discharge (MW Station 5). Overall, environmental conditions in the watershed are improving. In 2017, the
biological integrity at Opportunity (Station 2.5) scored non-impaired for the first time since monitoring began.
Biological integrity also improved at Silver Bow Creek below the Warm Springs Ponds (Station 4.5), with the
2019 bioassessment being the highest reported score since 2003. The Mill-Willow Bypass (Station 5) BMI
community continues to be classified as non-impaired.
Dam Safety
Atlantic Richfield submitted the required five-year dam safety report in December 2016 (as scheduled, after the
2016 FYR was completed). Dam safety inspections have confirmed that the Warm Springs Ponds facilities
61
-------
comply with state of Montana Dam Safety Regulations. The next five-year dam safety inspection is to be
scheduled for 2021. Interim annual reports indicate no issues with dam safety.
Site Inspection
The site inspection took place on 9/17/2020. Participants included EPA RPM Allie Archer, Dave Griffis from
Atlantic Richfield, Steve Lubbock from Pioneer Technical Services and Treat Suomi from EPA FYR support
contractor Skeo. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. The site inspection
checklist and photos are included in Appendices F and G, respectively.
Participants met at the WSPOUs lime treatment building. The group toured the ponds to observe the condition of
remedial components, including the treatment plant, ponds, berms and spillways. Fencing and Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks signage were observed at all property entrances. The Site was well-
maintained overall. The remedy appeared to be in working order.
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The interim remedy at WSPOUs is functioning as intended. The final actions at these OUs will be determined
following implementation of remedial actions at OUs in upstream areas that are expected to reduce contaminant
inputs to the WSPOUs.
While the discharge concentrations for cadmium, lead, mercury, iron and zinc have been in compliance with
discharge standards for the Pond 2 discharge, arsenic and, only occasionally, copper continue to exceed standards
on a seasonal basis. Atlantic Richfield is continuing to study and better understand the arsenic cycling at the
ponds and has recommended that the lime optimization Pilot Study be extended to November 2021.
Revegetation efforts have proven to be successful at both the dry closures and along the Mill-Willow Bypass. The
removal of tailings in combination with the reconstruction of the Mill-Willow Bypass has prevented erosion of
tailings from the Mill-Willow Bypass into the Clark Fork River. In general, the revegetation effort prevents
exposure of human and ecological receptors to COCs associated with tailings via direct contact, ingestion or
inhalation.
Off-site migration of groundwater exceeding performance standards is prevented by the interceptor trench. The
wet closures remain inundated and biologically active. The wet closures are functioning as intended to prevent
mobilization or direct exposure to COCs.
Dam safety inspections have confirmed that the Warm Springs Ponds facilities comply with state of Montana
Dam Safety Regulations.
DNRC's controlled groundwater area and the fact that all land parcels within the boundary of the WSPOUs are
owned and controlled by Atlantic Richfield continue to effectively prevent the use of contaminated groundwater,
swimming in the ponds, or any other use that could compromise the remedy. Additional controls that run with the
land will be considered as part of the final remedy.
During the community involvement interviews, respondents had questions about the final remedy closure and
timing, notably how the pond closures will affect the overall watershed. Respondents also indicated uncertainty
about the reason for catch-and-release fishing regulations, and whether it was about the well-being of the fish
population, or about the safety of eating the fish.
62
-------
The EPA will consider land use and watershed impacts as well as public comments during the final remedy
selection process. The EPA will continue to consider WSPOUs as part of the larger Butte-Anaconda-Clark Fork
River Superfund complex and consider the watershed-wide impacts.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives
(RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Active Area discharge standards identified in the Unilateral Administrative Order are no longer valid as Montana
standards are now more stringent. In addition, the ecological risk assessment called for in the 2011 FYR has not
been completed but will be completed prior to final remedy selection. Updates to discharge and performance
standards, as well as assessment of all risk pathways will be considered in the decision-making process for final
remedy selection.
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of
the remedy?
Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(d), the EPA has identified the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA), as an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR) for the ongoing remedial
actions at the Site. ESA Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of federally designated critical habitat. ESA Section 9 addresses certain prohibitions,
including the unauthorized take of listed species. Consistent with ESA Section 7(a)(2), the EPA has evaluated the
potential effects of its remedial actions at the Site on any threatened and endangered species and their designated
critical habitat, as applicable. In 2018, the EPA prepared and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) a Biological Assessment (BA) that includes the agency's determinations with which the FWS has
concurred, that its actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx and grizzly bear. The
EPA has also prepared and submitted to the FWS, a 2020 revised BA concluding that its actions may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, the threatened bull trout and its designated critical habitat. Consistent with the ESA,
the FWS is in the process of preparing a Biological Opinion related to the EPA's 2020 revised Biological
Assessment.
No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
Ol (s) without Issues/Recommendations IclontiI'icil in the I YR:
OU4 and OU12
OTHER FINDINGS
One additional recommendation was identified during the FYR. These recommendations do not affect current
and/or future protectiveness:
• The EPA will continue to coordinate with the FWS to facilitate completion of the Biological Opinion and
the ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation process.
63
-------
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS
Operable Unit:
4
Protectiveness Determination:
Will be Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The final remedy at Warm Springs Ponds Active OU (OU4) is expected to be protective of human health and the
environment upon completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have adequately addressed
exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks.
Protectiveness Statement:
The final remedy at Warm Springs Ponds Inactive OU (OU 12) is expected to be protective of human health and
the environment upon completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have adequately
addressed exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks.
NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for the WSPOUs at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site is required five years
from the completion date of this review and will be included in the site-wide FYR.
Operable Unit:
Protectiveness Determination:
Will be Protective
12
64
-------
V. ROCKER TIMBER FRAMING AND TREATING PLANT OPERABLE UNIT
(ROCKER OU), Operable Unit 7
Background
The 16-acre Rocker OU is south of U.S. Interstate 15/90 near Rocker, Montana, about three miles west of Butte,
in Silver Bow County (Figure 5-1). The Rocker OU is on both the north and south sides of Silver Bow Creek.
The Rocker Timber Framing and Treating Plant was built in 1909. It operated until the plant's closure around
1957. The Anaconda Company, predecessor to Atlantic Richfield, owned and operated the plant. Initially, the
facility treated mining timbers with a creosote solution. Later, it used arsenic trioxide solutions for treatment.
During plant operations, spilled process materials (arsenic trioxide powder), treated wood chip residues, and
dripped or leaked process solutions (creosote and caustic heated arsenic brines) resulted in contaminated soils and
significant groundwater contamination. Arsenic in soils and groundwater at the Rocker OU is the primary COC.
Other metals contamination from mine waste was also present at various locations at the Rocker OU.
Groundwater flows through the shallow/upper and deep/lower alluvium and Tertiary sediments. However, only
the deep alluvial aquifer and Tertiary aquifer are currently used for human consumption of groundwater. The
alluvial formation has been subdivided into the shallow alluvial aquifer (the upper 20 feet of alluvial sediments)
and deep alluvial aquifer (from about 20 feet below ground surface to the upper surface of the Tertiary age
sediments). The deep alluvial aquifer pinches out toward the western portion of the OU.
The community of Rocker is zoned for residential, commercial and agricultural uses. Land uses in the Rocker OU
are currently industrial and railroad uses with some recreational use on the Greenway Trail along Silver Bow
Creek. There are many wells in the area that are not currently in use due to local restrictions implemented in
response to the potential for contaminant migration to private wells and efforts by Atlantic Richfield to work with
local well users to abandon wells and use alternative water supplies. Existing wells can still be used, but well
owners have been notified of the potential risks.
The three parcels that make up the Rocker OU are owned by Atlantic Richfield and Rarus Railroad. The property
currently includes a repository of treated materials contoured to promote proper surface drainage, leaving a 15-
foot-high vegetated knoll. The area of treated materials is fenced to limit access and trespassing. Riprap along a
portion of the north side of the repository area protects against erosion during flood events in Silver Bow Creek.
65
-------
Figure 5-1: Rocker OU Site Map
500
1,000
2,000
IH Feet
Sources: Esri, DigitaiGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies,
CNES/Airbus OS, USD A USGS, Aero GRID, IGN, the GIS User
Community, CH2MHHI. the Butte-Sitver Bow Planning Department.
2016 FYR and the 2017 Rocker Conceptual Site Model.
Legend
I I Rocker - OU7
t "^Fencing
^Skeo O
v ^ NORTH
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site
City of Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the
Site.
66
-------
RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
Between 1989 and 1995, the EPA conducted investigations at the Site to characterize the nature and extent of soil
and groundwater contamination. From these investigations, the EPA concluded that contaminated soils and
groundwater at the Rocker OU posed an imminent and substantial endangerment to workers, trespassers and
future potential residents at or near the OU.
Arsenic is the primary COC. For surface soils, more than 95% of the cancer and non-cancer risk was due to the
presence of arsenic. No other contaminant (including other metals, creosote and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons) was determined to pose unacceptable cancer or non-cancer risk in excess of the EPA's acceptable
risk range. Arsenic contributed over 99% of the future potential cancer risk from consuming groundwater.
Response Actions
In 1989, the state of Montana directed Atlantic Richfield to remove contaminated soils and debris with
concentrations exceeding 10,000 mg/kg arsenic. About 1,000 cy of contaminated material were removed to a
licensed disposal facility. Areas involved in the removal action were subsequently covered with about 1 foot of
fill material from a nearby off-site area. Nevertheless, other materials with arsenic concentrations exceeding
10,000 mg/kg were identified at three locations remaining on site.
After an RI/FS was conducted by Atlantic Richfield under an administrative order on consent, the EPA issued a
1995 ROD and a 2014 Rocker ESD, selecting and modifying the remedy. The remedy addresses surface soil,
alluvium and groundwater contaminated by wood-treating compounds and mining waste. RAOs for the Rocker
OU are:
• Attain groundwater standards (ARARs) or other risk-based levels for inorganic (primarily arsenic) and
organic COCs for groundwater underlying and adjacent to the OU and protect human health during and
after cleanup. Owing to the nature of the groundwater contamination, the aquifers of preferred use, and
the quality/quantity of water available from water-producing zones in the Rocker OU, this RAO is
primarily intended to prevent further contamination of the two lower aquifers. A secondary part of the
RAO is to attain ARAR levels outside of waste unit boundaries in the upper aquifer.
• Prevent release of contaminated groundwater to Silver Bow Creek that would result in a violation of
surface water ARARs or other risk-based contaminant levels.
• Prevent migration of contaminated groundwater from areas where levels exceed groundwater standards
into regions where levels are within groundwater standards.
The remedy selected for the Rocker OU in the 1995 ROD and amended by the 2014 Rocker ESD included:
• Groundwater Source Material Removal and Treatment of Shallow Groundwater:
o Excavate contaminated soils in areas where groundwater arsenic concentrations exceed 10,000
|ig/L. Treat excavated soils with iron sulfate and lime amendments and dispose of treated soils in
an on-site repository. Contingent remedy of containment and treatment of contaminated
groundwater. Rely on natural attenuation to achieve cleanup standards outside of the waste unit
boundary.
o The 2014 ESD changed the ARAR for arsenic in groundwater from 18 |ig/L to 10 |ig/L.
• Contaminated Surface and Near-Surface Soils:
o Excavate surface soils with arsenic concentrations in excess of 1,000 mg/kg to a depth of 18
inches. Treat excavated soils with iron sulfate and lime amendments and dispose of treated soils
in an on-site repository. Cover soils with arsenic concentrations ranging from 380 mg/kg to 1,000
67
-------
mg/kg with 18 inches of clean soil and revegetate. Implement institutional controls to protect the
remedy, prevent future residential use, and prevent domestic groundwater use until cleanup is
achieved.
• Well Ban and Alternative Water Supply:
o Implement a groundwater well ban for new wells within a quarter-mile radius of the OU in any of
the three aquifer units. Construct an expanded capacity water supply system for the community of
Rocker.
• Groundwater:
o Monitor and demonstrate that the requirements of the ROD have been met. Return the
groundwater resource to the community after cleanup levels are achieved and provide O&M for
the repository and soil covers,
o For groundwater, cleanup levels are based on the state's standards for Class I and Class II
groundwater.
o If necessary, a contingent remedy of additional hydraulic controls may be implemented to contain
plume expansion.
The Statistical Evaluation and Implementation Plan, which is part of the work plan attached to the 2000 Rocker
OU Consent Decree, established a trigger action level for implementing a contingent groundwater remedy. That
trigger action level is an arsenic concentration of 18 |ig/L in groundwater in certain wells. The 2014 Rocker ESD
further calls for evaluation of technologies to address the groundwater plume. After the evaluation of
technologies, the contingent remedy trigger will be re-evaluated.
Status of Implementation
The PRP began Rocker OU remedy construction in April 1997 and finished in October 1997. PRP excavated
48,000 cy of soils contaminated with arsenic above 1,000 mg/kg to a depth of five feet below the seasonally low
groundwater level. Excavated soil was then treated in a pug mill with iron sulfate and lime amendments. Soil
sampling confirmed treated soils had leachable arsenic concentrations below 0.30 mg/L.
Treated soils were disposed of in an on-site repository. A two-acre portion of the shallow aquifer was excavated
and replaced with a gravel-filled zone beneath the repository. This zone previously contained arsenic-impacted
soil and sediment and was excavated to a depth of about five feet below the annual average shallow groundwater
elevation and backfilled to an elevation about one foot above the annual average shallow groundwater elevation,
for a total thickness of approximately six feet. The top of the gravel-filled zone was leveled out and covered with
a geotextile filter fabric. Impacted material that had been excavated from the Rocker OU was treated with ferrous
sulfate and calcium carbonate, placed on top of the fabric, capped with 18 inches of cover soil, seeded with a
mixture of native grasses, fertilized and mulched with straw.
The PRP treated groundwater contaminated with arsenic above 1,000 |ig/L in open excavation trenches using iron
sulfate, lime and potassium permanganate amendments. During remedy implementation, additional areas of
contamination were identified and treated. Groundwater contamination on the south side of the OU was treated
with ferrous iron through a groundwater injection trench. Additional soils were excavated, treated and stored in
the on-site repository. Monitored natural attenuation was expected to address remaining groundwater
contamination. The PRP covered other soils above 380 mg/kg with clean cover soil and revegetated the entire
area.
Although the remedy removed the primary source and about 63% of the secondary source (in the form of
impacted alluvium) to a depth of five feet below the water table, the remaining impacted alluvium was not
removed because of concerns associated with excavating into the saturated zone and releasing arsenic adhering to
impacted alluvium. Remedial action was completed October 1997.
As part of the remedy implementation, a new water main was constructed to connect the existing Butte-Silver
Bow County water supply line to Rocker. A 300,000-gallon water supply reservoir was also constructed to
68
-------
supplement the increased water usage. In 2011, the nearby Town Pump truck stop installed two adsorptive arsenic
media treatment tanks on its well to ensure the water meets current drinking water standards.
More than 40 monitoring wells were installed during the remedial investigations. During remedy implementation,
seven wells were constructed within the remediation footprint as treated source materials were backfilled into
excavated areas. Those wells were designated as interior "gravel wells" because their screened intervals were
within the treated groundwater that was backfilled with clean gravel. In addition, exterior and contingency (POC)
wells in each of the three aquifer zones were installed.
During remedy implementation, two areas of contamination were identified that had not been included in the
remedy design. Groundwater contamination on the south side of the site within the Rocker rail siding was treated
with ferrous iron though a groundwater injection trench. An infiltration gallery was left in place in the event that
groundwater needs to be re-dosed in this area. A second area of soil contamination was identified in the floodplain
of Silver Bow Creek. These materials were excavated, treated, and stored in the on-site repository.
Post-Construction Monitoring and Investigations
Post-remedy monitoring showed arsenic concentrations increasing in groundwater. As stated in the 2014 ESD,
data evaluated during the 2011 Five-Year Review showed several contingency wells had a quarterly arsenic
concentration equal to or greater than 10 |ig/L. In addition, 21 of the 24 wells that are part of the monitoring
program, but are not contingency wells, had quarterly arsenic concentrations exceeding 10 |ig/L. with some
showing an increase in arsenic concentrations over time. Therefore, the EPA concluded the remedy had failed to
meet the RAOs for the Rocker OU. The EPA consequently directed the Settling Defendant (SD) to review
conditions and evaluate other actions and technologies that can be suitably applied in order to attain RAOs at the
Rocker OU.
The SD began developing an updated conceptual site model (CSM) in 2014 and in 2017 submitted an updated
draft CSM compiling the 20 years of performance monitoring to provide updated background and site
characterization information and an evaluation of the site sources, pathways and receptors. The EPA, in
consultation with MDEQ, reviewed and provided comments on the CSM document in a letter dated August 30,
2017. The SD's prepared a QAPP to address data gaps within the CSM and collect data for a focused feasibility
study (FFS). The SD performed field work in the fall of 2020 to collect further data to support the updated CSM
and FFS. After review of the data and the FFS, the EPA, in consultation with MDEQ, will determine if contingent
remedies included in the 2014 ESD, or other actions, are warranted to address remaining groundwater
contamination.
Institutional Control (IC) Review
Future development and use of groundwater resources in the area was restricted via a 1997 well ban, implemented
under state law as a controlled groundwater area, which prohibits direct consumption of groundwater via wells in
order to prevent migration of the contaminated groundwater into the deeper, high-quality groundwater systems in
the area (Figures 5-2).
The soil repository lies within railroad property and property owned by Atlantic Richfield. Per a 2000 CD,
Atlantic Richfield is to execute and record a deed restriction, running with the land, that restricts property use.
These restrictions are to exclude use of any portion of the OU for residential purposes and ban installation of any
new groundwater wells. Table 5-1 describes the institutional controls planned and in place at the Rocker OU.
69
-------
Table 5-1: Rocker OU Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)
Media, Engineered
Controls, and Areas
That Do Not
Support IIU/IIE
Based on Current
Conditions
ICs
Needed
ICs Called
for in the
Decision
Documents
Impacted
Parcel(s)
IC
Objective
Title of IC Instrument
Implemented and Date
(or planned)
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
Quarter-mile
buffer
around the
Rocker OU
and a small
portion of
the SSTOU
Restrict all new
appropriation of
groundwater.
Controlled groundwater
area established in 1997.
2000 Consent Decree
Soil
Yes
Yes
Rocker Soil
Repository
Prohibit residential
development and
protect the soil
repository.
2000 Consent Decree
In addition, Atlantic
Richfield is to execute and
record a deed restriction,
running with the land, that
restricts property use.
Figure 5-2: Rocker OU Controlled Groundwater Area
Rocker Groundwater Closure Area
. A!j 17
Copyright:© 2013 Esn
70
-------
Systems Operations/O&M
The PRP began quarterly O&M activities in 1998, including regular groundwater and surface water monitoring
and inspection of general site and vegetation conditions. Current monitoring is conducted in accordance with the
2000 O&M plan. The objectives of the quarterly Rocker OU groundwater monitoring program are:
• Confirm treatment results and track groundwater quality trends.
• Document the long-term efficacy of the iron/lime/oxidant groundwater treatment process carried out in
1997.
• Document potential migration of the arsenic plume.
• Document that nearby public and domestic water supplies remain unaffected by the Rocker OU arsenic
plume.
• Document changes in water table elevation and flow patterns following excavation and treatment of the
shallow alluvial hydrostratigraphic unit.
• Monitor compliance with arsenic groundwater performance standards.
Quarterly sampling events include:
• Measuring the water level in all Rocker OU monitoring wells and staff gauges in Silver Bow Creek.
• Sampling three private wells and 31 monitoring wells.
• Measuring field parameters in Silver Bow Creek.
In addition to groundwater monitoring, an annual qualitative inspection of general site conditions evaluates the
uniformity of vegetation cover, presence of bare areas, identification of noxious weed infestations, location of
erosive areas, condition of ditches, damage due to trespassing, and other conditions. Recommendations are made
based on the overall condition of individual components (e.g., vegetation, erosion, security, channels) of the
reclaimed area. No major issues were noted in the past five years.
PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determination and statement from the 2016 FYR Report and 2018 FYR
Addendum as well as the recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report and the status of those recommendations.
Table 5-2: Rocker OU Protectiveness Determination/Statement from the 2016 FYR Report
()l #
Pr»(ec(i\eiR'ss
Ik-liTininalion
Pro(ec(i\cncss Siaicnu'iil
7
Protectiveness Deferred
A pi'oU_vli\ cncbb delemiiiiulion of die re mods ul llie Rocker (JL
(OU7) cannot be made at this time until further information is
obtained. Further information will be obtained by taking the
following actions: completion of the updated conceptual site model
and further investigation of private domestic area wells. It is expected
that these actions will take approximately 18 months to complete, at
which time a protectiveness determination will be made.
71
-------
Table 5-3: Rocker OU Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report
()l #
Issue
Koconiiiioiidiiliou
( II ITCH 1
Sliilus
( iinvnl liiiploinonliiliiin
Description
(omplclion
Diilc (i r
iippliciihlc)
7
There appears to be a
gap in the monitoring
Network southwest
of RH-05. In
addition, during the
most recent sampling
event, arsenic was
detected in tertiary
well RH-72 at 230
|ig/L. significantly
exceeding the arsenic
cleanup standard of
10 |ig/L.
Upon completion of
the CSM, update,
develop and review
the CSM to determine
what additional
investigation and/or
action for this area is
warranted to refine
groundwater flow
direction and to
determine the extent of
the plume in the
southwest direction.
Addressed
in Next
FYR
The draft CSM has been
reviewed by the EPA/MDEQ,
and the SD has collected data
in 2020 for an FFS to address
the data gaps in the draft CSM.
Upon completion, the EPA will
determine if additional
investigations or actions are
needed.
Not
applicable
7
Arsenic
contamination in the
alluvium beneath the
remediated area
appears to be a
continuing source of
arsenic to the
groundwater.
Evaluate the situation
and determine any
needed updates to the
selected remedy.
Addressed
in Next
FYR
The draft CSM has been
reviewed by the EPA/MDEQ,
and the SD has collected data
in 2020 for an FFS to address
the data gaps in the draft CSM.
Upon completion, the EPA will
determine if additional
investigations or actions are
needed.
Not
applicable
7
A local private well
has arsenic
concentrations, at
times, above the 10
|ig/L standard.
Determine whether or
not this well and all
other domestic wells
in the area meet
drinking water
standards and are not
having an effect on the
groundwater plume.
Completed
All use of the private well that
exceeded the 10 |ig/L standard
was discontinued, and the
residence was connected to the
Rocker municipal water supply.
The well can no longer be used
as a source of drinking water
because electrical service to the
well pump was disconnected,
the supply line from the well
pressure tank was disconnected
and capped, and plans are being
made to abandon the well. No
other residential wells in this
area have exceeded the 10 |ig/L
standard. This and the Town
Pump installation of a
treatment system for arsenic on
its well means that no known
residents or customers are
consuming groundwater
exceeding the 10 |ig/L
standard.
9/30/2017
7
There is not a
complete
understanding of how
the shallow
groundwater interacts
with surface water in
Silver Bow Creek.
Update, develop and
review the CSM to
determine the potential
impact on Silver Bow
Creek.
Addressed
in Next
FYR
The draft CSM has been
reviewed by the EPA/MDEQ,
and the SD has collected data
in 2020 for an FFS to address
the data gaps in the draft CSM.
Upon completion, the EPA will
determine if additional
investigations or actions are
needed.
Not
applicable
72
-------
Table 5-4: Rocker OU Protectiveness Determination/Statement from the 2018 FYR Report Addendum
()l #
Pmlcclheness
l)cli'niiiii;ilioii
Pmleclheness Siiiiomonl
7
Short-term
Protective
Lla^ed on now information and or actions taken since the l'i\ e-Year ke\ ie\\ completion
date, the protectiveness statement for Rocker OU 7 is being revised as follows:
• The remedy at OU7 currently protects human health and the environment because all
use of the private well that exceeded the f 0 |ig/L standard was discontinued, and the
residence was connected to the Rocker municipal water supply. This and the Town
Pump installation of a treatment system for arsenic means that no known residents or
customers are consuming groundwater exceeding the 10 |ig/L standard. Other aspects
of the remedy currently protect human health and the environment because land use
controls are in place to prevent residential development within the OU and a ban on
well use at the Rocker OU is still in place. The DNRC instituted a controlled
groundwater area for the Rocker OU, and the Rocker residents were provided with an
alternate community water system. However, in order for OU7 to be protective in the
long term, the following actions need to be taken to ensure protectiveness.
• The potentially responsible party (PRP) will revise the draft conceptual site model
(CSM) per comments provided by the EPA in consultation with the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Data gaps related to arsenic
contamination in the alluvium beneath the repository, arsenic transport in
groundwater, and arsenic transport to surface water, will be resolved and the draft
CSM can be completed. Once the draft CSM is complete, data gaps are filled, and
further analysis conducted, further action may be necessary to ensure long-term
protectiveness.
The 2018 FYR Report Addendum did not identify any issues or recommendations. However, the Addendum did
again state the need for the following actions, previously noted in the 2016 FYR:
• The SD will revise the draft CSM per comments provided by the EPA in consultation with MDEQ.
• Data gaps related to arsenic contamination in the alluvium beneath the repository, arsenic transport in
groundwater, and arsenic transport to surface water, will be resolved using field data collected in the fall
of 2020 under the FFS Data Collection QAPP, dated September 9, 2020, and the draft CSM can be
completed.
• Once the draft CSM is complete, data gaps are filled and further analysis conducted, further action may
be necessary to ensure long-term protectiveness.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Data Review
Data collected for Rocker OU include groundwater and surface water monitoring. Arsenic is the primary
groundwater COC at the Rocker OU, so it is the only COC addressed in this FYR data review section. In addition,
Atlantic Richfield has been updating the draft CSM and has conducted additional assessment of data gaps,
including a field event in the fall of 2020 to collect data under the FFS Data Collection QAPP. Given the EPA is
actively reviewing the draft CSM and has acknowledged the remedy is not functioning as intended, this data
review provides a summary of annual groundwater monitoring data with the understanding that the EPA and
MDEQ will continue to assess the draft CSM and overall remedy performance.
73
-------
Groundwater Monitoring
The purpose of the groundwater monitoring program is to evaluate treatment results, track groundwater quality
trends, and to monitor potential plume migration laterally and vertically. Also included is compliance monitoring
at specified groundwater wells and long-term trend analysis for the FYR reports. Quarterly O&M activities began
in 1998. Arsenic monitoring results are included in Appendix K.
The monitoring wells being sampled fall into three groups, based on their relation to the existing groundwater
arsenic plume. Interior, exterior and contingency monitoring wells at the OU are defined in the Consent Decree
Work Plan and included in the 2000 O&M Plan (Table 5-5).
Table 5-5: Rocker OU Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Ailiiil'iT
\\oil (.mupinii
Well
Shallow Alluvial Wells
Interior
RH-60, RH-61, RH-62, RH-63, RH-
64, RH-65, RH-66
Exterior
MW-01, RH-05, RH-07, RH-15, RH-
17, RH-19, RH-41, RH-44, RH-47
Contingency/Potential Contingency
RH-52R, RH-75
Deep Alluvial Wells
Exterior
RH-14R, RH-16, RH-18, RH-20
Contingency /Potential Contingency
RH-12R, RH-51, RH-55
Tertiary Sediment Wells
Exterior
RH-06, RH-43, RH-48
Contingency
Palmer, RH-36R, Rh-46, RH-53, RH-
76, Town Pump 1
In the first and second quarters of 2019, one private well and 32 monitoring wells were sampled. In the third and
fourth quarters of 2019, two private wells and 32 monitoring wells were sampled. In previous years, samples have
been collected at three private wells and 31 monitoring wells. At the agencies' request, MW-01, a monitoring well
typically used only for water level measurements, was redeveloped and sampled in the third quarter of 2017. This
well continued to be sampled through the remainder of 2017, 2018 and 2019. In September 2017, the private
residence which had regularly been sampled was connected to the municipal water supply, and the water supply
well was decommissioned by removing the power supply for the pump. The well will be formally abandoned; the
well has not been sampled since August 2017.
The highest arsenic concentrations occur in the interior shallow alluvial wells, particularly monitoring wells RH-
62 and RH-65. The average arsenic concentrations in these wells during 2019 were 8,600 (ig/L and 6,300 (ig/L,
respectively, which is consistent with post-construction monitoring (Appendix K).
Contingency wells were selected during the remedial design phase to identify any migration and expansion of the
plume; no long-term significant changes have been noted in contingency wells. The Town Pump is a contingency
well but was unable to be sampled at every event this FYR period due to plumbing issues; the well was sampled
in fourth quarter 2019. Although the arsenic ARAR is now 10 (ig/L, the action level for contingency wells
remains 18 (ig/L. In 2019, two contingency wells, RH-46 and RH-52R, displayed statistically significant increases
in arsenic concentrations. Although these wells displayed increasing trends at the 95% confidence level, none of
the contingency wells demonstrated arsenic concentrations exceeding the specified 18 j^ig/L trigger level during
the 2019 monitoring period. The highest observed quarterly concentration was 11 (ig/L arsenic at RH-53 and the
maximum 2019 fourth-quarter rolling average was 10 (ig/L arsenic, also at RH-53. Figure 5-3 includes the
monitoring well network and 2017 plume extent.
74
-------
Figure 5-3: Rocker OU7 Monitoring and 2017 Plume Map
¦TQwrngump'
PWS well /
Estimated capture
|aint using 72 gpm|
Downgradiant B\tent of sulfate
and manganese treatment
residual plume if unknown
""•if.!
Estimated eitent of
idravrdown from the
1994 pumping teit
I (ARC 0,1995a)
RH-41
RH-09 RH-A5
W65,<5^
Ferrous sulfate (FcSQ-i) and
IpDlBislum parmangBRBtp (KMnO-0
, injection siltt and trenches.
Rocker C6V.'A Boundary
Gravel-Filled Zone
Rocker OU Boundary
^1994 Pumping Test Cflne of
Depression (In Tertiary Aquifer)
Approximate Fault Locations (MBMG
OFR-5B5.200 9J
o
~
Treatment Injection Sites
Arsenic Above Trigger Lb vale
; I—iH Area affeeled Ov Sulfate and
liJntJ Manganese Reagents
Parage 12.9 gpm
Maumum 72 gpm
Groundwater Flou
Direction (Capture
Zone Evaluation)
CBFU?EB«
PIC JEOTK tyH Qs£ '.'.'P
C*TO»
FIGURE 1-3 TREATMENT RESIDUAL PLUME
AND TOWN PL MP
CAPTURE ZONF
I 055 r.: 5P
Source: 2017 Draft Conceptual Site Model. Modified by Skeo.
75
-------
Site Inspection
The site inspection took place on 9/16/2020. Participants included EPA RPM Nikia Greene, Loren Burmeister
(Atlantic Richfield), Mike Potts (Pioneer) and Treat Suomi from EPA FYR support contractor Skeo. The purpose
of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.
The group toured the Rocker OU to observe the condition of all remedial components, including site fencing, on-
and off-site monitoring wells, and the capped repository area. The Site was well-maintained overall; the remedy
appeared to be in working order. Chain-link fencing surrounds the Site. The O&M contractor regularly inspects
the Site. The capped area of the repository and non-capped area were well-vegetated. Monitoring wells were
secured and appeared to be in good condition.
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Although implementation of the remedy has reduced arsenic concentrations and loads downgradient of the Rocker
OU, elevated levels of arsenic in groundwater remain and RAOs for the Rocker OU related to groundwater have
not been fully met. The EPA has requested revisions to a 2017 updated CSM to determine if contingency actions
described in the 2014 ESD are needed. The EPA is reviewing recent site data which will lead to a revised draft
CSM. After review, the EPA will determine if additional response actions are warranted to address remaining
contamination.
In the interim, monitoring indicates no unacceptable exposures are occurring. The private well that exceeded the
10 |ig/L arsenic standard was shut down since the previous FYR and the residence was connected to the municipal
water supply. This action and the Town Pump installation of a groundwater treatment system for arsenic means
that no known residents or customers are consuming groundwater exceeding the 10 (ig/L standard. DNRC
instituted a controlled groundwater area for the Rocker OU prohibiting new well installations.
Atlantic Richfield owns the gravel repository area and is subject to the 2000 Consent Decree land use restrictions
that are in place to prevent residential development.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives
(RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time of remedy selection in the
1995 Rocker ROD, and revised by the 2014 Rocker ESD, are still valid (the 2014 Rocker ESD incorporated a
revised arsenic ARAR). Potential exposures to the Rocker repository are prevented by fencing and access
restrictions.
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of
the remedy?
No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
76
-------
ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
()l (s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in (ho I'YR:
None
Issues and Recommendations I den t i lied in the FYR:
OU:
Rocker OU
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: High exceedances of the arsenic persist in monitoring wells, indicating
potential source area loading. Upon completion, the updated conceptual site
model will provide clearer assessment of site conditions and will indicate if
additional actions are warranted.
Recommendation: Complete the conceptual site model and modify the remedy,
if deemed necessary.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
EPA
EPA
9/30/2021
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
Rocker OU Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at Rocker OU7 is protective in the short-term. In order for the remedy to be protective in
the long-term, the update to the conceptual site model needs to be completed to determine if additional
actions are necessary.
NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for the Rocker OU of the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site is required five years
from the completion date of this review and will be included in the site-wide FYR.
77
-------
VI. BUTTE PRIORITY SOILS OPERABLE UNIT (BPSOU), Operable Unit 8
Background
The BPSOU includes impacted soils, mine wastes and contaminated attic dust within portions of the city of Butte
and the town of Walkerville, along with mining-impacted alluvial groundwater and surface water associated with
the historical and current Silver Bow Creek floodplain in Butte (Figure 6-1). Previously identified OUs 2, 5, 6, 10
and 11 were incorporated into the BPSOU.
The BPSOU is in a mostly urban setting. It includes neighborhoods, schools and parks as well as commercial and
industrial areas. The communities of Butte and Walkerville were established close to the silver and copper mining
and milling centers and facilities as a matter of convenience. Operations of mines, mills, concentrators and
smelters in this area generated tailings, related wastes and a variety of other materials that were deposited in
residential areas. Land use in the BPSOU is subject to county government regulation through local ordinances. As
of 2019, 34,207 people lived in Butte. As of 2010, 675 people lived in Walkerville.
The two primary streams in the valley are Silver Bow Creek and Blacktail Creek. Blacktail Creek begins in the
Highland Mountains to the south. As mining production increased, mills and smelters were located along the
creek. To accommodate mineral processing activities, through the years, Silver Bow Creek was rerouted as
needed and used for waste disposal. Tailings impoundments were placed in the floodplain and wastes were
discharged directly into the creek. With the advent of open pit mining, most of the original Silver Bow Creek
channel and floodplain were fundamentally altered by the Berkeley Pit and YDTI because the water source for the
upper part of Silver Bow Creek was removed (i.e., the northern drainages now enter YDTI). Today, many of the
waste deposits along historic Silver Bow Creek, above the confluence of Blacktail Creek, remain in place. Most
are capped.
78
-------
Figure 6-1: BPSOU Boundary
0.5
I Mites
Sources: Esii, DigitalGiobe. GeoEye Earttistar
Geographies, CNESSAirbus DS. USDA, USGS,
AeroGRiD, IGN, the GIS User Community, the
Butte-SHver Bow Planning Departmen!. the 2016
EYR, 3019 Surface. Water Technics! Impracticability
Evaluation Report and the 2Q20AROD.
Legend
L_J Butte Priority Soils ¦ OU8
Butte Mine Waste Repository
Skeo
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site
City of Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana
J
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
79
-------
RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
Screening studies, remedial investigations and risk assessments have been conducted in Butte since the 1980s to
identify COCs and to quantify actual and potential human health and environmental risks from COCs in tailings,
waste, soils, indoor dust, surface water and groundwater. The primary COCs are arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,
mercury and zinc.
Possible exposure pathways for humans at the BPSOU include:
• Ingestion and inhalation of surface soils.
• Ingestion and inhalation of interior dust.
• Dermal exposure to surface water.
• Ingestion of surface water.
• Ingestion of groundwater.
Assessments of ecological risks focused on aquatic habitat in Silver Bow Creek and identified the following
potential exposure pathways:
• Fish and benthic macroinvertebrates may be exposed by breathing and touching the surface water and
sediment and by ingesting prey or sediment.
• Waterfowl may be exposed by direct ingestion of surface water and sediments or by ingesting
contaminated prey.
Response Actions
The EPA began work at the BPSOU in 1987, starting with strategic removals - time-critical removals actions and
expedited response actions (ERAs) - to address areas of greatest risk first.8 RI/FS investigations began in the
1990s and finished in 2005. The EPA issued the ROD in 2006 and an ESD in 2011 (referred to as the 2006/2011
Remedy). The remedy was further revised by a 2020 ROD Amendment. The 2006/2011 Remedy included
components to address:
• Contaminated solid media (mine waste, non-residential soil and residential soil/dust).
• Alluvial groundwater.
• Surface water (base flow and stormwater runoff).
While significant portions of the 2006/2011 Remedy have been implemented (see next section), the EPA, MDEQ
and the PRPs (Atlantic Richfield and the city and county of Butte-Silver Bow (BSB)9) have been analyzing
remaining technical issues within the BPSOU. The evaluations have mainly focused on the surface water remedy
component.
Data collected since 2006 demonstrated that there were remaining uncontrolled sources of contamination that
have the potential to contribute to surface water contamination within the BPSOU. Between 2011 and 2016, the
EPA collected surface water, groundwater, sediment, pore water and soil samples to evaluate groundwater and
surface water interactions in Blacktail Creek and Silver Bow Creek. Based on this additional analysis, EPA
concluded that the 2006/2011 BPSOU Remedy did not address certain source areas that are impacting surface
water.
8 For a detailed summary of the removal actions, see the 2006 BPSOU ROD and the 2011 FYR Report.
9 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company are also named PRPs for the site and
are performing remedial action under a 2011 Unilateral Administrative Order.
80
-------
The 2020 ROD Amendment added to or modified several components of the 2006/2011 Remedy. The 2020 ROD
Amendment expanded waste removal areas, modified performance standards and surface water RAOs, established
a technical impracticability waiver for in-stream acute standards for copper and zinc, added contaminated
groundwater capture, and added stormwater controls and related remedial actions. Table 6-1 provides a
description of the RAOs and remedy components from the 2006/2011 Remedy and the 2020 ROD Amendment.
Figures C-6 and C-7 in Appendix C provide a visual representation of some of the remedy components planned in
the 2020 ROD Amendment.
In September 2020, the Federal District Court of Montana approved the Consent Decree to include the additional
remedial actions specified in the 2020 ROD Amendment.
Table 6-1: BPSOU RAOs and Remedy Components
Media
RAOs
Remedy Components
Solid Media
- Residential
and Non-
Residential
(2006
ROD/2011
ESD and
2020 ROD
Amendment)
Prevent ingestion of, direct contact with, and
inhalation of contaminated soils, indoor dust,
waste rock and/or tailings or other process
waste that would result in an unacceptable
risk to human health assuming current or
reasonably anticipated future land uses.
Prevent releases of contaminated solid media
to the extent that they will not result in an
unacceptable risk to aquatic environmental
receptors.
Prevent releases of contaminated water from
solid media that would result in exceedances
of the Montana State Water Quality
Standards for surface water.
Prevent releases of contaminated water from
solid media that would result in exceedances
of the Montana State Water Quality
Standards for groundwater, except where
ARAR waivers are appropriate and other
means to protect from associated risks are
available.
Remediate contaminated solid media to the
extent that it will not result in an
unacceptable risk to human health and/or
aquatic environment receptors.
Prevent release of contaminated water from
solid media that would result in degradation
of surface water, in accordance with the
surface water remedial goals.
Residential Contamination
• Residential Metals Abatement Program (RMAP)
(expanded in the 2020 ROD Amendment):
o Multi-pathway approach to address both
mining and non-mining related
contamination at all residential properties,
o Includes sampling at all properties (yard
soil, interior living space dust, non-living
space dust and lead-based paint) and
comparison to action levels,
o Long-term tracking and database program,
o Community awareness program,
o Medical monitoring.
• Soil removed as part of the remediation program
transported to the Butte Mine Waste Repository.
Non-Residential Contamination (waste rock piles,
mill tailings, slag, contaminated soils and aerial
emissions)
• Combination of source removal, capping and
land reclamation.
• Reclaimed areas including cover soil caps must
achieve performance standards in the Butte
Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES).
• Institutional controls to protect capped and
waste-in-place areas, restrict removal and
disposal of contaminated dirt and determine land
use requirements.
81
-------
Media
RAOs
Remedy Components
Groundwater
(2006
ROD/2011
ESD and
2020 ROD
Amendment)
• Prevent ingestion of, or direct contact with,
contaminated groundwater that would result
in unacceptable risk to human health.
• Prevent groundwater discharge that would
lead to violations of surface water ARARs
and remedial goals for the BPSOU.
• Prevent degradation of groundwater that does
not exceed current standards.
• Groundwater capture and treatment - Silver Bow
Creek Area: Capture contaminated alluvial
groundwater in the area with a subdrain and
route this water to the Butte Treatment Lagoons
for treatment prior to discharge.
• Groundwater capture and treatment - Lower
Area One (LAO): Intercept contaminated
alluvial groundwater at LAO and base flow from
Missoula Gulch in a hydraulic control channel
and route to LAO treatment lagoons for
treatment prior to discharge.
• Groundwater treatment facility.
• Groundwater monitoring.
• Controlled Groundwater Area: Establish for the
alluvial aquifer to prevent domestic use.
Surface
water and
stormwater
(2006
ROD/2011
ESD and
2020 ROD
Amendment)
• Prevent ingestion or direct contact with
contaminated surface water that would result
in an unacceptable risk to human health.
• Return surface water to a quality that
supports its beneficial uses.
• Prevent source areas from releasing
contaminants to surface water that would
cause the receiving water to violate surface
water ARARs and remedial goals (or
replacement standards for ARARs
appropriately waived) for the BPSOU and
prevent degradation of downstream surface
water sources, including during storm events.
• Ensure that point-source discharge from any
BPSOU Superfund water treatment facility
meet ARARs.
• Prevent further degradation of surface water.
• Meet or appropriately waive and replace the
more restrictive of chronic aquatic life or
human health standards for surface water
identified in Circular MDEQ-7 through the
application of B-l class standards.
Institutional controls are required for
stormwater controls.
• Surface Water Management Program: Uses
BMPs to address contaminated stormwater
runoff and improve stormwater quality
(expanded in the 2020 ROD Amendment to
include final stormwater controls at Diggings
East, Buffalo Gulch, Grove Gulch, Northside
Tailings and other uncontrolled drainages within
the BPSOU, tailings removal in Silver Bow
Creek, and disposal of waste in repositories as
appropriate).
• Excavation of contaminated sediments from the
stream bed, banks and adjacent floodplain along
Blacktail Creek and Silver Bow Creek
(expanded in the 2020 ROD Amendment to
include additional removals).
• Hydraulic control, capture and treatment of
contaminated groundwater to prevent its
discharge to Silver Bow Creek surface water
(expanded in the 2020 ROD Amendment to
include installation of groundwater controls in
the Butte Reduction Works area and route to
Butte Treatment Lagoons).
• Revegetate and provide public area for possible
recreational use (added in 2020 ROD
Amendment).
• In-stream flow augmentation as appropriate once
all major remedial components are designed and
implemented.
Performance standards or action levels have been established for the soil remedy (soil, dust, vapor), groundwater
and surface water in the 2006 ROD, 2011 ESD and the 2020 ROD Amendment.
The 2006 ROD identified action levels for COCs in soil, dust and vapor in residential areas and non-residential
areas (Table 6-2).
82
-------
Table 6-2: BPSOU Soil COC Action Levels
COC
I'1\|)omiiv Scenario
Action l.c\cl (mii/kii)
Lead
Residential
1,200
Non-residential
2,300
Arsenic
Residential
250
Commercial
500
Recreational
1,000
Mercury
Residential
147
Residential (vapor)
0.43 micrograms per cubic meter
(|ig/m3)
Notes:
Source: Table 12-1 and 12-2 in the 2006 ROD.
|ig/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
The 2006 BPSOU ROD contained a waiver of ARAR standards for the alluvial groundwater within the defined TI
Waiver Area described in the ROD, based on the technical impracticability to meet these standards, pursuant to
section 121(d)(4)(C) of CERCLA). The selected remedy will not, and is not intended to, clean up groundwater to
meet groundwater performance standards within the boundary of the waived standards. Therefore, there are no
performance standards for groundwater in the area of the BPSOU alluvial aquifer covered by the TI waiver
boundary (Figure C-8 in Appendix C).
Since the selected remedy requires the prevention of contaminated plumes from migrating outside the established
TI zone, the boundary for the TI zone represents the POC boundary for groundwater. Groundwater performance
standards must be met at these POCs (Table 6-3).
Table 6-3: BPSOU Groundwater COC Cleanup Goals
COC
200(> KOI) Clciiiuip (>oiil
(fili/l.)'1
Arsenic
10
Cadmium
5
Copper
1,300
Lead
15
Mercury
2
Zinc
2,000
Note:
a. Source: Table 8-1 in the 2006 ROD. Represent dissolved
concentrations.
