## £7 3

COMMENT S T O TH E YA K TUNNE L OPERABLE UNI T FEASIBILIT Y STUDY

, CALIFORNI A GULC H SIT E A N D TH E PROPOSED REMEDIA L ACTIO N PLA N F O R TH E YA K TUNNE L OPERABL E UNI T O F TH E CALIFORNI A GULCH SIT E

October 5 , 198 7I

. INTRODUCTIO N Comment s t o th e Ya k Tunne l Operabl e Uni t Feasibilit y Study

, Californi a Gulc h Site (Ya k OUFS ) an d th e propose d remedia l actio n pla n fo r th e Ya k Tunne l operabl e uni t o f th e Californi a Gulc h sit e (Ya k RAP ) hav e bee n prepare d o n behal f o f Hecl a Minin g Compan y (Hecla) b y Dames & Moore

, Davis

, Graha m & Stubbs

, an d Greengar d & Senter

. T h e Comment s ar e submitte d i n tw o parts : th e first
, prepare d b y Davis

, Graha m & Stubb s an d Greengar d & Senter

, focu s upo n th e administrativ e an d litigatio n processe s employe d b y th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EP A o r Agency ) in selectin g it s "preferre d remedia l alternative " fo r th e Ya k operabl e uni t o f th e Californi a Gulc h Site ; th e secon d part , prepare d b y Dame s & Moore

, consist s o f technica l Comment s upo n th e dat a collection
, analysis an d screenin g method s an d criteria employe d b y th e EP A i n th e evaluatio n process

. PRELIMINAR Y STATEMEN T REGARDIN G NON-WAIVE R I t i s Hecla' s positio n tha t it i s entitle d t o rais e al l objection s t o th e proces s o f remedia l actio n selectio n a t th e tim e when al l th e component s o f a Californi a Gulc h remed y hav e bee n published

. Onl y the n ca n EPA' s positio n an d th e tru e significanc e o f th e Agency' s action s an d it s interim decisions
, includin g operabl e uni t remedia l decisions
, b e known

. Hecl a canno t b e barre d fro m late r challenging
, and thes e Comment s i n no wa y limi t th e natur e an d scop e o f objection s to , th e validit y o f th e remedia l actio n alternative s selecte d throug h th e RI/F S proces s o r th e proces s utilize d in makin g tha t selection

. Thi s positio n i s premise d upo n thre e fundamenta l aspect s o f thi s litigation

. First

, th e RI/F S process , particularl y a s manipulate d her e fo r litigatio n purposes , i s not a tru e administrativ e proceeding

. The procedure s bein g utilize d ar e ad ho c and unrelate d t o a rulemaking
, a n adjudicatio n o r anythin g i n between

. Th e issue s involve d i n th e RI/F S proces s as envisione d b y CERCL A involv e a n arra y o f expertise s non e o f whic h hav e bee n committe d t o th e sol e discretio n o f a singl e administrativ e Agenc y an d it s procedures ; rather
, th e proces s has require d th e contributio n o f severa l stat e an d federa l agencies

. Further

, th e proces s i s subjec t t o th e supervisio n o f th e federa l cour t an d complianc e wit h th e Federa l Rule s o f Civi l Procedur e fro m th e outset

. Second

, i t i s asserte d b y Hecla

, thoug h reserve d fo r detaile d discussio n a t a late r time , tha t th e determinatio n o f consistenc y wit h th e NC P o f th e RI/F S proces s an d th e variou s report s engendere d en rout e t o a RO D an d remed y selectio n are , i n thi s case, a matte r fo r judicial
, rathe r tha n administrative
, determination

. See

, e.g. , Colorad o v
. Gul f + Wester n Industries

. Inc.

. 8 3 C 23S7

, Officia l Transcript

, Hearin g o n Motions ; U.S

. v
. Hardage

. No

. CIV-86-1401- W (W.D.Okla

. Dec

. 11, 1986)

. Third

, th e RI/F S proces s a s establishe d b y CERCL A an d th e NC P an d utilize d b y E P A i s constitutionall y defectiv e because th e Agency has no t provide d th e defendant s wit h a meaningfu l opportunit y fo r comment an d inpu t int o th e proces s suc h tha t du e process requisite s coul d be satisfied

. B y dividin g th e remed y selectio n proces s int o operabl e unit s EP A i s furthe r restrictin g Hecla' s constitutiona l an d statutor y righ t t o participat e i n th e remed y selectio n proces s a s a whole
, rathe r tha n i n ad hoc segment s determine d b y th e EPA

. I n addition
, because o f th e Agency' s manipulatio n o f th e RI/F S process , document s prepare d a s par t o f tha t proces s represen t nothin g mor e tha n bar e summaries o f th e expecte d testimony o f exper t witnesses , hav e no du e proces s valu e an d shoul d b e afforde d n o mor e weight than simila r summarie s prepare d i n th e cours e o f an y litigation

.F o r

thes e reasons , Hecl a object s t o this commen t proceeding
, protest s EPA' s unauthorize d actions , claim s tha t EPA' s inventio n o f a "commen t period " i s a nullity
, an d tha t an y "decision " based i n whol e o r i n par t upo n th e self-serving
, one-side d Ya k OUF S
a n d Yak RA P report s woul d b e arbitrary an d capriciou s i n excess o f EPA' s jurisdiction
, an d unauthorize d b y law

. INCORPORATIO N

OF PREVIOU S HECLA COMMENT S I n it s "Comment s an d Objection s o f Hecl a Minin g Compan y t o Phas e I Remedia l Investigatio n Repor t Concernin g th e Ya k Tunne l an d Californi a Gulc h Site, " Hecl a discusse d man y o f th e duplication s an d inconsistencie s arisin g fro m th e dua l RI/F S 

### processe s undertake n b y th e EP A an d th e Stat e o f Colorado

. Hecl a believe s tha t th e concern s raise d i n it s previou s Comment s ar e relevan t t o th e EPA' s Ya k OUF S an d RAP ; 

### however
, in orde r t o avoi d duplication
, Hecl a adopt s b y referenc e it s previou s Comment s concernin g th e conflictin g rol e o f th e State o f Colorad o an d th e EP A an d incorporate s th e sam e a s i f full y se t fort h herein

. N o t addresse d i n earlie r Comment s however
, is th e effec t o f th e EPA' s inconsisten t handlin g o f th e RI/F S proces s upo n it s ultimat e selectio n o f a preferre d alternative

. I n short
, th e EPA' s alternativ e doe s no t flo w logicall y fro m th e conclusion s containe d withi n studie s eithe r previousl y prepare d fo r th e EP A o r relie d upo n b y th e EPA

. Because o f th e tim e limitation s inheren t in thi s commen t period
, Hecl a reserve s 

### it s righ t t o commen t upo n thi s issu e unti l at a late r time

. Technica l comment s o n thi s issu e ar e provide d b y Dame s & Moore

. SUMMAR Y O F COMMENT S I n Augus t o f 198 7 th e EP A identifie d it s preferre d remedia l alternativ e fo r th e Y a k Tunne l operabl e uni t as : Collection

, treatmen t an d discharg e — Thi s alternativ e woul d involv e rehabilitatio n o f th e Yak Tunne l t o maintai n it s functio n in 

### collectin g th e contaminate d water ; constructio n surg e contro l pond s t o regulat e th e flo w fro m th e tunnel ; an d constructio n o f a
- wate r treatmen t facilit y i n dischargin g th e treate d effluen t t o th e lowe r reache s o r Californi a Gulc h o r th e Arkansa s River

. Y ak RAP

, pp

. 4-5

. 

### Hecla' s Comment s upo n th e administrativ e an d litigatio n processe s employe d b y 

### the EP A i n makin g thi s selectio n can b e summarize d a s follows : A

. Th e EP A has faile d t o develo p it s preferre d alternativ e in accordanc e wit h th e mandate s o f th e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response

, Compensatio n an d Liabilit y Act (CERCLA)

, a s amended
, 4 2 U.S.C.A

. Sectio n 9601

. e t seq

. 1

. Th e EPA' s preferre d alternativ e i s bot h a non-permanen t remed y an d 

### require s off-site disposal

. I t wa s chosen ove r othe r remedie s whic h ma y b e bot h permanen t an d d o no t require off-sit e disposal

. Sectio n 121(b)(l ) o f CERCL A require s 

### that
, "Remedia l actions i n whic h treatmen t whic h permanentl y an d significantl y reduces th e volume
, toxicit y an d mobilit y o f th e hazardou s substances
, pollutants
, an d contaminant s i s a principa l element
, ar e t o b e preferre d ove r remedia l action s not involvin g suc h treatment

. Th e off-site transpor t an d disposa l o f hazardou s substances o r 

### contaminatin g material s withou t suc h treatmen t shoul d be th e leas t favore d alternativ eremedia l

actio n wher e practicabl e treatmen t technologie s ar e available. " 4 2 U.S.C.A

. 9621(b)(l)

. 2

. CERCL A requires tha t th e EP A affor d intereste d partie s " a reasonabl e opportunit y t o commen t an d provid e informatio n regardin g th e (propose d remedial ) plan. " CERCL A furthe r provide s a detaile d procedur e whereb y potentiall y responsibl e 

### partie s may b e timel y apprise d o f th e EPA' s propose d remedia l pla n and
, a s well
, afforde d a n opportunit y t o participat e in th e developmen t an d implementatio n o f th e remedy

. 4 2 U.S.C.A

. Section s 9613(k)(2 ) an d 9622

. I n a statut e suc h a s CERCLA

, wher e a n Agenc y i s authorize d t o tak e majo r federa l actio n significantl y affectin g th e environment , publi c participatio n must be mor e tha n a procedura l formality
, recognize d b y EP A onl y i n it s guidanc e documents

. Se e Guidanc e o n Feasibilit y Studie s Unde r CERCLA

, pp

. 48-4 9 (F S Guidance)

. However

, i n practice , th e EPA' s analysi s o f a t th e 

### Californi a Gulc h sit e hav e s o confuse d th e natur e o f th e contamination , it s sources , th e relationshi p o f th e Ya k Tunne l t o th e res t o f th e site , th e sequence o f report s an d studie s tha t it i s impossibl e fo r th e typ e o f detaile d an d systemati c consideratio n o f environmental
, economi c an d institutiona l issue s an d impact s a s mandate d i n bot h CERCL A an d th e Nationa l Environmenta l Polic y Ac t (NEPA)

. B

. Th e EP A ha s selecte d a preferre d alternativ e fo r th e Yak Tunne l operabl e uni t whic h i s neithe r effective
, feasible
, o r cost-effectiv e and
, therefore
, i s inconsisten t wit h th e Nationa l Oi l & Hazardou s Substance s Contingenc y Pla n (NCP)

, 4 0 C.F.R

. 300.68 , e t seq

. 

### 1

. Th e preferre d alternativ e ha s "significan t advers e effect s an d ver y limite d environmenta l benefits, " 4 0 C.F.R

. 300.68(g)(3) ; othe r alternatives
, includin g pluggin g an d a unifie d approac h t o th e site , hav e bee n presente d t o th e EP A an d warrant considerabl y mor e attentio n fro m EP A a s potentiall y havin g les s advers e effect s an d greate r environmenta l benefits

. Th e EP A ha s faile d t o addres s numerou s factor s relativ e 

### t o th e effectiveness
, feasibilit y an d cost-effectivenes s

o f various technologie s whic h ar e t o b e "assesse d i n determinin g whethe r an d wha t typ e o f remedia l and/o r remova l plan s wil l b e considered. " 4 0 C.F.R

. 300.68(e)(2)

. Becaus e th e EP A ha s faile d t o properl y 

### scop e th e sit e s o a s t o "indicat e th e type s o f remova l measure s and/o r remedia l measure s suitabl e t o abat e th e threat
, an d se t priorit y fo r implementatio n o f th e measures, " 4 0 C.F.R

. 300.68(e)

, i t ha s not give n appropriat e revie w t o a suit e o f alternatives
, rathe r i t ha s give n consideratio n t o onl y on e remedia l technolog y (mechanica l treatment)

, an d a mino r variatio n upo n thi s technology (mechanica l treatmen t plu s partia l plugging)

. 

