### 3 0 M

PB95-96441 2 EPA/ROD/R08-95/10 6 Ma y 199 5 

# EP A Superfun d 

# Recor d o f Decision ;
Midval e Sla g (O.U

. 1)

, Midvale

, U T 4/28/199 5

### 2647 2 DECLARATIO N O F RECOR D O F DECISIO N ADMINISTRATIV

E 

## RECOR D SIT E NAM E AN D LOCATIO N Midval e Slag

, Operabl e Uni t No

. 1 , Midvale

, Uta h i

IL E PLA N STATEMEN T O F BASI S AN D PURPOS E This decisio n documen t present s th e selecte d remedia l actio n fo r Midval e Slag

, Operabl e Uni t No

. 1 (OU1 ) i n Midvale

, Utah

. Th e remedia l actio n wa s chose n i n accordanc e wit h th e requirement s o f th e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response

, Compensation

, an d Liabilit y Ac t (CERCLA ) a s amende d b y Superfun d Amendment s an d Reauthorization Ac t o f 198 6 (SARA)

, and
, t o th e exten t possible
, th e Nationa l Oi l an d Hazardous Substances Contingenc y Plan (NCP)

. This decisio n i s base d o n th e administrativ e recor d fo r thi s site

. The Uta h Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y ha s jointl y worke d wit h the Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y t o selec t a remed y fo r OU1

. ASSESSMEN T O F TH E SIT E Actual o r threatene d release s o f hazardou s substance s fro m OU1

, i f no t addresse d b y implementin g th e respons e action s selecte d i n thi s Recor d o f Decision

, ma y presen t a n imminen t an d substantia l endangermen t t o public
, health
, welfare
, o r th e environment

. DESCRIPTIO N O F TH E REMED Y Th e respons e action s describe d i n thi s Recor d o f Decisio n addres s al l know n occurrence s o f hazardou s substance s a t OU 1 tha t hav e bee n identifie d a s contaminant s an d tha t presen t a cance r risk
, non-cance r hazar d inde x o r environmenta l ris k i n exces s o f establishe d guidelines

. Thes e occurrence s constitut e th e principa l threat s a t OU1

. Th e majo r component s o f th e selecte d remed y includ e th e following : • Excavatin g th e uppe r 1 8 inche s o f nativ e soil s a t 1 4 residential yard s i n th e Wincheste r Estate s residentia l development

. Th e 18-inc h dept h i s considere d t o b e a minimu m wit h confirmator y samplin g use d t o identif y area s requirin g additiona l excavation

. Clea n fil l woul d b e importe d t o restor e th e origina l grade
, an d eac h yar d wil l b e restore d a s closel y a s possibl e t o it s origina l condition

. Th e wastes , bein g non-hazardous
, woul d b e dispose d o f i n Resourc e Conservatio n an d Recover y Ac t (RCRA ) Subtitl e D landfil l o r store d a t th e Midval e Sla g OU 2 Sit e pendin g rewsd y I§te5& m fc f OU2,
„ i '': • Placin g a 2-foot-thic k monolaye r soil s cove r o n Parce l WES E (curren t undevelope d southeas t portio n o f Wincheste r Estates ; zone d residential)

. utahdeq\rod\text.ap rL

^ • Implementin g dee d restriction s o r othe r institutiona l control s o n Parce l WES E precludin g

. mos

t futur e excavatio n tha t woul d breac h th e monolaye r soi l cover
. An y nativ e soil s ! fro m

permitte d excavatio n mus t b e properl y controlle d on-sit e o r dispose d o f i n a RCR A
"

~ Subtitl

e D Landfill

.

^ • Implementin g dee d restriction s o r othe r institutiona l control s o n Parcel s LR-east

, LR

west , L F an d L G whic h woul d prohibi t futur e residential lan d us e withou t additiona l propert y remediation t o residential soi l cleanu p levels

. • Groun d wate r monitorin g a t th e hydraulicall y downgradient sit e boundar y (wes t an d north ) fo r minimu m o f 5 years

. DECLARATION

; L Th e selecte d remed y i s protectiv e o f huma n healt h an d th e environment , complie s wit h Federa l
an d Stat e requirement s tha t ar e legall y applicabl e o r relevan t an d appropriat e t o th e remedia l L

. action , an d i s cost-effective

. This remed y utilize s permanen t solution s an d alternativ e treatmen t technologie s t o th e exten t practicabl e for thi s site

. However

, becaus e treatmen t o f th e principa l threat s o f th e sit e wa s foun d no t t o b e practicable
, thi s remed y doe s no t satisf y th e statutor y

_ preferenc e

fo r wast e treatmen t a s a principa l elemen t o f th e remedy

. OU 1 waste s ar e comprised
o f metal-bearin g particle s (sla g an d othe r wastes ) finel y disseminate d throughou t a larg e volum e I o f soil

. Th e larg e volum e o f soil s couple d wit h th e absenc e o f a technolog y capabl e o f

— practicall

y removin g th e meta l contaminant s fro m th e matri x precludes wast e treatmen t a s a n option

.

- Implementin

g thi s remed y wil l resul t i n hazardou s substance s remainin g o n OU1

, therefor e a revie w wil l b e conducte d withi n 5 year s afte r commencemen t o f remedia l actio n t o ensur e tha t

, th e remed y continue s t o provid e adequat e protectio n o f huma n healt h an d th e environment

. Th e u 5 yea r revie w wil l b e conducted a s require d unde r Sectio n 12 1 (c ) o f CERCL A an d 4 0 CFR

. § 300.43 0 (f)(4)(ii ) o f the NCP

.



# _ .... _ _.. _ _ Director

, Hazardous WasWManag^en t

Divisio n USEP A Regio n V m ^ S 

# a Executiv e Directo r Dat

e Uta h Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y 

## L

utahdeq\rod\textap rTABL E O F CONTENT S Sectio n Titl

e Pag e

No

. I SIT E NAME

, LOCATION

, AN D DESCRIPTIO

N

................... .

1

n SIT E HISTOR Y AN D ENFORCEMEN T ACTIVITIE

S

................ .