The 2020 ROD Amendment revised the 2006 ROD instream acute and chronic performance standards for some of
the surface water COCs. The standards are based on flow regimes (base flow/normal high flow and wet weather)
(Tables 6-4 and 6-5).
83
-------
Table 6-4: BPSOU In-Stream Chronic Surface Water Performance Standards and Proposed Waived-to
Chronic Performance Standards (Base Flow and Normal High Flow Conditions)
coc
2(1116 KOI) Standard
202(1 KOI) Anu-ndnu-nl
i)
( uiiiiiiui'iii PHsi-Cdiisiriiiliiiii Waiwr
V'\\ Siiiiiiliird
Ifcisis
Wai\ed-lo Si;iIK 1 ;iril il'
Needed
liiisis
Aluminum0
87 ng/L, dissolved
No change
Arsenic
10 ng/L, total
No change
Cadmiumd'e
0.097 ng/L, total
0.26 ng/L, total
DEQ-7,
2017f
None - currently in compliance.
Copper1
2.85 ng/L, total
No change
Contingent waiver to BLMS
Federal CCC, 2007
Iron
1,000 ng/L, total
No change
Leadd
0.545 ng/L, total
No change
Contingent waiver to 0.54
[ig/L, dissolved
Federal CCC, 1980,
with diss. CF (1998)
Mercury
0.05 ng/L, total
No change
Silver
No chronic standard for silver
Zincd
37 ng/L, total
No change
Notes:
a. 2006 BPSOU ROD standards based on February 2006 version of DEQ-7 and represent the more stringent of the chronic aquatic or
human health standard.
b. Numeric replacement performance standards are based on published federal water quality criteria, issued pursuant to section
403(a) ofthe federal Clean Water Act, 33. U.S.C. § 1314(a). See https://www.epa.gov/wac/national-recommended-water-qualitv-
criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table. All contaminants will be eligible for replacement to other federally accepted performance
standards for determining compliance if necessary.
c. DEQ-7 standards for aluminum refer to the dissolved fraction and do not represent a waiver of a performance standard.
d. Standards for cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc are hardness-dependent. Values shown are calculated at a hardness of 25 mg/L
unless otherwise shown. Formulas to obtain chronic standards in |xg/L are shown as follows (exp=exponent and ln=log natural):
COC
Montana DEQ-7 formula (total)
Federal CCC (dissolved)
Dissolved CF
Cadmium
exp{0.7977* [ln(hardness)]-3.909}
exp {0.7977* [ln(hardness)]-3.909} *CF
1.101672-
ln(hardness)*(0.041838)1
Copper
exp{0.8545*[ln(hardness)]-1.702}
exp {0.8545* [ln(hardness)] -1.702} *CF
0.96
Lead
exp{1.273*[ln(hardness)]-4.705}
exp {1.273 * [ln(hardness)]-4.705} *CF
1.46203-
fln(hardness)*(0.145712)1
Zinc
exp {0.8473 * [ln(hardness)]+0.884}
exp {0.8473* [ln(hardness)]+0.884}*CF
0.986
• Montana DEQ-7 hardness-based standards for the total recoverable fraction have a minimum and maximum hardness range
of 25 mg/L to 400 mg/L.
• The federal CCC or CMC hardness-based standards do not have a minimum or maximum hardness, and the contaminant
specific dissolved correction factor should be applied.
• Conversion Factor introduced in 1998 publication of recommended water quality criteria (Federal Register v.63, No. 237,
pp. 68354-68364).
e. The cadmium standards are updated according to the May 2017 version of DEQ-7.
f. The cadmium standard adopted here varies slightly from the DEQ-7 promulgated standard, which is 0.25 |xg/L, based on EPA's
calculation for the cadmium standard at a hardness of 25 mg/L using the formula in footnote d that is identical to the formula in
footnote 12 of DEQ-7, resulting in a standard of 0.26 |xg/L.
g. The BLM criterion in place at the time of compliance standard determination shall be the Replacement Standard for copper
for both chronic and acute conditions.
No change = indicates no initial waiver of these standards. Contingent waiver values are expressed in the "Waived-to
Standard" column.
BLM = Biotic Ligand Model
diss. CF = dissolved conversion factor
total = total recoverable or unfiltered sample
CCC = criterion continuous concentration (i.e., chronic)
CMC = criterion maximum concentration (i.e., acute)
Bold italic font indicates a waiver.
84
-------
Table 6-5: BPSOU In-Stream Acute Surface Water Performance Standards and Proposed Waived-to
Acute Performance Standards (Wet Weather Conditions)
( (K
2006 KOI)
.1
Standard
2(12(1 KOI) A iiic-nil nn.-nl1,1
C
(onliiim.nl I'lisl-C onsliiKliim Wai\er
V'\\ Siiiiidiinl
Hasis
\\ aiw-d-lo Sl;ill(lill'(l il'
Needed
liiisis
Aluminum"1
750 |ig/L, dissolved
No change
Arsenic
340 |ig/L, total
No change
Cadmiume'f
0.52 |ig/L, total
0.49 fj.g/L, total
DEQ- 7,2017
Contingent waiver to ft 49
[ig/L, dissolved
Federal CMC, 2016
with diss. CF
Copper1
3.79 |ig/L, total
3.6 |ig/L,
dissolved
Federal CMC, 1995,
with diss. CF (1998)
Contingent waiver to BLMS
Federal CMC, 2007
Iron
No acute standard
No change
Lead
13.98 fj.g/L, total
No change
Contingent waiver to 14
[ig/L, dissolved
Federal CMC, 1980,
with diss.CF (1998)
Mercury
1.7 |ig/L, total
No change
Silver6
0.374 |xg/L, total
No change
Contingent waiver to 0.30
[ig/L, dissolved
Federal CMC, 1980,
with diss.CF (1998)
Zince
37 |ig/L, total
No change
Contingent waiver to the applicable Federal
standard at time of Compliance Standard
Determination
Notes:
a. 2006 BPSOU ROD standards based on February 2006 version of DEQ-7 and represent the acute aquatic standard.
b. DEQ-7 standards for acute copper and zinc are waived and replaced with federal water quality criteria based on section
121(d)(4)(C) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(4)(C), referred to as the TI waiver.
c. Numeric replacement performance standards are based on published federal water quality criteria, issued pursuant to section
403(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, 33. U.S.C. § 1314(a). See https://www.epa.gov/wac/national-recommended-water-gualitv-
criteria-aauatic-life-criteria-table. All contaminants will be eligible for replacement with other federally accepted performance
standards for determining compliance, if necessary.
d. DEQ-7 standards for aluminum refer to the dissolved fraction and do not represent a waiver of a performance standard.
e. Standards for cadmium, copper, lead, silver and zinc are hardness dependent. Values shown are calculated at a hardness of 25
mg/L, unless otherwise shown. Formulas to obtain acute standards in |xg/L are shown as follows (exp=exponent and ln=log
natural):
coc
Montana DEQ-7 formula (total)
Federal CCC (dissolved)
Dissolved CF
Cadmium
exp{0.9789*[ln(hardness)]- 3.866}
exp{0.9789*[ln(hardness)]-3.866}*CF
1.136672-
fln(hardness)*(0.041838)1
Copper
exp {0.9422 * [ln(hardness)] -1.7}
exp {0.9422 * [ln(hardness)] -1.7} *CF
0.96
Lead
exp {1.273* [ln(hardness)]-1.46}
exp{l ,273*[ln(hardness)]-l .46} *CF
1.46203-
fln(hardness)*(0.145712)1
Silver
exp{ 1,72*[ln(hardness)]-6.52}
exp{ 1,72*[ln(hardness)]-6.59} *CF
0.85
Zinc
exp{0.8473*[ln(hardness)]+0.884}
exp{0.8473*[ln(hardness)]+0.884}*CF
0.978
• DEQ-7 hardness-based standards for the total recoverable fraction have a minimum and maximum hardness range of 25 mg/L to
400 mg/L.
• The federal CCC or CMC hardness-based standards do not have a minimum or maximum hardness, and the contaminant
specific dissolved correction factor should be applied.
• Conversion Factor introduced in 1998 publication of recommended water quality criteria (Federal Register v.63, No. 237, pp.
68354-68364).
f. The cadmium standards are updated according to the May 2017 version of DEQ-7.
g. BLM criterion in place at the time of compliance standard determination shall be the Replacement Standard for copper for both
chronic and acute conditions. For acute conditions (wet weather events), the BLM standard or any other appropriate EPA-
approved methodology that will perform in non-equilibrium conditions such as storm water or diel pH cycling shall be used. The
criteria for defining frequency for collection of individual parameters will be defined in the Surface Water Monitoring Plan.
No change = indicates no initial waiver of these standards. Contingent waiver values are expressed in the "Waived-to
Standard" column,
diss. CF = dissolved conversion factor
total = total recoverable or unfiltered sample
Bold italic font indicates a waiver.
The ROD Amendment provides for contingent waivers of aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, and zinc
during acute, wet-weather conditions and chronic, normal flow conditions only if noncompliance with the DEQ-7 standards is
demonstrated after construction of the technically practicable remedial elements. DEQ concurs with such waivers based on the
technical impracticability of meeting the State standards for all contaminants during all flow conditions,
85
-------
Status of Implementation
Response actions at the BPSOU began in 1987. They have included removal or capping of waste rock dumps, rail
beds and tailings piles. Other actions included extensive revegetation, yard soil/attic dust removals, reclamation of
the Syndicate Pit, initial stormwater controls, construction/operation of groundwater capture systems in the Silver
Bow Creek drainage above its confluence with Blacktail Creek and LAO area, and construction/operation of a
water treatment facility at Butte Treatment Lagoons.10 A brief description of the implemented remedies is
provided below. All work was conducted under the 2011 Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) and predecessor
orders. Additional remedial work is planned as part of the 2020 ROD Amendment. The UAO was updated in
2020 specific to RMAP work and became effective on November 16, 2020. Contaminated soil from source
removal activities is disposed of at the Butte Mine Waste Repository (Figure 6-1).
Solid Media - Residential
The EPA and MDEQ approved the BSB RMAP in 2010. The RMAP requires a multi-pathway approach to
address arsenic, lead and mercury above action levels in yard soil, indoor dust (living space and direct exposure to
non-living space dust), interior and/or exterior lead paint, and lead solder in household drinking water pipes. The
RMAP boundary was expanded in the 2020 ROD Amendment to include rural residential properties outside the
BPSOU boundary to the north, south and west. Work in the expanded area will include all RMAP facets (soils,
living area dust, lead-based paint and attic dust). The EPA will implement the RMAP expansion by UAO, which
will be updated accordingly.
Major components of the RMAP include:
• Homes adjacent to the BPSOU that have lead, arsenic or mercury in attic dust will also be addressed in
the same manner as homes within the BPSOU (the RMAP defines the area for which attics with elevated
levels will be addressed in Appendix A of the RMAP; the area is known as the Residential Metals
Expanded Area).
• Properties whose owners refuse access, properties without current exposure pathways and vacant
properties will be flagged and tracked in the RMAP database for future actions.
• The RMAP requires developing and implementing community awareness and educational programs in
conjunction with a medical monitoring program.
The RMAP completed 1,602 abatement projects and sampled 3,796 residential parcels as of December 31, 2020.
Ongoing residential contamination remediation activities include:
• RMAP assessments.
• RMAP cleanups, including attic dust.
• Community outreach and education.
• Health studies and medical monitoring.
• Long-term tracking methods (database).
10 A state of Montana District Court decision known as Silver Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition v. State of Montana,
DV-10-431 (August 17, 2015) declared that the surface area between Texas Avenue in Butte to the confluence of
Blacktail Creek with Silver Bow Creek was named "Silver Bow Creek." This area will be referred to as Silver Bow Creek
above its confluence with Blacktail Creek. The EPA has called the surface area from Texas Avenue to the confluence with
Blacktail Creek the "Metro Storm Drain" in prior Superfund removal and remedial documents and publications, including the
2006 BPSOU ROD.
86
-------
This FYR reviewed the RMAP Construction Completion Reports and the Data Summary Reports and it appears
that mercury is not currently analyzed in yard soil. While mercury is being analyzed for in indoor dust and
basement soil samples, the basis of the analysis method is unclear. It appears mercury results are based on XRF;
however, no information has been provided to correlate XRF to laboratory methods, nor has there been any
discussion of mercury data validation. Residential yard soil, attic, and basement abatements are conducted when
soil concentrations of lead and arsenic exceed action levels. The reason for the exclusion of mercury from yard
sampling is unclear.
To date, two public health studies examining the effectiveness of the RMAP have been completed. The Phase 1
medical monitoring study evaluated blood lead levels from 2003 through 2010 and was summarized in the 2016
FYR Report. The Phase 2 Report focused on blood lead data collected from Butte children from 2012 through
2017. The BPSOU Data Review section of this FYR Report discusses the results of the Phase 2 Report.
Solid Media - Non-Residential
A full list of the contaminated non-residential areas addressed through removals and caps/revegetation was
provided in the 2016 FYR Report. The BRES program, including the development of schedules and corrective
action plans, continues to be implemented by the PRPs. The 2006 BRES implementation plans will be revised to
incorporate optimization techniques, new technologies and lessons learned from implementing the BRES
procedures and is pending EPA approval. The revised BRES implementation plans, when approved, will be an
element of the Solid Media Management Program, and will be attached to the Solid Media Management Plan to
be submitted by the Settling Defendants for EPA review and approval in accordance with the updated Statement
of Work under the 2020 Consent Decree.
The BRES evaluations performed by BSB evaluate site cover conditions, erosion conditions, site edge conditions,
and the presence of exposed waste, barren areas and existing vegetation. BRES evaluations are conducted by BSB
on an ongoing basis, and the current BSB evaluation team is responsive when cap integrity has been
compromised. Poor vegetation conditions at sites are being identified, and actions are being taken to improve
these conditions through vegetation/reclamation improvement plans.
In addition, several insufficiently reclaimed or under-reclaimed sites are specifically described in Attachment C to
the Statement of Work attached to the 2020 Consent Decree. These will be evaluated and capped and revegetated
appropriately in accordance with the terms of that Statement of Work. Some sites (usually some of the earliest
that were reclaimed under non-Superfund authority) will have to be evaluated under the Solid Media Management
Plan. Potentially, reclamation will have to occur again.
Groundwater
The groundwater remedy consists of two capture systems that function to intercept groundwater prior to
discharging to Silver Bow Creek. The first capture system is the BPSOU subdrain (subdrain) (previously referred
to as the Metro Storm Drain (MSD) Subdrain). The storm drain is a manmade surface water conveyance channel
originally constructed in the 1930s. Starting in 2003, the subdrain was installed and the entire storm drain channel
was reconstructed and lined to separate contaminated groundwater from surface water. The contaminated
groundwater captured by the subdrain system is routed to the Butte Treatment Lagoons for treatment. The second
capture system is the Lower Area One (LAO) capture system that parallels Silver Bow Creek, as shown in Figure
6-2. The LAO groundwater capture-and-treatment system suppresses the groundwater table such that a positive
gradient (i.e., away from Silver Bow Creek) is maintained to the north of Silver Bow Creek, limiting the potential
of groundwater entering Silver Bow Creek. The eastern extent of the LAO capture system consists of an unlined
ditch, about 1,500 feet in length, along the southern boundary of the Butte Reduction Works (BRW)-OO Pond.
Base flow due to groundwater capture is observed on a continuous basis in the BRW-00 Pond. Groundwater
captured in the BRW-00 Pond is gravity-fed to the Butte Treatment Lagoons for lime treatment. Both the LAO
and BPSOU capture-and-interception systems will be thoroughly evaluated and improved as needed under the
2020 Consent Decree Statement of Work.
87
-------
The interim groundwater monitoring plan has been updated annually and was converted to a Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) format in 2019. The agencies are still reviewing the 2019 QAPP, which will include an
update on the POC wells used to assess compliance outside the TI boundary.
Surface Water/Stormwater
Surface water cleanup work and wet weather control cleanup work was done under Superfund removal
authorities pre-ROD. This work included the removal of substantial portions of the Colorado Tailings and Butte
Reduction Works tailings in the LAO removal action, and the construction of catch basins in the Missoula Gulch
area, as well as controls on railroad facility runoff. Surface water monitoring is occurring under a draft Interim
Surface Water Monitoring Plan.
Since 2009, the PRPs have implemented three cycles of upfront stormwater control BMPs to mitigate
contaminated stormwater runoff. These actions included the reclamation and revegetation of areas identified as
contamination contributors to stormwater runoff, initiation of stormwater system sediment cleanout activities on
a periodic basis, the expansion and improvement of existing catch basins and the initiation of a curb and gutter
program. These implemented stormwater controls are now being monitoring and maintained under their
respective O&M plans. The agencies and Settling Defendants have developed nine new remedial elements -
five of which will address or control stormwater - and the implementation of these elements will be the fourth
and final cycle, as described in the Statement of Work under the 2020 Consent Decree.
88
-------
Figure 6-2: BPSOU Detailed Map
0 25
0.5
1
I Mile
Sources. Esn, DigtlalGSobe, G&oEye. Earthstsr Gsogrspftjus
CNES/AirhUS D$, USDA. USCS AemGRIO, IGN, the GIS User
Community. the Butte-Sitver Bow Planning Department, the 2016
FYR, the 2019 Surface Water Technical Impracticability
Evaluation Report and the 2020 AROD.
Legend
[_J Butte Priority Soils OU8
Hydraulic Control Channel
- - Subdrain
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site
City of Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the
Site.
i
¦
Butte
Reduction
Woriks
Lower
Area
One
Slag
Canyon
Butte Treatment
Lagoons
Centennial Ave
]Sllver
-Bow
Creek
BRW
Ponds
Reconstructed
Channel
89
-------
Institutional Control (IC) Review
Atlantic Richfield and BSB finalized the BPSOU Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan in
October 2019 and it is included as Appendix E to the 2020 Consent Decree. As required by the decision
documents for the BPSOU, all required institutional controls have been implemented as follows:
• Growth Policy/Zoning Ordinance: The 2008 Growth Policy includes zoning requirements that limit
allowable land use and types of development to those that are consistent and compatible with the remedy.
• Controlled Groundwater Area: Two controlled groundwater areas established by DNRC in 2009 include
areas of the BPSOU (Figure 6-3).
• Private Well Monitoring Program: MBMG's Private Well Monitoring Program (BMFOU and BPSOU)
QAPP was approved in August 2020. The primary goal of the sampling is to obtain COC concentration
data for groundwater from private wells within the Butte Alluvial and Bedrock Controlled Groundwater
Areas. Wells were identified through a search of the MBMG GWIC that included a quarter-mile buffer
zone around the Butte Alluvial and Bedrock Controlled Groundwater Areas; 108 wells were determined
to meet the program requirement.
• Hook-up Ordinance: Ordinance Number 13.20.210 requires all prospective potable water users to connect
to the BSB water system where municipal service is available, i.e., within 300 feet of an existing water
main.
• Excavation Ordinance: In 2013, BSB passed an ordinance (number 13-6, 9-7-2013) that outlines the
procedures for the enforcement of the 2009 Excavation and Dirt-Moving Protocols for all earthmoving to
be performed in and near the Butte-area Superfund sites. Its purpose is to ensure contaminated soils
disturbed during excavation or dirt moving activities do not migrate onto clean property, are not exported
to any location except the Mine Waste Repository and are properly capped.
• Storm water Management Ordinance: In 2011, BSB passed an ordinance (number 10-13, 4-20-2011) that
outlines the procedures, protocols and requirements for implementing and enforcing effective stormwater
management within the BPSOU. It is located in Chapter 32 (Stormwater Management) of the BSB
municipal codes.
• Restrictive Covenants: Presently in place where response actions have or will occur, including properties
identified as source areas (collectively, referred to as "Source Area Properties") and other real property
where stormwater conveyance and management structures (collectively referred to as "Superfund
Stormwater Structure Properties") are present.
• RMAP Access Agreements: As part of the RMAP, BSB obtains access rights and covenants on properties
within the BPSOU on which BSB has performed actions under RMAP and will continue to seek access
rights and covenants on properties on which it performs actions in the future. When access is denied, BSB
will track the attempt to gain access of the property for environmental assessment within the RMAP
database. After three unsuccessful attempts are made, the EPA and MDEQ will be notified. On a case-by-
case basis, the EPA and/or MDEQ may notify the property owner that a notice corresponding to the title
records of the subject property could be recorded. Future changes in ownership will be monitored
annually; if ownership changes, access attempts will be reinstituted. The tracking process just came into
effect in November 2020. Previously BSB has notified the EPA and MDEQ on several occasions and the
agencies have met with landowners, which proved to be productive.
BSB maintains a GIS system that stores information and runs applications pertinent to ensuring institutional
controls are implemented and maintained. The Community Protective Measures Program is the primary tool for
providing risk education to the community. The Community Protective Measures Program provides a range of
information to enhance and maintain the Butte community's awareness of potential sources of and risks from
arsenic, lead and mercury in and around homes and commercial properties, as well as approaches residents can
take to avoid exposures. The educational components include the distribution of educational materials to local
contractors (e.g., electricians, roofers, carpenters), hardware/lumber suppliers, childcare facilities/programs (e.g.,
90
-------
Head Start), and housing authorities (e.g., Human Resource Council). Informative presentations are also available
for real estate agents and landlords.
Periodic mailings to property owners and public service announcements aired by the local television station are
designed to provide public awareness. Additional outreach relies on the medical community, particularly
pediatricians and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program to inform the public about risk, health
monitoring and RMAP activities. Representatives from RMAP participate in community health fairs and family
fairs to provide outreach to the community. See Table 6-6 for a summary of the institutional controls in place at
the BPSOU.
Table 6-6: BPSOU Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (TCs)
Medi;i. r.niiinc'cml
Controls. iiiid \re;is
1 h;il Do \o(
Support I 1 /I 1.
I$;ised on ( iirrenl
('oiiriilions
ICs
Needed
l( s< idled
lor in llie
Decision
Documents
lmp;ieled
l\ireel(s)
l<
OI).jee(i\e
Title of l( liislriiiiieiil
Implemented ;ind D;i(e
(or pliiniied)
Solid media
Yes
Yes
BPSOU
Protect remedy
components associated
with areas where
waste was left in
place. Educate
residents regarding the
RMAP program and
risks associated with
residential
contamination.
BSB earth-moving
ordinance, restrictive
covenants, zoning
ordinances, community
awareness and education,
Butte-Silver Bow County
database/GIS tracking
system (2013).
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
BPSOU and
BMFOU
Restrict all new
appropriation of
groundwater. Ensure
that existing wells are
part of an education
and abandonment
program.
Butte Alluvial and Bedrock
Controlled Groundwater
Areas, 2009 BSB also
enacted a "hook-up"
ordinance.
Surface and
stormwater
Yes
Yes
BPSOU
Ensure protocols and
requirements are
implemented and
enforced to ensure
effective stormwater
management. Ensure
BSB has perpetual
access to inspect and
maintain water
conveyance structures
and enact penalties for
anyone damaging
these structures.
Stormwater management
ordinance (2011).
91
-------
Figure 6-3: BPSOU Controlled Groundwater Area
LEGEND
BPSOU CGWA BPSOU ALLUVIAL AQUIFER 71 ZONE)
¦ J HASKGWA (BUTTS AILLFV'AL AMD BgOTOCK CO WIHfllt.fO GRMJNDWATFR ARrA)
?BPSOU 900N0ABY
TJl= 1&--0A,. 33'1
BPSOU
CONTROLLED
GROUNDWATER
AREA
Source: 2019 BPSOU Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan
92
-------
Systems Operations/O&M
The BPSOU is still in the remedy implementation phase, with routine O&M activities for certain components
(Butte Treatment Lagoon System, existing stormwater projects and non-residential soil remedial projects). O&M
activities are summarized below.
Soil Remedy
Non-Residential (BRES)
The BPSOU consists of 178 reclaimed sites, each requiring evaluation once every four years. Prior to
2012, the sites had been evaluated on varying schedules resulting in incomplete evaluations and a backlog of
maintenance obligations. In 2012, BSB divided the sites into four quadrants and distributed a quarter of the
reclaimed area to each quadrant to streamline the evaluation schedule and ensure maintenance follows the BRES
methodology. In 2014, BSB created a database and GIS to better facilitate data entry and data tracking.
The BRES evaluations are summarized in annual summary reports. The proposed corrective actions are provided
in the annual corrective action plan reports. This FYR period covers all four quadrants, which have now all been
evaluated twice in accordance with the current methodology.
The BRES field evaluation includes performance standards and methodology to conduct evaluations measuring
stability, integrity and degree of human and environmental protectiveness. Sites or particular issues on sites that
do not meet or are in imminent danger of not meeting BPSOU performance standards are identified as "trigger
items." Trigger items are those specific and particular conditions at a site that "trigger" corrective action and/or
increased monitoring/evaluation to ensure the sites are appropriately maintained to meet or exceed protectiveness
of human and environmental health. The following field parameters are monitored at each site:
• Vegetation (% Live Cover): Refers to the percentage of ground surface covered by plant growth. A live
cover estimate of 0% to 20% triggers an action. Undesirable or noxious weeds are only allowed to
account for 5% of total live cover or 0% adjusted live cover.
o 0% to 20%: This category triggers a Vegetation Improvement (VI) or a Reclamation
Improvement (RI) on the site. VI and RI plans are required to be implemented within the calendar
year they are developed. Generally, if VI is implemented and the site again falls into this low
category during its next evaluation (four years later), a more detailed and comprehensive RI Plan
is required.
o 21% to 40%: if more than 10% of the site is covered by noxious weeds, a VI Plan must be
developed and implemented. If less than 10% of the site is covered by noxious weeds, the site
falls into the monitoring category and undergoes a regularly scheduled evaluation in four years,
o 41% to 100%: A site is in the monitoring category and undergoes a regularly scheduled
evaluation in four years' time.
• Erosion: Scores are based on a modified version of the Bureau of Land Management Erosion
Classification System. An erosion score of 55 or greater requires an engineering assessment and
corrective action.
• Other trigger items: Site edges (areas located along the sides and just outside the site), exposed waste,
subsidence, barren areas and gullies, all of which require corrective action, with the exception of site
edges and gullies that are stable/not actively eroding.
In 2016, BRES evaluations took place in Quadrant 1, which consists of 28 sites, 123.6 acres and is in the
northeast section of the BPSOU. The results of the 2016 BRES evaluations are summarized in the 2016 Summary
Report. Trigger items were present at all sites. Due to poor vegetative cover and/or high percentage of noxious
weeds, VI plans are required at 11 sites and RI plans are required at four sites. Due to erosion issues, including
gullies, barren areas and exposed waste, engineering assessments are required with a Corrective Action Plan
implemented based on the results at seven sites.
93
-------
In 2017, BRES Evaluations took place in Quadrant 2 of the BPSOU. Quadrant 2 consists of 100.28 acres and 50
sites. The area was last evaluated in spring 2013. This evaluation is the second time the quadrant has been
evaluated since 2012, at which time each site was assigned to a quadrant. The results of the 2017 BRES
evaluations are summarized in the 2017 Summary Report. Trigger items were present at 43 sites. Twelve sites
required VI plans and two sites required RI plans. An engineering assessment is required at one site.
In 2018, 78 sites in Quadrant 3 (134.4 acres) were evaluated. Fourteen sites were not evaluated because they are
on the Insufficiently Reclaimed or Unreclaimed Site lists. Ten sites have engineered caps and are not evaluated
for vegetation or erosion. Of the sites evaluated, trigger items were present at 51 out of 54 sites. Fourteen sites
require VI plans and 12 sites required RI Plans. Seven sites require engineering assessments.
In 2019, BRES evaluations took place in Quadrant 4 of the BPSOU. Quadrant 4 consists of 21 sites over 148.3
acres. Three sites were not evaluated: one site has an engineered cap, and two sites are on the Insufficiently
Reclaimed or Unreclaimed Site lists. Trigger actions were present at all evaluated sites in Quadrant 4. Eight sites
required VI plans and four sites required RI plans. None of the sites required an engineering assessment.
The results of the evaluations and the recommended action plans are tracked in a database managed by the City
and County of Butte-Silver Bow. The database allows for more effective tracking of issues and historical patterns.
Issues are addressed as they arise, and community needs are considered in ensuring that long-term O&M issues
that are discovered are addressed sustainably. Currently, annual reports provide a summary of the results of the
evaluation and the recommended action plan but there is no mention of the status of action plans already
implemented within each quadrant. Increased reporting that covers the status of already implemented action plans
will allow interested parties to identify the progress for corrective action plans and vegetation management plans.
Stormwater
The BPSOU contains the following stormwater system components:
• Superfund stormwater structures (SSWS).
• Stormwater infrastructure/engineered controls on reclaimed mine sites under the BRES program.
• Portions of the BSB municipal stormwater systems within the boundary of the BPSOU or directly related
to the performance of a remedy component.
These components are inspected on a regular basis in accordance with the 2018 Interim O&M Plan. All
components are identified within the plan as well as GIS databases. Each component has a specified inspection
protocol and frequency.
Sediments collected in and removed from the stormwater systems within the BPSOU are transported to the Butte
Reduction Works drying beds at the Butte Treatment Lagoons and final disposal at the BSB Mine Waste
Repository. BSB staff perform the regular maintenance work on stormwater structures. For all SSWS and BRES
sites with stormwater features, BSB is supposed to compile all information into an annual maintenance report;
however, as of the preparation of this FYR report, an annual report has not been produced. For elements of the
BSB municipal stormwater system, BSB will not prepare specific reports for agency review. Instead, BSB will
document time and expenses for stormwater maintenance activities through its typical operations and accounting
practices.
PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section includes the protectiveness determination and statement from the previous FYR Report as well as the
recommendations from the previous FYR Report and the status of those recommendations.
94
-------
Table 6-7: BPSOU Protectiveness Determination/Statement from the 2016 FYR Report
()l #
Pmleclhciiess
l)cliTinin;ilion
Pro(oc(i\oiK'ss Siiiicmonl
8
Will be Protective
The remedy at BPSOU (OU 8) is expected to be protective of
human health and the environment upon completion. In the interim,
exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being
controlled.
Table 6-8: BPSOU Status of Recommendations from the 2016 FYR Report
Issue
KcconiiiiciHliilioii
Ciinvnl
Shiius
( iinvnl Impk'iiH'iiliilion Sliiius
Description
( ompk-iion
Dale (if
iipplk'iihlo)
Annual BRES reports
were limited in their
analysis and summary.
Provide a BRES
annual report that is
timely, has adequate
tracking to maintain
the caps, performs
required O&M
activities and meets
the program
schedule.
Completed
BRES reports submitted during
this FYR period were timely and
adequate tracking is provided in
the database maintained by Butte-
Silver Bow.
12/14/2016
Community members
have information about
site areas where
damage from
trespassing and
stormwater occur
without a centralized
way to report this
information.
Establish a means for
community members
to report illegal
trespassing,
significant
stormwater damage
and stormwater
issues related to
Superfund.
Addressed in
Next FYR
BSB and its consultants continue
to implement requirements of its
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) permit. The MS4
program provides a mechanism for
citizens to report alleged violations
of State stormwater regulation.
Specifically, BSB's stormwater
management program website
includes a web-based form and
contact information to report
observations of potential illicit
discharges, construction project
complaints or other violations of
stormwater regulations. BSB will
report on the monitoring and
enforcement of the Stormwater
Management Ordinance on a
yearly basis, although this has not
yet occurred.
N/A
The community
involvement process
highlighted that there is
a fair amount of
concern in the
community regarding
remedy implementation
and maintenance at the
BPSOU.
Provide a written
response to issues
raised by community
members concerning
the alluvial aquifer
groundwater rate of
flow, the stability of
the contaminated
plume in the alluvial
aquifer, and the
functioning of the
subdrain capture
system.
Completed
The 2020 ROD Amendment and
Consent Decree summarize the
results of several deliverables that
address these concerns. Fact sheets
have also been prepared and
additional community outreach is
planned and/or occurring and/or
has happened pre- Consent Decree.
2/4/2020
95
-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Data Review
Data are collected throughout the BPSOU primarily by BSB and Atlantic Richfield. The data includes soil remedy
data from the RMAP and BRES programs as well as other solid media remedial projects, surface water drainage
and collection and water treatment at the Butte Treatment Lagoons in the LAO. This data review focuses on
providing an overview of the activities associated with and data collected as part of the RMAP, data collected and
evaluated in support of the updated surface water remedy in the 2020 ROD Amendment, and groundwater POC
monitoring.
Residential (RMAP)
The Allocation Agreement between BSB and Atlantic Richfield provides the Butte-Silver Bow Health
Department with funds to conduct soil abatements of residential yards in the BPSOU when soil lead
concentrations exceed 1,200 mg/kg or soil arsenic concentrations exceed 250 mg/kg. Additionally, the agreement
provides for a multi-pathway program to abate other hazards (attic dust, interior dust and paint) associated with
lead, arsenic and mercury. The program also provides biological testing, education and community outreach.
Environmental assessments are performed to identify potential sources of lead, arsenic and mercury exposures.
Environmental assessments consist of soil testing, attic dust testing, interior dust testing and X-ray fluorescence
testing for lead-based paint. The residences where exposures are identified during the environmental assessment
process are prioritized for abatement. Contaminated soils are removed and replaced with geotextile fabric, clean
fill, topsoil and sod. Interior abatement involves paint stabilization and cleaning using the High Efficiency
Particulate Air (HEPA) vacuum, wet wash and then HEPA vacuum technique again. Attic dust abatement consists
of vacuuming out the contaminated dust using an industrial vacuum equipped with HEPA filtration.
During this FYR period, metals abatement activities were performed in 2016, 2017,2018, 2019 and 2020 (Table
6-9). The results were summarized in annual reports.
Table 6-9: BPSOU Residential Abatements and Assessments, 2016 to 2020
Year
Soil
\l);ik'iiK'ii(s
Allic
Ahiilomonls
Interior
Dusl
AI>;iU-iik-iiI
Piiinl
Ahiilcmonl
loliil \l);ik'iiK'iils
1-' ii \ ironmcnliil
Assessnu'iils
2ult>
3u
96
u
u
12b
24u
2017
30
99
3
0
132
200
2018
29
88
6
1
124
219
2019
29
94
4
0
127
190
2020
28
92
4
0
124
198
Medical Monitoring
Blood lead screening is available to all residents of the City and County of Butte-Silver Bow. Testing is
conducted by the Butte WIC program, which is located at the Butte-Silver Bow Health Department. In addition to
blood testing, families are educated about potential exposures to lead, arsenic and mercury hazards in and around
their homes. Environmental assessments are offered to all WIC clients and are expedited if potential exposures are
identified during the interview process. When a child's blood tests high for lead, the RMAP prioritizes that home
for immediate action if the yard or attic lead is elevated. RMAP also investigates and helps fix other potential lead
sources including lead-based paint.
In 2006, the EPA required that the children's blood lead dataset, collected as part of RMAP, be used to study lead
exposure to assess effectiveness of the RMAP. Every five years, a medical monitoring study is conducted to
96
-------
assess the effectiveness of the RMAP.11 The first study, Phase 1, was completed in 2015 and the results were
discussed in the previous FYR. The health department completed a Phase 2 health study in March 2020. It
evaluated Butte blood lead level records for about 2,330 children collected during 2012 to 2017. The Phase 2
study was conducted using data collected under the RMAP to evaluate trends in blood lead levels in children
organized by neighborhood. The objective is to determine if there are trends that show whether levels have
changed since the Phase 1 study and if there are differences in levels due to demographic or geographic variables.
The results of the study are presented in terms of a variety of metrics, including age, gender, house age,
neighborhood and season. The key findings were:
• Among infants less than 12 months old, 20 out of 373 individuals had blood lead levels above 5 ng/dL.
• Among children 12 to 60 months of age, 172 out of 2,330 individuals had blood lead levels above 5
Hg/dL.
• Three of the 326 adults tested had blood lead levels greater than 5 ng/dL.
• Uptown neighborhoods continue to show higher percentages of samples greater than 5 ng/dL throughout
the study period. This observation may be due to the age of the homes (pre-1940 and likely to have lead
paint) as well as the extent of mining contamination in the Uptown area, both of which are being
addressed through RMAP.
• In both Uptown and the Flats, the percentage of elevated blood level levels declined from the 2003-2010
period to the 2012-2017 period. During the 2003-2010 study period, 27.6% of Uptown blood lead levels
exceeded 5 (ig/dL, while 11.7% of the Flats blood lead levels exceeded 5 (ig/dL. In the 2012-2017 study
period, 15.2% of the Uptown blood lead levels exceeded 5 (ig/dL, while 4.1% of the Flats blood lead
levels exceeded 5 (ig/dL.
• Blood lead levels are about 20% to 30% higher on average in the warmer half of the year. Seasonal
variation can be attributed to increase in contact with soil as well as seasonal variation in lead in drinking
water.
• The percentage of Butte children with blood level levels above 5 (ig/dL has dropped dramatically over the
time period evaluated in the first two health studies, with the rate of decline slowing as levels approach
those found in children across the U.S. In Butte, this percentage decreased from 33% in 2003 to 5% in
2017.
• While the statistical analysis shows that blood lead levels have decreased significantly since 2002, there
was no statistical difference in levels from 2012 when compared to levels in 2017. This indicates that the
decrease is slowing down.
• The percentage of Butte children with elevated blood lead levels is higher than the average reported in the
national survey of blood lead levels. The study cited several possible explanations including continued
exposure to soil and lead paint not yet abated through RMAP and sample collection method. In Butte,
blood is collected via finger prick; however, venous samples (collected via blood draw) usually provide a
more reliable measurement.
The Phase 2 study included the following recommendations:
• RMAP Recommendations
o Assess landlord participation rates and determine if additional outreach is needed.
o Establish an environmental health clinician specializing in pediatrics to facilitate tracking and
follow up for cases with elevated blood lead levels.
• Future Exposure/Biomonitoring Studies
o Continue focus on lead biomonitoring.
o Increased tracking and refined follow-up for individuals with elevated blood lead levels.
11 Prior to 2013, the health department used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 10
micrograms per deciliter (|ig/dL) as a blood lead "level of concern." Based on a review of several studies, the CDC revised
this level to 5 ng/dL. The health department adopted the 5 ng/dL level in 2013 as part of the RMAP health studies as a risk
management tool to identify children who might have elevated lead exposures so that actions could be taken to reduce such
exposures.
97
-------
o Increased outreach to local pediatricians and clinics to augment the available blood lead data.
• Future Epidemiology/Disease Studies
o Continue periodic updates of cancer incidence and mortality in BSB versus state and national
rates.
o Review community health needs assessments to determine the prevalence of major diseases that
are continuing community concerns.
• Public Outreach
o The EPA and PRPs (Atlantic Richfield and BSB) should supplement public meetings and flyers
with local news media and social media communication as well as more proactively engaging
members of the public.
Figure 6-4 summarizes the distribution of blood lead levels in children between 2012 and 2017. Data used to
prepare Figure 6-4 and provided in the Phase 2 study, shows that 70% to 85% of the blood lead samples were
non-detects (less than the level of detection of 3.3 j^ig/dL). This is consistent with the previous FYR, where
declines in blood lead levels were observed. When evaluating the entire database of over 5,000 records (2002 to
2017), the reported statistics show that the percentage of samples above the level of detection (3.3 (ig/dL) or
reference value (5 (ig/dL) are decreasing overtime (Figure 6-5). Since there still remains a small percentage of
children with blood lead levels above the reference value, the health department concluded that the RMAP has
been an important community-wide mechanism for identifying and reducing lead exposures and that the RMAP
should be continued.
Figure 6-4: BPSOU Overall Distribution by Years of Blood Lead Levels for Children 12 Months to 60+
Months Old
400
¦ 2012
¦ 2013
¦ 2014
¦ 2015
¦ 2016
¦ 2017
Non-detect [<= 3.3)
3.3 to 5
5 to 10
> 10
Category of Blood Lead Level ([jg/dL)
Source: Second Butte RMAP Medical Monitoring Study (Phase 2) Report. March 2020.
98
-------
Figure 6-5: BPSOU Trend in Percentage of Children 12 Months to 60+ Months Old with Blood Lead
Levels Above 5 jug/dL
Note: Figure 21 shows that the percentage of children with BLLs greater than 5 pg/dL declined more in the
earlier period (2002 to 2011) than it did in the more recent phase (2012 to 2017). Note that the earlier
samples were analyzed in a laboratory, whereas after 2011 the samples were analyzed using the LeadCare II
system, which provides a more immediate result but has a higher LOD than the laboratory results (3.3 pg/dL
vs. 0.1 pg/dL).
Source: Second Butte RMAP Medical Monitoring Study (Phase 2) Report. March 2020.
LOD = Level of detection
GroundwaterfSiirface Water Interaction
The surface water and groundwater remedies at the BPSOU are designed to capture contaminated groundwater
and prevent its discharge to surface water. The groundwater remedy is not intended or anticipated to clean up
groundwater. Two groundwater captures systems (BPSOU subdrain and the LAO capture system) and design
elements ensure that groundwater is not discharging to Silver Bow Creek.
Between these two capture systems, and upstream of the reconstructed Silver Bow Creek floodplain. is an
approximately 3,000-foot-long segment of Blacktail Creek/Silver Bow Creek, or a gap, in which alluvial
groundwater is not captured. Loading studies to estimate groundwater inflow in the gap zone have been
inconclusive due to uncertainties in flow measurements (i.e., changes in surface water flow rates are within the
measurement error of the stream gauging method). The abundant surface water monitoring data show slight
increases in concentrations of COCs in specific areas under certain conditions.
In 2018, the EPA and MDEQ finalized the Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction Report for the BPSOU.
This report incorporates the results of numerous previous investigations as well as routine surface water, sediment
and groundwater monitoring and a 2016 pore water investigation. This report formed the basis for the updated
remedy selection in the 2020 ROD Amendment. A summary of the conclusions presented in the report is as
follows:
• Contaminated groundwater appears to be discharging into Silver Bow Creek and Blacktail Creek based on
several findings:
99
-------
o Positive pore water heads, which indicate transport from groundwater to surface water is possible,
were observed in most areas during sampling events in 2016, including upstream, in Slag Canyon
and in Butte Reduction Works reaches,
o The dissolved and total recoverable COC concentrations observed and the seasonal trends in
COC concentrations in surface water cannot be adequately explained without a groundwater
component.
o Pore water COC concentrations in all of the areas except for the confluence, while not similar to
groundwater, are most easily explained by a local groundwater source once geochemical
mechanisms are considered,
o Vertical gradients show that groundwater gradients are upward in the Slag Canyon area and
paired wells close to the streams respond to changes in the surface water stage, indicating
groundwater and surface water are in communication. Additionally, wells BPS11-05A1/BPS11-
05A2 and BPS07-13A/BPS07-13B indicate an upward gradient on the southside of the streams.
• In general, pore water concentrations are not similar in concentration to nearby groundwater. However,
pore water COC concentrations were relatively higher in areas with higher groundwater concentrations.
• The results of the evaluations show that for copper, arsenic and zinc (and likely cadmium), groundwater
flow from streamside wastes is a primary source of COCs to surface water. The contaminated
groundwater forms either zinc-bearing calcite in the surface water or poorly crystalline sulfides in the
pore water, contaminating sediments.
• Dissolved copper and arsenic concentrations tend to be higher under normal high-flow conditions, relative
to base flow, whereas the reverse is true for zinc due to different geochemical mechanisms acting on zinc
compared to copper and arsenic.
• Non-winter zinc spikes occur when groundwater levels increase during a normal high flow event and
lower pH groundwater flows into surface water, lowering the pH and dissolving zinc-bearing calcite in
shallow sediments and surface water.
• Typically, under base flow conditions where surface water flows are relatively low, sediment is not
suspended such that most of the COC concentrations measured in surface water should be dissolved.
However, for copper, total recoverable concentrations at base flow are significantly higher than the
dissolved concentrations.
• Total recoverable zinc concentrations are also higher than dissolved under both normal high flow and
base flow conditions at all stations except for SS-01.
Alluvial Groundwater Point of Compliance Monitoring
The Alluvial Aquifer Technical Impracticability Zone was established in the BPSOU ROD. Since 2007,
additional wells have been drilled to better define the perimeter boundary. During this FYR period, perimeter
monitoring wells, or POC wells, have been refined. There are currently 14 POC wells. In the most recent
monitoring events in 2019, there were no exceedances of the groundwater cleanup goals. Under the updated
Statement of Work, additional refinement is planned for the POC wells and perimeter monitoring.
Groundwater (Butte Treatment Lagoons, including BPSOU Subdrain and LAO)
Atlantic Richfield conducts maintenance and monitoring tasks in accordance with the 2016 Draft Final Butte
Treatment Lagoon Groundwater Treatment System Routine Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan.
Reports are submitted quarterly and annually to the EPA.
