### / • — SDM S Documen t I D m i in n in n mini m mil : 

## 202019 1 

# Lake County Community Healt h Program Independen t

Revie w Pane l Response s t o Ke y Issues/Question s

Decembe r 3 , 200 3

Prepare dfor : 

## CDPHE LCCH P Work

Grou p Lak e County Healt

hDepartmen t U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y

Prepare dby : 

## Conli n Associates : Resourc e Planners 87 5 Mountai n Vie w Dr . Leadville , C O 8046 1 (719)486-277 2

### Lak e CountyCommunityHealt h Progra m Independen t Revie wPane l Response s t o Ke yIssues/Question s Contents 

### Introductio n / Th e Pane l i

Nelso n Ame s Thoma s S . Dunlap v NickFanJoe Graziano vi Facilitato r Michael

Conlin vii Panel Preparation viii Presentations /

Site Tour ix Independent

Review Work

Session and

Report ix 

## Response s t o Ke y Issues/Question s 1 I . LCCH P Implementatio n 2

Consistenc y withWork

Plan Organizatio n & Structur e Progra mAdministratio n /

Work Grou p 3 Community awareness , educatio n & recruitmen t 4 Interaction s & Coordinatio n 5 Environmenta l testin g program Bloo dLeadtestin g progra m6 Dat amanagement , evaluation , reportin g Implementatio n o f

Respons e Action s 7 Documentatio n & Reportin g II . Evaluation o f

Performanc e 9 Rational e fo r

Performanc e Standar d Lon g Termeffectivenes s Typ e I , Typ e I I Error s 1 0 Uncertaint y P-10.P-1 5 Representativenes s

# I

Lake CountyCommunityHealt h Progra m

• 

### Independen t Revie wPane l Response s t o Ke yIssues/Question s 

# I I Contents, continued



### I Tes t o f Proportion s 1 1 ' Residual Ris k I HI . Annua l Report 1 2 Complianc e wit

hRequirement s o f

th e Work Pla n Evaluatio n o f

Performanc e Standard s I Recommende dadditiona l dat a1 3 Unnecessary Element s Streamlinin g th e Annua l Report * IV . Othe r 1 4

—

### Lon g TermProtectio n o f Huma n Health I Tool s an dInformatio n provide dt o Pane l 1 5

• Summar y o f Pane l Recommendation s 1 6 

# I I I I I I I ILake CountyCommunit yHealt h Progra m Independen t Pane l Revie w



### INTRODUCTIO N I n Septembe r

o f 1983 , th e Californi aGulc hSuperfun dSit e wa s place do n th e Nationa l Priorit y Lis t

fo r investigatio n an dcleanu p unde r CERCLA . I n asettlemen t betwee n th e Potentiall y Responsibl e Partie s (PRP's ) reache di n Federa l Distric t Court i n 1994 , th e site wa s divide dint o 1 2 Operabl e Unit s (OU's) , an dresponsibilit y fo r "sourc e area " cleanu p wa s assigne dt o respectiv e PRP' s fo r eac h OU . I n th e settlement , ASARC O Inc . agree dt o conduc t clean-u p work

i n OU-9 , generall y describe da s th e residentia l area s i n an d aroun dth e City o f

Leadville . I n that

sam e year , ASARC O establishe datrus t fun dt o cove r th e cost s associate dwith implementin g th e remed y fo r OU-9 . I n 1995 , ASARC O initiate dth e "Kid s First " progra ma s an interi mrespons e t o leadris k reductio n i n OU-9 . Th e pilo t programwa s designe dt o b e voluntary , an dt o addres s multipl e potential lea dexposure pathway s (e.g . soils , househol ddust , interio r an d exterio r paint , an dwater ) i n residence s with youn g childre n and/o r pregnan t women . I n Septembe r

o f 1999 , th e Recor do f

Decisio n (ROD ) wa s issue dfo r OU-9 , an dth e selecte dremedia l actio n wa s acontinuatio n an dexpansio n o f th e Kid s Firs t

Program , unde r th e ne w name , Lake County Community Healt h Program . Whil e th e progra m remaine dvoluntary , clean-up s were n o longe r limite dt o residence s with childre n and/o r pregnan t women . Give n th e uniqu e aspect s o f th e remedy , aprovisio n o f th e RO D require dth e evaluatio n o f th e selecte dremed y "b y agrou p o f outsid e scientists. " That evaluatio n too k

plac e o n Octobe r

30t h an d31st , 2003 . Th e Independen t Pane l consiste do f

th e followin g experts : TH E PANE L NELSO N G . AME S Medical Health Office r

responsibl e fo r

populatio n health Interio r Health Authorit y Kootenay Health Servic e Are a Nelson , B C EDUCATIO N MHS c (Master , Health Sciences ) Universit y o f

Britis h Columbi a Vancouver , B C 198 9 FCF P (Fellow , Colleg e o f Famil y Physicians ) Honou r Awar d198 2 CCF P (Certificatio n i n Famil y Medicine )

# 1

1

• 

# 1

• 

# 1

• 

# 1

•



# 1 Lak e Count y Communit y Healt hProgra m Independen t

Pane l Revie w 

### McMaste r Universit y Hamilton , O N 197 5 M.D . McMaste r

Universit y Hamilton , O N 197 3 B.Sc . McMaste r

Universit y Hamilton , O N 197 0 EXPERIENC E Januar y 200 2 t o presen t Medica l Health Office r

responsibl e fo r

populatio n healt h Interio r Health Authorit y Kootenay Healt

h Servic e Are a Nelson , B C Januar y 200 1 t o January 200 2 Medica l Health Office r Kootena y Boundar y Communit y Healt hService s Society Nelson , B C Apri l 01/9 7 t o January 200 1 Chie f Executiv e Officer/Medica l HealthOffice r Kootena y Boundar y Communit y HealthService s Society Castlegar , B C Septembe r

198 9 to Marc h31 , 199 7 Director/Medica l HealthOffice r Centra l Kootena y HealthUni t Castlegar , B C Ministr y o f

Health , Britis hColumbi a 1976-198 8 Famil y practic e Nelson , B C Hospita l privilege s - Kootena y Lake Distric t Hospita l ACTIVITIE S WHIL E I N PUBLI C SERVIC E Membe r Cit y o f Trai l Health an dEnvironmen t Committe e 200 1 t o presen t Membe r 

### i i

# I I I

I Lake CountyCommunit yHealt h Progra m Independen t Pane l Revie w 

### Trai l Lea dTas k

Forc e t o Reduc e Childhoo dLea dExposur e

_Complete di n 200 1

Chairperso n 1998-200 0 • Medica l HealthOfficer' s Counci l o f B C Membe r

• 

### Stag e I I Researc hProposa l Revie w Committe e

B C HealthCare Researc hFoundatio n 199 6 - 200 0 Adjunc t Professo r University o f

Britis hColumbi a Departmen t

o f Healt hCare an dEpidemiolog y Membe r Executiv e Director' s Standin g Committe e o n Environmen t & Health1995-9 7 • Faculty o f Medicin e 

# I 

# I Chai r

Environmenta l HealthCommitte e Healt hOfficer' s Counci l o f

B C 1995-9 7

' Member

Soi l Managemen t

Tas k Forc e • Ministr y o f Environment , B C - complete dsprin g 199 2 Membe r • Federal/Provincia l Advisor y Committe e o n Environmenta l an dOccupationa l • Health-

Lea dWorkin g Grou p • Healthan dWelfar e Canad a- complete dfal l 199 1

_Membe r I Canadia n Publi c HealthAssociatio n an dB C Chapte r sinc e 1988 . PAS T ASSOCIATION S

• 

### Membe r

Educatio n Committe e - B C Medica l Associatio n 197 8 -198 6 Chairma n 198 3 -198 6 | Canadia n Medica l Associatio n Counci l o n Educatio n 198 3 -198 6

Canadia n Colleg e o f

Famil y Physician s

i nLake Count y Community Healt h Progra m Independen t Pane l Revie w 

### THOMA S S . DUNLO P President : Dunlo p Environmenta l Consulting , Inc . To mha s bee n involve di n Environmenta l Publi c Health i n Colorad o sinc e 1970 . Hi s firs t jo b wa s wit h Larime r

Count y a s a n Environmenta l Health Office r an dconclude da s Directo r o f th e Pitki n Count y Environmenta l Health Department . Hi s retiremen t i n 200 1 fro mpubli c servic e launche dane w caree r a s Presiden t

o f Dunlo p Environmenta l Consulting , Inc . Durin g hi s year s i n publi c servic e hi s accomplishment s wer e recognize d with numerou s award s fro mvariou s local , stat e an dfederal agencies . H e ha s spoke n o n man y publi c healt

h issue s at

venue s reachin g fro mneighborhoo dmeeting s o f concerne d citizen s t o th e Congres s o f th e Unite dStates . To mcontinue s t o b e achampio n fo r publi c health throug h voluntee r servic e t o variou s association s an dagencies . Th e focu s fo r hi s compan y i s "Environmenta l an dPubli c Health Plannin g fo r th e Future. " Hi s motivatio n i s t o continu e contributin g fo r th e bettermen t

o f huma n health an dasustainabl e environment . To mwa s th e chie f

Cit y o f Aspe n an dPitki n County technical representativ e fo r ove r 1 8 year s workin g wit

h citize n groups , th e scientifi c community , an dal l level s o f governmen t t o resolv e issue s surroundin g th e Smuggle r Mountai n Superfun dSite . Thi s assignmen t extende dfro minitia l contac t wit h federa l official s throug h de-listin g o f th e Site . H e currentl y i s apee r

adviso r wit h th e Nationa l Associatio n o f County an dCity Healt h Official s i n thei r

superfun dprogram . To mvisite dan dadvise dcommunitie s facin g challenge s generate db y havin g asuperfun dsit e i n thei r jurisdictions . H e wa s a contributin g sourc e t o tw o publication s designe dt o assis t respons e action s o f

citie s an d countie s confronte dwit

h trial s o f th e superfun dprogram . H e testifie dbefor e Congres s b y invitatio n o n superfun dreform . NIC KFAR R Executiv e Directo r Nationa l Cente r

fo r Lead-Saf

e Housin g Columbi aMarylan d Nic k Far r i s th e founde r

an dExecutiv e Directo r

o f th e Nationa l Cente r

fo r Lead-Saf

e Housing i n Columbia , Maryland . Mr . Far r ha s ha dalon g an ddistinguishe dcareer i n both th e publi c an dprivat e sector . Muc h o f hi s professiona l experienc e ha s bee n centere do n housin g finance , non-profi t housin g initiatives , housin g an durba n developmen t an d rehabilitation , an dhousin g basedlea dpoisonin g prevention . A Phi Bet aKapp agraduate o f Yal e College , Mr . Far

r als o graduate dfro mYal e La w School , wher e h e serve da s edito r o f th e Yal e La w Journal . Durin g th e 1950' s an dearl y 1960's , Mr . Far r practice dla w i n Ne w York Cit y an dNe w Have n Connecticut , focusin g o n federa l taxatio n an dzonin g an durba n development . H e als o wa s avisitin g lecture r a t th e Yal e La w Schoo l durin g th e period . I n 1962 , Mr . Farr joine dth e Agenc y fo r

Internationa l Developmen t i n th e U.S . Departmen t o f State a s Deput y Assistan t

Administrato r

fo r th e Nea r Eas t an dSout h Asi aeconomi c assistanc eLake Count yCommunit yHealt h Progra m independen t Pane l Revie w 

### programs . I n 196 7 Presiden t Lyndo n Johnso n appointe dhi mDirecto r o f th e Mode l Citie s Administratio n in the U.S . Departmen t of Housin g andUrba n Development . Durin g th e 1970's , Mr . Far r wa s aProfesso r

at th e Ne w York

Universit y La w Cente r befor e joinin g th e U.S . Departmen t o f Commerc e i n 197 7 a s Genera l Counse l t o th e Economi c Developmen t

Administration . I n 1979 , Mr . Far r wa s appointe dGenera l Deputy Assistan t

Secretary fo r

Communit y Plannin g an dDevelopmen t i n th e U.S . Departmen t

o f Housin g an dUrba n Development . Durin g th e earl y an dmi d1980's , Mr . Far r wa s Executiv e Directo r

o f th e Californi aHousin g an dFinanc e Agency , an dthe n Executiv e Vic e Presiden t

o f th e Well s Farg o Mortgag e Compan y i n California . I n 1986 , Mr . Far

r joine dth e Enterpris e Foundatio n i n Columbia , Maryland , a s Vic e Presiden t fo r Fiel dServices . Durin g hi s tenur e withEnterprise , Mr . Far r worke dwit han d serve do n th e Boar do f

Director s o f

aloca l nonprofi t

housin g developer

i n Baltimore : thi s organizatio n wa s attemptin g t o creat e affordabl e housin g unit s that ha dbee n treate dfo r lea dbase dpain t

hazards . A s aresul t

o f thi s affiliatio n an dhi s accumulate dprofessiona l experience , Mr . Far

r conceive do f

an dcreate dth e Nationa l Cente r fo r Lead-Saf e Housin g in 

### 1992 . Th e Center , anationa l nonprofi t organizatio n whos e missio n i s t o hel p sharpl y reduc e childhoo dleadpoisonin g an dpreserv e affordabl e housing , i s engage di n research , publi c polic y advice , an dtechnica l assistanc e aime dat investigating , validatin g an dpromotin g lead-saf e housin g concept s an dstandards . Mr . Far r i s anationall y recognize dexper t an dha s bee n instrumenta l i n helpin g implemen t

avariety o f

publi c an dprivat e initiative s t o protec t childre n fro mresidentia l leadhazar dexposures . H e als o serve da s acommitte e chairma n o n th e Federal Lead

base dPain t

Hazar dReductio n an dFinancin g Tas k Force , providin g leadershi p an d guidanc e fo r

th e creatio n o f

recommende dlead-saf

e property standards . Mr . Far r wa s th e recipien t o f th e Huntingto n S . William s Award . JOSEP H H . GRAZIANO , Ph. D Associat e Dean fo r

Researc h Professo r o f Environmenta l HealthScience s Mailma n Schoo l o f

Publi c Health Professo r o f Pharmacolog y Colleg e o f Physician s & Surgeon s Dr . Graziano' s area s o f

interes t include : ane w dru g fo r childhoo dlea dpoisoning ; environmenta l lea dexposure ; pregnanc y outcom e an dinfan t development ; iron , metal s an dneurodegenerativ e diseases . Man y disease s resul t

fro mgene-environmen t interactions . Metals - bot hessentia l mineral s an dnon-essentia l heav y metal s - appea r t o b e involve di n man y diseas e

V ILak e CountyCommunit yHealt h Progra m Independen t Pane l Revie w 

### processes , mos t

notabl y i n th e centra l nervou s syste m(CNS) . Dr , Graziano' s laborator y i s primaril y intereste di n th e consequence s o f meta l exposur e o n th e CNS , an di s involve d i n studie s o f

bot h earl y childhoo ddevelopmen t an dneurodegenerativ e disease s i n th e elderly . A basi c premis e i s that drug s and/o r

die t ca n b e utilize dt o alte r

diseas e proces s attributabl e t o metals . Fo r example , hi s laboratory develope dhighl y effectiv e ora l medicatio n fo r th e treatmen t o f childhoo dlea dpoisoning . Th e drug , 2,3-dimercaptosuccini c aci d(DMSA , o r Succimer) , wa s approve db y th e Foo dan dDru g Administratio n i n 1991 . Othe r studie s concernin g environmenta l leadexposur e encompas s afiel do f environmenta l epidemiology , an dhav e elucidate dth e consequence s o f leadexposur e (an diro n deficiency ) o n pregnanc y outcom e an dearl y childhoo ddevelopment . Other wor k ha s utilize dth e techniqu e o f

stabl e isotop e dilutio n t o experimentall y determin e i n human s th e bioavailability an dtoxicokinetic s o f leadfro mavariety o f

dietar y an denvironmenta l matrices . Mos t recently , th e la

b turne dit s attentio n t o th e genera l hypothesi s that geneti c alteration s i n essential minera l metabolis mmay pla y arol e i n neurodegenerativ e disease s suc ha s Parkinson' s Diseas e an dAlzheimer' s Disease . I n collaboratio n wit hDr . Richar d Mayeaux , aneuroepidemiologis t an dDirecto r

o f th e Sergievsky Center , case-contro l studie s o f thes e disease s ar e explorin g th e environmenta l an dgeneti c component s o f disease . FACILITATO R Michae l Conli n Principle , Conli n Associates : Resourc e Planner s Mik e Conli n i s th e Principl e o f Conli n Associates , aLeadvill e base dconsultin g fir m specializin g i n consensu s buildin g an denvironmenta l planning . Mik e commonl y facilitate s multi-disciplinar y team s an ddivers e publi c / privat e sector

group s i n project s rangin g fro menvironmenta l assessment s t o communit y base dmaste r plans . Mike' s divers e clien t

bas e ha s included , bu t

i s no t limite dto : U.S . Fores t

Servic e U.S . Bureau o f

Lan dManagemen t U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y U S Fis h & Wildlife Servic e Cit y o f Auror a Lake , Eagle , an dSummi t Countie s Colorad o Departmen t

o f Natura l Resource s Balco r American Expres s Unio n Pacifi c Railroa d ASARC O Inc .



### v nLak e Count yCommunit yHealt h Progra m Independen t Pane l Revie w 

### A residen t

o f Leadville , Mik e i s knowledgeabl e i n th e cultura l an deconomi c issue s facin g th e community , an dth e histor y o f th e Superfun dproces s a s i t ha s evolve dover

th e pas t tw o decades . Hi s work

i n th e Lak e Count y regio n ha s included : Plannin g an dpubli c facilitatio n o f

th e Minera l Bel t

Nationa l Recreationa l Trai l project , a n 11. 6 mil e interpretiv e bicycl e trai l locate dentirel y withi n th e Californi aGulc hSuperfun dSite ; preparatio n o f

th e tri-count y Corrido r

Managemen t

Pla n fo r To p o f th e Rockie s Nationa l Sceni c an dHistori c Byway ; an dfacilitatio n o f th e Lake Count y Ope n Spac e Initiative , a collectio n o f

2 5 local , state , an dfedera l agencies , municipalities , an dorganization s responsibl e fo r

securin g an dmaste r

plannin g ove r

860 0 acre s o f

lan da s ope n spac e i n Lak e County . Mike has also worked

with Lake County, ASARCO, Resurrection Mining, and the U.S. EPA in the facilitation of the grassroots participation, and the preparation of

the Lake County Cultural

Resource Preservation Plan, Lake County Interpretive Sign Plan, and the Mineral

Belt Trail Interpretive Sign Plan.

PANE L PREPARATIO N Prio r t o convenin g th e Panel , eac h participan t wa s provide dwithbackgroun d information , includin g bu t no t limite dto :

• Work Pla n fo r th e Lake Count y Communit y HealthProgra m Operabl e Uni t

9 Residential Populate dArea s Californi aGulc hSuperfun dSit e December 200 0 • Method s an dStandard s fo r Evaluatin g th e Performanc e Lake County Communit y Healt hProgram(LCCHP ) Jul y 200 2 • Memorandum : Revise dLeadvill e Kid s Firs t Progra mReport 199 4 - 199 9 Progres s an dResult s February 28,200 1 • Memorandum : Supplemental Dat afro mth e Lake Count y Communit y HealthProgram Octobe r 17,200 3 • 200 1 Annual Report Lak e County Communit y HealthProgra m OU- 9 - Californi aGulc hSuperfun dSite - Leadville , Colorad o Augus t 19,200 2 • Lake Count y Communit y HealthProgra m 200 2 Annua l Report August , 200 3 • Recor do f

Decisio n fo r

Operabl e Unit-9 , EPA , Sept , 199 9

vi nLak e Count y Community Healt h Progra m Independen t Pane l Revie w 

### PRESENTATION S /

SIT E TOU R Th e Pane l me t

wit h representative s o f

th e U.S . EPA , ASARCO , Lak e County , Cit y o f Leadville , Colorad o Departmen t o f Healt h an dHuma n Environment , Lake Count y Publi c Health Department , MF G Inc . (ASARCO' s Consultant, ) an dth e Lak e Count y Communit y Health Progra mo n Octobe r 30 th 

### , i n Denve r

Colorado . Presentation s mad e b y representative s o f

EPA , CDPHE , LCHD , MFG , ASARCO , an dth e Work Group , covere d th e followin g topics :

• Purpos e o f

th e Pane l • Backgroun do f

th e Sit e Progra m • Wh y thi s Program ? A Regulator s Perspectiv e • Kid s Firs t

Program : Overvie w • Functionin g o f

th e WorkGrou p • Education , Communit y Awareness , an dRecruitmen t • Dat aManagemen t • ProgramEvaluatio n • Environmenta l Progra m O n Octobe r

31 st 

### , participant s me t

with Pane l member s i n Leadvill e fo r asit e tou r

o f Operabl e Unit- 9 o f

th e Californi aGulc h Superfun dSite , followe db y presentation s on :

• Th e Bloo dLea dProgram • Staffin g • Cas e Managemen t Tim e wa s allotte dfo r

Pane l question s an dawrap-u p session , afte r whic h th e Pane l an d Facilitato r reconvene dfo r

th e Independen t

Revie w Work

Session .
INDEPENDEN T REVIE W WOR KSESSIO N AN D REPOR T Th e facilitato r

an dPane l me t

i n close dsessio n o n th e afternoo n o f Octobe r 31 st 

### , with th e tas k o f respondin g t o aspecifi c lis t o f question s an dissue s regardin g th e implementatio n o f th e Work Plan , th e performanc e o f th e LCCHP , th e adequac y o f th e annua l report , an d th e reques t

fo r an y othe r

issue s o r recommendation s tha t

woul dhel p t o ensur e th e lon g ter mprotectio n o f

publi c health an dreduc e leadris k sufficientl y t o mee t

an dmaintai n th e Remedia l Actio n Objective s (RAO's ) o f th e Work Plan . Eac h issu e o r

questio n wa s brough t

t o aconsensu s opinio n tha t represente dth e expertis e an dknowledg e o f

th e assemble dgroup . A Firs t Draf t o f th e Response s t o Ke y Issue s / Question s wa s prepare dan dcirculate d amongs t th e Panelists . Comment s an drecommendation s wer e receive dan dincorporate d

I XLak e Count y Communit

y Healt h Progra m Independen t Pane l Revie w 

### int o asecond , red-lin e draft , t o visuall y highligh t change s suggeste db y individua l Pane l members , an dth e documen t wa s agai n circulate dt o participant s fo r revie w an dcomment . Base do n th e Panel' s inpu t t o th e secon ddraft , afina l draf t o f th e Response s t o Ke y Issue s / Question s wa s prepare dan dforwarde dt o al l Pane l Member s fo r revie w an d concurrence . Consensu s wa s reache da s t o th e adequac y o f th e report , an dapprova l wa s grante db y al l member s o f

th e Pane l t o submi t

th e documen t

a s written . Th e documen t

that follows , entitle dLak e County Communit y Healt h Plan , Independen t Revie w Pane l Response s t o Ke y Issue s / Questions , represent s th e culminatio n o f that effort , an dcomplianc e wit hth e RO D provisio n fo r revie w o f

th e LCCH P b y an independen t

pane l o f experts .

xLake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions



### LAK E COUNT Y COMMUNIT Y HEALT H PROGRA M

INDEPENDEN T REVIE W PANE L RESPONSE S T O KE Y ISSUES/QUESTION S Th e Independen t

Revie w Pane l wa s taske dwithpreparin g awritte n repor t detailin g thei r finding s an drecommendation s develope dthroug hth e revie w o f th e program . Th e Lake Count y Communit y HealthProgram(LCCHP ) Work Grou p prepare dalis t

o f question s an dissue s t o solici t inpu t fro mth e revie w pane l o n specifi c aspect s o f th e program . Th e Work Grou p requeste dthat

th e panel' s fina l report

b e divide dint o section s correspondin g t o th e heading s provide di n that

document , followe db y response s t o th e specifi c question s posed , an dan y othe r feedbac k th e revie w pane l woul dlik e t o provide . Th e followin g report

provide s acompilatio n o f response s t o th e question s raised , an dth e Panel' s recommendation s t o furthe r improv e th e implementatio n an deffectivenes s o f th e program .Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review

Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions 

### I . LCCH PImplementatio n Based on the Panel's review of the LCCHP

Work Plan and

the Program's operations to date, please address the following: LI Is the Program being implemented in a mannerconsistent

with the design presented in the Work Plan? Pane l Respons e Th e Pane l wa s i n ful l agreemen t tha t th e Programi s bein g implemente di n amanne r consisten t wit h th e desig n presente di n th e Wor k Plan . 1.2 Please provide any suggestions orrecommendations you may have forimproving the structure (i.e., organization, responsibilities and internal communications) of

LCCHP management

and administration. Pane l Respons e Base do n apreliminar y revie w o f th e writte n documentatio n provide dt o member s o f th e Panel , ther e ha dbee n an initia l concern tha t th e Progra mwa s undul y cumbersom e a s a resul t o f th e numbe r

o f entitie s responsibl e fo r

individua l plan element s suc ha s bloo d leadtesting , environmenta l sampling , remediation , an dwork pla n oversight . Member s o f th e pane l wer e prepare dt o sugges t that placin g al l component s o f th e work pla n unde r

a singl e entit y migh t

streamlin e th e tim e lin e fro minitiatio n throug hremediation . Over th e cours e o f

th e presentations , th e Pane l gaine dabette r understandin g o f

th e complexitie s o f

th e process , an do f

ho w th e variou s entitie s interacte di n asyste mo f check s an dbalance s t o ensur e complianc e wit hth e desig n o f th e Work Plan . Pane l consensu s followin g th e presentation s i s tha t th e LCCH P ha s create dalea dris k reductio n programtha t

i s both uniqu e an deffectiv e largel y du e to : a ) effectiv e curren t EP A projec t

management ; b ) th e flexibilit y o f EP A Regio n 8 t o allo w exploratio n o f ne w an dinnovativ e approaches ; an dc ) arespec t fo r th e loca l cultur e an dattitudes . Th e willingnes s t o loo k

beyon dth e initia l consen t decre e mandat e t o addres s lea di n residentia l soils , t o includ e investigatio n o f abroade r spectru mo f

potentia l huma n health hazards , provide s agreater leve l o f protectivenes s fo r

th e childre n an dresident s o f Lak e County . Th e Pane l als o laud s th e persona l commitment , enthusiasm , an ddedicatio n o f th e ke y member s o f

th e projec t

implementatio n team . Th e succes s o f apla n i s ofte n determine d b y th e day-to-da y effor t

an dcontinuit y provide db y thos e o n th e fron t line . Thi s effor t shoul db e nurture dan drewarded .take County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions 

### Conversely , th e dependenc y o f th e progra mo n th e knowledg e an dexperienc e o f ke y individual s point s ou t

th e fragil e natur e o f

th e tea mi n th e even t

that on e o f the mleave s an dther e i s n o reasonabl e way fo r anothe r perso n t o step i n withou t compromisin g th e project . Th e result s o f

jus t suc hala g wer e witnesse dwit hth e temporar y los s o f

th e Publi c HealthNurse , an dth e commensurat e dro p i n progra mrecruitment .

* 

### • Th e Pane l recommend s tha t cros s trainin g an dpreparin g fo r th e inevitabl e tim e whe n on e o f

th e ke y player s leave s th e progra mshoul db e addressed .

• Th e Pane l recommend s th e extensio n o f th e Tea mapproac ht o mor e activel y involv e member s o f

th e local publi c an dincreas e communit y "ownership " o f both th e proble man dit s solutions . o On e exampl e coul db e th e us e o f "Champio n Moms" , mother s o f childre n wh o hav e bee n involve di n th e programan dunderstand , firs t hand , it s benefits . A s part

o f th e outreac heffort , the y coul dprovid e a"neighbo r t o neighbor " approac hthat

may b e effectiv e withi n acertai n segment s o f th e community , helpin g t o identif y an dinvolv e tha t

elemen t o f th e populatio n that i s currentl y no t

bein g considere di n th e statistica l base . o Bi-annua l o r

quarterl y publi c meeting s coul dals o b e hel dt o engag e an d involv e th e Boar do f

Commissioners , Mayor , City Council , Chambe r o f Commerce , Schoo l Board , studen t representatives , th e press , an dparent s i n th e recruitmen t

an dpubli c educatio n process , an dt o share i n th e prid e o f havin g responde dpositivel y t o an identifie dproblem .