### 2

. Th e EPA' s preferre d alternativ e doe s no t represen t a "cos t effectiv e 

### alternativ e that effectivel y mitigate s an d minimize s threat s t o an d provide s adequat e protectio n o f publi c healt h an d welfar e an d th e environment, " 4 0 C.F.R

. 300.68(1)

. 

### C

. Th e EPA' s preferre d alternativ e i s arbitrar y an d capriciou s because th e EP A has faile d t o follo w it s ow n guidanc e document s i n makin g it s decision

. 1

. Th e EP A ha s no t performe d an adequat e endangermen t assessment , a s require d b y th e EPA' s ow n Endangermen t Assessmen t Handboo k F S Guidance

, an d 

### Endangermen t Assessmen t Guidance

. 2

. Th e EPA' s guidanc e o n feasibilit y studie s unde r CERCLA

, June

, 1985 (F S 

### guidance)

, specificall y requires tha t "eac h remedia l alternativ e shoul d be evaluate d wit h regar d t o safety. " F S Guidance

, p

. 3.6 , sectio n 3.4

. Safet y i s define d bot h i n terms o f threat s t o nearb y communitie s and environmen t a s wel l a s t o thos e o f worker s durin g implementation

. Neithe r th e Yak OUF S o r RA P contain an y referenc e t o condition sexpecte d

t o b e encountere d durin g rehabilitation
, disposa l o f sludge
, an d operatio n o f th e treatmen t plant
, an d th e practica l an d regulator y constraint s attendan t o n rehabilitation

. Comment s prepare d b y Dame s & Moor e wil l provid e th e substanc e o f this topic

. A summar y o f comment s prepare d b y Dame s & Moor e i s include d i n Par t 2

. P L DETAILE D COMMENT S A

. TH E YA K TUNNE L OPERABL E UNI T FEASIBILIT Y STUD Y AN D REMEDIA L ACTIO N PLA N AR E PROCEDURALL

Y AN D SUBSTANTIVEL

Y INSUFFICIEN T T O SATISF Y TH E MANDATE S O F TH E COMPREHENSIV

E ENVIRONMENTA

L RESPONS E COMPENSATIO N

AN D LIABILIT

Y ACT

, « U.S.C

. SECTIO N 9601 , et seg

. (CERCLA)

. 1

. TH E EPA' S PREFERRE D ALTERNATIV

E I S A NON-PERMANEN

T REMED Y WHIC H INCORPORATE S

OFF-SIT E DISPOSA L AN D UNJUSTIFIABL Y

LIMIT S SOURCE CONTRO L TECHNOLOGIES

. T h e remedia l actio n alternativ e preferre d b y EP A i n it s Yak Tunne l operabl e uni t feasibilit y stud y has tw o majo r disadvantage s whic h wer e no t adequatel y considere d b y th e Agency : th e treatmen t envisione d woul d b e perpetual
, an d i t woul d necessaril y entai l 

### off-site storag e an d disposa l o f substantia l amount s o f potentiall y hazardou s meta l hydroxid e sludge

. I n our situation , wher e ther e ma y b e a sourc e contro l alternativ e 

### whic h meet s th e NC P criteri a an d th e statutor y factor s o f Sectio n 12 1 o f th e Act

, 4 2 U.S.C

. 9621 , th e absenc e o f adequat e examinatio n an d analysi s make s th e entir e selectio n proces s arbitrar y an d capricious , an d outsid e o f th e scop e o f th e Act

. 

### Congres s has clearl y indicate d tha t permanent , on-sit e treatmen t remedie s ar e t o b e preferre d b y EPA

. 4 2 U.S.C

. Sectio n 9621(b)(l)

. Th e attainmen t o f th e preferenc e wa s so critica l t o Congres s tha t i t als o provided
, i n 4 2 U.S.C

. Sectio n 121(b)(2)

, a s 

### amende d in 19S 6 t o reflec t th e experienc e garnere d fro m th e firs t fiv e year s o f implementatio n o f th e CERCL A program , tha t EP A ma y eve n selec t "a n alternativ e 

### remedia l actio n meetin g th e objective s o f this subsectio n whethe r o r no t suc h actio n ha s 

### bee n achieve d i n practic e or a t an y othe r facilit y or sit e tha t ha s simila r characteristics. " (Emphasi s added.) Thi s provisio n i s understoo d no t a s a n expressio n o f 

### blin d fait h in emergin g technologies
, bu t as recognitio n that non-permanent , off-sit e remedie s unavoidabl y entai l significan t risk s o f thei r own
. B y ignorin g it s statutor y mandat e i n thi s case , th e Agenc y ha s consequentl y 

### muddle d th e goal s o f th e RI/F S proces s wit h respec t t o th e Ya k operabl e uni t an d th e sit e a s a whole
, whil e correspondingl y confusin g it s analysis o f remedia l alternatives

. Fo r example
, i n th e Yak Tunne l OUFS

, EP A determined
, withou t eve n following it s ow n 

### guidanc e relatin g t o th e developmen t o f informatio n o n whic h t o bas e remedia l selection
, that hazardou s substances be pumpe d i n perpetuit y t o a propose d treatmen t plant
, wit h th e resultin g sludg e t o be shippe d off-site
, wit h ultimat e storag e envisione d in approve d treatment , storag e an d disposa l facilities

. The remedia l choice i s eve n mor e peculia r whe n on e consider s th e lac k o f disposa l facilitie s no w i n existence , (see

, e.g. , lette r fro m Le e M

. Thomas

, Administrato r o f EP A 

### t o Senato r Jess e Helms

, date d Jul y 18 , 1985 , reprinte d in 5 2 Congressiona l Record S I 1841 , Septembe r 20 , 1985)

, an d th e poo r trac k recor d indicatin g tha t federally

- permitte d facilitie s themselve s hav e create d ne w hazardou s wast e leakag e problems

. Further

, th e Administrato r o f EP A ha s reporte d tha t treatment , storag e an d disposa lcapacit

y ma y eve n become mor e straitene d i n th e comin g years

. See
t Lette r fro m Thoma s t o Helms

, supra ; "Hazardou s Wast e Managemen t System : Lan d Disposa l Restrictions, " 5 1 Fed

. Reg

. 4057 2 (1986)

. Rathe r tha n follo w th e Congressiona l directiv e 

### whic h place s a premiu m o n permanen t technique s whic h EP A ha s disregarded
, withou t adequat e explanation
, a prove n techniqu e suc h a s plugging
, whic h potentiall y represent s a permanen t solutio n an d does no t necessaril y requir e off-sit e disposal

. T h e potentia l problem s attendan t fro m off-sit e disposa l ar e als o demonstrate d whe n on e applie s — as EP A has pointedl y refuse d t o d o — th e followin g statutor y factor : "th e potentia l threa t t o huma n healt h an d th e environmen t associate d wit h 

### excavation , transportation , an d redisposal
, o r containment. " (Emphasi s added.) 4 2 U.S.C

. Sectio n 9621(b)(l)(G)

.

Thi s section , o n it s face
, direct s th e Agenc y t o examin e th e potentia l threat s arisin g fro m th e exact typ e o f remed y EP A ha s determine d t o b e "preferred " fo r th e Yak Tunnel

. I t als o suggest s tha t th e relativ e risks o f threat s t o huma n healt h an d th e environmen t fro m th e enumerate d actions b e assesse d an d compared

. Instead

, th e Agenc y has focuse d o n th e smal l risks associate d wit h a sourc e contro l alternative
, withou t eve n analyzing
, muc h less comparing , th e panopl y o f risks fro m it s chosen alternative

. EP A clearl y violate d a statutor y requiremen t fo r remedia l selection
, makin g th e propose d remedia l selectio n arbitrary an d capriciou s an d withou t a basi s i n th e law

. 

### Similarly

, EPA' s flawe d selectio n proces s le d the m t o ignor e anothe r statutor y 

### factor
, tha t "long-ter m maintenanc e costs " b e considered

. 4 2 U.S.C

. Sectio n 9621(b)(lXE)

. An d again , th e selectio n proces s i s legall y defectiv e as a result

. Se e pp

. 28-2 0 infra

. I n ignorin g th e statutor y factor s fo r remedia l selection
, EP A ha s no t onl y ensure d tha t it s actio n i s arbitrary and capriciou s and withou t a basi s i n the law ; the Agenc y ha s 

### als o create d a n indefensibl e practica l result

. EP A i s suggesting , i n effect
, tha t live s be pu t a t ris k b y th e ver y rea l danger s presente d b y rehabilitatio n o f th e Ya k Tunnel

, i n orde r t o erec t a facilit y t o trea t in perpetuit y th e symptom s o f th e Ya k Tunne l drainag e 

### proble m — whic h would
, i n turn , creat e wast e sludg e t o b e contained
, transporte d an d dispose d o f i n a s ye t unidentifie d facilities

. An d eve n tha t ma y no t en d th e matter , becaus e ther e i s no guarante e tha t legally-adequat e disposa l facilitie s wil l b e availabl e at a cos t justifie d b y CERCL A an d commo n sense

. 

### Certainl y EP A wil l no t b e heard t o assert th e permanenc y o f it s Ya k Tunne l remedy

. A s use d i n 4 2 U.S.C

. S962 1 i n CERCLA

, th e ter m "permanent " ha s a specificall y 

### define d meaning

. Permanen t solution s consist onl y o f thos e whic h "destro y o r neutraliz e a hazardou s substanc e o r assur e tha t i t wil l no t b e release d int o th e environmen t i n suc h


### a manne r a s t o hav e an y advers e effec t on publi c healt h or the environment. " (Hous e Repor t (Publi c Work s an d Transportation ) 99-253(V)

, p

. 50. ) Th e preferre d alternativ e 

### publishe d i n the Ya k RA P doe s not emplo y a metho d i n whic h a hazardou s substanc e i s "destroye d o r neutralized. " Merely

, th e metal hydroxid e sludge
, separate d fro m water 

### must itsel f b e considere d and deal t wit h a s a potentiall y hazardou s substanc e i n and o f itself

. EP A ha s acknowledged
, however
, that pluggin g ha s th e potentia l o f "stoppin g th e aci d wate r process. " (Ya k OUFS

, p

. 6-8. ) Congres s has astutel y observe d tha t th e "ultimat e solutio n t o th e proble m o f 

### hazardou s wastes consist s i n neutralizin g o r destroyin g the m an d i n encouragin g recyclin g an d othe r measure s tha t wil l reduc e th e incidenc e o f hazardou s wast e productio n i n th e firs t place

. Doin g anythin g els e i n th e guis e o f permanen t solutio n doe s nothin g bu t postpon e problem s whic h mus t b e addresse d b y futur e generations " (Hous e Repor t (Publi c Work s & Transportation ) 99-253(V)