Operations
The system is generally operated in auto mode. About 678 million gallons of water were pumped into the Butte
Treatment Lagoons via the influent pump station (measured at INF-04) in 2019. Between 2016 and 2019, total
influent volumes ranged from 606 million gallons in 2016 to 678 million gallons in 2019. Average daily flow
ranged from 899 to 1,804 gallons per minute (gpm). Lime usage ranged from 285 tons in 2016 to 343 tons in
2018. Effluent water from the Butte Treatment Lagoons was monitored using the electromagnetic flow meter
100
-------
installed in the effluent discharge line. In 2019, about 595 million gallons of treated effluent water were
discharged to Silver Bow Creek via the effluent discharge at EFS-07. Between 2016 and 2019, total effluent
volumes ranged from 491 million gallons in 2016 to 613 million gallons in 2018.
During this FYR period, only three exceedances of the pH target were recorded. The target pH for effluent
discharge is 9.5 standard units (SU). All were recorded in 2016. In response to these exceedances, which were
attributed to the lagoons freezing in cold weather, a permanent carbon dioxide addition system was installed to
limit the increase in pH at the effluent monitoring station. The system consists of one 1,000-pound carbon dioxide
storage tank complete with pressure gauge, regulator, internal vaporizing/pressure-building unit and
interconnecting tubing, a carbon dioxide unloading station and fill box near the Automatic Sampling Building,
and a carbon dioxide discharge hosing and gas diffuser. Addition of carbon dioxide at this location began in
November 2017.
The subdrain pumps were generally operated in auto mode to maintain a constant vault level during most of the
year. In 2019, about 252 million gallons were pumped from the subdrain into the Butte Treatment Lagoon system,
with an average flow of 477 gpm. The 2019 volume and flow rate were consistent during this FYR period. The
West Camp pump station pumped about 112 million gallons of water into the lagoon system, with an average
flow rate of 213 gpm in 2019, consistent with annual volume and average flow rate in 2016 through 2018.
Maintenance
System maintenance during this FYR period included sludge removal activities completed biannually in the fall
and spring. In 2019, about 2,600 cubic yards of dried sludge were removed from the drying bed in the Butte
Reduction Works area to the Mine Waste Repository. In accordance with standard operating procedures, subdrain
jetting and pigging activities as well as video inspections are conducted biannually.
Visual inspection of the Butte Treatment Lagoon system is conducted quarterly. Routine maintenance activities
are conducted on a regular basis based on the inspections. Vegetation maintenance activities are also conducted as
needed to address minor erosion from construction activities. Weed spraying for knapweed also occurs in the
summer months.
Monitoring
Effluent water samples are collected twice weekly at the Butte Treatment Lagoon effluent sampling station EFS-
07 (SS-1). Influent waters are sampled weekly at the influent pump station INF-04 (SS-2). Field grab samples are
collected monthly at station MSD-HCC (SS-3), where the collected subdrain flow discharges to the upper
Hydraulic Control Channel. Samples are analyzed for total recoverable metals (aluminum, arsenic, cadmium,
calcium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, mercury, silver, uranium and zinc) and hardness. Also, alkalinity, total
dissolved solids, total suspended solids, and nitrates/nitrites are measured monthly at influent station INF-04 (SS-
2), effluent station EFS-07 (SS-1) and MSD-HCC station (SS-3). Field parameters are collected daily at many
points in the system. Real-time data are collected by an automated monitoring system. Analytical results are
compared to the standards in the 2006 ROD.
With the exception of the results shown below, there were no exceedances of the water quality standards in the
Butte Treatment Lagoons effluent during this FYR period (Table 6-10).
101
-------
Table 6-10: BPSOU Effluent Water Quality Standard Exceedances
Year
<¦<>(¦
\\ alcr Qu;ili(> Siandard
Number of samples: maximum conccnlralion
2017
Mercury
0.00005 mg/L
2 samples; 0.000062 mg/L
2018
Cadmium
0.00076 mg/L
1 sample; 0.00082 mg/L
2019
Cadmium
0.00076 mg/L
4 samples; 0.00099 mg/L
Source: Annual O&M reports
During this FYR period, the Butte Treatment Lagoon system performed effectively through the reporting period
and operators continue to optimize treatment.
Site Inspection
The site inspection took place on 9/15/2020. Participants included EPA RPM Nikia Green and Treat Suomi from
EPA FYR Support contractor Skeo. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.
Site inspection participants met at Silver Bow Creek and the BPSOU Subdrain area. Participants observed the
ongoing work at Parrot Tailings (conducted by the Montana Natural Resource Damage Program) and observed
the county buildings that will be removed during the implementation of state of Montana's waste removal project
at Parrot Tailings. Participants then observed Northside Tailings and Blacktail Creek. From there, participants met
with Dave Griffis from Atlantic Richfield and Brad Hollamon from Pioneer. Participants observed the Butte
Reduction Works, the Butte Treatment Lagoons and the LAO. Dredging was occurring at the Butte Treatment
Lagoons during the site inspection.
Participants then observed the ballfield on Copper Mountain. This area included a Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) cap, but the groundwater beneath the area is part of the BPSOU. Seeps have been
observed beyond the fence on the ballfields. The EPA plans to require Atlantic Richfield to investigate and
characterize groundwater in this area. A draft SOW has been developed and will be finalized and implemented in
2021. Participants then met with Eric Hassler from BSB and observed several BRES sites, including Grove
Gulch, Rising Star East and West, Amy and Goldsmiths sites, and other sites in Walkerville. Examples of the
positive effects of updates and improvements in the BRES program were evident throughout many of the sites
visited.
Participants discussed the stormwater BMPs implemented throughout the BPSOU and observed those BMPs that
have been implemented at BRES sites. See Appendices F and G for the inspection checklist and photos,
respectively.
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The remedy is expected to function as intended by the decision documents when it is completed. In the interim,
the RMAP program, BRES, institutional controls, and ongoing monitoring and remedial activities ensure that
unacceptable human health risks are being controlled.
The capture systems and the Butte Treatment Lagoons have generally attained effluent standards for the treated
water released into Silver Bow Creek. Technical evaluations and data analyses during this FYR period were
conducted to support the development of the 2020 ROD Amendment. The results indicated that there are
remaining uncontrolled sources of contamination that have the potential to contribute to surface water
contamination within the BPSOU. The upcoming remedial actions will address these uncontrolled sources,
ensuring the remedy will be protective of the environment.
102
-------
The Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan was finalized in 2019. It provides a summary of all
implemented institutional controls in place at the BPSOU and establishes monitoring plans. BSB developed a
GIS-based program to track institutional controls in the BPSOU. Institutional control monitoring occurs during
routine inspection and maintenance activities. There were no indications during the FYR process that institutional
controls are not being implemented. Additional community outreach has occurred during this FYR period and
will continue.
RMAP implementation continues to remove contaminated soil, dust and other material from residential properties
across Butte and remains on schedule for timely completion. However, mercury is not currently analyzed in
residential yard soil samples and the type of mercury analysis being performed for attic dust and basement soil is
unclear. Abatements in yards, attics, and basements are based on arsenic and lead. The 2006 ROD specifies an
action level for mercury and mercury sampling is required under the RMAP. BSB should provide justification for
excluding mercury analysis from yard sampling and specify the analytical methods being used to evaluate
mercury in attic dust and basement soil. If XRF is being used for mercury analysis, justification of the validity of
these results is needed (i.e., correlation to laboratory results should be demonstrated and results must be
validated). If justification cannot be provided, the RMAP quality assurance project plan should be revised to
incorporate appropriate mercury sampling and analysis methods.
The number of blood lead test results greater than 9.9 (ig/dL decreased significantly from 1990 to 2012. While
medical monitoring continues to show improvements, the rate of decrease in blood lead levels is declining. The
Phase 2 monitoring report made several recommendations for implementation of Phase 3, including landlord
participation assessments, increased tracking and follow-up for individuals with elevated blood lead levels, and
increased public outreach. These recommendations should be implemented to ensure that the RMAP program
continues to improve blood lead levels in Butte. The expansion of the RMAP program to those outside of the
BPSOU boundaries who request site sampling and remediation should further improve the protectiveness of this
part of the remedy.
The BRES program continues to operate and BSB is monitoring, tracking and implementing corrective action
plans appropriately. Progress is tracked using GIS. Annual reports currently only cover the inspection activities
and corrective actions needed but do not include the actions that have been ongoing from the previous year's
report. These actions are tracked in monthly reports. While there is no indication that the corrective actions are not
occurring, more effective reporting will allow interested parties to identify the progress for corrective action plans
and vegetation management plans. In addition, the 2020 ROD Amendment includes additional remediation and
soil management for cleanup under the BRES program.
Stormwater structures and engineered controls are inspected on a regular basis in accordance with the 2018
Interim O&M Plan. All components are identified within the plan as well as GIS databases. For all SSWS and
BRES sites with stormwater features, BSB is supposed to compile all information into an annual maintenance
report; however, as of the preparation of this FYR report, an annual report has not been produced.
Overall, community members expressed satisfaction with cleanup activities in the BPSOU and believe that work
done to date in Butte has vastly improved quality of life for Butte's citizens and has improved people's health and
livelihoods. There were concerns about the long-term maintenance and monitoring of remediated areas and
whether these areas will be monitored in perpetuity. Concerns were raised with landlord participation in the
RMAP and air monitoring at the Mine Repository; however, community members agreed the RMAP was overall
effective and that the repository was in a good location. Community members were very excited and pleased with
the expansion of and improvements to the RMAP program agreed to in the 2020 BPSOU Consent Decree. EPA
will be working with community members and considering their suggestions to help ensure that effective outreach
occurs during the expansion of the program.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives
(RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
103
-------
Overall, while toxicity values and risk assessment methods have changed since the 2006 ROD, these changes
were reviewed during this FYR period and cleanup goals remain valid for solid media and groundwater.
This FYR conducted a thorough evaluation of solid media and dust cleanup goals and this is included in
Appendix H. Based on this evaluation, soil action levels remain valid for lead, arsenic and mercury. For lead in
soil, the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directives 9355.4-12 (EPA, 1994) and 9200.4-
27P (EPA, 1998), were identified as federal chemical-specific To Be Considered guidance documents. However,
since 1994 and 1998 when those documents were issued, increasing evidence has shown that blood lead levels
below 10 (ig/dL may also have negative health impacts. Because of this, the agencies will look at the cleanup
levels used at this site and determine if any additional work needs to be done.
There is a TI waiver for alluvial groundwater. However, groundwater cleanup goals were established for areas
outside the TI zone based on DEQ-7 standards, which are equivalent to MCLs. These cleanup goals remain valid.
The 2020 ROD Amendment reviewed all 2006 ROD instream acute and chronic performance standards and
revised these standards for some surface water COCs. The standards are based on flow regimes (base flow/normal
high flow and wet weather). Some of these standards have been waived or could be waived in the future, to
protective federal water quality criteria. All surface water performance standards remain valid.
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of
the remedy?
While the following observations do not affect protectiveness, the EPA has received persistent public comments
and community responses pertaining to several issues including the restoration of Silver Bow Creek above the
confluence of Blacktail Creek, differences in lead soil cleanup goals between Montana Superfund Sites,
contaminated groundwater in the Parrot Tailings area and the performance of the BPSOU Subdrain. These are
described and clarified below.
During community interviews, the community organization, Restore Our Creek Coalition, expressed the desire to
restore Silver Bow Creek. The EPA responded to these concerns in the 2020 ROD Amendment's Responsive
Summary. The EPA, MDEQ, BSB and Atlantic Richfield have met with Restore Our Creek Coalition many times
since 2016 to listen to their concerns and desires and discussed ways to incorporate these ideas into the 2020 ROD
Amendment.
While the EPA, MDEQ, BSB and Atlantic Richfield understand and appreciate Restore Our Creek Coalition's
desire to create a segment of Silver Bow Creek that would begin at Texas Avenue and continue down to the
confluence with Blacktail Creek, there are practical and technical limits to what can be achieved in this area.
Where a creek once existed, a mine was developed, and a city has grown. There are multiple landowners,
buildings, streets, pipelines, utilities and other infrastructure, including the stormwater system required as part of
the remedy, throughout this area. Further, there are no headwaters to provide a source of water for a restored,
natural creek. It is not feasible to use the remedy to return this area to the condition it was in 150 years ago, before
mining began and before a city was built on top of it. However, if land is identified and acquired and
infrastructure could be moved, a lined stream compatible with and not impairing or impeding the function of the
remedy, it could be constructed by others, potentially beginning at Casey Street. Any stream in this area would
have to be lined to keep metals in groundwater out of it, and to allow the necessary groundwater capture-and-
treatment system to function effectively to protect Blacktail and Silver Bow Creeks. The concept of a lined creek
is not part of the 2020 ROD Amendment, as it would not be done for remediation purposes, but the remedy design
includes an area that is set aside for the potential construction of this project, if the state of Montana and the
community want to provide funds for this purpose and to operate, repair and maintain such a feature as a
community amenity. An EPA-funded feasibility study concluded that, while difficult, a lined stream could be
constructed in the Silver Bow Creek above the confluence area. The 2020 Consent Decree's attachments contain
commitments by all Consent Decree parties to cooperate with such efforts in the future, and a 2020 Memorandum
of Understanding between the State of Montana and Butte-Silver Bow County includes further steps to potentially
104
-------
assist with the creation of a lined creek within Silver Bow Creek above the confluence.
Community members also indicated confusion about why the amount of lead allowed in soils in Butte is higher
than in Anaconda. This question was also addressed in the 2020 ROD Amendment's Responsive Summary. The
combination of the RMAP and the comparatively low bioavailability of lead within the BPSOU support the use of
a 1,200 mg/kg lead cleanup level as a protective remedy. The EPA's risk assessment guidance recommends
performing site-specific bioavailability studies. The BPSOU is unique in that the EPA has performed multiple
studies, including both laboratory studies and animal studies, to evaluate the site-specific bioavailability of lead in
soil. These studies, which are described in more detail in the 2006 ROD and 2011 ESD, show that soil lead
bioavailability in Butte is about 3 times lower than the default assumption. Because lead in Butte soils is less
biologically available (coupled with the effectiveness of the RMAP) the site-specific soil lead action level for
Butte can be set about three times higher than the default lead screening level of 400 mg/kg and can be as
protective as the default level at generic sites. The reason the EPA has adopted the default soil lead screening
level of 400 mg/kg at other Superfund sites is that those sites do not have the benefit of site-specific information
on bioavailability to deviate from the default assumption.
In addition to concerns about the lead cleanup goal and the Silver Bow Creek restoration, a community member
raised concerns about the effectiveness of the BPSOU subdrain and contaminated groundwater in the Parrot
Tailings area. As indicated in the 2020 ROD Amendment Responsiveness Summary, the EPA is confident that the
BPSOU subdrain method of capturing contaminated groundwater is proven and has worked and will continue to
work at the BPSOU to intercept and collect contaminated groundwater. Based on investigations conducted after
installation of the subdrain, additional contaminated groundwater collection is now being required by the EPA
and the contingency for such actions described in the 2006 BPSOU Record of Decision has been invoked in the
2020 BPSOU Record of Decision Amendment. The EPA responded to both of these concerns in the
Responsiveness Summary in the 2020 ROD Amendment. Regarding the comment concerning the contaminated
groundwater in the Parrot Tailings area, the EPA understands that, since 2017, the state has been collecting
additional groundwater data as part of the Parrot Tailings Waste Removal Project area and downgradient as far as
Blacktail Creek and the Silver Bow Creek confluence area. The EPA will evaluate all available data, including the
state's data, as part of the remedial design for the enhancements to the BPSOU groundwater collection and
treatment system.
ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/Recommendations
()l (s) without Issiios/kecoiniiKMHliilions I clout i I'icil in the IYR:
None
105
-------
Issues and Recommendations IclentiI'iod in (ho IM<:
OU:
Issue Category: Monitoring
BPSOU
Issue: The Phase 2 blood lead level monitoring report made several
recommendations for implementation of Phase 3, including landlord participation
assessments, increased tracking and follow-up for individuals with elevated blood
lead levels, and increased public outreach.
Recommendation: Implement the recommendations.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA/State
9/30/2022
OU:
Issue Category: Monitoring
BPSOU
Issue: Mercury is not currently analyzed for in residential yards and abatements
are based on arsenic and lead and the incorrect laboratory method is being used to
analyze mercury in attics and basements.
Recommendation: BSB should provide justification for excluding mercury
analysis from yard sampling and specify the analytical methods being used to
evaluate mercury in attic dust and basement soil. If XRF is being used for
mercury analysis, justification of the validity of these results is needed (i.e.,
correlation to laboratory results should be demonstrated and results must be
validated). If justification cannot be provided, the RMAP quality assurance
project plan should be revised to incorporate appropriate mercury sampling and
analysis methods.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
PRP
EPA/State
9/30/2022
OTHER FINDINGS
Several additional recommendations were identified during the FYR. These recommendations do not affect
current and/or future protectiveness:
• Annual BRES reports currently only cover the inspection activities and corrective actions needed but do
not include the actions that have been ongoing from the previous year's report. These actions are tracked
in monthly reports. Increased reporting that covers the status of already implemented action plans will
allow interested parties to identify the progress for corrective action plans and vegetation management
plans.
• BSB is supposed to compile all stormwater control maintenance information into an annual maintenance
report: however, as of the preparation of this FYR report, an annual report has not been produced.
Reporting should be implemented in order to effectively track and communicate maintenance of these
systems.
106
-------
PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
8 Will be Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at the BPSOU (OU 8) is expected to be protective of human health and the environment
upon completion. In the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being
controlled through the RMAP, BRES, institutional controls and groundwater and surface water
monitoring activities.
NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for the BPSOU at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site is required five years
from the completion date of this review.
107
-------
VII. WEST SIDE SOILS OPERABLE UNIT, Operable Unit 13
The area west and northwest of the city of Butte is known as the Independence Mining District, although its
boundary is not well defined. Generally, the West Side Soils OU area was established to encompass the
Independence Mining District in an area of primarily range land, with some rural residences. The area
encompasses over 6,000 acres and consists of 70 large, abandoned mine areas, over 400 mine claim exploration
sites, and approximately 80 residences.
As defined in the BPSOU 2006 ROD, the West Side Soils OU lies generally to the north and west of the BPSOU
and includes other historic mining and metals-impacted areas within the Site not addressed under the BPSOU, the
BMFOU or the active mining area. The West Side Soils OU abuts the BPSOU and active mining area/BMFOU to
the east, and the Streamside Tailings OU and Rocker OU to the south. The boundary of the West Side Soils OU is
currently undetermined, although the mine study area has been defined for the initial RI work (see Figure 1-1 in
Section I of this FYR Report).
Since the spring of 2019, as part of the site characterization efforts, approximately 4,000 surface soil samples at
mine areas and in adjacent soils, along with 200 subsurface soil samples within mine dumps using a direct-push
rig, over 100 surface water samples in drainages near the mine area, and 40 sediment samples in the drainages
have been collected. In addition, approximately 25 surface water and sediment samples were collected in the
spring and fall within the Blacktail and Basin Creeks southwest of Butte. Analysis of the data is proceeding to
determine the nature and extent of contamination. An RI report will be prepared, followed by a feasibility study.
Once the RI/FS is completed, the EPA will select a remedy for the West Side Soils OU through a ROD. The ROD
will identify the remedial actions that the EPA is planning on taking and their locations.
The remedy for the West Side Soils OU is not assessed in this FYR because the EPA has not selected a remedial
action for it yet.
108
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
OUl: SSTOU
Site-Specific Superfund Memorandum of Agreement Between Montana Department of Environmental Quality
and United States Environmental Protection Agency for the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit of the Silver Bow
Creek/Butte Area (Original Portion) NPL Site. November 1998.
Streamside Tailings Operable Unit and Federal and Tribal Natural Resource Damages Consent Decree. April
1999.
Streamside Tailings Operable Unit Overview. Remedial Action Conducted by Montana Department of
Environmental Quality. March 2012.
Interim Performance Standards Assessment Silver Bow Creek/ Butte Area NPL Site Streamside Tailings
Operable Unit. Prepared by Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. Prepared for Montana Department of Environmental
Quality. September 2015.
Site Inspection Monitoring and Maintenance Plan Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL Site Streamside Tailings
Operable Unit. Prepared by Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. Prepared for Montana Department of Environmental
Quality. June 2016.
Monitoring Report for 2015 Streamside Tailings Operable Unit Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL Site. Prepared
by J. Naughton, J. Dunn, G. Ingman and E. Weber, RESPEC. Prepared for Montana Department of
Environmental Quality Remediation Division, Federal Superfund and Construction Bureau. October 2016.
Monitoring Report for 2016 Streamside Tailings Operable Unit Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL Site. Prepared
by J. Naughton, J. Dunn, G. Ingman, and E. Weber, RESPEC. Prepared for Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, Remediation Division Montana Department of Justice, Natural Resource Damage
Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 2017.
Monitoring Report for 2017 Streamside Tailings Operable Unit Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL Site. Prepared
by J. Naughton, T. Benn, G. Ingman and E. Weber, RESPEC. Prepared for Montana Department of
Environmental Quality Remediation Division, Federal Superfund and Construction Bureau. August 2018.
Monitoring Report for 2018 Streamside Tailings Operable Unit Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL Site. Prepared
by J. Naughton, M. Burke, S. Ellsworth and T. Traxler, RESPEC. Prepared for Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, Remediation Division, Montana Department of Justice, Natural Resource Damage
Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 2019.
Addendum to Surface Water and Groundwater Interim Performance Standards Assessment for Streamside
Tailings Operable Unit. Prepared by Joe Naughton, RESPEC. Prepared for Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, Federal Superfund and Construction Bureau. May 2020.
Preliminary Close Out Report Addendum #1 Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL Site Streamside Tailings
Operable Unit. Prepared by Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. Prepared for Montana Department of Environmental
Quality. May 2020.
Monitoring Report for 2019 Streamside Tailings Operable Unit Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL Site. Prepared
by J. Naughton, M. Burke, B. Merritt and T. Traxler, RESPEC. Prepared for Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, Remediation Division, Montana Department of Justice, Natural Resource Damage
Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 2020.
A-l
-------
Technical Memorandum: Streamside Tailings Operable Unit Tailings / Impacted Soils Removal Verification.
August 2020.
Assessment of Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction in the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit. Prepared by
Joe Naughton, RESPEC. Prepared for Montana Department of Environmental Quality. September 2020.
Updated Ecological Risk Assessment for the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, Prepared by Joe Naughton,
RESPEC. Prepared for Montana Department of Environmental Quality. November 2020.
OU3: BMFOU
EPA Record of Decision, Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit Silver Bow Creek/Butte AreaNPL Site. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 8. September 1994.
2002 Consent Decree for The Butte Mine Flooding Site. United States District Court for The District of Montana
Butte Division. March 2002.
Explanation of Significant Differences, Butte Mining Flooding Operable Unit Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL
Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Remediation Division. March 2002.
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit Berkeley Pit Slope Stability Evaluation. Prepared by STRATA. October
2015.
Final Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit, Remedial Action Adequacy Review Horseshoe Bend Water Treatment
Plant Short-term Optimization Work Plan. Submitted by Golder Associates Inc. Submitted to Montana Resources.
April 2016.
BMFOU Berkeley Pit Waterfowl Mitigation Plan, Interim Measures for Spring 2017 Mitigation, Proposed
Additional Bird Mitigation and Hazing Techniques. Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company.
February 2017.
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit (BMFOU) Quarterly Report Consent Decree for The Butte Mine Flooding
Site, Remedial Action - Implementation of the Remedy First Quarter 2018 (January 1 - March 31, 2018).
Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. May 2018.
Final Short-Term Optimization Report Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit Horseshoe Bend Water Treatment
Plant Butte, Montana. Prepared by Arcadis U.S., Inc. Prepared for Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield
Company. May 2018.
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit (BMFOU) Quarterly Report Consent Decree for The Butte Mine Flooding
Site, Remedial Action - Implementation of the Remedy Second Quarter 2018 (April 1 - June 30, 2018). Montana
Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. August 2018.
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit (BMFOU) Quarterly Report Consent Decree for The Butte Mine Flooding
Site, Remedial Action - Implementation of the Remedy Third Quarter 2018 (July 1 - September 30, 2018).
Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. November 2018.
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit (BMFOU) Quarterly Report Consent Decree for The Butte Mine Flooding
Site, Remedial Action - Implementation of the Remedy Fourth Quarter 2017 Revision 1 (October 1 - December
31, 2017). Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. November 2018.
A-2
-------
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit (BMFOU) Quarterly Report Consent Decree for The Butte Mine Flooding
Site, Remedial Action - Implementation of the Remedy Fourth Quarter 2018 (October 1 - December 31, 2018).
Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. February 2019.
Attachments for January 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana Resources
and Atlantic Richfield Company. February 2019.
Attachments for March 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana Resources
and Atlantic Richfield Company. April 2019.
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit (BMFOU) Quarterly Report Consent Decree for The Butte Mine Flooding
Site, Remedial Action - Implementation of the Remedy First Quarter 2019 (January 1 - March 31, 2019).
Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. May 2019.
Attachments for April 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana Resources
and Atlantic Richfield Company. May 2019.
Attachments for May 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana Resources
and Atlantic Richfield Company. June 2019.
Attachments for June 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana Resources
and Atlantic Richfield Company. July 2019.
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit (BMFOU) Quarterly Report Consent Decree for The Butte Mine Flooding
Site, Remedial Action - Implementation of the Remedy Second Quarter 2019 (April 1 - June 30, 2019). Montana
Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. August 2019.
Attachments for July 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana Resources
and Atlantic Richfield Company. August 2019.
Attachments for August 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana Resources
and Atlantic Richfield Company. September 2019.
Attachments for September 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana
Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. October 2019.
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit (BMFOU) Quarterly Report Consent Decree for The Butte Mine Flooding
Site, Remedial Action - Implementation of The Remedy Third Quarter 2019 (July 1 - September 30, 2019).
Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. November 2019.
Draft Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit, Remedial Action Adequacy Review Technical Memorandum. Atlantic
Richfield Company and Montana Resources. November 2019.
Attachments for October 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana Resources
and Atlantic Richfield Company. November 2019.
Attachments for November 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana
Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. December 2019.
BMFOU Silver Bow Creek/Butte AreaNPL Site Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2019.
Attachments for December 2019 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana
Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. January 2020.
A-3
-------
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit (BMFOU) Quarterly Report Consent Decree for The Butte Mine Flooding
Site, Remedial Action - Implementation of The Remedy Fourth Quarter 2019 (October 1 - December 31, 2019).
Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. February 2020.
Attachments for January 2020 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana Resources
and Atlantic Richfield Company. February 2020.
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit Berkeley Pit and Discharge Pilot Project - February 2020 Monthly Discharge
Monitoring Report. Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. March 2020.
Draft Final Discharge System Work Plan for the Berkeley Pit and Discharge Pilot Project. Atlantic Richfield
Company. March 2020.
Discharge System 2019 Annual Operations and Maintenance Report Berkeley Pit and Discharge Pilot Project,
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL Site Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit. Prepared by Wood Environment &
Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. March 2020.
Berkeley Pit and Discharge Pilot Project Quarterly Pilot Project Report Fourth Quarter 2019. Prepared by
Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. March 2020.
Attachments for February 2020 Berkeley Pit Migratory Waterfowl Mitigation Monthly Report. Montana
Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. March 2020.
Attachments for Final 2020 Berkeley Pit Waterfowl Protection Plan. Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield
Company. March 2020.
Final Approval Letter and Final 2020 Berkeley Pit Waterfowl Protection Plan. Montana Resources and Atlantic
Richfield Company. March 2020.
BMFOU Monthly Pilot Project Pumping Update. Montana Resources. March 2020.
Waterfowl Observation Logs, Hazing Logs, and Special Comments Forms March 2020, March 2020 Berkeley Pit
Migratory Waterfowl Protection Monthly Report. Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. April
2020.
Waterfowl Observation Logs, Hazing Logs, and Special Comments Forms From April 2020, Berkeley Pit
Migratory Waterfowl Protection Monthly Report. Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. May
2020.
Comments on Draft Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit Remedial Action Adequacy Review, Technical
Memorandum. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Montana Department of Environmental Quality. June
2020.
Berkeley Pit and Discharge Pilot Project Quarterly Pilot Project Report Fourth Quarter 2019 Revision 1. Prepared
by Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. June 2020.
Butte Mine Flooding Operable Unit, Water-Level Monitoring and Water-Quality Sampling 2018 Consent Decree
Update Butte, Montana 1982-2018. Prepared by Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. Prepared for The
Montana Department of Environmental Quality Remediation Division and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8. July 2020.
A-4
-------
Berkeley Pit and Discharge Pilot Project Quarterly Pilot Project Report First Quarter 2020. Prepared by Montana
Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. July 2020.
Waterfowl Observation Logs, Hazing Logs, and Special Comments Forms June 2020, June 2020 Berkeley Pit
Migratory Waterfowl Protection Monthly Report. Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. July
2020.
Polishing Facility Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Report. Atlantic Richfield Company. August 2020.
Waterfowl Observation Logs, Hazing Logs, and Special Comments Forms July 2020, July 2020 Berkeley Pit
Migratory Waterfowl Protection Monthly Report. Montana Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company. August
2020.
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Bedrock Water-Level Elevations. East Camp Mines and Bedrock Wells.
OU4 and OU12: WSPOUs
Final Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual for Warm Springs Ponds Operable Unit. Atlantic Richfield
Company. June 2019.
Warm Springs Ponds (WSP) Lime Rate Optimization Pilot Study Interim Report, 2018 Through June 2019.
Atlantic Richfield Company. October 2019.
2019 Annual Report Warm Springs Ponds Operable Units of the Silver Bow Creek Area NPL Site. Atlantic
Richfield Company. March 2020.
Clark Fork River Biomonitoring: Macroinvertebrate Community Assessments for 2019. Prepared by David
Stagliano Montana Biological Survey/Stag Benthics. Prepared for JACOBS. Submitted to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 8. June 2020.
OU7: Rocker OU
Final Second Quarter 2014 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Atlantic Richfield Company.
September 2014.
Third Quarter 2014 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Atlantic Richfield Company. February 2015.
Final Rocker First Quarter 2014 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Atlantic Richfield Company.
February 2015.
Third Quarter 2014 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Atlantic Richfield Company. February 2015.
Final Fourth Quarter 2014 Operations & Monitoring Report. Atlantic Richfield Company. March 2015.
Final Rocker First Quarter 2015 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Atlantic Richfield Company. July
2015.
Response to Comments on Final Second Quarter 2015 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Atlantic
Richfield Company. September 2015.
A-5
-------
Final Second Quarter 2015 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Atlantic Richfield Company.
September 2015.
Final Third Quarter 2015 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Atlantic Richfield Company. December
2015.
Final 2014 Annual Monitoring Report. Atlantic Richfield Company. February 2016.
Final Fourth Quarter 2015 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Atlantic Richfield Company. March
2016.
Replacement Pages for Final Fourth Quarter 2015 Operations & Monitoring Report. TREC, Inc. June 2016.
Final 2015 Annual Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. July
2016.
Final Rocker First Quarter 2016 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared
for Atlantic Richfield Company. November 2016.
Final Second Quarter 2016 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for
Atlantic Richfield Company. January 2017.
Final Third Quarter 2016 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for
Atlantic Richfield Company. March 2017.
Final Fourth Quarter 2016 Operations & Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic
Richfield Company. March 2017.
Final Rocker First Quarter 2017 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared
for Atlantic Richfield Company. May 2017.
Final 2016 Annual Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. July
2017.
Final Second Quarter 2017 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for
Atlantic Richfield Company. August 2017.
Final Third Quarter 2017 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for
Atlantic Richfield Company. December 2017.
Draft Final 2017 Annual Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company.
April 2018.
Final Fourth Quarter 2017 Operations & Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic
Richfield Company. April 2018.
Final Rocker First Quarter 2018 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared
for Atlantic Richfield Company. June 2018.
Final Second Quarter 2018 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for
Atlantic Richfield Company. October 2018.
A-6
-------
Final Third Quarter 2018 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for
Atlantic Richfield Company. January 2019.
Draft Final 2018 Annual Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company.
April 2019.
Final Fourth Quarter 2018 Operations & Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic
Richfield Company. May 2019.
Final Rocker First Quarter 2019 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared
for Atlantic Richfield Company. August 2019.
Final Second Quarter 2019 Operations & Maintenance Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for
Atlantic Richfield Company. October 2019.
Draft Final Fourth Quarter 2019 Operations & Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic
Richfield Company. January 2020.
Draft Final 2019 Annual Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company.
April 2020.
Final Third Quarter 2019 Operations & Monitoring Report. Prepared by TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic
Richfield Company. April 2020.
OU8: BPSOU
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area NPL Site Draft Final Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan. Prepared by
TREC, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. June 2016.
2016 Field Evaluation of Reclaimed Sites Revised Summary Report. 2016 BRES Field Evaluation Revised
Summary Report. Prepared by Butte-Silver Bow Superfund Division for submittal to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality. December 2016.
2016 Construction Completion Report January 1st, 2016 through December 31st, 2016. Butte-Silver Bow Health
Department Residential Metals Program. February 2017.
2017 Construction Completion Report January 1st, 2017 through December 31st, 2017. Butte-Silver Bow
Superfund Division Residential Metals Abatement Program. February 2018.
Annual Operations and Maintenance Report Butte Treatment Lagoon System -2016 Approval Letter. Atlantic
Richfield Company. April 2018.
2017 Butte Reclamation Evaluation System Technical Recommendations Report. 2017 BRES Draft Corrective
Action Plan Report. Prepared by Butte-Silver Bow Superfund Division for submittal to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality. May 2018.
2017 Field Evaluation of Reclaimed Sites Summary Report. 2017 BRES Field Evaluation Summary Report.
Prepared by Butte-Silver Bow Superfund Division for submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality. May 2018.
Revised Draft Final Annual Operations and Maintenance Report for the Butte Treatment Lagoons (BTL) System-
2017. Atlantic Richfield Company. August 2018.
A-7
-------
Quarterly Operations and Maintenance Report Butte Treatment Lagoon System - First Quarter 2019. Prepared by
Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. May 2019.
Draft Final Quarterly Operations and Maintenance Report Butte Treatment Lagoon System -Second Quarter
2019. Prepared by Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. September 2019.
2018 Field Evaluation of Reclaimed Sites Summary Report 2018. BRES Field Evaluation Summary Report and
Technical Recommendations Proposal. Prepared by Butte-Silver Bow Superfund Division for submittal to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality. November
2019.
Quarterly Operations and Maintenance Report Butte Treatment Lagoon System -Third Quarter 2019. Prepared by
Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. December 2019.
Revised Draft Final Annual Operations and Maintenance Report, Butte Treatment Lagoon System - 2018.
Atlantic Richfield Company. January 2020.
2019 Field Evaluation of Reclaimed Sites Summary Report 2019. BRES Field Evaluation Summary Report and
Technical Recommendations Proposal. Prepared by Butte-Silver Bow Superfund Division for submittal to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality. January
2020.
Final Quarterly Operations and Maintenance Report Butte Treatment Lagoon System - Second Quarter 2019.
Prepared by Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. February 2020.
Record of Decision Amendment for the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit. EPA Region 8. February 2020.
Monthly Activity Report for BNSF and Union Pacific Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit Unilateral
Administrative Order. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. March 2020.
Second Butte RMAP Medical Monitoring Study (Phase 2) Report. Prepared by Ramboll US Corporation.
Prepared for: Butte-Silver Bow County and Atlantic Richfield Company. March 2020.
Quarterly Operations and Maintenance Report Butte Treatment Lagoon System -Fourth Quarter 2019. Prepared
by Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. March 2020.
Final 2018 BPSOU Data Summary Report Butte Hill Diagnostic Data January 2018 - December 2018. Atlantic
Richfield Company. March 2020.
Final 2018 Surface Water Data Summary Report Normal Flow and Wet Weather Data January 2018 - December
2018. Atlantic Richfield Company. March 2020.
Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Report, Butte Treatment Lagoon (BTL) System - 2019. Prepared by
Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. March 2020.
Monthly Activity Report for BNSF and Union Pacific Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit Unilateral
Administrative Order. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. April 2020.
Monthly Progress Report Butte Priority Operable Unit Unilateral Administrative Order. Atlantic Richfield
Company. April 2020.
March 2020 Monthly Report of Activities Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit Unilateral Administrative Order.
City and County of Butte-Silver Bow. April 2020.
A-8
-------
2019 BPSOU Surface Water Data Summary Report Normal Flow and Wet Weather Data January 2019 -
December 2019. Atlantic Richfield Company. April 2020.
2019 Groundwater Monitoring Data Summary Report January 2019 - December 2019. Prepared by TREC, Inc.
Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. April 2020.
2019 BPSOU Data Summary Report Butte Hill Diagnostic Data January 2019 - December 2019. Atlantic
Richfield Company. April 2020.
Monthly Activity Report for BNSF and Union Pacific Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit Unilateral
Administrative Order. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. May 2020.
Quarterly Operations and Maintenance Report Butte Treatment Lagoon System -First Quarter 2020. Prepared by
Pioneer Technical Services, Inc. Prepared for Atlantic Richfield Company. May 2020.
Monthly Progress Report Butte Priority Operable Unit Unilateral Administrative Order. Atlantic Richfield
Company. May 2020.
April 2020 Monthly Report of Activities Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit Unilateral Administrative Order. City
and County of Butte-Silver Bow. May 2020.
Consent Decree for the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit, Partial Remedial Design/Remedial Action and
Operations and Maintenance. United States and State of Montana. May 2020.
Monthly Activity Report for BNSF and Union Pacific Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit Unilateral
Administrative Order. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. June 2020.
Monthly Progress Report Butte Priority Operable Unit Unilateral Administrative Order. Atlantic Richfield
Company. June 2020.
May 2020 Monthly Report of Activities Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit Unilateral Administrative Order. City
and County of Butte-Silver Bow. June 2020.
June 2020 Monthly Report of Activities Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit Unilateral Administrative Order. City
and County of Butte-Silver Bow. July 2020.
Sitewide
Fourth Five-Year Report for Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8. January 2016.
Second Five-Year Review Report for Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. September 2005.
Third Five-Year Review Report for Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. June 2011.
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table B-l: Site Chronology - Sitewide
l.\cn(
Diilo
\liiiing at the Berkeley Pit ceased; the underground dewatering pumps in the Kelley
mine were shut off; underground workings and Berkeley Pit began flooding with
groundwater
1982
EPA proposed Silver Bow Creek site (original portion) for listing on Superfund
program's NPL
December 30, 1982
Mining at the Continental Pit ceased; water from the Horseshoe Bend seep was diverted
into Berkeley Pit
1983
EPA added Silver Bow Creek site (original portion) to NPL
September 8, 1983
Mining resumed in Continental Pit by Montana Resources; operations included heap
leaching of old Berkeley Pit waste rock
1986
EPA issued Silver Bow Creek (original portion) sitewide Phase IRI Final Report
January 1987
Butte Area portion added to Silver Bow Creek site by Federal Register Notice
July 22, 1987
Walkerville time-critical removal action completed
February 1988
MDEQ directed cleanup of 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil at Rocker OU
Timber Butte time-critical removal action completed
West Camp non-time-critical removal action completed
EPA completed RI/FS for Warm Springs Ponds Active Area OU 4
1989
EPA issued Administrative Order on Consent for Mill-Willow Bypass removal action at
Warm Springs Ponds
June 1990
EPA issued Interim ROD for Warm Springs Ponds Active Area OU 4
September 28, 1990
BP SOU Soils time-critical removal action completed
1991
EPA issued ESD for Warm Springs Ponds Active Area OU
June 24, 1991
PRP completed RI/FS for Rocker OU
August 2, 1991
EPA issued Unilateral Administrative Order for Warm Springs Ponds Active Area OU
September 25, 1991
PRP completed RI/FS for the SSTOU
September 30, 1991
Anselmo Mine Yard and Late Acquisition/Silver Hill time-critical removal action
completed
Lower Area One non-time-critical removal action completed
Manganese time-critical removal action completed
1992
EPA issued Interim ROD for Warm Springs Ponds Inactive Area OU
PRP began remedial action for Warm Springs Ponds Active OU
June 30, 1992
EPA issued Unilateral Administrative Order for Warm Springs Ponds Inactive Area OU
ROD implementation
June 17, 1993
Residential/source areas removal action: many residential yards and waste rock dumps
throughout Butte and Walkerville were addressed
1994
PRP began remedial action for Warm Springs Ponds Inactive OU
May 18, 1994
PRP completed RI/FS for BMFOU in 1994
EPA issued a ROD for BMFOU
September 29, 1994
SSTOU RI/FS completed
EPA issued ROD for SSTOU
November 29, 1995
Rocker OU RI/FS completed
EPA issued ROD for Rocker OU
December 22, 1995
Horseshoe Bend water diverted away from the Berkeley Pit and pumped up to the
Yankee Doodle Tailings Pond
1996
Stormwater time-critical removal action began and continued until the BPSOU ROD was
issued. This included the construction of catch basins and the reclamation of the Alice
Pit.
1997
Montana Resources ceased heap leaching and started pumping water from the Berkeley
Pit to the precipitation plant to extract copper from the water
Old Butte Landfill/Clark Mill Tailings removal and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act action completed
1998
EPA issued ESD for SSTOU
August 31, 1998
B-l
-------
l'.\on(
Diilo
United States issued Consent Decree for SSTOU, which provided for implementation of
the 1996 SSTOU ROD as modified by 1998 ESD
November 13, 1998
Railroad beds time-critical removal action addressing contaminated soil on railroad beds
and rail yards throughout Butte hills began
1999
Montana Resources temporarily ceased mining in Butte; Horseshoe Bend water started
flowing into the Berkeley Pit, triggering planning and construction of the Horseshoe
Bend water treatment plant
2000
EPA issued first FYR, with emphasis on Warm Springs Ponds OUs
March 23, 2000
Walkerville residential removal action
2000-2001
United States issued Consent Decree for Rocker OU
November 7, 2000
EPA issued ESD for BMFOU
March 2002
United States issued Consent Decree for BMFOU
August 14, 2002
Settling Defendants began construction of Horseshoe Bend water treatment plant
2002-2003
Montana Resources resumed mining; Horseshoe Bend water treatment plant started
operating; treated Horseshoe Bend water recycled and used in mine operations
2003
Montana Resources resumed pumping Berkeley Pit water to the precipitation plant for
copper extraction
2004
Railroad beds time-critical removal action at BPSOU completed
2004
EPA issued second FYR, with emphasis on Warm Springs Ponds OUs
September 30, 2005
PRP completed RI/FS for BPSOU
EPA issued ROD for BPSOU
September 21, 2006
Horseshoe Bend water treatment plant performance test conducted
November 2007
Residential Metals Abatement Program approved
March 2010
EPA issued third FYR
June 27, 2011
EPA issued ESD for BPSOU
July 18,2011
EPA issued Unilateral Administrative Order for remedy implementation at BPSOU
July 21,2011
2010 Groundwater Data Analysis Report completed
February 2012
EPA issued revised Community Involvement Plan for BPSOU
February 2013
EPA issued BPSOU Public Health Study Phase 1 Report
July 2014
EPA issued ESD for Rocker OU
September 30, 2014
Montana Resources completed the Final BMFOU Berkeley Pit Slope Stability
Evaluation
October 22, 2015
MDEQ submitted SSTOU Site Inspection and Monitoring and Maintenance Plan and
Preliminary Close Out Report (PCOR)
June 2016
EPA issued fourth FYR
August 30, 2016
PRP submitted 2016 Five-Year Dam Safety Inspection Report for Warm Springs Ponds
OUs
December 9, 2016
PRP submitted draft Rocker OU7 conceptual site model
June 9, 2017
EPA issued FYR Addendum for Rocker OU7
July 18,2018
PRP submitted Warm Springs Ponds Lime Rate Optimization Pilot Study Interim Report
October 8, 2019
Montana Resources completed the RAAR
November 22, 2019
EPA issued BPSOU ROD Amendment
February 4, 2020
BSB issued Phase 2 RMAP Medical Monitoring Study
March 4, 2020
Montana Resources completed the Final 2020 Berkeley Pit Waterfowl Protection Plan
March 18, 2020
United States issued Consent Decree for BPSOU
May 22, 2020
MDEQ submitted SSTOU PCOR Addendum
May 2020
Montana Resources completed Final Updated PWL Predictive Model
July 30, 2020
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C - SITE MAPS
Figure C-l: Site Vicinity Map
'Spokane'
Silver Bow—
Creek/Butte
Area Superfund
——> Site
9M rrn
Billings'
Helen
¦@^31
[Sily'erjBom
•Sri—'¦'»
15
30
60
I Miles
Sources: Esri. U.S. Census Bureau 2019 TIGER/Line
Geodatabases, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, EPA,
DigitalGiobe, GeoEye. Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, the GIS User
Community, the 2016 FYR, the 2019 Draft BPFOU RAAR
Technical Memorandum and the 2020 AROD.
Legend
~ Approximate Site Boundary
Skeo
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site
City of Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.
c-i
-------
Figure C-2: BMFOU Potentiometric Map for East Camp Alluvial Aquifer12
LP-07
5519 V
*L P-09'
v 5474
f LP 12^
5460
AMG-06
.5458^
VBMF05bi i
' -54.58 S vX
AMC-12.