1 Histor y o f Sit e Activitie s Histor y o f Federa l an d Stat e Sit e Investigation s Histor y o f CERCL A Enforcemen t Activitie s

m HIGHLIGHT

S O F COMMUNIT

Y PARTICIPATIO

N

................. .

3 I V SCOP E AN D ROL E O F RESPONS E ACTIO N

.................... .

5 SUMMAR Y O F SIT E CHARACTERISTIC

S

..... . Geolog y an d Geograph y Hydrogeolog y 

### Known an d Suspecte d Source s o f Contaminatio n Distributio n o f Contamination/Affecte d

Medi a Volum e o f Contaminate d Materia l Potential Route s fo r Huma n Exposur e V I SUMMAR Y O F SIT E RISK S

............................... . 8 Exposur e Poin t Concentration s Exposur e Assessmen t Toxicit y Assessmen t Ris k Characterizatio n Uncertaintie s Environmenta l Risk s V H REMEDIA L ACTIO N OBJECTIVE

S

.......................... .

1 3 VI E DESCRIPTIO

N O F ALTERNATIVE

S

......................... .

1 4 Alternativ e No

. 1 Alternativ e No

. 2 Alternativ e No

. 3 Alternativ e No

. 4 Alternativ e No

. 5 Alternativ e No

. 6 K SUMMAR

Y O F COMPARATIV

E ANALYSI S O F ALTERNATIVE

S

...... . 1 8 Criterio n 1 : Protectio n o f Huma n Healt h an d th e Environmen t Criterio n 2 : Complianc e wit h ARAR s Criterio n 3 : Long-Ter m Effectivenes s Criterio n 4 : Us e o f Treatmen t t o Reduc e Toxicity

, Mobility

, an d Volum e Criterio n 5 : Short-Ter m Effectivenes s
Wahdeq\rod\tcxt.ap r Pag e iTabl e o f Content s (Continued ) Sectio n Titl

e Pag e

No

. Criterio n 6 : Implementabilit y Criterion? : Cos t Criterio n 8 : Stat e Acceptanc e Criterio n 9 : Communit y Acceptanc e X SELECTE D REMED Y

.................................. . 2 2 X I STATUTOR Y

DETERMINATIO

N

........................... . 2 4 Protectio n o f Huma n Healt h an d th e Environmen t Complianc e wit h ARAR s Cost-Effectivenes s Utilizatio n o f Permanen t Solution s an d Alternativ e Treatmen t Technologie s Preferenc e fo r Treatmen t a s a Principal Elemen t X H RESPONSIVENES

S SUMMAR Y

............................ . 2 5 Overvie w Backgroun d o n Communit y Involvement Comment s Receive d Durin g th e Publi c Commen t Perio d XI H REFERENCE S

....................................... . 5 5 APPENDI X A APPLICABLE

, RELEVAN T O R APPROPRIAT E REQUIREMENT

S A l Groundwate r ARAR s A 2 Action-Specifi c ARAR s A 3 Location-Specifi c

ARAR s TABLE S
1 Exposur e Poin t Concentration s 2 Summar y o f Huma n Exposur e Parameter s 3 Tota l Sit e Ris k Estimate s 4 Soi l Clean-u p Level s 5 Reduction i n Soi l Contaminan t Concentration s Unde r th e Selecte d Remed y 6 Tota l Sit e Ris k Reductio n Unde r Selecte d Remed y

utahdcq\rod\tcxt.*p r , Pag

e i iTabl e o f Content s (Continued ) FIGURE S
1 Midval e Sla g Superfun d Sit e Inde x Ma p 2 Midval e Sla g Sit e OU 1 Parcel s 3 Infrare d Fals e Colo r Aeria l Photograp h 4 Conceptua l Mode l o f Exposur e Pathway s a t OU 1 5 Wincheste r Estate s RM E Cance r Ris k Fro m Arseni c 6 Wincheste r Estate s Chroni c Hazar d Inde x Fro m Arseni c 7 Wincheste r Estate s Probabilit y o f Bloo d Lea d Exceedin g 1 0 ug/d l 8 Poin t o f Complianc e for Groun d wate r ARAR s

utahdeq\rod\tea.»p r Pag e it i

## L

L 

## L

* L



### DECISION SUMMAR Y M I D VAL E SLA G OU I SIT E MTOVALE

, UTA HL SIT E NAME

, LOCATION

, AN D DESCRIPTION The Midval e Sla g Superfun d Sit e encompasse s approximatel y 53 0 acres

. The sit e i s locate d 1 2 mile s sout h o f Sal t Lak e City

, Utah

, an d i s almos t completel y withi n th e cit y limit s o f Midval e (Figur e 1)

. Operabl e Uni t No

. 1 (OU1 ) encompasse s approximatel y 33 0 acre s (Figur e 2 ) an d i s bounde d b y th e following : a n east/wes t lin e draw n nort h o f th e sla g pile s a t approximatel y 725 0 Sout h Stree t mark s th e souther n border ; th e Jorda n Rive r mark s th e wester n border ; 640 0 Sout h Stree t mark s th e norther n border ; an d 70 0 Wes t Stree t mark s th e easter n border

. OU 1 also include s th e Wincheste r Estate s area , th e abandone d Midval e Wastewate r Treatmen t Plan t (WWTP)

, an d th e lagoon s area
. Becaus e o f th e uniqu e characteristic s o f eac h portio n o f OU 1
an d t o facilitat e th e organization o f th e remedia l investigatio n (PI)

, OU 1 wa s subdivide d int o th e followin g parcels : • L R

- Th e are a occupie d b y th e right-of-wa y fo r th e propose d Jorda n Rive r Boulevard ; th e souther n one-thir d o f OU1

. • L F
- Th e west-centra l portio n o f OU 1 (sit e o f a smal l landfill)

. • L G

- Th e are a occupie d b y th e abandone d WWT P lagoons ; th e east-centra l portio n o f OU1

. • W E

- Th e are a occupie d b y th e Wincheste r Estates ; th e norther n one-thir d o f OU1; bounde d o n th e nort h b y 640 0 Sout h an d o n th e wes t b y th e Jorda n River