, pp

. 51-52. ) I t mus t b e realize d tha t th ecircumstance

s o f minin g activit y whe n servin g a s the focu s o f a superfun d clean-u p 

### effort
, differ s remarkabl y fro m th e circumstanc e o f a chemical dum p typ e site

. Thi s 

### generi c differenc e must b e realize d i n the propose d remediatio n o f the minin g sit e a s well

. Becaus e flo w fro m Californi a Gulc h i s potentiall y infinite
, an y treatmen t 

### technolog y i s necessaril y deficien t wit h regard t o th e governin g statutory mandate

. Whe n analyze d under th e foregoin g considerations
, th e Ya k OUFS

, an d RAP

, ar e substantivel y insufficien t i n thei r consideratio n o f alternativ e remedie s a s mandate d i n 4 2 U.S.C

. Sectio n 9621

. The dismissa l o f alternativ e remedies suc h a s the tota l pluggin g o f the Ya k Tunne l and monitorin g practice s o f the sit e wa s base d upon inadequat e review 

### or non e a t all

. Further

, suc h alternative s wer e completel y dismisse d wit h littl e or n o 

### adequat e explanatio n for the basi s upo n whic h the decisio n t o dismiss wa s arrived

. 2

. TH E ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y HA S FORECLOSED INTERESTE D PARTIE S FRO M AN Y MEANINGFU L OPPORTUNIT Y T O PROVID E REASONABL E COMMEN T AN D INFORMATIO N

REGARDIN G POTENTIA L REMEDIES O F TH E YA K TUNNE L OPERABL E UNIT

, AN D HA S THU S DEVELOPE D TH E RI/F S PROCES S I N A MANNE R WHIC H I S INSUFFICIEN T T O SATISF Y TH E MANDATE S O F T H E COMPREHENSIV

E ENVIRONMENTA

L RESPONS E COMPENSATIO N

AN D LIABILIT Y ACT

, 4 2 U.S.C

. SECTIO N 9601

. e t seq

. (CERCLA)

. 

### The Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y i s boun d t o provid e PRP's

, at a minimum , "a reasonabl e opportunit y t o commen t and provid e informatio n regardin g the plan " a s 

### propose d b y tha t Agency

. 4 2 U.S.C

. Sectio n 9613(k)(2)(BXii)

. The above-quote d sectio n i s fa r fro m a n arbitrar y o r mino r one
. Th e idea o f publi c commen t an d th e dut y t o 

### provid e informatio n t o facilitat e tha t commen t i s directl y connected t o the matri x o f congressional goal s pursuan t t o CERCLA

. I t i s onl y wit h meaningfu l publi c commen t an d 

### revie w that the concurren t goal s o f PR P conducte d remedies
, conservatio n o f Superfun d monies , and publi c awarenes s ma y b e achieved

. See 4 2 U.S.C

. Section s 9617(a)

, 9613(k)

, 9622(a)

. — — The administrato r ha s mad e n o determinatio n that goo d fait h negotiation s are not 

### or wer e not possibl e wit h the instan t PRP' s a s require d b y Sectio n 12 2 o f CERCLA

. EP A conduct i n developin g th e RI/F S has effectivel y foreclose d th e publi c fro m acces s t o information
, and fro m time wit h whic h t o diges t and evaluat e receive d dat a regardin g statu s and potentia l remediatio n o f the Ya k Tunne l operabl e unit

. I n tur n thi s systemati c exclusio n o f PRP' s fro m th e remed y selectio n proces s has deprive d EP A o f potentiall y 

### valuabl e insigh t and experience

. EP A ha s set fort h an inadequatel y substantiate d Phase I Remedia l Investigatio n 

### (se e Hecl a Comment s t o Phase I Remedia l Investigatio n o f Ya k Tunne l Operabl e Unit)

, an d almos t immediatel y thereafter
, an d mor e particularly
, prior t o th e expiratio n o f eve n the Phase I Remedial Investigatio n commen t period
, ha s promulgate d the Ya k OUF S and RAP

. Eac h o f th e aforementione d document s i s necessaril y technical
, intricat e and 

### complex

. Presumabl y th e governmen t spen t extensiv e amount s o f time and resource s i n developmen t o f the include d dat a and conclusions

. The fla w occur s i n EP A timin g o f the releas e o f dat a an d conclusions
, providin g onl y a fe w week s fo r publi c review

. Th e EPA' s procedura l stanc e an d timin g hav e s o confuse d th e issue s o f contaminant source , natur e o f contamination , EP A expectatio n concernin g degre e o f clean-up
, an d degre e o f PR P involvemen t i n developmen t and implementatio n o f the remedy
, that EPA-PR P 

### cooperatio n i n th e developmen t o f th e bes t possibl e remed y ha s t o thi s point bee n stymied

.E P

A conduc t as se t ou t above
, wit h regar d t o th e promulgatio n o f th e Ya k Tunne l operabl e uni t feasibilit y stud y a s wel l a s th e remedia l actio n pla n indicate s a complet e disregar d fo r th e mandate s o f CERCLA

. I t i s indicativ e a s wel l o f EPA' s treatmen t o f thes e proceeding s a s a strictl y adversaria l process , a s oppose d t o undertakin g a constructiv e rol e i n th e remediatio n o f wha t th e governmen t feel s t o b e a potentiall y dangerou s site

. Th e resul t o f suc h a postur e i s a lon g an d comple x lawsui t whic h i s unlikel y t o resul t in th e mos t cos t effective
, efficien t an d feasibl e remedy

. I t wa s t o avoi d thes e problem s tha t Congres s directe d EP A t o ente r int o agreement s wit h PRP' s tha t "ar e i n th e publi c interes t an d consisten t wit h th e Nationa l Contingenc y Pla n i n orde r t o expedit e effectiv e remedia l action s an d minimiz e litigation. " 4 2 U.S. C Sectio n 9622(a ) (emphasis added)

. B

. TH E EPA' S SELECTIO N O F IT S PREFERRE D ALTERNATIV

E I S INCONSISTEN T WIT H TH E NCP

. Sectio n 105(a ) o f CERCL A require s tha t respons e actions undertake n b y th e EP A "(s)hall

, t o th e greates t exten t possible
, b e i n accordanc e wit h th e (NCP). " 4 2 U.S.C.

, 

### Sectio n 9605(a)

. Th e NC P i s t o "(e)stablis h procedure s an d standard s fo r respondin g t o release s o f hazardou s substances " whic h shal l ensur e a t a minimu m that remedial action s ar e effective
, feasibl e an d cos t effectiv e fo r th e conditio n o f th e particula r release. " 4 2 U.S.C

. S9605(a)

. Becaus e CERCL A mandate s suc h a pervasiv e rol e fo r th e NC P in determinin g whether
, an d t o wha t extent , EP A actions ar e appropriat e a t a particula r site , 

### remediatio n whic h i s inconsisten t wit h th e NC P i s no t subjec t t o a cost-recover y unde r SI07

. Specifically

, thos e section s o f th e NC P whic h concer n th e developmen t o f effective
, feasibl e an d cos t effectiv e remedie s must be utilize d b y th e EP A in developin g 

### a n d screenin g propose d remedia l alternatives

. Th e EPA' s developmen t o f th e preferre d alternativ e fo r th e Californi a Gulc h site , however
, show s a t bes t superficia l complianc e wit h thes e importan t provision s o f th e NCP

. 1

. TH E EPA' S PREFERRE D ALTERNATIV

E I S NO T A N EFFECTIV E REMED Y F O R TH E YAK TUNNEL

.


### a
. Th e NC P Require s Rejectio n o f Remedia l Alternative s Tha t Hav e "Significan t Advers e Effect s an d Ver y Limite d Environmenta l

Benefits, " 4 0 CF R 300.68(g)(3)

. 

### T h e effectivenes s o f collectio n an d chemica l treatmen t as a remedia l measur e fo r th e Ya k Tunne l drainag e ha s bee n questione d b y numerou s persons

. Se e transcrip t o f publi c meeting , Septembe r 1 , 1987 , Comment s o f ASARCO

, Res-ASARC O an d Resurrectio n Minin g Company

. Th e EP A ha s ignore d al l substantiv e comment s i n 

### selectin g "collectio n an d chemica l treatment " a s it s preferre d alternative

. A 

### particularl y strikin g exampl e o f thi s is th e EPA' s inclusio n o f rehabilitatio n o f th e Tunne l
an d constructio n an d operatio n o f a chemica l treatmen t plan t i n it s preferre d alternative
, whic h hav e bee n include d i n the remedia l actio n pla n ove r the stron g an d 

### wel l considere d objectio n o f numerou s parties

. Se e transcrip t o f publi c meeting , Septembe r 1 , 1987

. Sectio n 300.68(g)(3 ) o f th e NC P specificall y states , "(i) f a n alternativ e ha s 

### significan t advers e effects
, an d ver y limite d environmenta l benefits
, i t shal l b e exclude d 

### fro m furthe r consideration. " 4 0 CF R Sectio n 300.68(gX3)

. Significan t advers e effect s whic h ar e inheren t in th e EPA' s preferre d alternativ e ca n be summarize d as follows :~

Rehabilitatio n

o f th e Ya k Tunne l wil l be a labo r intensiv e an d monumentall y expensiv e project

. Rehabilitatio n o f th e tunne l coul d wel l b e mor e difficul t tha n origina l construction

. Se e transcrip t o f publi c hearing
, Septembe r 1 , 1987

. Th e EP A ha s neve r addresse d thi s issue ; has never estimate d th e ma n hour s necessar y t o complet e thi s task ; and
, has never presente d th e engineerin g dat a t o suppor t th e conclusio n tha t suc h a projec t ca n b e successfull y completed

.

— Rehabilitatio n

an d maintenanc e o f th e tunne l wil l be a perpetua l projec t requirin g a cre w o f eight t o te n person s workin g fulltime

. Numerou s historica l report s indicat e tha t condition s existin g withi n th e Yak Tunne l hav e mad e maintenanc e a continuin g operationa l an d safet y proble m sinc e th e constructio n o f th e tunne l in th e lat e 1800's

. Se e Voynick

, Steve n M.

, Leadville : A Miner' s Epic

, Mountai n Press Publishin g Company

, 198*

. Id

. EP A has never determine d whethe r suc h labo r wil l be availabl e t o mee t futur e needs
, ho w muc h i t wil l pa y fo r suc h labo r an d wh o shal l pa y fo r it

.

— Rehabilitatio n

wil l pos e significan t safet y risks t o th e laborers

. T h e treatmen t plan t wil l requir e perpetua l maintenanc e an d operatio n an d wil l b e subjec t t o sudde n an d continua l mechanical failure

. Disposa l o f sludg e will
, likewise
, b e a perpetua l operatio n and i s anticipate d t o generat e ove r a n acr e o f sludg e pe r year
. Se e Comment s prepare d b y Dame s & Moore

. Environmenta l benefit s t o b e obtaine d fro m EPA' s collectio n an d treatmen t wil l b e greatl y limite d b y th e followin g factors :



### ~ The tunne l i s lace d wit h numerou s mine working s and i t wil l b e impossibl e t o rehabilitat e al l area s o f th e Tunnel

. Th e EP A has never indicate d whethe r i t intend s t o rehabilitat e al l area s o f th e tunne l and
, i f th e entir e tunne l wil l no t be rehabilitate d whethe r plug s wil l needed

.

— Th e treatmen t plan t i s highl y subjec t t o upse t an d failur e du e t o operato r negligenc e an d equipmen t failure

.