BMP, 05-4
5467
AMC -15
5467-"
i, BMF05-3
5464 v
j:
gtp'aBcawii^ti
Sir
Alluvial Aquifer
Potentionmetric Surface
Legend
Monitoring sites
East Camp - Alluvial
5423 - Dec 2018 water level elevation
IVflRMG
Figure 2-13. Alluvial aquifer potentiometric map lor December 2018 (contour interval is 20 11).
12 BMFOU Water-Level Monitoring and Water-Quality Sampling 2018 Consent Decree Update
C-2
-------
Figure C-3: BMFOU Potentiometric Map for East Camp Bedrock Aquifer13
PILOT BtiTTE
5377 #
LEXINGTON
5372
GRANITE MOUNTAIN
5416
' ANSELMO
"V 5372
D-2
5360
D-1 i
5360.
.BELMONT WELL 2
536T 5360
5366
Butte Mine Flooding
Monitoring Well Locations
East Camp - Bedrock
Legend
Monitoring sites
East Camp - Bedrock
."I.,. East Camp - Bedrock (surface site)
1 5337 Dec 2018 water-level elevation
IVfBMG
Figure 3-15. Potentiometric map for the East Camp bedrock aquifer, December 2018 (contour interval is 10 ft).
5 BMFOU Water-Level Monitoring and Water-Quality Sampling 2018 Consent Decree Update
C-3
-------
Figure C-4: BMFOU West Camp Monitoring Sites14
Path: D:\stufNed\BMF\BMF_mapping-West_Camp_Outer_Camp_01222012.mxd
Figure 4-1. West Camp monitoring sites location map. ^ ^ ^
14 BMFOU Water-Level Monitoring and Water-Quality Sampling 2018 Consent Decree Update
C-4
-------
Figure C-5: BMFOU Outer Camp Monitoring Sites15
S-4 MARGET ANN
Butte Mine Flooding
Monitoring Well Locations
Outer Camp
Legend
Monitoring sites
^ Outer Camp
{J} Outer Camp (surface site)
Pain D: stulMe
-------
LOWER AREA ONE
Figure C-6: BPSOU 2020 ROD Amendment Surface Water Remedy Components
Figure 4
Locations of Surface Water Remedy Components
Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit
Silver Bow Creek /Butte Area Site
Figure produced by Land Design, Inc.
16 2020 BPSOU ROD Amendment
C-6
-------
Figure C-7: BPSOU 2020 ROD Amendment Additional Reclamation Areas17
NOTES
1. NO NEW BMPs ARE REQUIRED WTHIJ8 THE MONTANA STREET STORMWATER DRAINAGE AREA OR OUTFALLS/RUNOFF
FROM 1-90 TO SURFACE WATER. THESE STRUCTURES COLLECT STORMWATER FROM URBAN SOURCES AND MOT
FROM HISTORIC MINE WASTE SOURCES.
2. MAGENTA AREAS ON THIS FIGURE REPRESENT THE CORRIDOR, AS DEFINED BY THE COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION
PLAN. OTHER AREAS THAT DRAIN TO THE UNCONTROLLED SURFACE FLOW AREA BMPs AND OTHER BMP BASINS.
AS CONSTRUCTED, ARE NOT WITHIN THE CORRIDOR. THE UNCONTROLLED SURFACE FLOW AREA BMP LOCATIONS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE FINAL DESIGN AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT C, PART 9 (FURTHER REMEDIAL ELEMENTS
SCOPE OF WORK).
- BPSOU BOUNDARY
J PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION AREAS
1 ADDITIONAL RESPONSE ACTION AREAS
FIGURE
17 2020 BPSOU ROD Amendment
C-7
-------
Piwiefl
Taitnus
jij'L-n
I.Oy.ur '/w Cl'e
5MU
Cnnytn!
C-8: BPSOU Groundwater Technical Impracticability Waiver Zone1
Legend
~ i&chm&al IrrpracstcsStlltv (T •¦'/ Zone
Approxirrala Exiorrl Ol Alluvial AfiuilSf
- ¦ ¦ - - Arflrts Of Allguirsi Arjjilnr whnm Data itro Irtcmnlusivii
BPSOU Houndsr/
Figure 12-6: Alluvtal Ground Walef
Technical Impracticability Zone
Recced a! Oecisior
Bjtffr Priority Sails OpareSie UriS
(**)
Figure
18 2006 BPSOU ROD
C-8
-------
Figure C-9: BPSOU BRES Quadrants19
19 BPSOU BRES 2019 Field Evaluation of Previously Reclaimed Sites, Summary and Technical Recommendation Report
C-9
-------
APPENDIX D - PRESS NOTICES
EPA published the following notice in Butte Weekly on 9/9/2020, and 9/16/2020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
Begins Review of Cleanup Progress at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site,
Silver Bow and Deer Lodge, MT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun the fifth Five-Year Review of the cleanup progress at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
Superfund Site in Butte. Montana.
Background
The boundary of the site begins above Butte, near the Continental Divide, includes Berkeley Pit and the interconnected mine workings and the Warm
Springs Ponds (a treatment area), and extends westward along Silver Bow Creek. Hie site covers about 26 miles of stream and streamside habitat. EPA is
overseeing the cleanup for most areas of the site, in consultation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). DEQ is (he lead
implementing agency for Streamside Tailings area (main portion of Silver Bow ('reek). Cleanup actions so far have included the removal of mining
waste, treatment of arsenic contaminated soils, amendment and capping of mine waste, residential yard cleanups mainly for lead, storm water controls,
groundwater controls, capture and treatment, surface water controls (such as basins, treatment plants and treatment systems), excavation of mine waste
along the banks of Silver Bow Creek, and the reconstruction of Silver Bow Creek. The huge source areas within (he site that have posed the greatest
threats to human health and the environment have been removed and/or remediated.
The Five-Year Review Process
The purpose of the Five-Year Review is to evaluate how ongoing cleanup actions are w orking at the site and to measure the progress towards achieving
cleanup objectives. EPA uses the Five-Year Review to ensure that cleanup actions are protecting people's health and the environment. Specifically, EPA
looks at any changes in scientific knowledge about site contaminants and exposure pathways, the status and effectiveness of legal documents regarding
property restrictions, and changes in regulatory standards. EPA expects to finalize the fifth Five-Year Review, which will describe the findings and
recommendations for follow-up actions, by March 2021.
Wc Want to Hear from You
As pctri of the Five-Year Review process at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site. EPA will interview community members and stakeholders
who have concerns, questions, or information about the site that they think liPA should consider. If you would like to participate in at) interview, please
contact EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Dana Bamicoat by September 30, 2020.
Contact
Daiia Bamicoat, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator, (406) 457-5007. Barnieoat .dana/tf epa,gov
For more information, please visit the EPA website at www.epa.gov/superfiind/silver-bow-butte or the site's information repositories:
The Citizens' Technical Environmental Montana l ech Library
Committee (CTEQ 1300 West Park Street
27 West Park Streel Butte. Montana 59701
Butte. Montana 59701 (406) 496-4281
(406) 723-6247
Bultectee.org
D-l
-------
The following are the ads posted in the Montana Standard, published on 9/2/2020, 9/9/2020, and
9/16/2020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
Begins Review of'C'leanup Progress al (lie Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site,
Silver Bow and Deer Lodge, MT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun the fifth Five-Year Review of the cleanup progress at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
Superfund Site in Butte, Montana.
Background
The boundary of the site begins above Butte, near the Continental Divide, includes Berkeley Pit and the interconnected mine workings and the Warm
Springs Ponds I a treatment area), and extends westward along Silver Bow Creek. The site covers about 26 miles of stream and streamside habitat. EPA is
overseeing the cleanup for most areas of the site, in consultation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). DEQ is the lead
implementing agency for Streamside Tailings area i main portion of Silver Bow Creek). Cleanup actions so far have included the removal of mining
waste, treatment of arsenic contaminated soils, amendment and capping of mine waste, residential yard cleanups mainly for lead, stormwater controls,
groundwater controls, capture and treatment, surface water controls t such as basins, treatment plants and treatment systems h excavation of mine waste
along the banks of Silver Bow Creek, and the reconstruction of Silver Bow Creek. The large source areas within the site that have posed the greatest
threats to human health and the environment have been removed and/or remediated.
I hi* I'ive-Ycar Rt'\u'v\ Process
The purpose of the Five-Year Review is to evaluate how ongoing cleanup actions are working at the site and to measure the progress towards achieving
cleanup objectives. EPA uses the Five-Year Review to ensure that cleanup actions are protecting people's health and the environment Specifically, EPA
looks at any changes in scientific knowledge about site contaminants and exposure pathwavs, the status and effectiveness of legal documents regarding
property restrictions, and changes in regulatory standards. EPA expects to finalize the fifth Five-Year Review, which will describe the findings and
recommendations for follow-up actions, by March 2021.
We Want to Hear' from You
As part of the Five-Year Review process at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA will interview community members and stakeholders
who have concerns, questions, or information about the site that they think EPA should consider. If you would like to participate in an interview, please
contact EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Dana Bamicoat by September 30,2020.
Contact
Dana Bamicoat, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator, (406) 457 -5007, Bamicoat.daaa@epa.gov
For more information, please visit the EPA website atwww,epa.gov/superfitnd/sUver-bow-butte or the site's information repositories:
The Citizens' Technical Environmental Committee (CTEC) Montana Tvi'h Library
2" West Park Street 1300 West Park Street
Butte, Montana 59701 Butte, Montana 59701
(400) "23-024" *40t»4%-4281
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E - COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
The FYR process included interviews with parties affected by the Site, including community members, the
current landowners and regulatory agencies involved in or affected by site activities. The purpose was to
document the perceived status of the Site and any perceived problems or successes with the phases of the
remedy implemented to date. During the FYR process, 22 people participated in an interview by phone
or provided written comments. All issues raised were considered, reviewed and incorporated as appropriate
into evaluations during this FYR. The interviews are summarized here and discussed as appropriate in the
technical assessments for each individual OU sections.
Public Officials and Community Groups
Clark Fork Coalition - Alex Leone:
Mr. Leone is a member of the Clark Fork Coalition, a community organization. Mr. Leone said there is a lack
of transparency in communicating with the community about what is happening with the BMFOU, and the
taking of water from Silver Lake. He hopes that the release of this FYR Report will spur action at Warm
Springs Ponds, moving from an interim ROD to a final ROD. Mr. Leone stated that the SSTOU cleanup is a
huge success story. His greatest concerns are about Warm Springs Ponds filling with sediment, and
issues related to the French drain that catches contamination. Mr. Leone believes that part of the problem with
communication with the public is that the cleanup process is hard to explain without using complex
terminology. He suggested that more signage with direct wording and warnings about contamination in the
fish at Warm Springs Ponds would be helpful. Mr. Leone also stated that it seemed odd to him that the lead
standards are different for Butte and Anaconda, and that the standards seem arbitrary.
CTEC - Joe Griffin:
Mr. Griffin is a vice president at CTEC, a technical advisor to the Clark Fork education program and on the
technical advisory board of the Clark Fork Coalition. Mr. Griffin stated that his main concern is that the EPA
is not looking holistically across the whole Clark Fork watershed, or at the broader picture. He said that
newspaper, radio and TV are important resources for informing the public, and that most people want to
know only about major site milestones rather than receiving information all the time. He believes that the
Residential Metals Abatement Program (RMAP) is a national example. However, he has heard that
the community has concerns about the action levels. Mr. Griffin said that another community concern
is about renters and the options available for people with landlords who do not want to use the program. He
said that, at Warm Springs Ponds, the arsenic level is high because it gets stored in the sediments and
then is released in the spring and summer. Mr. Griffin noted that while the Superfund program only
addresses issues related to metals, temperature, habitats, water flow and nutrients in the ponds must also be
considered. He said that even though the EPA is dealing only with the metals, water flow and nutrients may
have adverse effects on those other areas.
Butte-Silver Bow District 5 - County Commissioner Dan Olsen:
Mr. Olsen is the Butte-Silver Bow District 5 Commissioner. Mr. Olsen stated that the Consent Decree is a big
step in a long process. He believes that the park reuse will be a fantastic addition to the area and serve as a
long-lasting memorial for the area's history. Commissioner Olsen reported that regular media and online
updates would be helpful to share the project's status with the community. He believes that RMAP is a great
program. He also said there are people who are not aware of the program who could benefit from it. Mr.
Olsen also voiced concern that there is currently no way to force landlords to allow the cleanup of their
buildings. He stated that the EPA needs to get the word out that Butte is being cleaned up, and will eventually
be delisted from the NPL, to make the area more desirable.
E-l
-------
Trout Unlimited - Casey Hackathorn:
Mr. Hackathorn is a member of the community organization Trout Unlimited. He stated that the
SSTOU seems to be the furthest along, and that its cleanup has been a significant transformation and a great
story. He believes that it is important to figure out how to treat and manage stormwater as it comes out of the
BMFOU and address its downstream impacts on the ecology. Mr. Hackathorn stated that very
few community members understand who decides how water quality is being managed at Butte Mine
Flooding. He would like to see community forums address that. He believes that it would be good to reinstate
the annual tours that took place at Warm Springs Ponds and to have similar opportunities to visit the
BPSOU. Mr. Hackathorn's biggest concern is that the action levels for Butte and Anaconda are different. It is
hard to explain why that is the case, from a community health standpoint.
Restore Our Creek Coalition - Richard Tretheway:
The Restore Our Creek Coalition is a community organization. Its greatest concern is the fact that much of
the cleanup requires perpetual treatment. Mr. Tretheway stated that because there is contamination capped on
site that requires regular monitoring and ongoing treatment, the potential for problems will remain in the
future. He stated that the organization has witnessed a major improvement in communication between their
group, the community and the EPA overtime. The organization's concerns about residents in the Silver Bow
Creek Corridor entail both environmental justice concerns associated with proposed remedial systems in the
corridor and the potential for transient exposures during and after subsurface disturbances. He stated that the
organization's focus is on the first mile of Silver Bow Creek between Texas Avenue and the creek's
confluence with Black Tail Creek. The Restore Our Creek Coalition believes that the Site must be remediated
at the source in a comprehensive way to protect the future and that the first mile of Silver Bow Creek must be
fixed.
GoBirdMontana - Gary Swant:
Gary Swant is the founder of the community organization GoBirdMontana. Mr. Swant conducts bird surveys
and does consulting work through his company. Mr. Swant's greatest concern about the Site is the final
disposition of Warm Springs Ponds. He stated that the area is a significant fall and spring migration staging
area for birds, and that the area has become so important that capping or draining the ponds would do
significant damage to current migratory paths. Mr. Swant does not think that the general public
understands much about the nuances of the Site, despite efforts to inform them through articles and public
information resources. He believes that some people may not understand the difference between reclamation
and restoration regarding the Site. Mr. Swant stated that Warm Springs Ponds could be classified as an
Important Bird Area vital to the migration of many waterfowl species.
Citizen- Fritz Daily:
Fritz Daily expressed his discontentment involving the cleanup and restoration of the area from Texas
Avenue to Montana Street on Silver Bow Creek. He stated that Judge Brad Newman's decision in the Silver
Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition Lawsuit ruled that Silver Bow Creek from Texas Avenue to Montana Street
is a Creek and "Waters of the State of Montana," protected as such in the Montana Constitution. He
questioned why the State of Montana and the Butte-Silver Bow local government hasn't acted in accordance
with this ruling.
Mr. Daily stated that a quality Silver Bow Creek needs to be re-created to flow through the middle of the
town, where the citizens can play, fish, and enjoy the amenities of a restoration. He believes that Butte and
the Clark Fork River Basin are entitled to a quality cleanup and restoration under Superfund/state law and the
Montana constitution as well. Mr. Daily strongly believes that the EPA has failed Butte Montana with their
Superfund decisions and have not properly protected the health and environment of the community. Mr. Daily
further stated that the EPA, the state, and the local government only conduct public hearings and request
public input to satisfy the legal requirements.
E-2
-------
Mr. Daily believes that there needs to be a comprehensive plan that includes a financial commitment
addressing total cleanup and restoration, total removal of all tailings, creating a quality creek flow ing through
the town, addressing the inefficient French drain, and using the Restore Our Creek Vision Statement as guide
to complete the cleanup and restoration.
MDEQ. MT Department of Justice and PRP Representatives
MDEQ Project Officers- Daryl Reed and Joel Chavez:
Daryl Reed is the project officer for the BMFOU, the WSPOUs, the Rocker OU, the West Side Soils
Operable Unit and the BPSOU. Joel Chavez is the project officer for the SSTOU. They stated that the
SSTOU cleanup was successful and has been properly maintained and that the establishment of a recreation
corridor/trail is a successful reuse at the Site. Their concern regarding the BMFOU is that the Remedial
Action Adequacy Review (RAAR) does not address the long-term integration of the components needed to
maintain the BMFOU remedy, which will likely require use of a large equalization basin such as the Yankee
Doodle Tailings Impoundment or the Continental Pit between the Horseshoe Bend water treatment plant
(HsBWTP) and the Polishing Plant. Regarding the WSPOU, they are concerned about the challenge of
completing a robust remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) based on existing conditions and
evaluating the options for the long-term disposition of buried tailings in the ponds in the near future. Their
concern at the Rocker OU involves the amount of time needed to complete the administrative process to
amend the Record of Decision (ROD) and the Consent Decree. Regarding the BPSOU, they are concerned
about whether the EPA will continue to provide the level of oversight needed to ensure the success of
remedial design and remedial action implementation. They also voiced concern about whether the EPA has
sufficient funding to implement the remedies for the abandoned sites at the West Side Soils Operable Unit.
They stated that the Butte Mine Waste Repository location has many benefits, including its proximity to
projects for truck hauls yet also not located near any residential developments, as well as the fact that
stormwater and groundwater drain to the nearby Berkeley Pit.
Regarding RMAP, they voiced concerns about renters having difficulties getting property assessments if their
landlords/property owners refuse to sign access agreements. They are hopeful that this issue will be
adequately addressed in the revised RMAP, which may require EPA intervention.
Montana Dept of Justice, Natural Resource Damage Program - Brian Bartkowiak:
Mr. Bartkowiak works for the Natural Resource Damage Program in the Montana Department of Justice. He
stated that The Natural Resource Damage Program is concerned that a complete feasibility study of all
potential options will not be performed as part of the final decision on WSP, including both OU 4 and OU
12. He believes that much more outreach needs to be performed to inform the community of what Warm
Spring Ponds are and what benefits and potential impacts they have on the Upper Clark Fork River. Mr.
Bartkowiak said that a large limiting factor in the success of remedy and restoration in the Upper Clark Fork
Basin is the availability of cold, clean water and that current and future cleanup should focus on maximizing
the amount of this kind of water in the upper Clark Fork.
Atlantic Richfield (site PRP) BPSOU Representative- Loren Burmeister:
Mr. Burmeister works for Atlantic Richfield. He stated that the BPSOU cleanup is confounded by the fact it
is in the middle of a neighborhood, and the cleanup has to take that into account, which leads to unique
remedies. Mr. Burmeister believes that Butte has unfortunately been defined by its Superfund status, and that
its Superfund status has stifled growth in the area and deterred people from moving there. He believes,
however, that the Consent Decree will be an asset to the community and an opportunity to capitalize on future
economic growth. Mr. Burmeister stated that the Berkeley Pit may offer other opportunities in the future for
reuse or continued use. He said that Atlantic Richfield has a broad and diverse team of technical experts, as
E-3
-------
well as EPA technical consultants, and that, together, they have a wide range of expertise available to make
the best decisions for public health and the environment. Mr. Burmeister stated that the caps at the Site are in
good condition and well maintained and that they have improved the appearance and quality of health in
Butte. He believes that the largest challenge with RMAP is with the renting community as some landlords are
not interested in participating in the program. He also believes that the Butte Repository is in a prime
location where it cannot affect groundwater, and any runoff goes into the Berkeley Pit and will eventually get
treated.
Atlantic Richfield WSPOURepresentative- Dave Griffis:
Mr. Griffis also works for Atlantic Richfield. He stated that the WSPOU is a popular and valuable public
recreation area (fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, bike riding), and an award-winning habitat area for
wildlife. Mr. Griffis reported that some perceived negative effects include the presence of high-hazard dams
(classified as such in accordance with State of Montana Dam Safety Regulation definitions) and
residents' limited awareness and acceptance of contamination and the risks associated with a Superfund
facility in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin. He stated that the Site is well monitored on a daily basis and
well maintained by a professional team. Mr. Griffis reported that ensuring the safety of personnel and the
public are an important part of the day-to-day operations. He believes that changes to the WSPOU could
significantly change recreation resources and wildlife habitat value that has been established and improved
over the 100+-year life of the Site's remedy. Regarding the Butte Repository, Mr. Griffis believes that its
location minimizes exposure and risk to the community, and other potential receptors, and also minimizes the
potential for migration of materials away from the Site.
Montana Resources Representative - Mark Thompson
Mr. Thompson works for Montana Resources. He stated that there is a divergence from the community
perception about BMFOU versus how it is actually being managed. He believes that in actuality, the work to
date is well past what is required, and the success is a demonstration of responsible management of the site by
those involved. He said that there was good foresight and getting started early on the work was critical. Mr.
Thompson thinks that the pit is overall perceived as an unmanaged issue and that it is a shortcoming on all
parties involved by not stating clearly how it is well monitored and managed. He believes that the remedy at
BMFOU can be implemented effectively, and his biggest concern is on getting that message out to the
community. Mr. Thompson thinks that community members are getting information differently, and that they
need to move toward social media to be more effective. He also stated that the Consent Decree was very
responsible from all parties involved and is pleased with how the project has progressed.
General Community Interview Themes
In terms of community transparency and overall communication of site information, the general sense was
that things have improved dramatically in the last five years. There were several opportunities for improving
community involvement and information dissemination that were offered. Some key points included:
• Additional communication and transparency about the water treatment taking place at BMFOU is
desired. There are efforts underway by the EPA and PRPs to update PitWatch and ensure that
information is made available to the community.
• The information about the site and specific OUs is very complicated and complex to explain and
read through. The EPA website can be challenging to navigate and find what you are looking for.
Specific requests and suggestions included:
o There should be more plain language used for the public.
o CTEC has someone to distill down information, but that still may not be enough to
be helpful for the public. Many of the folks involved with CTEC are retired
E-4
-------
engineers and scientists and there is still difficulty for the average community
member in understanding the material,
o There needs to be follow-up and feedback from the community to the EPA to ensure
there is adequate comprehension on the part of the community and adequate
opportunity to influence outcomes,
o Atlantic Richfield is working to have more transparency and information during the
upcoming work on BPSOU. Specifically, they are planning to share more
information regarding traffic and public plans during remediation. The Atlantic
Richfield website is being used to try to have more publicly available information
and links to helpful places,
o Community members suggested that creating a website with calendars of scheduled
activities and utilizing social media would be beneficial,
o Becoming more active in engaging with the media.
o Creating a user-friendly, public clearinghouse of information would be helpful, such
as a website with an interactive map showing all the areas that have been cleaned up.
o Need to get the word out as the project proceeds that "Butte is cleaning up its
Superfund sites so they can be delisted. Butte can be considered a 'clean' place to live
and work."
Some OU-specific feedback from various stakeholders resulted in the following OU specific themes.
Warm Springs Ponds OU:
• Many believe that WSPOU provides great recreational opportunity to the public, and that the
parks are very useful in addition to serving as a critical bird area.
• The annual tours at Warm Springs Ponds were helpful. Some suggest they should be reinstituted,
and maybe used at BMFOU too.
• Warm Springs Ponds still being under the IROD is a point of concern. People want to see long
term plans and to make it a priority right now. The lack of information about the progress is
concerning for many. The lack of current action was also mentioned as a concern, along with it
not being a sufficient or complete remedial action.
• The ponds have become such an important bird area that it would be doing significant damage to
the current migratory paths if they were capped or drained.
• There were mixed responses related to the fishing regulations:
o Most people felt that everyone who fishes there is aware of the regulations. Many
mentioned the booklets of information received when obtaining your fishing license
and signage at the site that states the regulations,
o Many were concerned that visitors and tourists, mainly in the springtime, might not
be knowledgeable about Superfund or the fishing regulations. There were also mixed
opinions about the reason for catch and release, and whether it was about the
wellbeing of the fish population, or about the safety of eating the fish,
o It was mentioned that some tourists are unwilling to listen to the rules. Some people
do not see the signs, and more signage would help with more direct wording and
explanations about why the regulations exist,
o It was also mentioned that the regulations are very complicated to understand. They
could be more uniform and have better explanations of the management goals.
E-5
-------
West Side Soils OU:
A noted concern is that if soils are present and not cleaned up, restoration dollars will be
unavailable.
Stream Side Tailings OU:
BMFOU:
BPSOU:
Many are very happy with how SSTOU has been remedied and are also happy about the consent
decree. It is believed to be a model remediation and has been an area of significant
transformation.
Some questioned what the roles are going to be moving forward, towards completion- Is Deer
Lodge county taking over?
There is a lack of communication/transparency about the water treatment taking place at
BMFOU. Many would like to know more about the treatment and what exactly is taking place.
Some questioned how water is managed coming out of BMFOU and its downstream impacts on
the ecology. Also mentioned that very few folks understand who gets to make decisions at
BMFOU and how water quality is being managed and would like to see community forums
addressing those things.
Work done to date on the Butte Hill has vastly improved quality of life for Butte's citizens and
has improved people's health and livelihoods.
The open spaces created by the cleanup in uptown Butte, such as Foreman Park, are wonderful.
There are concerns about long-term maintenance and monitoring. Specifically concerns that
remedy areas will need ongoing maintenance and monitoring for hundreds of years.
Many are very encouraged by the consent decree for BPSOU and are excited to see what comes
of it.
A community member indicated that the Site is a positive example of site reuse, and the consent
decree will only add to that, regarding residential developments and businesses.
Blood Lead Levels:
o Those who were aware noted that the blood lead levels in children, and others, have
come down substantially,
o Some noted the difference in standards/action levels between Butte and Anaconda. It
is hard to explain from a community health standpoint. It is odd that the standards are
different, and the standards that are in place seem arbitrary.
Concerns:
RMAP:
Was mentioned that the schedule endorsed by EPA officials for the delisting of
BPSOU in/beginning in 2024 is unrealistic.
Remedy for BPSOU is located in the heart of butte and surrounded by urban areas,
will involve interaction with the public, and will pose a risk and other issues.
There needs to be an air monitoring system for the Butte Repository on Butte hill.
Those who were familiar felt that RMAP is a major accomplishment in terms of
environmental justice. It is a national model of a successful program to address lead
E-6
-------
and arsenic. There has been excellent outreach to the community. The RMAP staff
are professional, competent and effective,
o Seven responders indicated that they had participated or knew people/family
members who participated in the program,
o Comments specific to outreach options and expansion of the program:
¦ Concern about if it has enough staff and equipment when it gets expanded and
to acquaint new folks with the program.
¦ Many are concerned that renters are not included in the RMAP program. It is
only available to owners as it currently stands. Touching base again with the
landlords association would be good, as well as a periodic re-promotion of the
program. Some landowners don't know, and as they change, they may need
another reminder. There is also no means for another entity to come in and
assess/remediate, like Atlantic Richfield or the EPA, if the landlord isn't
interested in participating in the program.
¦ May not be using the right media to reach out to residents. Mailers are good, but
social media, billboards, possibly other formats, should be added.
¦ Door to door survey of the community about the program could be helpful.
• Repository:
o All interviewees who answered said they don't mind where it is located, and the
current location is seemingly the best place for it to stay. It limits the negative
effects/exposure in the area. It isn't infringing on anyone and seems safe and
adequate.
• Restoration of Silver Bow Creek:
o ROCC reiterated their desire for the first mile of the creek to be restored.
Rocker OU had no OU specific themes.
Finally, there were several respondents who indicated the EPA needs to view the site as a whole watershed,
instead of in separate pieces. This includes considering the interactions between the Silver Bow/Butte Area,
Anaconda Co. Smelter, and Milltown Reservoir Sediments/Clark Fork River Superfund Sites. Some
suggested that the EPA should have developed a comprehensive plan from the beginning that coordinated all
of the seven operable units and a way to explain how the OUs were tied together or an end vision for Butte.
Similar frustration was had about the fact that the OUs cannot be disentangled and divided up by geography
rather than grouping them all together.
E-7
-------
Silver How ('rcck/liiillc Area SI PI UITM)
sin: i ivi:-yi:au ukviiw imt.uviiw
I'OK.M
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name: Treat Suomi
Interviewer affiliation: Skeo
Subject name: Loren Burmeister
Subject affiliation: Atlantic Richfield
Company
Subject contact information: Loren.Burmeister@bp.com
Interview date: 9/30/2020
Interview time: 2:00 pm
Interview location: Phone
Interview format (Select):
Interview category (Select):
Phone
Community Organization
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions.
We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will
not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte,
Montana. The site follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County
north to Warm Springs in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units.
Work focuses on arsenic and metals contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination
is widespread in soils, mine tailings, interior dust, surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would
like to discuss during this interview?
I live in butte, on the southeastern edge of butte. I am intimately familiar with all of the OUs and can
answer questions on all of them.
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and
their effects on the community?
I am aware of the 100+ years of spreading contamination and around butte. Mining materials were
washed downstream, and it resulted in contamination in the silver bow creek and the creation of the
E-8
-------
Warm Springs Ponds. 17 smelters spread contamination in Butte, and it is being addressed through
the RMAP program.
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance
and reuse activities?
Butte cleanup is confounded by the fact it is in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and
the cleanup has to take that into account. It leads to unique remedies, for example the
groundwater beneath public areas had a controlled groundwater area put in place to collect
and treat the water that is underneath Butte. A removal might have been a more permanent
solution, but because there are homes and business, removal wasn't an option.
Contamination exists on residences and on public properties. The whole City of Butte is
considered and perceived as "dirty. "Butte has unfortunately been defined by its Superfund
status. It has stifled growth in the area and deterred people from moving there. Because of
the consent decree, a large remedy has been agreed to that will make the remedial
component an asset to the community and an opportunity for them to capitalize on future
economic growth. Berkeley Pit may have other opportunities in the future for reuse or
continued use. Reuse can be supplemented with the remedies and can be an economic
booster.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
The remedy that we have to implement specifically in BP SOU is located in the heart of Butte
and surrounded by urban areas and will involve interaction with the public and will pose a
risk and other issues. I'm not concerned that we can't manage it appropriately but will need to
be cognizant of getting the work done effectively and keeping people safe. We will implement
detailed traffic and site control plans they will submit to EPA for approval to make sure they
are protecting the public and community engagement plans. BSB, MDEQ and EPA will be
working with us.
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best
ways to keep the community informed about activities at the site?
From a citizen standpoint, there are a number of websites available that outline what has
been done and what will be done, and future plans from EPA, Atlantic Richfield, and BSB.
They take highly technical information and consolidate it down to be readable on the Atlantic
Richfieldwebsite. It obviously doesn't reach everyone, but it gives a good avenue for the
public to be informed. We've held a number ofpublic engagement forums where we tell them
what we are doing and seek their input. We advertise those meetings and have them in
comfortable settings and try to get a range of people and give them an opportunity to be
heard. The media is reached out to occasionally and vice versa. We need to become more
active in engaging with the media to ensure getting the information out. The best way for the
public to get their thoughts out is through CTEC, and they help them distill technical
information down and present it back to the public.
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel that you
have been kept adequately informed?
As a citizen, generally I think the opportunities are there to be informed, but they haven't been
well advertised. The EPA site has a lot of useful information, but the website is hard to navigate.
Sharing with the public is a challenge, as it is here, but it's not easily or intuitively accessible.
AR's website has links to helpful places like EPA Region 8 to help get the information out.
E-9
-------
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues
in your community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority
Soils operable unit, where a Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is
in place?
Atlantic Richfield has a broad and diverse team of technical experts that are fully utilized to
ensure they are selecting the best technologies. EPA has technical consultants that are well
positioned to perform analysis. Between the two parties they have a wide range of expertise
available to make the best decisions for public health and the environment. The third piece,
CTEC, hired a tech expert to weigh in on components. Montana resources as well and the three
of them share information on BMFOU and BP SOU to ensure the protective remedy in place has
the most accurate and up-to-date data. The cleanups across Butte Hill are extensive, over 600
acres of the mine dump that have been capped and revegetated. Some were made into parks, and
some were more limited in public access. The caps are good and well maintained. They have
improved the appearance and quality of health in Butte. Also engaged with a Montana tech
ecology expert to have a biodiverse set of plant species/native species in the reclamation.
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management
area in the Warm Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to
catch-and- release only. Are most people aware of the fishing regulations?
Yes, anyone who fishes out there is very aware. As a fisherman it is our responsibility to check the
regulations. FWP provides booklets of information and at Warm Springs Ponds there is signage
at the site that states the regulations. A lot ofpeople may not realize it is a public access area for
fishing/recreation.
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit, including capped and vegetated
mine waste, are routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or
exposed vegetation based on the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES). Are you aware of
any events, incidents or activities at the reclaimed areas, such as vandalism, trespassing or
emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please tell us about them.
Trespassing is fairly common on the sites. A lot of encroachment from neighbors with vehicles,
and private property migrating onto the site. Atlantic Richfield has a process for this, where
vehicles get tagged and removed if they are left there long enough. Property damage happens
commonly in the summer, and occasionally lit on fire from fireworks. BSB Fire Department tries
to mitigate, but it does happen, though it hasn Y caused any problems because the cap is thick,
and vegetation grows back quickly. We '11 continue to manage vandalism and trespassing, but it
hasn Y caused any risks to the environment or human health.
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is your
greatest concern about the status of the program?
Yes, Pm aware and have utilized it at a previous residence in the attic, it was contaminated, and
they remediated the lead and arsenic and re-insulated it. The metal monitoring program has
shown lower blood lead levels and shows that the program is effective.
11. Have you or your family members participated in the RMAP program?
Yes, I did, no one else.
E-10
-------
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable
doing so.
Own.
13. How do you feel about the level of outreach to the affected residences and businesses, regarding
RMAP?
I know that the RMAP does extensive advertising because they have metrics that they need to
meet. It is sometimes a challenge to find people to voluntarily participate in the program. If
someone isn't aware of the program, they should be.
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential
Metals Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk
with to learn more about these stakeholders' concerns?
I think the largest challenge with RMAP is with the renting community. For many rental
properties around Butte, the landlord isn 't interested in participating in the program. That is
not fair the renter. There is also not really a means for another entity to come in and
assess/remediate like Atlantic Richfield or EPA. EPA needs to use their authority to ensure
health by insisting that something be performed by the landlord to make sure the tenets are
safe.
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on
Butte Hill)?
No, the repository is positioned in a prime location. It can't affect groundwater because it is so
high up. Any runoff goes into the Berkeley pit and will eventually get treated. It is fenced and
there is limited potential to harm human health. It sits far from residential area and is in a
prime location for waste disposal.
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or stormwater
permit violations?
BSB Superfund Department
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
Josh Bryson, Joe Griffin, Michelle Shay
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
No
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in
your official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are
representing an organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your
responses to this questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes
E-ll
-------
Silver liow ('rcck/liiillc Area SI PI.UI IM)
sin: hvi:-yi:au kkvikw imkrmkw
l-'OU.M
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name: Dana Barnicoat
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
Subject name: Joe Griffin
Subject affiliation: Community Member
Subject contact information: jgriffin.redmountain@gmail.com
Interview date: 10/2/2020
Interview time: 11 am
Interview location: Phone
Interview format (Select): Phone
Interview category (Select): Community Organization
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions.
We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will
not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte, Montana.
The site follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County north to Warm
Springs in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units. Work focuses on
arsenic and metals contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination is widespread in
soils, mine tailings, interior dust, surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would
like to discuss during this interview?
I live in the lower west side of Butte, in BPSOU. I'm familiar with all of them, BPSOU, mine flooding,
WSP, and SSTOU mainly.
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and
their effects on the community?
E-12
-------
I don't know so much about the human health side, as a hydro geologist. Personally, I think this is a
healthy place to live.
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance
and reuse activities?
It's all in progress, and the parts are all coming together. I used to work at firm that monitored
the mines. I've seen how it's progressed over time. There was trial and error progress by
releasing water into the creek. It's taken 47years because the science and technology takes a
long time to put everything together, but it has been building the blocks for a really good remedy.
It wouldn't have mattered whether the consent decree was signed or not, the EPA stated what
work needed to be done.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
I am interested in seeing these storm water ponds built and how well they work and where we
end up going with that. How well they work depends on optimizing their operation. My main
concern is that we need to look at this as a holistic think across the whole Clark fork watershed.
When can we start to look at balancing that? The USGS has somewhat done that in their annual
meetings. They mostly talk about Clark fork but have moved on to Silver Bow Creek in those
discussions.
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best ways to
keep the community informed about activities at the site?
Through my contacts with EPA, USGS, contractors, Atlantic Richfield etc. I am an active
member of CTEC since the 90s. As part of CTEC, we are invited to technical meetings and that
ensures me this is going in the right direction. For me being a scientist, I can get the water
quality data from USGS, from Atlantic Richfield through their new data portal, and I can call
MDEQ and get their data about once a year. It is all readily available data. Allie also got me
data I wanted from Atlantaic Richfield. I've talked to ROCC and they still have some problems
with creek, but the rest of community is on board with a park rather than restoring the creek.
Certain people have an agenda, and some want it done the right way.
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel that you have
been kept adequately informed?
It hasn't been as good as it is now. It has been improving. It was hard for people to understand that
negotiations are something always done in private. The technical side was being presented, but it is
hard for the public to get that. The meetings are good, but I am not sure how helpful the fact sheets
are. The newspaper, radio, and TV are important, but most people don't want constant information
on this, just milestone moments. Yes, I inform myself.
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues in
your community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority Soils
operable unit, where a Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is in place?
E-13
-------
CTEC, the county health department and Karen Sullivan. What is really hard for the community to
understand is that the Superfund site isn't going to cure all your ill's. We have an active mine and
there is dust coming off that mine. Julia Crain and Eric Hassler are good. Atlantic Richfield too but
folks trust them less than EPA.
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management area in
the Warm Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to catch-and-
release only. Are most people aware of the fishing regulations?
I am aware and I am interested in the fish in the Clark fork. I think five years ago or so FWP decided
they better establish fish regulations on SSTOU. They did studies and although it is catch and
release, they don't want to further stress an already stressed fish population. It largely goes beyond
metals, and I personally urge NRD to look into nutrient and temperature management. One place
NRD and remedy implementation fit together well was Milltown.
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, including capped and vegetated mine
waste, are routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or exposed
vegetation based on the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES). Are you aware of any events,
incidents or activities at the reclaimed areas, such as vandalism, trespassing or emergency responses
from local authorities? If so, please tell us about them.
I'm not aware of any.
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is your greatest
concern about the status of the program?
Yes, and the two amendments to ROD included RMAP. I think it is an example to the rest of the
county. I have participated in the last two medical monitor studies. I think we live in a safe
community. Atlantic Richfield has readily participated in the program and has been a good
partner. What I hear in community is a concern with the action levels. People want to make links
back to diseases, and I don't think it can be done. I believe in this program and I believe it is
adequate.
11. Have you or your family members participated in the RMAP program?
Yes, very happy with it. My yard is fine, and had the attic rewired and cleaned.
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable doing so.
Own.
13. How do you feel about the level of outreach to the affected residences and businesses,
regarding RMAP?
I think it is as good as it can get. Butte-Silver Bow tried all sorts of things and some people ignored
it. I'm hoping the flagged properties work and will be able to be cleaned up in the future. One
concern is for the people renting and the options available for those landlords don't want it.
E-14
-------
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential
Metals Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk
with to learn more about these stakeholders' concerns?
Not really.
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on
Butte Hill)?
No, I don't. It may not be well suited for the next phase. It's placed within the drainage of Berkeley
Pit. I have never seen dust coming off of it. It could be expanded indefinitely. But it is an issue
about where they can establish a new one, I am hopeful it can be at the mine.
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or storm water permit
violations?
Eric Hassler.
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
The owners of Finland hotel, husband and wife, Michelle shay, all of the commissioners.
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
They have largely completed rebuilding the creek. Managing stormwater is going to be the biggest
effort since the consent decree has been finalized. I believe the extent of what is practical has now
been agreed to by the CD. The ponds were meant to be left in place, and I understand why the
IROD is in place. Silver Bow c
Creek doesn 't meet standards going into the ponds, but it meets them coming out, so the ponds are
very effective. They need to think about managing the arsenic or leaving it alone and look at the
other parameters. The arsenic is really high because it gets stored in the sediments, then it gets
released in the spring/summer. They add Lyme in the winter, then the pH in the summer naturally
goes high and it approaches 10 then it starts to release arsenic. It may be time for EPA and the
state to start looking at the site as a watershed to look at broader picture.
Warm Springs Ponds is very critical because it deals with Silver Bow Creek, Anaconda, and Clark
Fork River. Superfund only covers metals issues, and I'm worried about temperature, habitat, flows,
and nutrients with the ponds. EPA is dealing only with the metals, and that may have adverse effects
on these other areas.
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in
your official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are
representing an organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your
responses to this questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Include my name, as being the VP of CTEC, technical advisor of the Clark Fork education
program, and on the technical advisory board of Clark fork coalition.
E-15
-------
Silver liow ('rcck/liiillc Area SI PI.UI IM)
sin: hvi:-yi:au kkvikw imkrmkw
l-'OU.M
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name: Treat Suomi
Interviewer affiliation: Skeo
Subject name: Casey Hackathorn
Subject affiliation: Trout Unlimited
Subject contact information: Casey.Hackathorn@tu.org
Interview date: 9/30/2020
Interview time: 1:00 pm
Interview location: Phone
Interview format (Select): Phone
Interview category (Select): Community Organization
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions.
We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will
not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte, Montana.
The site follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County north to Warm
Springs in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units. Work focuses on
arsenic and metals contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination is widespread in
soils, mine tailings, interior dust, surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would
like to discuss during this interview?
I live in Missoula and work with Trout Unlimited. I work on sites for water quality, BMFOU, BPSOU,
SSTOU, and the ponds.
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and
their effects on the community?
Broadly, just being a Superfund site impacts the psyche of the town. I am an outsider in Butte, but
E-16
-------
people are proud of the mining history. They are sad though about the negative impacts on community
health, and what the future of the town looks like includes the health of the streams.
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance
and reuse activities?
SSTOU seems to be the furthest along, it has been a significant transformation. There are still
some challenges, but a huge victory and a great story. I am encouraged by the consent decree for
BPSOU. I understand that the Mine Flooding water is starting to be treated but would like to
know more about the treatment and what is going on. Same with the Warm Springs Ponds, it has
stayed on the interim ROD for a while. But I am interested in the next steps for ponds.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
Water quality would be the biggest thing. Figuring out how to treat and manage the storm water
is a big deal. How water is managed coming out of Mine Flooding and its downstream impacts
on the ecology, too. Similarly with how the ponds are managed.
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best ways to
keep the community informed about activities at the site?
I go to a lot of meetings. Community forums from BTRC, CTEC, and meetings for roll out of the
Consent Decree. I dive into the actual documents at times. I have an engineering degree and
worked in environmental sector my whole career, and I still feel challenged working through the
documents. EPA has done a good job leading up to the consent decree and I would like to see
some of those efforts for other OUs. I have no one answer but having some presentations at
community forums for informing people that are interested. For the folks that are engaged, it
would be great to be able to speak to project managers and ask questions. There are lots of
efforts put into big decisions like Consent Decrees, but there are lots of moving parts that going
beyond those decision points, but other opportunities would be good. Very few folks understand
who gets to decide at BMFOU and how water quality is being managed, and I would like to see
community forums addressing those things.
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel that you
have been kept adequately informed?
I've been around for about a decade. It comes in waves. For the ponds, there used to be an annual
tour, and that hasn 't happened for several years as far as I know. Something similar for BMFOU
would be good too. It would be nice to have opportunities to visit BPSOU sites in progress to
communicate what is happening.
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues in
your community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority Soils
operable unit, where a Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is in place?
CTEC does a pretty good job as the TAG group in providing honest information. I have high
regard for the professionals who work for the state and for EPA and consider them credible
regardless of the frequency of communication. I haven't spent a lot of time up there. I am passively
E-17
-------
aware and have been to Robert Powell's seminars but don't have much knowledge.
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management areain
the Warm Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to catch-
and- release only. Are most people aware of the fishing regulations?
I am guessing that most of the general public is not, but most people that fish there probably do.
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, including capped and vegetated mine
waste, are routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or exposed
vegetation based on the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES). Are you aware of any events,
incidents or activities at the reclaimed areas, such as vandalism, trespassing or emergency responses
from local authorities? If so, please tell us about them.
No
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is your greatest
concern about the status of the program?
I'm only peripherally aware. I would say that my biggest concern would be that the action levels are
different between the two counties of Butte and Anaconda, and it is hard to explain from a
community health standpoint.
11. Have you or your family members participated in the RMAP program?
No
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable doing so.
Own
13. How do you feel about the level of outreach to the affected residences and businesses,
regarding RMAP?
Not really familiar
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential
Metals Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk
with to learn more about these stakeholders' concerns?
I don't know
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on
Butte Hill)?