. The Wincheste r Estate s Parce l wa s furthe r subdivide d int o th e followin g subparcels : • WEN W Residentia l - Th e northwester n portio n o f OU 1 tha t include s th e curren t Wincheste r Estate s residential development ; bordere d o n th e nort h b y 640 0 Sout h Stree t an d o n th e wes t b y th e Jorda n River

. • WES E

- Th e undevelope d southeas t portio n o f Wincheste r Estates ; bordere d on th e eas t b y Sout h Mai n Street

. H

. SIT E HISTOR Y AN D ENFORCEMEN T ACTIVITIE S History o f Sit e Activitie s Littl e informatio n i s availabl e describin g historica l activitie s o n OU 1 prior t o th e 1940s

. Befor e tha t time , i t i s generall y believe d tha t th e lan d wa s use d a s pastur e wit h n o industria l activities

. A 195 2 aeria l photograph o f th e souther n two-third s o f OU 1 showe d n o evidenc e o f commercial/industria l us e o r disturbe d groun d wit h th e exceptio n o f a smal l landfil l (les s tha n 1 acre ) an d a n associated unpave d road

. Disposal o f domesti c tras h an d househol d good s occurre d o n th e southwes t corne r o f th e L F Parce l fro m approximatel y th e 1940 s unti l a landfil l
wa s establishe d b y th e count y i n th e 1960s

. Th e Sout h Valle y Wate r Reclamation Distric t operate d the Midval e WWT P o n the Midval e OU 1 Sit e (L R Parcel ) fro m 195 9 unti l 1986

. The plan t originall y consiste d o f a tricklin g filte r system

. A n aerate d lagoon syste m consistin g o f thre e lagoon s wa s adde d i n 197 6 an d operate d unti l th e closur e o f th e WWT P i n 1986

. Th e lagoon s wer e close d accordin g t o a n approve d Closur e Plan an d materia l excavate d a s par t o f th e Interstat e Highwa y 21 5 constructio n projec t wa s subsequentl y deposite d o n th e forme r lagoon location

.
utahd«i\rod\text.ap r Pag e 1Th e lan d t o th e sout h o f th e Midval e Sla g OU 1 Sit e wa s th e sit e o f historica l smeltin g activitie s beginnin g i n 187 1 an d endin g i n 1958

. I t i s th e smeltin g activitie s tha t ar e presume d t o accoun t fo r th e contaminant s detecte d a t OU1

. Th e forme r smelte r sit e i s bein g addresse d unde r CERCL A a s Operabl e Uni t 2 o f th e Midval e Sla g Site

. Histor y o f Federa l an d Stat e Sh e Investigation s Th e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (USEPA ) conducted a Preliminar y Assessmen t (PA )

and Sit e Inspectio n (SI ) o f the Midval e Sla g Sit e i n 1984

. The P A repor t describe d the presence o f air

- an d water-quenche d slag s an d recognize d tha t smeltin g residue s o f sulfid e ore s ma y contai n significan t quantitie s o f arsenic

. Th e P A repor t recommende d furthe r actio n o n th e sit e an d tha t th e actio n b e give n a hig h priority

. Th e S I repor t gav e th e sit e a Hazar d Rankin g o f 77.0 8 an d declare d tha t a significan t an d immediat e hazar d appear s t o exis t a t th e site

. Th e S I repor t recommende d tha t th e sit e b e include d i n th e nex t updat e o f th e Nationa l Priorit y Lis t a s a propose d sit e fo r remedia l actio n unde r CERCLA

. I n Augus t 1985 , Ecolog y an d Environmen t (EE)

, a Technica l Assistanc e Tea m contractor, conducte d a n investigatio n o f surfac e wate r an d sedimen t i n th e Jorda n River

. Thi s investigatio n conclude d tha t n o significan t contamination o f surfac e wate r coul d b e detected

. Jorda n Rive r sedimen t wa s foun d t o contai n elevate d level s o f arsenic , cadmium
, chromium
, cobalt
, lead
, manganese , mercur y an d zin c a s compare d wit h loca l backgroun d samplin g station s upstrea m o f th e Midval e site

. Th e E E repor t als o conclude d tha t furthe r definitio n o f surfac e water s ma y b e necessary

. USEP A an d Uta h Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y (UDEQ ) subsequentl y funde d investigativ e an d remedia l activitie s fro m 199 2 t o th e presen t includin g a Sit e Characterization

, Baselin e Huma n Healt h Ris k Assessment (BRA)

, Feasibilit y Stud y (FS)

, an d Ecologica l Evaluation

. Th e result s o f thi s wor k indicat e tha t elevate d level s o f arsenic , cadmiu m an d lea d i n surfac e soil s pos e a n unacceptabl e ris k t o som e resident s i n th e develope d are a (Wincheste r Estates)

. Th e BR A conclude d that
, i f th e undevelope d portion s o f OU 1 shoul d b e developed
, exposur e t o surfac e soil s coul d resul t i n unacceptabl e healt h risk s dependin g o n th e typ e o f lan d use

. Detail s o f th e BR A ar e summarize d i n Sectio n VI

, Summar y o f Sit e Risks

. Histor y o f CERCL A Enforcemen t Activitie s Unde r CERCL A a searc h i s conducte d t o identif y those partie s responsibl e for th e contamination a t th e sit e i n orde r t o secur e monetar y compensatio n fo r th e cost s incurre d t o investigat e an d clea n u p th e site

. Th e Potentiall y Responsibl e Part y (PRP ) Searc h fo r th e Midval e Sla g Sit e was conducted fo r Regio n V m o f th e USEP A b y Camp

, Dresse r & McKee

, Inc.

, unde r RE M n Contract

, Wor k Assignmen t No

. 323-8671

. Th e fina l PR P Searc h wa s submitte d t o USEP A o n Novembe r 14 , 1986

.

utahdeq\rod\lexLip r Pag e 1O n Apri l 27 , 1988 , USEP A Regio n V m sen t Genera l Notic e Letter s t o th e followin g PRPs : 1 ) U V Industries

, c/ o Pai d Kolto n 2 ) Centur y Tenninals/Blackhaw

k Slag

, c/ o Robert a McConnel l 3 ) Sharo n Stee l Corporation

, c/ o Ala n Bel l 4 ) Valle y Materials

, c/ o Rober t Stringe r 5 ) Littleson

, Inc.