### — Th e perpetua l disposa l o f sludg e generate d b y th e operatio n o f th e chemica l treatmen t plan t wil l resul t i n th e creatio n o f a ne w hazardou s wast e sit e whic h contain s a mor e concentrate d and potentiall y mor e mobil e and toxic substance

. Whe n on e consider s thes e obviou s an d substantia l risk s an d limitation s involve d i n collectio n and chemica l treatmen t o f the Ya k Tunne l discharge
, a s compare d t o the smal l 

### risks pose d b y pluggin g alternatives
, i t i s clea r tha t th e EP A ha s no t followe d th e 

### guidanc e o f th e NC P i n selectin g it s preferre d alternativ e fo r th e Yak Tunnel

. I n analyzin g th e effectivenes s o f remedia l options , th e EP A i s require d t o conside r a range o f factors
, including : ( i ) Population

, environmenta l an d welfar e concern s a t risk ; 

### (xii ) Th e exten t t o whic h federa l environmenta l an d publi c healt h 

### requirement s ar e applicabl e o r relevan t an d appropriat e t o th e specifi c site , an d th e exten t t o whic h othe r federa l criteria , advisor y an d guidanc e and stat e standard s are t o b e considere d i n developin g the remed y

### (xv

) Abilit y o f responsibl e part y t o implemen t an d maintai n th e remed y until th e threa t i s permanentl y abated ;

4 0 C.F.R

. 300.79(e)(2)

. 

### Takin g onl y thes e factor s fo r purpose s o f thes e comments , i t is clearl y eviden t tha t th e EPA' s failur e t o adequatel y characteriz e th e Californi a Gulc h sit e an d scop e respons e action s ha s severel y limite d th e effectivenes s o f it s preferre d alternative

. 1

. Population

, Welfar e an d Environmenta l Risks

. Se e Comment s prepare d b y Dame s & Moore

. 2

. Applicabl e o r Relevant an d Appropriat e Statutes

, Regulation s o r Requirements

. T h e EP A is attemptin g t o impos e federa l Ambien t Wate r Qualit y Criteri a (AWQC ) upo n th e Californi a Gulc h clean-up

. A s state d i n th e EPA' s Ya k OUFS

, th e AWQC' s wer e establishe d unde r th e authorit y o f th e Clea n Wate r Ac t an d ar e non-enforceabl e criteria , Ya k OUFS

, p

. 3.9 , an d
ar e not intende d t o serv e a s sit e specifi c clean-u p requirements

. 

### Particularl y i n a highl y mineralize d are a suc h a s th e Leadvill e Minin g Distric t sit e specifi c condition s must b e considered

. Se e Dame s & Moore' s comments

. Sectio n 12 1 o f CERCL A provide s tha t applicabl e o r relevan t an d 

### appropriat e clean-u p standard s ar e t o be incorporate d int o th e remedia l pla n fo r th e site

. Th e wor d "applicable " mean s tha t th e environmenta l statute s reference d unde r CERCL A woul d legall y appl y t o th e situatio n presente d b y a releas e o r threatene d releas e o f hazardou s substances
, pollutan t o r contaminant

. Ac t o f Octobe r 17 , 1986 , Pub.L

. No

. 99-499 , 198 6 U.S

. Cod e Cong

. an d Admin

. New s (10 0 Stat. ) 1613

. Relevan t has bee n define d t o mea n tha t ther e ma y b e circumstance s relate d t o a releas e 

### o r threatene d releas e o f hazardous substances
, pollutant s o r contaminant s wher e anothe r environmenta l statut e ma y no t appl y i n a stric t lega l sense but wher e the circumstance s are ver y simila r t o thos e anticipate d b y the law

. Thes e relevan t standard s woul d be use d whe n appropriate

. Id

. 3

. Abilit y t o Implemen t and Maintai n th e Remedy

. See page s 1 *
an d 15 , supra

. 

### Becaus e th e EP A ha s faile d t o properl y scop e th e sit e an d propose d alternative s s o a s t o "indicat e th e type s o f remova l measure s and/o r remedia l measure s suitabl e t o abat e the threat
, and set priorit y fo r implementatio n o f the measures, " 4 0 C.F.R

. 300.86(e)

, i t 

### ha s give n consideratio n t o onl y on e remedia l technology (mechanica l treatment ) an d a minor variatio n upo n thi s technology (mechanica l treatmen t plu s partia l plugging)

. 

### Becaus e o f th e EPA' s restrictiv e approac h t o evaluatin g remedia l alternatives
, th e RI/F S proces s i s no t merel y procedurall y deficient ; rather
, th e RI/F S proces s a s employe d b y 

### t h e EP A s o clearl y derogate s fro m NC P requirement s that it fundamentall y misapprehend s th e natur e o f th e Californi a Gulc h site , th e source s o f contaminatio n an d t h e appropriat e method s o f remediatio n tha t an y remed y evolvin g fro m th e EPA' s RI/F S 

### proces s canno t reliabl y b e implemente d a s a n effectiv e remedy

.
1 02

.

TH E PREFERRE D ALTERNATIV

E I S NO T FEASIBL E T O IMPLEMEN T AN D MAINTAIN

.
a
. Th e NC P Require s th e Developmen t o f Alternative s Tha t Ar e "Feasibl e fo r th e Locatio n an d Condition s o f th e Release

, Applicabl e t o th e Problem

, an d Represen t a Reliabl e Mean s o f Addressin g th e Problem. " 4 0 C.F.R

. 300.6S(g)(2)

. T h e NC P establishe s feasibilit y a s on e o f th e primary threshold s i n bot h th e initia l screenin g an d detaile d analysis o f remedia l alternative s a t th e feasibilit y stud y level

. Feasibilit y in terms o f initia l screenin g i s characterize d as : "(2 ) Acceptabl e engineerin g practices

. Alternative s must b e feasibl e fo r th e locatio n an d conditio n o f th e release
, applicabl e t o th e problem
, an d represen t a reliabl e mean s o f addressin g th e problem. " W y 300.68(g)(2)

. 

### T h e NC P place s a high premiu m upo n th e conditio n tha t a remedia l alternativ e b e "reasonabl e t o implemen t fro m a n engineerin g perspective... "

Id.

, 300.68(i)(5)(iii)

. Th e 

### sectio n quote d abov e offer s on e o f th e fe w exception s t o th e requiremen t tha t remedia l actions mee t al l applicabl e o r relevan t an d appropriat e standards
, an d follow s th e CERCL A statutor y mandat e tha t suc h standard s b e balance d agains t th e engineerin g impracticabilit y o f implementin g a remedy

. 4 2 U.S.C

. Sectio n 9621(d)(3XC)

. Engineerin g feasibilit y i s not onl y utilize d i n the initia l screenin g o f alternatives

. Sectio n 300.68(h)(2)(iii ) o f th e NC P requires tha t th e detaile d analysis o f alternative s 

### includ e "evaluatio n in terms o f engineerin g implementation
,

reliability
, an d constructability... "

4 0 C.F.R

. Sectio n 300.68(h)(2)(iii)

. Clearly

, alternative s whic h
cannot b e practicabl y constructed
, implemente d and maintaine d are t o b e eliminate d throughou t th e initia l screenin g an d detaile d evaluatio n containe d i n th e feasibilit y stud y 

### process

. Evidenc e fro m th e EPA' s Ya k OUF S i s tha t i t faile d t o giv e feasibility
, i n terms o f engineerin g practicability
, prope r consideratio n in developing
, screenin g an d analyzin g remedia l alternatives

. Mos t importantly
, as discusse d throughou t th e bod y o f thes e comments , th e EP A ha s faile d t o perfor m th e typ e o f benc h scal e an d preliminar y studie s t o determin e whethe r rehabilitatio n o f th e Ya k Tunne l an d perpetua l operatio n o f a larg e scal e treatmen t facilit y ar e implementable
, constructabl e an d maintainable

. 3

. REHABILITATIO N

O F TH E YA K TUNNE L AN D MECHANICA

L TREATMEN T O F TH E DISCHARGE AR E NO T COST-EFFECTIVE

.


### a
. Th e EPA' s Preferre d Alternativ e Doe s No t Represen t a "Cos t Effectiv e Alternativ e tha t Effectivel y Mitigate s an d Minimize s Threat s t o an d Provide s Adequat e Protectio n o f Publi c Healt h and Welfar e and th e Environment. " 4 0 C.F.R

. 300.68(1)

. 

### T h e NC P provide s that
, "(f)o r eac h alternative
, th e cos t o f implementin g th e remedia l actio n mus t b e considered
, includin g operatio n an d maintenanc e costs

. A n alternativ e tha t fa r exceed s the cos t o f othe r alternative s an d that doe s not provid e substantiall y greate r publi c healt h o r environmenta l protectio n o r technica l reliabilit y shal l usuall y b e exclude d fro m furthe r consideration. " Id.

. Sectio n 300.68(g)(l)

. Th e cos t effectivenes s analysi s require d b y th e NC P i s mor e tha n a simpl e cos t balancin g analysis ; instea d .» f considerin g cost s strictl y o n a dolla r fo r dolla r basis
, th e EP A mus t conside r cos t i n term s o f thos e remedies whic h mee t applicabl e or relevan t an d appropriat e clean-u p goals

. Rathe r than
, a s th e EP A ha s apparentl y believed
, diminishin g th e importanc e o f cos t factors
, thi s approach highlight s th e nee d t o establis h reasonabl e clean-u p goal s so tha t cos t factor s ma y b e give n th e detaile d analysi s the y deserv e i n th e ligh t o f th e mos t effectiv e technolog y fo r obtainin g thes e goals

. 

### 1 1I

n th e Ya k OUF S al l o f th e EPA' s cos t analyse s mus t be discredite d becaus e th e 

### Agency ha s faile d t o se t reasonabl e clean-u p goal s an d standard s fo r th e Californi a Gulc h site

. Remedia l goal s ca n hav e a direc t influenc e upo n th e abilit y o f th e EP A t o determin e th e remedia l alternativ e whic h i s mos t cos t effective

. Fo r example
, th e 

### state d goal o f th e EPA' s Ya k OUF S is : T h e goa l o f this F S i s t o provid e a basi s fo r selectio n o f remedia l action s tha t wil l protec t publi c healt h an d welfar e an d th e environmen t fro m th e 

### releas e o r threa t o f releas e o f hazardou s substances
, pollutants
, o r contaminant s fro m th e Ya k Tunnel

. 

### Y a k OUFS

, p

. 1-6

. Thi s overl y broa d an d genera l restatemen t o f goal s an d objective s withou t referenc e t o sit e specifi c characteristic s o f th e Californi a Gulc h sit e provide s absolutel y n o basi s t o determin e whic h remedies
, i f any, cos t effectivel y attai n suc h 

### goals

. Withou t a sit e specifi c approac h t o establishin g standards
, absur d conclusions ca n 

### b e reached ; fo r example
, th e EP A advocate s adoptio n o f chroni c aquati c lif e standard s t o restor e o r maintain fis h populatio n in Californi a Gulc h withou t an y supportin g evidenc e 

### that fis h hav e eve r survive d i n Californi a Gulc h eve n unde r pre-minin g conditions

. An y remed y premise d upo n thi s goa l canno t b e cos t effective

. Eve n i f th e focu s i s place d solel y upo n th e Arkansa s River

, numerou s questions ar e lef t unanswered : I s th e objectiv e o f th e EP A t o restor e th e Arkansa s Rive r fisher y t o it s pre-minin g condition ? I f so , wha t i s th e pre-minin g condition ? I f th e inten t i s no t t o restor e th e Arkansas Rive r fisher y t o it s pre-minin g condition
, i s the objectiv e t o restor e the rive r t o it s highes t qualit y and practicabl y attainabl e use ? I f so , wha t habita t limitations
, othe r than metal contamination s ar e presen t whic h woul d limit attainin g thi s goal ? Suc h questions , an d simila r one s fo r Californi a Gulch

, mus t b e answered befor e i t can b e determine d whic h technolog y mos t cost-effectivel y reache s th e intende d goal

. 