No
E-18
-------
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or storm water permit
violations?
I would probably contact Nikia or someone at EPA.
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
No one comes to mind
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
I don't think so.
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in
your official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are
representing an organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your
responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes, I'm comfortable.
E-19
-------
Silver liow ('rcck/liiillc Area SI PI.UI IM)
sin: hvi:-yi:au kkvikw imkrmkw
l-'OU.M
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name: Dana Barnicoat
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
Subject name: Alex Leone
Subject affiliation: Clark Fork Coalition
Subject contact information: alex@clarkfork.org
Interview date: 9/29/2020
Interview time: 1:00 pm
Interview location: Phone
Interview format (Select): Phone
Interview category (Select): Community Organization
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions.
We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will
not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte, Montana.
The site follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County north to Warm
Springs in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units. Work focuses on
arsenic and metals contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination is widespread in
soils, mine tailings, interior dust, surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would
like to discuss during this interview?
I live in Anaconda, close to downtown Anaconda. Mostly the ponds, mine flooding, and stream side
tailings.
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and
their effects on the community?
Very aware, I moved to Anaconda to be closer to the issues. I put on some outreach events on Warm
Springs Ponds before Covid. There are the human health effects and the broader Superfund stigma, and
the community dogma that continues to impact these communities.
E-20
-------
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance
and reuse activities?
For BMFOU, I do feel there is a lack of transparency in communicating with the community with
what is happening and the taking of water from Silver Lake. They are taking water from YDT
and mixing with Silver Lake and there is not transparency about how much is being discharged.
There are rumors about Mitsubishi and Butte-Silver Bow. They need to be daylighting the
complicated issues related to water use and discharge and why is this dilution happening. Warm
Springs is biggest elephant in room. When Silver Bow Creek meets standards, my concern is this
will linger forever, and I hope this Five-Year Review will spur some action and begin the process
of going from interim ROD to final ROD. This is why we held these outreach efforts. I was very
heartened when Ken and Allie set up tours. We are ready and hope EPA is ready to discuss the
future of the ponds. SSTOU is a huge success story. There are some issues occurring, but the
state knows and is working on them. It would be great to know the role EPA plays there in the
long term, and I think the public would appreciate it. I was frustrated talking to Nikia and asking
about the water mixing, and felt brushed off, like that is not for the public to know. And
sometimes that is not helpful to the community. We want to know what is going on.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
The ponds filling with sediment, what the lifespan is on that, and issues with the French drain
that catches contamination out ofWSS.
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best ways to
keep the community informed about activities at the site?
By talking to Allie Archer and project managers. They're working on getting more information
out and publicly available. I currently have access to monthly reports which is helpful. EPA
doesn't seem to have the ability to keep information updated, and it feels like my organization
has more info on our website than EPA. I want to continue to partner with them. Part of the
problem with communication is that the process is hard to explain without using complex
terminology.
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel that you have
been kept adequately informed?
Communication has been great on other operable units. The best thing that I've seen with EPA
outreach is when there is a good motivated public outreach person. There is definitely a gap
compared to the Milltown superfund site. CTEC seems too complicated and technical to
communicate the basics.
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues in
your community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority Soils
operable unit, where a Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is in place?
Local newspapers, especially the Montana standard, Clark Fork Coalition, and CTEC as they do try
to be objective and not polarized. EPA RPMs as well. I don 't know enough about that OU.
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management area in
the Warm Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to catch-and-
release only. Are most people aware of the fishing regulations?
E-21
-------
I think so. I bet most of the locals are but tourists for sure won't know. I see people fishing there all
the time and mention it to the people I see. I have seen and heard of tourists unwilling to listen and
don 't know about superfund. I don't think people are even seeing the signs. More signage would help
with more direct wording and warnings of contamination in the fish.
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, including capped and vegetated mine
waste, are routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or exposed
vegetation based on the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES). Are you aware of any events,
incidents or activities at the reclaimed areas, such as vandalism, trespassing or emergency responses
from local authorities? If so, please tell us about them.
No, I don't know.
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is your greatest
concern about the status of the program?
Yes, I think it's a good program. I think it's odd the standards are different for Butte and
Anaconda; the standards that are in place seem arbitrary.
11. Have you or your family members participated in the RMAP program?
My friends in Butte have participated, and I've heard it's been received well.
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable doing so.
Rent
13. How do you feel about the level of outreach to the affected residences and businesses,
regarding RMAP?
I think it's going well. KBMF, a local radio station in Butte does a good job in getting out
information. That's how my friends and I have heard about it. It's good for people in their 20s and
30s.
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential
Metals Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk
with to learn more about these stakeholders' concerns?
I think so. Some folks close to the active mine have concerns about historic waste versus the
current waste. Ed Banderob, a Greely neighborhood activist.
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on
Butte Hill)?
I don't have enough knowledge.
E-22
-------
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or storm water permit
violations?
I would try calling Nikia.
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
Karl Hanney, Nora Saks
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
No
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in
your official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are
representing an organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your
responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes
E-23
-------
Silver liow ('rcck/liiiUc Area SI PI UI IM)
SITE MYE-YEAU UI.YIEW IYIIKVIIW
I'OK.M
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Dan Olsen
Subject affiliation: BSB Commissioner
Subject contact information:
Interview date: 10/16/2020
Interview time:
Interview location:
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select): Local Government
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions.
We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will
not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte,
Montana. The site follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County
north to Warm Springs in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units.
Work focuses on arsenic and metals contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination
is widespread in soils, mine tailings, interior dust, surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would
like to discuss during this interview?
I live in the Basin Creek area, south of town. I grew up at Phillips & Marcia and frequented the Belle
(nka Blacktail) Creek, Diggins (nka Diggings East), Copper (nka Silver Bow) Creek areas as part of
my playground.
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and
their effects on the community?
Since I'm on the CD negotiating team, I'm now fairly familiar with all of the areas. As a child I was
only warned away from "Copper Creek" due to the obvious signs ofpollution. But we played and
dug in the "diggins ".
E-24
-------
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance
and reuse activities?
I believe that all of these areas need the cleanup. They all currently look like moonscapes (sorry
Luna!) and belie the danger below. I believe the CD is a very big step in a long process.
Although it probably isn't 100% clean, it is a step that has been needed for years. I think
the "park" reuse will be a fantastic addition to the area and be a long lasting memorial to
what was here before.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
I know that we won't get 100percent cleanup, but we'll have a better handle on what
further needs to be done. For example, the Parrott cleanup was more polluted than
expected, but most of it has been removed. I believe we'll find out more as the shovels
remove the top layers. I have hope we'll be getting the majority of the "dirty dirt"..
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best
ways to keep the community informed about activities at the site?
I've been attending most of the meetings (public and secret) on the site for the past couple of
years. They've been most informative. Most folks probably aren't that interested in spending
that time. I think regular media and online updates would be helpful to get the "true" status of
the project out to folks (those who will listen)
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel that you
have been kept adequately informed?
I think there is info out there if you are interested. Most folks probably will get updates from the
media, but some will always head down the "conspiracy theory" rabbit hole . . . It's hard to drum
up interest in the project. All we can do is make it as easy to obtain as possible.
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues
in your community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority
Soils operable unit, where a Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is
in place?
CTEC is generally a good source, BNRC.
BP SOU still has some "holes" in its cleanup, but I believe that the CD addresses these in their
Unreclaimed and Underreclaimed sites work plans. The initial BRES sites were a prototype
project and for the most part worked. Based on 20 (?) years of experience I think we 're learning
from our prototypes as to what worked and what didn't.
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management
area in the Warm Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to
catch-and- release only. Are most people aware of the fishing regulations?
I believe they are. The folks who read the fishing regs do. We are regular visitors to the Warm
Springs Ponds for wildlife (mostly birds) watching. We also attended some meetings on the
E-25
-------
WSP project and learned more.
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, including capped and vegetated mine
waste, are routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or
exposed vegetation based on the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES). Are you aware of
any events, incidents or activities at the reclaimed areas, such as vandalism, trespassing or
emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please tell us about them.
None that I know of.
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is your
greatest concern about the status of the program?
It is a great program. My only concern is that there are folks who don't know about it that could
benefit from it. I also am concerned that currently we don't have a way to force landlords to
allow the cleanup of their buildings. This would impact some lower income citizens who may be
at greater risk of the CoCs in their dwelling.
11. Have you or your family members participated in the RMAP program?
Nope. We 're outside the current boundaries. But the bigger boundaries are coming.
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable
doing so.
Own.
13. How do you feel about the level of outreach to the affected residences and businesses, regarding
RMAP?
I think in general it is good, but it could be improved (alas, I have no grand ideas of how to
accomplish that)
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential
Metals Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk
with to learn more about these stakeholders' concerns?
I think we 're getting better at bringing in the stakeholders and their affected citizens. Again,
we could do better.
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on
Butte Hill)?
I believe that it is an appropriate location for now. It'll be a long haul from the BPSOU along the
creek, but its gotta go somewhere and it really isn't in anybody's "backyard".
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or stormwater
permit violations?
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
E-26
-------
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
We also need to get the word out as the project proceeds that "Butte is cleaning up its
SuperFund sites so they can be delisted. Butte can be considered a 'clean'place to live and
work."
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in
your official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are
representing an organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your
responses to this questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
I don't mind being on record as a Commissioner. I'm doing what any engaged elected
official should be doing. Listening, discussing and evangelizing.
Thanks for asking.
E-27
-------
Silver liow ('rcck/liiiUc Area SI PI UI IM)
SITE MYE-YEAU UI.YIEW IYIIKVIIW
I'OK.M
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name: Dana Barnicoat
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
Subject name: Gary Swant
Subject affiliation: Community organization-
GoBirdMontana
Subject contact information: GoBirdMontana LLC - gobirdmontana.org,
birdmt@charter.net
Interview date: 9/28/2020
Interview time: 9 am
Interview location: Phone
Interview format (Select):
Interview category (Select):
Phone
Community Organization
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions.
We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will
not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte, Montana.
The site follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County north to Warm
Springs in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units. Work focuses on
arsenic and metals contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination is widespread in soils,
mine tailings, interior dust, surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like
to discuss during this interview?
I do consulting with Atlantic Richfield on birds. My knowledge is about trying to keep the birds
out of the pit. For 10 years I have been doing bird surveys at Warm Springs. I am generally
knowledgeable about the Berkeley Pit and Warms Springs, but not as much about other areas.
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and their
effects on the community?
I grew up in Deer Lodge and am generally knowledgeable. Iam aware of the flooding and the
E-28
-------
river sometimes running red or green. I was taught you don't go down to the Clark Fork River,
and that it is dangerous.
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance and
reuse activities?
I taught biology at the high school in Deer Lodge. We used to go do sampling at the Clark Fork
River. There was nothing alive. Since then the river has really recovered. Now there is fish all the
way up to Warm Springs Ponds. Most of my knowledge about the restoration is from Warm
Springs to Deer Lodge, downstream and not the upper reaches.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
My greatest concern is the final disposition of the Warm Springs Ponds. This a significant fall
and spring migration staging area for birds. We need to restore Silver Bow Creek and eliminate
the ponds. That might be historically accurate, but the ponds have become such an important
staging area that we would be doing significant damage to the current migratory paths if they
were capped or drained.
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best ways to
keep the community informed about activities at the site?
I don't think the general public understands a lot about the site. I know there is an effort to get
folks to understand through articles and such. But as I talk to people, they do not have a good
sense. I don't think the average person in the upper Clark Fork really understand. There are
organizations like Restore Silver Bow Creek. Also, people don't understand the difference
between reclamation and restoration. People who think that we are going to get it back to how it
was originally don't understand.
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel that you have
been kept adequately informed?
Yes, I think I have. I know Nikia Greene personally, and I am in meetings with him. So I have a bit
of a bias. I know that the Consent Decree was just accepted, and it is in the paper and there is
currently a lot of information about it.
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues in your
community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority Soils operable
unit, where a Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is in place?
I can't really answer that question because my knowledge is from Warm Springs Ponds, and
south. So I don't want to comment on that piece.
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management area in
the Warm Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to catch-and-
release only. Are most people aware of the fishing regulations?
Yes, most people are aware. I am out there weekly doing bird surveys, and it is one of the hottest
fishing areas in SW Montana. Sometimes there are as many as 50 people fishing out, and I think it
is well appreciated. It is one of the best birding areas in the state, but there are nowhere near the
E-29
-------
number of birders as fishers. When I am out there people ask why we cannot keep the fish and I
joke that they glow in the fridge. Not really - but I joke. I have never seen birds that eat the fish die
in the area and the fish are probably okay to eat, but it is probably better to say you cannot from a
legal perspective.
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, including capped and vegetated mine
waste, are routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or exposed
vegetation based on the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES). Are you aware of any events,
incidents or activities at the reclaimed areas, such as vandalism, trespassing or emergency responses
from local authorities? If so, please tell us about them.
I don't. The only thing that happens is mother nature. Summer thunderstorms results in soil leaching
into the river, and I have seen fish kills.
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is your greatest
concern about the status of the program?
No, but I am aware of it in Anaconda.
11. Have you or your family members participated in the RMAP program?
No
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable doing so.
Own
13. How do you feel about the level of outreach to the affected residences and businesses, regarding
RMAP?
No comment
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential
Metals Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk with
to learn more about these stakeholders' concerns?
No comment
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on Butte
Hill)?
I think it is safe and adequate.
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or storm water permit
violations?
The Silver Bow government but I don't know what particular department.
E-30
-------
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
Two people atMT Tech - Dr Stella Capoccia and Dr. Robert Powell
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
Going back to Warm Springs, it is suitable to be an important bird area (IBA). And I am
concerned that those ponds stay where they are at, rather than restore the creek to 1908
conditions. It is vital to the migration of many waterfowl species, that is why Fish and Game hired
me to do the bird surveys.
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your
official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
I would like to go on record. Next spring Atlantic Richfield is contracting with me to take people to
go on bird watches. So we will be doing free bird walks in the spring.
E-31
-------
Silver How ( reek/liuUe Arcsi SI PEUI'I'M)
SITE IIVE-YEAU REVIEW INTERVIEW
I'OK.M
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name: Dana Barnicoat
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
Subject name: Mark Thompson
Subject affiliation: Montana Resources
Subject contact information: MThompson@montanaresources.com
Interview date: 10/22/2020
Interview time: 1:30 pm
Interview location: Phone
Interview format (Select): Phone
Interview category (Select):
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions.
We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will
not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte,
Montana. The site follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County
north to Warm Springs in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units.
Work focuses on arsenic and metals contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination
is widespread in soils, mine tailings, interior dust, surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would
like to discuss during this interview?
BMFOU is what I am involved in as part of my work for MR.
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and
their effects on the community?
I am very experienced with BMFOU RIFS and issues identified here and in the Consent Decree in
mine flooding. I am knowledgeable of the groundwater contamination, and Horseshoe Bend. There
is a divergence from the community perception about BMFOU versus how it is actually managed. In
actuality, the work to date is well advanced past what is required, and the success is a
E-32
-------
demonstration of responsible management of the site by those involved. There was good foresight
and getting started early was critical. I think overall the pit is perceived as an unmanaged issue,
and that is a shortcoming on all parties involved by not being able to make a good statement about
how it is well monitored and managed.
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance
and reuse activities?
I think for BMFOU is being done responsibly and successfully.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
For BMFOU, I'm confident the remedy can be implemented effectively so the biggest concern
would be demonstrating that and getting that message out to the community. I think people
are getting the information differently. PitWatch was made to try to effectively engage the
community and it was effective with printed media, but now they need to move toward social
media. Right now there is a gap with perception.
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best
ways to keep the community informed about activities at the site?
We 're in a dynamic era of information transmission, and PitWatch has to adapt. They are
heading in that direction.
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel that you
have been kept adequately informed?
I think a lot of the rules with public notices and meetings, is changing. People don't really show
up to meetings to be educated, but the agency still follows those rules, and they need to adapt like
PitWatch. MDEQ and EPA want to be transparent, and desire to educate and communicate, but
people can get information on so many platforms and we need to find how to best reach people.
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues
in your community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority
Soils operable unit, where a Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is
in place?
No comment on BPSOU. CTEC is a good organization for distributing info, PitWatch, BSB,
Atlantic Richfield, and Montana Resources
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management
area in the Warm Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to
catch-and- release only. Are most people aware of the fishing regulations?
I think those who fish there are aware, from verbal communication. Outside of my interactions
I don't know how widely understood they are.
E-33
-------
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, including capped and vegetated mine
waste, are routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or
exposed vegetation based on the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES). Are you aware of
any events, incidents or activities at the reclaimed areas, such as vandalism, trespassing or
emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please tell us about them.
Not aware.
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is your
greatest concern about the status of the program?
Not involved or familiar in my capacity
11. Have you or your family members participated in the RMAP program?
No
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable
doing so.
N/A
13. How do you feel about the level of outreach to the affected residences and businesses, regarding
RMAP?
N/A
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential
Metals Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk
with to learn more about these stakeholders' concerns?
N/A
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on
Butte Hill)?
From a mine flooding perspective, it is a good location because the groundwater and surface
water impacts are well contained.
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or stormwater
permit violations?
Police, or MDEQ for permit violations.
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
E-34
-------
No
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
I am pleased with where MR is with the Consent decree and implementation of the remedy,
being well in advance of the CD deadlines. It was very responsible from all parties involved and
I'm pleased with how the project has progressed.
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in
your official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are
representing an organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your
responses to this questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes
E-35
-------
Siher Bow ( rcck/liuUe Area SI PER El M) SITE El YE-
YEAR REYIENY l\TERYIE\Y EORM
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name: Dana Barnicoat
Interviewer affiliation: EPA
Subject name: Restore Our Creek Coalition ROCC
Northey Tretheway, spokesperson
Subject affiliation: Community Organization
Subject contact information: ntretheway59701@yahoo.com
Interview date: 9/30/2020
Interview time:
Interview location:
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select): Community Organization
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions.
We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will
not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte, Montana.
The site follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County north to Warm
Springs in Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units. Work focuses on
arsenic and metals contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination is widespread in soils,
mine tailings, interior dust, surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to
discuss during this interview?
Restore Our Creek Coalition (ROCC) is composed of members from throughout the community.
E-36
-------
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and their effects
on the community?
ROCC is most familiar and focused on the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit (BP SOU). The
contamination, right in the center of our community along the first mile of the Silver Bow Creek
corridor, is from years of mine waste deposition and the accidental release of mine waste. The state
of the mining laws that were in place have allowed the waste to be left where it was, and it has all led
to leaving Butte where it is now.
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities?
ROCC believes that the community has given a good effort and most recently, there was a good effort
on the part of the people from the EPA, specifically Mr. Doug Benevento and Mr. Nikia Greene. It is
evident that the EPA folks, in recent times, have listened to our community members and our desire to
get the best cleanup possible; although some in our community believe EPA sanctioned cleanup has
not gone far enough.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
Our greatest concern involves the fact that much of the cleanup requires perpetual treatment.
Because there is much contamination capped and requires constant monitoring and treatment, the
potential for problems will remain in the future. Because the cleanup was not done in a
comprehensive manner and the contamination was not fully removed now, our fear continues that
work already done will need to be done again to remedy that which was not done sufficiently.
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best ways to keep
the community informed about activities at the site?
We look for information put forth by local government and the EPA. Due to our coalition status, we
also hear from a network within the Butte community. Successfully disseminating information from
the EPA about the site requires three objectives: 1. Ensure that the technical information is
understood (plain English) by the stakeholders within the community; 2. The medium to inform about
the information must reach all of the community and must take place on multiple media pathways; 3.
There needs to be follow-up and feedback from the community to the EPA to ensure there is adequate
comprehension on the part of the community and adequate opportunity to influence outcomes.
E-37
-------
Bill Macgregor with ROCC has a study specific to this topic. The study indicates that the methods
presently used by EPA with regard to the BP SOU and other Butte OU's, was the least effective for
getting information to the public. Dana Barnicoat with EPA is now aware of the study and promised
to contact Bill Macgregor to get a copy.
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel have been kept
adequately informed?
During the five year history of ROCC, we have witnessed a strong improvement in communication
between our group, the community and the EPA. Mostly, this is due to the genuine effort on behalf of
several individuals within the EPA, specifically the local group ofNikia Greene and Joe Vranka, and
EPA administrators like Doug Benevento and Andrew Mutter.
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues in your
community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit,
where a Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is in place?
During the past five years, Restore Our Creek Coalition (ROCC) has taken the lead in working with
the community to learn what our community wants to see in terms of cleanup and restoration in the
BPSOU. ROCC, in working with the community, hired a New York land architectural firm to develop
a comprehensive end land use plan for Silver Bow Creek. The document, Silver Bow Creek
Headwaters Park, was presented to the EPA and other stakeholders in 2016. Further, ROCC
gathered 3,500 signatures in support of a restored Silver Bow Creek in the very first mile from Texas
Ave. to the confluence with Black Tail creek. CTEC (Citizens Technical Environmental Committee)
secured EPA TAG funds to conduct a feasibility review to confirm EPA's assurance to ROCC that
remedial plans proposed for the Upper Silver Bow Creek Corridor would not preclude the
restoration of the creek desired by the community.
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management area in the
Warm Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to catch-and release
only. Are most people aware of the fishing regulations?
No Comment. ROCC is focused on the first mile of Silver Bow Creek in the center of Butte.
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, including capped and vegetated mine waste,
are routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or exposed vegetation
based on the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System. Are you aware of any events, incidents or activities
at the reclaimed areas, such as vandalism, trespassing or emergency responses from local authorities? If
so, please tell us about them.
E-38
-------
We are aware that erosion is occurring on capped waste areas and that cover is insufficient in many
areas. Money should be redirected to proper remediation in several of these areas.
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is yourgreatest concern
about the status of the program?
No Comment (see # 8)
11. Have you or your family members participated in the program?
Not applicable for ROCC
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable doing so.
Not applicable for ROCC.
13. How do you feel about the level of outreach to the affected residences and businesses?
ROCC is not involved with RMAP.
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential Metals
Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk with to learn more
about these stakeholders' concerns?
ROCC is not involved with RMAP. However, all issues and concerns of the community regarding EPA
remediation and study, including the BPSOU, must always be addressed in the most effective ways
possible. See response involving Bill Macgregor in response # 5. Our concerns about residents in the
Upper Silver Bow Creek Corridor entail both environmental justice concerns associated with proposed
remedial systems in the corridor and the potential for transient exposures during and after subsurface
disturbances.
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on Butte Hill)?
ROCC is not involved with the Mine Waste Repository. Our sole focus is on the first mile of Silver Bow
Creek between Texas Ave. and the confluence with Black Tail creek. We agree with residents who seek
assurances that no repository will be sited near their homes.
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or storm water permit violations?
E-39
-------
Butte-Silver Bow County Health Department and Butte-Silver Bow Sherriff.
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
All concerned groups within Butte Montana.
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
One final comment: Remediate the source in a comprehensive way to protect the future... AND "Fix the
1st mile of Silver Bow Creek".
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official
position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an organization, do
you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the Five-Year
Review Report?
Yes
E-40
-------
Silver How ('rcck/liiillc Area SI PI UITM)
SITE H YE-YEAU UEYIENY INTEUYIENY
EOUM
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Brian Bartkowiak
Subject affiliation: Montana Dept of Justice, Natural Resource Damage
Program
Subject contact information: brian.bartkowiak@mt.gov
Interview date: 10/27/2020
Interview time:
Interview location:
Interview format (Select):
Interview category (Select):
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions.
We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will
not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte, Montana. The
site follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County north to Warm Springs in
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units. Work focuses on arsenic and
metals contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination is widespread in soils, mine tailings,
interior dust, surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to
discuss during this interview?
Warm Spring Ponds (OUs 4 and 12)
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and their
effects on the community?
I've been working in the Upper Clark Fork Basin on various sites since 1997.1 am fairly familiar with
the WSP.
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance and
E-41
-------
reuse activities?
Since the first pond was constructed in 1917, they have been effective at treating contamination before
entering the Clark Fork River. As upstream site are cleaned up, operation ofWSP should focus on not
only treating water, but maximizing the amount of cold, clean water to the Upper Clark Fork to
support the remediation and restoration work, as well as maximizing aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
The Natural Resource Damage Program (NRDP) is concerned that a complete feasibility study of all
potential options will not be performed as part of the final decision on WSP, including both OU 4 and
OU12. Allot of activities have occurred since the interim ROD in 1995 and options that were not
feasible 25 years ago may be feasible today.
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best ways to
keep the community informed about activities at the site?
EPA tour ofWSP. I believe a lot more outreach needs to be performed to inform the community of
what WSP are and what benefits and potential impacts they have on the Upper Clark Fork River.
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel have been kept
adequately informed?
No
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues in your
community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit,
where a Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is in place?
No comment
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management area in the
Warm Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to catch-and- release
only. Are most people aware of the fishing regulations?
Probably not.
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, including capped and vegetated mine waste,
are routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or exposed vegetation
based on the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System. Are you aware of any events, incidents or activities at
the reclaimed areas, such as vandalism, trespassing or emergency responses from local authorities? If so,
please tell us about them.
No comment
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is your greatest
concern about the status of the program?
No comment
E-42
-------
11. Have you or your family members participated in the program?
No
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable doing so.
N/A
13. How do you feel about the level of RMAP outreach to the affected residences and businesses?
No comment
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential Metals
Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk with to learn
more about these stakeholders' concerns?
No comment
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on Butte
Hill)?
No comment
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or stormwater permit
violations?
Montana DEQ
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
A major limiting factor in the success of remedy and restoration in the Upper Clark Fork Basin in the
availability of cold, clean water. Current and future cleanup should focus on maximizing the amount
of cold, clean water in the upper Clark Fork
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your
official position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes
E-43
-------
Silver How ('rcck/liiillc Area SI PEUITM)
SITE I IYE-YEAU UEYIENY INTERYIENY
I'OU.M
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Dave Griffis
Subject affiliation: Atlantic Richfield Co
Subject contact information:dave.griffis@bp.com
Interview date: 10/10/20
Interview time:
Interview location: remote/self completed
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select):
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions.
We are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will
not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte, Montana. The
site follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County north to Warm Springs in
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units. Work focuses on arsenic and
metals contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination is widespread in soils, mine tailings,
interior dust, surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to
discuss during this interview?
I reside on rural property North of Anaconda. I am familiar with the Butte Treatment Lagoons and Warm
Springs Ponds.
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and their effects on
the community?
WSP has a very long history that extends back to the early 1900s when embankments began being
constructed in response to tailings migration down Silver Bow Creek due to runoff events and impacted
materials from upstream mining activities. The site has been improved throughout it operating life and
E-44
-------
currently the site contains water treatment systems, several wet and dry closures with tailings remaining
in place as well as wildlife habitat and recreational features. Through ongoing water treatment
activities, the site continues to mitigate possible migration of impacted material from upstream mining
impacted sources and attenuates runoff/flooding effects from high flow events in the basin. In addition,
the dry closure and wet closure areas effectively prevent migration of previously consolidated impacted
materials throughout the Clark Fork Basin and form a barrier to several potential receptors. The WSP
site serves as a popular and valuable a public recreational area (fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, bike
riding, etc.), and an award-winning habitat area for wildlife. Some of the perceived negative effects
include the presence of high hazard dams (classified as such in accordance with State of Montana Dam
Safety Regulation definitions) and residents limited awareness and acceptance of contamination and the
risks associated with a superfund facility within the upper Clark Fork River basin.
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities?
Very Positive. The site is well-monitored on a daily basis and well-maintained by a professional team.
Safety of personnel and the public are very important in the day-to-day operations. In addition,
embankment stability and the risks to environmental receptors and downstream properties,
individuals and businesses are a high priority in how the site is maintained and continuously
improved. The site owner and regulating agencies work together to ensure consistent and effective
water treatment throughout the year under changing conditions, the recreational amenities and
opportunities are managed and conducted by professional Fish, Wildlife, and Parks personnel.
Updates and improvements to the water treatment systems, site embankments and various wildlife
habitat components are carefully planned and executed on a regular basis to ensure the site function
and resource value is optimized. BTL [Butte Treatment Lagoons] operations are operated and
managed in a similar manner, Recreational opportunities at this site are currently limited, however
there are valuable opportunities which can be advanced following completion of upstream remedial
activities.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
Currently the WSP site provides the final assurance that unintended consequences of all upstream
development and remediation activities will have limited impact on the downstream Clark Fork River
system. Significant change in the operations of either the WSP or BTL systems such as reducing or
discontinuing maintenance of the treatment systems and embankments would result in measurable
negative effects downstream. In addition, changes to the WSP site could significantly change
recreational resources and wildlife habitat value that has been established and improved over the
100+ year life of the site.
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best ways to keep the
community informed about activities at the site?
Through owner and agency communications, public presentations from local groups. Informational
inserts in the newspaper, social media, internet site, and site tours with the community.
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel have been kept
adequately informed?
Due to focus and public interest at other sites, limited communication about the WSP and BTL systems
from agencies and the site owner have been shared with the public in recent years. Additional factual
communication would be beneficial, and recently efforts (within last 18 moths) have been improved.
Through continuing public presentations and scheduled informational site tours all interested parties
E-45
-------
and individuals will be more fully informed.
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues in your
community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority Soils operable
unit, where a Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is in place?
BP, Federal, state, and local agencies, and local technical groups. Through cooperative efforts these
groups have been successful in progressing beyond the minimal remedial actions and are able to
develop these sites as valuable recreational resources as well as important wildlife habitat areas
when/where it is appropriate.
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management area in
the Warm Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to catch-and-
release only. Are most people aware of the fishing regulations?
Yes, recreationists at the site have historically been well aware. Regulations are posted at each fishing
access location as well as on the current FWP website. Finally, independent signage regarding
swimming is displayed at the WSP site in key locations.
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, including capped and vegetated mine waste, are
routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or exposed vegetation based
on the Butte Reclamation Evaluation System. Are you aware of any events, incidents or activities at the
reclaimed areas, such as vandalism, trespassing or emergency responses from local authorities? If so,
please tell us about them.
N/A
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is your greatest
concern about the status of the program?
Yes, no concerns.
11. Have you or your family members participated in the program?
N/A
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable doing so.
Own
13. How do you feel about the level of outreach to the affected residences and businesses?
Satisfied
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential
Metals Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk with
to learn more about these stakeholders' concerns?
Not that I am aware.
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on Butte Hill)?
E-46
-------
The location minimizes exposure and risk to the community and other potential receptors. In
addition, it is in a location that minimizes the potential for migration of materials away from the
Silver Bow CreekXButte Area Superfund Site. I do not have concerns with the current location,
maintenance activities, or management of the site.
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or stormwater permit
violations?
Local authorities.
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official
position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this
questionnaire in the Five-Year Review Report?
Yes.
E-47
-------
Sil\or Bow C reok/liuUc Area SI PER El M) SITE
i ive-vear review interview i orm
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Daryl Reed, Joel Chavez
Subject affiliation: MDEQ Project Officers
Subject contact information:
Interview date: 10/21/2020
Interview time:
Interview location: Helena, MT
Interview format (Select): Email
Interview category (Select): Local Government
Interview Introduction
EPA conducts regular checkups, called Five-Year Reviews, at Superfund sites. A Five-Year Review is
a way to evaluate the progress of cleanup actions and make sure they are protecting people and the
environment.
As part of the Five-Year Review for the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site, EPA is speaking
with community members to hear their concerns and gather more information about site conditions. We
are interested in your opinions and would like you to be as candid as possible. Your responses will not
be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official position representing a local
community group or organization.
We expect the interview to take about half an hour. Do you have any questions for us before we get
started?
Site Orientation:
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund site covers 85 square miles in and around Butte, Montana. The site
follows Silver Bow Creek from the city of Butte in Butte-Silver Bow County north to Warm Springs in
Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. The site has seven areas, or operable units. Work focuses on arsenic and metals
contamination from mining and ore processing. Contamination is widespread in soils, mine tailings, interior dust,
surface water and groundwater.
Questions:
1. Which neighborhood do you live in? Which operable units are you most familiar with and would like to discuss
during this interview?
MDEQ is responding to this Five Year Review for the entire site and will provide operable unit specific feedback,
if applicable, accordingly throughout this questionnaire.
2. What is your understanding of the history of contamination at the site/specific site areas and their
effects on the community?
Overall Response: Much has been written or spoken about regarding the impact mining has had on the current
and future economic vitality of Butte and it's unique character. The difficulty lies is differentiating between the
historic mining legacy, the still-visible scars of the Berkeley Pit and unreclaimed mine dumps, the Superfund
E-48
-------
stigma, and the active mine operations at Montana Resources. There is hope that some of the remaining
uncertainty will be resolved as the Priority Soils remedy is implemented in the coming decade.
SST (0U1): The Site was heavily contaminated with flood deposits and unregulated dumping of mine tailings and
smelter waste from historic mining activity in Butte, MT. Until the Remedial Action began, this visible sign of
environmental degradation negatively affected the community's attitude.
3. What is your overall impression of the site/specific site areas, including cleanup, maintenance and
reuse activities?
SST (OU1): The cleanup was extremely successful, and the site has been properly maintained. The establishment
of a recreational corridor/trail is a successful reuse of the site.
4. What is your greatest concern moving forward with the cleanup at the site or in specific areas?
SST (OU1): The Operation and Maintenance of the Site continues.
BMF (OU3): The PRPs have accomplished much during the last five years including construction,
commissioning, operation, and testing of the Polishing Plant which has been discharging treated water since
September 30, 2019 along with pumping water from the Berkeley to maintain a steady water elevation. The SDs
also completed and submitted the draft Remedial Action Adequacy Review (RAAR) Technical Memorandum. The
State is concerned that the RAAR does not address the long-term integration of the components needed to
maintain the BMFOU remedy, which will likely require use of a large equalization basin like the Yankee Doodle
Tailings Impoundment or the Continental Pit between the Horseshoe Bend Water Treatment Plant and the
Polishing Plant.
WSP (OU 4 and 12): The interim remedy outlined in the Record of Decision which focuses on stabilization of the
high hazard dam and on surface water treatment have been successfully implemented. The concern in the near
future is the challenge of completing a robust Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study based on the existing
conditions and evaluating the options for the long-term disposition of the buried tailings within the ponds.
Rocker (OU7): There has finally been acknowledgement that the remedy has failed to meet the Remedial Action
Objectives and Atlantic Richfield is completing a Focused Feasibility Study that may lead to an alternative
remedy to remove the source material. The concern involves the length of time to complete the administrative
process to amend the Record of Decision and the Consent Decree. Also, if the alternative remedy continues to
rely on monitored natural attenuation there will need to be a long-term groundwater monitoring program.
BPS (OU8): The previous issues that the State had with the 2006 ROD will be addressed through the Governor's
decision to remove the Parrott Tailings, the extensive removals at the Diggings East and Northside Tailings, the
floodplain removals at Blacktail Creek and the Butte Reduction Works, and the expanded groundwater capture
all outlined in the Consent Decree. Concerns now focus on whether EPA continues to provide the level of
oversight needed to ensure the Remedial Design and Remedial Action implementation is successful.
WSS (OU13): EPA has apparently done a thorough job of characterizing the mine waste dumps on the
abandoned mine sites and directed Atlantic Richfield to do the same level of effort on properties they own.
(MDEQ has not been provided the draft Remedial Investigation to review.) The concern will be whether EPA has
sufficient funding to implement the remedies at the abandoned sites.
5. How do you learn about what is happening at the site now? What do you think are the best ways to
keep the community informed about activities at the site?
Overall Response: As the support agency, DEQ is actively involved with reviewing and commenting on the
documents developed by Atlantic Richfield and EPA. Continued community involvement through various medias
such as email, website, newspaper articles, and public meetings are effective ways to keep the community
informed.
SST (OU1): The MT DEQ continues to manage the Site. Use of the recreational trail and word of mouth, seem
most effective. Also, providing easy access to the DEQ project officer for the public via in person or telephone, is
most effective for technical questions.
E-49
-------
6. How effective has EPA or the state's communication been in the past? Do you feel have been kept
adequately informed?
SST (OU1): Communication regarding the site has always been open and completely informative.
BMF (OU3): There is an on-going concern within the PitWatch group on how to inform the public about the
basic concepts of the remedy like the protective water level, slope stability, and source of Butte's drinking water.
BPS (OU8): The End Land Use workshops during the Consent Decree public engagement process seemed very
effective for communicating and getting feedback on the future remedy.
7. What organizations or people do you consider to be the most credible on environmental issues in your
community? What are your thoughts about the cleaned-up area in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, where a
Butte Reclamation Evaluation System (BRES evaluation system) is in place?
Some of the capping efforts completed before 1998 do not meet current reclamation specifications. These sites
have been identified and will be addressed using the processes outlined in the Insufficiently Reclaimed Sites in the
Consent Decree Statement of Work. The BRES program is robust in it's periodic, on-going assessments of the
reclaimed sites. The program needs to be strengthened in how sites are addressed that continue to receive low
scores for either Vegetative Improvement or Reclamation Improvement.
8. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks runs a designated wildlife management area in the Warm
Springs Ponds operable units. Swimming is restricted and fishing is limited to catch-and release only. Are most
people aware of the fishing regulations?
DEQ has not witnessed or heard of anyone violating the swimming or fishing restrictions. The fishing access
sites have highly visible kiosks where the regulations are posted.
9. All reclaimed areas in the Butte Priority Soils operable unit, including capped and vegetated mine waste, are
routinely evaluated for problems such as erosion, exposed waste, and barren or exposed vegetation based on the
Butte Reclamation Evaluation System. Are you aware of any events, incidents or activities at the reclaimed areas,
such as vandalism, trespassing or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please tell us about them.
No.
10. Are you familiar with the Residential Metals Abatement Program, or RMAP? What is your greatest concern
about the status of the program?
Some renters have supposedly had difficulty getting property assessments if the landlord/owner refuses to sign the
access agreement. Hopefully this issue will be adequately addressed in the revised RMAP Plan which may
require EPA intervention.
11. Have you or your family members participated in the program?
NA
12. Do you rent or own where you live? Please only answer this question if you are comfortable doing so.
NA
E-50
-------
13. How do you feel about the level of outreach to the affected residences and businesses?
Overall Response: DEQ and EPA continue to extend efforts to reach more than the usual attendees at meetings.
The community has been responsive to newspaper articles covering issues or upcoming work.
SST (OU1): It has always seemed adequate. DEQ has always become more available and proactive when issues,
out of the ordinary have arisen.
14. Do you think there are stakeholders in the community who may be overlooked by the Residential
Metals Abatement Program or who have not had their concerns addressed? Who should we talk with
to learn more about these stakeholders' concerns?
Some renters have supposedly had difficulty getting property assessments if the landlord/owner refuses to sign the
access agreement. Hopefully, this issue will be adequately addressed in the revised RMAP Plan which may
require EPA intervention.
15. Do you have any thoughts on the location of the existing Butte Mine Waste Repository (on Butte
Hill)?
The Butte Mine Waste Repository (BMWR) location has many benefits including that it is relatively close to
projects for truck hauls yet not near any residential developments. It is also beneficial that stormwater and
groundwater near the BMWR drain to the nearby Berkeley Pit.
16. Whom would you contact if you became aware of vandalism, trespassing or stormwater permit
violations?
NA
17. Is there anyone else we should talk to?
Joe Griffin, Nic Tucci, Chris Gammons.
18. Is there anything we have not covered that you would like to share?
No additional comments.
19. As a reminder, your responses will not be attributed to you unless you want to go on record in your official
position representing a local community group or organization. If you are representing an
organization, do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the
Five-Year Review Report?
These are DEQ's responses. Daryl Reed is the project officer for BMF, WSP, Rocker, WSS, and BPS. Joel
Chavez is the project officer for SST.
Daryl Reed: dreed@mt.gov; Office: 406-444-6433; Mobile: 406-459-8569
Joel Chavez: jchavez@mt.gov; Office: 406-444-6407; Mobile: 406-431-2251
E-51
-------
November 29, 2020
Please make the following comments part of the official record on the upcoming five year review of
Butte Superfund sites.
As I wrote in September 30, 2009 and again on May 6, 2015 concerning the last two five year reviews
my thoughts concerning this five year review are exactly the same. While I realize my thoughts will
have absolutely no impact on the five-year review, I still feel compelled to offer the comments. Sadly,
the reality is the EPA, State and sadly the Local Government only have public hearing and
request public input to satisfy the legal requirement to have public hearings and have absolutely
no intension of listening to or responding positively to public comment.
I only offer the comments because in the future when the children of Montana are dealing with the mess
that is now in place because of these incompetent decisions, at least they will know some folks actually
cared and tried to change some of these incompetent decisions. I would like to emphatically state that I
believe the Environmental Protection Agency has totally failed Butte Montana with their incompetent
Superfund decisions and have not protected the health and environment of the community as is required
by Federal Superfund Laws.
I believe the cleanup and restoration of Silver Bow Creek, the Butte Hill, the Montana Pole Site,
and the cleanup and restoration of the Berkeley Pit are the most important issues facing this
community. I believe if we do not get a responsible resolution to these issues this community is
going to fail—Environmentally, Economically and Socially.
Prior to the Atlantic Richfield Company, now British Petroleum Company closing the Butte
Mines, the Anaconda Smelter, the Berkeley Pit, shutting off the underground mine pumps, and
eventually closing the East Continental Pit in 1983 thus ending mining as was known in Butte
Montana for over 100 years, Butte Montana was a thriving economically solid community of
65,000 to 70,000 residents. Today we are a community of 34,000 residents struggling to survive
and grow.
The proposed decision on Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit by the Butte Silver Bow Local
Government, the EPA, the State of Montana and ARCO is a bad decision! Not restoring Butte's
portion of Silver Bow Crick to a quality creek where children can fish and play is unconscionable and
an irresponsible decision! The decision is the final decision for the Butte Superfund area and it along
with the Berkeley Pit and Montana Pole decisions will have forever-negative environmental,
economic and social consequences for Butte Montana!
Lowering the discharge standards to the Creek to allow for discharge from an inferior Berkeley
Pit Treatment and Polishing plant treatment is even more unbelievable! Obviously the EPA
solution to the treatment and discharge of contaminated Berkeley Pit water to Silver Bow Creek
follows the proverbial adage—The Solution to pollution is dilution!
As a former Seven Term Montana Legislator, life-long Butte resident actively involved in Butte
Superfund issues for well over 35+ years, I wrote on March 1, 2005 on the proposed 2006 Record
of Decision on Butte Priority Soils—"I would like to submit my letter and related information and
ask that they be included as my strong opposition to the proposed plan by EPA and ARCO on
Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit."
• Sadly, every ingredient that was necessary to implement a responsible cleanup for the
Butte Priority Soils Superfund Area has been articulated many times over to the EPA by
E-52
-------
myself and other concerned citizens over the past several years. For whatever reason, the
EPA has totally ignored this input. Public input means nothing to the EPA! They only have
public meetings to satisfy the legal requirement of having the meetings.
• Everyone knows, including the EPA the State and Arco/BP, using good science that is now
available because of research by the Butte Natural Resource Council that was not available
prior to the 2006 Record of Decision, what needs to be accomplished to have a responsible
cleanup under Superfund law. We deserve a solution that requires a cleanup and
restoration that is protective of human health and the environment and the Montana
Constitution that protects waters of the State— No more deals, no more band aids!
Also keep in mind I am not alone on my thoughts. As David McCumber of the Montana Standard has written in
his excellent editorials;
"The EPA has asked Butte citizens what they think about it {their plan} and the answers it has received at two
public hearings have been resoundingly negative.... And a plan that has little popularity among many of the
townspeople who are paying attention won a 10 to 1 endorsement from the commissioners who represent them."
• Standard view: County's refusal to allow comments taints Superfund process!
• "Fritz Daily is a warrior, and in our view one who is owed our gratitude in heaping portions. He fights
for the right thing on behalf of Butte. Always has. One of the things Fritz says frequently is ringing in
our ears as we approach the next phase of the Superfund cleanup of the Butte Hill.
It's no secret, what needs to be done. Everybody knows what needs to happen. We need to get the
cleanup Butte deserves, and that means a free-flowing, meandering stream in the Upper Silver Bow
Creek corridor. We believe he's right."
While I can go on and on about the incompetence of the EPA, State and sadly the Butte Silver Bow Local
Government, in the request for comments on the final Consent Decree on Butte Priority Soils I wrote
numerous comments to Judge Hadden. In my final comment letter, but also like the EPA I believe he did not
read, I wrote in part in what I titled;
The End, Butte Deserves Better;
As I write probably my last letter and comments on the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit
Consent Decree, I'm sad and concerned that the quality comments submitted by me and other
quality Butte residents to make Butte a better and environmentally safe place to live will not be
seen or read by Judge Hadden! Unconscionably, Superfund law allows the EPA and State to
summarize public comments and keep important facts and information from the Judge and
basically tell the Judge what they want him to hear!