, c/ o U.S

. Cor p Co

. 6 ) Butterfiel d Join t Ventures

, c/ o Geral d Butterfiel d O n Marc h 23 , 1989 , Notic e No t T o Notic e Letter s wer e sen t t o th e abov e lis t o f PRP s a s a follow-u p t o the Genera l Notic e Letters

. Thes e letters explaine d t o the PRP s tha t USEP A woul d
no t invok e specia l notic e procedure s an d offere d th e opportunit y t o voluntaril y perfor m th e RI/FS

. O n Ma y 16 , 1989 , th e fir m o f Parsons

, Behl e & Latime r informe d USEP A tha t th e "Valle y Material s Group " included : Centur y Tenninals/Blackhaw

k Slag

, Valle y Material s Corp.

, an d Littleson

, Inc

. Th e fir m represente d Littleson

, Inc.

, d.b. a Valle y Material s Corp

. an d Centur y Terminals

, Inc

. d.b.a

. Blackhaw k Slag

. I n respons e t o a CERCL A Sectio n 104(e ) request , Rober t L

. Soehnlen

, Presiden t o f Littleson

, Inc

. informe d USEP A tha t Valle y Material s Corporatio n ("Valle y Materials" ) wa s merge d int o Littleson

, Inc

. o n o r abou t Decembe r 1986

. Littleson

, Inc

. wa s th e survivin g corporation

. O n Septembe r 27 , 1990 , USEPA' s Regiona l Counse l notifie d Littleson' s attorne y (Thoma s N

. Crowther ) tha t USEP A intende d t o conduc t a n RI/F S a t th e Midval e Sla g Site

. Littleso n wa s give n th e opportunit y t o participat e throug h th e possibl e negotiation s o f a n Administrativ e Orde r on Consent

. I n a phon e conversation , USEP A wa s informe d b y Littleson' s attorne y tha t Littleso n wa s no t intereste d i n an y negotiations

. Littleson

, Inc

. wa s issue d a lette r o f "Notic e o f Decisio n Not T o Us e Specia l Notic e Procedure s (for ) Remedia l Design/Remedia l Actio n (RD/RA ) on Septembe r 27 , 1993

. This lette r wa s a solicitatio n o f interes t t o participat e i n RD/R A activitie s a t th e Site

. USEP A indicate d i n th e lette r tha t a lac k o f respons e b y Littleso n woul d b e construe d a s a refusa l t o "...negotiat e a resolutio n o f liabilitie s i n connectio n wit h th e response...." , an d th e lette r furthe r considere d a lac k o f respons e fro m Littleso n a s declinin g "...an y involvemen t i n performin g th e respons e activities. " Littleson

, Inc

. di d no t respon d t o thi s Notic e Letter

. Th e Superfun d Liabilit y a t th e Midval e Sla g Sit e fo r U V Industries

, U V Liquidatin g Trus t an d Sharo n Stee l wa s settle d i n a Consen t Decre e date d Novembe r 13 , 1990

. Th e Superfun d liabilit y a t th e Midval e Sla g Sit e fo r Littleson

, Inc

. (o r Valle y Materia l Group ) ha s no t bee n settle d a t thi s date

. HIGHLIGHT S O F COMMUNIT Y PARTICIPATION UDE Q an d USEP A communit y relation s staf f conducted interview s wit h resident s i n th e impacte d are a t o determin e thei r concerns

. A s par t o f thes e interviews , eac h interviewe e wa s utahdeq\rod\text.ap r Pag e 3aske d wha t woul d b e th e mos t effectiv e wa y t o kee p th e publi c involved

. Thes e suggestion s wer e incorporate d int o a Communit y Relation s Plan

, develope d b y UR S (a n USEP A contractor )

an d adopte d i n 1991

. Al l publi c document s relatin g t o OU 1 wer e mad e availabl e a t th e Rut h Vine Librar y i n Midvale

. Municipalitie s suc h a s th e citie s o f Midval e an d Wes t Jorda n a s wel l a s th e Uta h Departmen t o f Transportatio n wer e particularl y intereste d i n ho w Superfun d activitie s woul d impac t th e propose d extension o f th e Jorda n Rive r Boulevar d throug h th e OU1

. Regula r meeting s wer e hel d betwee n thes e intereste d partie s beginnin g i n 1990

. Official s fro m th e citie s wer e briefe d periodically
, and UDE Q responde d t o request s fo r informatio n fro m potentia l businesse s seekin g t o locat e i n th e area
. I n preparatio n fo r a soi l samplin g progra m conducte d i n 199 1 a t Wincheste r Estate s residential yards
, a pre-samplin g meetin g wa s hel d wit h th e owne r o f th e traile r park

. Whe n th e sampl e analyse s wer e completed
, a n availabilit y sessio n wa s hel d a t whic h resident s coul d pic k u p thei r sampl e result s an d tal k t o representative s o f USEP A an d UDE Q abou t th e results

. Fac t sheet s wer e maile d t o intereste d parties , an d a publi c informationa l meetin g o n th e statu s o f th e sit e wa s hel d o n 2 Ma y 1991

. Additiona l samplin g o f residentia l yard s i n lat e 199 3 wa s precede d b y meeting s betwee n UDE Q

an d th e traile r par k manage r wh o subsequentl y notifie d th e resident s o f th e planne d fiel d activities

. Th e result s o f th e secon d roun d o f samplin g wer e maile d t o individua l residents

. A Propose d Plan

, outlinin g USEPA' s an d UDEQ' s preferre d remed y an d th e publi c participatio n process , wa s maile d o n 7 Jul y 1994

. A n advertisemen t wa s place d i n th e Sal t Lak e Tribun e providin g notic e o n th e availabilit y o f th e Propose d Plan

, th e tim e an d locatio n o f th e publi c meeting s an d th e duratio n o f th e publi c commen t perio d (1 1 Jul y throug h 1 0 August)

. A publi c meetin g wa s hel d o n 2 7 Jul y 199 4 a t th e Midval e Cit y Hal l i n th e cit y counci l chambers