1.3 In providing your feedback with respect

to the implementation of the Program, please considerthese specific components of the Program design: L3a Program administration and Work Group operations; Pane l Respons e Th e Pane l ha s observe dtha t th e Work Grou p i s clearl y dedicate dt o th e tas k at hand , an d ha s required , an dreceived , ahig hleve l o f detai l an daccurac y fro mprojec t staff . Th e effor t i s wel l organized , an dha s mad e goo dus e o f criteri at o se t

priorities .Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions 

### 1.3b Community A wareness, education, and recruitment

activities Pane l Respons e Th e Pane l ha s observe dtha t Leadvill e doe s no t

appea r t o b e aunifie dcommunity , bu t rather , represent s afragmente dpopulatio n tha t ha s evolve di n respons e t o changin g soci o economi c forces , includin g shift s i n economi c base , ethnicity , an dpopulatio n demographics . A s such , identificatio n o f th e ke y populatio n segments , an dspecifi c tailorin g o f

outreac heffort s t o engag e thes e segment s i n th e program , woul db e considere dadvantageous . Communit y awarenes s an drecruitmen t effort s appea

r t o b e good , bu t

migh t b e improve d b y th e followin g recommendations :

• Th e us e o f

"Champions" , o r

neighborhoo dvolunteers , wh o are wel l informed , sel f motivated , an dempowere dwithth e tas k o f contactin g an dencouragin g friend s an dneighbor s wh o hav e no t responde dt o existin g outreac hefforts , t o participat e i n th e program . • Th e us e o f

trained , temporary pai dstaff , t o g o doo r t o doo r i n aconcerte deffor t

t o reac hevery residen t

o f SU- 1 o n aone-on-on e basis , t o provid e information , answer questions , an dencourag e participatio n i n th e program . Thi s aspec t o f th e programshoul dinvolv e consultatio n wit han epidemiologist , suc ha s Dr . Bornshein , t o hel p desig n adoor-to-doo r outreac hsurvey . • Consideratio n shoul db e give n t o sendin g aonc e ayear reminde r o f th e progra m t o everyon e i n S U 1 , wit haone-on-on e follow-u p visi t • Th e Pane l recommend s consultatio n withpeopl e knowledgeabl e abou t communit y assessment s t o develo p an evaluatio n o f publi c needs . Thi s consultatio n shoul dsolici t inpu t t o determin e whethe r

identifie dsegment s o f

th e populatio n ar e gettin g wha t the y wan t o r nee dou t o f th e program . • Th e us e o f

"ke y informants " wh o can represen t th e commo n needs , concerns , an d desire s o f identifie dsegment s o f

th e population . Thi s can includ e communit y leaders , o r truste dindividual s withi n th e specifi c populatio n segment . Fro mth e Panels ' experience , publi c educatio n i s anecessary elemen t o f an integrate d remediatio n plan , bu t

i n an do f itself, i s no t

sufficien t t o resolv e th e problem . Th e Pane l feel s tha t th e LCCH P ha s don e afin e jo b i n educatin g parent s o n th e finding s an d implication s o f

th e bloo dlea dleve l sampling . Relianc e o n effort s t o educat e parent s o n method s o f

cleaning , persona l hygien e etc . ar e not , however , considere dt o b e an adequat e substitut e fo r

aggressiv e contro l o r

eliminatio n o f

environmenta l hazard s i n lowerin g bloo dlea dlevels . Researc hha s foun dtha t suc ha n educatio n progra mha s littl e o r n o effec t o n children' s bloo dlea dlevel s eve n i f i t include s multipl e hom e visit s an d provisio n fo r

cleanin g materials .Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions 

### Th e Panel' s primar y are ao f concer n lie s no t

i n LCCH P complianc e with th e standards , a s writte n i n th e work

plan , bu t with th e standard s themselves , mos t specifically , th e trigge r level s fo r lea dbase dpain t

hazards . Sinc e acritiqu e o f th e Standard s i s no t

apar t o f th e requeste dScop e o f

Work , comment s will

- b e reserve dfo r Sectio n IV , whic h request s othe r feedbac k fo r ensurin g long-termprotectio n o f publi c health . L3c Interactions with Program participants and coordination between environmental testing and

blood lead programs; Pane l Respons e Th e Pane l feel s tha t

th e Workin g Grou p i s th e appropriat e mechanis mfo r mergin g th e bloo dleadan denvironmenta l element s o f th e plan , authorizin g environmenta l responses , an dfo r monitorin g th e day-to-da y interactions . Th e resul t ha s bee n aseamles s an d effectiv e implementatio n o f th e Work Plan . I.3d Environmental

testing program and

procedures; Pane l Respons e Th e Pane l share dahig h leve l o f comfort tha t th e methodolog y an dimplementatio n o f th e soil-testin g progra mwa s effectiv e i n meetin g th e standard s o f th e Work

Plan , an di n identifyin g potentia l healt h hazards .

• Th e Pane l recommend s tha t dri p lin e testin g b e emphasize di n th e soi l samplin g regim e t o hel p determin e th e presenc e an dinfluenc e o f soi l lea dfro mdeteriorate d externa l lea dbase dpain t

sources . Th e Pane l wa s similarl y comfortabl e with th e approac h an dmethodolog y o f determinin g (an drespondin g to ) lea di n th e potabl e wate r supply . With regar dt o th e identificatio n o f leadbase dpain t

hazards , th e Pane l i s comfortabl e tha t th e testing procedure s ar e i n complianc e with th e standard s se t forthi n th e work

plan. A s previousl y indicated , th e Pane l i s als o i n agreemen t tha t th e trigge r

leve l fo r aggressiv e contro l an deliminatio n o f 6mg/cm2 , a s dictate db y th e Work Plan , i s to o high . Pane l member s expresse dconcern tha t th e three-sampl e metho dcurrentl y i n us e fo r testin g hous e dus t

i s no t sufficien t t o identif y hazard s o r

provid e house-wid e clearance .

• Th e Pane l recommend s tha t th e Progra mfollo w protocol s describe di n EP A 40 2 Regulations , an dtha t

entryway s alway s b e tested .Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions 

### 1.3e Blood

lead testing program and

procedures; Pane l Response : Th e Pane l wa s comfortabl e wit hth e methodolog y an dimplementatio n o f th e bloo dlea d leve l testing , an dwith th e procedure s fo r samplin g an ddocumentation . Pane l member s di dno t fee l tha t waitin g unti l achil di s 1 2 month s o f ag e t o begi n recruitmen t int o th e LCCH P wa s ideal , an dwoul dencourag e bloo dlea dleve l testin g startin g at ag e 9 months . Th e Pane l recognize s tha t th e ac t o f drawin g bloo dfro mchildre n unde r th e ag e o f

1 2 month s i s difficul t

an dcoul db e perceive da s causin g traum aan dlos s o f follow-up , bu t recognize s that

th e proble mo f

elevate dbloo dleadlevel s begin s t o manifes t itsel f i n a quantifiabl e manne r

at abou t th e ag e o f

9 months .

• Th e Pane l recommend s th e us e o f aprofessiona l phlebotomis t t o gather sample s o n childre n unde r

th e ag e o f

1 2 month s o f

age . Whil e i t

can b e mor e expensive , i t i s considere dt o b e les s painfu l an dtim e consumin g tha n ahee l o r finge r prick . Earl y interventio n with newbom s i s importan t becaus e parent s ar e generall y mor e attentiv e an dintereste di n thei r ne w charge . Earl y detectio n lead s t o earl y respons e an dremedy . I.3f 'Data management, evaluation, and reporting practices; Pane l Response : Th e Pane l believe s tha t

th e dat amanagemen t

procedure s practice db y th e progra mar e sound , an dprovid e fo r

asyste mo f

check s an dbalance s o f

ke y variables . Give n th e amount

o f informatio n bein g collected , th e Pane l als o feel s tha t th e data-bas e i s bein g under-utilized , an dencourage s th e Progra mt o make greater us e o f th e ful l dat ase t i n it s analysi s an devaluation , i n orde r t o bette r understan dwhic h leadhazard s ar e th e principa l source s o f

exposur e t o children . T o thi s end , th e Pane l make s th e followin g recommendations :

• i . Sinc e th e percentag e o f childre n wit h bloo dlea dconcentration s greater tha n 1 0 an d1 5 ug/d l ha s no t change di n thre e years , i t appear s quit e possibl e tha t ther e ma y b e ris k

factor s that

ar e no t currentl y adequatel y addresse di n th e ongoin g remediatio n strategy . Us e o f amulti-variat e regressio n metho dt o bette r understan dth e determinant s o f elevate dbloo dlea di n Leadvill e may leadt o possibl e modification s o f th e existin g remediatio n pla n t o facilitat e th e achievemen t

o f th e plan' s objectives . A broade r rang e o f variable s coul db e evaluate dusin g dat aalread y collected . Example s include : lea dbase dpaint , pain t an dfloo r condition , dust , presenc e o f pets , viny l mini-blinds , behaviors , etc . Thi s issu e i s discusse dfurthe r

i n th e Panel s recommendation s fo r meetin g performanc e standard s criteri ai n Statistica l Uni t 1 .Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions 

### ii . Th e annua l repor

t reflect s bloo dleadlevel s a s afunctio n o f anumbe r

o f variables , suc h a s age , neighborhoods , etc . Conside r linkin g annua l reportin g t o previou s year s t o demonstrat e trend s o f bloo dlea dlevel s over

time , a s afunctio n o f multipl e variables . iii . GI S i s apowerfu l mappin g an danalytica l too l fo r graphi c an dspatia l representatio n o f

data . I t i s strongl y urge dtha t

aGI S syste mb e implemente db y Lake County , t o allo w fo r th e special trackin g o f

childre n wit

h elevate dbloo d leads . I t appear s possibl e that

"hot spots " o f

exposure , possibl e target s fo r recruitment/remediation , ma y b e unveile di n thi s manner . iv . Make th e result s o f dus t an dleadbase dpain t

i n report s more readil y observable . v . Spli t

th e collecte dsampl e bas e at th e mea n rathe r

than at th e P-1 0 o r

P- l 5 level s t o increas e th e statistical powe r o f th e analysis , an dt o provid e areferenc e grou p tha t fall s belo w th e mean fo r

comparin g an dtargetin g ke y differences . Thi s issu e i s discusse dfurthe r

i n th e Panel s recommendation s fo r meetin g performanc e standard s criteri ai n Statistica l Uni t 1 . vi . Conside r

testin g fo r

representativenes s o f

lea dbase dpain t

hazar d.a s wel l a s soi l lead . vii . Us e th e suggeste danalytical strateg y t o evaluat e an dimprov e th e program an dmore effectivel y targe t th e basi c proble mareas . I.3g Implementation of response actions Pane l Response : Th e Pane l wa s unanimou s tha t th e implementatio n o f

respons e action s wa s good , an d followe dth e standard s o f

th e work plan . 

### I.3h Documentation and

reporting practices Pane l Response : Th e Pane l fel t

tha t th e documentatio n an dreportin g practice s wer e satisfactory t o mee t th e standard s o f

th e work plan , an dha s n o additiona l recommendations . 1.4 Statistical

Unit 1 has not

met the performance standards criteria; please provide any additional

implementation recommendations that could be considered

by the Work Group to meet these standards. Pane l Response : Revie w o f

trend s i n P-1 0 an dP-l 5 i n bot h Statistica l Uni t 1 an dStatistica l Uni t

2 indicate s tha t

whil e th e mea n bloo dlea dconcentratio n i n Leadvill e i s declinin g ove rLake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions 

### time , a s i s th e nationa l trend , th e percentag e o f participant s wit h bloo dlea dlevel s greate r tha t 1 0 an d1 5 ug/dl , respectively , ha s no t significantl y change dove r time . Thi s implie s tha t ther e i s a"tail " at

th e hig h en do f

th e bloo dlea dleve l distributio n tha t ha s no t responde dt o th e curren t

interventions .

• Th e Pane l therefor e recommend s tha t ever y effor t

b e mad e t o bette r

understan d th e determinant s (o r

predictors ) o f

bloo dlead ; variable s o f

interes t migh t includ e housin g type , chil dage , behaviors , pets , an dth e presenc e o f anemia . Sinc e th e absolut e numbe r

o f childre n with elevate dbloo dlead s i s small , on e possibl e approac h woul db e t o divid e th e overal l sampl e o f childre n int o tw o groups , i.e. , thos e with bloo dlead s abov e an dbelo w th e mean . Th e increas e i n analytica l sampl e siz e provide db y selectin g th e mean a s acutof f rathe r tha n P-1 0 o r

P-1 5 bloo dleadleve l triggers , increase s th e statistica l power an dmay revea l whic h determinant s o f

bloo dleadi n th e multi-variat e regressio n are causin g th e "tail " that i s no t respondin g t o th e curren t interventions . Th e Pane l als o refer s th e reade r t o th e recommendation s fo r increasin g publi c outreac h liste dearlier , an dth e recommendation s fo r ensurin g long-termprotectio n o f publi c health liste dunde r

Sectio n IV , Other .Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions



### II . Evaluatio n o f

Performanc e Based on the Panel's review of the 'Methods and

Standards forEvaluating the Performance of the Lake County Community Health Program'document (the 'Performance Standards Document') and

the evaluation of

data from the years 2000, 2001, and 2002, presented

in the 2002 Annual

Report, please address the following: II.l Please comment

on the appropriateness and applicability of

the statistical

methods and standards presented

in the Performance Standards Document forevaluating the performance of the Program with respect to the established

Remedial Action Objectives. La Is the rationale foreach performance standard adequately described, appropriate, and scientifically defensible? Pane l Response : Th e Pane l believes that

th e rational e fo r

th e establishmen t

o f standard s ha s bee n adequatel y describe di n th e Performanc e Standard s Document . Th e Pane l consider s th e standards , a s describe di n th e document , t o b e reasonabl e bu t arbitrary , a s the y d o no t mirro r Nationa l standard s (e.g . soi l leadleve l o f 350 0 pp man dleadbase dpain t at 6mg/cm2) . Th e Pane l believe s tha t

th e performanc e standard s fo r meetin g th e Remedia l Actio n Objective s ar e appropriate . Th e Pane l doe s no t fee l tha t

th e term"scientificall y defensible " i s appropriat e withi n thi s contex t and , therefore , offer s n o respons e t o thi s query . Th e Pane l als o note s th e absenc e o f acritica l patho r

timelin e fo r

completio n a s part

o f th e Performanc e Standards . Inclusio n o f atimelin e woul db e considere dnorma l practic e i n suc hadocument . Lb Does the method

adequately demonstrate the long-term effectiveness of the remedy and compliance with RAOs? Pane l Response : Th e Pane l feel s that

thi s i s acritica l questio n that canno t b e answere dat

thi s time , an dcite s th e followin g reasons : 1 . There i s no t

enoug hlon g termdat aavailabl e at thi s poin t 2 . P-1 0 an dP-1 5 value s hav e no t change dsignificantl y i n eithe r SU- 1 o r SU- 2 3 . Th e majorit y o f

propertie s wil l no t

necessaril y hav e bee n remediate di f o r whe n th e Performanc e Standar dha s bee n met .

# I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions 

### JJ.2 Please comment

on the data evaluation techniques and statistical methods presented

in the Performance Standards Document and make any suggestions orrecommendations for modification orimprovement. 2.a Have Type I

and Type II errorrates been assessed adequately and

in a scientifically defensible manner? Pane l Response : Th e Pane l wa s i n agreement that th e method s an dperformanc e standard s formulate db y th e work grou p ver y carefull y an dquantitativel y addresse dTyp e 1 an dTyp e 2 errors . Th e Pane l doe s no t

believ e tha t

th e ter m"scientificall y defensible " i s appropriat e withi n thi s context . 2. b Has the uncertainty in the P10 and PI5values been assessed adequately and

in a scientifically defensible manner? Pane l Response : Th e Pane l feel s tha t

th e Workin g Grou p wa s highl y innovativ e i n usin g th e Mont e Carl o Analysi s t o addres s uncertaint y i n P-1 0 an dP-1 5 values . Th e approac hi s considere dt o b e highl y appropriat e an dastute . Again , th e term"scientificall y defensible " i s considere d inappropriat e withi n th e contex t o f th e question . 2.c Do the required

criteria adequately assess the overall representativeness of

the available blood

lead data, used

to derive the theoretical blood lead distribution forthe community at

large? Pane l Response : Th e Pane l wa s i n agreement that , give n Leadville' s lon g minin g history , th e selectio n o f soi l lea da s a n initia l criterio n fo r estimatin g representativenes s wa s appropriat e fo r th e site . However , th e Pane l als o feel s quit e strongl y that othe r importan t

source s o f

lea d exposure , mos t

specificall y lea dbase dpain t hazards , shoul db e assesse dfo r representativeness . Thi s approac hwoul drecogniz e th e nove l aspect s o f th e Leadvill e Remediatio n Plan , an dho w i t differ s fro mothe r

sit e plans . Th e Pane l woul dstrongl y support thi s approach .

1 0

# I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions



### 2.d Does the test

of proportions used

in Performance Standard 4 provide reasonable assurance that

blood lead program participants are not from residences that

underestimate the high end of the soil lead distribution forthe statistical unit as a whole? Pane l Response : Th e Pane l i s i n agreemen t tha t th e tes t o f proportion s use di n Performanc e Standar d4 doe s provid e reasonabl e assuranc e that bloo dleadprogra mparticipant s ar e no t fro m residence s that

underestimat e th e hig hen do f th e soi l lea ddistributio n fo r th e statistica l uni t a s awhole . 2.e Do the methods and standards forevaluating performance provide reasonable assurance that

the Program's goal

regarding residual

risk - to ensure that

whateverresidual risks that remain will

be sufficiently low as to not exceed the RAOs (described

in section 7.0 of the Performance Standards Document) - will be achieved? Pane l Response : Th e Institutiona l Control s reference di n th e Work Plan , whic har e intende dt o provid e ongoin g contro l measure s t o assur e th e protectio n o f complete dremediatio n an dprotectio n o f huma n healt honc e th e LCCH P performanc e standard s hav e bee n met , hav e no t ye t bee n approve do r implemented . Th e Pane l feel s that i n th e absenc e o f

detail s o n ho w th e Institutiona l Control s wil l b e implemente dan denforced , ther e i s insufficien t dat at o respon dt o thi s questio n a t thi s time . Pleas e se e th e Panel s concern s regardin g th e importanc e o f Institutiona l Control s i n Sectio n IV , Other .

1 1Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions



# I I I I III . Annua l Repor t Based on the Panel's review of the 2001 and

2002 Annual

Reports and

the 1994-1999 Progress and

Results Report, please address the following: 1II.1 Please comment

on whetherthe LCCHP Annual Reports (2001 and

2002) meet

the requirements and

expectations of

the Work Plan. Pane l Response : Th e Pane l fel t

tha t th e Annua l Report s wer e ver y thorough , an dme t th e requirement s an d expectation s o f

th e Work Plan .

• Th e Pane l recommend s th e Annua l Report includ e atarge t

dat e t o achiev e progra mobjectives . Th e Pane l als o discusse dth e issu e o f wh o th e audienc e fo r

th e annua l report

is , an d whethe r i t i s intende dfo r

revie w b y th e genera l publi c o r b y publi c officials . I f

th e documen t i s intende dfo r

publi c distribution , th e technica l leve l o f expertis e require dt o understandth e documen t

far exceed s th e knowledg e bas e o f th e "ma n o n th e street" .

• Th e Pane l recommend s a n executiv e summar y tha t highlight s outcome s i n readil y understandabl e "layman's " term s a s an extensio n o f th e outreac hprogram . A n exampl e o f

suc hasummar y fro mTrail , Britis hColumbi ai s attached , an d include s th e Powe r

Poin t presentatio n use di n publi c meeting s an dth e newslette r maile dt o eac hhousehol d 7/7.2 Please comment

on whetherdata presented in the 2002 annual

report are adequate to support evaluation of

the program performance standards (Referto Appendix D of the 2002 Annual Report)? Pane l Response : The Pane l was in agreemen t tha t the dat apresente din the 200 2 annua l report is adequat e t o support evaluatio n o f

th e progra mperformanc e standards . III.3 Please make any suggestions orrecommendations forimproving the value and usefulness of

future annual

reports. However, in making yoursuggestions and recommendations, please be mindful that these are produced

as public documents and the confidentiality of

program participants must be maintained.

1 2Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel • Responses to Key Issues I Questions 

# I 3.a Do you recommend additional

data analysis to support

compliance with the RAOs? | Pane l Response :

Th e Panel s experienc e woul dindicat e astron g relationshi p betwee n lo w hemoglobi n an d increase dleaduptake . 

# I I I • Th e Pane l recommend s tha t annua l report

shoul dinclud e afrequenc y distributio n o f hemoglobi n concentrations . Wit hth e note dexceptions , th e Pane l doe s no t fee l tha t additiona l dat aanalysi s t o suppor t complianc e wit hth e RAO' s i s necessary . I 3, b Are there components of the data analysis presented in the annual

report that you feel

~ are not

necessary? I Pane l Response : * Th e Pane l di dno t fee l tha t an y element s o f

th e annua l report

shoul db e deleted .

TM 3.c Can you identify ways to streamline the annual report? I Panel Response :

Th e Pane l ha s n o specifi c recommendation s fo r streamlinin g th e annua l report , bu t fel t that ahighl y condense dan dstreamline dversio n o f th e report , expressin g genera l trend s I an daccomplishment s i n layman' s terms , coul db e prepare dfo r publi c distributio n an d use dt o improv e communit y educatio n an drecruitment . 

# I I I I I I I 1 3Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions 

### IV . Othe r IV.l Please provide any other feedback orthoughts you feel may be helpful

to the Work Group in managing the ongoing implementation of the Program and

ensuring long-term protection of

public health. Pane l Response : Whil e th e Pane l recognize s th e uniqu e method s an dcreativ e respons e to reducin g lead exposure s i n Leadville , the y di dexpres s aconcern regardin g th e nee dfo r aperpetua l obligatio n o f

th e Pla n t o kee p leadexposur e dow n i n futur e generations . Th e Pane l i s awar e tha t th e independen t

pane l revie w "i s no t

intende dt o addres s certai n fundamenta l element s o f

th e programdescribe di n th e Recor do f Decisio n (ROD) , including : remedia l actio n objectives , th e voluntar y natur e o f th e program , progra meligibility , th e media addressed , an dtrigge r

criteri afo r

th e variou s medi ause da s th e basi s fo r recommendin g response s actions. " Nevertheless , aunanimou s opinio n wa s reached , i.e. , tha t som e protectiv e contro l measure s mus t b e kep t i n plac e fo r

year s beyon dth e completio n o f th e LCCHP . Th e Pane l i s concerne dthat th e long-termprotectivenes s o f th e remedy , afte r

th e Statistica l Unit s hav e achieve dth e specifie dperformanc e standards , i s no t adequatel y addressed . A significan t discussio n about , an dcommitmen t to , sustainabl e remedia l respons e i s importan t

i n orde r t o fulfil l th e publi c healthresponsibilit y o f th e Plan . I f

th e LCCH P is no longe r

afunctiona l organization , post-standar dcompliance , aworr y is that ther e wil l b e n o effectiv e progra mfo r futur e generation s t o provid e fo r lea dexposur e surveillance , consultation , an dintervention . Th e onl y obligatio n recognize db y th e Pane l a s offerin g thi s typ e o f sustainabl e assuranc e t o th e communit y i s th e adoptio n o f Institutiona l Controls . Thi s too l i s ateste d responsibility o f

local governmen t

t o b e responsiv e t o need s o f th e citizen s onc e th e responsibl e partie s hav e fulfille dthei r obligation . Institutiona l Control s allo w fo r follo w up o f complete dremedie s that

may intentionall y o r

unintentionall y b e compromise di n th e future . Withou t

ametho dfo r

futur e effectiv e managemen t o f th e Sit e post-LCCHP , th e Pane l feel s tha t

th e communit y o f

Leadvill e ma y fac e along-ter mris k o f continue d leadexposure . Similarly , whil e no t

aske dt o commen t

o n trigge r

level s fo r environmenta l response , th e Pane l feel s obligate dt o expres s it s concern s that th e P-1 0 an dP-1 5 level s hav e no t budge dfo r

thre e year s i n eithe r

Statistica l Unit , indicatin g tha t th e selectio n o f

soi l lea d a s criterio n fo r

representativenes s ma y no t b e targetin g th e appropriat e media ; hence , th e reluctanc e o f

th e statistica l "tail " t o mov e downward .

1 4

# I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Lake County Community Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses to Key Issues I Questions 

### Th e Pane l doe s no t

presum e tha t

lea di n wate r

o r soil s ar e th e onl y source s o f lea d exposure . Rather , th e Pane l believe s tha t th e uniqu e climatologica l factor s specifi c t o Leadvill e likel y resul t

i n asignifican t

amoun t o f indoo r pla y time . This , couple dwit hth e ag e o f housin g wher e exposur e t o dus t an dleadbase dpain t

hazar di s occurring , i s considere djustificatio n fo r re-examinin g an dfocusin g o n th e risk s an drespons e level s withi n th e hom e environment . Th e Pane l strongl y suggest s th e us e o f EP A an dHU D standard s fo r leadconcentration s i n pain t an ddus t lea dloadin g fo r

ris k assessment . I t

als o recommend s amor e aggressiv e respons e fo r

deteriorate dleadbase dpain t hazard s > 1 an d< 6 mg/cm2 . Th e Pane l feel s tha t educatio n alon e wil l no t resolv e th e hazardwithi n thi s range , bu t that aggressiv e contro l an deliminatio n wil l b e required . Th e Pane l als o recommend s testin g har dfloo r surface s fo r

dust , becaus e o f

th e difficult y i n retrievin g adequate sample s trappe di n carpete dareas , an dalway s testin g entry-ways . Th e smal l volume s collecte dfro mcarpetin g ar e ofte n no t sufficien t t o ge t a n accurat e sample . Th e us e o f

wip e sample s a s oppose dt o ai r pum p samplin g fo r

dus t i s als o recommended . Leadloading , base do n th e wip e samplin g method , ha s bee n foun dt o correlat e wit h children's ' bloo dlea dlevel s bette r than vacuu msample s collecte db y a n ai r sampler . I n addition , EPA' s standardfo r dangerou s level s o f

leadi n dus t

i s basedo n wip e sampling . IV.2 Was the Independent Review Panel

provided with the tools and

information needed

to complete the Program review in accordance with the Scope of Work? Pane l Response : Th e presentations , documentation , an dsit e tou r were wel l prepared , thorough , an d informative . Th e Pane l wishe s to expres s it s deep appreciatio n fo r th e tool s the y wer

e provided , an dth e passio n an denthusias mo f th e presenter s wh o personalize dth e dat aset s andprotocols , andmad e the poin t eviden t tha t the persona l commitmen t of the whol e teamplay s a n enormou s part i n th e succes s o f

thi s highl y innovativ e program .



### 1 5

# I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i i Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions



### SUMMAR Y O F PANE L RECOMMENDATION S Th e followin g Summar y o f Pane l Recommendation s i s intende dt o ensur e long-term protectio n o f

publi c healt han dreduc e ris k sufficientl y t o mee t

an dmaintai n Remedia l Actio n Objectives :

• Make bette r

us e o f dat acurrentl y bein g collecte dthroug hth e us e o f amulti

variate regressio n model , to includ e awider rang e o f potential determinant s o f bloo dlead . • Conside r

linkin g annua l report s t o previou s year s t o demonstrat e trend s o f bloo d leadlevel s ove r

time . • Dichotomiz e th e bloo dlea dleve l databas e a t th e mea n t o increas e statistica l powe r an dallo w fo r

acompariso n o f

contributin g factor s fo r

bloo dlea dlevel s abov e an dbelo w th e mean . • Conside r

testin g fo r

representativeness o f

lea dbase dpain t

hazar da s wel l a s soi l lead . • Make th e result s o f

dus t an dlea dbase dpain t

analysi s i n annua l report s mor e readil y observable . • Us e th e suggeste danalytica l strateg y t o evaluat e an dimprov e th e progra man d mor e effectivel y targe t

basi c proble mareas . • Includ e targe t

date s fo r achievin g projec t

objectives . • Compar e outcome s agains t thos e obtaine dat

othe r "comparable " sites . • Us e GI S technolog y t o visuall y trac k an drepresen t

th e spatia l relationship s i n elevate dbloo dlea dlevel s an dthei r recurrences , a s wel l a s t o map th e complete d remediations . • Encourag e Lak e Count y contro l o f th e GI S Dat aBas e followin g LCCH P complianc e wit hperformanc e standards . • Complet e Institutiona l Control s t o monito r an dprotec t

complete dremedie s that ma y intentionall y o r

unintentionall y b e compromise do r recontaminate di n th e future . Assig n perpetua l responsibilit y t o th e Lak e Count y Governmen t t o educat e th e publi c an denforc e th e regulations . • Modif y th e acces s agreemen t

t o allo w fo r

long-ter mmonitorin g an dsurveillanc e o f dus t lea dhazards , maintenanc e o f soi l remediation s etc . followin g initia l remediation . • Initiat e follow-u p monitorin g o f th e effectivenes s o f

educationa l effort s i n lowerin g bloo dlea dlevel s b y observin g th e conditio n o f lead-base dpain t

an d testin g dus t

lea dlevels , an dinterviewin g "educated " families . • Tes t dri p line s a s astandar delemen t o f soi l lea dtesting . • Us e EP A 40 2 an dHU D standard s fo r deteriorate dlea dbase dpain t an ddus t hazard s i n ris k

assessment , an dinitiat e aggressiv e contro l an deliminatio n o f hazard s fo r

level s > 1 an d< 6 mg/cm2 .