My greatest disappointment was the failure of the Butte Silver Bow Government and the State of
Montana to not follow State Laws and the Montana Constitution and their Sacred Oath of Office
to take Judge Brad Newman's decision on the successful Silver Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition's
lawsuit seriously. I'm concerned that their decision will be used by out of state landowners in the
future on the Ruby and other rivers to weaken Montana's Stream Access Law! It will also be used
to weaken Montana watercourse laws protecting rivers and creeks in the Montana Constitution—
"All waters within the boundaries of the State are the property of the State, held in trust, for the
use of its people."
The fact of the matter is as a community we had a tremendous opportunity to receive a quality cleanup and
restoration as guaranteed by Superfund/State laws and the Montana Constitution. For whatever reason,
for which I will never know why, our elected leaders and "trustees of our future" have chosen not to
provide that quality cleanup and restoration! I'm concerned our great community will remain a town
E-53
-------
of 30,000 people, with half of them retired, and our community will be left with little, if any chance
for economic recovery! What a tragedy!
In my heart, as I have said and written probably well over a hundred times, Butte just deserves
Better!
When the Superfund Law was enacted back in 1980 it had one main purpose—It was initiated to
clean up contaminated waste sites in the United States! Primarily sites like Three Mile Island,
Love Cannel and sites like Butte and Anaconda Montana that had been left with hundreds of
thousands of tons of contaminated waste left over from the hundreds of years of mining making
the United States the great Nation it is today.
A question that has been asked many times over the years and actually brought forward as a legal
issue and probably discussed at length in secret meetings—Is the United States Government also
responsible for the cleanup and restoration as the Potentially Responsible Party? The answer to
the Butte and Anaconda situations is resoundingly YES! Butte miners were required by the
United States government in WWI and WWII to mine the ore to provide the materials necessary
to defend this country during times of war and to electrify the country. The ladies of Butte also
"rose to the occasion" to help in that quest as well.
One must always ask the question why? As I wrote to a Quality Butte resident Pat Prendergast—This
situation reminds me of the old proverbial comment of the three greatest lies in the world—I'm
here from the government and I am here to help you, the checks in the mail and you figure the
third for yourself. It also reminds me of the great Judge Skiff Sheehy comment—"Once again the
State gets the gold mine and Butte gets the shaft!" Only this time it is the Atlantic Richfield/British
Petroleum Company getting the gold mine and Butte once again gets the shaft!
My letter to Butte resident Pat Prendergast is attached and I would request it also become part of
the official record on the next five year review. Here are a few paragraphs from that letter;
When the original 2006 Record of Decision on Butte Priority Soils was reached it was reached based on the
premise that a "technically improbable waiver" was issued stating that it was impossible to remove the
Parrot Tailing and the clean the contaminated ground water in the area. We now know that is absolutely
false!
1. It was made believing the Parrot Plume was standing still and was not moving.
2. It was made not knowing the groundwater in the Parrott Tailings Area is more toxic
than Berkeley Pit water.
3. It was made not knowing that substantially more water flowing to Silver Bow Creek than
originally projected.
4. It was made believing the water was flowing at a much slower rate that we now know is
actually happening.
5. And we now know because of the removal of the first phase of Parrot removal—!"The Parrot
plume contains 15 times more copper, 5 times more lead, and twice as much cadmium as
the Berkeley and it contains the same amount of arsenic and zinc as the Berkeley. And is
the most heavily contaminated mine water in the State and probably the entire United
States.
While I can go on and on, In the final analysis if we do not have a quality clean and restored Silver
Bow Creek flowing through Butte where children can play and fish and the adults of the
community can enjoy the amenities of a responsible cleanup and restoration as well, along with
E-54
-------
addressing the Berkeley Pit, Butte Hill and Montana Pole Site, then we have all failed. That
includes me!
• And yes we can have a real creek flowing through our town connected to the groundwater, as
required of a Creek. You absolutely can! As Judge Newman Ordered in the successful Silver Bow
Creek Headwaters Coalition Lawsuit, Silver Bow Creek from Texas Avenue to Montana Street is a
Creek and protected in the Montana Constitution as Waters of the State of Montana.
• For the record— Silver Bow Creek from Texas Ave to Montana Street is a Creek and a
watercourse and not a sewer, a storm drain or a "water feature"! Judge Brad Newman confirmed
this in his decision in the successful Silver Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition Lawsuit against the
State of Montana!
• The "stakeholders" in this critical decision are not the EPA/State representatives, the Atlantic
Richfield British Petroleum Company and the contractors as claimed by the EPA here tonight. The
true stakeholders are the folks from Butte and the Clark Fork and Columbia River Basins and
most importantly the future of our great town—our kids and grandkids!
• The most important issue I always stress in my presentations and in my writing and meeting with
EPA, State and Local folks is the importance of Butte Montana in the shaping and creating of this
great nation.
What I believe needs to be accomplished for butte to receive the quality cleanup and restoration of Silver
Bow Creek, the Butte Hill, Berkeley Pit, and Montana Pole can be summed up in the Silver Bow Creek
Headwaters Coalition's successful lawsuit "We care, and we just wanted to improve the economy of
the town and make Butte a better and more environmentally safe place to live. We wanted to achieve
that goal by recreating a quality clean and restored meandering Silver Bow Creek flowing through
the middle of our town where the children could play andfish and the adults of the community could
enjoy the amenities of the cleanup and restoration as well! "That includes; Removing all
contaminated tailings, restoring the area to productive use, building a quality responsible treatment
and polishing plant, properly cleaning the Butte Hill, dealing responsibly with the storm water issue,
and removing all Montana Pole condiments.
Fritz Daily
E-55
-------
Brief Synopsis of Silver Bow Creek Headwater Coalition's Successful
Lawsuit against the State of Montana
'It's a creek': Former District Judge Brad Newman questions legality of signing consent decree-
Montana Standard Headline—May 25, 2019!
In a recent public hearing, Judge Newman stated—"DEQ is bound by the decision." "How can
DEQ and the county enter into a consent decree that ignores the law of Montana? Silver Bow Creek
is a natural water course. The decision I made the state did not appeal. It was a valid legal precedent.
Despite man-made alterations, it is a natural water course not just in name only. Silver Bow Creek's
legal status must be observed by the interested parties in this consent decree. "
The goal of Silver Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition LLC composed of Sister Mary Jo McDonald,
Ron Davis and Fritz daily long time Butte residents was pretty simple—"We care, and we just wanted
to make Butte a better and more environmentally safe place to live and to improve the economy of the
town. We wanted to achieve that goal by recreating a quality clean and restored meandering Silver
Bow Creek flowing through the middle of our town where the children could play andfish and the
adults of the community could enjoy the amenities of the cleanup and restoration as well! "
Our philosophy was simple: The decisions made today on Silver Bow Creek are forever decisions
and will have forever consequences! It is important that responsible decisions be made. Montana
Code Annotated 85-2-13 requires any party attempting to change the name of a stream, mountain,
river etc to—1. An application must be filed in the District Court where the stream exists to change the
name of a watercourse or natural source of water supply. 2. A public hearing and process must be
initiated expressing the desire to change the name.
As the lawsuit progressed, the original purpose of the lawsuit changed, due to
the State's strong determination to defeat us at any cost.
Early on in the lawsuit, Judge Newman ordered that no such application to the Court to
change the name of the Creek had ever taken place, nor any public process initiated. As the
lawsuit process played out the State continually shifted and adapted positions, trying
anything that might work to defeat us. Eventually they shifted the original purpose of the
lawsuit addressing the name of the Creek—claiming that Silver Bow Creek from Texas
Avenue to Montana Street was not a watercourse and a Creek.
After four years, Judge Brad Newman ruled no attempt had ever taken place to change the
name of the Creek and most importantly he documented and confirmed, using State law
and the Montana Constitution, that Silver Bow Creek from Texas Avenue to Montana
Street was in fact a watercourse and a Creek based on the laws and Constitution of the
State of Montana! The Order was not challenged on appeal!
In the Silver Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition's successful lawsuit against the State
of Montana— Judge Newman wrote;
• "The very act of the State in calling iconic Silver Bow Creek by any other name degrades the
stream and demeans Butte's history and culture".
• "This litigation seeks to ensure that the State of Montana and its agencies follow the law."
• "In this case the Plaintiffs stand in the shoes of government. They are seeking as a private
attorney general to force the State to act appropriately with respect to the State's waters held in
trust for the public. Moreover, the illegal conduct ofthe State is continuing".
E-56
-------
• "The issue raised in the Complaint is not what would happen to restoration of the creek
should the Stateimproperly change the name of the watercourse, but what already has
occurred and will occur in the future as the result of the State's actions concerning the
name of the creek without observing the statutory requirements to change its name."
• Article IX Section 3 of the Montana Constitution States—"All waters within the
boundaries of the State are the property of the State, held in trust, for the use of its
people."
The most important issues stressed as the Silver Bow Headwater's
Coalition's Lawsuit Process continued;
1. Taxpayers Money—The State of Montana and its attorneys were willing to spend any
amount of money and all available resources that it would take to defeat us. The length of
time to do that meant nothing to them! I would estimate that the State spent over $500,000
in that effort! Judge4 Newman ordered the State to pay Jim Goetz $172,000.
2. Settlement Attempts—We made numerous attempts throughout the process to try and
settle the case. Three separate settlements were actually negotiated with the Director of the
Department of Environmental Quality, Richard Opper, only to have those Settlements
overturned and rejected by the "Anti Butte Attorneys" in State Government.
Ironically Steve Bullock the Governor of the State of Montana actually personally called
Jim Goetz on April 26, 2012 at which time they discussed the case and the possibility of
Settlement. Settlement was also discussed at a meeting held in Bozeman with State
Attorneys and the Director of the Environmental Quality on May 21, 2012 following a
phone call from the Director requesting the meeting.
Settlement discussions were also discussed at length in a Mediation Hearing held in Helena
on February 7, 2013. Mediation discussions in Helena consisted of five State attorneys and
the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality and lasted five hours. Silver Bow
Creek Headwaters Coalition was represented by our attorney Jim Goetz and Fritz Daily.
The State at the meeting in Bozeman and the Mediation in Helena expressed their strong
desire, to as they put it in Bozeman, to "extort" more money from the Atlantic
Richfield/British Petroleum Company for cleanup and restoration of the Creek and use the
Natural Resource Damage monies for their own projects and purpose and thus refused to
Settle the case.
3. Most personal disappointment—In the process, the State made repeated attempts, for
whatever reason, to complicate and frustrate our group. The frustration occurred in
depositions, discovery, hearings, mediation, personal meeting, phone calls, etc. The most
obvious attempt however came on the Thursday before the Summary Judgment Hearing,
on March 18, 2013, when we learned the State hired the local Butte Law Firm of Corrett,
Black, Carlson, and Mickelson to assist them with the case.
It was extremely disappointing and frustrating due to the fact at the Mediation Hearing
held in Helena just a month earlier, on February 7, 2013, the State was represented in the
five hour session by five attorneys and the Director of Environmental Quality. Jim Goetz
and Fritz Daily represented our group. Obviously the State, with their 'deep pockets' was
committed to spend any amount of money to defeat us in our attempt to make Butte a
better and more environmentally safe place to live!"
E-57
-------
Bob Carlson was paid $13,224.80 and was not hired by Department of Environmental
Quality until March 15, 2013. The Summary Judgment Hearing used by Judge Newman to
make his decision was held on March 18, 2013. Bob Carlson did not participate in
Discovery, Depositions, Mediation, any prior Hearings or the numerous phone calls and
Meetings. Bill Kirley was the sole attorney representing the State and made the entire
presentation at the Summary Judgment Hearing for the State. What information and
assistance Mr. Carlson provided other than to use him to influence the Judge as having a
local Butte presence in the lawsuit; I have no knowledge or information.
The "Opposition Motion To Our Motion for Summary Judgment by
the State" in fact changed the purpose of the lawsuit from the name
of the Creek to whether or not the Creek was in fact a "watercourse
or not."
The lawsuit changed significantly following Judge Newman's Order denying the "States
Motion to Dismiss". The State made a motion that the Plaintiffs did not have 'standing' to file
the suit". Judge Newman denied that motion and ruled as citizens of Silver Bow County in
fact we did have Standing!
Judge Newman denied our initial Motion for Summary Judgment, dated February 27,
2012. However, he issued a significant and important ruling that certain material facts
were not genuinely contested. Specifically the Court ruled that; "{1} prior to the enactment
of statutes in 1911, governing watercourse name changes, the Creek at issue in this case
was named "Silver Bow Creek," and {2} since the enactment of such statutes the State of
Montana has never successfully petitioned a court in this judicial district to change the
Creek's name."
The State at that point in the "State of Montana's Brief In Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion
For Summary Judgment", on which the Judge had not yet ruled, raised the issue that Silver
Bow Creek from Texas Avenue to Montana Street was in fact not a "watercourse" because it
had been changed, altered, and rip rapped over the years thus it was no longer a Creek. The
Judge then determined he wanted additional information on Montana law dealing with
watercourse statutes and the case then changedfrom the name of the Creek to—is the Creek a
watercourse or not a watercourse?
The case could have been easily settled at this point and Discovery, Depositions, Mediation
and numerous meetings and phone conversations between the parties would not have been
necessary. However, because of the State's insistence as they expressed to us on numerous
occasions, to gain additional dollars {extort} from the Atlantic Richfield/British Petroleum
Company to remove the Parrot and other tailings, the case continued.
As a result of the decision, and the State's refusal to settle, it resulted in the initiation of
proceeding with Discovery, Depositions, Mediation and numerous meetings and phone
conversations between the parties. Thus initiating the arduous prolonged and difficult legal
task prolonging the eventually outcome of the Lawsuit.
Do the "rule of law" and the "Montana Constitution" mean nothing to the Environmental
Protection Agency, State of Montana, Local government and the Atlantic Richfield/British
Petroleum Company?
On August 18, 2015 Judge Brad Newman ruled in our favor!
E-58
-------
Judge Newman confirmed in his decision that the Creek is a watercourse and a "creek" and not a
"sewer" as claimed by the State of Montana and the Environmental Protection Agency and ruled that
Silver bow Creek from Texas Avenue to Montana Street must be called—Silver Bow Creek!
He wrote; "The issue raised in the Complaint is not what would happen to restoration of
the creekshould the State improperly change thename of the watercourse, but what already has
occurred and will occur in the future as the result of the State's actions concerning the name
of the creek without observing the statutory requirements to change its name."
Information concerning our Lawsuit and the new proposed Record
of Decision Amendment being proposed by the EPA, State, Local
Government and Arco/BP
As we read and looked through the recent proposal for a "Record of Decision Amendment on
Butte Priority Soils", my reaction is that this proposal is a direct "slap in the face" and made a
mockery to the Silver Bow Creek Successful Lawsuit against the State of Montana. This
bothers us greatly! I would hope Judge Newman would as well.
The only major change to the 2006 Record of Decision is to lower the water discharge
standards to Silver Bow Creek. Unbelievable! The information deals strictly with the section of
the Creek from where the Creek flows under Interstate 15, and totally ignores the stretch of
the Creek from Casey Street {just below the Civic Center} to Texas Ave. Judge Newman refers
to this section of the Creek often as part of the Contested stretch!
Legal Process 101
1. When a dispute arises, a legal process exists to settle that dispute. The outcome of that legal
dispute in the Judicial Process becomes president and has legal standing if no appeal is
initiated to a higher Court.
2. An Appeal Process is available to the losing party if they disagree with the Judge's Order!
{In the case of Silver Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition Successful Lawsuit against the State
of Montana no Appeal was initiated!} We are confident the State did not appeal his ruling
because of Jim Goetz' strong credibility and success on Appeals to the Montana Supreme
Court and to the United States Supreme Court.
3. Elected officials take an "oath of office" to uphold the laws of the Federal and State
Government and the Montana and Federal Constitution.
4. There are consequences for Elected Officials when taking that "oath of office".
Please make the information provided in this email part of the official record!
E-59
-------
Fritz Dailv
April, 15, 2020
Butte Silver Bow Council of Commissioners
Butte Silver Bow Courthouse
Public comments on the Butte Priority Soils Consent Decree
April 15 and May 1, 2020
Attachment for Fritz Daily Public Comments
Pat,
I will do my best, to explain my thoughts and the facts as I see them on the Record of Decision Amendment to
Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit and the proposed Consent Decree. While I am not an expert, I have 35+ years
of dealing with this issue and have a tremendous amount of Historical and valuable knowledge. Also, I'm
assuming you asked the question as not a "got ya" or "set up" question of me and I will proceed to answer using
During my normal 3 to 4 hour wake up at 2am and applying medicine to my broken out skin while scratching
caused by my concern over this inferior decision, this was my thought for you—This situation reminds me of
the old proverbial comment of the three greatest lies in the world—I'm here from the government and I am
here to help you and that the check's in the mail! You figure the third. It also reminds me of the great Judge
Skiff Sheehy comment—"Once again the State gets the gold mine and Butte gets the shaft!" Only this time it
is the Atlantic Richfield/British Petroleum Company gets the gold mine and Butte once again gets the shaft!
FYI—I have attended more meetings, given more public testimony, written more letters and emails, given more
TV and radio interviews, been involved in numerous National publications, than you can imagine. I have also
made more presentations as well to service clubs and schools and made a annual presentation to the Montana
History Class at the University of Montana where the professor believed that the Butte cleanup and in particular
the Berkeley Pit are a chapter in Montanan's History—I totally agree!
I will do that by using portions for emails/letters/and public comments I have written and presented in the past
couple of years to explain my position. Keep in mind I have never received one penny of compensation for that
effort.
Since you asked for my opinion and thoughts, I am going to be direct/honest and if my responses sound like I am
angry/disillusioned/frustrated with the current proposed Consent Decree—Well yes I am!
As you know, the Consent Decree itself is a 1400 page document so I will try to be as concise as possible as I
write this response to you.
Also keep in mind I am not alone on my thoughts. David McCumber comments;
"The EPA has asked Butte citizens what they think about it {their plan} and the answers it has received at two
public hearings have been resoundingly negative.... And a plan that has little popularity among many of the
townspeople who are paying attention won a 10 to 1 endorsement from the commissioners who represent
them."
Standard view: County's refusal to allow comments taints Superfund process!
"Fritz Daily is a warrior, and in our view one who is owed our gratitude in heaping portions. He fights for the
right thing on behalf of Butte. Always has. One of the things Fritz says frequently is ringing in our ears as we
approach the next phase of the Superfund cleanup of the Butte Hill.
that thought.
E-60
-------
It's no secret, what needs to be done. Everybody knows what needs to happen. We need to get the cleanup
Butte deserves, and that means a free-flowing, meandering stream in the Upper Silver Bow Creek corridor. We
believe he's right.
Section 3. Water rights. Article IX Section 3 o the Montana Constitution States—"All
waters within the boundaries of the State are the property of the State, held in trust, for the use of
its people."
Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain
inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful
environment...
Section 2. Reclamation. (1) All lands disturbed by the taking of natural
resources shall be reclaimed. The legislature shall provide effective
requirements and standards for the reclamation of lands disturbed
Section 9. Right to know. No person shall be deprived of the right to
examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies
or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in
which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of
public disclosure.
Pat here's my thoughts for you;
• The major shortcoming of the Consent Decree is that the Atlantic Richfield Company/British Petroleum
Company has been released of their legal responsibility for cleanup and restoration of Silver Bow Creek
from its Headwaters at Texas Avenue to where the Creek flows under Casey Street. That is
unconscionable!
• The Atlantic Richfield Company/British Petroleum Company is totally responsible for the entire cleanup.
It is wrong for them to be relieved of their legally required Superfund obligation on what is known as the
"last first mile!" Texas Avenue to Montana Street—The most important section of the cleanup.
• It is totally wrong to use Butte's Natural Resource Damage Restoration dollars for cleanup work and to
remove the Parrot tailings and relocate the County Shops. These funds are specifically designed to return
the cleaned area to productive use and not for cleanup.
• In the successful Silver Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition Lawsuit. Judge Brad Newman has ruled that
Silver Bow Creek is a Creek and protected as "Water of the State of Montana" in the Montana
Constitution. In his Powerful public comments he states—"Can they {Butte Silver Bow Local
government and the StateJ- agree to a solution that ignores the law of Montana?"
• Recently through the research of a private concerned citizen, we learned of plans to locate a
repository to bury contaminated Digging East/Northside Tailings in a local neighborhood. Next to a
park where our children play little guy football and other sports. According to the Bureau of Mines
these tailings are so contaminated with copper and zinc that if left as waste in place they are likely to
continue leaching into groundwater for tens of thousands of years to come.
• If this does not raise a "giant red flag" bigger than the Perkins flag for the commissioners
and every Butte resident about the inferior Consent Decree I don't know what would—
Recently through the research of a private concerned citizen, we learned of plans to locate a
repository to bury contaminated Digging East/Northside Tailings in a local neighborhood—Next
to a park where our children play little guy football and other sports. This very critical and
important fact of a new repository was not disclosed during the so called roll out, in the
four-page Arco/BP Montana Standard Add, or in the 190+ page public document on the
roll out. If this concerned citizen through their due diligence did not discover this fact that
repository would have been used. Unbelievable! FYI— According to the Bureau of Mines
E-61
-------
these tailings are so contaminated with copper and zinc that if left as waste in place they are
likely to continue leaching into groundwater for tens of thousands of years to come.
The question we must all ask is—What else has not been disclosed? And most importantly
what is not in the document that is also critical for us to know?
• As I have written and expressed to Doug Benevento, Andrew Wheeler, the Butte Silver Bow Council of
commissioners, State agencies and interested Butte residents—Everyone involved knows using
proper science that is now available because of research by the Butte Natural Resource
Damage Council, that was not available prior to the 2006 Record of Decision, what needs to
be accomplished to have a responsible cleanup of Butte's Silver Bow Creek under
Superfund law, State Law and the Montana Constitution.
• In Addition— Two basic premises were used in making this incompetent decision on the
cleanup of Silver Bow Creek at its headwaters. #1 it was based on the fact that Silver Bow
Creek flowing through Butte was sewer, and #2 it was based on the fact that it was
technically impracticable to responsible clean and restore the Creek and its corridor, and
to leave contaminated "waste in place". Both of these premises have now been proven to be
totally false and inaccurate!
I believe the three major misunderstood issues in dealing with these issues is #1. Who is
responsible for that cleanup—There is absolutely no question that is the Atlantic Richfield/ British
Petroleum is 100% responsible. #2.The difference between cleanup {remediation} and restoration.
#3. Now that it is Butte turn for cleanup and restoration, why has cost become the major issue?
Pat here's what needs to be accomplished in order for Butte to receive the quality cleanup and restoration of
the Butte Hill, Silver Bow Creek, the Montana Pole Site, the Berkeley Pit and Butte proper to receive the
quality cleanup and restoration we are guaranteed under Superfund, State law and the Montana Constitution.
Anything less is unconscionable and borders on criminal!
• There is a contaminated groundwater plume from the Parrot Plume flowing under Butte homes and
under the Columbus Plaza where elderly retirees and disabled residents live. It must be addressed! As
documented by the State; The plume contains 15 times more copper, five times more lead,
twice as much cadmium, and it contains the same amount of arsenic and zinc as the
Berkeley Pit. It is the most toxic body of water in the State and probably the Nation.
• The agreement does not include a clean and restored Silver Bow Creek flowing through our town!
• It is wrong to create giant retention ponds, that I call mosquito/Zika Ponds, to deal with storm water
because we did not properly clean the Butte Hill. We already have a 51 billion gallon Zika Pond a half a
mile away at the Berkeley Pit!
• It is wrong to create a waiver to decrease water quality standards on the Creek when Judge
Newman ruled it is a CREEK and thus Waters of the State of Montana protected by the
Montana Constitution! Is the solution to pollution dilution?
• It is wrong to not remove the Reverse French Drain when the State of Montana adamantly
states it is not working!
• It is wrong to use Butte's Natural Resource Damage Restoration money for cleanup work
and to remove the Parrot Tailing. These funds are designed to return the cleaned area to
productive use and not for cleanup.
• Missoula is not required to use their restoration money for cleanup. Missoula now has a
beautiful park in the Milltown Dam area where children can play and fish and we in Butte
are begging for pennies to complete a responsible cleanup.
E-62
-------
• It creates a system that requires treatment in perpetuity for several areas. Including:
Pumping and treating Berkeley Pit water, cleaning the mosquito/Zika ponds, jetting the
Reverse French Drain and cleaning the Colorado Tailings Ponds.
• Butte Priority Soils area is a five-mile square area. It consists of the entire Butte Hill, Walkerville, Butte's
section of Silver Bow Creek, the Parrott Tailings, Butte's Storm Sewer system, and Lower Area One that
includes the area West of Montana Street including the Colorado Tailings area and the Metro Sewer
area. EPA is the lead agency.
• The established or created lead level in Butte is 1200 ppm. The National Standard is 400 ppm how
crazy is that?
Superfund Law consists of two parts:
#1. Superfund can be defined as cleanup! The goal of all Superfund cleanups is to responsibly clean an area to
protect the health of the residents of a community and to assure a safe environment for its citizens.
#2. Natural Resource Damage can be defined as restoration! Its goal is to restore the cleaned Superfund sites
to a responsible and meaningful purpose and to compensate residents of a Superfund area for the lost use of
the natural resources caused over the years from the contamination of the Superfund site.
Three main criteria in filing the original 765 million lawsuit that basically was settled for $118 million in
addition to the $80 million settlement to clean Silver Bow Creek and the $18 million paid to the Salish
Cooutini Indians;
• #1. To compensate residents of the State for lost use of the resource. #2. Was to compensate
residents for damage to the resource. #3. And Most important—Was for the destruction of the Butte
Aquifer.
Areas of responsibility of cleanup;
• The State of Montana Natural Resource Damage Program is responsible for the removal of the
Parrott Tailings and cleanup and restoration of Silver Bow Creek from Texas Ave. to Casey
Street, primarily using Natural Resource Settlement dollars.
• Arco/BP is responsible for the removal of the Digging East and Northside Tailing, as we
learned Tuesday night to accommodate the Zika/mosquito ponds.
• The State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for the removal
of the Blacktail Berm and related area around the Chamber of Commerce—That is why
the Blacktail Berm in not mentioned in the EPA documents on the proposed Record of
Decision Amendment!
Who is going to pay for all of this is the "sixty four thousand dollar question"?
The reality is Butte has not been cleaned properly.
• Butte deserves the best cleanup possible and not the cheapest as is now being
proposed by the agencies.
• Using the best technology available with current and accurate data.
• We need a ROD and Consent Decree that is not "etched in stone"! One that
provides for contingences that may develop as the process continues.
• We should absolutely not be using restoration dollars for remediation as we are
doing with the Parrot Tailings Area! You are not asking Missoula to use the
restoration settlement monies from the Clark Fork River Settlement Restoration
dollars to do remediation cleanup in Missoula.
E-63
-------
• It is wrong to create a waiver to decrease water quality standards of the Creek!
• It is wrong that Arco/BP has been relieved of their Superfund required obligation of
the cleanup and restoration of the Silver Bow Creek corridor from Casey Street to
the Headwaters at Texas Ave.
• The contaminated groundwater plume from the Parrot Plume that is flowing under
homes in Butte and under a Housing Facility where elderly retirees and disabled
residents live in the Columbus Plaza must be addressed.
• The Berkeley Pit and the Montana Pole Site need to be responsibly addressed. Doug,
the Pole Plant is a frigging disaster!
• Remember—The Superfund decisions made today are forever decisions and have
forever consequences!
We need a comprehensive plan. Including:
• A Solid financial commitment addressing total cleanup and restoration
• Total removal of all tailings—Parrot, Diggings East and Northside Tailings,
Blacktail Berm and remaining Silver Bow Creek contaminates.
• Creating a quality meandering Creek flowing through the town
• Responsibly addressing the inefficient French Drain and Storm Sewer issue.
• Addressing the cleanup on the Hill that was basically completed under what EPA
calls Time Critical Removal and not proper science.
• Retention Ponds, of as I call them mosquito or Zika Ponds, should not be used a
means of capturing storm water. Strom water should be diverted and pumped to the
Berkeley Pit for treatment before discharge to the Creek.
• Using the Restore Our Creek Vision Statement as guide to complete the cleanup and
restoration. As I and others have always promoted, restoration and remediation can
and should take place simultaneously.
When the original 2006 Record of Decision on Butte Priority Soils was reached it was reached based on the
premise that a "technically improbable waiver" was issued stating that it was impossible to remove the
Parrot Tailing and the clean the contaminated ground water in the area. We now know that is absolutely
false!
1. It was made believing the Parrot Plume was standing still and was not moving.
2. It was made not knowing the groundwater in the Parrott Tailings Area is more toxic
than Berkeley Pit water.
3. It was made not knowing that substantially more water flowing to Silver Bow Creek than
originally projected.
4. It was made believing the water was flowing at a much slower rate that we now know is
actually happening.
5. And we now know because of the removal of the first phase of Parrot removal—!"The Parrot
plume contains 15 times more copper, 5 times more lead, and twice as much cadmium as
the Berkeley and it contains the same amount of arsenic and zinc as the Berkeley. And is
the most heavily contaminated mine water in the State and probably the entire United
States.
While I can go on and on, In the final analysis if we do not have a quality clean and restored Silver
Bow Creek flowing through Butte where children can play and fish and the adults of the
community can enjoy the amenities of a responsible cleanup and restoration as well, along with
addressing the Berkeley Pit, Butte Hill and Montana Pole Site, then we have all failed. That
includes me!
E-64
-------
• And yes we can have a real creek flowing through our town connected to the groundwater, as
required of a Creek. You absolutely can! As Judge Newman Ordered in the successful Silver Bow
Creek Headwaters Coalition Lawsuit, Silver Bow Creek from Texas Avenue to Montana Street is a
Creek and protected in the Montana Constitution as Waters of the State of Montana.
• For the record— Silver Bow Creek from Texas Ave to Montana Street is a Creek and a
watercourse and not a sewer, a storm drain or a "water feature"! Judge Brad Newman confirmed
this in his decision in the successful Silver Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition Lawsuit against the
State of Montana!
• The "stakeholders" in this critical decision are not the EPA/State representatives, the Atlantic
Richfield British Petroleum Company and the contractors as claimed by the EPA here tonight. The
true stakeholders are the folks from Butte and the Clark Fork and Columbia River Basins and
most importantly the future of our great town—our kids and grandkids!
• The most important issue I always stress in my presentations and in my writing and meeting with
EPA, State and Local folks is the importance of Butte Montana in the shaping and creating of this
great nation.
What I believe needs to be accomplished for butte to receive the quality cleanup and restoration of Silver
Bow Creek, the Butte Hill, Berkeley Pit, and Montana Pole can be summed up in the Silver Bow Creek
Headwaters Coalition's successful lawsuit "We care, and we just wanted to improve the economy of
the town and make Butte a better and more environmentally safe place to live. We wanted to achieve
that goal by recreating a quality clean and restored meandering Silver Bow Creek flowing through
the middle of our town where the children could play andfish and the adults of the community could
enjoy the amenities of the cleanup and restoration as well! "That includes; Removing all
contaminated tailings, restoring the area to productive use, building a quality responsible treatment
and polishing plant, properly cleaning the Butte Hill, dealing responsibly with the storm water issue,
and removing all Montana Pole condiments.
E-65
-------
United States Department of Justice, Please make the following probably final attached letter I
will ever write to the EPA, State of Montana and Butte Silver Bow Local Government titled—
The End—Butte Deserves Better—and summary comments part of the official
record/comment and my strong opposition to the proposed Consent Decree Butte Priority Soils
Operable Unit.
As I write probably my last letter and comments on the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit
Consent Decree, I'm sad and concerned that the quality comments submitted by me and other
quality Butte residents to make Butte a better and environmentally safe place to live will not be
seen or read by Judge Hadden! Unconscionably, Superfund law allows the EPA and State to
summarize public comments and keep important facts and information from the Judge and
basically tell the Judge what they want him to hear!
My greatest disappointment was the failure of the Butte Silver Bow Government and the State of
Montana to not follow State Laws and the Montana Constitution and their Sacred Oath of Office
to take Judge Brad Newman's decision on the successful Silver Bow Creek Headwaters Coalition's
lawsuit seriously. I'm concerned that their decision will be used by out of state landowners in the
future on the Ruby and other rivers to weaken Montana's Stream Access Law! It will also be used
to weaken Montana watercourse laws protecting rivers and creeks in the Montana Constitution—
"All waters within the boundaries of the State are the property of the State, held in trust, for the
use of its people."
The fact of the matter is as a community we had a tremendous opportunity to receive a quality cleanup and
restoration as guaranteed by Superfund/State laws and the Montana Constitution. For whatever reason,
for which I will never know why, our elected leaders and "trustees of our future" have chosen not to
provide that quality cleanup and restoration! I'm concerned our great community will remain a town
of 30,000 people, with half of them retired, and our community will be left with little, if any chance
for economic recovery! What a tragedy!
In my heart, as I have said and written probably well over a hundred times, Butte just deserves
Better!
One must always ask the question why? As I wrote to a Quality Butte resident Pat Prendergast—This situation
reminds me of the old proverbial comment of the three greatest lies in the world—I'm here from the
government and I am here to help you, the checks in the mail and you figure the third for yourself. It also
reminds me of the great Judge Skiff Sheehy comment—"Once again the State gets the gold mine and Butte
gets the shaft!" Only this time it is the Atlantic Richfield/British Petroleum Company getting the gold mine
and Butte once again gets the shaft!
When the Superfund Law was enacted back in 1980 it had one main purpose—It was initiated to
clean up contaminated waste sites in the United States! Primarily sites like Three Mile Island,
Love Cannel and sites like Butte and Anaconda Montana that had been left with hundreds of
E-66
-------
thousands of tons of contaminated waste left over from the hundreds of years of mining making
the United States the great Nation it is today.
A question that has been asked many times over the years and actually brought forward as a legal
issue and probably discussed at length in secret meetings—Is the United States Government also
responsible for the cleanup and restoration as the Potentially Responsible Party? The answer to
the Butte and Anaconda situations is resoundingly YES! Butte miners were required by the
United States government in WWI and WWII to mine the ore to provide the materials necessary
to defend this country during times of war and to electrify the country. The ladies of Butte also
"rose to the occasion" to help in that quest as well.
On April 23, 2019,1 presented Public Testimony at Montana Tech on my thoughts and concerns
with the proposed Consent Decree. Sadly during that testimony I was "cut off' from completing
my testimony by Chris Wardell of the EPA.
This is short synopsis of that testimony and the complete testimony is attached
• I believe the cleanup and restoration of Silver Bow Creek, the Butte Hill, the Montana Pole
Site, and the cleanup and restoration of the Berkeley Pit are the most important issues
facing this community. I believe if we do not get a responsible resolution to these issues this
community is going to fail. Environmentally, Economically and Socially.
• There is absolutely no question under Superfund and State Laws and the Montana Constitution
that the Atlantic Richfield now British Petroleum Company is totally responsible for the cleanup.
• They made the decision to close the Butte Mines, to close the Anaconda Smelter, to close the
Berkeley Pit, shut off the underground pumps in the Kelley Mine that caused the Berkeley Pit
and Butte mine flooding that now contain over 100 billion gallons of contaminated water, and
finally they closed the East Continental Pit that ended mining in Butte as was known for 100
years.
• Everyone involved including the agencies and Arco/Bp knows using proper science that is now
available because of research by the Butte Natural Resource Damage Council, that was not
available prior to the 2006 Record of Decision, what needs to be accomplished to have a
responsible cleanup of Butte's Silver Bow Creek under Superfund law, State Law and the
Montana Constitution. No more deals, no more "band aids! Let's do what is right.
• Anyone who tells you we cannot have a creek flowing through our town connected to
groundwater at this point is not telling you the truth! The truth of the matter is the mines
in Butte have been dewatered for the past 100 years. They have been pumped down to 1000
feet above sea level. What is happening now is the water is returning to its original state
and there will eventually be the same amount of water that has flowed down Silver Bow
Creek for hundreds of years!
• I still believe we have a tremendous one time opportunity to do what is right, and that is to-
-re-create a quality Silver Bow Creek flowing through the middle of our town and give
Butte and the Clark Fork River Basin the quality cleanup and restoration of the Butte Hill,
the Berkeley Pit and the Montana Pole Site, making Butte a better and more
environmentally safe place to live. The time however is passing and may have already
passed.
I closed my testimony by using quotes I use in my writings and public testimony;
E-67
-------
o No matter how far you go down the wrong road, it is never too late to turn
around!
o Orwellian Theory as pointed out in our first Lawsuit Brief by Jim
Goetz." Tell a lie often enough and they will begin to believe it"!
o Never take your heel off the head of a snake while the snake is still trying
to bite you! Brian Schweitzer quote
o "It's far better to walk alone, than walk with a crowd going in the wrong
direction!"—Diane Grant
o Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the M is silent!
o A man owned a little piece of Heaven and a little piece of Butte, he sold the
little piece of Heaven and moved to Butte.
o A woman on her "death bed"—Father it is not the thought of dying that
bothers me it's the thought of leaving Butte!
Finally, God bless everyone who participated. If I offended you I apologize! The
only reason I do what I do and did is because I care and just wanted to make Butte a
better and more environmentally safe place to live. As I know many of you did the
same!
E-68
-------
APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLISTS
QUI: SSTOU
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area:
Streamside Tailings Operable Unit (SSTOU)
Date of Inspection: 9/17/2020
Location and Region: Butte, MT Region 8
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA
Weather/Temperature: 80's, hazy.
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
~ Landfill cover/containment
1X1 Access controls
1X1 Institutional controls
~ Ground water pump and treatment
1 1 Surface water collection and treatment
PI Other:
EH Monitored natural attenuation
EH Ground water containment
EH Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached
EH Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
[XI Report attached: Sitewide interviews were conducted and are included in Appendix E
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
~ O&M manual EH Readily available EH Up to date £3 N/A
~ As-built drawings ^ Readily available EH Up to date EH N/A
~ Maintenance logs £3 Readily available EH Up to date EH N/A
Remarks:
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
1X1 Readily available EH Up to date
EH N/A
EH Contingency plan/emergency response plan
1^1 Readily available EH Up to date
EH N/A
Remarks:
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records
1X1 Readily available EH Up to date
EH N/A
Remarks:
4. Permits and Service Agreements
EH Air discharge permit
EH Readily available EH Up to date
[El N/A
EH Effluent discharge
EH Readily available EH Up to date
[XI N/A
EH Waste disposal, POTW
EH Readily available EH Up to date
[XI N/A
n Other Dcrmits:
EH Readily available EH Up to date
[XI N/A
Remarks:
F-l
-------
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available EH Up to date ^
N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available EH Up to date ^
N/A
7.
Ground Water Monitoring Records
Remarks:
E3 Readily available ^ Up to date EH N/A
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks:
EH Readily available EH Up to date E3
N/A
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air EH Readily available EH Up to date ^ N/A
1 1 Water (effluent) EH Readily available EH Up to date N/A
Remarks:
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks:
EH Readily available EH Up to date
N/A
IV. O&M COSTS
1.
O&M Organization
1 1 State in-house EH Contractor for state
1 1 PRP in-house EH Contractor for PRP
1 1 Federal facility in-house EH Contractor for Federal facility
153 SSTOU is not vet remedial action complete. Therefore, it has not vet entered the O&M phase.
2.
O&M Cost Records
1 1 Readily available EH Up to date
1 1 Funding mechanism/agreement in place EH Unavailable
Orieinal O&M cost estimate: 1"! Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: mm/dd/vwv To: mm/dd/vwv PI Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: mm/dd/vwv To: mm/dd/vwv
Date Date
l~~l Breakdown attached
Total cost
From: mm/dd/vwv To: mm/dd/vwv
Date Date
l~~l Breakdown attached
Total cost
From: mm/dd/vwv To: mm/dd/vwv
Date Date
l~~l Breakdown attached
Total cost
From: mm/dd/vwv To: mm/dd/vwv
Date Date
l~~l Breakdown attached
Total cost
3.
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
F-2
-------
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
Gates secured ~ N/A
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by): _
Frequency:
Responsible party/agency: State
Contact
~ Yes ~ No |EI N/A
~ Yes ~ No ^ N/A
Name
Title
mm/dd/vvvv
Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up to date
~
Yes
~
No
~
~N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency
~
Yes
~
No
[XI N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
~
Yes
No
~ n/a
Violations have been reported
~
Yes
IEI
No
~ n/a
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
2.
~ N/A
Adequacy ~ ICs are adequate ICs are inadequate
Remarks: ICs are not vet in place to prohibit activities that would disturb capped areas. The majority of
capped areas are on properties owned by the state.
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks:
No vandalism evident
2. Land Use Changes On Site
Remarks:
N/A
3. Land Use Changes Off Site
Remarks:
N/A
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads
| Applicable ~ N/A
1. Roads Damaged
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map ^ Roads adequate
~ N/A
B. Other Site Conditions
F-3
-------
Remarks:
VII. LANDFILL COVERS
~ Applicable
N/A
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS
~ Applicable
N/A
1. Settlement
Area extent:.
Remarks:
I I Location shown on site map
~ Settlement not evident
Depth:
2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring:
~ Performance not monitored
Frequency:
Head differential:
Remarks:
~ Evidence of breaching
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A
A. Ground Water Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines
~ Applicable
I N/A
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable
N/A
C. Treatment System
~ Applicable
N/A
D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data
~ Is routinely submitted on time
~ Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring Data Suggests:
~ Ground water plume is effectively contained
~ Contaminant concentrations are declining
E. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
~ Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning Q Routinely sampled
~ All required wells located ~ Needs maintenance
I I Good condition
Mwa
Remarks:
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
The SSTOU remedial action has been completed and the remaining areas are expected to be completed in
the next vcar. The stream appears well contoured and the covered areas arc w ell vegetated.
B. Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
The SSTOU has not vet entered the O&M phase.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
F-4
-------
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
None noted.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None noted.
F-5
-------
OU3: BMFOU
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
Date of Inspection: 9/15/2020
Location and Region: Butte, MT 8
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA
Weather/TemDerature: 80s/hazv
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
~ Landfill cover/containment
1X1 Access controls
1X1 Institutional controls
1X1 Groundwater pump and treatment
1X1 Surface water collection and treatment
PI Other:
EH Monitored natural attenuation
EH Groundwater containment
EH Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached
EH Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
[XI Report attached: Sitewide interviews were conducted and are included in Appendix E.
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
1X1 O&M manual [XI Readily available [XI Up to date EH N/A
1X1 As-built drawings Readily available Up to date EH N/A
M Maintenance logs ^ Readily available ^ Up to date EH N/A
Remarks:
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
1X1 Readily available ^ Up to date
EH N/A
1X1 Contingency plan/emergency response plan
1X1 Readily available ^ Up to date
EH N/A
Remarks:
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records
1X1 Readily available ^ Up to date
EH N/A
Remarks:
4. Permits and Service Agreements
EH Air discharge permit
EH Readily available EH Up to date
[El N/A
EH Effluent discharge
1X1 Readily available EH Up to date
EH N/A
EH Waste disposal, POTW
EH Readily available EH Up to date
[XI N/A
n Other Dcrmits:
EH Readily available EH Up to date
[XI N/A
Remarks: New Polishine Plant discharges to Silver Bow Creek
5. Gas Generation Records
EH Readily available EH Up to date
[XI N/A
Remarks:
6. Settlement Monument Records
EH Readily available EH Up to date
[XI N/A
F-6
-------
Remarks:
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records ^ Readily available ^ Up to date EH N/A
Remarks:
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
~ Readily available EH Up to date N/A
Remarks:
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air EH Readily available EH Up to date £3 N/A
1X1 Water (effluent) [XI Readily available [XI Up to date EH N/A
Remarks:
10. Daily Access/Security Logs
1X1 Readily available ^ Up to date EH N/A
Remarks:
IV. O&M COSTS
1.
O&M Organization
1 1 State in-house
EH Contractor for state
1 1 PRP in-house
1X1 Contractor for PRP
1 1 Federal facility in-house
EH Contractor for Federal facility
n
2.
O&M Cost Records
1 1 Readily available
EH Up to date
1 1 Funding mechanism/agreement
in place Unavailable
Orieinal O&M cost estimate:
EH Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: To:
n Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
n Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
n Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
n Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
From: To:
n Breakdown attached
Date Date
Total cost
3.
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ~ Applicable ~ N/A
A.
Fencing
1.
Fencing Damaged EH Location shown on site map £3 Gates secured EH N/A
F-7
-------
Remarks: Access is restricted and security is high.
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks: Appropriate signs are posted at mine area access points.
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented ~ Yes |E| No ~ N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced ~ Yes ^ No ~ N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by):
Frequency: Every five years
Responsible party/agency: EPA
Contact
Name Title
Reporting is up to date
Reports are verified by the lead agency
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
Violations have been reported
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
Date
Phone no.
I~1 Yes
~
No
[XI N/A
I~1 Yes
~
No
|E1 N/A
IEI Yes
~
No
~ n/a
I~1 Yes
No
~ n/a
2. Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate ~ ICs are inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks:
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks:
2. Land Use Changes On Site N/A
Remarks:
3. Land Use Changes Off Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads Applicable ~ N/A
1. Roads Damaged ~ Location shown on site map ^ Roads adequate ~ N/A
Remarks:
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ~ Applicable £3 N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (low spots) ~ Location shown on site map ~ Settlement not evident
Area extent: Depth:
F-8
-------
Remarks:
2.