. Approximatel y 35 member s o f th e communit y wer e presen t wit h question s focusin g on th e compatibilit y o f th e preferre d remed y wit h futur e developmen t plan s for OU1

. Prio r t o th e publi c meetin g th e Citizen s Fo r A Saf e Futur e Fo r Midval e (Citizen s Group ) requeste d a 30

- da y extensio n o f th e publi c commen t perio d s o tha t a n independen t contracto r coul d revie w th e F S Repor t fo r technica l accuracy
. Th e contracto r woul d b e hire d b y th e Citizen s Grou p usin g fund s provide d b y a USEP A Technica l Assistanc e Grant

. Th e extension wa s grante d an d a n advertizemen t wa s place d i n th e Sal t Lak e Tribun e providin g notic e tha t th e close o f th e publi c commen t perio d wa s extende d t o 1 0 Septembe r 1994

. A secon d extensio n wa s requeste d b y th e Citizen s Grou p o n 9 Septembe r 1994 , an d wa s denie d b y USEP A o n 1 2 Septembe r 1994

. Th e basi s fo r th e denia l wa s th e fac t tha t th e document s t o b e reviewe d b y th e Citizen s Grou p ha d bee n availabl e t o th e publi c fo r severa l month s prior t o th e issuanc e o f th e Propose d Plan

. A t th e clos e o f th e publi c commen t period
, writte n comment s ha d bee n receive d fro m th e Citizen s Group ; Mr

. Davi d Ovar d o f th e Sal t Lak e Count y Wate r Conservanc y District ; Mr

. Bruc e Nieveen

, Environmenta l Enginee r for Midval e City ; an d Mr

. Volne y Wallace

, a privat e citizen

. Response s t o thes e comment s ar e include d i n thi s Recor d o f Decisio n (ROD ) (Sectio n XII)

. Btahdeq\rod\tcxt.»p r Pag e 4I V

. SCOP E AN D ROL E O F RESPONS E ACTIO N Th e Midval e Sla g Sit e ha s bee n divide d int o tw o OUs

. Thi s wa s don e t o permi t th e expeditiou s completio n o f a n RI/F S an d remedia l actio n o n OU I t o accommodat e th e propose d Jorda n Rive r Boulevar d (TRB ) construction

. Th e propose d JR B alignmen t traverse s OU I fro m wes t t o east

. Whil e OU I i s mostl y vacan t land
, OU 2 i s th e sit e o f a forme r smeltin g operatio n an d i n man y place s i s covere d wit h pile s o f wast e materia l associate d wit h smeltin g suc h a s slag
, calcine
, an d tailings

. I t i s inferre d fro m th e OU I R I an d othe r dat a tha t contaminant s detecte d o n OU I wer e transporte d fro m OU 2 b y wind
, surfac e water , an d man
. Th e respons e action s presente d i n thi s RO D wil l addres s contaminant s tha t hav e bee n transporte d ont o OU I fro m th e "sourc e areas " o n OU2

. A separat e Engineerin g Evaluation/Cos t Analysi s (EE/CA ) fo r OU 2 i s unde r way , an d respons e action s t o address th e sourc e area(s ) wil l b e implemented
, i f appropriate

. V

. SUMMAR Y O F SIT E CHARACTERISTIC

S Geolog y an d Geograph y Th e OU I are a i s locate d i n th e Sal t Lak e Valley

, a north-sout h oriente d topographic featur e bounde d t o th e wes t b y th e Oquirr h mountain s an d o n th e eas t b y th e Wasatc h Range

. Thrusting

, faulting
, folding
, an d igneou s intrusion s ar e responsibl e fo r the presenc e an d for m o f these mountai n ranges

. Thes e range s ar e th e sourc e o f th e Quaternar y alluvia l sediment s tha t overli e muc h o f th e valle y floor

. OU I lie s o n th e Jorda n Rive r floodplai n an d slope s gentl y t o th e west , toward s th e river

. Floodplai n soil s consis t o f silt y cla y loams
, silt y clays
, sands
, an d gravels

. San d an d gravell y fil l material s fro m a n 1-21 5 highwa y construction projec t wer e sprea d ove r th e southeaster n portio n o f OUI

, primaril y Parce l L G an d th e easter n portio n o f Parce l LR

. Th e thicknes s o f fil l material s wa s determine d b y borehol e dat a t o rang e fro m zer o a t th e wester n margi n o f th e fil l t o 1 9 fee t alon g th e easter n edg e o f Parcel s L R eas t an d L G (URS

, 1992)

. Figur e 3 i s a n infrare d false-colo r photograph o f OU I take n shortl y afte r placement o f th e fill

. Th e fil l materia l consistentl y grade s t o a silt y an d sand y cla y a t th e nativ e soi l interface

. Th e to p 3 0 fee t o f th e nativ e zon e typicall y i s a n organic , stick y clay
, silt y i n place s an d becomin g sandie r downward

. Th e cla y i s underlai n b y fine

- t o medium-graine d sand
, whic h coarsen s downwar d an d ofte n grade s int o gravell y sand s o r sand y gravels

. Th e occurrenc e o f sla g layer s withi n th e nativ e soi l zon e wa s note d durin g drillin g i n th e sprin g o f 1992

. Thes e occurrence s appeare d t o correlat e wit h th e presenc e o f relativel y hig h metal s conten t base d o n chemica l analyses

. Th e sla g layer s wer e note d throughou t OU I bu t wer e mos t apparen t o n th e L G an d L R parcels

.

ufehdcq\rod\tcxt.ap r pag e 5Hvdrogeolog y Th e shallo w water-bearin g zon e i s unconfine d an d i s compose d o f clay
, silt
, an d san d bed s wit h
commo n grave l bed s tha t ar e ofte n claye y an d sandy

. Typically

, th e wate r tabl e i s encountere d betwee n 5 an d 2 0 fee t belo w th e groun d surface

. Generally

, groun d wate r flo w i n th e Uppe r San d an d Grave l Aquife r i s northwesterly
, bu t varie s seasonall y fro m southwesterl y t o northerl y beneat h portion s o f the site

. The groundwate r velocit y i s estimate d t o rang e betwee n 0.2 2 an d 1.8 7 feet/day