1 6

# I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Lake County Community

Health Program Independent

Review

Panel Responses

to Key Issues I Questions 

### Us e wip e sample s t o tes t

dus t lea dloading . Reduc e relianc e o n HEP A vacuum s a s a n activ e for mo f remediation . Th e filter s ma y actuall y reduc e suctio n an ddecreas e efficiency . Remov e reference s t o th e us e o f TS P a s an activ e for mo f remediation . I t

ha s a tendenc y t o damag e pain t an dha s no t

demonstrate dsignifican t effectivenes s i n lowerin g EBL's . Provid e additiona l trainin g t o existin g staff , o r utiliz e aprofessiona l phlebotomis t t o sampl e bloo dlea dlevel s o f childre n unde r

th e ag e o f

1 2 months . Includ e ahemoglobi n frequenc y distributio n a s part o f th e annua l report . Distribut e fre e iro n supplement s an dvitamin s a t th e HealthDepartment , a s appropriate , t o simplif

y availabilit y an denhanc e recruitment . Educat e an dencourag e realtor s t o practic e HU D an dEP A mandate dregulation s regardin g representation s o f conditio n tha t

ar e accurat e an dunbiased . Provid e propert y owner s witha"clea n letter " fro mth e EP A onc e successfu l remediatio n o f

thei r propert y ha s bee n accomplished . (Exampl e provided ) Encourag e constructio n an dremodelin g tha t incorporate s bar e floor s that ar e easie r t o clean an dtra p les s dus t tha n carpet , especiall y i n entryways . Exten dth e tea

mapproac h t o more activel y involv e member s o f th e publi c an d increas e communit y ownershi p o f bothth e proble man dit s solutions . Conside r bi-annua l o r

quarterl y publi c meeting s t o involv e th e Schoo l District , studen t representatives , th e Mayor , Cit y Council , th e Chamber o f Commerce , parent s etc . t o buil dcommunit y prid e i n thei r positiv e respons e t o a n identifie d problem . Us e "Champio n Moms " an dneighborhoo dvolunteer s t o involv e th e communit y i n identifyin g an dresolvin g th e problem . Identif y an dgathe r

inpu t fro m"key informants " withi n th e variou s segment s o f th e communit y wh o ca n spea k fo r thei r representativ e group . Conside r sendin g aonc e ayear

reminde r o f th e progra mt o everyon e i n SU-1 , wit haone-on-on e follow-u p visit . Conside r th e us e o f

trained , temporar y pai dstaff , t o g o door-to-doo r t o encourag e recruitment . Conside r preparatio n o f

abrie f executiv e summary o f

th e annua l report

tha t i s suitabl e fo r

distributio n t o th e genera l public . Enlis t outsid e expertis e fro ma n Epidemiologis t t o desig n adoor-to-doo r

surve y t o increas e participatio n i n th e program . Consul t wit hpeopl e knowledgeabl e abou t communit y assessment s t o develo p a n evaluatio n o f

whethe r identifie dsegment s o f

th e populatio n ar e gettin g wha t the y wan t o r nee dou t o f th e program . Conside r cros s trainin g an dpreparin g fo r th e inevitabl e tim e whe n on e o f th e ke y player s leave s th e program . Welcom e th e pres s an dmedi at o becom e involve di n exercise s suc ha s thi s Independen t

Pane l Review . 

### 1 7

### ATTACHMEN T A- l

INFORMATIO N FRO M TH E TRAI L COMMUNIT Y LEA D TAS K FORC E Trail , Britis h Columbia , Canad a Referenced

on Page 12 of

the "Independent

Review Panel

Responses to Key Issues/Questions "

### 200 3 Statu s Repor t o n th e Recommendation s o f th e Trai l Communit y Lea dTas k

Forc e

# 200 3 Statu s Repor t 

# o n th e 

# Recommendation s o f th e Trai l Community Lea d Tas k Forc e

Prepare d for : Versio n 5



### Jul y 9 , 200 3

Stev e Hilts , Tec k

Cominc o Metals , Ltd . Chery l Yates , Interio rHealt h Authorit y

### TABL E O F CONTENT S

EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y 1 

### HISTORY2 TH ENEX TPHAS E5 GOAL S SE T B Y TH E TRAI L COMMUNIT Y LEA D TAS KFORC E 6 

### BLOO D LEA D .... 6 OTHE RSMELTERCONTAMINANT S 8 SUMMAR Y STATU S REPOR T T O EN D O F 200 2 9 200 3 PROGRAMS/SERVICE S 1 9 

### 1 . SOURC EREDUCTIO N1 9 1.1 Teck Cominco Emissions Control and Reduction 19 

### 2 . COMMUNITYMONITORIN G2 1 2.1 Blood

Lead Testing 21 2.2 Environmental

Monitoring 22 

### 3 . COMMUNIT YEXPOSUREREDUCTIO N2 4 3.1 Dust

Control 24 3.2 SmelterBufferZone 25 3.3 Work Project

Assistance Program 26 

### 4 . CAS EMANAGEMENT2 7 5 . EDUCATIO N2 8 5.1 Community Education and Awareness 28 5.2 Early Childhood

Education 29 

### 6 . OVERSIGH TAN D COORDINATIO N3 0 SUMMARY O F 200 3 FUNDIN G COMMITMENT S 3 2 REFERENCE S 3 3

## CONTAC TINFORMATIO N

Thi s report , an dadditional information , i s availabl e o n reques t fro mth e followin g locations : Cit y o f Trai l 1394 Pin e Av e Trail , BCV1R4E 6 Phone : (250 ) 364-126 2 Interio rHealt

h Authority lOSlFarwellSt . Trail , B C V1R4S 9 Chery l Yate s o r

Katarin aEdward s Phone : (250 ) 368-LEA D (368-5323 ) Fax : (250 ) 364-058 0 E-mail:chery l.yates@interiorhealth.c a Tec k Cominc o P O Bo x 

### 100 0 Trail , B C V1R4L 8 Stev e Hilt s Phone : (250)264-438 5 Fax : (250)364-414 4 E-mail:steven.hilts@teckco minco.co m

Additiona l informatio n i s als o onlin e at : http://mvpage.direct.ca/t/tl p

# EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y

Trai l ha s bee n th e site o f

metal s smeltin g an drefinin g facilitie s fo r ove r 10 0 years . Th e proximity o f th e community to th e smelte r comple x ha s resulte di n elevate dlevel s o f som e metal s i n communit y air , soi l an ddust . Th e mai n focu s o f attentio n sinc e abou t

197 5 ha s bee n lea

dan dit s possibl e healt

h effect s o n childre n o f

pre-schoo l age . Althoug h ther e ha s neve r bee n arecorde dincident

o f clinica l lea dpoisonin g amon g childre n i n thi s community , studie s elsewher e hav e foun dtha t subtl e health effect s can occu r at lo w level s o f

exposure . Thes e effect s can onl y b e detecte db y studyin g larg e population s o f children . I n 1990 , th e Trai l Communit y LeadTas k

Forc e wa s forme dto develo p astrateg y fo r reducin g children' s lea

dexposures . Thi s programinvolvedthe community , industr y an dgovernmen

t workin g togethe r to stud y th e problem , take action s an drecommen dlong-ter msolutions . Th e Tas k

Forc e undertoo k comprehensiv e community educatio n an dlea dhealt h interventio n programs , an dTeck Cominco 1 mad e several majo r improvement s i n emission s contro l - th e mos t significan t

b y fa r bein g th e constructio n an dstart-u p o f th e ne w KTVCET lea

dsmelter . I n 1998 , th e Tas k

Forc e reache dit s firs t

short-ter mgoal o f havin g a t leas t 9 0 percen t

o f childre n with bloo dlea dlevel s belo w 1 5 ug/dl , whic h wa s the Task Force' s individua

l level o f concern . B y 2000 , the next short-ter mgoa l o f havin g 9 5 percen t

belo w 1 5 ug/d l hadnearl y bee n reached . Whe n th e Tas k Forc e wa s firs t

formed , there were wel l over 10 0 childre n with bloo dleadlevel s o f 1 5 ug/d l or

higher . B y 2000 , there wer e onl y abou t adozen . Th e Tas k Forc e wrappe dup it s wor k an dsubmitte dit s recommendation s fo r long-termaction s i n February 2001 . Th e B C Ministr y o f Water , Lan dan dAi r

Protection 2 ha s no t

ye t formall y reviewe d th e Tas k Forc e recommendations , whic h ar e presente di n detai l late r i n thi s document . However , Tec k Cominco , th e Interio r

Health Authority 3 an dth e City o f Trai l al l committe dt o implementin g th e Tas k Force' s recommendation s withou t delay . Ke y programs , suc h a s bloo dlea dtestin g an d cas e management , hav e continue dwithou t interruptio n sinc e 2001 . Th e 200 3 cas e managemen t programconsist s of : follow-u p testin g o f childre n wh o hav e elevate do r risin g bloo dleadlevels ; counselin g o f familie s wit h childre n wh o hav e elevate do r risin g bloo dlead levels ; an dprovisio n o f

cas e managemen t

service s to preven t

and/o r reduc e leadexposure . Educatio n wil l continu e to pla y an importan t rol e i n decreasin g childhoo dlea dexposure , wit h program s aime da

t th e prenatal , earl y childhood , an dcommunit y levels . Tec k

Cominc o wil l pursu e an dreport o n it s progres s towar dfurthe r

emissio n reductions . Community dus t contro l includin g greening , dus t suppressio n o n alley s an dstreet cleaning wil l continue . Teck Cominc o will monitor

the wor k it di di n 200 1 an d200 2 t o improv e th e vegetativ e buffe r betwee n it s operation s an dth e community alon g th e boundar y with Tadanac . A ne w Wor k Projec t Assistanc e Program , a s recommende db y th e Tas k Force , wil l b e develope di n 2003 .

1 Note: In 2001, Cominco merged with another

Canadian mining company (Teck Corp.) to form Teck

Cominco. Note: Prior

to 2001, the BC

Ministry of

Water, Land

and Air Protection was known variously as BC Environmt BC Ministry of

Environment, or

the BC Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks. Mote: In 2001, health services delivery regions in BC were also reorganized. 77ie Kootenay Boundary Commit, Heatlh Service society was superceded at that time by the Interior

Health Authority. 200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 1

### Th e combine dthree-agenc y budge t fo r 200 3 i s approximatel y $150,00 0 whic hdoe s no t includ e emissio n contro l project s a t Tec k Cominc o o r

salarie s o f

regula r staff . 

## History Lea dha s bee n afac t

o f lif e i n Trai l fo r

th e pas t 10 0 years . Althoug hther e ha s neve r bee n arecorde d inciden t o f clinica l lea dpoisonin g amon g children i n thi s community , studie s elsewher e hav e foun dtha t ver y subtl e healt

heffect s can occur at

lo w level s o f

exposure . Thes e effect s can onl y b e detecte db y studyin g larg e population s o f children . I n 1975 , Ner i et . al . (1978 ) foun dtha t children' s bloo dlea dlevel s i n Trai l wer e significantl y highe r tha n thos e i n th e nearb y compariso n communit y o f Nelson , BC . A 198 9 stud y foun dtha t soi l lea d concentratio n and , secondarily , hous e dus t lea dconcentration , wer e th e principa l environmenta l determinant s o f

elevate dbloo dlea dlevel s i n Trai l childre n (Hertzman e. t al. , 1991) . Althoug hth e averag e bloo dleadleve l ha ddecline dfro m22. 4 ug/d Lfo r 1- 3 year old s i n 197 5 t o 13. 8 ug/d Lfo r 2- 5 year old s i n 1989,39.4 % o f

th e childre n teste di n 198 9 wer e abov e th e U.S. E nvironmenta l Protectio n Agency' s "leve

l o f n o concern " o f

1 5 ug/d La

t the tim e (U S EPA , 1986) . Th e 198 9 study' s recommendation s prompte dth e formatio n o f th e Trai l Community Lea dTas k Forc e i n 1990 . Th e Tas k

Forc e wa s give n responsibilit y fo r developin g astrateg y fo r

reducin g Trai l children' s lea dexposures . Communitie s wit hinactiv e smelter s o r min e site s hav e ofte n implemente dlarg e clean-u p program s t o permanentl y reduc e lea dexposures . B y contrast , th e strateg y for

Trai l is expecte dto hel p the smelte r andthe communit y to continu e to co-exis t by focussin g o n action s tha t

wil l b e effectiv e i n th e mids t o f ongoing , albei t

reduced , emissions . Th e Tas k Forc e wa s compose do f

representative s fro mnumerou s community groups , loca l government , th e Provinc e o f Britis h Columbi aan dth e smelte r compan y (Teck

Cominco , Limited) . Al l meeting s wer e ope n t o th e publi c an dth e medi a(se e Figur e 1) . Tas k Forc e member s worke d cooperativel y t o reac hconsensu s o n mos t issue s an dTec k

Cominc o participate dvoluntaril y i n al l Tas k Forc e programs . Teck

Cominco , th e B C Ministrie s o f Healt h an dEnvironment , an dth e Cit y o f Trai l provide datota l o f

approximatel y $ 5 millio n i n fundin g fro m199 0 t o 2000 . I n additio n t o financia l contributions , th e Provinc e an dTec k Cominc o provide dtechnical resourc e peopl e with health , environmen t

an dpubli c relation s background s t o participat e i n progra mplanning . Th e Trai l mode l o f

co-operative , multi-stakeholde r programplannin g an dshare dfundin g contribute denormousl y t o th e program' s effectivenes s an defficiency . Th e program' s wor k i s recognize dinternationall y an dth e Trai l co-operativ e mode l ha s bee n adopte di n severa l othe r jurisdictions .

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 2Figure 1 - Trail Community

Lead Task Force Structure:

1990-2000 Cit yo f Trail ) (Chair ) Cominc o Community Membe r Fundin g

United | Steelworker s o f Americ a J 22 %

10% 28% Ftegiona l Distric t o f | tootenay/Boundar &hoo l Distric t No . 1 1 [ Trai l AQ'stric t Environmenta l I Networ k

Earl y i n it s mandate , th e Tas k Forc e estimate dth e cos t o f residentia l soi l replacemen t i n Trai l at abou t $50,000,00 0 an dexpresse dconcern tha t excavatio n an dsoi l transpor t migh t resul t i n a transien t increas e i n lea dexposure . I n additio n t o th e financia l deterren t an dquestion s o f

efficacy , soi l removal appeare dt o b e sociall y unacceptabl e i n Trail . Also , th e lea dsmelte r i n operatio n i n 199 0 relie do n outdate dproces s technolog y and , despit e effort s t o contro l emissions , th e amoun t o f leaddischarge dt o th e environmen t wa s abou t

30 0 kg/da y (Cominc o Ltd. , 1993) . A t th e time , Cominc o wa s encounterin g technica l difficultie s i n implementin g ne w lea dsmeltin g technolog y i n Trail . Smelte r

emissions , an dtherefor e soi l contaminatio n rates , were expecte dt o continu e at thes e level s fo r numbe r o f years . Fo r

al l o f thes e reasons , th e Tas k

Forc e chos e no t

t o recommen dan y immediat e soi l replacement . Instead , th e Tas k Forc e embarke do n ambitiou s program s o f communit

y educatio n an dcas e management , a s wel l a s environmental assessment aime da t bette r understandin g lea dexposur e pathways . Teck Cominc o began operatin g ane w lea dsmelte r i n Trai l i n April , 1997 . Th e state-of-the-art smelte r reduce dlea demission s fro mstack s b y abou t 70% . I n addition , th e ne w smelte r dramaticall y lowere dfugitiv e (non-stack ) emission s throug h th e replacemen t o f severa l existin g plant s wit h a single , enclose dplant . Th e reductio n i n lea demission s ha s ha dasignifican t effec t o n children' s bloo dlea dlevels . Fro m 198 9 throug h 1996 , averag e bloo dlea dlevel s o f Trai l childre n teste dfo r th e firs t tim e decline da t 200 3 Progra mStrategy , Page 3a n averag e rat e o f 0. 6 ug/dL/year . Th e year-to-year variabilit y i n averag e bloo dlea dlevel s durin g thi s perio dappeare dt o b e relate dt o weathe r condition s durin g th e mont hprecedin g th e fal l bloo d testin g clinic . Specifically , whe n Augus t wa s relativel y dry , bloo dlea dlevel s tende dt o b e higher . Fro m199 6 t o 1999 , th e averag e bloo dlea dleve l o f childre n teste dfo r

th e firs t tim e fel l b y 54 % - fro m11. 0 ug/d L t o 5. 1 ug/dL . Th e averag e annua l rat e o f declin e durin g thi s three-year perio dwa s 1. 9 ug/dL/year . Th e rapi ddeclin e appear s t o b e attributabl e t o th e replacemen t o f th e ol dlea d smelte r i n Ma y o f 1997 . Air

leadlevel s i n Trai l durin g th e summer o f 1997 were abou t

50 % lower tha n durin g th e summer s o f 1994-1996 . B y 1998 , summer ai r lea dlevel s wer e 75 % lowe r than durin g th e las t

year s o f operatio n o f

th e ol dleadsmelter . Annua l averag e ai r lea dlevel s i n Trai l ar e no w abou t

0.25-0.3 0 ug/m 3

. I n 2000 , th e averag e bloo dlea dleve l amon g Trai l pre-schooler s teste dfo r th e firs t tim e increase dt o 6. 3 jig/dl . Ai r

lea dlevel s an ddustfal l lea dlevel s di dno t increas e durin g th e summer o f 2000 , s o th e increas e i n bloo dleadlevel s i n 200 0 appear s t o b e du e t o very dry weathe r experience ddurin g th e mont h o f August . Show s th e histor

y o f averag e bloo dlea

dlevel s fo r

al l childre n teste dfro m197 5 to 2000 . nationa l averag e fo r

childre n age d1- 5 i s als o presente dfo r comparison . Hi e U.S . Figure 2 - History of Children's

Blood Lead Levels in Trail - Averages

for All Children

Tested 2 5 5 "Bi 

### S V 15

- •a o o 5 co o O 1 O o> O 1 0

5 - 22. 4 Trai l Lea d Progra m starte d Ne wLea d

Smelte r starte d 

# 1 15. 0

3. 6 2. 7 2. 0 m r- tn in oo o> 0 1

o> i n

e n c i o

o | Trai l - ••U S Nationa l Averag e | Fro m199 7 t o 1999 , th e Tas k Forc e conducte dahuma n healt h ris k assessmen t

t o evaluat e i n detai l th e ris k pose db y othe r

smelte r contaminants , suc h a s arsenic , cadmiu man dantimony . Fo r chemical s othe r

tha n lead , th e stud y foun d"n o imminen t (short-term ) threa t

t o huma n health " an d "very limite dpotentia l fo r advers e health effect s fro mlong-ter mresidenc e i n Trail" .

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 4I n 2000 , th e Tas k Forc e complete dit s evaluatio n an dselectio n o f option s fo r

long-ter mremedia l actions . Thi s proces s involve din-depth consultatio n wit h th e communit y a t large . Option s fo r

long

ter mremediatio n include dinstitutionalizin g bloo dlea dmonitoring , cas e managemen t an deducatio n program s t o ensure thei r continuation , a s wel l a s variou s physica l action s tha t migh t b e take n t o furthe r improv e environmenta l conditions . Th e Tas k Forc e base dit s recommendation s o n consideratio n o f th e followin g majo r

factors :

• Estimate dhealt

h ris k level s (base do n studie s conducte delsewher e that hav e linke d exposur e t o metal s wit h health effect s i n human s an danimals ) • Community feedbac k o n th e estimate dhealth ris k level s • Effectivenes s o f

option s fo r

reducin g healt h risk s (base do n experience s i n Trai l an dat othe r sites ) • Socioeconomi c impac t o f interventio n an dremediatio n option s (includin g both monetar y cost s an ddisruptio n t o th e community ) Th e Tas k

Forc e submitte dit s final recommendation s t o th e B C Ministe r o f Environmen t

i n February 2001 . 

## The Next Phase Th e B C Ministr

y o f Water , Lan dan dAi r Protectio n wil l no w revie w th e Tas k Forc e recommendations , whic h are presente di n detai l later i n thi s document . Ultimately , th e recommendation s mus t

becom e par t

o f a n approve doveral l remediatio n pla n fo r area. However , Tec k Cominco , th e Interio r

Health Authorit y an dth e City o f Trai l al l committe dt o implementin g th e Tas k Force' s recommendation s withou t delay . Ke y programs , suc h a s bloo dlea dtestin g an d cas e management , hav e continue dwithou t interruptio n sinc e 2001 . Thi s report

describe s th e curren t

statu s o f implementatio n o f

th e Tas k Force' s recommendation s an d planne dactivitie s fo r

200 3 .

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 5

# GOAL S SE T B Y TH E TRAI L COMMUNIT Y LEA D TAS K FORC E Blood Lead Rec o mmendations i

A tleas t90 % o f

childre n age d 6 t o 7 2 month s i n are a2 an d 3 (se e drawin g below ) shoul d hav e bloo d lea d level s les s tha n 1 0 ng/d L b y 2005 . A tleas t99 % o f

childre n age d 6 t o 7 2 month s i n are a2 an d 3 shoul d hav e bloo d lea d level s les s tha n 1 5 jig/d L b y 2005 . Onc e thes e goal s ar e achieved , bloo d lea d testin g shoul d continue , i n orde r t o provid e ongoin g protectio n o f youn g childre n i n Trail . I f thes e goal s ar e no tachieved , th e remedia l pla n shoul d b e re-evaluated .

Trend s I n Percentag e of Childre n wit h Bloo d Lea d Level s < 1 0 pg/d l 100% 90 % 80 %

c 70 % 

# I 2 80 % O I 50 % S 1 1 40 % o % •30 % 20 % 10%- I 0 % Pro-KIVCE

T (1991-1998 ) Poit-KIVCE T (1998-2000 )

H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H rifn^riAcoh»aomovc4in* t aioiotcnoiciaiaioooa o o)o>o>a>oioioioiooao o Trend s I n Percentag e o f Childre n wit h Bloo d Lea d Level s < 1 5 pg/d l 100 %

o o 90 % +

10 % +

10 % 4 -

60 % + Pra-KIVCE T

(1991-1998 )

H 1 1 1 H H 1 1 H enoir n Background :

1 0 ug/d L i s th e "community concern " leve l recommende db y th e U S Center s fo r Diseas e Contro l (U S CDC ) an di t i s intende dt o appl y t o childre n i n th e 6-7 2 month s ag e group . A n associatio n betwee n children' s bloo dlea dlevel s an dI Q ha s bee n observe ddow n t o thi s leve l i n studie s involvin g larg e number s o f children . Thes e studie s hav e foun dthat , o n average , group s o f childre n wit h bloo dlea dlevel s aroun d2 0 ug/d L scor e abou t 1- 2 point s lowe r

o n I Q test s tha n group s o f childre n with bloo dlea dlevel s aroun d1 0 ug/dL , afte r controllin g fo r othe r factor s tha t

affec t IQ . 200 3 Progra m Strategy , Pag e 6• A Canadia n Federal-Provincia l Tas k Forc e recommende di n 199 4 tha t communitie s with unusua l source s o f lea dexposure may nee dspecial program s wher e th e percentag e o f

childre n i n thos e communitie s wit h bloo dlea dlevel s abov e 1 0 ng/d L i s doubl e tha t see n i n th e genera l population . Sinc e th e percentag e o f

childre n abov e 1 0 ug/d L i n Nort h Americ ai s currentl y abou t 5% , thi s woul dindicat e atarge t o f n o mor e tha n 10 % abov e 1 0 ug/dL . • 1 5 ug/d L i s th e "individua l concer n level " recommende db y th e U S Center s fo r Diseas e Control . Th e Tas k Forc e fel t

tha t ideally , childre n shoul drarel y excee d thi s bloo dleadleve l (les s tha n 1%) . • Several recen t

studie s involvin g larg e number s o f childre n i n th e U.S . sugges t tha t eve n bloo dlea dlevel s les s tha n 1 0 ug/d L may impac t o n children' s I Q scores . Therefore , th e U S CD C ha s convene dan expert pane l t o revie w it s presen t guidelin e fo r

children' s bloo dlevels . It' s expecte dtha t th e pane l wil l complet e it s revie w sometim e i n 2004 . Th e outcom e o f tha t revie w may resul t

i n th e Trai l Health an dEnvironmen t Committe e revisitin g th e bloo dlea dgoal s se t b y th e Lea dTas k

Force .

Oasi s

Lowe r Warflel d

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 7

## Other

Smelter Contaminants Recommendations :

Potentia l healt h risk s fro m othe rsmelte rcontaminant s (i.e . cadmiu m an d arsenic ) shoul d b e reduce d t o th e level s require d b y provincia l regulations , withou tshuttin g dow n th e smelte ro rconductin g widesprea d soi l replacemen ti n th e area . Background :

• Th e B C Cance r

Agency an dB C Ministr y o f Health hav e looke dat

routin e healt h dat aan dconducte dsevera l specifi c studie s t o se e whethe r th e incidenc e rate s o f an y disease s tha t

ma y b e associate dwith metal s exposur e (e.g . lun g cancer , kidne y disfunction ) ar e highe r tha n norma l i n Trail . N o measureabl e increase s i n diseas e rate s hav e bee n found . • Th e Trai l Lea dTas k

Forc e conducte dadetaile dris k assessmen t

fo r othe r smelte r contaminant s i n 1997-99 . Th e assessmen t involve dfirs t

comparin g concentration s o f

metal s i n th e loca l soi l an dai r agains t screenin g guidelines . Th e element s tha t

exceede dscreenin g guideline s wer e th e subjec t o f mor e detaile dassessment , involvin g estimatio n o f health risk s base do n th e level s o f contaminant s i n people' s air , water , foo dan di n local soi l an ddust . • Th e detaile dassessmen t focuse dmainl y o n antimony , arseni c an dcadmiu man d foun dthat :

• Estimate dexposure s t o cadmiu mi n th e loca l populatio n ar e wel l

belo w level s tha t

migh t b e associate dwit h kidne y disfunction . • Estimate dlifetim e cance r risk s du e t o arseni c an dcadmiu mi n th e loca l populatio n excee dth e B C "default " standar do f 1 i n 100,000 . However , i n th e Trai l population , exposur e t o smelter

relate darseni c an dcadmiu mmigh t resul t in :

• n o mor e tha n 1 extr acas e o f lun g cance r

ever y 6 0 year s o r 

### s o • n o mor e tha n 1 extr acas e o f skin cance r

every 20 0 yea r

o r s o

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 8

# I

Summar y Statu s Repor t t o En d o f 200 2

Sourc e Reductio n Teck Cominco Emissions and Dust Control Stac k Emission s • I n 2001 , Tec k

Cominc o assigne da n environmenta l technicia n t o identify , prioritiz e an daddres s opportunitie s fo r improvement s i n ai r

emission s contro l systems .

• Opportunitie s fo r

futur e improvement s were identifie dan dprioritize di n 2001/02 . Tw o to p prioritie s were th e existin g stac k emissio n contro l system s o n th e lea d stack , th e DRAAC O baghous e stac k an dth e silver

refinery baghous e stacks . • Variou s improvement s wer e made , o r are bein g made , t o thes e thre e systems . Th e performanc e o f

the ne w baghous e o n the lea dsmelte r fee dpreparatio n plant

ha s bee n improve db y adjustin g th e drye r operatin g temperature . Th e performanc e o f th e DRAAC O baghous e o n th e # 2 Sla g Fumin g Furnac e i s no w bein g optimize d throug hround-the-cloc k

operato r coverage , implementatio n o f atigh t ne w Standar d Operatin g Procedure an dinclusio n o f thi s baghous e i n th e plant' s Integrate dProces s Managemen t

System(IPM) . Th e newe r AB B baghous e o n th e ne w # 3 Sla g Fumin g Furnac e ha s see n acomplete changeover o f bag s an dth e adoptio n o f

ane w cleanin g sequenc e tha t

bette r allow s an y problem s wit

h bag s t o b e detecte dan ddeal t with . Comprehensiv e audit s o f

th e silver refinery baghouse s le dt o recommendation s fo r ne w instrumentatio n for

real-tim e monitorin g o f

baghous e performance . Th e ne w instrumentatio n ha s bee n installe dan doperator s are no w bein g traine di n ho w t o optimiz e th e performanc e o f th e baghouse s usin g th e ne w instrumentatio n an dbes t operatin g practices . Fugitiv e Dus t

fro mPropert y

• I n summer

2002 , community ai r

lea dlevel s an dbloo dlea dlevel s di dno t dro p a s expecte dduring/followin g th e shutdow n i n August . Th e suspecte dcaus e wa s a prolonge ddrough t

an dextrem e win devents i n late Jul y an dAugust . Althoug h Teck Cominc o followe dth e sam e dus t contro l procedure s use ddurin g th e longe r shutdow n i n 2001 , mor e dus t seem s t o hav e sprea dint o th e community i n 2002 . • Th e Trai l Health an dEnvironmen t Committee , at

it s fal l 200 2 meeting , aske d tha t Tec k Cominc o repor t

t o th e committe e o n plan s t o improv e upo n it s on-sit e dus t contro l procedures . • Tec k Cominc o mad e areport

t o th e committe e o n Januar y 14 , 200 3 whic h reviewe dth e dus t

contro l procedure s tha t

wer e alread y i n place , describe dth e proces s tha t

wa s use di n th e fal l o f

200 2 t o determin e whic h area s an dactivitie s o n th e property shoul dhav e priority fo r improvemen t

an doutline dth e plan s bein g develope dt o improv e procedures .