### Eve n assuming , onl y fo r purpose s o f thes e comments , tha t th e EP A ha s adequatel y an d correctl y addresse d th e issue s o f goal s an d standard s fo r th e Californi a Gulc h sit e remedia l actions , it s preferre d alternativ e o f collection
, treatmen t an d discharg e 

### utilizin g tunne l rehabilitatio n an d mechanical treatment , i s no t th e mos t cos t effectiv e mean s t o achievin g th e expres s goal s an d standards

. EPA' s preferre d alternativ e i s th e least cos t effectiv e alternativ e fo r a variet y o f reasons : 

### 1

. Th e remed y require s perpetua l maintenanc e o f th e tunnel
, operatio n o f a treatmen t facilit y an d disposa l o f toxic sludge

. Such perpetua l element s o f th e preferre d 

### alternativ e mak e i t practicabl y impossibl e t o estimat e wit h reasonabl e certaint y th e extende d cost

. 

### 2

. EPA' s preferre d alternative
, estimate d t o cos t betwee n $2 3 an d $29 million
, represent s a considerabl e additiona l expens e ove r othe r alternatives
, suc h a s tota l tunne l plugging
, whic h cost s a fractio n o f tha t amoun t an d equall y wil l satisf y al l applicabl e o r relevan t and appropriat e standards

. A s evidence b y numerou s comment s provide d t o th e EP A durin g th e publi c meetin g i n Leadvill e on Septembe r 1, 198 7 and variou s comment s submitte d thereafter
, th e EP A has significantl y underestimate d

th e cost s o f tunne l rehabilitation
, maintenance , a s wel l a s the operatin g cost s o f the treatmen t plant

. Se e 

### Dame s & Moore' s comment s o n thi s point

. 3

. Th e EP A ha s faile d t o establis h that th e preferre d alternativ e wil l b e effectiv e i n attainin g clean-u p goal s an d standard s i n perpetuity

.
1 2C

.

TH E EPA' s PREFERRE D ALTERNATIV E I S ARBITRAR Y AN D CAPRICIOU S BECAUS E TH E EPA HA S FAILE D T O FOLLO W IT S OW N GUIDANC E DOCUMENT S I N MAKIN G IT S DECISION

. Guidanc e document s prepare d b y th e EP A contro l th e timing , scop e an d organizatio n o f remedia l investigations

. B y requirin g a n orderl y progressio n o f studie s and reports , suc h document s insur e tha t essentia l dat a i s gathere d an d tha t remedia l 

### decision s ar e premise d upo n fac t rathe r tha n speculation

. Failur e t o follo w guidanc e documents
, evince s a capriciousnes s a s t o CERCLA' s statutor y an d regulatory framework

. A t th e Californi a Gulc h site , th e EP A ha s faile d t o follo w it s guidanc e 

### document s wit h respec t t o remedia l investigation s wit h th e resul t o f a discontinuou s an d disconcerte d remedia l investigation

. Th e following example s wil l demonstrat e thi s point : 

### 1

. Th e EP A Has Faile d t o Perfor m a n Endangermen t Assessmen t Sufficien t t o Suppor t It s Preferre d Alternative

. T h e Endangermen t Assessmen t handbook
, EPA

, 8-8 6 (E A handbook)

, set s fort h 

### wit h specificit y th e rol e o f th e endangermen t assessment :

. . .Unde r Sectio n 106(a ) o f CERCLA

, EP A mus t b e abl e t o properl y 

### documen t an d justif y it s assertio n tha t a n imminen t an d substantia l endangermen t t o publi c healt h or welfar e or the environmen t ma y exist

. 

### T h e endangermen t

assessmen t provide s thi s justificatio n an d documentation

. E A Handbook

, p

. 2-1

. 

### Becaus e o f th e prominen t rol e o f th e E A i n remedia l activities , i t i s t o b e performe d a t th e initiatio n o f th e investigation : The endangermen t assessment documen t mus t b e prepare d befor e a CERCL A Sectio n 106(a).

. .i s file d o r issued

. Therefore

, th e endangermen t assessmen t proces s shoul d b e initiate d a s soo n a s th e sit e i s identifie d a s a n enforcemen t sit e an d administrativ e o r judicia l action s ar e considered

. E A Handbook

, p

. 2-2 , 2-3

. A n endangermen t assessment i s "a n evaluatio n an d interpretatio n o f th e collectiv e demographic
, geographic
, physical
, chemical an d biologica l factor s at a sit e whic h describ e the exten t o f the potentia l or actual harm. " E A Handbook

, p

. 3-1

. Wher e th e EP A ha s embarked upon a cours e expecte d t o culminat e i n litigation
, the endangermen t assessment i s t o attain a hig h leve l o f sophisticatio n and detail
, including : 

### —Stat e o f th e ar t exposur e level modellin g techniques ; —Detaile d sit e characterization ; —Quantitativ e exposur e an d toxicit y assessment s o f th e contaminant s present ; 

### —Detaile d appraisal s base d upo n the bes t expertis e an d knowledg e an d a n estimat e o f th e uncertainty

. 

### E A Handbook

, pp

. 4- 3 through 4-6

. A t a sit e suc h a s the Californi a Gulc h site , wher e remediatio n i s complicate d b y sit e specifi c characteristics
,

historica l an d lega l factors
, and
, no w superimpose d operabl e units , th e E A become s a critica l publi c informatio n documen t vitall y importan t t o th e developmen t o f a n appropriat e remedia l plan

. 1 3DAVIS

, GRAHA M & STUBB S 

## By

. Elizabet h H

. Temki n 

## B y

_ Jame s R

. Stroc k 3 7 0 Seventeent h Street

, Suit e 470 0 Denver

, C O 8020 2 (303 ) 892-940 0 GREENGAR D & SENTE R

Richar d D

. Greengar d By.________

_ Thoma s E

. Nap p W O Sout h Colorad o Boulevard

, Suite 70 0 Denver

, C O 80222 (303 ) 320-050 9 ATTORNEY S FO R HECL A MININ G COMPAN YOctobe r 5 , 198 7

VOLUME I I TECHNICA L COMMENT S AN D OBJECTION S Y A K TUNNE L OPERABL E UNI T FEASIBILIT Y STUD Y A N D PROPOSE D REMEDIA L ACTION PLA N CALIFORNI A GULCH

, COLORAD O UNITE D STATE S V

. APACHE

, ET

. AL

. CIVI L ACTIO N NO

. 86-C-167 5 

# Dame s & Moor e Prepare d By : DAME S & MOOR E 162 6 Col e Boulevar d Golden

, Colorad o 8040 1 

### (303 ) 232-626 2VOLUM E I I TECHNICA L COMMENT S AN D OBJECTION S Y A K TUNNE L OPERABL E UNI T FEASIBILIT Y STUD Y A N D PROPOSE D REMEDIA L ACTION PLA N GENERA L COMMENT S 

### T h e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s Ya k Tunne l Operationa l Uni t Feasibilit y Stud y (June

, 1987 ) an d Remedia l fictio n Pla n (RAP ) (August

, 

### 1987 ) addres s remedie s t o decreas e th e releas e o r threa t o f releas e o f o r exposur e t o hazardou s substances
, pollutants
, an d contaminant s fro m th e Yak 

### Tunne l (EPA

, 1987)

. Th e Feasibilit y Stud y (FS ) an d th e remedia l response s tha t ar e develope d an d evaluate d i n th e Remedia l Actio n Pla n (RAP ) explicitl y addres s onl y th e discharg e fro m th e Ya k Tunne l t o Californi a Gulch

, independen t o f th e othe r portion s o f th e Californi a Gulc h sit e in total

. Implici t i n EPA' s approac h i s th e taci t assumptio n tha t th e Ya k 

### Tunne l ca n b e remediate d separatel y fro m th e remainde r o f th e Californi a Gulc h Superfun d Site

. Th e appropriatenes s (i n term s o f bot h geograph y an d timing ) o f thi s assumptio n i s critica l t o EPA' s F S an d require s detaile d



### an d carefu l consideration

. 

### O n pag e 1- 5 o f th e FS

, th e statemen t i s mad e tha t "a n Operabl e Uni t 

### i s a discret e par t o f th e entir e respons e actio n tha t decrease s a release
, threa t o f releas e o r pathwa y o f exposure " and tha t "implementatio n

o f Operabl e Uni t respons e action s ma y begi n befor e selectio n o f a n appropriate fina l remedia l actio n i f suc h measure s ar e cost-effectiv e an d consisten t wit h a permanen t remedy. " A s discusse d in th e Specifi c Comments

, thi s i s a 

### ke y issu e whic h mus t be carefull y addresse d an d resolved

. Specifi c technica l comment s o n th e Ya k Tunne l Operationa l Uni t F S focu s on si x mai n area s or issues

. Thes e are :
1

. Healt h risk assessment , 2

. Inadequat e an d speculativ e database
, 3

. Aquati c lif e evaluations
,

-1

-4

.

Institutiona l issues , 5

. Operabl e uni t concept , an d 6

. Evaluatio n an d selectio n o f preferre d alternatives

. SPECIFI C COMMENT S

1

. Healt h Ris k Assessmen t Ou r genera l impression s o f th e Executiv e Summar y an d Sectio n 3. 0 fro m 

### t h e revie w o f thes e sections ar e twofold : (1 ) first
, th e focu s o n possibl e mode s o f exposur e o f huma n population s an d environmenta l biot a t o th e pollutan t mineral s i n th e outflo w wate r i s clear
, althoug h n o definit e conclusion s hav e bee n drawn a s t o the significan t populatio n sector s at ris k b y defined
, realisti c route s o f exposure ; an d (2 ) ther e ar e n o clear
, 

### well-define d level s o f exces s ris k o f specifi c healt h effect s fro m exposure s t o specifi c metal s i n wate r agains t whic h quantitativ e remediatio n goal s ca n b e established

. Lackin g suc h quantitativ e conclusion s as t o th e exten t o f remediatio n b y concentratio n reductio n require d fo r specifi c metal s in surfac e an d ground water s o f Ya k Tunnel



### Californi a Gulc h leadin g t o confluenc e wit h th e Arkansa s River

, specifi c remediatio n alternatives
, thei r cost s an d thei r effectivenes s canno t b e develope d and considere d i n a realisti c mode

. O u r detaile d comment s follow : 

### T h e author s hav e no t clarifie d th e critica l point s as t o wha t quantitativ e fraction s o f th e meta l loading s in th e surface-wate r 

### an d ground-wate r flow s ar e actuall y attributabl e t o th e outflo w (modele d a t maximu m concentrations ) fro m th e Ya k Tunnel

. Thes e fraction s ar e vita l dat a bearin g o n analysi s o f remediatio n require d fo r th e Yak Tunne l phas e o f th e tota l FS

. On e mus t separat e thi s phas e fro m meta l contribution s fro m th e rest o f th e Californi a Gulc h environment

.