. Know n an d Suspecte d Source s o f Contaminatio n Ther e ar e n o know n discret e wast e source s a t OUI

. Th e onl y suspecte d wast e feature s withi n th e O U boundarie s ar e a smal l landfil l an d a n abandone d WWT P (an d associate d lagoons)

. Sit e characterization dat a suggest tha t bot h o f th e feature s hav e no t contribute d t o elevate d level s o f th e contaminant s o f concer n (arsenic

, cadmiu m an d lead ) detecte d i n sit e soils

. I t i s inferre d fro m availabl e dat a tha t th e meta l (an d metalloid ) contaminant s detecte d o n OU I

ar e derive d fro m discret e wast e source s identifie d o n OU2

. Th e transpor t mechanism s postulate d t o accoun t fo r contaminant s a t OU I includ e th e following : • Win d transpor t o f sla g dus t ont o OU I fro m sla g pile s o n OU2

. • Surfac e wate r transpor t o f sla g dust and possibl y large r particle s ont o OU I fro m sla g pile s o n OU2

. • Fallou t o f smelte r fum e ont o OU I fro m smelte r chimney s o n OU 2 and/o r th e sout h chimne y o n OU I o f th e Sharo n Stee l site

. • Deliberat e placemen t o f sla g an d possibl y othe r smelte r wast e ont o OU I t o fil l wetland s o r othe r lo w area s an d t o san d road s i n th e Wincheste r Estate s developmen t durin g sno w o r ic e events

. Distributio n o f Contamination/Affecte d

Medi a Discret e surfac e an d subsurfac e nativ e soi l samples
, an d discret e groun d water , sediment
, an d surfac e wate r samples wer e collecte d durin g the RI

. Analytica l parameter s include d metals
, volatil e an d semi-volatil e organi c compound s (VO C an d SVOCs

, respectively)

, an d pesticides/polychlorinate d

biphenyl s (PCBs)

. Metal s wer e detecte d i n al l medi a sampled ; VOC s wer e detecte d i n groun d wate r an d som e subsurfac e soils ; SVOC s wer e detecte d i n al l medi a sampled ; an d pesticides/PCB s wer e detecte d i n soils
, surfac e water , an d sediment

. Al l chemica l detection s wer e screene d durin g th e RI/F S t o determin e whic h o f th e detection s wer e actua l sit e contaminants

. Th e dat a wer e furthe r screene d i n th e BR A t o determin e whic h
o f th e contaminant s contribute d significantl y t o cance r an d non-cance r risk

. Screenin g method s include d exclusio n base d o n frequenc y o f detection
, exclusio n base d o n potentia l laborator y o r utahdeq\rod\tcxt.ap r Pag e 6fiel d contamination, exclusio n base d o n backgroun d comparisons , exclusio n base d o n beneficialit y (mineral s considere d essentia l o r beneficia l t o goo d health)

, an d th e result s o f th e ris k quantificatio n (onl y those chemical s posin g significan t huma n healt h risk s wer e considere d t o b e contaminant s o f concer n [COCs])

. Base d o n these criteria , an d o n experienc e a t similar smeltin g sites , UDEQ/USEP A designate d arsenic , cadmium
, an d lea d a s th e COC s a t OU1

. I n additio n t o screenin g chemica l detection s fo r thos e chemical s posin g significan t healt h risks
, th e BR A identifie d whic h environmenta l medi a contai n concentration s o f COC s hig h enoug h t o pos e a significan t threa t t o th e public

. Base d o n thi s analysis
, UDEQ/USEP A identifie d surfac e an d subsurfac e soil s a s th e onl y medi a o f concern
. Th e distributio n o f th e COC s i n soil s a t OU 1 demonstrate s few discernabl e patterns

. Typically

, CO C concentration s decreas e wit h dept h althoug h a fe w pocket s exhibitin g hig h CO C concentration s hav e bee n note d a t depth s u p t o 6 fee t belo w th e nativ e soil s surface

. Th e horizonta l distributio n o f COC s show s n o clea r concentratio n gradients
, wit h som e o f th e highes t concentration s foun d i n th e Wincheste r Estate s developmen t a t th e fa r norther n en d o f OU1

. Typicall y th e highes t CO C concentration s wer e foun d i n associatio n wit h visibl e slag

. Arseni c concentration s i n soil s rang e u p t o the lo w 1,000' s o f milligram s pe r kilogra m (mg/kg)

, bu t mor e typicall y rang e fro m th e 10' s t o 100' s o f mg/kg

. Cadmium occur s a s hig h a s 9 7 mg/kg

, bu t mor e typicall y range s fro m 0. 5 t o 1 0 mg/kg

. Locally

, lea d concentration s i n th e 1,000' s mg/k g wer e detecte d wit h typica l concentration s i n th e 10' s an d 100' s o f mg/kg

. I n general
, whe n on e CO C occur s a t a hig h concentration , th e othe r COC s ar e proportionall y elevate d a s well

. Result s o f toxicit y characteristi c leachin g procedur e testin g o f th e mos t highl y contaminated soil s o n OU 1 revea l tha t the y ar e no t toxicit y characteristi c hazardou s wastes

. The potentia l exist s fo r mobilizatio n o f contamination fro m soil s t o groun d water

. However

, OU 1 waste s hav e bee n presen t o n th e sit e fo r man y year s an d i n som e location s groundwate r i s i n direc t contac t wit h visibl e sla g withou t appreciabl e affect s o n groundwater

. CO C concentration s i n OU 1 groun d wate r ar e belo w Federa l Maximu m Contaminatio n Limit s (MCLs)

. See Sectio n I X fo r a mor e thoroug h discussio n o f groun d wate r applicabl e o r relevan t
an d appropriat e requirement s (ARARs)

. Arseni c display s bot h carcinogeni c and non-carcinogeni c effect s (ski n lesions
, neurotoxicity , live r an d kidne y effects)

. Whe n ingested
, cadmiu m display s onl y non-carcinogeni c effect s (kidne y damage)

. Althoug h though t t o b e a wea k carcinogen , th e mai n basi s fo r concer n wit h lea d i s non-carcinogeni c effect s (neurotoxicit y an d reproductiv e effects)