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 9

### Community Monitoring

Blood Lead Testing 200 1

• testin g focuse do n childre n 6-3 6 month s o f ag e i n al l Trai l neighbourhoods . • Clini c participation : 76 %

• Geometri c mea n lea dlevel : 4. 7 ^g/d L (lowes t see n t o dat e i n Trail )

• 1 6 childre n hadleadlevel s >1 0 jig/d

• 4 childre n hadlevel s >15 ug/d L

• 1 chil dha daleve l >2 0 fig/dL . • Ther e wa s asignifican t differenc e betwee n th e geometri c mea n bloo dlea di n are a2 (4. 1 Ug/dL ) an dare a3 (5. 7 p.g/dL) . 200 2

• childre n 6-3 6 month s wer e agai n teste d

• Clini c participation : 75 %

• Geometri c mean lea dlevel : 6. 0 (ig/dL

• 1 3 childre n hadlea dlevel s > 1 0 ( i g/dL

• 6 childre n ha dbloo dlead s >1 5 (xg/dL

• 2 childre n ha dlevel s >2 0 ug/d L

• Ther e wa s agai n asignifican t differenc e betwee n th e mea n bloo dlea dleve l i n are a2 (5. 0 u.g/dL) an dare a3 (7. 8 ng/dL) . • I n anticipatio n o f

apossibl e upcomin g reductio n i n th e U.S . CD C "leve l o f concern " fro m1 0 ng/dL , th e Trai l Lea dProgra mha s no w adopte d1 0 a s it s individual leve l o f

concern . (Formerly , i t

wa s 1 5 ug/dL )

200 3 Progra m Strategy , Pag e 1 0

# I

Environmental Monitoring Ambien t Ai r - Lea d Annua l averag e ai r

lea dlevel s a t

th e ke y Wes t

Trai l monitorin g statio n continu e t o b e very low . A s show n i n th e grap h below , th e averag e ai r lea dleve l i n 200 2 wa sc-ftig/m')PrSI

| O. W T J a 3 5 0.10 •

OJO • Annua l Averag e Ai rLea d Level s Wes t Trai l Statio n

^ • OJ 8 0.2 7 OJ 5 ^ ^ ^^^~-M \ 1K __--~'" ' ' 0.2 0 0.1 1 f99 > 1SS9 MO O

3001 2001

—• —WtltTnllSln. ——BCOblactln(AnnuilAvg.l - - - World

Htilth Org. OuUtlllnt

(Annual Avg.) th e lowes t

ye t recorded , othe r

tha n durin g 2001 , whe n Tec k Cominco' s Trai l Operation s wer e shu t

dow n fo r ove r 3 months . Prio r

t o installatio n o f

th e KIVCE T lea dsmelte r

i n 1997 , annua l averag e ai r lea dlevel s at

thi s statio n use dt o b e i n th e 0.8 0 t o 1.20 |ag/m 3 range . A s show n i n th e graph , ai r lea dlevel s i n Trai l ar e no w belo w th e WHO' s guidelin e o f 0.5 0 f^g/m 3 , whic h anumbe r o f European countrie s ar e proposin g t o adop t

ove r th e nex t several years . Th e U.S . EPA' s curren t standar d fo r ambien t ai r lea di s 1. 5 jig/m 3 o n aquarterl y averag e basis , (Not e tha t fo r lead , th e guidelines/standard s ar e base do n lea di n tota l airborn e particulat e - no t jus t afin e fraction . Thi s i s appropriat e becaus e we're intereste dbot h th e direc t effec t o f airborn e lea

dthroug h inhalatio n o f

fin e particle s an dth e indirec t effec t throug h ingestio n o f

particle s tha t

fal l ou t o f th e ai r ont o surfaces. ) Ambien t Ai r - Cadmiu m Annual averag e ai r

cadmiu mlevel s over

th e pas t several year s are als o lookin g quit e positive . A s show n i n th e grap h below , th e annua l averag e cadmiu mleve l i n respirabl e (PMio ) particulat e a t Wes t Trai l ha s hovere daroun dth e leve l whic h correspond s t o a n estimate d1 i n 100,00 0 incrementa l lifetim e cance r ris k - th e defaul t acceptabl e ris k

leve l i n B.C . Th e goa l i s t o maintai n o r improv e upo n thi s leve l o f performance . (Note tha t

fo r cadmium , w e focu s o n th e amoun t o f cadmiu m i n th e respirabl e fractio n o f ambien t ai r particulat e becaus e we'r e intereste dmainl y 200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 1 1i n th e direc t effec t o f airborn e cadmiu mthroug h inhalatio n o f fin e particles . particulat e i s th e fractio n tha t i s les s tha n 1 0 u mi n size. ) Annua l Averag e PM1 0 Ai r Cadmiu m Level s

Wes t Trai l Statio n 0.05 0.05

0.04

0.03

u 3 0.0 2 •

o.o t •

0.00 499 8 199 9 2000 200 1 200 2 | -»- Wen Trail Data —-BC Ob/aetfya

(Annual Avg.) 11n

100,000 Risk Level} Ambien t Ai r - Arseni c Annua l averag e arseni c level s i n ambien t ai r hav e show n a n improvin g tren dove r th e pas t several years , a s show n i n th e grap h below . Arseni c level s i n respirabl e particulat e hav e decline db y abou t 50 % sinc e 1998 , makin g som e goo dprogres s towar dth e leve l tha t

correspond s wit h th e estimate ddefaul t acceptabl e ris k

level . Prio r t o th e startu p o f

KTVCET i n 1997 , th e annua l averag e arseni c leve l i n respirabl e particulat e a t

Wes t Trai l statio n wa s abou t

0.1 0 |ig/m

3

.

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 1 2Annua l Averag e PM1 0 Ai r Arseni c Level s Wes t Trai l Statio n 0.11 0.10 0.0 9 0.0 8 l > Ol0 7 ' 1 

### yo.o3 o u •j = 0.0 5 a ? 0.04 3 0.03 • 0.02 0.0 1 • 0.0 0 199 8 1899 2000 2001 2002 •West Trail Data —BC Objective

(Annual Avg.) 11n

100,000 Risk Level \ 

### Dustfal l - Lea d I t i s clea r fro mth e grap hbelo w tha t meta l loading s i n dustfal l ar e highe r i n th e winte r months , whe n dispersio n o f smelte r emission s i s les s effective . I n summe r months , th e total dustfal l increase s (no t show n o n thi s graph) , whil e th e meta l loading s i n dustfal l decrease . Thi s indicate s tha t th e depositio n o f

metal s fro m airborn e particulat e i s stil l largel y influence db y activitie s at th e smelte r

site , a s oppose dto redistributio n o f historically-deposite dmaterial . Th e grap hals o show s tha t th e dustfal l lea dloadin g di ddro p durin g Tec k Cominco' s Augus t 200 2 shutdown , despite th e windstorm s tha t wer e note dtha t

month . However , th e dustfal l lea dlevel s recorde di n Augus t 20C 2 wer e generall y somewha t higher than thos e recorde ddurin g th e 200 1 shutdown .

2003-Progra mStrategy , Pag e 1 3

# i

Monthl yLea d i n Dustfal l 200 1 - 200 2

-Downtow n

-Glenmon y

-Danie l Stree t



### Stree t Dus t - Lea d

BOO

70 0 •

60 0 •

SO O • P b mg lm '400 • 30 0 • 20 0 • 10 0 • 0 • Stree t Dus t Samplin g - Averag e fo r6 Station s i n Trai l P b mg/m 1 v s Sampl e Dat e (Septembe reac h Year)

/ 

## / / 

# A / \ \ , \ / V 

# A / \ \ 

# V s 

# / 

# V 

# A 

# / \ i V / 

# V / 

# / /

94- 3 95- 3 96- 3 97- 3 98- 3 99- 3 00- 3 01- 3 02- 3 Sampl e Y«ar - Quarte r

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 1 4Th e grap h abov e show s th e stree t dus t lea dloadin g (averag e fo r 6 stations ) measure d i n Septembe r

o f eac h yea r

fro m199 4 t o 2002 . Th e grap h show s adeclin e i n lea d loadin g afte r

1997 , bu t

aretur n t o arelativel y hig h leve l i n 2002 . Thi s i s perhap s du e t o th e prolonge ddrough t i n 200 2 fro mlat e Jul y throug h October , whic h allow s settle ddus t

t o accumulat e o n road s withou t bein g washe dawa y b y rain . 

### Community Exposure Reduction Dust Control Greenin g • Tec k Cominc o i s ha s complete dvariou s revegetatio n project s o n it s propertie s i n Trail , a s wel l a s contribute dt o greenin g project s i n th e community . Tec k

Cominc o ha s provide dabou t $20,00 0 i n fundin g plu s material s fo r

project s carrie dou t

b y th e City o f

Trai l an dth e Trai l Flyin g Clu b ove r th e pas t severa l years . • Tec k Cominc o retaine daconsultin g tea mt o develop aphase ddesig n fo r revegetatio n o f

th e riverban k

belo w Trai l Operations . Th e tota l projec t cos t i s estimate da t

ove r $2,000,000 , includin g terracin g o f th e slop e fo r stabilization . Dus t Suppressio n o n Road s • Eac h year , th e City o f Trai l grade s th e alley s an darranges/supervise s th e contrac t applicatio n o f

magnesiu mchlorid e i n mid-June . Tec k Cominc o an dth e City spli t

th e cost s i n Trai l an da t

th e Beave r

Cree k campgroun d an dTec k Cominc o pay s fo r

additiona l wor k

i n othe r location s outsid e th e City limits . Stree t Cleanin g • Th e City o f

Trai l ha s continue dt o perfor mat leas t tw o extr a sweeping/flushing s afte r

th e majo r

sprin g roa dcleanu p i n al l residentia l area s o f Trail . Th e Cit y trie s t o ensur e tha t th e road s ar e pre-wette dprio r t o th e sweepe r

brus h hittin g the ms o tha t cloud s o f dus t ar e no t stirre du p i n th e process . Miscellaneou s Dus t

Contro l

• Tec k Cominc o accompanie dth e B C Ministry o f Water , Lan d& Ai r Protectio n o n an inspectio n o f th e Trima c reloa dcentr e i n Wanet ai n May . Th e Ministr

y wa s pleasedwit h sit e housekeepin g an dne w measure s i n plac e fo r

cleanin g truck s an dcontrollin g dust . • Th e grap h o n th e belo w show s zin c loading s i n dustfal l collecte da t th e Trima c facility , compare dwit h thos e measure da t on e statio n i n Trail . Th e Danie l stree t

statio n wa s selecte dfo r

compariso n becaus e tha t statio n i s withi n th e are ao f

influenc e o f

th e smelter , bu t

wel l of f th e transportatio n pat h fo r

concentrate s comin g fro mTrimac . Sinc e th e facilit y i s mainl y handlin g zin c concentrates , zin c i s th e bes t paramete r

t o loo k a t t o estimat e dus t

losse s fro mth e sit e an dfro mth e truck s leavin g 200 3 Progra m Strategy , Pag e 1 5th e site . Th e grap h show s tha t zin c i n dustfal l a t

th e Trima c sit e i s consistentl y muc h lowe r

tha n tha t a t th e Danie l St . station . I n Augus t 2002 , th e leve l a t

Trima c jumpe du p t o equa l th e leve l recorde da t Danie l Monthl y Zin ci n Dustfal l

2001-200 2 7.00

6.0 0

5.00

4.00

= 3.0 0
2.0 0

1.00

0.00 

# A \1 I * ! 1 1 1 ! 

## 1 I Daniel Street- Trma c Stree t durin g th e smelte r

shutdown , bu t

the n i t returne dt o it s usua l lo w leve l b y th e followin g month . SmelterBufferZone • I n May 2001 , Tec k

Cominc o plante d8 0 evergreen s tree s (12-1 6 fee t tall ) i n th e are a near th e ol dtrainin g centre , i n th e vacan t lo t a t 30 3 Kootenay Avenu e an dalon g th e southwes t boundary o f

th e Tadanac soccer

pitch , followin g consultatio n wit h th e Tadanac Residents ' Association . • I n 2002 , 2 9 additiona l tree s were plante dt o complete th e stri p alon g th e Tadana c Soccer Pitc h boundary with Mapl e Road . Work Project

Assistance Program • Chery l Yate s an dSteve Hilt s travele dto Idah o i n Apri l 20 0 1 an dMissour i i n Jun e 200 1 t o stud y th e approache s bein g take n t o remediatio n an dris k managemen t

a t bot h inactiv e an dactiv e smeltin g an dminin g sites . • N o progres s wa s mad e towar dth e WPA P i n 20 0 1 - 2002 , du e t o tim e constraints . Follow-u p service s i n associatio n wit h th e cas e managemen t progra massiste dfamilie s wit h contaminate dyar dmaterial s disposal an d assistance/advic e wer e provide dt o peopl e doin g wor k project s o n a n ah-ho c basis . 200 3 Progra m Strategy , Pag e 1 6Cas e Managemen t Follow-up Blood

Testing, Home Visits, Environmental Assessments • Interio r

Healt h conducte dfollow-u p winte r bloo dtestin g clinic s i n Februar y 200 1 an dFebruar y 2002 , doin g repea t lea dtestin g o n childre n wit h elevate do r risin g bloo dlead s fro mth e previou s fal l clinic . Als o invite dar e infant s betwee n th e age s o f

6 - 1 1 months , wh o hav e no t previousl y bee n tested . • Beginnin g i n 2002 , childre n include di n th e cas e managemen t group were thos e wit h lea dlevel s > 1 0 (ig/dL , an dfo r childre n younge r

tha n 1 2 month s o f

age , thos e with lea dlevel s > 7 ug/dL . Th e cas e managemen t grou p als o include s thos e whos e lea dlevel s wer e noticeabl y increasin g (BLL greate r tha n 3 ug/dL ) over on e year . • I n general , th e follow-up winte r clinic s saw reduction s i n individual children' s bloo dlea dlevel s fro mSeptembe r to February . Thi s is an expecte doutcome , due t o seasonal variatio n i n weather , les s outdoo r pla y an dreduce dindoo r

lea ddus t level s i n Trail . • Follow-u p hom e visit s an din-hom e environmenta l assessment s wer e offere dt o al l familie s with childre n wh o hav e elevate do r increasin g leadlevels . Home visit s an denvironmenta l assessment s ar e don e primaril y withi n awee k o f reportin g an elevate do r

risin g lea dleve l t o aparent . I n 2001 , 1 2 hom e visit s wer e conducted . I n 2002 , 1 7 home visit s were don e i n Trail . Services/Assistance • Interio r

Healt h determine dappropriate an drequire dassistanc e t o b e offere di n 2001/2002 , i n term s o f

addressin g hous e dust , bar e soil , o r deterioratin g lead

base dpaint . Throughou t

200 1 an d2002 , 5 6 familie s benefite dfro massistanc e t o reduc e indoo r

dust , cove r

bar e soil , an dclea

n u p lead-base dpaint . • Mone y spen t

i n 2001-200 2 fo r

services/assistanc e throug h th e cas e managemen t programwa s $40,000, e venl y divide dbetwee n Interio r Healt h an dTeck Cominco . • Th e cas e load , fundin g level s an dassistanc e policie s hav e bee n reviewe db y Interio r Healt h an dTec k

Cominc o an dth e Trai l Healt h an dEnvironmen t Committe e a s well . Educatio n Community Education & Awareness • I n th e sprin g o f

2001 , Interio r

Healt h an dTec k

Cominco , wit h inpu t

fro mth e City o f Trail , develope dane w full-colou r brochur e outlinin g wha t

service s ar e availabl e an dwh o t o contac t abou t them . Th e brochur e wa s very wel l receive d b y th e community .

200 3 Progra m Strategy , Pag e 1 7• Als o i n 2001 , ane w log o wa s create dfo r th e Trai l Healt h an dEnvironmen t Committee . Thi s log o becam e th e foundatio n fo r a n annua l newslette r

maile dt o every househol di n Trail . • Interio r

Healt h ra n aradi o an dnewspape r educationa l campaig n throughou t th e spring , summe r

an dfal l o f

200 1 o n topic s suc h as : lea dan dpregnancy , bloo d lea dtesting , an dreducin g lea di n th e hom e an dyard . • I n 2002 , ane w Lea dHealth brochur e wa s develope dwhic h combine dan d update dth e informatio n foun di n th e origina l serie s o f Tas k Forc e brochures . Thi s ne w brochur e i s availabl e throug h th e Trai l Healt h Center , Dr . clinics , an d Trai l Regional Hospita

l maternity ward . Brochure s are als o maile dto ne w familie s whe n the y ar e invite dt o hav e thei r childre n tested . Early Childhood

Education • Interio r

Healt h staf f offe r presentation s t o group s suc h a s Mo m& Me , da y cares , nursery school s an dth e Buildin g Beautifu l Babies . • Storybook s aime da t

preschooler s ar e distribute dthroug h da y care s an d preschools , a s wel l a s materials , suc h a s soap an dstickers , t o g o wit h th e storyboo k program . Oversigh t an d Coordinatio n

• Th e Trai l Health an dEnvironmen t committe e me t

fo r th e firs t tim e o n Jul y 11 , 2001 . A t thi s meeting , th e committee : • mad e som e sligh t

modification s to the term s of referenc e drafte d b y th e Lea dTas k

Forc e an dadopte dthe m • discusse dwhethe r

th e scop e o f

issue s deal t

wit h b y th e committe e migh t includ e socio-economi c issue s • decide dt o invit e th e busines s community t o appoin t a representativ e t o th e committe e • A t subsequen t

meetings , th e committe e ha s hear dreport s fro mth e Interio r Health Authority an dTeck

Cominc o o n thei r

implementatio n o f

Tas k Forc e recommendation s an dha s mad e request s fo r additiona l informatio n o r action . • Th e committe e recentl y decide dtha t i t woul dlik e t o hea r informall y abou t

an y environmenta l issue s affectin g Trai l tha t th e City , Provinc e o r

Tec k Cominc o migh t becom e awar e o f

fro mtim e t o time .

200 3 Progra m Strategy , Pag e 1 8

# 200 3 PROGRAMS/SERVICE S

Thi s sectio n provide s informatio n o n ho w each o f th e Trai l Communit

y Lea dTask Force' s recommendation s wil l b e addresse di n 2003 . 

### 1. Source

Reduction 1. 1 Tec k

Cominc o Emission s Contro l an d Reductio n Purpose :

• Emissio n reduction s ar e stil l believe dt o b e th e singl e mos t effectiv e wa y to : • furthe r

reduc e children' s bloo dlea dlevel s • furthe r

reduc e possibl e healt h risk s fro mothe r smelte r contaminant s Description :

• Th e Tas k

Forc e recommende dthat :

• Tec k Cominc o shoul dregularl y (a t leas t semi-annually ) communicat e th e followin g to th e public : • Th e proces s b y whic h opportunitie s fo r furthe r emissio n reduction s ar e bein g explore d • Goals , projecte dtimeline s an dprogres s o n emissio n contro l project s (includin g plan s fo r

reducin g stac k

emissions , fugitiv e plan t emission s an dmaterial s handlin g losses) . • Tec k Cominc o shoul dultimatel y includ e it s goal s an dtimeline s fo r emissio n reduction s i n th e fina l remedia l pla n fo r th e are a Implementation/Responsibilities :

• Tec k Cominc o wil l continu e t o report regularl y t o th e Trai l Healt h & Environmen t Committe e o n it s plan s an dprogres s fo r furthe r emissio n reduction s

• Teck Cominc o wil l als o report o n emissio n reductio n plan s an dprogres s i n medi a advertisement s an di n th e join t Trai l Healt

h an dEnvironmen t

Committe e newsletter Stac k Emission s

• Teck Cominc o wil l continu e t o optimiz e th e operatio n o f it s stac k emissio n contro l systems , a s describe di n th e Statu s Repor t section , an dt o replac e equipmen t an d instrumentatio n a s needed . On-sit e Dus t

Contro l "Beach/Flats"

Material Unloading and

Mixing

• Ove r pas t several months , Tec k

Cominc o ha s manage dt o avoi ddumpin g an y drosse s at

th e "Flats " b y stayin g "i n balance " with thei r processes . 200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 1 9However , awater spra y syste mi s schedule dto b e installe do n th e bin s i n summe r 200 3 anyway . (-$20,000 )

• A win dfla g wa s installe dat th e Flat s s o that

mixing/screenin g activitie s coul db e cease dwhe n th e win di s blowin g away fro mTrai l Operations . • A "highway s type " loc-blo c an dten t structur e (25 ' x 60' ) i s bein g installe di n summer 200 3 at th e lea dmi x are as o tha t mixin g o f

secondary leadsmelte r feed s can b e don e unde r

shelter . Th e structur e wil l b e ope n at onl y on e end . (-30,000 )

• Additional pavin g i s bein g don e at th e Beach/Flat s t o provid e asmoother , easier to clea n surface . (-$10,000 ) Zinc "Roaster

Mix" Area

• A wate r

spray syste mwa s installe do n th e bin s i n sprin g 2003 , s o tha t th e material s can b e we t

preventatively , rathe r

than waitin g t o cal l awate r truc k whe n th e material s appear dry/dusty . (-$20,000 ) Effluent Treatment

Plant Residue Piles and

Other Stockpiles

• Cos t o f coverin g th e larg e ET P residu e pile s wit h ageomembran e i s abou t $450,000 . Thi s ite mha s bee n include di n th e Trai l Op s capita l plannin g process , fo r

consideratio n alon g wit

h other possibl e environmental projects . • Alternative s t o coverin g thi s pil e are bein g implemente dyea r - e.g . more frequen t sprayin g wit

h dus t suppressant

• Al l uncovere dstockpile s wer e spraye do n abou t May 6,2003 . • Repair s t o existin g geomembran e cover s o n stockpile s wil l b e mad e thi s summer . (-$30,000 )

Estimate dExpenditures : (considere dexternal t o th e three-agenc y actio n budget ) Tec k Cominc o Emissio n contro l system s operatio n an dimprovement >$250,000 Dus t contro l procedures/system s improvemen t ~ $ 110,00 0 On-site greenin g project s $38,00 0

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 2 0

## 2 . Communit y Monitorin g 2. 1 Bloo d Lea d Testin g

• t o identif

y childre n withelevate do r

risin g bloo dlea dlevel s • t o asses s community-wid e impac t o f remedia l action s • t o determin e whethe r

th e bloo dlea dgoal s hav e bee n reache d Description : • Regula r annua l bloo dlea dtestin g i n lat e summer/earl y fal l wil l b e recommende dfo r childre n age d6-3 6 month s (olde r childre n wil l no t

b e denie dtestin g i f

thei r parent s ar e concerned) . • Follow-up bloo dtestin g wil l b e recommende dfo r childre n withbloo dlea dlevel s o f 1 0 ug/d Lo r higher , an dfo r

childre n unde r

1 2 month s wh o hav e bloo dlea dlevel s ove r 7 ug/dL . • A complet e bloo dlea dsurve y o f childre n age d6-7 2 month s wil l b e conducte di n September o f 2005 , the n ever

y 5 years . • Bloo dsample s wil l b e collecte db y venipuncture an danalyze dfo r lead . I n 2003 , aportabl e bloo dleadanalyzer

wil l b e purchase dan duse ddurin g testin g clinics . Thi s wil l allo w Interio r Healt hstaf f t o report bloo dlea dresult s t o familie s whil e the y are o n site . Bloo d testin g result s wil l b e provide dt o famil y physicians , i f requested . • Summary result s will b e presente dt o th e Trai l Healt han dEnvironmen t

Committe e i n November 2003 . • A rigorou s quality contro l programwil l b e followe dt o ensure accurat e an dreliabl e results , usin g B C Children' s an dWomen' s Hospita l laboratory . Implementation/Responsibilities :
• Interio r

Healt hwil l conduc t

th e bloo dtestin g clinics , arrang e an dpay fo r laboratory analyse s an dreport

th e results . Fundin g committed : Interio r Healt h Equipment , Supplie s an dService s $ 1,000 Annua l Fal l Clini c $6,50 0 Annua l Winter

Clini c $ 1,500 Support staf f S3.5Q O $12,50 0

200 3 Progra m Strategy , Pag e 2 1

## 2. 2 Environmenta l Monitorin g

• T o asses s th e collective , community-wid e impac t o f remedia l action s (e.g . emissio n reductions , stree t

washing , greening , soi l barriers , dus t suppression ) 2.2. 1 Ambien t

Air Monitorin g Description :

• Ambien t

(community ) ai r

monitorin g i s on e o f

th e bes t measure s fo r

monitorin g change s i n communit y conditions . Teck

Cominc o operate s tw o mai n ambient air monitorin g station s tha t measure metal s (lead , zinc , arseni c an dcadmium) i n th e air . Thes e tw o station s (a t Butle r Par k an dGenelle ) sampl e th e ai r fo r 2 4 hour s onc e every 2 days . I n addition , Teck Cominc o i s continuin g to operat e it s ambien t air monitorin g statio n a

t Wes t Trail a t leas t unti l th e en do f

200 3 an dit s station s at

Columbi aGarden s an dNorthport unti l 2005 . Dat a fro mth e Wes t

Trai l statio n hav e bee n relie dupo n b y th e Lea dTask Forc e an dTrai l Healt

h an dEnvironmen t

Committe e fo r

th e pas t 6 year s o r

so . Therefore , th e relationshi p betwee n dat acollecte da

t W . Trai l an dth e Butle r

Par k statio n wil l b e reviewe da t th e en do f

2003 . Implementation/Responsibilities :

• Tec k Cominc o Environmen t

wil l collec t

an danalyz e samples , with revie w b y th e B C Ministr y o f Water , Lan d& Ai r

Protectio n an dTrai l Healt h & Environmen t

Committee . 2.2. 2 Dustfal l Monitorin g Networ k Description :

• Dustfal l ( ameasur

e o f particle s settlin g ou t

o f th e air ) i s anothe r

excellent mean s o f monitorin g change s i n communit y condition s an dassessing curren t rate s o f contamination . Teck Cominc o ha s operate daregula r networ k o f abou t 1 5 dustfal l station s i n th e communit y fo r several decades . Fro m199 2 to 2000 , Tec k Cominc o operate dadditiona l station s fo r

th e Lea dTas k

Force , bringin g th e total networ k to abou t 3 8 stations .

• A mem o t o Tec k

Cominc o fro mTrai l Lea dProgra mstaf f o n Octobe r

5 , 2000 , recommende dtha t

6 o f th e specia l dustfal l station s operate dfo r th e Trai l Lea dProgra m b e retaine dan dadde dt o Teck Cominco' s regula

r dustfal l monitorin g network .

• Dustfal l jar s are change dmonthl y an danalyze dfo r total dustfal l an dloadin g (mg/dm 2 /month ) o f

lead , arsenic , cadmiu man dzinc . Implementation/Responsibilities :

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 2 2• Tec k Cominc o Environmen t

wil l collec t

th e sample s fro mth e networ k an dsample s wil l continu e t o b e analyze dat Tec k Cominc o Analytica l Services , wit hrevie w b y B C Ministry o f Water , Lan d& Ai r

Protectio n an dTrai l Health& Environmen t Committee .

2.2. 3 Stree t

Dus t Monitorin g Description :

• Leadi n stree t

dus t wa s monitore db y th e Trai l Lea dProgra ma s part o f th e Sentine l Home s project . Stree t

dus t lea dloading s decline db y abou t 50 % afte r

1997 . Implementation/Responsibilities :

• Stree t dus t samplin g wil l b e conducte dat adensity o f

on e samplin g statio n pe r neighbourhood , excep t

ther e wil l b e 2 station s i n Eas t Trail . Stree t

dus t samplin g station s are locate dnea

r dustfal l monitorin g stations . • Tec k Cominc o Environmen t

wil l collec t

an danalyz e th e samples , wit h revie w b y th e Trai l Healt h & Environmen t

Committee . Fundin g committed : Tec k Cominc o Ambient Air Monitorin g $22.00 0 Dustfal l Monitorin g $ 15,00 0 Stree t Dus t Monitorin g $3.00 0 $40,00 0

COMMUNITY MONITORIN G TOTAL : $60,50 0

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 2 3

## 3 . Communit y Exposur

e Reductio n 3. 1 Dus t Contro l

• t o furthe r

reduc e children' s bloo dlea dlevel s b y reducin g dus t movemen t

an d accumulatio n i n th e communit y

• t o furthe r

reduc e possibl e healt h risk s fro mothe r smelte r contaminant s Description : Greening :

• Th e Tas k

Forc e state dtha t

greenin g o f

bare area s i s ahig h priority , an d recommende dtha t

Tec k Cominc o an dth e City communicate thei r plan s fo r

this . • A n inventory o f

remainin g bare area s wil l b e prepare dan duse dt o se t prioritie s fo r action . Area s wher e actio n i s take n wil l b e monitore dt o ensur e success . Dus t Suppressio n o n Roads :

• Dus t suppressan t

wil l continu e t o b e applie dt o alley s an dothe r unpave darea s i n Trai l a t leas t onc e pe r year . Stree t Cleaning :

• Th e Tas k

Forc e recommende dtha t stree t flushin g an dsweepin g b e performe d accordin g t o th e correc t

procedur e an da t

th e curren t

frequenc y i n th e City o f Trai l an dRiverval e (highway s maintenanc e contracto r responsibilit y i n Riverval e an do n highway s throug h Trail) . Miscellaneou s Dus t

Contro l

• Truck s transportin g concentrate s t o Tec k Cominc o fro mWanet areloa dstatio n shoul db e require dt o take appropriat e step s t o reduc e losse s alon g th e route . Implementation/Responsibilities :

• Teck Cominc o an dth e Cit

y o f Trail , wit h assistanc e fro mth e Trai l Healt h & Environmen t Committee , wil l identif

y an dprioritiz e candidat e area s fo r greening . • Th e City o f

Trai l wil l arrang e an dsupervis e th e sprayin g o f magnesiu mchloride . • Tec k Cominc o will monito r

an dreport

o n th e step s that

are bein g take n b y Trimac . • Tec k Cominc o wil l als o continu e greenin g o n it s ow n properties . Fundin g committed : Tec k Cominc o Cit

y o f Trai l Greenin g cit y land s $ 10,00 0 $ Dus t Suppressio n o n Road s $5,00 0 $4,40 0 Stree t Cleanin g (har dt o sa y ho w muc h i s extra ) $25.000 ? 200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 2 4$15,00 0 $29,400



## 3. 2 Smelte r

Buffe r Zon e

• t o reduc e th e exposur e o f resident s t o dust s fro mTec k Cominc o emission s (primaril y fro mth e intermediat e produc t stockpiles ) Description :

• Tec k Cominc o wil l develop , communicat e an dimplemen t apla n t o expand/enhanc e th e vegetativ e buffe r

withi n an dadjacen t

t o th e propert y boundar y (e.g . mor e trees , earth mounds) , commencin g i n Sprin g 200 1 an dcontinuin g a s stockpile s ar e consumed . • Tec k Cominc o wil l endeavo r

no t t o remov e an y additiona l structure s fro mthi s zon e unti l th e vegetativ e buffe r

i s wel l establishe dan dha s reache daheigh t o f at leas t 2 0 feet . Implementation/Responsibilities :

• I n Ma

y 2001 , Tec k

Cominc o plante d8 0 evergreen s tree s (12-1 6 fee t tall ) i n th e are anea

r th e ol dtrainin g centre , i n th e vacan t lo t at 30 3 Kootenay Avenu e an dalon g th e southwes t boundar y o f th e Tadanac socce r

pitch , followin g consultatio n with th e Tadanac Residents ' Association . • I n May 2002 , Tec k

Cominc o plante d2 9 additiona l larg e evergree n tree s t o complet e th e stri p alon g th e Tadanac soccer pitc h boundary . • Th e vegetativ e buffe r

strip wil l no w b e monitore db y Tec k Cominco , wit h replacemen t o f deado r disease dtree s a s needed . Fundin g committed : Tec k Cominc o Tadana c buffe r

stri p tree s projec t

fo r 200 3 $ 0

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 2 5

### 3. 3 Wor k Projec t Assistanc e Progra m

t o encourag e homeowner s an dcontractor s t o follo w precaution s whe n undertakin g excavation , construction , demolitio n o r renovatio n projects , i n orde r t o minimiz e dus t exposur e t o worker s an dresidents . t o provid e assistanc e t o peopl e wh o nee dt o dispos e o f contaminate dsoi l o r

dust . thi s progra mi s no t

mean t t o encourag e peopl e t o undertak e project s suc h a s soi l replacement . Instead , i t

i s intende dt o mak e i t

safe r an deasie r

fo r peopl e who , o n thei r own , hav e decide dt o d o som e work o n thei r properties . Description :

• A progra mshoul db e se t u p t o provid e assistanc e wit h excavation , construction , demolitio n o r

renovatio n projects . • Th e assistanc e fo r

suc h project s shoul daddres s dus t control , worke r

exposure , residen t exposure , neighbours ' exposure , an ddisposal o f contaminate dmaterial s (e.g . soil , dust , paint chips , painte dmaterials) .