-2

-Bot

h th e Executiv e Summar y an d Sectio n 3 compar e worst-cas e (maximum ) wate r concentratio n

values fo r specifi c metal s a t
surve y site s (surfac e wate r an d groun d water ) i n Californi a Gulc h

an d th e Arkansa s Rive r wit h indice s o f permissibl e exposur e level s establishe d o n a huma n health/environmenta l

basi s b y th e 

### Federa l Government

, includin g suc h indice s a s MCLs

, MCLGs

, AWQ C 

### criteria , AI C values
, AI S values
, etc

. Suc h comparison s ar e valuabl e i n tha t the y begi n th e proces s o f highlightin g meta l pollutant s o f priorit y concer n t o th e healt h o f expose d biot a 

### populations

. Bu t again , i t i s th e fraction s o f suc h pollutan t concentration s stemmin g fro m Ya k Tunne l outflow s tha t shoul d 

### ente r comparison s in thi s F S phase
, no t th e tota l meta l load s o f surface-wate r an d ground-wate r supplies

. 

### I n makin g th e comparisons betwee n concentration s i n surface-wate r a n d ground-wate r supplie s an d permissibl e exposur e levels
, Sectio n 3 fail s t o mak e an y cas e fo r an y rea l exposure s o f an y presen t o r futur e populatio n sector s t o thes e supplies

. N o cas e i s mad e fo r huma n us e o f Californi a Gulc h surfac e water s o r groun d waters

. N o cas e i s mad e fo r an y excess ris k t o user s o f Arkansa s Rive r water s du e t o mineral s derive d fro m Yak Tunne l outflow

. Th e onl y theoretica l exposur e situatio n postulate d fo r huma n targe t populations
, tie d t o Yak Tunne l outflow
, i s tha t o f childre n playin g i n surfac e water s o f th e Gulc h nea r th e Tunne l outflow

. T h e failur e t o establis h any credibl e exposur e situation s fo r presen t o r projecte d targe t population s in Sectio n 3 raise s seriou s question s whethe r th e groun d wor k has bee n lai d fo r an y quantitativ e requirement

s fo r remediatio n based o n potentia l healt h effects

. Lackin g concret e exposur e models
, it i s no t possibl e t o discus s potentia l healt h effect s i n targe t population s vi a specifi c exposur e route s an d specifi c tempora l pattern s o f exposure

. I n turn , therefore
, th e goal s o f a 

### remediatio n effor t canno t b e establishe d a s base d on a perceive d

-3

-

### requirement t o reduc e meta l concentrations

i n define d exposur e situation s dow n t o som e specifi c residua l values

. Remediatio n goals
, an d th e alternativ e pathway s t o achiev e them
, hav e t o b e 

### base d o n quantitativ e assessment s o f ho w muc h remediatio n i s required
, a t what geographi c locations
, fo r wha t kin d o f use r 

### population

. Thes e assessment s ar e virtuall y missin g i n th e FS

. T h e EP A does no t presen t an y analysis o f ho w th e contaminan t profil e i n th e Arkansa s Rive r above th e confluenc e wit h Californi a Gulc h impact s o n th e situatio n belo w th e confluence
, a n d o f th e relativ e magnitud e o f meta l pollutio n downstrea m fro m t h e Ya k Tunne l outflo w versu s th e natura l Arkansa s Rive r background

. T h e toxicit y profile s fo r th e majo r minera l contaminant s (chiefly

- metals ) presente d i n Sectio n 3 ar e incomplete

. The y contai n onl y brie f compilation s o f th e toxi c sign s whic h ma y b e see n i n tes t 

### anima l system s o r huma n population s expose d t o hig h dail y dose s
o f specifi c pollutants

. Thi s i s no t th e informatio n o f prim e interes t i n workin g u p a n analysis o f requirement s an d goal s fo r 

### a potentia l remediatio n process

. Wha t i s neede d i s a technica l analysis
, metal b y metal
, o f wha t concentration s i n wate r are low enoug h s o tha t dail y ingestio n b y human s woul d resul t i n dosage s belo w an y threshol d fo r toxi c action s in targe t populations
, so

calle d N o Observabl e Advers e Effec t Level s (NOAELs ) o n acut e an d 

### chroni c bases

. N o dat a ar e presente d i n th e profile s bearin g o n thi s typ e o f information
, i n justificatio n o f an y us e o f AI S o r 

### A I C indice s o f safety

. Sectio n 3 analyze s surface-wate r

an d ground-wate r intake s o f metal s i n term s o f fraction s o f AI S an d AI C indice s o f EPA

acceptabl e dail y intakes

. Yet

, n o attemp t i s mad e t o d o anythin g wit h thes e fraction s i n term s o f an y settin g o f justifiable 

### quantitativ e goal s fo r an y propose d remediation

. Thi s woul d b e especiall y importan t fo r metal s lik e cadmiu m an d lead

. I t ha s 

### no t bee n done i n Sectio n 3

. -M

-

### Followin g o n th e abov e point , sinc e quantitativ e degree s o f remediatio n fo r specifi c metal s i n wate r supplie s unde r modele d 

### condition s hav e not bee n establishe d i n Sectio n 3 , we fai l t o se e 

### ho w an y remediatio n based o n reductio n o f potentia l healt h effect s ca n be discusse d i n a meaningfu l way
. Technologie s an d cost s fo r variou s remediatio n option s hav e t o b e base d o n whic h 

### metal s an d ho w muc h o f eac h hav e t o b e handle d an d removed

. Sectio n 3 raises th e genera l carcinogenesis

issu e bu t doe s nothin g wit h i t a s a limitin g facto r drivin g an y remediatio n proposal s o r options

. Th e onl y resul t o f th e carcinogensi

s treatmen t i s a modelin g o f ris k fo r arseni c ingeste d orall y i n 

### wate r supplied

. N o conclusion s ar e reached
, n o attemp t i s mad e t o correc t risk s fo r natura l arseni c backgroun d an d it s 

### variabilit y i n tha t region , an d n o quantitativ e impac t o f arsenic level s fro m Ya k Tunne l outflo w is develope d i n alternativ e remediatio n proposals

. Ha s th e EP A factore d arsenic reductio n int o it s technology/cos t

considerations ? 

### O n pag e 3-37 , th e excess lifetim e cancer risk s fro m pollutant s i s calculate d usin g a n exponentia l for m o f a risk equation

. I s thi s reall y th e case ? Rather

, didn' t the y simpl y conduc t th e 

### calculatio n fo r arsenic , alone
, b y multiplyin g th e EPA-potenc y facto r fo r orall y ingeste d arseni c b y som e measur e o f averag e 

### dail y lifetim e dose ? Wha t fractio n o f this dose
, b y th e way , i s uniquel y attributabl e t o Ya k Tunne l outflow
, an d b y wha t ora l ingestio n scenarios ar e peopl e expose d t o tha t fraction ? Ar e backgroun d correction s take n int o account ? T h e Sectio n 3 treatmen t o f hazar d fro m a multicomponen t exposur e scenari o speak s t o additivit y o f individua l componen t hazard 

### indice s i n formin g a combine d hazar d index

. W e fai l t o fin d an y 

### evidenc e tha t this wa s done
, and tha t suc h a combine d inde x wa s use d i n an y wa y i n justificatio n o f specifi c postulate d

-5

-

### remediatio n alternative s o r remediatio n goals

. I s this discussio n windo w dressing
, or wa s i t use d t o generat e 

### quantitativ e remediatio n proposal? Finally

, in searchin g fo r an y evidenc e o f ho w exposur e modelin g 

### migh t hav e drive n remediatio n proposal s in thi s phas e o f th e tota l FS

, not e migh t be take n o f th e dat a o n fis h ecolog y i n th e Arkansa s Rive r above
, a t an d belo w th e confluenc e wit h Californi a Gulch

. Th e purpos e o f thi s secto r o f th e discussio n i s no t clear

. Ar e thes e dat a intende d t o driv e an y specifi c remediatio n proposa l base d o n th e fraction s o f Ya k Tunne l outpu t tha t reac h th e confluenc e point ? I f so , th e poin t i s no t develope d i n 

### Sectio n 3 o r th e Executiv e Summary

. 

### T h e approac h an d methodolgie s presente d i n Appendi x B o f ASARCO' s comment s o n th e Ya k Tunne l F S an d RA P meri t seriou s consideratio n b y EPA

. 

### 2

. Inadequat e o r Speculativ e Databas e Mining

, processing , an d smeltin g activitie s hav e occurre d withi n th e Leadvill e are a fo r over 12 5 years (EPA

, 1987 , Pag e iii)

. Th e Ya k Tunne l 

### drainag e syste m wa s develope d betwee n abou t 189 5 an d 192 3 an d extend s 

### approximatel y 4 mile s int o Iro n Hill an d Brecci a Hil l (EPA

, 1987 , Pag e 1

- 3 )

. Becaus e o f th e comple x an d lon g histor y o f th e tunne l an d th e effect s
o f minin g uncertaintie s presentl y exis t an d wil l likel y alway s exis t wit h respec t t o th e existin g conditions
, particularl y as t o th e surface-wate r
an d min e hydrology

. Thes e uncertaintie s mus t b e take n int o account i n th e selectio n o f th e preferre d alternativ e an d developmen t o f th e cos t estimates

. 

### T h e remedia l actio n alternative s reviewe d i n th e F S proces s al l entail collectio n an d treatmen t o f drainag e fro m th e Ya k Tunnel

. Implementatio n o f thes e alternative s require rehabilitatio n o f portion s o f t h e Ya k Tunne l t o provid e fo r uninterrupte d flo w and/o r bulkheading

. Th e



### -6

-issu e

o f rehabilitatio n o f th e Ya k Tunne l an d associate d cos t implication s


### a r e addresse d i n th e ASARCO response s t o th e F S an d RAP

. Thes e comment s
warran t serious consideratio n b y th e EPA

. 

### T h e assessment o f th e sit e geolog y an d existin g ground-wate r condition s i s largel y base d o n publishe d report s prepare d b y others

. A s a consequence , th e assessmen t o f bot h preminin g an d existin g condition s i s 

### estimate d throug h th e us e o f dat a fro m existin g source s an d th e exercis e o f engineerin g experienc e and judgmen t (Pag e 2-2U)

. O f th e approximatel y 2 0 

### existin g domesti c well s an d th e 2 1 ne w monitorin g well s installe d b y th e E P A an d th e State o f Colorado

, non e ar e locate d in th e immediat e vicinit y
o f th e Yak Tunnel

. Give n th e fac t tha t site-specifi c ground-wate r

infor

matio n ha s no t bee n obtaine d fo r th e Ya k Tunne l are a durin g th e RI/FS

, man y 

### o f th e conclusion s fro m th e F S an d RA P ar e base d o n inadequat e informatio n and canno t b e supporte d b y fact

. 3

. Aquatic Lif e Evaluation s ASARC O i n it s comment s o n th e Yak Tunne l Feasibilit y Stud y (Sectio n 4.1 ) an d th e Remedia l Actio n Pla n addres s alternativ e 

### concentratio n limit s an d th e methodolog y fo r developin g applicable
, relevan t an d appropriat e criteri a fo r col d wate r aquati c life

. Th e approac h take n b y ASARCO shoul d b e give n serious consideratio n b y EPA

. T h e Ya k Tunne l F S an d RA P specif y activitie s intende d (amon g othe r things ) t o improv e condition s fo r aquatic lif e i n th e Arkansa s River

. Th e 

### nee d fo r thes e action s i s base d o n report s indicatin g "tha t n o fis h an d onl y a fe w limite d specie s o f aquatic invertebrate s ar e foun d i n th e Arkansas Rive r fo r 1. 5 mile s downstrea m o f th e confluenc e wit h Californi a Gulc h (LaBounty

, e t al.
, 197 5 an d McLaughlin

, 1981). " (Source : EP A Phas e I RI

, May

, 1987 , Pag e 2-25)

. T h e quote d statemen t misrepresent s existin g dat a o n th e reac h o f th e Arkansas Rive r belo w Californi a Gulc h i n that :

-7

-1

.