. Lea d effect s are o f
concer n primaril y fo r childre n sinc e the y ar e mor e susceptibl e t o th e effect s o f lea d an d als o ten d t o hav e highe r exposure

. Volum e o f Contaminate d \tatcria l Th e lac k o f distinc t wast e pile s on OU 1 couple d wit h th e presumed mechanism s for depositio n o f th e CO C mak e wast e volum e estimatio n difficult

. CO C depositio n b y surfac e wate r an d win d transpor t o f sla g fro m OU2

, an d smelte r fum e fallou t woul d b e expecte d t o resul t i n a variabl e distributio n o f contaminants , th e detail s o f whic h ma y no t b e resolve d b y th e sampl e spacin g (approximatel y 100-feet ) employe d durin g the RI

. A s a result
, determinin g the distributio n o f «tahdcq\rod\textap r Pag e 7wast

e "pockets " woul d involv e a n intensiv e samplin g an d analysi s program

. Suc h a samplin g effor t wa s considere d impractical base d o n cost s an d th e tim e requirement s give n th e siz e o f OU1

. Therefore

, fo r an y give n parce l wher e th e exposur e poin t concentratio n (EP Q calculate d a s th e uppe r 95t h confidenc e limi t o f th e arithmeti c mea n (assumin g a lognorma l distribution ) exceed s clean-u p levels
, th e entir e parce l i s considere d contaminated

. Th e assume d dept h o f contamination i s base d o n th e presumed maximu m dept h o f likel y huma n exposur e an d i s unifor m acros s th e entir e parcel

. For th e LF

, LG

, LR

, and WES E parcels
, tha t dept h i s 1 0 fee t belo w th e nativ e soi l surface

. Fo r th e WEN W Parce l (curren t residentia l area)

, th e dept h i s 1. 5 feet

. Soi l clean-u p level s hav e bee n se t base d o n standard exposur e scenario s usin g a populatio n appropriat e for th e curren t lan d zoning

. For Parcel s LR-east

, LR-west

, L G and LF

, th e EPC s d o no t excee d thes e levels

. Therefore

, n o materia l requirin g remediatio n exist s o n these parcels

. Soi l clean-u p level s an d EPC s ar e discusse d i n detai l i n Section s V I an d Vn

. Fo r Parce l WESE

, th e EPC s excee d th e clean-u p levels
, an d th e entir e parce l i s considere d contaminate d t o a dept h o f 1 0 feet

. Fo r Parce l WEN W clean-u p level s ar e exceede d o n 1 4 residentia l yards

. Th e combine d volum e o f contaminated materia l fo r thes e tw o parcel s i s approximatel y 185,00 0 cubi c yard s (cy)

. Potentia l Route s Fo r Huma n Exposur e Muc h o f th e sit e i s currentl y undevelope d o r fence d an d th e onl y expose d populatio n i s th e hypothetica l trespasser

. However

, Parce l WEN W i s currentl y occupie d b y singl e famil y dwellings

. Thes e individual s ar e expose d t o sit e waste s i n th e for m o f contaminated surfac e soi l
an d hous e dust o n a dail y basis

. Hypothetica l futur e residents/workers woul d b e expose d t o COC-containin g surfac e soil s o n Parce l WESE

, an d portion s o f Parcel s L F an d LR-west

. Althoug h COC-containin g nativ e soil s ar e presen t o n Parcel s L G an d LR-east

, bot h o f these parcel s ar e entirel y covere d wit h fil l materia l importe d durin g th e constructio n o f a n 1-21 5 interchange

. Therefore

, th e onl y possibl e exposur e woul d involv e excavatin g throug h th e fil l an d int o th e nativ e soil s durin g buildin g constructio n associated wit h futur e lan d development

. Th e excavate d nativ e soil s woul d hav e t o b e sprea d o n th e lan d surfac e an d remai n a t th e surfac e fo r a long-term exposur e t o occur
. V I

. SUMMAR Y O F SIT E RISK S Exposur e Poin t Concentration s A s discusse d i n Sectio n V

, arsenic , cadmiu m an d lea d wer e determine d t o b e th e COCs

, an d surfac e an d subsurfac e soil s wer e considere d t o b e medi a o f concer n fo r th e purpos e o f developin g remedia l alternatives

. However

, becaus e th e COC s occu r i n groun d wate r (below Federa l MCLs)

, th e contributio n t o cance r an d non-cance r ris k mad e b y groun d wate r wa s incorporate d int o th e ris k estimation

. utahdeq\rod\text.«p r Pag e 8Exposur e

poin t concentration s o f COC s i n soi l wer e calculate d usin g chemica l dat a fo r nativ e soil s sample d betwee n 0 an d 1 foo t belo w th e nativ e soil s surface

. I t i s assume d tha t th e vas t majorit y o f a curren t o r hypothetica l futur e exposur e woul d involv e shallo w soils

. EPC s wer e calculate d an d evaluated fo r eac h parce l an d ar e summarize d o n Tabl e 1

. Exposur e Assessment Th e BR A (Lif e Systems

, Inc

. [LSI]

, 1992 ) evaluate d a numbe r o f plausibl e exposur e pathway s fo r curren t an d futur e resident s an d futur e workers

. Base d o n th e result s o f th e ris k assessment , th e exposur e pathways o f primar y concer n ar e thos e show n i n Figur e 4

. Unde r curren t sit e conditions
, th e populatio n mos t likel y t o b e expose d i s th e resident s i n Wincheste r Estates

. Exposur e route s o f mai n concer n ar e ingestio n o f soi l an d dust

. Ingestio n o f vegetable s i s o f lesser concern
. Ingestio n o f groun d wate r wa s no t evaluated becaus e th e home s ar e supplie d wit h municipa l water

. I n th e future
, currentl y vacan t area s o f OU 1 migh t b e develope d for commercia l use , especiall y i f th e propose d JR B i s completed

. Therefore

, potentia l exposure s fo r hypothetica l futur e worker s wer e als o assessed

. A s wit h th e residents
, th e exposur e pathwa y o f greates t concer n fo r futur e worker s i s direc t ingestio n o f contaminated soil s an d dust