Cracks
Leneths:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
Widths:
EH Cracking not evident
Deaths:
3.
Erosion
Area extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
EH Erosion not evident
Deoth:
4.
Holes
Area extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
EH Holes not evident
Deoth:
5.
Vegetative Cover
I~1 No signs of stress
Remarks:
1 1 Grass EH Cover properly established
EH Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
6.
Alternative Cover (e.£
Remarks:
armored rock, concrete)
EH N/A
7.
Bulges
Area extent:
Remarks:
EH Location shown on site map
EH Bulges not evident
Heisht:
8.
Wet A rcas/Water Damage EH Wet areas/water damage not evident
~ Wet areas
1 1 Ponding
I~1 Seeps
1 1 Soft subgrade
Remarks:
EH Location shown on site map
EH Location shown on site map
EH Location shown on site map
EH Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Area extent:
Area extent:
Area extent:
9.
Slope Instability ED Slides
~ No evidence of slope instability
Area extent:
Remarks:
EH Location shown on site map
B.
Benches EH Applicable EH N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in
order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks:
EH Location shown on site map
EH N/A or okay
2.
Bench Breached
Remarks:
EH Location shown on site map
EH N/A or okay
3.
Bench Overtopped
EH Location shown on site map
EH N/A or okay
F-9
-------
Remarks:
C.
Letdown Channels ~ Applicable ~ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.
Settlement (Low spots) ~ Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of settlement
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Material Degradation Q Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of degradation
Material tvne:
Area extent:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion Q Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of erosion
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Undercutting Q Location shown on site map
~ No evidence of undercutting
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
5.
Obstructions Tvoe:
I-! Location shown on site mat) Area extent:
Size:
Remarks:
~ No obstructions
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth Tydc:
~ No evidence of excessive growth
~ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
I-! Location shown on site mat) Area extent:
Remarks:
D.
Cover Penetrations ~ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Gas Vents Q Active
I~1 Passive
1 1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled EH Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
F-10
-------
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
4
Extraction Wells Leachate
1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
5
Settlement Monuments Q Located Q Routinely surveyed Q N/A
Remarks:
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable ~ N/A
1
Gas Treatment Facilities
I~1 Flaring ~ Thermal destruction O Collection for reuse
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
F.
Cover Drainage Layer Q Applicable ~ N/A
1
Outlet Pipes Inspected Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks:
2
Outlet Rock Inspected Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks:
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Siltation Area extent: Dcoth: I-! N/A
1 1 Siltation not evident
Remarks:
2.
Erosion Area extent: Dcoth:
1 1 Erosion not evident
Remarks:
3.
Outlet Works Q Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks:
4.
Dam ~ Functioning ~ N/A
Remarks:
H. Retaining Walls ~ Applicable ~ N/A
F-ll
-------
1.
Deformations Q Location shown on site map
1 1 Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement: Vertical displacement:
Rotational displacement:
Remarks:
2.
Degradation Q Location shown on site map
Remarks:
1 1 Degradation not evident
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ~ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Siltation Q Location shown on site map
1 1 Siltation not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map
1 1 Vegetation does not impede flow
~ n/a
Area extent:
Tvpe:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion Q Location shown on site map
1 1 Erosion not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure Q Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable g
3 N/A
1.
Settlement Q Location shown on site map
1 1 Settlement not evident
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Performance Monitoring Tvoe of monitorine:
1 1 Performance not monitored
Freauencv:
1 1 Evidence of breaching
Head differential:
Remarks:
IX.
GROUNDWATER/SURF ACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A
A.
Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines ^
^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical
1X1 Good condition Q All required wells properly operating
1 1 Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
1X1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
F-12
-------
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
153 Readily available ^ Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks:
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ^ Applicable Q N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps and Electrical
153 Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
153 Readily available Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks:
C.
Treatment System ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Treatment Train (check components that apply)
1 1 Metals removal Q Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
~ Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers
n Filters:
153 Additive (c.a.. chelation asent. flocculent):
n Others:
153 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
153 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
153 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
153 Equipment properly identified
I"! Ouantitv of groundwater treated annually:
I"! Ouantitv of surface water treated annually:
Remarks:
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1 1 N/A Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
1 1 N/A Good condition Proper secondary containment Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
1 1 N/A ^ Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
5.
Treatment Building(s)
F-13
-------
1 1 N/A ^ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs repair
1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
6
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
1^1 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
D. Monitoring Data
1
Monitoring Data
1^1 Is routinely submitted on time £3 Is °f acceptable quality
2
Monitoring Data Suggests:
1 1 Groundwater plume is effectively contained ~ Contaminant concentrations are declining
E.
Monitored Natural Attenuation
1
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A.
Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
The remedy includes water management to ensure that contaminated water does not migrate from the
Berkeley Pit into surrounding groundwater and Silver Bow Creek. Significant work has been done during
this FYR oeriod including a Pilot Discharge Proiect and construction of the Polishing Plant.
B.
Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
The water treatment olants and system are operating in accordance with olans and maintenance is
conducted as needed to ensure the system is maintaining the elevation targets in the Pit and other points of
coniDliancc.
C.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
None noted.
D.
Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None noted.
Site Inspection Participants:
Nikia Green, EPA
Treat Suomi, Skeo
Loren Burmeister, Atlantic Richfield
F-14
-------
Jeremy Fleege, Montana Resources
Mark Thompson, Montana Resources
OU4 and OU12: WSPOUs
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area: Warm
Springs Ponds Active and Inactive Operable Units
(WSPOU)
Date of Inspection: 9/17/2020
Location and Region: Butte, MT Region 8
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA
Weather/Temperature: 80's and hazy.
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
~ Landfill cover/containment
1X1 Access controls
1X1 Institutional controls
1 1 Ground water pump and treatment
1 1 Surface water collection and treatment
PI Other:
EH Monitored natural attenuation
EH Ground water containment
EH Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached
EH Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
153 Report attached: Sitewide interviews were conducted and are included in Appendix E
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
1 1 O&M manual EH Readily available EH Up to date Kl N/A
~ As-built drawings ^ Readily available EH Up to date EH N/A
~ Maintenance logs £3 Readily available EH Up to date EH N/A
Remarks:
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
1X1 Readily available EH Up to date EH N/A
EH Contingency plan/emergency response plan
1X1 Readily available EH Up to date LJ N/A
Remarks:
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records
1X1 Readily available EH Up to date EH N/A
Remarks:
F-15
-------
4. Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Effluent discharge
~ Waste disposal, POTW
I"! Other Dcrmits:
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
1 1 Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
1 1 Up to date
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
[XI N/A
[XI N/A
[XI N/A
5. Gas Generation Records
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date
[XI N/A
6. Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
7. Ground Water Monitoring Records
Remarks:
Readily available
[Xl Up to date
~ n/a
8. Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
9. Discharge Compliance Records
1 1 Air ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
~ Water (effluent) ~ Readily available ~ Up to date
Remarks:
m
N/A
N/A
10. Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
IV.
O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
1 1 State in-house O Contractor for state
1 1 PRP in-house HH Contractor for PRP
1 1 Federal facility in-house EH Contractor for Federal facility
[XI WSPTOU has not vet entered the O&M phase.
F-16
-------
2
O&M Cost Records
1 1 Readily available Q Up to date
1 1 Funding mechanism/agreement in place Q Unavailable
Orieinal O&M cost estimate: 1"! Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: mm/dd/vwv To: mm/dd/vwv PI Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: mm/dd/vwv
Date
To: mm/dd/vwv
Date
Total cost
1 1 Breakdown attached
From: mm/dd/vwv
Date
To: mm/dd/vwv
Date
Total cost
1 1 Breakdown attached
From: mm/dd/vwv
Date
To: mm/dd/vwv
Date
Total cost
1 1 Breakdown attached
From: mm/dd/vwv
Date
To: mm/dd/vwv
Date
Total cost
1 1 Breakdown attached
3.
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS [
3 Applicable ~ N/A
A.
Fencing
1.
Fencing Damaged
Remarks: .
1 1 Location shown on site map
Gates secured ~ N/A
B.
Other Access Restrictions
1.
Signs and Other Security Measures
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map ^ N/A
C.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
F-17
-------
1.
Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by): _
Frequency:
Responsible party/agency: State
Contact
~ Yes ~ No |EI N/A
~ Yes ~ No ^ N/A
Name
Title
mm/dd/vvvv
Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up to date
~
Yes
~
No
~
~N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency
~
Yes
~
No
[XI N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
~
Yes
No
~ n/a
Violations have been reported
~
Yes
El
No
~ n/a
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
2. Adequacy ~ ICs are adequate ^ ICs are inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks: The property is leased and managed by the state for use as a wildlife management area.
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks:
No vandalism evident
2. Land Use Changes On Site
Remarks:
I N/A
3. Land Use Changes Off Site
Remarks:
I N/A
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads
| Applicable ~ N/A
1. Roads Damaged
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map ^ Roads adequate
~ N/A
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
VII. LANDFILL COVERS
~ Applicable ^ N/A
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS
~ Applicable ^ N/A
Settlement
Area extent:.
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
~ Settlement not evident
Depth:
F-18
-------
2.
Performance Monitoring Tydc of monitorins:
1 1 Performance not monitored
Freauencv: I-! Evidence of breachine
Head differential:
Remarks:
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A
A.
Ground Water Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable ^ N/A
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ^ Applicable Q N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps and Electrical
153 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
53 Readily available ~ Good condition ~ Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided
Remarks:
C.
Treatment System ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Treatment Train (check components that apply)
1 1 Metals removal Q Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
~ Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers
I"! Filters:
n Additive (e.e.. chelation asent. flocculent):
n Others:
1 1 Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
1 1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
1 1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
1 1 Equipment properly identified
I"! Ouantitv of sround water treated annually:
I"! Ouantitv of surface water treated annually:
Remarks:
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1 1 N/A EH Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
F-19
-------
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
1 1 N/A ~ Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
1 1 N/A ~ Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
5.
Treatment Building(s)
1 1 N/A ~ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Q Needs repair
1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
D. Monitoring Data
1.
Monitoring Data
1 1 Is routinely submitted on time ~ Is of acceptable quality
2.
Monitoring Data Suggests:
1 1 Ground water plume is effectively contained ~ Contaminant concentrations are declining
E.
Monitored Natural Attenuation
1.
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
1 1 Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition
1 1 All required wells located ~ Needs maintenance N/A
Remarks:
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A.
Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
The overall DroDcrtv and the remedial features aooear in sood condition.
B.
Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
The WSPOU has not vet entered the O&M phase.
C.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
F-20
-------
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
None noted.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None noted.
F-21
-------
OU7: Rocker OU
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area: Rocker
Timber Treating and Framing (Rocker) OU7
Date of Inspection: 9/16/2020
Location and Region: Butte, MT Region 8
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA
Weather/Temperature: 80's and hazy
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
Landfill cover/containment
Access controls
1^1 Institutional controls
1 1 Ground water pump and treatment
~ Surface water collection and treatment
PI Other:
Monitored natural attenuation
Ground water containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached
1 1 Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
153 Report attached: Sitewide interviews were conducted and are included in Appendix E
F-22
-------
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1.
O&M Documents
1X1 O&M manual £3 Readily available
1X1 As-built drawings ^ Readily available
1X1 Maintenance logs ^ Readily available
Remarks:
1X1 Up to date
1X1 Up to date
1X1 Up to date
~ n/a
~ n/a
~ n/a
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan
Remarks:
1X1 Readily available
~ Readily available
[Xl Up to date
~ Up to date
~ n/a
[XI N/A
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks:
1X1 Readily available
1X1 Up to date
~ n/a
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Effluent discharge
~ Waste disposal, POTW
I"! Other Dcrmits:
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
~ Readily available
1 1 Readily available
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
~ Up to date
1 1 Up to date
[XI N/A
[XI N/A
[XI N/A
IXI N/A
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[XI N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IXI N/A
7.
Ground Water Monitoring Records
Remarks:
1X1 Readily available
1X1 Up to date
~ n/a
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IXI N/A
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available
1 1 Water (effluent) ~ Readily available
Remarks:
~ Up to date
1 1 Up to date
N/A
N/A
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
IXI N/A
F-23
-------
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
~ State in-house
~ PRP in-house
~ Federal facility in-house
~
2. O&M Cost Records
~ Readily available Q Up to date
~ Funding mechanism/agreement in place Unavailable
Original O&M cost estimate: _ _ ~ Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: mm/dd/vwv To: mm/dd/vwv O Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
Remarks:
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS |EI Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged ~ Location shown on site map Gates secured ~ N/A
Remarks:
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures ~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A
Remarks:
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
I I Contractor for state
1^1 Contractor for PRP
I I Contractor for Federal facility
F-24
-------
Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented ~ Yes E| No ~ N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced ~ Yes |S| No ~ N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by): Check of deed records during the FYR process.
Frequency: Every five years
Responsible party/agency: EPA
Contact mm/dd/vvvv
Name Title Date Phone no.
Reporting is up to date
IEI Yes
~ No
~
~N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency
IEI Yes
~ No
[XI N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
I~1 Yes
lElNo
~ n/a
Violations have been reported
I~1 Yes
lElNo
~ n/a
Other problems or suggestions: ^ Report attached
Remarks:
2. Adequacy ^ ICs are adequate ~ ICs are inadequate ~ N/A
Remarks: See section X of the current FYR for further discusion of ICs.
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map ^ No vandalism evident
Remarks:
2. Land Use Changes On Site N/A
Remarks:
3. Land Use Changes Off Site ^ N/A
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads ~ Applicable ^ N/A
1. Roads Damaged ~ Location shown on site map ~ Roads adequate ^ N/A
Remarks:
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ^Applicable ~ N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (low spots) ~ Location shown on site map ^ Settlement not evident
Arial extent: Depth:
Remarks:
F-25
-------
2
Cracks
1 1 Location shown on site map
Cracking not evident
Leneths:
Widths:
Deaths:
Remarks:
3
Erosion
Arial extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
I>^1 Erosion not evident
Deoth:
4
Holes
Arial extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
1)^1 Holes not evident
Deoth:
5
Vegetative Cover
1 1 Grass
Cover properly established
I~1 No signs of stress
1 1 Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks:
6
Alternative Cover (e.£
Remarks:
armored rock, concrete)
M N/A
7
Bulges
Arial extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
E3 Bulges not evident
Heisht:
8
Wet A rcas/Water Damage ^ Wet areas/water damage not evident
n Wet areas
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
l~l Seeps
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
1 1 Soft subgrade
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
Remarks:
9
Slope Instability
1 1 Slides
~ Location shown on site map
1^1 No evidence of slope instability
Arial extent:
Remarks:
B.
Benches ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in
order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
C.
Letdown Channels
1 1 Applicable ^ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
D.
Cover Penetrations
~ Applicable N/A
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable ^ N/A
F.
Cover Drainage Layer
~ Applicable N/A
F-26
-------
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable ^ N/A
H. Retaining Walls ~ Applicable ^ N/A
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ~ Applicable ^ N/A
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable N/A
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A
A. Ground Water Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable ^ N/A
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable ^ N/A
C. Treatment System ~ Applicable ^ N/A
D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data
1^1 Is routinely submitted on time £3 Is °f acceptable quality
2. Monitoring Data Suggests:
~ Ground water plume is effectively contained ~ Contaminant concentrations are declining
E. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
153 Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled
~ All required wells located ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks: .
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
EPA is reviewing a revised draft CSM. After review. EPA will determine if additional response actions
arc warranted lo address remaining contamination.
B. Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
No issues noted.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
As noted in the 2014 ESP and prior FYRs. elevated arsenic conentrations and potential downgradient
contaminant increases are being investigated. . EPA is reviewing a revised draft CSM and will pursue
appropriate action.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None noted.
Good condition
~ N/A
F-27
-------
OU8: BPSOU
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area: Butte
Priority Soils Operable Unit (BPSOU) OU8
Date of Inspection: 9/15/2020
Location and Region: Butte, MT Region 8
EPA ID: MTD980502777
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA
Weather/Temperature: 80 degrees Fahrenheit,
Overcast and hazy.
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
1X1 Landfill cover/containment
~ Monitored natural attenuation
1X1 Access controls
~ Ground water containment
M Institutional controls
1 1 Vertical barrier walls
1X1 Ground water pump and treatment
1X1 Surface water collection and treatment
IXI Other: Residential Metals Abatement Prosram (RMAP)
Attachments: Inspection team roster attached
l~l Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
IXI Report attached: Sitewide interviews were conducted and are included in Appendix E
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
IXI O&M manual [>^ Readily available [>^ Up to date CD N/A
IXI As-built drawings £3 Readily available £3 Up to date CD N/A
IXI Maintenance logs ^ Readily available ^ Up to date CD N/A
Remarks:
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
IXI Readily available ^ Up to date
~ n/a
IXI Contingency plan/emergency response plan
1X1 Readily available ^ Up to date
~ n/a
Remarks:
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records
IXI Readily available ^ Up to date
~ n/a
Remarks:
4. Permits and Service Agreements
~ Air discharge permit
~ Readily available ~ Up to date
[El N/A
~ Effluent discharge
~ Readily available ~ Up to date
IXI N/A
~ Waste disposal, POTW
~ Readily available ~ Up to date
IXI N/A
I"! Other Dcrmits:
~ Readily available ~ Up to date
IXI N/A
Remarks:
5. Gas Generation Records
~ Readily available ~ Up to date
IXI N/A
Remarks:
F-28
-------
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[El N/A
7.
Ground Water Monitoring Records
Remarks:
Readily available
[El Up to date
~ n/a
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks:
~ Readily available
~ Up to date
[El N/A
9. Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air ~ Readily available
1^1 Water (effluent) ^ Readily available
Remarks:
~ Up to date
[El Up to date
IE|n/a
~ n/a
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs
Readily available ^ Up to date EH N/A
Remarks:
IV. O&M COSTS
1.
O&M Organization
1 1 State in-house
1 1 Contractor for state
1 1 PRP in-house
1X1 Contractor for PRP
1 1 Federal facility in-house
1 1 Contractor for Federal facility
n
2.
O&M Cost Records
~ Readily available Q Up to date
153 Funding mechanism/agreement in place ^ Unavailable
Original O&M cost estimate: _ _ ~ Breakdown attached
From: mm/dd/vwv
Date
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
To: mm/dd/vwv O Breakdown attached
Date Total cost
Remarks: O&M costs were not available for review during this FYR.
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS |E| Applicable ~ N/A
A. Fencing
1.
Fencing Damaged
~ Location shown on site map
Gates secured ~ N/A
Remarks: Fencing around the water treatment plant at Lower Area One was secure and in excellent
condition.
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures ~ Location shown on site map O N/A
Remarks: Appropriate signs are posted at restricted areas such as the Lower Area One treatment plant.
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
F-29
-------
1. Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by): _
Frequency:
Responsible party/agency:
Contact
Name
Title
~ Yes ~ No |3 N/A
~ Yes ~ No |KI N/A
mm/dd/vvvv
Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up to date
~
Yes
~
No
El
~N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency
~
Yes
~
No
|EI N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
~
Yes
ei
No
~ n/a
Violations have been reported
~
Yes
El
No
~ n/a
Other problems or suggestions: ^ Report attached
Remarks:
2.
Adequacy
Remarks:
~ ICs are adequate
| ICs are inadequate
~ N/A
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map
Remarks:
No vandalism evident
2.
Land Use Changes On Site
~ N/A
Remarks: The BPSOU includes active areas of Walkerville and Butte. No land use changes have been
noted or are expected, although there is continual construction and developemnt at areas included in the
Site.
3. Land Use Changes Off Site
Remarks:
I N/A
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads
| Applicable ~ N/A
1. Roads Damaged
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map ~ Roads adequate
I N/A
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
VII. LANDFILL COVERS
Applicable ~ N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (low spots)
Arial extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
E3 Settlement not evident
Depth:
F-30
-------
2
Cracks
1 1 Location shown on site map
Cracking not evident
Leneths:
Widths:
Deaths:
Remarks:
3
Erosion
Arial extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
I>^1 Erosion not evident
Deoth:
4
Holes
Arial extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
1)^1 Holes not evident
Deoth:
5
Vegetative Cover
1 1 Grass
Cover properly established
I~1 No signs of stress
1 1 Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks:
6
Alternative Cover (e.£
Remarks:
armored rock, concrete)
M N/A
7
Bulges
Arial extent:
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map
E3 Bulges not evident
Heisht:
8
Wet A rcas/Water Damage ^ Wet areas/water damage not evident
n Wet areas
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
I~1 Seeps
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
1 1 Soft subgrade
1 1 Location shown on site map
Arial extent:
Remarks:
9
Slope Instability
1 1 Slides
~ Location shown on site map
1^1 No evidence of slope instability
Arial extent:
Remarks:
B.
Benches ~ Applicable ^ N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in
order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
C.
Letdown Channels
1 1 Applicable ^ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
D.
Cover Penetrations
~ Applicable N/A
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment ~ Applicable ^ N/A
F.
Cover Drainage Layer
~ Applicable N/A
F-31
-------
G.
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds ~ Applicable
[El N/A
H. Retaining Walls ~ Applicable ^ N/A
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ^ Applicable
~ n/a
1.
Siltation ~ Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Remarks:
1X1 Siltation not evident
Dcoth:
2.
Vegetative Growth Q Location shown on site map
1X1 Vegetation does not impede flow
Area extent:
Remarks:
~ n/a
Type:
3.
Erosion Q Location shown on site map
Area extent:
Remarks:
1X1 Erosion not evident
Deoth:
4.
Discharge Structure ^ Functioning
Remarks:
~ n/a
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS
~ Applicable ^ N/A
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A
A.
Ground Water Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines
1X1 Applicable EH N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical
1X1 Good condition Q All required wells properly operating O Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
1X1 Good condition O Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
1X1 Readily available EH Good condition Q Requires upgrade EH Needs to be provided
Remarks:
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines
[XI Applicable |_| N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Pumps and Electrical
1X1 Good condition EH Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
1X1 Good condition ED Needs maintenance
Remarks:
F-32
-------
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
53 Readily available Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade
Remarks:
I~1 Needs to be provided
C.
Treatment System ^ Applicable ~ N/A
1.
Treatment Train (check components that apply)
1 1 Metals removal Q Oil/water separation Q Bioremediation
~ Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers
I"! Filters:
53 Additive (c.a.. chelation asent. flocculent):
n Others:
53 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
53 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
153 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
Equipment properly identified
Remarks:
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
1 1 N/A Good condition ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
1 1 N/A Good condition Proper secondary containment
Remarks:
1 1 Needs maintenance
4.
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
1 1 N/A Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
5.
Treatment Building(s)
1 1 N/A ^ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)
53 Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
1 1 Needs repair
6.
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
53 Properly secured/locked Functioning £3 Routinely sampled
53 Good condition
1 1 All required wells located ~ Needs maintenance
Remarks:
~ n/a
F-33
-------
D. Monitoring Data
1
Monitoring Data
1^1 Is routinely submitted on time £3 Is °f acceptable quality
2
Monitoring Data Suggests:
1 1 Ground water plume is effectively contained EH Contaminant concentrations are declining
E.
Monitored Natural Attenuation
1
Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
1 1 Properly secured/locked EH Functioning EH Routinely sampled EH Good condition
EH All required wells located EH Needs maintenance N/A
Remarks:
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A.
Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
The remedv is expected to function as intended bv the 2006 BPSOU ROD. the 2011 BPSOU ESD. and
the 2020 ROD Amendment once complete. In the interim, oneoine remedial activities continue.
B.
Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy,
remedv desisn and implementation are continuing.
C.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
None Noted
D.
Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None Noted.
F-34
-------
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS
OUl: SSTOU
SSTOU: Restored area of Subarea 3
SSTOU: Creek and vegetation
-------
SSTOU: Area of Subarea 3 to be addressed
SSTOU: Railroad line in Subarea 3, looking into Subarea 4
G-2
-------
OU3: BMFOU
Berkeley Pit
G-3
-------
Horseshoe Bend Capture System
Capture system pump house
G-4
-------
Continental pit
HsBWTP
G-5
-------
Sludge accumulation at HsBWTP
G-6
-------
Product tank and effluent filter in Polishing Plant
New Granite Mountain well
G-7
-------
OU4/12: WSPOUs
'LttflmACVlHHil'
•JIUV »HKS rc*45
Entrance to lime treatment facility
Lime treatment silo
G-8
-------
Pond 3 inlet structure
Berm from Pond 3 to Pond 2
G-9
-------
Pond 1 dry closure area
Recreational signage
G-10
-------
Public access boat ramp
Honeybee hives
G-ll
-------
OU7: Rocker OU
Locked entrance to Rocker repository
RH22 and RH21 monitoring wells
G-12
-------
Rocker repository and adjacent rail line
Rocker repository, looking east
G-13
-------
View of Town Pump area from atop Rocker repository
Rocker repository south fenceline
G-14
-------
OU8: BPSOU
Silver Bow Creek/MSD
Butte Reduction Works
G-15
-------
Parrot Tailings removal area
Dredging operation at Butte Treatment Lagoons
G-16
-------
, |T.
11
1
•v
iW
Lime treatment at Butte Treatment Lagoons
BRES Site, Rising Star East
G-17
-------
BRES site with stormwater management features, Alice diversion ditch
Green Mountain Catch Basin
G-18
-------
BRES site, Alice Dump
BRES site with stormwater management features, Buffalo South
G-19
-------
Northside Tailings with Silver Bow Creek in background
G-20
-------
Source material in West Side Soils OU
Additional material throughout the West Side Soils OU
G-21
-------
APPENDIX H - BPSOU SCREENING-LEVEL RISK EVALUATION
This FYR reviewed toxicity values and changes in risk assessment methods since the 2006 ROD to evaluate if the
ROD soil and dust cleanup goals remain valid.
This FYR reviewed the toxicity values for arsenic and mercury. The noncancer and carcinogenic-based toxicity
values have not changed since the 2006 ROD, as shown in Table H-l and Table H-2, respectively.
Table H-l: Evaluation of Noncancer Toxicity Values used in the 2006 BPSOU ROD Cleanup Levels
(<)(
2UIW» KOI) Toxicity Yiilnes'1
( iirrcnl To\icil\ \'sillies1'
(hiiii tie
Oral Kefcrcnce Dose
(KID..) iiig/kg/(l;i\
Enliiiliilion KI'Di
(in^/k^/diii)
Oral EMcrenee
E)ose(KI'E)..)
m;i/k;i/(l;i\
Enliiiliilion
KM),
(iii^/k^/(lii> •
Arsenic
3L-04
-
3L-04
-
None
Mercury
3E-04
8.6E-05
3E-04
8.6E-05b
None
Notes:
a. Toxicity values from the 2003 Walkerville Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Table 4-1 and the 1997 BPSOU
HHRA for Arsenic, Table 5-16 (cancer slope values) and Table 5-23 (RfDs).
b. Toxicity values obtained from EPA's May 2020 Regional Screening Level Table and converted the listed noncancer
reference concentration (RfC) to a reference dose (RfD) as follows:
RfD,= RfC (mg/kg/day) x (20m3/day inhalation rate/70-kilogram body weight)
3E-04 mg/m3x (20/70) = 8.6E-05 mg/kg/day.
Table H-2: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Toxicity Values Used in the 2006 BPSOU ROD Cleanup Levels
< o<
KOI) Eo\ieil\ \ iilucs'1
( iirrcnl Tn\ici(\ Values1'
Change
Orsil ('.nicer
Slope E-'iielor
ICS I-..)
mii/k*i/(l;i>
Enliiiliilion (iineer
Slope E-'iielor
l('SI-'i) mji/kii/diij
Oral Cancer
Slope I'aclor
ICS l-\.)
inji/k*i/(lii>
Enliiiliilion ( iineer
Slope I'aclor (CSI'i)
mg/kg/ilat
Arsenic
1.5E+00
1.51E+01
1.5E+00
1.51E+01
None
Mercury
NA
NA
NA
NA
None
Notes:
a. Toxicity values from the 2003 Walkerville HHRA Table 4-1 and the 1997 BPSOU HHRA for Arsenic, Table 5-16
(cancer slope values) and Table 5-23 (RfDs).
b. Toxicity values obtained from EPA's May 2020 Regional Screening Level Table and converted the listed cancer unit
inhalation unit risk value (IUR) to a CSF as follows: CSF, = IUR (ng/m3)1 x (70 kilogram body weight/(20m3/day
inhalation rate) x 1,000 |ig/mg
4.3E-03 x (70/20) x 1,000 = 1.51E+01 mg/kg/day.
Risk assessment methods associated with evaluating lead exposures have changed since the previous FYR.
Historically, EPA has used the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK
model) as a risk assessment tool to support environmental cleanup decisions at residential sites. The 2006 ROD
established lead cleanup goals using EPA's IEUBK model. Since 2006, additional data have become available
from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to show that blood lead levels
continue to decline in the U.S. population. EPA has periodically updated several model input parameters in the
IEUBK to reflect the most current blood lead data from NHANES. Since 2006, EPA has updated the IEUBK
several times with the latest version released in 2021 (Version 2) that reflects new data on food lead
concentrations from the Food and Drug Administration's 2010 market basket survey and NHANES and updated
the age ranges for running the model. Version 2 of IEUBK model also incorporates EPA guidance released in
May 2017 that provides a recommended value for the IUEBK input parameter, mother's blood lead concentration
at childbirth, based on the analysis of the NHANES 2009-2014 data. In addition, the May 2017 guidance
recommends that the IEUBK model be used for the 12-71 month age range.
H-l
-------
The lead action level for residential areas included in the 2006 ROD of 1,200 mg/kg was originally developed by
the EPA in a technical memorandum prepared in 1993. The action level was derived using version 0.61 of the
IEUBK model using many default assumptions and several site-specific assumptions. The three site-specific
assumptions were based on site-specific studies (e.g., the contribution of soil lead to indoor household dust, the
bioavailability of lead in soil and the geometric standard deviation of blood lead). The remaining input variables
were model default assumptions recommended by EPA guidance and the EPA toxicologist, to define the
reasonably maximum exposed individual. The ROD cleanup goal reflects the EPA's risk reduction goal for
contaminated sites to limit the probability of a child's blood lead concentration exceeding 10 (ig/dL to 5 percent or
less after cleanup.
To determine if the ROD residential action level remains valid, the most current IEUBK model (Version 2, Build
1.64) was run using the current model defaults reflecting current EPA guidance and site-specific assumptions and
then compared to the action level developed in March 1993 technical memorandum. Table H-3 shows the current
model predicts a higher value (1458 mg/kg) based on the EPA's current policy of ensuring a blood-lead level of
10 |_ig/dl .
The EPA has been reviewing a number of lead toxicity and exposure studies to determine if the current lead
cleanup policy and the IEUBK require revisions. Until policy work is revised and finalized, the EPA's current
policy remains in effect. However, if a new lead policy is issued prior to the next FYR, the risk-based action
levels for lead may be re-evaluated at that time.
Table H-3: Assumptions Used in the IEUBK Model Based on 2006 BPSOU ROD and Current EPA
Guidance
Description
I nils
pw n:i »k Modcr
( iirrcnl II I IH< Model1'
Maternal blood lead concentrations
Hg/dL
l
0.6 (default)
Indoor lead concentration (percentage
of outdoor)
%
30 (default)
30 (default)
Concentration in outdoor air
Hg/m3
0.2 (default)
0.1 (default)
Geometric standard deviation of blood
lead
Unitless
1.68 (site-specific)
1.68 (site-specific)
Total daily dust and soil intake
Grams/day
1993 model defaults
2021 model defaults
0-1 yr old
0.043
0.086
1-2 yr old
0.108
0.094
2-3 yr old
0.108
0.067
3-4 yr old
0.108
0.063
4-5 yr old
0.085
0.067
5-6 yr old
0.075
0.052
6-7 yr old
0.070
0.055
Dietary lead intake
^g/day
1993 model defaults
2021 model defaults
0-1 yr old
5.88
2.66
1-2 yr old
5.92
5.03
2-3 yr old
6.79
5.21
3-4 yr old
6.57
5.38
4-5 yr old
6.36
5.64
5-6 yr old
6.75
6.04
6-7 yr old
7.48
5.95
Ventilation rate
m3/day
1993 model defaults
2021 model defaults
0-1 yr old
2
3.22
1-2 yr old
3
4.97
2-3 yr old
5
6.09
3-4 yr old
5
6.95
4-5 yr old
5
7.68
5-6 yr old
7
8.32
H-2
-------
Ek'scriplinn
1 nils
il l l*K Mode!'
Cunvnl il l UK Mode!1'
6-7 yr old
7
8.89
Drinking water intake
L/day
1993 model defaults
2021 model defaults
0-1 yr old
0.2
0.4
1-2 yr old
0.5
0.43
2-3 yr old
0.52
0.51
3-4 yr old
0.53
0.54
4-5 yr old
0.55
0.57
5-6 yr old
0.58
0.6
6-7 yr old
0.59
0.63
Concentration in water
Hg/L
4
0.9 (default)
Bioavailability
%
Soil bioavailability
12 (Site-specific)3
12 (Site-specific)3
Dust bioavailability
30 (default)
30 (default)
Groundwater and diet bioavailability
50 (default)
50 (default)
Contribution of soil lead to indoor
household dust weighting factor
Unitless
0.24 Site-specific
0.24 Site-specific
Contribution of outdoor airborne lead
to indoor household dust lead
Unitless
100 (default)
100 (default)
Soil to dust weighting factor
%
45 (default)
45 (default)
Cutoff blood lead level
Hg/dL
10 (default)
10 (current EPA policy)
Age group
Months
0-6 years or 0-72
months
1-7 years or 12-72 months
Risk-based concentration
mg/kg
1,175 mg/kg
l,458mg/kg
Notes:
a. Based on the 1993 Technical Memorandum. Butte Priority Soils Development of Preliminary
Remediation Goals for Lead in Soil. March 15, 1993.
b. The most current version of the IEUBK model was released in May 2021 and obtained at:
httDs://\\\w\.CDa.ao\/sitcs/Droduction/filcs/2021-06/icubkwin 2 buildl-source.66 fordownload.zio.
c. Transmittal of Update to the Adult Lead Methodology' s Default Baseline Blood Lead Concentration
and Geometric Standard Deviation Parameters. Office of Land and Emergency Management Directive
9285, 6-56. May 2017.
The cleanup goal for child exposures to the non-residential areas (e.g., open space/recreational) of 2,300 mg/kg
was also based on the IEUBK model, thus cleanup goal remains valid since the IEUBK review for residential
areas was deemed valid based on the EPA's current lead policy.
The EPA has not yet updated its lead policy on evaluating lead cleanup at Superfund sites, thus, the RMAP is in
place to abate unacceptable health risks associated with exposure to lead, as required by the ROD. The RMAP is a
multi-pathway program to abate soil lead and other hazards (attic dust, interior dust and paint) associated with
lead and other site COCs. In addition to the abatement activities, a clinical and educational intervention program
is also completed each year. Blood lead screening is available to all Butte-Silver Bow residents through Butte's
WIC Program administered through the Butte-Silver Bow Health Department. In addition to blood testing,
families are educated about potential lead exposures in and around their homes. Based on the most recent (2019)
medical monitoring report, blood lead (PbB) levels in the Butte community are decreasing. The health department
utilizes a more stringent target blood lead level of 5 (ig/dL20 when evaluating child PbB levels. The RMAP results
show that the number of children with PbB levels above 5 (ig/dL has dropped dramatically. In addition, elevated
PbB levels cannot be attributed solely to mine waste (i.e., lead paint likely is an important contributor).
20 Prior to 2013, the health department used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 10
micrograms per deciliter (|ig/dL) as a blood lead "level of concern." Based on a review of several studies, the CDC revised
this level to 5 ng/dL. The health department adopted the 5 ng/dL level in 2013 as part of the RMAP health studies as a risk
management tool to identify children who might have elevated lead exposures so that actions could be taken to reduce such
exposures.
H-3
-------
APPENDIX I - SSTOU DATA TABLES
Table 1-1. Difference in Average Groundwater Arsenic Concentrations Between Background and
Monitoring Wells of the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019.
Subarea
Well Cluster
Well Pair
Average Dissolved Concentration
(mg/L)
Proportional Difference
(%)
Background
Well
Monitoring
Well
Difference
1
Colorado
Tailings
MW-1010RA and GW-WG-NS
0.002
0.009
0.007
400
MW-1010RA and GW-WG-SS
0.002
0.009
0.007
400
Rocker
GW-RK-BGA and MW-10
0.006
0.014
0.007
1,200
GW-RK-BGA and MW-01
0.006
0.013
0.007
110
Nissler
GW-1003RA and GW-1004A
0.011
<0.001
-0.010
-97
GW-1003RA and P-58A
0.011
0.001
-0.010
-90
2
Silver Bow
P-114AandP-37A
0.003
0.009
0.006
230
P-114AandP-39R
0.003
0.011
0.008
390
Miles Crossing
GW-MC-BGA and GW-MC-NS
0.037
0.002
-0.035
-96
GW-MC-BGA and GW-MC-SS
0.037
0.002
-0.035
-96
4
Fairmont
GW-FM-BGA and GW-FM-ES
0.002
0.002
0.000
13
GW-FM-BGA and GW-FM-WS
0.002
0.002
0.000
25
Crackerville
GW-CR-BGA and GW-CR-ES
0.035
0.001
-0.034
-98
GW-CR-BGA and GW-CR-WS
0.035
0.012
-0.023
-66
Stuart
GW-ST-BGA and GW-ST-ES
0.002
0.000
-0.002
-79
GW-ST-BGA and GW-ST-WS
0.002
0.002
0.000
0
Frontage Road
GW-FR-BGA and GW-FR-ES
0.009
0.002
-0.007
-80
GW-FR-BGA and GW-FR-WS
0.009
0.008
-0.001
-11
Background well.
Exceeds DEQ [2019] human health groundwater standard.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by more than double but less than an
order of magnitude.
1-1
-------
Table 1-2. Difference in Average Groundwater Cadmium Concentrations Between Background and
Monitoring Wells of the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019.
Subarea
Well Cluster
Well Pair
Average Dissolved Concentration
(mg/L)
Proportional Difference
(%)
Background Well
Monitoring Well
Difference
1
Colorado
Tailings
MW-1010RA and GW-WG-NS
0.00002
0.00006
0.00004
280
MW-1010RA and GW-WG-SS
0.00002
0.00006
0.00005
330
Rocker
GW-RK-BGA and MW-10
0.00002
0.00346
0.00345
23,000
GW-RK-BGA and MW-01
0.00002
0.00124
0.00122
8,100
Nissler
GW-1003RA and GW-1004A
0.00002
0.00228
0.00226
15,100
GW-1003RA and P-58A
0.00002
0.01072
0.01071
71,400
2
Silver Bow
P-114A and P-37A
0.00004
0.01269
0.01265
30,900
P-114A and P-39R
0.00004
0.00011
0.00007
170
Miles Crossing
GW-MC-BGA and GW-MC-NS
0.00002
0.02704
0.02702
135,100
GW-MC-BGA and GW-MC-SS
0.00002
0.01015
0.01013
50,700
4
Fairmont
GW-FM-BGA and GW-FM-ES
0.00041
0.00015
-0.00027
-64
GW-FM-BGA and GW-FM-WS
0.00041
0.00003
-0.00039
-93
Crackerville
GW-CR-BGA and GW-CR-ES
0.00003
0.00195
0.00192
6,900
GW-CR-BGA and GW-CR-WS
0.00003
0.02200
0.02197
78,500
Stuart
GW-ST-BGA and GW-ST-ES
0.00157
0.02050
0.01893
1,200
GW-ST-BGA and GW-ST-WS
0.00157
0.02692
0.02535
1,600
Frontage Road
GW-FR-BGA and GW-FR-ES
0.00005
0.00008
0.00003
70
GW-FR-BGA and GW-FR-WS
0.00005
0.00004
0.00000
-9
Background well.
Exceeds MDHES [1994] and DEQ [2019] human health groundwater standards.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by more than double, but less than an order
of magnitude.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by 1-2 orders of magnitude.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
1-2
-------
Table 1-3. Difference in Average Groundwater Copper Concentrations Between Background and
Monitoring Wells of the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019.
Average Dissolved Concentration
(mg/L)
Ol
(J
S
Ol
-
Subarea
Well Cluster
Well Pair
Background
Well
Monitoring
Well
Difference
55
5
s
o
'¦£
o
c. _
!£
Colorado
MW-1010RA and GW-WG-NS
0.001
0.001
0.000
6
Tailings
MW-1010RA and GW-WG-SS
0.001
0.001
0.000
25
1
Rocker
GW-RK-BGA and MW-10
<0.001
0.056
0.056
13,200
GW-RK-BGA and MW-01
<0.001
0.067
0.067
15,900
Nissler
GW-1003RA and GW-1004A
<0.001
0.181
0.181
42,000
GW-1003RA and P-58A
<0.001
0.350
0.349
81,200
Silver Bow
P-114A and P-37A
0.001
0.060
0.059
6,000
2
P-114A and P-39R
0.001
0.033
0.032
3,300
Miles Crossing
GW-MC-BGA and GW-MC-NS
<0.001
0.230
0.230
47,900
GW-MC-BGA and GW-MC-SS
<0.001
0.020
0.020
4,100
Fairmont
GW-FM-BGA and GW-FM-ES
0.001
0.002
0.001
230
GW-FM-BGA and GW-FM-WS
0.001
0.002
0.001
190
Crackerville
GW-CR-BGA and GW-CR-ES
0.003
0.004
0.001
20
GW-CR-BGA and GW-CR-WS
0.003
0.031
0.028
9,300
4
Stuart
GW-ST-BGA and GW-ST-ES
0.001
1.128
1.127
112,700
GW-ST-BGA and GW-ST-WS
0.001
0.167
0.166
16,600
Frontage Road
GW-FR-BGA and GW-FR-ES
0.003
0.001
-0.002
-64
GW-FR-BGA and GW-FR-WS
0.003
0.002
-0.001
-41
Background well.
Exceeds MDHES [1994] human health groundwater standard.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by more than double, but less than an order
of magnitude.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by :
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by :
1-2 orders of magnitude.
' 2-3 orders of magnitude.
' at least 3 orders of magnitude.
1-3
-------
Table 1-4. Difference in Average Groundwater Lead Concentrations Between Background and Monitoring
Wells of the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019.
Subarea
Well Cluster
Well Pair
Average Dissolved Concentration
(mg/L)
Proportional Difference
(%)
Background
Well
Monitoring
Well
Difference
1
Colorado
Tailings
MW-1010RA and GW-WG-NS
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002
160
MW-1010RA and GW-WG-SS
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
-14
Rocker
GW-RK-BGA and MW-10
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
24
GW-RK-BGA and MW-01
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
3
Nissler
GW-1003RA and GW-1004A
0.0001
0.0087
0.0086
8.900
GW-1003RA and P-58A
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0
2
Silver Bow
P-114A and P-37A
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
-3
P-114A and P-39R
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
6
Miles Crossing
GW-MC-BGA and GW-MC-NS
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
3
GW-MC-BGA and GW-MC-SS
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0
4
Fairmont
GW-FM-BGA and GW-FM-ES
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
-14
GW-FM-BGA and GW-FM-WS
0.0001
0.0004
0.0003
2,600
Crackerville
GW-CR-BGA and GW-CR-ES
0.0004
0.0001
-0.0002
-69
GW-CR-BGA and GW-CR-WS
0.0004
0.0002
-0.0002
-55
Stuart
GW-ST-BGA and GW-ST-ES
0.0001
0.0009
0.0008
880
GW-ST-BGA and GW-ST-WS
0.0001
0.0004
0.0003
310
Frontage Road
GW-FR-BGA and GW-FR-ES
0.0002
0.0001
-0.0001
-47
GW-FR-BGA and GW-FR-WS
0.0002
0.0002
0.0000
19
Background well.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by more than double, but less than an order
of magnitude.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by 1-2 orders of magnitude.
1-4
-------
Table 1-5. Difference in Average Groundwater Zinc Concentrations Between Background and Monitoring
Wells of the Streamside Tailings Operable Unit, 2015-2019.
Average Dissolved Concentration
(mg/L)
Ol
(J
S
Ol
-
Subarea
Well Cluster
Well Pair
Background
Well
Monitoring Well
Difference
to
5
s
_o
-
o
—
Colorado
MW-1010RA and GW-WG-NS
0.003
0.955
0.952
33,800
Tailings
MW-1010RA and GW-WG-SS
0.003
0.003
0.000
-1
1
Rocker
GW-RK-BGA and MW-10
0.003
4.406
4.403
143,900
GW-RK-BGA and MW-01
0.003
0.184
0.181
5,900 |
Nissler
GW-1003RA and GW-1004A
0.003
6.848
6.845
229,700
GW-1003RA and P-58A
0.003
6.762
6.759
226,800
Silver Bow
P-114A and P-37A
0.004
0.790
0.786
22,100
2
P-114A and P-39R
0.004
0.007
0.003
89
Miles Crossing
GW-MC-BGA and GW-MC-NS
0.003
7.414
7.411
239,100
GW-MC-BGA and GW-MC-SS
0.003
3.036
3.033
97,800
Fairmont
GW-FM-BGA and GW-FM-ES
0.008
0.353
0.345
4,300
GW-FM-BGA and GW-FM-WS
0.008
0.076
0.068
850
Crackerville
GW-CR-BGA and GW-CR-ES
0.005
0.437
0.433
920
GW-CR-BGA and GW-CR-WS
0.005
0.251
0.246
530
4
Stuart
GW-ST-BGA and GW-ST-ES
0.945
3.006
2.061
220
GW-ST-BGA and GW-ST-WS
0.945
4.116
3.171
340
Frontage Road
GW-FR-BGA and GW-FR-ES
0.003
0.003
0.000
13
GW-FR-BGA and GW-FR-WS
0.003
0.003
0.000
0
Background well.