• Assistanc e offere dthroug h th e progra mma y include : • Advic e concernin g step s t o tak e t o minimiz e exposur e t o contaminate dsoi l an d dus t
• Fre e disposa l o f

contaminate dsoi l o r

dus t
• Fre e clea n soi l t o replac e th e volum e o f excavate dcontaminate dsoil , i f necessary . • A n educatio n progra mshoul db e se t u p s o tha t

th e community (includin g contractors ) i s aware o f

th e WPA P an dho w i t

works . 

### • A trainin g progra mshoul db e se t u p fo r contractor s an dpubli c work s employee s s o tha t the y competen t

i n th e contro l o f

dus t an ddisposal o f

contaminate d materials . • Bunke r

Hil l Superfun dSit e ha s se t u p acomprehensiv e progra mtha t ha s bee n studie da s apossibl e mode l fo r som e element s o f

Trail' s program . Implementation/Responsibilities :

• Tec k Cominc o will develo p an dfun dthi s program . A contracto r may b e hire dt o assis t

wit h programdevelopment . Programdevelopmen t wil l begi n i n 2003 . Fundin g committed : Tec k Cominc o Programdevelopment

$20,00 0 COMMUNIT Y EXPOSUR E REDUCTIO N TOTAL : $64,40 0
200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 2 6

## 4. Case

Management

• t o reduc e higher-ris k

children' s exposure t o lea di n dust , soi l an dpaint . Description : 

### • Th e followin g service s wil l b e provide dfo r familie s o f

childre n withbloo dlea

dlevel s o f 1 0 ug/d Lo r

higher , an dfamilie s o f

childre n unde r

1 2 month s ag e wit hbloo dlea dlevel s greate r tha n 7 (ig/dL : • Hom e visit s t o provid e counseling/advic e o n reducin g leadexposure • Bloo dan denvironmental result s wil l b e reviewe dwithth e family , a behaviou r an dlifestyl e assessment

completed , an dpractical advic e to lower lea dexposure given . • In-home environmental assessment 

### • T o determin e whic harea s shoul db e targete dfo r lea dhazardcontro l (dust , soil , paint ) • Assistanc e i n addressin g bar e soil , hous e dust , o r deterioratin g lead-base d pain t
• Follow-u p monitorin g o f bloo dlea dlevel s • Children' s bloo dlea dresult s wil l b e reviewe dat subsequen t

clinic s (winter o r spring ) an dfurthe r

assistance/service s wil l b e offere di f required . • Assistanc e t o day care an dpreschoo l centre s i n addressin g bare soi l o r indoo r dust . Implementation/Responsibilities : • Interio r Healt hwill conduc t

follow-u p fo r

familie s o f children wh o hav e elevate do r risin g bloo dlea dlevels . Interior

Health , wit

hinput fro mTec k Coininco , where requested , will determin e th e appropriat e an dnecessar y assistanc e t o b e offered . Interio r Healt han dTec k Cominc o will eac hprovid e up t o $10,00 0 fo r th e 200 3 cas e managemen t

program . • Teck Cominc o wil l provid e additional fundin g i f require dto addres s urgen t

need s o f any chil dfoun dto hav e abloo dleadlevel o f 4 0 u-g/dl o r

higher . Fundin g committed : Interio r Healt hTeck Cominc o Cas e managemen t

materials/service s $ 10,000 $ 10,00 0

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 2 7

## 5. Education

5. 1 Community Educatio n an d Awarenes s Purpose :

• t o informth e publi c (particularl y ne w parent s an dne w residents ) abou t wha t the y can d o t o kee p children' s bloo dlea

dlevel s low , an dto let

peopl e kno w abou t

availabl e service s Description :

• Th e followin g communit y educatio n progra melement s wil l b e provided :

• brochure s • informatio n fo r

familie s ne w t o Trai l • display stan dat

community event s suc h a s Tedd y Bear Picni c • radi o an dnewpape r

advertisin g • newsletter s • informatio n fo r

pregnan t wome n an dne w mother s Implementation/Responsibilities :

• Interior

Healt h an dTec

k Cominc o wil l wor

k together with th e Trai l Healt

h & Environment Committe e t o develo p material s an dcampaigns . Fundin g wil l b e provide db y Interio r Healt h an dTeck

Cominc o a s outline dbelow . Fundin g committed : Interio r Health Tec k

Cominc o Newsletter

$1,50 0 $1,50 0 Work Projec t Assistanc e ProgramBrochur e $3,00 0 Advertisin g $4,00 0 Communit

y project s $1.000 $6,50 0 $4,500

200 3 Progra m Strategy , Pag e 2 8

## 5. 2 Earl y Childhoo dEducatio n

Purpose :

• t o encourag e pre-schooler s t o adop t health y behaviour s i n orde r to : • keep thei r

lea dexposur e ris k

an dbloo dlea dlevel s lo w • kee p the mi n goo dgenera l health Description :

• The followin g earl y childhoo deducatio n progra melement s wil l be provided :

• visit s t o day cares , nurser y schools , Buildin g Beautifu l Babie s program , Mo man dM e • provisio n o f

storyboo k

t o ne w chil dcar e provider s • provisio n o f

material s to g o wit h storyboo k progra m(e.g . soaps , stickers ) • Thi s opportunit y t o reac h pre-schooler s wil l als o b e use dt o presen t othe r hygiene , nutritio n an dhealth messages . Implementation/Responsibilities :

• Interio r

Healt h wil l wor

k togethe r wit h th e Trai l Health & Environmen t Committe e t o develo p material s an dcampaigns . Fundin g wil l b e provide db y Interio r Health . Fundin g committed : Interio r Healt h Educationa l an dpromotiona l material s $ 1,000 EDUCATIO N TOTAL : 512,00 0

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 2 9

# I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. Oversight and Coordination

• t o ensur e tha t

th e goal s ar e attaine di n atimel y manne r • t o ensur e effectiv e monitoring , coordinatio n an devaluatio n o f progres s towar dth e goal s • t o ensur e effectiv e oversigh t by , an dcommunicatio n with , th e communit y Description :

• A committe e ha s bee n establishe dt o ensur e tha t th e progra mdoe s no t

suffe r fro m fragmentatio n o r

los s o f credibility an dt o facilitat e publi c communicatio n an doversight . • Th e committe e wil l ensure that there i s n o discontinuity o f servic e betwee n dissolutio n o f th e Trai l Communit y Lea dTas k Forc e an dimplementatio n o f th e fina l remedia l pla n fo r th e area . • Th e committe e include s representative s fro mth e City o f Trail , Interio r

Healt h Authority , B C Ministry o f

Water , Lan d& Ai r

Protection , Tec k

Cominco , Unite dSteelworker s o f America , th e Greate r

Trai l Communit

y Healt h Counci l an dth e communit y (simila r t o th e curren t

Tas k Force) . • Th e committe e ha s bee n appointe db y Cit y o f Trail . • A t it s firs t meetin g th e committe e shoul drevie w th e Draf t Term s o f

Referenc e tha t

wa s bee n prepare db y th e Trai l Community Lea dTas k Force . • Th e initial mandat e o f th e committe e shoul db e t o monitor , coordinat e an dadvis e o n th e implementatio n o f

th e Tas k Force' s recommendation s an dt o participat e directl y i n developmen t

o f th e fina l remedia l plan . Onc e th e remedia l pla n ha s bee n approved , th e rol e an dreportin g responsibility o f th e committe e shoul db e re-evaluated . Responsibilities/Actions :

• Th e Trai l Healt

h & Environmen t

Committe e operate s a s acommitte e o f th e Cit y o f Trail . Membership : Chair : Diete r Bog s Mayor , City o f Trai l Ames , Dr . Nelso n Interio r Healt h Authority Davies , Kate Communit y Representativ e Graham , Al Councillor , Cit y o f Trai l (alternate ) Dimock , Dr . Bars s Communit y Representativ e Hilts , Stev e Tec k Cominc o Metals , Ltd . Johnson , Car

l B C Ministr y o f Water , Lan d& Air

Protectio n Joseph , Ro n Community Representativ e Kenyon , Graha mCommunit y Representativ e Homey , Ralp h Councillor , Villag e o f Warfiel d Rakuson , Marylyn n Greate r Trai l Communit

y Health Counci l Yates , Chery l Interio r Healt h Authority Wynn , To mUnite dSteelworker s o f America , Loca l 48 0 Whitlock , Rosemar

y Recordin g secretar y

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 3 0

### TECHNICA L COMMITTEE

Role : Term s o f

referenc e ye t

t o b e established . Meetings : Thi s committe e wil l mee t a s needed . Members: Dr. Nelson Ames -Interior Health Authority - Chair Nelso n wa s involve dwit hth e origina l Trai l Lea dStud y i n 198 9 a s amaster s studen t with UB C an dserve da s amembe r o f th e LeadTas k

Forc e throughou t

it s duration . Nelso n i s Medica l HealthOffice r fo r Kootena y Regio n fo r

Interio r Healt hAuthority . Phone : (250 ) 354-685 3 Fax : (250) 354-630

4 E-mail : nelson.ames@interiorhealth.c a Cheryl Yates -Interior

Health Authority Chery l serve da s th e researc hnurs e wit hth e origina l Trai l Lea dStud y i n 1989 . Chery l wa s Healt

hCoordinato r

fo r th e Trai l Lea dProgram . Chery l i s no w th e publi c healthnurs e i n charg e o f

Lea dHealthService s fo r

th e Interio r

HealthAuthority . Phone : (250 ) 368-LEA D (368-5323 ) Fax : (250 ) 364-058 0 E-mail : cheryl.yates@interiorhealth.c a Steve Hilts - Teck

Cominco Metals, Ltd. Stev e wa s Environmenta l Coordinato r fo r th e Trai l Lea dProgra man di s no w Superintenden t

o f Environmenta l Remediatio n fo r Tec k Cominc o Trai l Operations . Phone : (250 ) 364-438 5 Fax : (250 ) 364-414 4 E-mail : steven.hilts@teckcominco.co m Kate Davies - Community Representative Phone : (250 ) 368-607 8 

### Fax : E-mail :

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Page 3 1

## SUMMAR Y O F 200 3 FUNDIN G COMMITMENT S Interio rTec k Health Cominc o City o f Trai l Tota l SOURC E REDUCTIO N Tec k Cominc o Emission s & Dus t Contro l >$400,00 0 (no t include di n totals ) COMMUNIT Y MONITORIN G Bloo dLea dTestin g Environmenta l Monitorin g $12,500 $40,00 0 $52,50 0

COMMUNIT Y EXPOSURE REDUCTIO N Dus t Contro l Greenin g project s Wor k Projec t Assistanc e Progra

m $5,000 $10,00 0 $20,00 0 $29,400 $64,40 0

CAS E MANAGEMEN T EDUCATIO N Community Educatio n & Awarenes s Earl y Childhoo dEducatio n $10,000 $10,00 0 $6,50 0 $1,000 $4,50 0 $20,00 0 $12,000



### 200 3 TOTAL S 

## $30,00 0 $89,50 0 $29,40 0 $148,90 0

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 3 2

# Reference s

Cominc o Ltd. , 1993 . Emission s Managemen t Report . Trai l Operations , 2 5 pages . Hertzma n C , WardH , Ame s N , Kell y S an dYate s C , 1991 . Childhoo dlea dexposur e i n Trai l revisited . Canadian Journa l o f Publi c Health , 82 , 385-391 . Ne dLC , Johanse n HL , Schmitt N , Paga n R T an dHewit t D , 1978 . Bloo dlea dlevel s i n childre n i n tw o Britis h Columbi acommunities . In : D D Hemphil l (ed. ) Trac e Substance s i n Environmenta l Healt

h XII ; Proceeding s o f

th e Universit y o f

Missouri' s 25t

h Annua l Conferenc e o n Trac e Substance s i n Environmenta l Health , 6- 8 Jun e 1978 , pp . 403-410 . Columbia , Missouri . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 1986 . Ai r Quality Criteri afo r

Lead . Environmenta l Assessmen t

an dCriteri aOffice , Researc h Triangl e Park , N.C .

200 3 Progra mStrategy , Pag e 3 3

### TRAI L LEA D PROGRA M Power Point Presentatio n use di n publi c meeting s "Fall 2003 Blood

Lead Results"

# Fal l 200 3 Bloo d Lea d Result s 

# Presentatio n Overvie w

# Participatio n Rate s 200 3 Participatio n Breakdow n b y Neighborhood s >/o(No. ) Participatin g % Childre n Participatin g # Childre n Contacte d # Childre n

Participatin g <3 years) AREA3 (Children

<3 years) 

# 72 % 

# (13 ) 84 % 

## (16 ) 100 % (2 ) 

# 50 % (2 ) ( < 3 years ) 84 % 

# (26 ) 

# AREA2 (Children

< 3 years) Glenmerr

y 

## 50 % (5 ) Shaver s Benc h 

## 68 % 

## (13 ) Sunningdal e 

# 73%(44 ) ARE A 2 TOTA L

# Participation

Rates (conn) Group Are a2/ 3



# Participation Rate (2003) Infant s not

tested82 % (1 4 of 17 ) before Cas e Management

100 % ( 9 o f

9 ) 

# Participation Rate (2002) 94 % 94 % Other (<36 mos.) 81 % (5 9 

# o f 73 ) 

# 66 %

# Bloo d Lea d Histogram : Are a 2/ 3 (Age 

# 6 mos. 

# - 

# 36 mos.) 22%^ = lOjjg/d L

5%> = 15M9/d L 1%>=20|jg/d L 0%>=25pg/d l

0-12- 3 4- 5 15-

*

" • 1 'i ' 1 3 \ ,.,:-:.,, , 

## Bloo d Lea d Range s (jjg/dL )

^24 - 26 - 28 - 

## 1 7 1 9 2 f 2 3 2 5 2 7 2 9

# Bloo d Lea d Histograms : 1991-200 3 shift

Area s 2 & 3 : GHildr6iri?l < 3 7 rhortth s

a , 15 % 

# i o > 199 1 199 6 

# 200 3

Blood Lead Range s (jjg/dL )

# 200 5 Goa l Tren d i n Percentag e o f Childre n wit h Bloo d Lea d Level s < 1 0 pg/d l

(6-36 months throughout) 

## 100 % 

## - c

## 90 % 

## - £ 80 % 

## - T3 

## = 70 % 

## - £ 60 % 

## - 

## ? 50 % 

## - 0 ) 

## § > 40 % 

## - 

# § 30 % 

# • £ 20 % 

## < * • 10 % 

## - 0 % - 

# . M . * 1 * 1

- * 1 

## Pre-KIVCE T r

## ' " (1991-1996 ) I '' * T X i 

# „ 

# f

. _ - 

# [ - -i--. ]



# . f

.

I /

Post-KIVCE T " rI ^^

^ Z (1996-2000 )

_l_^»i- - - L 

# r" ^ 

# f

, ' i i i 

# i i i i 

# * . i i 

# ^ r

# Compariso n wit h "background "

2 5

T 3 

### o > 2 0 0 ) T 3 CO 7 3 O

_ O C D O 

### en CO u . 0) 

### 1 5
1 0 - 5 - 

## Histor

yo f Children' s Bloo d Lead Level s i n Trai l

Trai l 1975 : 1- 3 yr s 

### 1989 : 2- 5 yr s 

### 1991-00 : 6-5 9 mo s 20 0 W 3 6-3 6 mos . 

### Ne w Lea dSmelte r starte d

U S A\ £ - 6 mo s -6yr s

u> r> - O) O >

O) CO



### e n u > 0 0 CT) 6- 0 5. 7

e n T - «* > u > f * e n T-O O o o e n e n e n e n e n o o 

### cncncncnojoo o V T

- T

- T

- * ~ T - C M C M



### - Trail : 12-36 mos . 

### Trail : 24-60 mos . •Trail : 6-6 0 mos . • T rail : G-3 6 mos . U S Nationa l Avsrag e

# 200 3

3 0

_2 5 i T J 

## "o j 

## 2 0 T J C O 4 C - 

## o 1 5



# _ J
" S i n 

# o 

# i u • o C D 

# (0)

(0) (0 ) 

# (0) (0)



# (1 ) (1 ) (4) (0 )

(0) (2 ) 

# (10 ) B 

# __ « 

# • ^ °

1 

# Area l ( ) Numbe ro f childre n Are a 2

i n rang e i 

# Area 3

-s - Averag e7

3 "bJ O

7 3 O O i— * 

### PQ 

## c 03

O) 

## E o C D 

# Bloo d Lea d Ge o Mea n b yAre a

(ag e 6-3 6 month s throughout )

Are a3

# Compariso n wit h Othe rSite s

City/Regio n Countr yNature o f sit e Por t Piri e Australi a Trai l Canad a Rouyn-Norand a Canad a Nation-wid e U.S.A . Ag e o f kid s teste d Primar yP b smelte r Primar yP b smelte r Primar yC u smelte r Urban/rura l (NHANES ) 

# Year Average \ 

# Bloo dLead Leve l 

# 9 mo s t o 5 yr s 

# 200 1 6 mo s t o 3 yr s 200 3 6 mo s t o 5 yr s 

# 199 9 1 t o 5 yr s 1996- f



# 9 9 9. 8 5. 7 5. 2 2. 0

# Thre e Distinc t Period s Geometri c Mea n Bloo d Pb , 6-3 6 mos . throughou t

11. 6



## 200 1 remove dbecaus e i t wa s abnormal : 3 + mos . complet e smelte r shutdow n 198 9 199 1 199 2 199 3 199 4 199 5 199 6 199 7 199 8 199 9 200 0 200 1 200 2 200 3

# Lea d i n Air : Mont h o f Augus t

Only , Wes t Trai l Statio n | Lea

d (H9/m

3 

# ) 94-'9 6 

# avg . 1.2 0 199 7 0.5 0 199 8 0.2 2 199 9 0.2 9 200 0 

# 0.4 2 200 1 0.0 3 200 2 

# 0.1 8 200 3 

# 0.1 7

# Lea d i n Dustfall : Mont h o f Augus t

Only , Are a 2/

3 Lea d (mg/m 2



# /day ) 94-9 6 

# avg . 

# 2. 0 

# 199 7 1. 5 

# 199 8 0. 6 

# 199 9 1. 4 200 0 

# 1. 4 200 1 0.2 3 

# 200 2 0.54 

# 200 3 0.4 9o > 3 .

• a re a ) 

# Trend s i n Geometri c Mea n Bloo d Lea d an d

Augus t Ai rLea d (Childre n age d 6-3 6 months )

199 1 199 2 199 3 199 4 199 5 199 6 199 7 199 8 199 9 200 0 200 1 200 2 200 3 • a o

_ o CQ 0 ) § + ~ C D £ o C D (£ 5


## Susp . Paitic . P b i n Are a2/ 3 i n August-H—Geo . mea n bloo dP b2.4 O 

# Ai rLea d Level s

Wes t Trai l St n Ja n 200 1 t o presen t

Lea d i n Ambien t Ai r (Wes t Trail )

(In total partlculate)

Lea d •Quarterl y Avg . B C Objectiv e (annua l avg.) J

### TRAI L LEA D PROGRA M , Communit

y Newslette r "Reachin g Ou t- Volum e Two , Issu e One , Sprin g 2003 'Lead Level s u p Slightl y Durin g Hot , Dry-Summe r 

## Si ' -f ?"'^" ; 

## " ^^^^iSj^ ®

HEALTH *

ENVIRONMEN

T

VOLUM E T , W O , I S SU E O- N E , S P ' R. I N G 2 0* 0 3 

# Lea d Level s U p Slightl y Durin g Hot , Dr y Summe r pag e 2 What istec k

Cominco Doin g to^Reduc e Emissions ? 

### pag e 3 ! What i s Bein g Don e to Contro l Dus t Level s out . I n th e Community ? pag e 4 _, _. Thalliu m Level s Low I n Trai l

Despit e a general-downwar d tren d i n children' s bloo d lea d level s I n Trail , testin g i n 200 2 showe d slightl yhighe r * f .averag e level s tha n th e previou s year . Whil e th e result s are^ii o caus e fo ralarm , they-serv e a s a goo d reminde ro f '.th e importanc e o f persona l an d househol d habit s tha t reduce exposure t o lead . Wh yth e increas e I n lea d level s las t fall?'"AlthoughTec k Cominco shu t dow n th e smelte ri n Augus t an d followe d th e sam e dus

t contro l procedure s use d durin g th e longe r shutdow n I n 2001 , more dus t seem s i d hav e sprea d into th e communit

yi n 2002. " . Fo rth e pas t tw o years , th e Trai l Lea d Progra m ha s foquse d it s testin g o n childre n les s tha n 3 years old . That' s th e mos t vulnerabl e ag e grou p du e t o a tendenc yfo rlittle . explorers t o pu t finger s an d othe r ' object s int o thei rmouth s often .

' Participatio n i n th e bloo d lea d testin g clini c wa s dow n slightl yi n

. 2002 , wit h 75 % o f .invite d childre n attending . Th e grap h t o the-..righ t show s th e histor

yo f children' s bloo d lea d level s i n Trai l compare d t o backgroun d lea d level s i n : th e U.S. ' The . rang e o f bloo d lea d level s i n 200 2 wa s 1.5. - 22. 8 ug/dL . Eighty-thre e percen t o f childre n ha d level s below . 1 0 ug/dLan d 9'2%.had level s belo w 1 5 ug/dL . I n 200 3 we hop e t o com e eve n close rt o th e goal s se t fo r2005 : i . • At leas t 90 % o f childre n wit h 'bloo d lea d level s les s tha n 1 0 ug/dL . • •-At leas t 99 % o f childre n wit h bloo d lea d level s les s than , 15"ug/d L . "

. Whil e we'r e makin g progres s towar d long-ter m goals , infant s an d toddler s i n thi s communit yare stil l vulnerabl e t o lea d exposure . Fortunately , ther e ar e eas yway s t o minimiz e thei rrisk . Han d washin g [ s on e of th e healthies t continued

to page 2 

### Histor y o f Children' s Blood Lea d Level s i n Trai l"Lead Levels Up Slightly During Hot, Dry Summer"

continued

from page 1 habit s w e ca n teac h ou ryoungsters . It' s als o importan t fo rfamilie s t o remov e shoe s a t th e doo ran d kee p floor s clea n b yvacuumin g an d dam p mopping . T o al l th e familie s wh o participate d i n th e fal l 200 2 bloo d lea d testin g clinic , w e sa ya bi g than k you ! W e ca n al l d o ou rpart t o kee p childre n i n thi s communit yhealthy. « 

# What I s Tec k

Cominco Doin g To Reduc e Stac k Emission s An d Dust Fro m It s Property ? Wh y I s i t importan t to reduc e emission s further ? th e environmen t woul d b e t o kee p improvin g ai rquality . Eve n thoug h Folk s who'v e lived'i n th e Trai l are a fo ryoun g childre n receiv e mos t o f thei r a whil e know tha t th e ai rqualit yhas , jea d exposure ' throug h hand-to Improve d substantially , especiall y sinc e th e he w Tec k

Cominc o lea d smelte rstarte d up'i n 1997 . Not onl y

. ha s th e ai rbecom e visibl ycleaner , bu t level s of lead , arseni c an d cadmi u m "i n communit

yai rdroppe d by 7 0 - .80 % fro m 199 5 t o 1999 . mout h activityrathe rtha n breathing , muc h of th e lea d i n dus t i n thei r environment s come s -fro m recent

_ smelte remissions . . Ho ware stac k

emission s bein g reduced ?



### Annua l Averag e Ai r Lea d Level s Wes t Trai l Statio n 1.20 1.0 0 .o.so

_ 

# y

° 

### 1 3 i - 0.40_ j 0.20

_ I n 2001 , Tec k Cominc o bega n a However , th e Trai l Communit yLea d projec t t o fin d th e to p prioritie s fo r Task ' Force recommende d i n 200 1 ' improvement s i n emissio n controfs . 'tha t th e bes t wa yt o further - reduc e Th e projec t focuse d firs t o n th e potentia l healt h risks fro m metal s I n variou s type' s o f system s tha t captur e metal s befor e the yca n ge t u p stacks . Th e plants tha t wer e releasin g th e mos t metal s

. wer e • addresse d . first . Operatin g procedure s fo r » th e plant s an d fo rthei r emissio n contro l equip men t wer e Improve d s o tha t thei rperformanc e woul d b e mor e consistent . Environmenta l monitorin g result s are reporte d dail y t o th e plant

s t o provid e feedbac k o n performance. , Th e grap h belo w show s that , othe rtha n i n 200 1 whe n Trai l Operation s wa s • shu t dow n fo rove r• 3 Wes t Trai l statio n . . months , 200 2 sa wth e BC.Objective.(AnnuaiAvg. ) . lo'west.annua l averag e ai r

____ _Worl d Healt h Org . Guidelin e (Annua l Avg . 0.60_ |

0.2

6 OI2

7 0.2 5 lead leve l since th e new lead smelte r starte d operating. " Ho wI s dus t fro m th e property , bein g reduced ? Ato p priorit yfor . 200 3 fo r.Trail ' Operation s i s t o fin d way s .t o furthe r reduc e th e ris k

o f dus t losse s fro m materia l stockpile s o n th e property . Currently , man yo f th e larg e stock pile s ar e covere d wit h "tarps " an d other s ar e spraye d wit h dust sup- , pressan t an d monitore d regularly . On-propertyroad s ar e als o cle'ane d frequently . However , a s note d i n th e story ' o n bloo d lea d levels , the.unusuall ydr y 'an d wind ycondition s i n th e summer 1 o f 200 2 appea rt o have le d t o dus t bein g blow n fro m th e smelte r propert yinto th e community . Tec k Cominc o -ha s identifie d th e highes t • prioritymateria l stockpile s an d i s developin g a n actio n *p'a n tcTpu t I n plac e b yspring . Ne w action s fo r- improve d dus t control . ma yinclud e the ' us e o f wate rsprays , differen t type s o f dus t suppressants , addition a l "tarps " o n som e piles o renclosin g som e piles-i n buildings . Th e communityo f Trai l ca n expec t t o se e continue d Improvement s i n ai r qualityan d t o receiv e ongoin g report s o n Tec k

Cominco' s emissio n reductio n plan s an d progress . • 

## 2

# Wha t I s Bein g Don e To Contro l Dus t Level s Ou t I n Th e Community ? Street Cleanin g Th e Trai l Communit

yLea d Task . Forc e als o recommend e d tha t cleanin g o f cit ystreet s shoul d b e carrie d ou t regularl yusin g effectiv e methods . In.th e 1990s , th e Tas k Forc e foun d that lea d level s i n stree t dus t wer e hig h • enoug h t o b e a potentia l sourc e .o f lea d exposur e t o youn g childre n I f dust wer e t o be . blow n o rtracke d into homes . Th e Tas k

Force monitore d an d reviewe d th e Cit yof Trail's 1 stree t cleaning'progra m an d suggeste d tha t no t onl ywa s i t importan t t o swee p an d "flush " th e street s severa l time s • throughou t the ' summer , bu t tha t car e mus t b e take n t o avoi d stirrin g u p dus t whe n performin g th e work . Wherea s i n man yothe rsmal l towns , .th e street s are cleane d u p I n th e sprin g an d the n d o no t se e a stree t

. sweepe ragai n ove rth e summer , th e City.o f Trai l perform s a t leas t tw o exfr a sweeping/flushing s afte rth e majo r sprin g cleanup . Th e cjowntow n cor e i s swep t an d flushe d weekly . Th e Cit

yals o trie s ape'pre-wette d prio rt o th e sweepe rbrus h hittin g them , s o .tha

t cloud s o f dust ar e not . stirre d u p i n th e process . This.i s ver y difficul t t o accomplis h durin g th e sprin g cleanu p - ' whe n there' s a lo t o f san d o n th e streets . Fortunately , th e san d applie d t o th e street s ove rthe . winte ri s "clean" , s o th e lea d level s o n th e street s .during , sprin g cleanu p ar e relativel ylow . Unpave d Alleys ; A s pe rTask.Forc e recommendations, , a long-lasting , ' environmentally-friendl ydus f suppressan t fs applie d 1 o unpave d alleys an d othe rarea s i n and . aroun d th e cityi n

. Jun e eac h year . -Th e cos t o f thi s progra m i s spli t b yth e Cit yo f Trai l an d Tec k

Cominco . Th e City.als o applies ' asphal t millin g by-product fro m it s pavip g progra m ont o 'som e unpave d road s or.roa d shoulders eac h year , t o provid e mor e permanen t dus t control .