Ther e i s no documentatio n o f the degre e t o whic h fis h and invertebrat e population s i n the reac h wer e impacte d b y naturally



### occurrin g meta l level s prio r t o mining

. Impact s simila r t o thos e 

### reporte d i n th e Arkansa s Rive r hav e been documente d t o occur naturall y i n stream s adjacen t t o a n unmined sulfide minera l deposi t i n Alask a (Houghton

, 1983 , Aquati c Biology

, repor t t o Cominc o Alaska

, Inc ; se e als o Houghton

, 1986 , testimon y befor e t h e Colorad o Wate r Qualit y Contro l Commission

, Octobe r 8)

. 

### 2

. Th e aquati c studie s reference d hav e no t been sufficientl y rigorou s t o full y defin e th e exten t o f any impac t fro m Californi a 

### Gulc h discharge s eithe r i n exten t (distanc e downstream ) o r magnitud e (quantitativ e chang e fro m condition s tha t woul d exis t absent th e Californi a Gulc h discharg e o r absen t various 

### contribution s t o tha t discharge)

. 

### 3

. Studie s reference d (an d a subsequen t stud y b y Rohlin e an d Boehmke

, 1981 ) hav e no t bee n abl e t o distinguis h betwee n effect s
o f metal s fro m Californi a Gulch

, effect s o f metal s fro m othe r 

### sources , an d effect s o f sewage effluent

. Th e decreas e i n invertebrat e specie s diversit y note d i n the R I coul d b e du e i n par t t o the nutrient s adde d i n sewage

. 4

. The stud y and LaBount y et al.
, 197 5 include s no "operationa l hydrology " and thu s conclude d tha t i t i s "impossibl e t o quantif y 

### effect s discussed " (pag e 5)

. Severa l aspect s o f th e technique s use d wer e no t u p t o presen t da y standards

. Questionabl

e 

### practice s included :



### - Onl y tota l metal s wer e analyzed ; dissolve d meta l analyse s mor e closel y identif y vita l specie s that ar e biologicall y available

.

- N o hydrolog y wa s don e t o allo w calculatio n o f flow s an d meta l locatin g contributions

.

-8

-

### -

Invertebrat e samplin g techniqu e wa s no t th e sam e at al l station s an d times

.

- Fis h samplin g use d gea r inappropriat e fo r a larg e strea m an d d i d no t provid e a quantitativ e estimat e o f populations

.



### - Fis h tissu e analysi s wa s don e o n preserve d sample s an d fille t sample s include d skin
, thus introducin g unknow n potentia l


### source s o f contamination

. 5

. N o effort s hav e bee n mad e i n th e previou s studie s b y th e State o f 

### Colorad o o r other s t o quantitativel y separat e effect s o f metal s
an d th e discharg e fro m th e sewage treatmen t plan t o n fis h population s fro m effect s o f habita t i n th e Arkansa s Rive r belo w i t s confluenc e wit h Californi a Gulch

. 6

. Ther e ha s bee n no systemati c evaluatio n o f spawnin g habita t or
. actua l spawnin g activit y i n th e reach

. 

### T h e observation s an d informatio n o n aquatic s presente d b y ASARC O i n thei r comment s (Sectio n 1.2 ) meri t seriou s an d detaile d consideratio n

b y EPA

. I n summary, th e informatio n reference d o n allege d aquatic lif e impact s o f Californi a Gulc h i s incomplet e an d does no t provid e a n accurat e
o r quantitativ e baselin e fo r us e i n settin g remedia l actio n goals

. Th e stat e o f th e resourc e shoul d be quantitativel y documente d t o provid e a 

### basi s fo r assessin g th e nee d fo r an d succes s o f an y cleanu p activities

. 4

. Institutiona l Issues 

### The F S i s clearl y deficien t i n th e are a o f institutiona l issue s an d indeed
, certai n issue s appea r t o hav e bee n completel y ignored

. I n particular
, th e fac t tha t th e treatmen t facilit y woul d produc e sludg e whic h 

### wil l requir e a disposa l facilit y ha s bee n ignored
, a s ha s bee n th e institutiona l problem s o f maintainin g th e Ya k Tunne l in perpetuity

. Th e matte r o f which institutiona l organizatio n wil l operat e th e treatmen t an d 

### disposa l facilitie s als o appear s t o hav e bee n ignored

.
-9

-

### T h e

fac t tha t th e treatmen t facilit y ha s th e potentia l t o produc e a hazardous wast e ha s no t bee n give n seriou s consideration

.

I f thi s occurs , 

### the n th e treatmen t remed y wil l increase , no t decrease
, th e amoun t o f hazardous wast e in th e environment

. I t i s als o a t varianc e wit h SARA

, which favor s permanen t solutions
, rathe r tha n thos e which pos e th e potentia l fo r additiona l source s o f contamination

. T h e maintenanc e o f a Min e Tunne l (Yak ) an d th e operatio n o f a 

### treatmen t plant
, an d a sludg e disposa l facilit y in perpetuit y raise s ver y serious institutiona l an d societia l question s which hav e bee n completel y ignore d i n th e FS

. Th e fac t that thes e questions hav e bee n ignore d woul d
see m t o impl y tha t th e authors o f th e documen t d o no t wis h t o acquain t th e E P A decisionmake r wit h th e ful l consequence s o f hi s action s in makin g a 

### ROD

. T o decid e i n 198 7 t o operat e suc h a comple x se t o f facilitie s foreve r i s a monumenta l decision

. Wh o wil l operat e thes e facilities ? Wh o assume s 

### financia l an d lega l responsibilitie s

fo r th e facilitie s an d th e sludge

. H o w wil l long-ter m contingencie s b e handled ? Wha t regulatory requirement s apply ? Wil l Stat e an d loca l permit s b e required ? Wh o assume s 

### responsibilit y fo r operationa l failure s an d malfunctions ? Thes e ar e bu t a fe w o f th e question s tha t a decisio n t o operat e in perpetuit y raise

. Thes e 

### matter s mus t b e full y explore d befor e suc h a n importan t an d fa r reachin g decisio n i s made

. Th e F S fail s t o eve n mentio n th e comple x natur e o f thi s subject

. 

### 5

. Operabl e Uni t Concep t T h e viabilit y o f a n operabl e uni t remed y i s greatl y influence d b y th e 

### actual remed y selected

. Th e min e plugging remed y i s largel y a stand-alon e actio n which potentiall y wil l no t interac t wit h subsequen t remedie s fo r th e entir e site

. O n th e othe r hand
, th e selectio n o f th e treatmen t remed y 

### make s designatin g th e Ya k Tunne l as a n operabl e uni t inappropriat e i n tha t i t i s not a permanen t solution
, an d wil l subsequentl y interac t wit h a s ye t unknow n additiona l remedie s fo r th e remainde r o f th e sit e o r perhap s th e entir e site

.



### -10

-Whil

e th e segmentatio n o f th e Californi a Gulch/Ya k Tunne l Superfun d Sit e int o operabl e unit s ma y b e appropriate unde r certai n circumstances , 

### suc h a decisio n need s t o b e mad e wit h grea t care
. The la w require s tha t 

### th e remedia l action s selecte d fo r eac h operabl e unit b e consisten t wit h th e fina l remediatio n selecte d fo r th e overal l site

. T h e F S does no t addres s th e integratio n o f remedia l action s a t th e Y a k Tunne l wit h th e rest o f th e site

. Though t shoul d b e give n t o synchronizatio n an d coordinatio n o f operabl e unit s s o tha t source s o f 

### contamination , regardles s o f area, ca n b e remedie d firs t t o avoi d o r at leas t minimiz e recontamination

.

A carefull y planne d an d execute d sequence
o f remedia l action s shoul d follo w wit h constructio n an d transportatio n schedules
, an d logistic s specifie d s o tha t an y particula r remedia l actio n 

### does no t negativel y impac t o n a n alread y complete d remedia l action

. Identification

, sizing , design
, permitting , an d cos t effectivenes s o f remedia l actio n alternativ e component s suc h a s treatmen t and disposa l facilitie s probabl y ca n onl y b e determine d b y integratin g operabl e uni t feasibilit y studies

. 

### Ideally

, feasibilit y studie s fo r operabl e unit s shoul d b e complete d



### a t the sam e time

. Thi s woul d allo w the RO D proces s t o us e conclusion s fro m a l l RI/FSs

. Give n tha t thi s i s no t no w possibl e a t th e Californi a 

### Gulch/Ya k Tunne l site , the n a t th e ver y leas t th e possibilit y o f delayin g • t h e fina l decisio n t o implemen t th e Yak Tunne l remed y unti l th e F S fo r th e 

### res t o f th e sit e i s assesse d deserve s seriou s consideration

. I n tha t way , the origina l decisio n o n the Ya k Tunne l ca n b e revisite d i n ligh t o f data
, 

### conclusion s an d remedia l option s fo r th e remainde r o f th e site

. T h e selectio n o f a treatmen t remed y fo r th e Yak Tunne l discharg e 

### appear s t o be dependen t upo n th e loadin g analysis containe d i n th e Phas e I R I

. Th e loading s onl y superficiall y addres s th e contributio n from
, fo r example
, Uppe r Californi a Gulch

. Consequently

,

th e selectio n o f a specifi c remed y fo r th e Ya k Tunne l an d an y assessmen t o f th e effectivenes s o f it s 

### implementatio n become s o f questionabl e value

. Furthermore

,

th e cleanu p

-11

-

### standard

s propose d i n the F S d o not hav e an y direc t relevanc e t o the cleanu p goal s fo r th e Arkansa s River

. I n summary , setting o f discharg e 

### limitation s fo r th e Yak Tunne l treatmen t facilit y i n th e absenc e o f a complet e sit e cleanu p progra m i s inappropriat e insomuc h a s th e ultimat e effec t o f othe r source s o f contaminatio n o n th e Arkansa s Rive r i s unknown

. 

### B y selectin g a treatmen t remed y fo r th e Yak Tunne l befor e th e remedia l actio n fo r th e remainde r o f th e sit e i s known
, opportunitie s ar e lost

. Thos e coul d includ e th e locatio n an d operatio n o f a combine d 

### treatmen t plant

. I t ma y b e preferabl e t o maintai n a treatmen t plan t nea r t h e confluenc e o f Californi a Gulc h wit h th e Arkansa s Rive r t o trea t bot h t h e Ya k Tunne l discharg e an d contaminate d wate r fro m othe r Californi a Gulc h


### sources

. B y selectin g a treatmen t remed y fo r th e Ya k Tunne l whic h incorporate s
a 1.8-acr e RCRA-typ e disposa l befor e th e remedia l action s fo r th e remainde r ar e known
, som e possibilitie s fo r th e disposa l o f treatmen t sludg e hav e 

### eithe r bee n ignore d o r wil l b e superseded

. Fo r example
, certai n portion s
o f th e mine working s ma y b e suitabl e fo r backfillin g wit h sludge

. Alternatively

, i f tailin g pond s ar e in operatio n in th e Leadvill e area , the n i t ma y b e feasibl e an d mor e cos t effectiv e t o dispos e o f sludg e i n thes e ponds
, rathe r than buildin g a n RCRA-typ e landfill

. Cleanu p standard s fo r th e discharg e fro m th e Yak Tunne l treatmen t plan t ar e propose d i n th e FS

. Thes e standards
, however
, ar e unsupporte d 

### becaus e the y d o not hav e an y direc t relevanc e t o the ultimat e cleanu p .goal s f o r th e Arkansa s River

. I n summary , settin g o f discharg e limitation s fo r th e Ya k Tunne l treatmen t facilit y i n th e absence o f a complet e sit e cleanu p progra m i s inappropriat e insomuc h as th e ultimat e effec t o n th e wate r qualit y o f the Arkansas River i s unknown

. Preparatio n o f separat e RI/FS s fo r differen t part s o f th e sit e resul t i n duplicatio n an d repetitivenes s

i n th e documentation

.