Exceeds DEQ [2019] human health groundwater standard.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background concentration by more than double, but less than an order
of magnitude.
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background i
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background i
Average monitoring well concentration exceeds background i
I concentration by 1-2 orders of magnitude.
I concentration by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
I concentration by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
1-5
-------
APPENDIX J - WARM SPRINGS PONDS OUS DATA TABLES
Table J-l Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Concentrations, 2015-2019
Minimum, Maximum, and Average Concentration of Regulated Constituents Entering and Leaving the Warm Springs Ponds,
January 2015 through December 2019. (mg/L)
Constituent
Date
SS-1
SS-5
Min.
Max.
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Avg.
PH
2015
7.6
9.2
8.5
7.8
10.4
8.9
2016
7.6
9.2
8.4
7.5
10.0
8.9
2017
7.3
9.1
8.2
7.6
10.4
8.9
2018
7.5
8.5
8.1
7.3
10.3
8.8
2019
7.7
9.1
8.1
7.7
10.5
8.9
TSS
2015
<6.24
121.00
11.38
<6.24
22.00
<6.24
2016
<6.24
177.00
8.80
<6.24
14.00
3.81
2017
<5.00
58.00
14.34
<5.00
16.00
<5.00
2018
<5.00
242.00
22.76
<5.00
15.00
<5.00
2019
<5.00
105.00
16.77
<5.00
80.00
<5.00
Arsenic
2015
0.0032
0.0203
0.0075
0.0051
0.0522
0.0206
2016
0.0039
0.0233
0.0070
0.0049
0.0415
0.0171
2017
0.0041
0.0169
0.0074
0.0065
0.0370
0.0191
2018
0.0052
0.0200
0.0087
0.0082
0.0320
0.0166
2019
0.0048
0.0190
0.0075
0.0081
0.0380
0.0159
Cadmium
2015
0.00009
0.00107
0.00032
<0.00003
0.00062
0.00010
2016
<0.00003
0.00237
0.00033
<0.00003
0.00030
0.00010
2017
0.00006
0.00120
0.00031
<0.00003
0.00034
0.00011
2018
0.00013
0.00240
0.00039
0.00005
0.00052
0.00015
2019
0.00020
0.00120
0.00038
0.00004
0.00036
0.00013
Copper
2015
0.0127
0.1030
0.0235
0.0041
0.0405
0.0085
2016
0.0068
0.1760
0.0214
0.0028
0.0196
0.0073
2017
0.0130
0.0726
0.0235
0.0030
0.0180
0.0077
2018
0.0150
0.2500
0.0325
0.0053
0.0350
0.0110
2019
0.0130
0.1200
0.0253
0.0046
0.0240
0.0088
Iron
2015
0.125
2.940
0.480
0.026
1.140
0.199
2016
0.084
6.990
0.512
<0.022
0.581
0.165
2017
0.110
2.660
0.525
<0.022
0.510
0.141
2018
0.066
7.100
0.853
0.032
1.200
0.190
2019
0.120
3.000
0.590
0.025
0.690
0.163
Mercury
2015
<0.0000440
0.0001410
<0.0000440
<0.0000440
0.0001080
<0.0000440
2016
<0.0000440
0.0003350
<0.0000440
<0.0000440
<0.0000440
<0.0000440
2017
<0.0000037
0.0000710
0.0000222
<0.0000037
0.0000330
0.0000152
2018
<0.0000037
0.0007320
0.0000341
<0.0000037
0.0003500
0.0000089
2019
<0.0000039
0.0001500
0.0000177
<0.0000032
0.0000170
0.0000047
Lead
2015
0.00107
0.02120
0.00300
0.00025
0.00905
0.00123
2016
0.00057
0.03700
0.00287
0.00029
0.00677
0.00106
2017
0.00059
0.01230
0.00295
0.00010
0.00600
0.00088
2018
0.00040
0.04400
0.00425
0.00014
0.01600
0.00132
2019
0.00060
0.01800
0.00262
0.00016
0.00430
0.00085
Selenium
2015
<0.0007
0.00172
<0.0007
<0.0007
0.00146
<0.0007
2016
<0.0007
0.00210
0.00080
<0.0007
0.00197
0.00072
2017
0.00022
0.00080
0.00043
<0.00013
0.00073
0.00030
2018
0.00029
0.00065
0.00041
<0.00014
0.00036
0.00018
2019
0.00024
0.00095
0.00051
0.00016
0.00045
0.00028
Silver
2015
<0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
2016
<0.0004
0.00074
<0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
<0.0004
2017
<0.00017
0.00059
<0.00017
<0.00017
0.0004
<0.00017
2018
<0.00015
0.00044
<0.00015
<0.00015
0.000085
<0.00015
2019
<0.000077
0.00017
<0.000077
<0.000077
<0.00015
<0.00015
Zinc
2015
0.039
0.268
0.113
<0.022
0.141
0.039
2016
<0.022
0.474
0.093
<0.022
0.108
0.020
2017
0.033
0.231
0.084
0.0022
0.042
0.014
2018
0.021
0.580
0.108
0.0055
0.082
0.020
2019
0.042
0.310
0.102
0.0028
0.062
0.017
J-l
-------
Figure J-l. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Flow, 2015-2020
Flow Summary
Month-Year
Figure 1. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) hydrographs for time span shown.
Note: Inlet channel was froze during periods in December 2017, December 2018, and October 2019 causing false readings. The readings were removed from the dataset.
J-2
-------
Figure J-2. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Arsenic Concentrations, 2015-2020
Total Recoverable Arsenic Concentrations
Figure 2. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) total recoverable arsenic concentrations for time span shown with final daily perfomance
J-3
-------
Figure J-3. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Cadmium Concentrations, 2015-2020
Total Recoverable Cadmium Concentrations
Figure 3. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) total recoverable cadmium concentrations for time span shown with final daily performance standard.
J-4
-------
Figure J-4. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Copper Concentrations, 2015-2020
Total Recoverable Copper Concentrations
0.30
0.25
s=
E
0.20
Q.
Q.
O
O
o
¦Q
(0
0.15
o
o
Si
15
o
0.10
0.05
0.00
SS-1
SS-5
'Final Daily Maximum
°> ^ Month-Year 03
Figure 4. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) total recoverable copper concentrations for time span shown with final daily performance standard.
J-5
-------
Figure J-5. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Iron Concentrations, 2015-2020
Total Recoverable Iron Concentrations
°> ^ Month-Year
Figure 5. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) total recoverable iron concentrations for time span shown with final daily performance standard.
J-6
-------
Figure J-6. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Lead Concentrations, 2015-2020
Total Recoverable Lead Concentrations
0.4
0.3
oi
E
8 02
<1)
a.
0.1
0 J
SS-1
SS-5
^^"Final Daily Maximum
—
A
°> ^ Month-Year
Figure 6. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) total recoverable lead concentrations for time span shown with final daily performance standard.
J-7
-------
Figure J-7. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Mercury Concentrations, 2015-2020
Total Mercury Concentrations
Figure 7. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) total mercury concentrations for time span shown with final daily performance standard.
J-8
-------
Figure J-8. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Selenium Concentrations, 2015-2020
Total Recoverable Selenium Concentrations
0.3
-SS-1
-SS-5
•Final Daily Maximum
d
O)
E
5 0.2
-~l C» CD
Figure 8. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) total recoverable selenium concentrations for time span shown with final daily performance
J-9
-------
Figure J-9. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Silver Concentrations, 2015-2020
Total Recoverable Silver Concentrations
-SS-1
-SS-5
¦Final Daily Maximum
Month-Year
Figure 9. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) total recoverable silver concentrations for time span shown with final daily performance standard.
J-10
-------
Figure J-10. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Zinc Concentrations, 2015-2020
Total Recoverable Zinc Concentrations
SS-1
SS-5
^"Final Daily Maximum
J
Mt
A/\
/
J W*
01 o -j Month-Year c» co o
Figure 10. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) total recoverable zinc concentrations for time span shown with final daily performance standard.
j-11
-------
Figure J-ll. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent Total Suspended Solids Concentrations, 2015-2020
Total Suspended Solids Summary
m ti Month-Year £ £
Figure 11. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) total suspended solids concentrations for time span shown with final daily performance standard.
J-12
-------
10.5
10
9.5
7.5
Month-Year
Figure 12. Comparison of influent (SS-1) and effluent (SS-5) pH values for time span shown with final daily performance standard.
SS-1
SS-5
^"iFinal Daily Max
Figure J-12. Warm Springs Ponds Influent and Effluent pH, 2015-2020
pH Summary
Final Daily Maximum Discha
ge Standard = 9.5 s.u.
J-13
-------
Table J-2. Warm Springs Ponds 2019 Groundwater Monitoring Data
Warm Springs Ponds Groundwater Monitoring Piezometers
Water Quality Summary
Side
Nitrate/
Metals (dissolved)
of
Piezo.
Date
Time
Nitrite-N
Sulfate
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Trench
Number
Sampled
Sampled
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
MCL
10.00
N/A
0.0500
0.010
0.0500
0.050
0.002
E
P-01
6/18/19
10:00
0.330
113
0.0035
0.00004
0.0012
0.00005
< 0.0000039
N
P-02
6/18/19
13:25
< 0.095
115
0.0098
0.00011
0.0007
0.00190
< 0.0000039
N
P-04
6/18/19
14:03
< 0.095
283
0.0009
0.00005
0.0002
< 0.00005
< 0.0000039
N
P-06
6/18/19
14:27
0.350
142
0.0056
0.00004
0.0006
< 0.00005
0.0000130
N
P-08
6/19/19
10:45
0.130
206
0.0022
0.00022
0.0003
< 0.00005
< 0.0000039
S
P-03
6/18/19
10:38
< 0.095
59
0.0450
0.00076
0.0005
< 0.00005
0.0000080
s
P-05
6/18/19
11:13
< 0.095
115
0.0240
0.00004
0.0003
< 0.00005
0.0000040
s
P-07
6/18/19
11:50
< 0.095
258
0.0056
0.00010
0.0004
< 0.00005
< 0.0000039
s
P-09
6/18/19
12:45
< 0.095
275
0.0015
0.00012
0.0004
< 0.00005
< 0.0000039
P-12
6/19/19
11:52
0.250
88
0.0016
0.00060
0.0003
< 0.00005
0.0000080
P-14
6/19/19
12:12
0.390
196
0.0009
0.00062
0.0005
< 0.00005
0.0000070
Note: Standards must be met immediately north of the groundwater interception trench (P-02, P-04, P-06, and P-08) and at P-10, P-12, and P-14.
Table D-l. Groundwater Monitoring Summary
J-14
-------
APPENDIX K - ROCKER OU GROUNDWATER DATA
Table K-l. Rocker OU Groundwater Concentrations
TABLE H-1. ROCKER OU Groundwater Arsenic Results (mg/L)
Well
RH-601
Hydro-
Stratiqraphic Unit
Mar-98
Jun-98
Sep-98
Dec-98
Mar-99
May-99
Aug-99
Nov-99
Feb-00
May-00
Aug-00
Nov-00
Feb-01
May-01
Aug-01
Nov-01
Feb-02
May-02
Aug-02
Nov-02
Feb-03
May-03
Gravel
0.131
0.047
0.17
0.107
0.15
0.11
0.117
0.25
0.22
0 29
0.35
0 39
0.22
0.22
0 267
0.343
0.369
0 393
0.289
0.209
0 164
0 148
RH-61
Gravel
5.14
8.12
3.71
3.44
3.94
3.05
2 62
3.28
2.87
3.5
1.7
2.9
2
2.7
1.9
1.88
2.7
2.41
2.11
1.81
2.36
2.14
RH-62
Gravel
4.31
2.97
5.08
4.76
6.06
7.73
6.22
7.99
10.9
10.3
7.8
10.6
10.9
9.2
10
8.12
17.1
17.8
4
7.84
12.2
7 86
RH-63
Gravel
0.43
0.5
0.71
0.31
0.35
0.46
0.57
0.56
0.462
0.39
1.4
0.83
0.86
0.52
1.4
1.22
1.27
1.17
2.09
3.62
1.71
1.1
RH-64
Gravel
0.66
0.8
0.88
0.61
0.44
0.43
0.5
0.9
0.691
0.73
0.77
095
0.74
0.53
0.68
1.16
1.11
0.907
1.14
1.89
1.62
0.904
RH-65
Gravel
3.35
3.43
5.39
6.19
9.83
9.64
6.17
7.41
9.08
10.1
7.3
9.1
9
9.8
7.9
6.44
6.88
6.67
7.49
4.26
2.8
3 06
RH-66
Gravel
1.33
3.69
4.81
2.05
3.06
4.18
3.26
5.09
3.63
4.4
2.4
3
1.9
2.1
2.9
2.05
2.01
1.93
2.15
1.46
2.04
1 67
DP-03
Shallow
38
4.47
3.32
3.98
3.61
4.23
3.69
366
3.4
3.4
3.1
2.7
2.7
3.8
306
MW-01
RH-05
Shallow
0.029
0.027
0.25
0.086
0.17
0.15
0.22
0.26
0.257
0.35
0.52
0.82
0.68
0.64
1.1
1.37
0.881
0.718
0.722
0.738
1.03
0.896
RH-07
Shallow
0.021
0.029
0.025
0.023
0.024
0.028
0.039
0.023
0.02
0.018
0.02
0.018
0.013
0.018
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.016
0.014
0.011
0.012
RH-15
Shallow
0.115
0.114
0.12
0163
0.123
0.131
0.146
0.145
0.18
014
0.15
0.25
0134
0.14
0119
0.127
0.141
0.133
0.18
0.192
0.152
0.155
RH-17
Shallow
0.045
0.058
0.099
0.102
0.071
0.11
0.23
0.063
0.064
0.15
0.13
0.26
0.071
0.1
0.091
0.104
0.046
0.05
0.031
0.024
0.036
0.041
RH-19
Shallow
0.045
0.012
0.044
0.048
0.043
0.044
0.08
0.037
0.041
0.048
0.042
0.04
0.041
0.053
0.033
0.063
0.035
0.048
0.015
0.016
0.02
0.019
RH-41
Shallow
5 95
5.49
5.22
4.69
4 22
3.87
364
3,69
3.5
3.1
3,6
3.5
3
3
3.6
4
3.68
3.12
294
3.31
2.81
2 47
RH-44
Shallow
0.56
0.56
0.72
0,37
0.34
0.39
0.27
0.61
0.265
0.31
0.58
0.42
0.34
0.18
0.196
0.317
0.217
0.224
0.278
0.258
0.144
0.145
RH-47
Shallow
0014
0.009
0.016
0 012
0.013
0005
0.011
0.014
0.01
0 004
0.012
0.015
0.012
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.008
0.009
0.007
RH-S2R
Shallow
0.009
0.004
0.005
0.01
0.006
0.005
0,008
0.006
0.007
0.005
0.006
0.008
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.002
RH-75
Shallow
0.009
0.01
0.012
0.009
0.015
0.013
0.011
0.012
RH-12R2
Deep
0.01
0.008
0.011
0.012
0.009
0.01
0.01
0,008
0.009
0.007
0.009
0.01
0.007
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.008
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
RH-14R
Deep
1.03
1.21
1.33
1.33
1.51
1.86
1 64
1,79
1.64
1.8
2.1
2,1
1 7
1.7
1,7
2.02
2.04
1.84
1.96
2.24
1,88
1 68
RH-16
Deep
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.013
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.009
0.011
0.009
0.011
0.01
0.009
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.013
0.01
0.01
0.009
RH-18
Deep
0 012
0.012
0.011
0.01
0.013
0.013
0,011
0.011
0.014
0 01
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.013
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.008
0011
0,011
0.01
RH-20
Deep
0.012
0.029
0.013
0.011
0.009
0.012
0.011
0.01
0.015
0.01
0.011
0 012
0.01
0.013
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.009
RH-51"
Deep
0009
0.007
0.008
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.008
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.008
0 006
0.006
0.006
0 006
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.006
RH-55
Deep
0.011
0.01
0.009
0.005
0.008
0.015
0.01
0.01
0.012
RH-762
Deep
0.006
0.004
0
0.004
0.003
0.009
0.003
0.003
0.004
Ayers""1
Tertiary
0.009
0.012
0.012
0.02
0.012
0.011
0.013
0,011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.011
0.012
0.008
0.016
0.009
0.01
0.01
PALMERS'
Tertiary
0 003
0.003
0 005
0 004
#VALUEI
0005
Q.004
0.006
0.004
0.003
0.003
0004
0 003
0.004
0 002
0 005
0.004
0.003
0.007
0.003
0.004
0.003
RH-06
Tertiary
1.24
0.96
1.13
0.79
0.75
0.7
0.77
0.76
0.456
0.71
0.58
0.59
0.41
0.4
0.282
0.326
0.396
0.138
0.224
0.094
0.104
0.065
RH-36R"
Tertiary
0.012
0.009
0.012
0.014
0.01
0.011
0.013
0.009
0.014
0.013
0.01
0.011
0.008
0.011
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.011
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
RH-43
Tertiary
0 02
0.009
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.009
0.017
0.009
0.013
0.008
0.01
0 011
0 008
0.012
0 009
0.007
0.009
0 008
0.005
0.008
0.007
0.009
RH-46
Tertiary
0.01
0.011
0.013
0.011
0.008
0.01
0.012
0,009
0.013
0.008
0.01
0.01
0.008
0.012
0 009
0.008
0.007
0 007
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.008
RH-48
Tertiary
0.11
0.116
0.2
0.137
0.18
0.177
0.142
0.104
0.161
0.092
0.032
0.087
0 082
0.068
0.046
0.042
0.036
0.027
0.023
0.023
0.024
0.025
RH-S3-
Tertiary
0.012
0.011
0.011
0 011
Q.014
0.013
0.011
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.013
0 011
0.013
0.011
0.013
0.016
0.01
0.016
0.012
0.01
0.01
RH-72
Tertiary
Town Pump'®'4
Tertiary
0 012
0.012
0.01
0 013
0.009
0012
0,011
0,012
0.012
0 01
0.011
0 012
0.01
0,01
0.012
0.01
0.011
0 009
0.017
0.011
0.009
0.011
Town Pump Treated
Tertiary
'August 2010 erroneous value, rejected
Contingency Well
3Not sampled since 3QTR17,well not in use
'Inaccessible 1QTR19. Inadvertently sampled municipal water 2QTR19.
Treated water sampled
Page 1 of 4
K-l
-------
TABLE H-1. ROCKER OU Groundwater Arsenic Results (mg/L)
Well
RH-601
Hydro-
Stratiqraphic Unit
Aug-03
Nov-03
Feb-04
May-04
Aug-04
Nov-04
Feb-05
May-OS
Aug-05
Nov-OS
Feb-06
May-06
Aug-06
Nov-06
Feb-07
May-07
Aug-07
Nov-07
Feb-08
May-08
Aug-08
Nov-08
Feb-09
May-09
Gravel
0229
0.453
0 231
0 228
0.245
0.303
0.316
0 283
0.261
0.337
1.8
0.941
0 821
1.28
0.501
0.457
0.551
0,588
0.47
0.707
037
0.5
0.61
0 47
RH-61
Gravel
1.46
1.99
2.29
1.42
1.648
1.37
1.7
2.09
1.69
1.87
3.93
2.16
2.86
3.51
3.81
2.34
2.99
275
2.23
1.55
1.5
1.1
1.7
1.4
RH-62
Gravel
11.9
6.98
13.9
10.1
10.2
9.18
15.2
11.8
10.4
7.88
18.6
13.8
9.09
7.15
8.64
9.75
8.46
3.77
8.9
8.44
8.3
4.2
7
8.4
RH-63
Gravel
2.23
2.96
0684
1.46
2.68
2.57
1.01
1 49
1.76
2.97
1.24
2.99
0.819
1.93
2.38
1.33
0.968
1.63
1.65
1.91
0.7
1.9
1.5
1.1
RH-64
Gravel
0.937
1.97
1.41
1
1.15
1.61
1.34
1.39
0.907
1.84
1.2
1.11
0.924
1.22
1.53
0.982
0.933
1.23
1.67
1.22
0.83
1.3
1
0 98
RH-65
Gravel
5.43
4.38
5.55
5.98
6.06
4.3
5.01
4.78
5.66
4.82
5.79
4.76
5.78
5.68
5.61
5.55
5.51
4.25
5.47
4.64
4.9
4.1
5.1
3.4
RH-66
Gravel
1.39
2.17
2.62
2.08
1.96
1.84
2.36
2.21
1.44
1.97
2.53
2.09
1.46
1.51
1.8
1.78
1.54
1.52
2.12
2.1
1.3
15
2.3
1.9
DP-03
Shallow
MW-01
RH-05
Shallow
1.03
1.9
1.61
1.24
1.84
2.07
2.06
1.87
2.25
2.57
2.44
1.75
2.55
3.38
2.71
1.75
2.44
2.33
2.12
1.84
1.9
21
1.9
1.6
RH-07
Shallow
0.011
0.014
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.013
0.012
0.01
0.011
0.012
0.011
0.009
0.0107
0.0119
0.0109
0.00872
0.0109
0.00981
0.00877
0 00847
0.0085
0.0094
0.01
0.0086
RH-15
Shallow
0.159
0.189
0.159
0.151
0.163
0.168
0.154
0.145
0.167
0.162
0.143
0.154
0.144
0.153
0.144
0.134
0.145
0,135
0.123
0.128
0.14
0.14
0.13
013
RH-17
Shallow
0.041
0.038
0.026
0.032
0.019
0.037
0.022
0.025
0.055
0.026
0.02
0.038
0.0482
0.0394
0.0345
0.0344
0.0779
0.062
0.0346
0.0606
0.055
0.062
0.076
0.038
RH-19
Shallow
0.017
0.023
0.031
0.026
0.018
0.032
0.028
0.021
0.014
0.02
0.012
0.01
0.0203
0.0198
0.0226
0.0177
0.0218
0.0194
0.0214
0.024
0.012
0.022
0.014
0.011
RH-41
Shallow
2 28
2.98
2.82
248
2.76
248
259
2 65
233
2.84
2.3
2 35
2 28
2.6
228
1.92
2.21
2 01
2.28
2.02
1.7
1 9
2.1
1 7
RH-44
Shallow
0.097
0.314
0.163
0.122
0.182
0.317
0.159
0.16
0.145
0.188
0.146
0.09
0.143
0.16
0.119
0.213
0.232
0.288
0.21
0.255
0.25
0.29
0.28
0.3
RH-47
Shallow
0.008
0.009
0.009
0 008
0.005
0.007
0009
0 005
0.008
0.01
0.007
0.007
0.00578
0.00588
0.00468
0.00449
0.00514
0.00589
0.00347
0 00309
0 0033
0.0061
0.0037
0.0027
RH-S2R1
Shallow
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0003
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.00342
0.00446
0.00449
0.0033
0.00405
0.00401
0.0035
0.00359
0.0025
0.0024
0.0024
0.0024
RH-75
Shallow
0.012
0.019
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.017
0.017
0.014
0.017
0.019
0.018
0.015
0.0168
0.0164
0.0172
0.014
0.0182
0.0168
0.0157
0.0169
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.014
RH-12R2
Deep
0.007
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.008
0007
0.007
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.00753
0.00773
0.00791
0.00701
0.00765
0.00699
0.00729
0.00747
0.007
0.0069
0.0072
0.0073
RH-14R
Deep
1.4
2.11
1.81
1.51
1,85
1 47
1 65
1.78
1.52
1 7
1.57
1 28
1.26
1 24
1.21
1.12
1.4
1.05
0.989
1 44
0.92
0,92
1.2
0 99
RH-16
Deep
0.009
0.011
0.01
0.009
0.009
0.01
0.01
0 008
0.01
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.0108
0.0103
0.0104
0.00997
0.0104
0.0097
0.00956
0.0103
0 0099
0.0097
0.0098
0 01
RH-18
Deep
0.01
0.013
0011
0 011
0.011
0.011
0012
0011
0.011
0 011
0 011
0.012
0 0114
0.0107
0.0113
0.0107
0.0108
0.00971
0.01
0.0106
001
0.01
0.01
0 01
RH-20
Deep
0.009
0.012
0.007
0.009
0.01
0.01
0.01
0 008
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0101
0.0098
0.0101
0.0098
0.0102
0.009
0.00933
0.00933
0.0092
0.009
0.0096
0.0099
RH-51
Deep
0005
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.006
0005
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.00577
0.00601
0.00631
0.0054
0.00611
0.00524
0.00536
0.00592
0 0054
0.0052
0.0055
0.0054
RH-55
Deep
0.012
0.015
0.011
0.013
0.012
0.014
0.015
0.013
0.014
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.0143
0.0138
0.0117
0.0144
0.0126
0.0121
0.0139
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.013
RH-762
Deep
0.004
0.005
0.002
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.00428
0.00422
0.0046
0.00404
0.00456
0.00409
0.00362
0.00418
0.0041
0.0036
0.0037
0.0037
Ayers"
Tertiary
0.009
0.013
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.012
0.011
0.012
0.011
0.012
0.01
0.0106
0.0115
0.0111
0.0103
0.0105
0.0094
0.0101
0.0109
0.01
0.01
0.0099
001
PALMERS'"
Tertiary
0006
0.003
0.003
0 003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0 003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.007
0.00461
0.0039
0.00425
0 00482
0.00495
0.00319
0.00298
0.0043
0 0031
0,0027
0.0027
0 0028
RH-06
Tertiary
0.107
0.121
0.124
0.085
0.092
0.068
0.174
0.14
0.136
0.142
0.145
0.11
0.162
0.148
0.17
0.115
0.112
0.106
0.112
0.126
0.11
0.12
0.13
011
RH-36R2
Tertiary
0.009
0.012
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0 007
0.01
0.009
0.01
0.01
0.00951
0.01
0.0104
0.00912
0.00916
0.00887
0.00917
0.0108
0.0091
0.0086
0.0094
0.0096
RH-43
Tertiary
0 009
0.012
0.009
0 009
0.009
0.009
0.01
0 008
0.009
0.01
0.009
0.009
0.0105
0.0102
0.0104
0.0091
0 00986
0.00819
0.00771
0 00851
0 0087
0.0086
0.0089
0.0096
RH-462
Tertiary
0.008
0.011
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.01
0.01
0.009
0.00937
0.0095
0.00968
0.00822
0.00911
0.00813
0.00814
0.00919
0.0083
0.0082
0.0084
0.0083
RH-48
Tertiary
0.018
0.03
0.025
0.021
0.019
0.023
0.024
0.015
0.02
0.023
0.016
0.012
0.0161
0.0165
0.0168
0.0155
0.0121
0.0151
0.0121
0.0144
0.011
0.016
0.013
0.012
RH-53"
Tertiary
0 011
0.014
0.012
0 012
0.011
0.013
0013
0012
0.012
0.014
0.013
0.015
0.0128
0.0129
0.0136
0.0111
0.0132
0.0112
0.0108
0.0123
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.011
RH-72
Tertiary
Town Pump1,4
Tertiary
0.01
0.014
0.012
0 012
0.011
0.013
0 012
0 009
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.011
0.0117
0.0125
0.012
0.0113
0.0118
001
0 0103
0.0125
0.011
0.011
0 011
0.011
Town Pump Treated
Tertiary
'August 2010 erroneous value, rejected
'Contingency Well
3Not sampled since 3QTR17,well not in use
''Inaccessible 1QTR19. Inadvertently sampled municipal water 2QTR19.
Treated water sampled
Page 2 of 4
K-2
-------
TABLE H-1. ROCKER OU Groundwater Arsenic Results (mg/L)
Well
RH-601
Hydro-
Stratiqraphic Unit
Aug -09
Nov-09
Feb-10
May-10
Aug-10
Nov-10
Feb-11
May-11
Aug-11
Nov-11
Feb-12
May-12
Aug-12
Nov-12
Feb-13
May-13
Aug-13
Nov-13
Feb-14
May-14
Aug-14
Gravel
0 48
0.52
0.57
0.73
0.36
016
0.58
0.36
0.42
0.52
0.67
0 32
0.4
0 29
0.33
0.3
0.65
1.2
0.52
0.79
RH-61
Gravel
1.3
1.3
1.2
1
0.89
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.8
2.3
3.8
2.9
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.1
1.2
RH-62
Gravel
8.9
4.7
5.2
7
8.2
4.2
4.7
8.5
7.4
5
7.4
9.5
7.2
2.3
7.2
6.7
4
2.7
8.4
11
8.9
RH-63
Gravel
1.1
1.3
1.9
1.3
0.64
0.87
1.3
1.3
0.74
0.95
1.2
14
0.87
1.6
0.89
0.84
1.5
1.8
0.58
0.67
0.8
RH-64
Gravel
0.81
1.1
1.6
1.3
0.71
0.75
0.99
0.89
0.63
0.68
0.88
0.77
0.88
1.2
1.4
1.1
0.94
1.2
1.3
0.9
0.74
RH-65
Gravel
5.3
4.1
4.7
5
3.9
4
4.1
4.5
3.7
4.1
4
3.8
4
3.2
3.3
3.2
4.3
3.4
3.5
3.2
4.5
RH-66
Gravel
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.1
1.4
1.8
1.2
1.1
1.7
1.7
1.2
1.5
1.8
2
1.4
1.6
2.1
1.9
1.3
DP-03
Shallow
MW-01
RH-05
Shallow
2.2
2.3
2.7
1.6
1.7
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.1
2.2
1.9
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.2
1.7
1.7
2
RH-07
Shallow
0.0098
0.0088
0.0088
0 0078
0.01
0.0091
0.0091
0.0086
0.012
0.0099
0.0089
0.0083
0.0094
0.0095
0.0087
0.0088
0.0085
0.01
0.0083
0.0079
0.0088
RH-15
Shallow
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
RH-17
Shallow
0.048
0.057
0.082
0.047
0.055
0.045
0.062
0.04
0.035
0.043
0.044
0.045
0.058
0.048
0.029
0.034
0.071
0.039
0.023
0.055
0.054
RH-19
Shallow
0.015
0.027
0.016
0.026
0.027
0.017
0.022
0.032
0.011
0.019
0.029
0.023
0.014
0.024
0.021
0.019
0.018
0.03
0.028
0.02
0.015
RH-41
Shallow
1 8
1.8
1,7
1.7
1 6
1.7
1 6
1,7
16
17
1,6
1.5
1.6
1.5
14
1 5
1.5
1.6
1,4
1 4
1 5
RH-44
Shallow
0.37
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.36
0.37
0.33
0.32
0.38
0.43
0.4
0.4
0.41
0.44
0.54
0.55
0.49
0.56
0.54
0.55
0.62
RH-47
Shallow
0.0038
0.0042
0.0023
0.002
0.0034
0.0032
0.0039
0.0037
0.0033
0.0039
0.0038
0.0038
0.0039
0.0044
0.0043
0.0047
0.0042
0.0052
0.0035
0.0036
0.0042
RH-S2R1
Shallow
0.0025
0.0027
0.0021
0.002
0.0022
0.0023
0.0022
0.0024
0.0022
0.0021
0.0022
0.0021
0.0021
0.0021
0.0022
0.0023
0.002
0.0023
0.0018
0.0023
0.0019
RH-75
Shallow
0.017
0.016
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.016
0.015
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.016
RH-12R2
Deep
0.0076
0.007
0.0068
0.0067
0.0066
0.0069
0.0067
0.0069
0.0067
0.0066
0.0067
0.0065
0.0068
0.0067
0.0067
0.0072
0.0069
0.0074
0.0068
0.0066
0.0069
RH-14R
Deep
1
0.9
0 92
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.87
0.93
0.88
0.81
0.87
0.82
1.1
0.71
0.77
0.79
0.75
0.8
0,8
0.73
0.73
RH-16
Deep
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0098
0.0094
0.0093
0.0094
0.01
0.0096
0.0092
0.0094
0.0099
0.0092
0.0088
0.0096
0.0089
0.0099
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0092
RH-18
Deep
0.011
0.01
0.01
0 0097
0.0096
0.0099
0.0094
0.01
00098
0.0098
0 0099
0.01
0.0099
0 0092
0.0097
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0099
0.0093
RH-20
Deep
0.0099
0.0096
0.0092
0.0087
0.0088
0.0085
0.0088
0.0089
0.0087
0.0089
0.0092
0.0093
0.0087
0.0087
0.0089
0.0093
0.0089
0.0096
0.0092
0.0088
0.0086
RH-51
Deep
0.0057
0.0053
0.005
0.005
0.0051
0.0051
0.0051
0.0054
00053
0.0051
0.0055
0.0048
0.0051
0.0051
0005
0.0055
0.0053
0.0054
0.0048
0.0051
0.0052
RH-55
Deep
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.012
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
RH-762
Deep
0.004
0.0038
0.0036
0.0036
0.0037
0.0038
0.0037
0.0038
0.0037
0.0037
0.0039
0.0037
0.0038
0.0035
0.0037
0.0041
0.0038
0.004
0.0036
0.0039
0.0037
Ayers"
Tertiary
0.01
0.01
0.0094
0.0098
0.0094
0.0098
0.0093
0.01
0.0092
0.0094
0.0098
0.0092
0.0095
0.0089
0.0088
0.0087
0.0091
0.0098
0.01
0.01
0.0091
PALMERS'"
Tertiary
0.0028
0 0028
0.0024
0 0028
0.0026
0.0026
0.0026
00027
0 0024
0.0024
0.0027
0.003
0.0029
0.0026
0.0022
0.0024
0.003
0.0028
0 0028
0.0027
0.0026
RH-06
Tertiary
0.05
0.099
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.26
0.21
0.19
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.13
0.11
RH-36R2
Tertiary
0.0099
0.0094
0.0091
0.0088
0.0084
0.0092
0.0085
0.0094
0.0086
0.0088
0.0097
0.0085
0.0087
0.0087
0.0089
0.0088
0.0085
0.0094
0.0087
0.0086
0.0078
RH-43
Tertiary
0.0089
00094
0.0086
0 0081
0.0083
0.0075
0.0077
0.0088
0 0083
0.0086
0.0091
0.0089
0.0083
0.0086
0.0086
0.009
0.0095
00094
0.0095
0.0088
0.0078
RH-462
Tertiary
0.0086
0.0082
0.0083
0.0076
0.0077
0.0081
0.0077
0.0079
0.008
0.0081
0.0078
0.0077
0.0079
0.0074
0.0077
0.0081
0.0079
0.0081
0.0074
0.0072
0.0073
RH-48
Tertiary
0.011
0012
0.013
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.013
0.0096
0.011
0.011
0.014
0.014
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.015
0.011
0.011
0.013
0.0094
RH-53"
Tertiary
0.012
0 011
0.01
0.01
0.011
0 011
0.0097
0011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.011
0.01
0.01
0 011
0.011
0.012
0.01
0.017
0.01
RH-72
Tertiary
0.22
Town Pump1,4
Tertiary
0.011
0 011
0 01
0 0097
0.0097
0.01
0.0097
0.01
0.01
0.0097
0 011
0.01
0 011
0.0095
0.0098
0.0097
0.01
0.011
0.011
0,01
0.01
Town Pump Treated
Tertiary
'August 2010 erroneous value, rejected
'Contingency Well
3Not sampled since 3QTR17,well not in use
''Inaccessible 1QTR19. Inadvertently sampled municipal water 2QTR19.
Treated water sampled
Page 3 of 4
K-3
-------
TABLE H-1. ROCKER OU Groundwater Arsenic Results (mg/L)
Well
RH-601
Hydro-
Stratiqraphic Unit
Nov-14
Feb-15
May-15
Aug-15
Nov-15
Feb-16
May-16
Aug-16
Nov-16
Feb-17
May-17
Aug-17
Nov-17
Feb-18
May-18
Aug-18
Nov-18
Feb-19
May-19
Aug-19
Nov-19
MEAN
STDDEV
Gravel
0.41
088
0.77
0.9
1.2
2.2
1 6
0 69
2.2
1.1
1.2
0.74
0.74
0.63
0 62
0.33
1 4
0.23
0.5
0.50
0.8
0.55
0.43
RH-61
Gravel
1.4
1
23
0.85
25
2.1
2.2
1.3
1.1
2.2
1.3
1.8
2
2.5
1.0
3.5
29
2
2.9
2.3
8.7
2.3
1.3
RH-62
Gravel
9.6
9
9.7
8.5
5
7.1
10.4
5.8
4.4
8.3
9
9.9
7.9
4.3
8.7
6.2
9.4
9.9
5.0
8.3
111
8.3
3.1
RH-63
Gravel
0.81
0.96
1.2
1.1
1.4
1
1.4
1.8
2.8
0.53
1.6
0.55
2
0.86
0.55
0.7
0.76
0.8
0.35
0.67
0.86
1.3
0.70
RH-64
Gravel
0.89
0.94
1.1
0.91
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.7
0.98
1.1
1
1.1
0.7
0.72
0.72
0.68
0.57
0.55
0.58
1.0
0.34
RH-65
Gravel
4.8
4.3
4.6
4.8
4.5
3.3
4.4
6.1
3.7
3.7
4.2
6.4
5.2
8.2
4.2
4.6
5
7.4
4.0
7.1
6.7
5.3
1.7
RH-66
Gravel
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.9
0.79
DP-03
Shallow
3.5
0.51
MW-01
0.021
0.023
0.019
0.018
0 026
0.018
0.016
0.0
0.031
0.023
0 022
0.00445
RH-05
Shallow
2.4
2.2
2
2
2.3
2
1.8
2.2
2.3
1.7
1.6
1.5
2.3
1.9
1.5
0.8
1.4
1.6
0.9
1.1
1.5
1.6
0.74
RH-07
Shallow
0.0099
0.0089
0.0085
0.0095
0.0082
0.0074
0.0092
0.0087
0.0086
0.0086
0.0082
0.0092
00091
0.0086
0.024
0.015
0.013
0.01
0.0210
0.0130
0.0140
0.013
0.00572
RH-15
Shallow
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.12
0,12
013
0,13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.02285
RH-17
Shallow
0.058
0.059
0.076
0.074
0.051
0.03
0.067
0.055
0.087
0.051
0.053
0.066
0.064
0.033
0.051
0.082
0.07
0.029
0.057
0.049
0.067
0.059
0.03747
RH-19
Shallow
0.032
0.025
0.017
0,013
0.024
0.02
0.019
0.018
0.029
0.018
0.024
0.025
0.027
0.023
0.032
0.028
0.028
0.021
0.03S
0.036
0.016
0.026
0.0123
RH-41
Shallow
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.7
15
1 6
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.6
1 6
1.3
1.5
1 5
1.6
1.3
1.5
1,2
1.5
2.3
1 02
RH-44
Shallow
0.65
0.61
0.64
0.61
0.15
0.21
0.19
0.23
0.29
0.27
0.26
0.34
0.38
0.37
0 45
0.56
0.51
0.55
0.65
0.62
0.70
0.35
0.164
RH-47
Shallow
0.0051
0.005
0.004
0.0025
0.0046
0.0047
0.0034
0.0035
0.0056
0.0066
0.0047
0.0061
0 0065
0 0048
0.0047
0.0062
0.0066
0.006
0.0063
0.0068
0.0120
0.0064
0.0032
RH-S2R1
Shallow
0.0025
0.0023
0.0024
0.002
0.0021
0.0024
0.003
0.0024
0.0028
0.0026
0.0027
0.0026
0.0029
0.0028
0.003
0.0029
0.0032
(1.0031
0.0033
0.0029
0.0034
0.0033
0.00165
RH-75
Shallow
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.016
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.014
0.015
0.017
0.016
0.014
0.013
0.015
0.015
0.012
0.012
0.015
0.015
0.00205
RH-12R2
Deep
0.0068
0.007
0.007
0.0066
0.006
0.0062
0.0075
0.0067
0.0066
0.007
0.0067
0.0068
0.0072
0.0074
0.0071
0.0069
0.0071
0.0069
0.0067
0.0065
0.0072
0.0074
0.00107
RH-14R
Deep
0 78
0 76
0.76
0.77
0.85
0.74
0.95
0 76
0 78
0 81
0.82
0.78
0.8
0.82
077
0.78
0.73
0.71
0.76
0.65
0.66
1.2
0 456
RH-16
Deep
0.0092
0.0099
0.01
0.0096
0.01
0.009
0.0096
0.0098
0.01
0.01
0.0097
0.0091
0.0099
0.01
0.0096
0.0096
0.0099
0.009
0.010
0.0098
0.0099
0.010
0.00083
RH-18
Deep
0 0096
0 01
0 0096
0.0096
0.0091
0.0092
0.01
001
0.01
0 01
0.01
0 0094
0.01
001
0.011
0.0099
0.01
0.010
0.010
0.0098
0.010
0010
0.0010
RH-20
Deep
0.0091
0.0091
0.0096
0.0087
0.0085
0.0085
0,0092
0.0093
0.0092
0.0092
0.0087
0.0087
0 0095
0.0091
0.000
0.0092
0.009
0.0089
0.0093
0.0084
O.0097
0.010
0.0024
RH-51
Deep
0.0053
0.0054
0.0055
0.0052
0.0046
00046
0.0066
0.005
0.0051
0.0053
0.0053
0.0053
0.0052
0.0055
0.0055
0.0054
0.0057
0.0055
0.1X154
0.0056
0.0060
0.0058
0.0010
RH-55
Deep
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.013
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.00161
RH-762
Deep
0.0039
0.004
0.004
0.0037
0.0032
0.0036
0.0043
0.004
0.0038
0.0039
0.0041
00038
0 0042
0.0042
0.0041
0.0041
0.0041
0.0041
0.0041
0.0039
0.0043
0.0040
0.00078
Ayers"
Tertiary
0.0096
0.0098
0.01
0.0094
0.0086
0.0089
0.011
0.0096
0.0097
0.0095
0.0094
0.0094
0.010
0.00166
PALMERS'"
Tertiary
0.0025
0.0026
0.0026
0.0029
0.0027
00025
0.0027
0.0026
0.0027
0.0025
0.0024
0 0033
0 0027
0 0026
0.0027
0.0029
0,0028
0.0024
0.0024
0.0024
0.0026
0.0032
0.0010
RH-06
Tertiary
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.23
0.18
0.16
0.19
0.29
0.22
0.18
0.17
0.20
0.76
0.36
0.43
0.51
0.77
0.55
0.27
0.25568
RH-36R2
Tertiary
0.0092
0.0091
0.0093
0.009
0.0081
0.0085
0.0086
0.0085
0,0095
0.0088
0.0087
0.0085
0.0094
0.0088
0.0091
0.0089
0.0088
0.0087
0.0087
0.00S3
0.0091
0.009
0.00126
RH-43
Tertiary
0.01
0.0094
0 0092
0.0084
0.0079
00081
0.0085
0.0086
0.0086
0.0088
0 0086
0 0083
0.009
0.009
0.0085
0.0084
0.0088
0.0088
0.0087
0.0092
0.0092
0 009
0.0019
RH-462
Tertiary
0.0078
0.008
0.0082
0.0076
0.0072
0.0073
0.0082
0.0073
0.0075
0.0076
0.0071
0.0078
0 0079
0.0081
0.0077
0.0081
0.0083
0.0082
0.0079
0.0081
0.0086
0.009
0.00125
RH-48
Tertiary
0.011
0.013
0.012
0.0086
0.0081
0.0086
0.0089
0.0083
0.01
0.012
0.0086
0.011
0.0084
0.008
0.011
0.022
0.017
0.017
0.021
0.029
0.019
0.033
0.04322
RH-53"
Tertiary
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.0095
0.01
0.011
001
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.01
0.011
0.011
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.010
0.01
0.010
0.011
0.011
0.00152
RH-72
Tertiary
0.23
0.15
0.13
Town Pump1,4
Tertiary
0.01
001
0.011
0.011
0.0097
0 0099
0.011
0 011
0.01
001
0 011
0.011
0.01000
0.01000
0 01100
0 01100
0.010
0.010
0 011
0 00128
Town Pump Treated
Tertiary
0 0050
NA
NA
'August 2010 erroneous value, rejected
'Contingency Well
3Not sampled since 3QTR17,well not in use
''Inaccessible 1QTR19. Inadvertently sampled municipal water 2QTR19.
Treated water sampled
Page 4 of 4
K-4
-------
Figure K-l. Rocker OU RH-62 Arsenic Concentrations
RH-62
Date
K-5
-------
Figure K-2. Rocker OU RH-65 Arsenic Concentrations
RH-65
Date
K-6
------- |