### ... the City of Trail performs at least two extra sweeping/flushings

after the major spring cleanup. The

downtown

core is swept and flushed weekly. •

•:' City water truck cleans'up. Greenin g Th e Cityo f Traj l an d Tec k Cominco als o continu e t o wor k togethe rt o provid e gras s cove ro n bare groun d areas , .suc h a s th e Bench . Thi s wor k

has . typicall yInvolve d applyin g composte d organi c •materia l mixe d wit h sand , the n hydroseed in g wit h a -drough t toler an t gras s mixture . ®

Dusf control on city alleys.

# Thalliu m Level s LowI n Trai l

I n a n inciden t .a

t Tec k Cominc o i n 2001 , contract worker s were " expose d t o hig h level s o f thalliu m durin g « maintenanc e o n a boiler . Thalliu m i s a naturall yoccurrin g meta l 'common - ' l yfocin d in x

th e ore s that fee d smelter s suc h a s Trai l Operations. " Th e inciden t prompte d Tec k Cominc o t o reviewthalliu m level s Iri air, soil , an d garde n produc e t o ensure ther e •wa s no ' hazar

d fo rth e x:omrhunit

y'at large . Th e revie w showe d thalliu m conten t of-sample s t o b e slightl y highe rtha n backgroun d revels , bu t lowe rtha n level s associate d wit h a healt h risk . Furthe rt o that.review , th e Trai l Healt h an d Environmen t Committe e an d th e Interio rHealt h Authorit yrecom mende d a stud yo f urin e thalliu m level s i n Trai l residents . The ; stud ywa s ru n i n conjunctio n wit h th e 2002 bloo d lead testin g clinic . Researcher s Invite d 5 0 parents "of . childre n attendin g th e lead , clini ct o b e teste d fo rthalliu m exposure . Subject s Included resi dent s i n neighborhood s clos e t o th e smelter . The.r

e wa s a n equa l spli t betwee n peopl e wh o eat produc e grow n in'th e Trai l area , an d thos e wh o d o not. '

* * 'Participant s wer e interviewed ' b y phon e t o mak

e sur e the yrepresent e d th e genera l population . N o on e wit h a possibl e occupationa l exposur e wa s include d i n th e study . Stud yparticipant s provide d urin e specimens , whic h wer e sen t t o a hospita l i n Vancouve rfo ranalysis . Th e averag e Urin e thalliu m leve l wa s 0.2 5 microgram s pe rlitre (ug/L) , wit h al l result s wel l belo wth e Worl d Healt h Organizatio n guidelin e fo rth e .genera l populatio n of 5. 0 ug/L.There wa s no.significan t differenc e i n urin e thalliu m level s between - consumer s an d non-consumers o f locall ygrow n produce . . - • ' Than k yo u t o al l thos e wh o participat e d i n th e thalliu m study . I t 'i s 1 reassurin g t o kno wtha t th e averag e urin e thalliu m leve l 'i n Trai l i s comparabf e t o (ha

t o f th e genera l populatio n i n th e US . O • 

# Educat e Yoursel f Abou t Lea d Th e Trai l Lea d Progra m (throug h Interio r Healt h 368-5323) . has man y educatio n project s ongoin g I n th e community : • I n 2002 , a new Lea

d Healt h brochur

e wa s develope d ' whic h combine d an d update d th e information.foun d i n th e • origina l serie s o f Task'-Forc e brochures . Thi s ne w brochure i s availabl e through : Trai l Healt h Center , Dr . clin - •ics , TrairRegiona l Hospita l maternit yward , an d maile d to parents . , . • • Annua l newslette rmailed t o ever yhousehol d i n Trail . • Radio.an d newspape radvertisement s throughou t . th e sprin g an d summer , o n .topic s suc h as : lea

d "an d nutrition , lea d an d pregnancy , bloo d lea d testing , reducin g lea

d in . th e hom e an d yard .

. • Storyboo k

aime d at preschooler s - availabl e throug h daycare s an d preschools . • ; . ' • Ongoin g presentation s t o communitygroup s suc h a s Buildin g Beautifu l Babies . . • • . • - Fo r mor e Informatio n abou t th e - Trai l Healt h & Environmen t Committee ,

. contac t Trai l Cit y Hall , f 39 4 Pine Avenue . . Phon e 364-126 2 * ; What education'message s d o families nee d t o kno w abou t lead ? • Goo d hygien e i s th e key . Was h you rchildren' s hand s frequentl ythroughou t th e dayan d alway s befor e snacks an d meals . Kee p fingernail s shor t an d clean. . B Kee p you rfloors clea n b yvacuumin g an d dam p mopping . Leav

e you rshoe s a

t th e door . • Wash children's

toys frequently, especially

the ones your child particularly

likes to chew. '

* • Encourag e .your.childre n t o ea t a well-balar.ce d die t hig h i n calciu m an d iron . Garde n produc e shoul d b e washe d befor e i t i s eaten . Fee d youn g childre n snacks an d meal s ir ra hig h chai r(afte ryo u hav e washe d thei r hands) . • . , H Kee p bar

e dir t area s i n th e yard t o a minimum . Sandboxes.ar e great , especiall yi f the yar e kep t covere d whe n no t i n use. ' Was h you rchildren' s hand s afte r playin g outside . • When - renovatin g olde rhomes , tak e specia l precaution s t o avoi d exposur e t o lead-bearin g dus t an d pain t chip s (especiall yfo r'pregnan t wome n an d youn g children) . . . .. . 

## 4

### TRAILLEA D PROGRA M Informationa l Brochure s Lea d an d You rFamily' s Healt h Lea d Healt h and Environmen tService s - What' s Availabl e and Who to Contac t

# an d you r

Family s

Trai l Lea d Progra m 105 1 Farwel l St . Trail , B C V1 R 4S 9 (250 ) 368-532 3 chery l .yates@interiorhealth.c a 

### TRAI L l£AO PROGRAM


# teckcominco Tec k Cominc o Metal s Ltd . P O Box100

0 Trail , B C V1 R 4L 8 (250 ) 364-438 5 steven.hilts@teckcominco.co m

# an d you r Family' s Lea d an d it s compound s ar e ver yuseful , bu t the yca n b e harmfu l a s well , especiall y t o youn g children . Exposur e t o lea d ma y caus e behaviora l problems , learnin g disabilitie s o rreduce d intelligence . Becaus e lea d ca n b e foun d almos t anywhere , yo u can' t avoi d i t entirely . However , Canadian s ar e expose d t o muc h les s lea d no wdu e t o remova l o f lea d fro m gasolin e additives , interio rpain t an d solde ri n ti n cans . Peopl e wh o liv e i n smelte rcommunitie s ar e likel yt o b e expose d t o mor e lea d tha n peopl e wh o liv e i n mos t othe rareas . Trai l i s a grea t cit yi n whic h t o liv e an d rais e a family , bu t w e ar e a smelte rcommunity , an d therefor e w e ar e expose d t o som e lea d throug h hous e dus t an d soil . However , th e environmen t no w i s bette rtha n i t ha s bee n i n decade s ( a hundre d years) , an d i s continuin g t o improv e ever yyear . Tec k Cominc o i s committe d t o makin g furthe r reduction s i n th e amoun t o f lea d an d othe r metal s release d fro m it s Trai l Operations . Communityleaders , Tec k Cominco , governmen t experts , th e Trai l Healt h an d Environmen t Committe e an d resident s ar e al l workin g togethe rt o improv e ou r environment , an d w e ar e makin g significan t progress . W e ar e continuin g t o se e considerabl e improvement s i n children' s bloo d lea d levels , an d w e ar e confiden t tha t th e effort s o f thi s grou p wil l furthe rreduc e lea d exposur e i n th e community . 

## Ho w doe s lea d ge tint o ou r bodies ? I n Trail , lea d i s presen t i n th e emission s an d dus t fro m th e smelte rcomplex . Th e lea d particle s fal l t o th e groun d an d contaminat e yard s an d roads . Thi s soi l an d dus t get s tracke d int o ou rhome s o n shoe s an d clothes , an d throug h window s an d doors . Pain t an d plumbin g i n olde r home s ma yals o contai n lead . Mos t lea d enter s th e bod ythroug h th e mout h suc h a s o n foo d tha t ha s lea d dus t o n it . Becaus e o f thei rhabi t o f puttin g toys , fingers an d othe robject s int o thei rmouths , youn g childre n ar e mor e likel yt o ge t elevate d lea d level s tha n othe rgroups . 

## Wha ti s a n acceptabl e leve l o f lea d i n children ? A s lea d ha s n o beneficia l effect s o n health , th e lowe rth e amoun t i n th e body , th e better . Th e Trai l Lea d Progra m use s guideline s simila rt o th e U.S . Cente rfo r Diseas e Contro l t o determin e acceptabl e an d elevate d bloo d lea d level s i n a community . Accordin g t o thes e guidelines , a lea d leve l les s tha n 1 0 ug/d L (microgram s pe rdeciliter ) i s acceptable . Th e Trai l Lea d progra m i s workin g t o hav e al l childre n i n Trai l wit h bloo d lead s lowe rtha n 1 0 (Jg/dL .

## Doe s lea d affec tal l childre n

equally ? No . Studie s sho ww e shoul d b e mos t concerne d abou t th e lea d level s o f childre n unde rth e ag e o f 3 . Smal l childre n ar e mos t likel yt o pu t dirt yobject s int o thei rmouths . The yals o absor b lea d int o th e bloodstrea m mor e readil ytha n d o olde rchildre n an d adults . 

## Wha tar e th e effect s o f elevate d level s o f

lea d i n children ? At ver yhig h levels , anemia , kidne ydamag e an d digestiv e problem s ma yoccur . Slightl y elevate d lea d level s ma ycaus e learning , behavioural , o rpsychologica l problems . Ofte n th e effect s ar e s o subtl e tha t the y canno t b e noticed . An ysymptom s tha t d o occu rmigh t b e mistake n fo rillnesse s suc h a s flu . I n Trail , an yeffect s ar e s o smal l tha t the y ar e no t measurabl e i n individua l children . 

## Wha tar e th e effect s o f elevate d level s o f

lea d i n adults ? Adult s are no t a s vulnerabl e t o lea d a s youn g children . However , i f level s ar e sufficientl yelevated , adult s ma ydevelo p fatigue , hig h bloo d pressure , digestiv e an d reproductiv e problems , an d kidne y dysfunction . Adult s workin g directl ywit h lea d o rlea d products , throug h wor k

o ra s a hobby , shoul d hav e thei rbloo d lea d leve l checke d regularly . However , othe radult s livin g i n Trai l nee d no t b e concerne d abou t lea d exposure . 

## Ho w ofte n shoul d m y childre n hav e a bloo d lea d test ? Childre n wh o liv e i n th e greate rTrai l are a shoul d b e teste d eac h yea runti l the yar e thre e year s old . Th e firs t tes t shoul d b e don e whe n you rbab yi s crawlin g (betwee n 6 an d 1 1 months) . (Mos t lea d exposur e i n ver yyoun g childre n occur s fro m lea d i n floo rdust. ) I t i s importan t t o fin d ou t i f a baby' s lea d leve l i s elevated , a s i t i s muc h easie rt o correc t at thi s youn g age . Testin g i s voluntary .

## Wha tshoul d m y chil d an d I

expec ta tth e blood-testin g clinic ? Asmal l amoun t (les s tha n on e teaspoon ) o f bloo d i s take n fro m th e child' s arm . Yo u ar e aske d t o hol d you rchil d o n you r la p durin g th e test . I t i s usuall ya quic k an d simpl e procedure performe d b ya certifie d laborator ytechnologist . Staf f make s th e clinic s a s child-friendl ya s possible . Balloons , stickers , soa p an d toy s ar e availabl e fo rchildre n t o tak e home , an d th e waitin g roo m ha s toy s fo rchildre n t o pla ywith . 

## Whe n wil l I ge tth e results ? Th e leve l o f lea d i n th e bloo d sampl e i s analyze d o n site , th e sam e day . Yo u wil l b e phone d wit h th e results . Result s wil l als o b e maile d t o yo u an d you rdoctor , i f requested . 

## Wha thappen s i f

m y chil d ha s a n elevate d lea d level ? I f you rchil d has a lea d leve l of 1 0 ug/d L o rhigher , th e healt h coordinato ro f th e Trai l Lea d Progra m wil l reques t t o visi t you r home . Yo u wil l b e offere d informatio n an d assis tanc e t o hel p reduc e you rchild' s lea d level , suc h a s advice abou t nutritio n an d hygiene ; testin g o f you rhom e an d yar d t o determin e wh yyou rchild' s bloo d lea d i s elevated ; an d service s suc h a s remova l o f lea d contami nate d material i n th e hom e environment . You rchild' s bloo d lea d leve l wil l b e moni tore d mor e frequently . I f you rchild' s leve l i s ove r20 , yo u ar e als o referre d t o you rfamil ydoctor . 

## Ho w ca n I kee p m y children' s lea d level s low ?

• Goo d hygien e i s th e key . Was h children' s hand s frequentl yan d alway s befor e snack s an d meals . Kee p nail s shor t an d clean . Discourag e childre n fro m puttin g non-foo d item s i n thei rmouths .
• Encourag e you rchildre n t o ea t a well balance d die t hig h i n calciu m an d iron . Garde n produc e shoul d b e washe d befor e i t i s eaten . Fee d youn g childre n snack s an d meal s i n a hig h chair .
• Kee p you rfloor s clea n b yvacuumin g an d damp-mopping . Leav e you rshoe s a t th e door . Contro l dus t b ywet-wipin g windowsills , ledges , an d fla t surfaces .
• Kee p bar e dirt area s i n th e yar d t o a minimum . Sandboxe s ar e great , especiall y i f the yar e kep t covere d whe n no t i n use . Was h children' s hand s afte rplayin g outside .
• Whe n renovatin g olde rhomes , tak e specia l precaution s t o avoi d exposur e t o lead-bearin g dust an d pain t chips . •

## I j > ! I 

# Minimizin g Ou r Exposur e t o Metal s A FewKey Tips : « Practic e goo d hygien e b ywashin g children' s hand s afte rplaying , befor e eatin g an d befor e bedtim e • Kee p fingernail s clea n an d shor t & Leav e outdoo rshoe s a t th e doo r e Kee p floor s clea n b yvacuumin g an d damp-moppin g © Contro l dus t b ywet-wipin g ledges , windowsills , an d fla t surface s e Fee d childre n a health ydiet , hig h i n iro n an d calciu m e Kee p bar e dir t area s i n th e yar d t o a minimu m © Carefull ywas h al l fruit s an d vegetable s © Whe n renovatin g olde rhomes , tak e specia l precaution s t o avoi d exposur e t o lead-bearin g dus t an d pain t chip s 

# LEA D HEALT H an d ' ENVIRONMEN TSERVICE S

Othe r Brochure s Available : (cal l 368-LEAD ) ® Lea d an d You rFamily' s Healt h e Nutrition , Lea d an d Childre n e Wor k Projec t Assistanc e Progra m e Renovation : Lea d i n You rHom e 

## $m

contributin g photographer ; Larr y Ooel l a/i d Raef fMfle s

### HISTORY 

# Meta l Level s i n Trai l Hav e Decline d Fo rchildren , a bloo d lea d leve l o f 1 0 ug/d L i s th e "communit yconcer n level " an d 1 5 ug/d L i s th e "individua l concer n level" . I n 1991 , onl yabou t 15 % o f Trai l childre n ha d lea d level s belo w 1 0 an d abou t 60 % wer e belo w15 . Afte rth e ne w lea d smelte rstarte d u p i n 1997 : 9 Lea d level s i n ai rdroppe d abou t 70 % « Lea d i n dus

t (dustfall , stree t dust ) droppe d abou t 4 0 - 50% . • Th e averag e bloo d lea d i n Trai l childre n als o droppe d abou t 4 0 - 50% . ® Lea d level s i n soi l hav e no t change d appreciabl yi n severa l decades . A s o f 2000 , abou t 75 % o f Trai l childre n ha d lea d level s belo w 1 0 an d abou t 93 % wer e belo w15 . Lea d level s i n adult s livin g i n Trai l (an d no t workin g i n a lead-relate d job ) ar e i n th e rang e currentl yconsidere d safe . Arseni can d cadmiu m ar e tw o othe rmetal s emitte d b yth e smelter . The yar e generall yfoun d wher e lea d i s present ! Arseni can d cadmiu m level s i n ai rdroppe d b yabou t 6 0 - 70 % afte r1997 . Th e healt h risk s pose d b yarseni can d cadmiu m i n th e Trai l environmen t ar e ver ylow . Althoug h ther e i s a smal l calculate d ris k

o f advers e healt h effects , n o evidenc e o f increase d diseas e rate s relate d t o metal s exposur e ha s bee n foun d i n th e Trai l population . Histor y of Children' s Bloo d Lea d Level s I n Trai l

Trai l Lea d Ne wlea d Progra m Smelte r starte d 1990 starte d 119 7

'198 0 ..'•:'.: ' •1985 :

### CURREN TSERVICES/PROGRAM S 

# Publi c Healt h Centr e Cominc o

Bloo d lea d testing , focusin g o n childre n wh o ar e mos t a t ris k

(thos e les s tha n 3 years ' o f age) . Counselin g an d service s fo rfamilie s wit h childre n wh o hav e elevate d o rrisin g lea d levels . Communit yan d earl ychildhoo d educatio n abou t preventin g lea d exposure . HEP Avacuu m cleane rloans . Contact : Chery l Yates , Kootena yBoundar yHealt h 105 1 Farwel l St , Trai l (250 ) 368-LEA D (368-5323 ) cheryl.yates@kbchss.hnet.bc.c a 

# Cit yo f Trai l

« Flus h an d swee p th e street s accordin g t o recommende d protocols . e Dus t contro l o n alley s an d othe runpave d areas . • Greenin g o f bar e publi careas . Contact : Publi cWork s Departmen t Cit yo f Trai l (250 ) 364-084 0 trail@cityoftrail.co m ® Pursu e furthe rreduction s i n plantsit e emissions , wit h increase d reportin g t o publi c o n plan s an d progress . • Plan t mor e tree s withi n an d adjacen t t o Cominc o propert yt o improv e th e dus t barrie r an d continu e othe rgreenin g effort s aroun d th e propert yan d community . ® Environmenta l monitorin g o f ai ran d stree t dust . © Addres s soi l a s neede d o n a case-by-cas e basi s (coordinate d wit h th e counselin g an d service s progra m operate d b ypubli chealth) . ® Advis e an d assis t peopl e doin g excavation , construction , demolitio n o rrenovatio n (Wor k Projec t Assistanc e Program—ful l progra m availabl e startin g 2002) . Contact : Stev e Hilt s Cominc o Ltd . (250 ) 364-438 5 steve.hilts@trail.cominco.co m 

# Coordinatio n o f Service s

• Th e Trai l Healt h an d Environmen t committee , appointe d b yth e Cit yo f Trail , oversee s th e wor k bein g carrie d ou t b yCominco , Kootena y BoundaryHealt h an d th e City . ff l Thi s committe e involve s th e community^ governmen t an d industr

yworkin g togethe rt o protec t communit yhealth .

# Reachin g fo rNe w Goal s

Trai l sa whug e improvement s i n children' s bloo d lea d level s an d environmenta l condition s fro m 197 5 t o 2000 . A s o f 2000 , th e averag e bloo d lea d leve l i n Trai l childre n wa s acceptable . However , ther e wer e stil l abou t 7 % o f Trai l childre n wh o ha d elevate d bloo d lea d level s (highe rtha n 1 5 microgram s pe rdecilitre) . Bloo d Lea d Goal s fo r 200 5 ® A t leas t 90 % o f childre n shoul d hav e bloo d lea d level s les s tha n lO^g/d L © At least 99%of children should have blood lead levels less than 15 fjg/dL.

### ATTACHMEN T A- 2

Attachments referenced

on page 17

of the "Independent

Review Panel

Responses to Key Issues/Questions " Exampl e o f

a'clean ' lette r

fro mth e U S EP A provide dt o propert y owner s at th e Smuggle r Mountai n Superfun dSite i n Aspen , Colorad oDE C O B 200 3 4:33P M DUNLO P ENVIROMMENTH L CON S 37O-323-482 0 

### DUNLO PENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTING , INC .

~ ? Environmenta l an dI'ubli c Healt hPlannin g fo r th e Futur e Thoma s S . Dunlo p Presiden t Novembe r

8 , 200 1 U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Regio n VII I Armand o Saen z 99 9 IS" 1 Street , Suit e 50 0 Denver , Colorad o 8020 2 Re : • "Clean " Lette r

t o Remediate dPropertie s o n th e Smuggle r Mountuii i Supcrfun dSit e Dea r Mr . Saenz : A s yo u wil l notic e fro mth e letterhead , thi s communicatio n i s comin g fro mDunlo p Environmenta l Consulting , Inc.(DEC,Inc.) . Th e letter i s bein g sent

unde r authority o f

a contractual agreement

tha t DEC , Inc . has . with Pitki n County . DEC , Inc . ha s bee n retaine dt o manag e teclinical issue s involvin g th e Smuggle r Mountai n Supcrfun dSit e (Site) . Define di n Sectio n V I (15 ) (g ) o f th e Consen

t Decre e betwee n Pitki n Count y an dth e U.S . EPA , homeowner s withi n th e Smuggle r Mountai n Superfun dSit e wh o hav e remediate d thei r property ar e t o receiv e a"clean " lette r from ' EPA . Th e lette r

wil l stat e th e propert y require s n o farthe r

remediation . Th e basi s fo r th e lette r i s determine db y th e fac t tha t property owner s mus t

compl y with requirement s foun di n th e Consen t Decre e an d Institutiona l Controls . Th e landowner s shal l protec t thei r propert y b y placin g uncontaminate dsoi l over leadcontainin g soil , an drevegetat e th e yar dafte r aconstructio n o r landscapin g projec t

ha s take n place . A prope r coverin g o f

lea dcontainin g soi l ha s nls o bee n determine dto b e 1 2 inche s o f gravel , o r

pavin g wit

h concret e o r asphalt . Findbelo w afis t

o f individual s name s an daddresse s tha t hav e performe dwor k

o n their propert y resultin g i n remediatio n a s define dabove , o r th e contaminate dsoi l wa s remove dt o aprope

r repositor y an dreplace dwith clea

n fill . Thes e individual s qualif y fo r a "clean " lette

r fro mEPA becaus e they hav e take n approve dmeasure s to remov e contaminate d soi l fro mdirec t

huma n contac t

• Pitki n Count

y (Nor mMarrah)530E . Mai n St . Aspen , Colo . 8161 1 (Fo r creatio n o f

aparkin g lo t

alon g Par

k Circle a t th e intersectio n o f

Smuggler

Mountai n Road) • Lor aJ.Lewi s 93 5 Gibso n Ave . Aspen , Colo . 8161 1 • Susa n Schlundt32 6 Oa k Lane Aspen , Colo . 8161 1 • Rich Wager51 7 Par kCircl e Aspen , Colo.8161 1 • Stephani e Costcll o 32 8 Oa k Lan e Aspen , Colo.8161 1 Pos t Offic eBo x 628 9 • Snowmas s Village , Colorad o 816l 5 US A» Offic ean dFa x (970 ) 923-482 0 d on recyrkf

l ptp« r

# 1 1

•• * 

# 1 1

^ B 

# 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DE C 0 6 200 3 4:33P M DUNLO PEHV I RONMENTH LCON S 970-923-402 0 P- 3

-

_ _r|

- TTft?" 7 A c i c pAc t

fiii f P1?i£ p \ oiislon . ' . CXH S / / \j^* . • • r * t

_i * ' 1 fO i t u I^(*HM T 1 Q thf * r^sOOnSlbl C DtUTi Y lO T tI\ C wiOCRlU l I Subdivision ) Attache dpicas . Ga dasampl e lette r » previousl y writte n b y EP A l o ott o propert y

- owner s o n th e Site .

Thank yo u fo r you r continue dassistanc e i n managemen t o f thi s requiremen t

o f th e Conscn^eeA s always , contac t m e shoul dyo u hav e question s o r comment s swound.n g

. thi s request . Sincerely , ^ 

## j$? Qfls*&*/2 Thoma s S . Dunlo p Presiden t Cc : NormMarrah , Pitki n Coimt y Env . Healt

h Directo r te e Cassin , Aspe n Env . Healt h Directo r John Ely , Pitki n Count y Attorne y Joh n Worcester , Aspe n Cit y Attorne y ( " Csir.ujiln-.UJJ l clea n lrtler.do c

, ;DE C 0 6 200 3 4:33P M DUNLO PENVIRQNMENTR LCON S 970-923-482 0 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y REGIO N VII I 99 9 18t h STREE T - SUIT E50 0 DENVER . COLORAD O B020Z-246 6 .. . „ . ReC : 8EPR-S R,}p c 2737-074-00-aS G :•. - "'" * ' ' ""' w Pitki n County• : ' V 13 0 So , Galena ^C.".•.• • Aspen , C O 8161 1 . Dea r Pitki n County . Almos t on e yea r ag o th a Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) an d Pitki n Countycam s t o agreemen t o n a cours e o £ action fo r th e residentia l are a o f tha Smuggle r Mountai n Superfun

d Sit e (Operabl e Uni t One ) . A a par t o f tha t agreement , EP

Ai s sendin

g yo u thi s lette r t o notif yyo u a a t o the statu s o f you

r property . SPA.'ha s determine d tha t you r property(s) , a a identified above , ha s me t on e o f the followin g tw o criteria : 1 ) Th e propert

ydoe s no t requir e cleanu p becaus e lea

d concentration s tha t ma ybe on your propertyar e belo w EPA' s actio n leve l a t thi s sice , o r , .. . 2 ) Excavation wor k performe d a t thi s property , b yyou o r th e others , assure s protection o f huma n healt h an

d th e environment . Becaus e you

r propert

ymeet s one o f thes e tw o conditions) , EP

A doe s no t believ e tha t tha lead tha t ma yb e i n th e soi l will ' pos e a ris k t o huma

n healt h o r the environment . Yo u ma yrel yo n thi s lette r a s documentatio n that-EP Adoe s no t pla

n t o carr

you t additiona l Superfun d activitie s a t you r property . We than k yo u ver

ymuc h fo r your understandin g and . cooperation a t thi s site . Shoul d you hav

e an yquestion s i n thi s matter , you ma y contac t Brian Pinkowslci , Remedia l Projec t Manage r a t 1303 ) 312-6212 . ' • > • Sincerely , p. 4

Max H . Dodso u Assistan t

Regiona l Administrato r fo r Ecosystem s Protectio n an d Remediatio n

### ATTACHMEN T B 

# I I I I I I

WOR K

GROU P REQUEST S FO RCLARIFICATIO N AN D SUMMAR Y O FPANE L • RESPONSE S 

# I I I I I I I I I I I

# I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMEN T B WOR KGROU PREQUEST S FO RCLARIFICATIO N AN D SUMMAR Y O F PANE L RESPONSE S II . Evaluatio n o f