Thi s mos t 

### certainl y wil l significantl y increase th e respons e cost s withou t an y apparen t enhancemen t i n th e technica l qualit y o f th e wor k product

. I t als o wil l resul t i n a wast e and misuse o f valuabl e technica l resources

.
-12

-

### 6

.

Evaluatio n an d Selectio n o f Preferre d Alternative s T h e identificatio n an d evaluatio n o f remedia l alternative s fo r th e Ya k Tunne l appear s t o b e base d o n th e assumptio n tha t a treatmen t facilit y i s require d a t th e porta l o f th e Yak Tunnel

. Othe r alternatives
, includin g "low-tech " solution s o r relocatio n o f th e treatmen t plan t t o th e confluenc e
o f Californi a Gulc h an d th e Arkansa s River

, ar e eithe r no t o r onl y superficiall y addressed

. Alternativ e 2 - Th e alternativ e fo r tota l Ya k Tunne l pluggin g (Alternativ e 2 ) ha s bee n dismisse d improperly

. 

### T h e dismissa l i s base d o n uncertaintie s abou t th e effec t o f th e Iro n Hill/Ya k Tunne l porta l plu g whic h ar e no t substantiated

. Th e concern s raise d ar e no t sufficien t t o warran t eliminatio n o f Alternativ e 2 a s 

### discusse d i n th e followin g paragraphs

. T h e dismissa l i s base d o n assumed pattern s o f ground-wate r movemen t whic h ar e no t substantiate d b y analytica l result s o r field data

. T h e dismissa l faile d t o adequatel y conside r th e potentia l fo r chemica l bufferin g o f min e wate r as i t seep s throug h natura l roc k an d soi l 

### materials

. Natura l bufferin g ca n significantl y reduc e th e leve l o f metal s i n th e wate r whic h ultimatel y enters th e Californi a Gulc h ground-wate r system

. T h e dismissa l discusse d bu t faile d t o conside r adequatel y th e positiv e effect s o f pos t plugging monitorin g programs

. Ground-wate r 

### monitorin g programs ca n be used t o identif y area s o f contaminate d seepag e and
, couple d wit h extractio n systems , ca n be effectivel y use d t o contai n 

### a n y contaminate d seepag e t o th e vicinit y o f th e Yak Tunnel

. Collecte d seepag e coul d b e reintroduce d t o th e min e wate r poo l a t nomina l cos t an d a t

a potentiall y lo w environmenta l risk

.



### -13

-

### T h e

dismissa l faile d t o conside r th e beneficia l effect s o f a viable
, ancillary
, potentia l remedia l action , tha t o f raisin g th e p H o f th e risin g poo l o f min e wate r i n th e Iro n Hil l working s throug h th e additio n o f lime

. Lime additio n an d mixin g coul d resul t i n th e precipitatio n o f mos t metal s withi n th e min e wate r syste m prio r t o movement o f thi s wate r int o t h e surroundin g ground-wate r system(s)

. Alternative s 5 an d 7 - Alternative s 5 an d 7 , which cal l fo r partia l min e pluggin g an d treatmen t o f aci d min e water , hav e bee n incorrectl y 

### selecte d as suitabl e actions

. 

### Neithe r Alternativ e 5 no r 7 represen t permanen t solution s t o th e Ya k Tunne l drainag e problem

. They

, i n fact
, represen t ongoin g temporar y solution s whic h d o no t addres s th e sourc e o f th e aci d mine drainage

. The y 

### includ e n o provision s fo r an y futur e improvemen t i n th e discharge

. Neithe r alternativ e wa s compare d t o a properl y evaluate d Yak Tunne l pluggin g alternative

. 

### Bot h alternative s faile d t o identif y o r addres s th e potentia l impac t
o f th e waste s produce d b y th e propose d treatmen t facilit y o n th e environ



### ment

. Th e metal hydroxid e sludg e produce d mus t itsel f b e handle d a s a potentiall y hazardous substance

. Althoug h th e F S i s unclea r o n whethe r secondar y treatmen t b y io n exchang e i s include d i n eithe r Alternativ e 5 o r 7 , th e regeneran t brin e solution s fro m this proces s woul d constitut e a 

### second significan t residua l wast e management problem

. Neithe r alternativ e present s dat a t o indicat e tha t a suitabl e 

### locatio n fo r a RCR A disposa l sit e (fo r th e wate r treatmen t facilit y wastes )

ca n b e foun d withi n th e vicinit y o f th e Ya k Tunne l Operabl e Unit

. Barrin g t h e availabilit y o f suc h a suitabl e site , offsit e disposa l o f th e sludg e wil l b e required

. Offsit e disposa l i s bot h mor e difficul t t o implemen t an d

mor e costl y tha n disposa l t o a n onsit e facility

.

-14

-

### T h e

FS

, b y recommendin g a 1.8-acr e RCRA-typ e facilit y fo r sludg e dis

posal
, underestimate s

th e potentia l sludg e generatio n fro m th e Yak Tunne l treatmen t facility

. Whil e i t i s no t possibl e t o predic t th e sludg e generatio n rat e wit h precision , i t can b e estimate d tha t a s muc h a s 1. 5 t o 

### 2. 5 acre-fee t o f sludg e wil l b e generate d pe r year
. Thi s estimat e i s based
, i n part , o n th e mor e realisti c dewatere d sludg e solid s conten t o f 2 0 t o 2 5 percen t versu s th e 5 0 percen t solid s conten t assumed i n th e FS

. Wit h stabilization
, th e volum e o f sludg e i s likel y t o increas e t o 2. 5 t o 4 acre


### fee t pe r year
. Thus

, th e disposa l facilit y woul d likel y nee d a n are a abou t 

### fiv e time s ( 9 acres ) tha t recommende d i n th e FS

. Eve n then
, it woul d hav e a finit e lif e o f betwee n 3 0 an d 5 0 years

. Give n tha t EPA' s remed y wil l operat e i n perpetuity , ther e wil l be a nee d t o repeatedl y buil d sludg e disposa l facilities

. T h e F S completel y fail s t o addres s th e problem s tha t wil l b e create d b y th e sludg e generate d b y th e treatmen t plant

. Th e sludg e wil l requir e substantia l stabilizatio n befor e i t coul d b e place d i n a landfil l an d wit h

a suitabl e cap

. Thi s additiona l stabilizatio n wil l significantl y increas e bot h th e capita l an d operatio n costs ; cos t estimate s i n Appendi x L o f th e F S woul d appea r t o underestimat e operatin g cost s fo r sludg e dewaterin g an d stabilization

. Detaile d Analysi s - A revise d detaile d analysis o f Alternative s 2 , 5 , an d 7 , takin g int o accoun t th e issue s an d comment s liste d above
, woul d conclud e tha t Alternativ e 2 , Tota l Ya k Tunne l Plugging

, warrant s considerabl y mor e scrutin y b y th e EP A fo r th e followin g reasons :



### o Alternativ e 2 i s th e onl y alternativ e whic h wil l resul t i n th e reductio n o f th e generatio n o f aci d min e drainag e fro m th e Ya k Tunnel

.



### o Alternativ e 2 i s likel y t o b e mor e effectiv e i n reducin g th e mobility
, toxicity , an d volum e o f th e contaminants

.

Sourc e treatmen t i s carrie d out in-sit u an d al l direc t discharg e i s 

### eliminated

.

-15

-

### o

Alternativ e 2 require s a lowe r leve l o f tunne l rehabilitatio n an d consequently
, reduce s th e ris k t o worke r healt h an d safety
, a s wel l a s t o th e environment , a s compare d t o Alternative s 5 an d 7

.



### o Alternativ e 2 ha s th e lowes t potentia l fo r advers e environmenta l impac t sinc e meta l hydroxid e sludge s d o no t nee d t o b e dispose d

o f an d seepag e fro m th e min e wate r poo l ca n b e monitore d and
, i f 

### contaminated
, ca n b e collecte d and returne d t o the mine wate r pool

.

o Alternativ e 2 can b e implemente d at a significantl y lowe r cos t 

### than Alternative s 5 an d 7

. 

### Alternativ e 2 , Tota l Ya k Tunne l Plugging

, as describe d in a Proposa l f o r Agreement

, Californi a Gulch/Ya k Tunne l Site

, date d Augus t 27 , 1987 , submitte d b y ASARCO t o th e EP A generall y describe s a potentiall y acceptabl e approac h t o pluggin g o f the Ya k Tunne l whic h shoul d b e considere d b y the EPA

. I n consideratin g th e pluggin g option , though t shoul d b e give n t o th e 

### following :

o Th e interi m treatmen t syste m propose d t o ameliorat e Yak Tunne l drainag e durin g th e tunne l pluggin g operatio n shoul d b e reduce d 

### in scop e t o includ e basi c lim e addition
, a settlin g pond
, followe d b y discharg e t o th e 'diversio n channel

.



### o Th e potentia l fo r surges wil l largel y b e eliminate d throug h initia l tunne l rehabilitatio n

activitie s which wil l hav e t o assure worke r safety

. Seasona l flo w variation s ar e a separat e 

### and predictabl e discharg e that
, i n contras t t o surges , can b e planne d fo r an d handle d separately

.

-16

-

### o

Th e nee d for
, an d th e effectivenes s of
, th e propose d line d channe l in uppe r Californi a Gulc h shoul d be reevaluated

. Thi s 

### line d channe l shoul d be eliminate d unles s a positiv e nee d fo r i t

an d a positiv e benefi t fro m it s installatio n ca n b e confirmed

.

o A monitoring/contingenc y

procedur e shoul d be develope d whic h focuse s o n potentia l Ya k Tunne l discharge s t o th e shallo w ground



### wate r syste m i n Californi a Gulch

. Th e procedur e shoul d address :

- Visua l monitorin g fo r surfac e discharg e

- Ground-wate r monitorin g

- Abatemen t o f surfac e discharge s o f contaminate d wate r



### - Collection

, extraction , an d reinjectio n o f contaminate d ground water , whic h woul d obviat e th e nee d fo r a treatmen t plant

.



### o Ther e appear s t o b e no nee d t o contemplat e installatio n o f a permanen t treatmen t plan t t o handl e seepage

. A n effectiv e monitorin g progra m wil l detec t surfac e discharge s an d a 

### sealing/groutin g progra m ca n effectivel y abat e them

. A monitorin g progra m ca n detec t seepage s t o th e shallo w alluviu m i n Californi a Gulch

. I f thi s seepag e i s determine d t o b e a problem
, a syste m o f extractio n well s and/o r ditche s ca n be use d t o 

### intercep t th e seepag e an d pum p i t bac k int o th e min e workings

. Thi s syste m woul d effectivel y preclud e movemen t o f significan t amount s o f seepag e int o th e shallo w alluviu m o f Californi a Gulch

.

o Detail s o f th e lim e addition/mixin g procedur e propose d b y ASARC O shoul d b e carefull y reviewe d and monitore d t o assure i t wil l provid e fo r effectiv e mixin g o f treate d an d untreate d waters withi n th e min e pool

.

-17

-