Performanc e Base do n th e Panel' s revie w o f th e 'Method s an dStandard s fo r Evaluatin g th e Performanc e o f th e Lak e Count y Communit y HealthProgram ' documen t (th e 'Performanc e Standard s Document' ) an dth e evaluatio n o f

dat afro mth e year s 2000 , 2001 , an d2002 , presente di n th e 200 2 Annua l Report , pleas e addres s th e following : Origina l Question ; IL.l . Pleas e commen t

o n th e appropriatenes s an dapplicabilit y o f th e statistica l method s an dstandard s presente di n th e Performanc e Standard s Documen t fo r evaluatin g th e performanc e o f th e Progra mwit h respec t t o th e establishe dRemedia l Actio n Objectives . II . 1.a . I s th e rational e fo r eac hperformanc e standar dadequatel y described , appropriate , an dscientificall y defensible ? Origina l Pane l Respons e (Part1 o f 3) : Il.l.a.i. The Panel

believes that

the rationalefor

the establishment

of standards has been adequately described in the 'Performance Standards Document'. The Panel considers the standards, as described in the document, to be reasonable but arbitrary, as they do not

mirror National standards (e.g. soil lead level ofSSOOppm and

lead based paint at 6mg/cm2). Wor kGrou p Comment/Request : Th e LCCH P Wor k

Grou p recognize s tha t

th e site-specifi c "actio n levels " o r "trigge r levels " tha t ar e use dt o decid e whe n remedia l actio n i s warrante dfo r variou s medi asuc ha s soil , interio r dust , an dpain t d o no t mirro r value s fo r

soil , dust , o r

pain t tha t ar e use da t

man y othe r

site s acros s th e nation . Thes e trigge r

level s wer e selecte dfo r

us e a t Leadvill e base do n th e result s o f th e baselin e huma n healt hris k

assessment , whic hinclude damultivariat e structura l equatio n analysi s o f al l dat a availabl e o n th e relationshi p betwee n th e probabilit y o f elevate dbloo dlea di n childre n an dth e leve l o f leadi n contaminate dmedi ai n Leadville . Give n thi s backgroun dfo r th e trigge r

levels , th e Wor k Grou p doe s no t

fee l th e wor d"arbitrary " i s a n appropriat e designatio n fo r thes e values , bu t recognize s tha t

th e baselin e huma n healt hris k assessmen t

wa s no t submitte dt o th e Pane l fo r review , an dtha t

th e Pane l woul dno t

hav e th e dat aneede dfo r

judgin g th e appropriatenes s o f thes e site-specifi c trigge r

levels . I n an y event , i t

i s precisel y becaus e thes e trigge r level s ar e no t "standard " tha t

th e outcome-base d(i.e. , bloo dlead-based ) performanc e standard s wer e developed . Tha t is , th e LCCH P draw s adistinctio n betwee n "performanc e standards " (a s describe di n th e performanc e evaluatio n method s document ) an dmedi a"trigge r levels" , an don e o f

th e mai n purpose s o f

th e performanc e standard s i s t o determin e i f th e trigge r

level s selecte dar e actuall y adequat e t o achiev e th e target reductio n i n bloo dleadlevel s i n th e community . Panel Clarification; The panel reiterated

that the rationale forthe establishment of the performance standards has been adequately described in the Performance Standards Document

and clarified that the second

sentence of

theirresponse, characterizing the standards as arbitrary, was directed at the program's triggercriteria ratherthan themethods forevaluating performance. Based on the Work Group Comment/Request provided above, the panel

stated that they now have a betterunderstanding that the trigger levels in Leadville were based on the best

site-specific data available at the time, and therefore the triggerlevels should not be thought

of as arbitrary. However, the Panel reiterated theirconcern, based

on the weight

of evidence from more recent

studies at

other sites, that the triggerlevels

forsoil and paint are high, relative to standards, oraction levels, applied at othersites. The panel

indicated that theirconcerns on the likely efficacy of the LCCHP program, specifically given the relatively high triggercriteria forpaint, were not intended as criticisms of

the Performance Evaluation method. Origina l Pane l Respons e (Part2 o f 3) ; Il.l.a.ii. The Panel

believes that

the performance standardsfor meeting the Remedial

Action Objectives are appropriate. The Panel does not feel that the term "scientifically defensible " is appropriate within this context and, therefore, offers no response to this query. Wor kGrou p Comment/Request ; Th e Work Grou p i s please dtha t

th e Pane l consider s th e basi c performanc e standard s t o b e appropriate , bu t

woul dlik e t o reques t

clarificatio n a s t o wh y th e Pane l doe s no t fee l tha t th e ter m "scientificall y defensible " i s applicabl e i n thi s context . Mor e specifically , th e Work Grou p wa s hopin g th e Pane l woul dcommen t o n whethe r

th e basi c desig n an dstrateg y o f th e performanc e evaluatio n approac hi s expecte dt o b e abl e t o provid e areliabl e o r vali d(i.e. , scientificall y defensible ) technica l basi s fo r recognizin g i f

an dwhe n th e health-base dRemedia l Actio n Objective s hav e bee n achieve dat th e site . Panel Clarification; The panel clarified that the basic data collection strategies and statistical evaluation methods developed to evaluate the performance of the LCCHP

were appropriate and

valid. The response regarding the term "scientifically defensible" was provided due to uncertainty as to whetherthe terminology is appropriate. The panel agrees that the methodology of

the established

performance standards evaluation is defensible. Origina l Pane l Respons e (Part3 o f 3) ; Il.l.a.iii. The Panel

also notes the absence of

a critical path or timeline for completion as part

of the Performance Standards. Inclusion of a timeline would

be considered

normal practice in such a document. Wor kGrou p Comment/Request ; Th e Work

Grou p woul dlik e t o reques t clarificatio n fro mth e Pane l a s t o wh y absenc e o f atimelin e i s considere dt o b e importan t wit hregar dt o th e performanc e criteria . A s discusse di n Sectio n 6. 1 o f th e Method s document , th e Work Grou p recognize dth e nee dt o trac k result s ove r

tim e an dt o guar dagains t

spuriou s decision s du e t o short-termvariability . A s th e analysi s presente di n Attachmen t

3 indicates , aminimu mo f thre e year s o f

dat ai s judge dt o b e require di n orde r t o captur e tempora l variability , an dafte r thre e year s o f

dat ahav e bee n collected , th e nee dt o continu e th e progra mi s determine db y a n assessmen t o f whethe r o r no t th e performanc e criteri aar e satisfied . Thi s include s a n assessmen t bot ho f th e P1 0 an dP1 5 values , an do f th e uncertaint y aroun dthos e estimates . Thus , eve n whe n th e Pl O an dP I 5 goal s hav e bee n met , i f uncertaint y i s to o large , additiona l year s o f dat ama y b e require dt o increas e th e numbe r o f observation s an d decreas e uncertaint y t o acceptabl e levels . Thus , th e duratio n o f th e programi s dependen t o n th e value s an dqualit y o f

th e data , rathe r

tha n attainin g aprescribe dnumbe r o f year s o f data . Doe s th e Pane l sugges t

tha t amor e forma l schedul e wit hdefine dcritica l event s b e establishe da s par t o f th e performanc e evaluatio n method ?

# I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i i Panel Clarification: The panel clarified that a time line, identifying milestones for achieving program goals, was suggested to ensure that

a strategy was in place in case the LCCHPdid

not achieve its target

objectives within a reasonable time period. More specifically, the Panel

expressed

concern that

the program objectives may not be achieved in SU1, without

some adjustments to the current program. The panel

recommends that

the Workgroup develop a time line for deciding if

and when a change in the LCCHPmay be required. Origina l Question ; Il.l.b . Doe s th e metho dadequatel y demonstrat e th e long-ter meffectivenes s o f th e remed y an d complianc e wit hRAOs ? Origina l Pane l Response ; The Panel feels that this is a critical

question that

cannot be answered

at this time, and

cites the following reasons: • There is not

enough long term data available at this point • P-10and

P-15values have not

changed significantly in either

SU-1 or SU-2 • The majority of

properties will

not necessarily have been remediated if or when the Performance Standard

has been met. Wor k Grou p Response/Request ; Th e Work Grou p woul dlik e t o clarify th e inten t o f thi s question . I t

wa s no t ou r goa l t o as k

th e Pane l whethe r

the y fel t tha t th e dat aavailabl e a t

thi s tim e ar e adequat e t o establis htha t th e progra mwil l b e effectiv e i n th e long-term . Rather , i t wa s th e inten t

o f thi s questio n t o determin e i f th e pane l fel t

tha t th e basi c desig n an dstrateg y o f th e performanc e evaluatio n programwoul db e adequat e t o asses s long-termeffectivenes s a s dat aar e collecte di n th e future . Tha t is , th e intende d focu s o f th e questio n i s o n th e method , no t o n th e results . Thus , th e questio n coul dbette r hav e bee n writte n as : "Wil l th e performanc e criteri aadequatel y tes t o r asses s th e long-termeffectivenes s o f th e remed y an dcomplianc e wit hRAOs? " Th e Work Grou p hope s th e Pane l wil l offe r thei r opinion s o n thi s issue . Panel Clarification; As noted

above, the panel

clarified that they believe the methods developed for evaluation of

the LCCHPprogram performance are appropriate. Origina l Question ; H.2 . Pleas e commen t

o n th e dat aevaluatio n technique s an dstatistica l method s presente di n th e Performanc e Standard s Documen t an dmak e an y suggestion s o r recommendation s fo r

modificatio n o r improvement . n.2.a . Hav e Typ e I an dTyp e I I erro r rate s bee n assesse dadequatel y an di n ascientificall y defensibl e manner ? Origina l Pane l Response ; The Panel was in agreement

that the methods and

performance standards formulated by the work group very carefully and

quantitatively addressed

Type 1 and

Type 2 errors. The Panel

does not believe that

the term "scientifically defensible" is appropriate within this context.Wor kGrou p Response/Request ; A s above , th e Work

Grou p woul dlik e t o see k

clarificatio n fro mth e Pane l a s t o wh y the y fee l th e ter m"scientificall y defensible " i s no t applicabl e i n thi s content . More specifically , th e Wor k Grou p woul dlik e clarificatio n a s t o whethe r th e Pane l perceive s an y statistica l limitation s o r flaw s i nth e strateg y o r

metho dfo r

estimatin g th e probabilit y o f decisio n error s fro mdat atha t hav e bee n o r wil l b e collecte ddurin g th e project . Panel Clarification; The panel reiterated that they believe the statistical methods developed to address Type I

and Type II errorrates are appropriate and valid. Theironly concern was overthe appropriateness of the use of

the term "scientifically defensible" (See previous clarification to n.l.a.iifordiscussion of this terminology). Origina l Question ; II.2.b . Ha s th e uncertaint y i n th e P1 0 an dP I 5 value s bee n assesse dadequatel y an di n ascientificall y defensibl e manner ?

Origina l Panel Response ; The Panel feels that the Working Group was highly innovative in using the Monte Carlo Analysis to address uncertainty in P-10and P-15values. The approach is considered to be highly appropriate and astute. Again, the term "scientifically defensible " is considered

inappropriate within the context of the question. Wor kGrou p Response/Request ; A s above , th e Work

Grou p woul dlik e t o seek

clarificatio n fro mth e Pane l a s t o wh y the y fee l th e term"scientificall y defensible " i s no t applicabl e i n thi s context . More specifically , th e Wor k Grou p woul dlik e clarificatio n a s t o whethe r th e Pane l perceive s an y statistica l limitation s o r flaw s i nth e strateg y o r

metho dfo r

estimatin g th e uncertaint y aroun destimate s o f P1 0 an dP1 5 base do n site-specifi c bloo dlea

ddat asets tha t

may b e availabl e no w o r

may become availabl e i n th e future . Panel Clarification; As noted

above, the panel

clarified that they believe the statistical methods developed

forevaluation of

the LCCHP

program performance are appropriate. Origina l Question : II.2.e . D o th e method s an dstandard s fo r evaluatin g performanc e provid e reasonabl e assuranc e tha t th e Program' s goa l regardin g residua l ris k - t o ensur e tha t

whateve r residua l risk s tha t

remai n wil l b e sufficientl y lo w a s t o no t

excee dth e RAO s (describe di n sectio n 7. 0 o f th e Performanc e Standard s Document ) - wil l b e achieved ? Pane l Response ; The Institutional

Controls referenced

in the Work

Plan, which are intended

to provide ongoing control measures to assure the protection of completed

remediation and

protection of

human health once the LCCHPperformance standards have been met, have not yet been approved

or implemented. The Panel feels that in the absence of

details on how the Institutional Controls will

be implemented

and enforced, there is insufficient data to respond

to this question at

this time. Please see the Panels concerns regarding the importance of Institutional

Controls in Section IV, Other. Wor kGrou p Response/Request :Th e Wor k Grou p woul dlik e t o clarif y th e inten t

o f thi s question . I t

wa s no t ou r goa l t o as k

th e Pane l t o evaluat e th e expecte defficac y o f variou s Institutiona l Control s tha t ar e describe di n th e work pla n fo r th e site . Rather , i t

wa s th e inten t

o f thi s questio n t o determin e i f th e pane l fel t

that , i f an dwhe n th e performanc e criteri aar e achieve da t th e site , i t

wil l b e appropriat e t o conclud e tha t residua l risk s i n th e communit y ar e likel y t o b e belo w th e health-base dgoal s establishe di n th e Remedia l Actio n Objectives . Th e Wor k Grou p hope s th e Pane l wil l offe r thei r opinion s o n thi s issue . 

### Panel Clarification: The Panel agreed that the basic outcome-based

stopping rules established

in the LCCHPperformance evaluation plan (a running three-year average P10 < 5% and

PI 5<1%) are reasonable, and in fact are more rigorous than at many otherlocations where programs are underway to reduce lead exposure. However, the Panel reiterated that the LCCHP

will not remove all sources of

lead exposure and

that residual risks would

remain in the community, especially from lead

paint hazards. As such, the panel expressed

the opinion that

it may be difficult

to determine whethercompliance with the RAOs will be maintained

"now and

in the future" (as the RAOs are stated) without effective Institutional

Controls to prevent

disturbance of

the remedy overtime orongoing blood-lead

monitoring at

a minimum. Because of

this, the Panel

reiterated

their view that is desirable to provide on-going support to the community even afterthe LCCHP remedy is considered

complete.

### ATTACHMEN T C WOR K GROU P RECOMMENDATION S

### ATTACHMEN T C WOR KGROU PRECOMMENDATION S Thi s attachmen t

present s th e recommendation s o f th e LCCH P Wor k

Grou p wit hrespec t

t o th e comment s an drecommendation s provide db y th e Independen t Revie w Pane l i n thei r

Response s t o Ke y Issues/Question s document . Work Grou p comment s regardin g specifi c response s provide d b y th e IR P ar e provide dand , wher e appropriate , recommendation s t o EP A regardin g th e implementatio n o f

change s t o th e LCCH P ar e als o discussed . Whil e arespons e o r

recommendatio n i s no t

bein g provide db y th e Wor k Grou p fo r

every findin g o r recommendatio n o f

th e IRP , th e Wor k

Grou p desire s t o provid e comment s and/o r recommendation s t o selecte dIR P responses . Thes e comment s and/o r recommendation s ar e provide dbelow , reference dt o an dnumbere daccordin g t o th e structur e o f th e IR P report . I . LCCHPImplementatio n Origina l Question : 1. 2 Pleas e provid e an y suggestion s o r recommendation s yo u ma y hav e fo r improvin g th e structur e (i.e. , organization , responsibilitie s an dinterna l communications ) o f LCCH P managemen t

an dadministratio n Pane l Response : I n respons e t o thi s question , th e IR P provide d(i n part ) th e followin g recommendation s (summarized) : Th e extensio n o f

th e tea mapproac ht o mor e activel y involv e member s o f th e loca l publi c an dincreas e communit y "ownership " o f bothth e proble man dit s solutions , throug hth e us e o f "Champio n Moms" , an dbi-annua l o r quarterl y publi c meeting s t o engag e an d involv e communit y leaders . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; Th e Work Grou p recognize s tha t

'wor do f mouth ' referrals , o r

th e "neighbo r

t o neighbor " approac hidentifie db y th e IR P i n thei r discussio n o f

"Champio n Moms" , i s a n effectiv e recruitin g method . Give n tha t th e Leadvill e communit y i s relativel y small , man y referral s ar e receive dfo r

bothth e bloo dlea dprogra man dth e environmenta l progra m fro mfriend s an drelative s o f participants . I n addition , i t i s commo n whe n apropert y i s sample do r

remediate do n ablock , multipl e inquirie s ar e receive dfro mneighbors . Th e Progra mals o encourage s participatio n b y usin g yar dsign s durin g exterio r remediatio n activities . Th e Progra mwil l continu e t o encourag e participant s t o tal k wit hthei r neighbor s an dfriend s t o enhanc e recruitment . Th e Wor k Grou p als o acknowledge s tha t engagin g an dinvolvin g communit y leader s throug hperiodi c publi c meeting s ma y b e a n effectiv e wa y o f developin g asens e o f

prid e i nth e achievement s o f

th e progra man dimprov e th e visibilit y o f th e progra mwithi n th e community . Th e Progra mha s mad e presentation s t o communit y group s including , schools , th e Lion s Club , th e Lak e Interagenc y Counci l (LIAR) , an dth e Leadvill e Cit y Council . I n additio n th e Leadvill e Mayo r an dCount y Commissioner s ar e routinel y involve di n monthl y t o quarterl y meeting s regardin g th e program .Origina l Question ;

I.3. b (Paraphrased ) Provid e specifi c feedbac k wit hrespec t

t o th e communit y awareness , education , an drecruitmen t activitie s componen t

o f th e program . Pane l Response : I n respons e t o thi s question , th e IR P provide d(i n part ) th e followin g recommendation s t o improv e communit y awarenes s an drecruitmen t (summarized) : Th e us e o f

"Champions" , o r

neighborhoo dvolunteer s (se e respons e t o 1. 2 above) ; Th e us e o f

trained , temporar y pai dstaff , t o g o doo r t o doo r i n SU 1 i n aconcerte d recruitmen t

effort . Recommende dconsultin g wit ha n epidemiologis t t o hel p desig n a door-to-doo r

survey ; Sen dayearl y reminde r

o f th e progra mt o everyon e i n SU1 , wit hafollow-u p one-on-on e visit ; Develo p a n evaluatio n o f

publi c needs , wit hconsultatio n wit hpeopl e knowledgeabl e abou t communit y assessments ; Th e us e o f

"key informants " wh o can represen t th e commo n needs , concerns , an ddesire s o f identifie dsegment s o f

th e population . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; A t th e presen t

time , th e progra mi s enjoyin g excellen t participatio n i n th e bloo dlea d testin g progra man dth e environmenta l progra mi s a t capacity . Th e Wor k

Grou p feel s tha t th e progra mi s effectivel y recruitin g fro mmultipl e segment s o f th e community , a s represente di n th e annua l report throug hth e presentatio n o f participatio n rate s b y area , language , an dothe r

socio-economi c demographics . Th e IR P ha s provide dsom e helpful , specifi c strategie s fo r

communit y outreac han dth e Wor k Grou p recommend s tha t

thes e strategie s b e considere dfurthe r shoul dprogra mparticipatio n declin e i n th e future . Th e Wor k Grou p woul dals o lik e t o poin t ou t tha t th e bloo dlea dprogra mdoe s i n fac t sen dou t reminde r card s o n a n annua l basis , followe du p b y atelephon e cal l t o th e famil y t o encourag e testing . Origina l Question : I.3. d(Paraphrased ) Provid e specifi c feedbac k wit hrespec t

t o th e environmenta l testin g programan dprocedure s componen t o f th e program . Pane l Response ; I n respons e t o thi s question , th e IR P provide d(i n part ) th e followin g specifi c recommendation s regardin g soi l an ddus t samplin g procedures : Th e Pane l recommend s tha t dri p lin e testin g b e emphasize di n th e soi l samplin g regim e t o hel p determin e th e presenc e an dinfluenc e o f soi l lea dfro mdeterioratin g externa l lea d base dpain t

sources .Pane l member s expresse dconcer n tha t th e thre e sampl e metho dcurrentl y i n us e fo r testin g hous e dus t

i s no t sufficien t t o identify hazard s o r

provid e house-wid e clearanc e an drecommend s tha t

th e Progra mfollo w protocol s describe di n EP A 40 2 Regulations , an dtha t entryway s alway s b e tested . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; Th e dus t samplin g methodolog y an dsoi l samplin g procedure s wer e thoroughl y discusse d i nth e developmen t

o f th e LCCHP . Wit hrespec t t o dus t sampling , th e EP A regulation s cite db y th e IR P ar e base do n wipe-samplin g methodology , whic hprovide s lea dloading , rathe r tha n lea dconcentratio n results , tha t ar e no t comparabl e t o th e establishe dtrigge r criteri afo r

lea di n dust . A s state di n th e Wor k Plan , th e mai n entr y i s identifie da s on e o f th e thre e samplin g location s fo r dust . Wit hrespec t

t o dri p lin e soi l sampling , th e Wor k Grou p believe s th e curren t procedur e i n th e Wor k Pla n i s sufficientl y flexibl e t o addres s lea di n soi l i n th e dri p lin e (e.g. , adjacen t t o th e structure) , wher e exterio r lea dbase dpain t

ma y b e asource . Th e curren t procedure s requir e th e collectio n o f sample s fro mal l bar e areas , o r whe n soi l o r vegetativ e cove r

condition s ar e different . Thi s procedur e ensure s tha t dri p lin e soil s ar e sample dwhe n th e are ai s bar e o r differen t fro mth e surroundin g yar d(i.e. , flowe r o r vegetabl e garden) . Dri p lin e soil s ma y no t b e sample dseparatel y i f

th e are ai s simila r

t o th e adjacen t

yard , o r whe n covere dwit hgrave l o r rock , however , thes e condition s als o limi t achild' s exposur e t o th e soil . I n addition , i f th e remediatio n o f

exterio r lea dbase d pain t i s required , additiona l soi l samplin g i s performe dpe r th e Wor k Plan . Origina l Question : L3. e (Paraphrased ) Provid e specifi c feedbac k wit hrespec t

t o th e bloo dlea dtestin g progra m an dprocedure s componen t o f th e program . Pane l Response ; I n respons e t o thi s question , th e IR P provide d(i n part ) th e followin g specifi c recommendation s regardin g bloo dlea dsamplin g procedures : Pane l member s di dno t

fee l tha t waitin g unti l achil di s 1 2 month s o f ag e t o begi n recruitmen t

int o th e LCCH P wa s ideal , an dwoul dencourag e bloo dlea dtestin g startin g a t ag e 9 months . Th e Pane l als o recommende dth e us e o f aprofessiona l Phlebotomis t t o collec t sample s i n childre n unde r th e ag e o f

1 2 months . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; Th e progra mi s followin g curren t CD C guidelines , whic hrecommen dtestin g beginnin g a t th e ag e o f

1 2 months . Thi s i s als o consisten t wit hMedicai drequirements . Childre n younge r tha t 1 2 month s ar e routinel y teste di f asiblin g ha s a n elevate dbloo dlead , o r i f th e parent s reques t

testing . I n addition , th e progra mdoe s hav e acces s t o aprofessiona l phlebotomis t

throug hth e hospital . Origina l Question : I.3. f (Paraphrased ) Provid e specifi c feedbac k wit hrespec t

t o th e dat amanagement , evaluation , an dreportin g practice s o f th e program .Pane l Response : I n respons e t o thi s question , th e IR P provide danumbe r o f specifi c suggestions , a s follows : i . Us e o f

amulti-variat e regressio n metho dt o bette r understan dth e determinant s o f elevate dbloo dlea di n Leadville ; ii . Conside r

providin g previou s year s result s i n th e Annua l Repor t t o demonstrat e trend s o f bloo dlea dlevel s ove r

time , a s afunctio n o f

multipl e variables ; iii . Conside r

th e us e o f

aGI S syste mt o allo w fo r spatia l trackin g o f

childre n wit h elevate dbloo dlea dlevels , t o identify potentia l "ho t spots " o f exposure , an d identify target s fo r

recruitment ; v . Spli t

th e collecte dsampl e bas e a t th e mea n rathe r

tha n a t th e P-1 0 o r

P-1 5 level s t o increas e th e statistica l powe r o f th e analysis ; vi . Conside r

testin g fo r

representativenes s o f

lead-base dpain t

hazard s a s wel l a s soi l lead ; an d vii . Us e th e suggeste danalytica l strateg y t o evaluat e an dimprov e th e progra man d mor e effectivel y target

th e basi c proble mareas . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation : i . Th e Progra mha s an dwil l continu e t o evaluat e method s o f evaluatin g progra m data , suc ha s multi-variat e regressio n analyses , t o develo p a n understandin g o f th e factors , o r

source s contributin g t o elevate dbloo dleads . Se e respons e t o ite m 1.4 . belo w fo r

additiona l discussion . ii . Th e Work

Grou p agree s tha t

th e presentatio n o f

trend s fo r

certai n dat awoul db e helpfu l and , base do n th e IRP' s recommendation , i s plannin g t o presen t trend s i n participation , mea n bloo dlea dlevels , an dP1 0 an dP1 5 level s i n th e nex t annua l report . iii . Th e Wor k

Grou p understand s th e potentia l o f GI S technology , howeve r detaile d mappin g (i.e. , t o th e propert y level ) i s no t currentl y availabl e fo r

Leadville . A substantia l commitmen t

o f tim e an dmone y (tha t

i s no t currentl y budgeted ) woul db e require dt o generat e th e informatio n necessary t o develo p afull y integrate dGI S syste mfo r th e site . Notwithstanding , spatia l analysi s tools , includin g GIS , ma y b e considere db y th e Wor k Grou p i n th e future . I n addition, i n considerin g spatia l analysi s technique s car e mus t b e take n t o preven t

an y potentia l breac ho f

confidentiality , give n th e smal l populatio n o f Leadville . v . Se e discussio n belo w relate dt o ite m1.4 . vi . Th e representativenes s test , usin g soi l concentrations , include di n th e Method s an dStandard s fo r

Evaluatin g Performanc e (Standar d4 ) wa s no t intende dt o presum e tha t

exposur e t o lea di n soi l i s th e predominan t lea dexposur e pathway . Rathe r i t wa s develope da s awa y t o ensur e tha t th e progra mparticipant srepresen t th e populatio n a s awhole . I n addition , du e t o th e numbe r o f variable s involve di n pain t

sampling , th e Wor k

Grou p believe s i t

woul db e ver y difficul t

t o develo p ametri c t o uniforml y quantif y lea dpain t hazards . However , th e Wor k Grou p doe s fee l tha t

understandin g th e significanc e o r contributio n o f

lead-base d pain t t o bloo dlea dlevel s i s importan t an dcontinue s t o b e considered . Se e Ite m 1. 4 belo w fo r

additiona l discussion . vii . A s state di n th e precedin g responses , th e Wor k Grou p wil l conside r

alternat e dat a evaluatio n technique s t o improv e th e progra man dfocu s o n identifie d'proble m areas' . Se e Ite m1. 4 belo w fo r additiona l discussion . Origina l Question ; 1. 4 Statistica l Uni t

1 ha s no t me t th e performanc e standard s criteria ; pleas e provid e an y additiona l implementatio n recommendation s tha t coul db e considere db y th e Wor k Grou p t o mee t thes e standards . Pane l Response : I n respons e t o thi s question , th e IR P mad e th e observatio n tha t whil e th e mea n bloo dlea d concentratio n i s declining , th e percentag e o f participant s wit hbloo dlea dlevel s greate r tha n 1 0 an d1 5 ug/d l (P1 0 an dP15) , respectively , ha s no t significantl y change dove r time ; implyin g tha t

ther e i s a"tail " a t

th e hig hen do f

th e bloo dlea ddistributio n tha t ha s no t responde dt o th e curren t

interventions . T o develo p abette r understandin g o f

th e determinant s (o r

predictors ) o f

bloo dlead , th e pane l recommendende ddividin g th e overal l sampl e o f

childre n int o tw o groups , i.e. , thos e wit hbloo dlea dlevel s abov e an d belo w th e mean , an devaluat e eac hgrou p usin g amulti-variat e regressio n t o increas e th e statistica l powe r

o f thes e evaluation s i n a n attemp t t o revea l th e dominan t

exposur e pathways . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation : Th e Wor k Grou p i s i n agreemen t

tha t th e IRP' s observation s o n thi s issu e ar e amon g th e mos t significan t

finding s o f

th e Independen t

Revie w Panel' s report . Previou s dat a evaluatio n effort s (include di n recen t Annua l Reports ) hav e utilize dal l paire ddat at o prepar e bi-variat e plot s t o represen t th e relationshi p betwee n bloo dlea dan d environmenta l medi adata . Th e Work Grou p ha s discusse dth e possibilit y o f performin g mor e robus t

analyse s (i.e. , t o includ e dat afro mmultiple , o r mor e recent , year s o r

t o perfor mmulti-variat e regressio n analyses ) an dha s taske dth e Performanc e Standard s Workin g Grou p wit hdevelopin g acost-effective , step-wis e approac ht o investigat e th e determinant s o f

elevate dbloo dlea dlevel s i n th e persiten t uppe r tai l o f th e distribution . Th e Wor k Grou p concur s wit hth e IRP' s recommendatio n t o develo p aspecifi c pla n o r strateg y followin g astructure dproces s t o investigat e additiona l dat aevaluatio n technique s o r

effort s t o hel p i n determinin g th e factor s tha t contribut e t o elevate dbloo d lea dlevel s i n Leadvill e children . II . Evaluatio n o f

Performanc e

### Se e Attachmen t B - Wor k Grou p Request s fo r

Clarificatio n an dSummary o f Pane l Response s fo r

additiona l discussio n o n th e question s pose dan dresponse s provide di n thi s Section .

III . Annua l Repor t Origina l Question ; III. l Pleas e commen t

o n whethe r

th e LCCH P Annua l Report s (200 1 an d2002 ) mee t th e requirement s an dexpectation s o f th e Wor k Plan . Pane l Response ; Th e Pane l fel t

tha t th e Annua l Report s me t

th e requirement s an dexpectation s o f th e Wor k Pla n bu t offere dth e followin g recommendation s fo r improvement : i . Includ e atarge tdat e t o achiev e program objectives ; an d ii . Provid e a n executiv e summar y tha thighlight s outcome s i n layman' s terms . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation : i . Pleas e refe r

t o th e Wor k

Grou p Reques t

fo r Clarificatio n an dSummar y o f Pane l Response s (Attachmen t

B) . Th e Wor k

Grou p recommend s tha t

atimelin e regardin g decision s relate dt o program' s performanc e b e include di n th e structure ddat aevaluatio n pla n reference di n Ite m1. 4 above . ii . Th e Wor k

Grou p wil l includ e a n executiv e summar y i n futur e Annua l Reports . Origina l Question ; III.3. a(Paraphrased ) Wit hrespec t t o improvin g futur e Annua l Reports , d o yo u recommen d additiona l dat aanalysi s t o suppor t complianc e wit hth e RAOs : Pane l Response ; Th e Pane l recommend s tha t th e annua l repor t

shoul dinclud e afrequenc y distributio n o f hemoglobi n concentrations . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; Th e Bloo dLea dProgramcollect s hemoglobi n data , bu t ha s no t formall y reporte dthi s informatio n i n th e past . Th e Wor k Grou p ha s recommende dtha t th e Bloo dLea d Progra mprovid e thi s informatio n alon g wit hbloo dlea dconcentratio n fo r evaluatio n b y th e Wor k Group . Thi s informatio n wil l b e incorporate di n th e nex t Annua l Report .IV . Othe r

Origina l Question ; 1V. 1 Pleas e provid e an y othe r feedbac k o r thought s yo u fee l ma y b e helpfu l t o th e Wor k Grou p i n managin g th e ongoin g implementatio n o f th e Program . Pane l Response ; Th e Pane l provide d(i n part ) th e followin g recommendation s tha t th e Wor k

Grou p woul d lik e t o commen t

on : i . I n thei r

feedbac k t o thi s question , th e Pane l expresse daconcer n regardin g th e long-ter meffectivenes s o f th e remed y an dspecificall y cite dthei r opinio n o f

th e importanc e o f

Institutiona l Controls . ii . Whil e no t

aske dt o commen t

o n th e trigge r

level s fo r

environmenta l respons e actions , th e Pane l di drecommen damor e aggressiv e respons e fo r deteriorate d lea dbase dpain t

hazard s (>1 and<6 mg/cm 2 ) andsuggeste dthe use of dus t lea d loadin g (evaluate db y wip e sampling ) rathe r tha n dus t concentratio n (evaluate d b y vacuu msampling ) fo r th e evaluatio n o f

risk s relate dt o lea di n dust . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; i . Th e Institutiona l Control s (ICs ) program , a s require db y th e RO D t o suppor t th e LCCHP , i s currentl y unde r developmen t

wit hongoin g discussion s occurrin g betwee n th e County , th e EP A an dth e CDPHE . A s such , detail s o f th e propose d IC s progra mwer e no t

provide dt o th e Independen t Revie w Pane l fo r

thei r consideratio n i n thei r

revie w o f th e Program . Pleas e refe r t o th e additiona l discussio n provide di n Attachmen t B . ii . Pleas e refe r

t o th e discussio n provide di n Attachmen t B (ite mIl.l.a.i ) fo r additiona l discussio n regardin g th e developmen t o f th e trigge r

criteri afo r

th e LCCHP . I t

shoul db e note dtha t

th e Baselin e Huma n Healt hRis k Assessmen t wa s no t provide dt o th e Independen t Revie w Pane l becaus e i t wa s no t considere dt o b e withi n th e scop e o f th e progra mreview , consisten t wit hth e requirement s fo r

th e Independen t

Revie w i n th e Wor k

Plan . Wit hrespec t

t o th e comment s relate dt o th e dus t samplin g methodolog y utilize d b y th e LCCHP , th e vacuu msamplin g metho demploye db y th e LCCH P i s aHU D approve dmetho dan dth e onl y availabl e metho dt o provid e result s o f lea d concentratio n i n dust , whic har e require dfo r compariso n t o th e lea d concentratio n trigge r

criteri aenumerate di n th e ROD . I n addition , th e Wor k

Grou p woul dlik e t o clarify tha t whil e th e trigge r

criteri a cit e apreferenc e fo r

educatio n o f

participant s a t

propertie s wher e pain t

wit hlea d concentration s betwee n 1 an d6 mg/cm 2 ar e present , mor e aggressiv e action s (i.e. , respons e actions ) ar e considered , o n acase-by-cas e basis , a t propertie s wher e youn g childre n reside . SUMMAR Y O F PANE L RECOMMENDATION SI n additio n t o th e Pane l response s enumerate dabove , anumbe r o f othe r comment s an d recommendation s (no t

specificall y identifie di n th e bod y o f th e Panel' s report ) wer e include di n th e Summar y o f Pane l Recommendation s a t th e en do f

thei r report . Wor k Grou p comment s an drecommendation s o n thes e item s ar e liste dbelow : Pane l Recommendation : Modify th e acces s agreemen t t o allo w fo r

long-ter mmonitorin g an dsurveillanc e o f dus t lea dlevels , maintenanc e o f soi l remediation , etc . followin g initia l remediation . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; I n accordanc e wit hth e Wor k Plan , follow-u p inspection s ar e routinel y conducte d approximatel y on e year

followin g remediatio n t o inspec t th e conditio n o f

complete d actions . Clearanc e samplin g i s performe dfollowin g dus t an dpain t action s an d residents/owner s ar e provide dwit hinstruction s o n maintainin g thei r propert y t o minimiz e lea dexposures . Whil e long-ter mmonitorin g o f dus t lea dlevel s withi n ahom e i s no t conducte dunde r

th e program , som e follow-u p samplin g ha s bee n conducte di n th e past , an dresamplin g o f

apropert y ma y b e performe da t th e owner/resident s reques t o r i n respons e t o a n elevate dbloo dlea dlevel . Base do n th e IRP' s comments , th e Work Grou p recommend s tha t

al l currentl y availabl e informatio n relate dt o pos t remediatio n o r follow-u p dus t

samplin g b e reviewed . Base do n tha t review , th e Wor k

Grou p wil l mak e arecommendatio n t o EP A regardin g th e importanc e an dutilit y o f resamplin g dus t

a t a selec t numbe r o f propertie s a s par t

o f th e five-yea r

revie w proces s fo r

th e Superfun dSite . Pane l Recommendation : Initiat e follow-u p monitorin g o f th e effectivenes s o f

educationa l effort s i n lowerin g bloo d lea dlevel s b y observin g th e conditio n o f lead-base dpain t

an dtestin g dus t

lea dlevels , an dinterviewin g "educated " families . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; A s state di n th e precedin g comment , th e progra mdoe s no t currentl y perfor mlong-ter m monitorin g o f

pain t an ddust . Th e performanc e o f suc h an effor t

woul drequir e additiona l resource s an dfunding . Th e Wor k Grou p recommend s tha t

th e progra mcontinu e it s practic e o f

performin g additiona l investigation s an dinterview s t o follow-u p o n EB L childre n residin g a t

propertie s tha t

hav e bee n sample dan dremediate di f bloo dlea dlevel s ar e no t observe dt o decline . Th e educationa l subcommitte e o f th e Wor k Grou p ha s discusse dth e developmen t o f asurve y o r

othe r metho dt o evaluat e th e effectivenes s o f th e educationa l efforts . Pane l Recommendation : Reduc e relianc e o n HEP A vacuum s a s a n activ e for mo f remediation . Th e filter s ma y actuall y reduc e suctio n an ddecreas e efficiency . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; Th e us e o f

HEPA vacuum s throug hth e vacuu mloa n progra madministere db y th e LCCH P i s no t

considere dactiv e remediation . Thes e vacuum s ar e mad e availabl e t o participant s wher e activ e remediatio n i s pending , o r t o resident s tha t

ma y b e remodelin g thei r homes . Whe n adus t

remova l respons e actio n i s performe db y th e progra ma s activ e remediation , th e us e o f

HEP A vacuum s i s recommende db y th e HU D Guideline s an d require dunde r

Colorado' s Regulatio n 19 . Activ e dus t removal , a s describe di n th e Wor k

### Plan , als o involve s th e cleanin g o f har dsurface s i n additio n t o vacuuming , i n accordanc e wit hHU D guideline s an dState Regulations . Pane l Recommendation ; Remov e reference s t o th e us e o f TS P a s a n activ e for mo f

remediation . I t

ha s atendenc y t o damag e pain t

an dha s no t

demonstrate dsignifican t

effectivenes s i n lowerin g EBLs . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; Th e us e o f

TS P a s acleanin g agen t

a s par t o f adus t remova l respons e actio n wa s a standar dmetho dreference di n bothth e HU D guideline s an dState regulations , a t th e tim e th e Work Pla n wa s developed . Th e Work Grou p recommend s modifyin g th e Work Pla n t o reflec t th e curren t

HU D Guideline s an dState regulations , whic hhav e remove dth e specifi c referenc e to TSP , andreplace dit wit h"acleanin g agent" . Pane l Recommendation ; Distribut e fre e iro n supplement s an dvitamin s a t th e Healt hDepartment , a s appropriate , t o simplify availabilit y an denhanc e recruitment . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; Th e Lak e Count y Healt hDepartmen t ha s investigate dthi s issu e an dha s reporte dt o th e Wor k Grou p tha t

th e vitamin s recommende db y loca l doctor s contai n fluorid e an dar e no t availabl e 'ove r

th e counter' . Th e cos t

o f thes e vitamin s i s approximatel y $1 6 pe r 10 0 tablets . Th e Wor k

Grou p i s recommendin g tha t avouche r fo r vitamin s b e provide dt o al l childre n wit helevate dbloo dlead s an dlo w hemoglobi n levels . Followin g furthe r evaluatio n o f

th e associatio n betwee n hemoglobi n an dbloo dlea ddat a(t o b e include di n th e 200 3 Annua l Repor t

a s recommende di n Ite mIll.S.a) , th e Wor k Grou p wil l revisi t

th e issu e o f whethe r t o conside r

broade r distribution . Pane l Recommendation ; Educat e an dencourag e realtor s t o practic e HU D an dEP A mandate dregulation s regardin g representation s o f conditio n tha t

ar e accurat e an dunbiased . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation; Al l propert y owner s participatin g i n th e progra mar e mad e awar e o f thes e requirement s an drealtor s ar e identifie da s atarge t grou p fo r educatio n an doutreac hefforts . Th e educationa l subcommitte e o f th e Work Grou p wil l redistribut e material s t o loca l realtor s regardin g thes e disclosur e requirements . Pane l Recommendation ; Provid e properl y owner s wit ha"clea n letter " fro mth e EP A onc e successfu l remediatio n o f thei r property ha s bee n accomplished . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation ; Th e Work Grou p believe s tha t

th e procedure s currentl y i n plac e fo r th e LCCH P provid e th e necessary informatio n t o propert y owner s regardin g th e completio n o f remediatio n a t thei r property . Th e LCCH P provide s Propert y Documentatio n Report s t o al l owner s wh o hav e entere dth e progra mtha t provid e al l informatio no n environmenta l samplin g an dremedia l actions , i f performed , an dreferenc e t o EPA' s approva l o f th e Wor k Group' s recommendations . Pane l Recommendation ; Encourag e constructio n an dremodelin g tha t incorporate s bar e floor s tha t ar e easie r t o clea n an dtra p les s dus t

tha n carpet , especiall y i n entryways . Wor kGrou p Comment/Recommendation : Th e educationa l subcommitte e o f th e Wor k Grou p discusse dth e IRP' s suggestio n o f encouragin g bar e floor s whe n remodeling . Sinc e ther e i s som e controvers y aroun dthi s topi c nationall y th e grou p recommend s tha t informatio n b e presente di n th e "Tip s fo r reducin g lea di n you r

home " brochur e an dtha t

resident s b e encourage dt o contac t th e progra mfo r

informatio n regardin g lea dhazard s prio r t o remodeling .

Pane l Recommendation ; Welcom e th e pres s an dmedi at o becom e involve di n excercise s suc ha s thi s Independen t Revie w Panel . Wor k Grou p Comment/Recommendation : Th e pres s an dmedi aar e no t invite dt o Wor k

Grou p meeting s du e t o th e confidentia l natur e o f th e informatio n discussed . However , th e pres s an dmedi acan atten dpubli c meeting s periodicall y schedule dwit hloca l communit y leader s t o discus s th e progres s an d achievement s o f

th e program(Se e Ite m1.2) . I n additio n th e loca l pres s i s use dt o advertis e th e progra man demployee s o f th e loca l newspaper s hav e participate di n th e environmenta l program .



### 1 0

### ATTACHMEN T D SCOPE O FWOR K An d 

### KE Y ISSUES/QUESTION S

### LAK E COUNT Y COMMUNIT Y HEALT H PROGRA M INDEPENDEN T REVIE W PANE L SCOPE O F WOR K Th e Lak e Count y Communit y Healt hProgra m(LCCHP ) i s th e remedia l actio n selecte db y th e U.S . EP A t o addres s huma n healt hrisk s fro mexposur e t o source s o f lea dwithi nOperabl e Uni t 9 (Residentia l Populate dAreas ) o f th e Californi aGulc hSuperfun dSit e (th e Site) . Th e Sit e lie s withi n Lak e County , Colorado , whic hi s arelativel y smal l (38 0 squar e miles) , predominantl y rura l count y wit ha200 0 populatio n o f approximatel y 7,80 0 (U.S . Burea u o f th e Census , 2000) . Accordin g t o record s fro mth e Lak e Count y Assessor' s Office , ther e wer e approximatel y 3,50 0 residentia l units , includin g multiple-dwellin g units , locate dwithi nOU 9 i n 1999 . Th e LCCH P i s a n innovativ e remed y tha t ha s bee n designe dt o reduc e overal l lead-relate dris k t o childre n i n Leadvill e b y includin g response s tha t addres s numerou s source s o f lea dexposure , eve n source s tha t

woul dno t

b e addresse dunde r

EPA' s Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response , Compensatio n an dLiabilit y Ac t (CERCLA ) authorities . Th e potentia l source s o f lea dexposur e that are addresse db y th e LCCHP' s investigatio n an dremediatio n program s includ e soil , hous e dust , drinkin g wate r

an dinterio r

an dexterio r

paint . Thi s comprehensiv e approac hwa s originall y propose dan deventuall y adopte di n respons e t o stron g communit y interes t i n managin g exposure s t o lea di n lie u o f

amor e conventional , residential-soi l remova l program . Th e progra mwa s designe dt o operat e i n amanne r tha t minimize s impact s t o th e communit y an doptimize s th e us e o f availabl e resource s t o reduc e residen t children' s lea dexposur e an dultimatel y reduc e community-wid e bloo dlea dlevel s t o mee t EPA' s risk-reductio n goal s fo r thi s Site . Th e LCCH Pha s bee n implemente dsinc e Ma y 200 0 an dcurrentl y provide s arang e o f service s t o assis t resident s i n reducin g thei r exposur e t o lea di n an daroun dthei r homes . Thes e service s includ e routin e bloo dlea dtestin g fo r residen t childre n an dpregnan t

o r nursin g women , environmenta l lea dinvestigation s a t residentia l propertie s withi nOU9 , remediatio n o f potentia l source s o f lea dexposur e identifie dthroug hthos e investigation s an dcommunit y educatio n an d awarenes s programs . Residents ' participatio n i n an y aspec t o f th e progra mi s voluntary . Th e quantitativ e remedia l actio n objective s (RAOs ) o f th e selecte dremed y fo r

OU 9 wer e state d i nth e EPA' s Recor do f

Decisio n (ROD ) (EPA , 2000) , a s follows : RAO-1: N o mor e tha n 5 percen t o f al l childre n (age s 0 t o 7 2 months ) wh o liv e a t thi s site , eithe r no w o r i n th e future , wil l hav e bloo dleadvalue s highe r tha n 1 0 ng/dL . RAO-2 : Healt hwil l b e adequatel y protecte di f th e highes t

ris k leve l a t an y sub-locatio n i s aprobabilit y tha t

n o highe r tha n on e percen t

tha t apopulatio n o f

childre n (age s 0 t o 7 2 months ) residin g a t

tha t sub-locatio n wil l excee dabloo dlea dvalu e o f 1 5 ug/dL . A n additiona l qualitativ e RA O wa s adde ddurin g th e developmen t o f th e Feasibilit y Stud y fo r OU 9 an dals o considere ddurin g remed y selection : Reduc e th e direc t

exposur e o f

lea dincurre db y children , whic hwil l resul t i n optima l ris k reductio n throug heffectiv e us e o f resources . Sinc e selectio n o f

th e remedy , mor e detaile dperformanc e standard s wer e develope dt o defin e th e measure s use dt o evaluat e performanc e o f th e LCCH Prelativ e t o thes e RAOs .

# I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Becaus e th e LCCH Pi s distinc t i n it s approac hfro mtypica l Superfun dremedie s selecte dt o addres s source s o f

lea di n residentia l areas , th e EP A ha s require dtha t desig n an dimplementatio n o f th e progra mb e reviewe dan devaluate db y apane l o f expert s wh o hav e experienc e implementin g o r

evaluatin g lea dris k

reductio n program s bu t

wh o ar e no t

directl y involve di n th e LCCH P o r

it s origina l development . Th e independen t

pane l wil l b e taske dwit hcompletin g athoroug hrevie w an devaluatio n o f LCCH P desig n an dimplementation . Th e goal o f thi s revie w wil l b e t o provid e recommendation s fo r improvin g th e overal l effectivenes s an defficienc y o f th e progra mi n meetin g it s state d objective s an destablishe dperformanc e standards . Th e revie w wil l includ e th e followin g tasks :
• revie w an dcommen t

o n th e LCCH PWor k

Pla n (MFG , 2000) , th e 'design ' documen t an dimplementatio n pla n fo r th e program ;
• revie w an devaluat e th e administratio n an dimplementatio n o f th e progra mwit h respec t t o th e requirement s o f

th e Work Plan ;
• evaluat e an dcommen t o n th e remedy' s performanc e standard s a s measure s o f th e overal l effectivenes s o f

th e LCCHP ;
• evaluat e communit y outreac han deducatio n program s an dmak e recommendation s fo r improvin g thei r

effectiveness ; an d

• evaluat e residen t

participatio n i n bloo dlea dmonitorin g an denvironmenta l testin g program s an dmak e recommendation s fo r improvin g participation , i f warranted . Th e focu s o f

th e independen t

revie w pane l shal l b e t o evaluat e th e structur e an doperatio n o f th e progra man dth e appropriatenes s o f performanc e standards . Th e pane l wil l hav e th e opportunit y t o mak e recommendation s fo r improvin g th e desig n an dimplementatio n o f th e LCCHP , a s the y se e necessary . Thi s scop e o f revie w include s abroa drang e o f progra mcomponents , including : progra madministratio n an dwor k grou p operations ; recruitmen t activities ; communit y awarenes s an deducatio n programs ; interaction s wit hprogra mparticipants ; environmenta l testin g progra m an dprocedures ; bloo dlea dtestin g progra man dprocedures ; dat aevaluatio n practices ; implementatio n o f

respons e actions ; an ddat amanagemen t an dreportin g practices . Th e independen t

revie w i s no t

intende dt o addres s certai n fundamenta l element s o f th e progra m describe di n th e Recordo f Decisio n (ROD) , including : remedia l actio n objectives , th e voluntar y natur e o f th e program , progra meligibility , th e medi aaddressed , an dtrigge r criteri afo r

th e variou s medi ause da s th e basi s fo r recommendin g respons e actions . Member s o f

th e independen t

pane l wil l conven e i n Leadville , Colorad o t o observ e th e functionin g element s o f

th e progra man dt o mee t

wit hLCCH Pstaff , th e advisor y wor k grou p (include s state an dloca l healt hdepartmen t representatives ) an dagrou p o f progra mparticipants . Member s o f th e revie w pane l wil l b e provide dwit hth e followin g information , prio r t o visitin g th e Site , t o assis t the mi n initiatin g th e revie w process :

• Recor do f

Decisio n fo r

Operabl e Uni t

9 , Residentia l Populate dAreas , Californi a Gulc hSuperfun dSite , Leadville , Colorado . U.S . EPA , Septembe r 1999 .

• Wor k Pla n fo r th e Lak e Count y Communit y Healt hProgram , Operabl e Uni t 9 , Residentia l Populate dAreas , Californi aGulc hSuperfun dSite . Decembe r 2000 .

### • Method s an dStandard s fo r Evaluatin g th e Performanc e o f th e Lak e Count y Communit y Healt hProgram . Jul y 2002 .

• Leadvill e Kid s Firs t

Progra mReport , 1994-199 9 Progres s an dResults . Februar y 

### 2001 .

• Lak e Count y Communit y Healt hProgram , 200 1 Annua l Report . Jul y 2002 .

• Lak e Count y Communit y Healt hProgram , 200 2 Annua l Report . Jun e 2003 .

• Packag e o f

informatio n containin g brochure s an deducationa l material s distribute da s par t o f th e outreac heffort s o f

th e program . Additiona l backgroun ddocument s an dinformatio n regardin g th e progra mwil l b e mad e availabl e t o th e revie w panel , upo n request , followin g th e completio n o f thei r initia l review . I t i s anticipate dtha t

th e revie w pane l wil l complet e it s revie w durin g atwo-day workin g sessio n i nDenve r an dLeadville . A n agend afo r th e two-day progra mrevie w sessio n i s attached . Pane l member s wil l b e expecte dt o revie w th e abov e reference dinformatio n prio r t o arrivin g fo r

th e workin g session . A lis t

o f ke y issue s and/o r

question s t o b e answere db y th e revie w pane l wil l b e provide dt o th e pane l i n advanc e o f th e workin g session . Th e purpos e o f thi s lis t i s t o provid e a focu s fo r th e revie w an dt o provid e aforma t fo r th e work produc t t o b e develope db y th e revie w panel . A facilitato r

wil l b e assigne dt o th e revie w pane l t o assis t the mi n coordinatin g thei r revie w an di n compilin g thei r wor k product . Th e workin g sessio n wil l consis t o f aserie s o f interactiv e presentation s conducte db y progra mstaf f an dWork 'Grou p members , focuse do n certai n aspect s o f

th e program , asit e tour , an da n opportunit y t o interac t wit hloca l communit y leader s an dpossibl y programparticipants . Th e fina l sessio n o f th e progra mrevie w wil l b e reserve dfo r

aprivat e sessio n wit hth e revie w pane l an dth e facilitato r a t whic htim e the y wil l hav e th e opportunit y t o draf t thei r finding s an dresponse s t o th e lis t o f question s provided , an d compil e alis t

o f recommendations . Th e wor k produc t resultin g fro mthi s independen t revie w wil l b e awritte n report

detailin g th e finding s an drecommendation s o f th e revie w panel . Th e fina l repor t

o f th e independen t

revie w pane l shal l b e submitte dwithi n 3 0 day s o f th e completio n o f th e workin g session . Th e facilitato r wil l circulat e adraf

t o f th e report t o pane l member s followin g th e workin g sessio n an dwil l coordinat e th e finalizatio n an dsubmitta l o f th e report . Th e report wil l b e submitte ddirectl y t o th e LCCHP' s advisor y wor k group , Lak e Count y Healt h Department , CDPH E an dEPA . Afte r receivin g th e independen t panel' s finding s an d recommendations , th e Wor k Grou p wil l revie w an ddiscus s thi s report an dmak e afina l recommendatio n t o th e EP A regardin g th e implementatio n o f an y change s t o th e operatio n o f th e program .

J:\BLDOI\5626\TasklO\PeerReview\IndRevSO WFinal.do c

# I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I LAK E COUNT Y COMMUNIT Y HEALT H PROGRA M INDEPENDEN T REVIE W PANE L KE Y ISSUES/QUESTION S Th e Independen t

Revie w Pane l i s bein g taske dwit hpreparin g awritte n report detailin g thei r finding s an drecommendation s develope dthroug hth e revie w o f th e program . Th e LCCH P Work

Grou p ha s prepare dthi s lis t o f question s an dissue s t o solici t inpu t fro m th e revie w pane l o n specifi c aspect s o f th e program . Th e Work

Grou p i s requestin g tha t th e panel' s fina l report

b e divide dint o section s correspondin g withth e heading s provide d i n thi s document , followe db y response s t o th e specifi c question s pose dbelo w an dan y othe r feedbac k th e revie w pane l woul dlik e t o provide . Th e Work Grou p doe s no t anticipat e tha t

th e fina l report

wil l contai n length y backgroun ddiscussion , rathe r a compilatio n o f

comment s an drecommendation s tha t th e LCCH P Work

Grou p an dth e EP A ca n conside r

t o furthe r improv e th e implementatio n an deffectivenes s o f th e program . I . LCCHPImplementatio n Base do n th e Panel' s revie w o f th e LCCHP Work

Plan an dth e Program' s operation s t o date , pleas e addres s th e following : 1 . I s th e Programbein g implemente di n amanne r consisten t

wit hth e desig n presente di n th e Wor k

Plan ? 2. Pleas e provid e any suggestion s or recommendation s you may hav e for improvin g th e structur e (i.e. , organization , responsibilitie s an dinterna l communications ) o f

LCCH P managemen t

an dadministration . 3 . I n providin g you r

feedbac k wit hrespec t

t o th e implementatio n o f th e Program , pleas e conside r

thes e specifi c component s o f th e Program design :

- Programadministratio n an dWork Grou p operations ;

- Communit y awareness , education , an drecruitmen t activities ;

- Interaction s withProgramparticipant s an dcoordinatio n betwee n environmenta l testin g an dbloo dlea dprograms ;

- Environmenta l testin g progra man dprocedures ;

- Bloo dleadtestin g progra man dprocedures ;

- Dat amanagement , evaluation , an dreportin g practices ;

- Implementatio n o f

respons e actions ; an d

- Documentatio n an dreportin g practices . 4 . Statistica l Uni t

1 ha s no t me t th e performanc e standard s criteria ; pleas e provid e an y additiona l implementatio n recommendation s tha t coul db e considere db y th e Work

Grou p t o mee t

thes e standards .

### II . Evaluatio n o f Performanc e Base do n th e Panel' s revie w o f th e ''Method s an dStandard s fo r Evaluatin g th e Performanc e o f

th e Lak e County Communit y Healt h Program ' documen t

(th e 'Performanc e Standard s Document' ) an dth e evaluatio n o f dat afro mth e year s 2000 , 2001 , an d2002 , presente di n th e 200 2 Annua l Report , pleas e addres s th e following : 1 . Pleas e commen t

o n th e appropriatenes s an dapplicabilit y o f th e statistica l method s an dstandard s presente di n th e Performanc e Standard s Documen t fo r evaluatin g th e performanc e o f th e Progra mwit hrespec t

t o th e establishedRemedia l Actio n Objectives . a . I s th e rational e fo r

eac hperformanc e standar dadequatel y described , appropriate , an dscientificall y defensible ? b . Doe s th e metho dadequatel y demonstrat e th e long-termeffectivenes s o f th e remed y an dcomplianc e wit hRAOs ? 2 . Pleas e commen t

o n th e dat aevaluatio n technique s an dstatistica l method s presente di n th e Performanc e Standard s Documen t an dmak e an y suggestion s o r

recommendation s fo r

modificatio n o r

improvement . a . Hav e Typ e I an dTyp e I I erro r rate s bee n assesse dadequatel y an di n a scientificall y defensibl e manner ? b . Ha s th e uncertaint y i n th e P1 0 an dPI 5 value s bee n assesse d adequatel y an di n ascientificall y defensibl e manner ? c . D o th e require dcriteri aadequatel y asses s th e overal l representativenes s o f

th e availabl e bloo dlea ddata , use dt o deriv e th e theoretica l bloo dleaddistributio n fo r th e communit y a t

large ? d . Doe s th e tes t

o f proportion s use di n Performanc e Standar d4 provid e reasonabl e assuranc e tha t

bloo dleadprogra mparticipant s ar e no t fro m residence s tha t

underestimat e th e hig hen do f th e soi l lea ddistributio n fo r th e statistica l uni t

a s awhole ? e . D o th e method s an dstandard s fo r evaluatin g performanc e provid e reasonabl e assuranc e tha t

th e Program' s goal regardin g residua l ris k — t o ensur e tha t

whateve r residua l risk s tha t

remai n wil l b e sufficientl y lo w a s t o no t

excee dth e RAO s (describe di n sectio n 7. 0 o f th e Performanc e Standard s Document ) - wil l b e achieved ? III . Annua l Repor t

Base do n th e Panel' s revie w o f th e 200 1 an d200 2 Annua l Report s an dth e 1994

- 1999 Progres s an dResult s Report , pleas e addres s th e following : 1 . Please commen t

o n whethe r

th e LCCHP Annua l Report s (200 1 an d2002 ) mee t th e requirement s an dexpectation s o f th e Work Plan .

### 2 . Pleas e commen t o n whethe r

dat apresente di n th e 200 2 annua l report ar e adequat e t o suppor t

evaluatio n o f

th e progra mperformanc e standard s (Refe r t o Appendi x D o f

th e 200 2 Annua l Report) ? 3 . Pleas e mak e an y suggestion s o r recommendation s fo r

improvin g th e valu e an dusefulnes s o f

futur e annua l reports . However , i n makin g you r suggestion s an drecommendations , pleas e b e mindfu l tha t thes e ar e produce da s publi c document s an dth e confidentialit y o f progra m participant s mus t

b e maintained . a . D o yo u recommen dadditiona l dat aanalysi s t o support complianc e withth e RAOs ? b . Ar e ther e component s o f th e dat aanalysi s presente di n th e annua l report tha t yo u fee l ar e no t

necessary ? c . Ca n yo u identif

y way s t o streamlin e th e annua l report ? IV . Othe r 1. Pleas e provid e any othe r feedbac k or thought s you fee l may be helpfu l to th e Work Grou p i n managin g th e ongoin g implementatio n o f th e Progra m an densurin g long-ter mprotectio n o f publi c health . 2 . Wa s th e Independen t

Revie w Pane l provide dwit hth e tool s an d informatio n neede dto complet e the Progra mrevie w in accordanc e wit h th e Scop e o f

Work ?

J:\BLDOI\5626\TasklO\PeerReview\LCCHP_panelquestions_Final.do c