. This include s exposur e t o nativ e soil s tha t ar e currentl y o n th e surface
, an d t o burie d nativ e soil s tha t migh t b e brough t t o th e surfac e b y excavation

. I n addition
, futur e worker s migh t b e expose d t o groun d wate r draw n fro m well s installe d a t th e site , an d exposure s o f thi s populatio n vi a ingestio n o f groun d wate r wer e als o evaluated

. Othe r exposur e pathways wer e considere d i n th e BRA

. However

, i t wa s determine d tha t direc t ingestio n o f soil s (includin g hous e dust ) an d groun d wate r ar e th e onl y significan t pathways

. Subsequent t o th e BRA

, a secon d ris k characterization wa s performe d t o suppor t th e selectio n o f remedia l goal s an d th e developmen t o f remedia l alternatives

. This effor t wa s performe d b y Ro y F

. Weston

, Inc

. (WESTON®)

, unde r contrac t t o UDE Q an d wa s presente d i n th e Fina l F S Repor t (WESTON

, 1994)

. Difference s betwee n th e origina l an d revise d ris k calculation s includ e th e us e o f additiona l surfac e soil s chemica l dat a collecte d a t th e Wincheste r Estate s development
, us e o f a lowe r bioavailabilit y facto r (0.8 ) fo r arseni c i n soil s an d hous e dust
, a s wel l a s othe r mor e mino r change s detaile d i n th e F S Report

. I n addition
, th e revise d ris k characterization quantifie d th e ris k pose d onl y b y th e COC s an d onl y fo r th e direc t ingestio n o f soils
, hous e dust
, garden vegetables
, an d groun d water

. Tabl e 2 summarize s th e amount s o f soi l (includin g hous e dust)

, an d groun d wate r assume d t o b e ingeste d b y a chil d o r adul t pe r uni t o f bod y weight

. Thes e intak e factor s couple d wit h th e EPC s an d toxicit y factor s for eac h CO C for m th e basi s for th e ris k calculation

. Toxicit y Assessmen t Toxi c effect s o f exposur e t o COC s ca n b e separate d int o cance r causin g effect s an d non-cance r effects

. Cance r slop e factor s hav e bee n develope d b y USEPA' s Carcinogen Assessmen t Grou p fo r estimatin g exces s lifetim e cance r risk s associate d wit h exposur e t o potentiall y carcinogeni c utihdeq\rod\texUtp rchemicals

.

Slop e factors
, whic h ar e expresse d i n unit s o f (mg/kg-day)*

1 ar e multiplie d b y th e estimate d intak e o f a potentia l carcinogen , i n mg/kg-day

, t o provid e a n upper-boun d estimat e o f th e exces s lifetim e cance r ris k associate d wit h exposur e a t tha t intak e level

. Th e ter m "upper

bound" reflect s th e conservativ e estimat e o f th e risk s calculate d fro m th e slop e factor

. Us e o f thi s approac h make s underestimatio n o f th e actua l cance r ris k highl y unlikely

. Slop e factor s ar e derive d fro m th e result s o f bioassay s t o whic h animal-to-huma n extrapolatio n an d uncertaint y factor s hav e bee n applied

. Slop e factor s hav e bee n develope d fo r differen t route s fo r huma n exposur e (inhalation

, ingestion , etc.)

. However

, becaus e direc t ingestio n o f OU 1 COC s i s considered th e onl y significan t exposur e pathway
, onl y th e ora l slop e facto r i s used

. O f th e OU 1 COCs

, onl y arseni c ha s cance r causin g effect s b y th e ora l pathway

. Th e ora l slop e facto r for arseni c i s 1.8E+0 0 (mg/kg-day)- 1

. Referenc e dose s (RfDs ) hav e bee n develope d b y USEP A fo r evaluatin g th e potentia l fo r advers e non-cance r healt h effect s fro m exposur e t o chemical s exhibitin g non-carcinogeni c effects

. RfDs

, whic h ar e expresse d i n unit s o f mg/kg-day

, ar e estimate s o f dail y exposur e level s fo r humans
, includin g sensitiv e individuals
, whic h ar e withou t significan t ris k o f non-cance r effects

. Estimate d intake s o f chemical s fro m environmenta l medi a (e.g.

, th e amoun t o f a chemica l ingeste d fro m contaminated drinkin g water ) ca n b e compare d t o th e RfD

. RfD s ar e derive d fro m huma n epidemiologica l studie s o r anima l studie s t o whic h uncertaint y factor s hav e bee n applie d (e.g.

, t o accoun t fo r th e use o f anima l dat a t o predic t effect s o n humans)

. Thes e uncertaint y factor s hel p ensur e tha t the RfD s wil l not underestimat e the potentia l fo r advers e non-carcinogeni c effect s t o occur
. Th e ora l Rf D fo r arseni c an d cadmiu m ar e 3.0E- 4 mg/kg-da y an d l.OE- 3 mg/kg-day

, respectively

. Lea d i s a specia l cas e sinc e ther e ar e n o USEPA-approve d Rf D value s fo r lead

. Th e metho d fo r calculatin g th e non-cance r risk s du e t o lea d i s detaile d below

. Ris k Characterizatio n Exces s lifetim e cance r risk s ar e determine d b y multiplyin g th e intak e leve l wit h th e slop e factor

. Thes e risk s ar e probabilitie s tha t ar e generall y expresse d i n scientifi c notation (e.g.

, 1 x 10" 1 o r IE-1)

. A n exces s lifetim e cance r ris k o f IE- 6 indicate s that
, a s a plausibl e uppe r bound
, a n individua l ha s a on e i n on e millio n chanc e o f developin g cance r a s a resul t o f site-relate d exposur e t o a carcinoge n ove r a 70-yea r lifetim e unde r th e specifi c exposur e condition s a t th e site

. Tabl e 3 show s th e estimate d tota l exces s cance r risk s fo r hypothetica l futur e population s o n eac h
o f th e undevelope d parcel s base d o n th e curren t lan d zoning

. Figur e 5 show s th e estimate d tota l exces s cance r ris k fo r th e existin g populatio n (residential ) a t th e Wincheste r Estate s developmen t o n a residentia l yard-by-yar d basis

. Fo r Parcel s LR-east

, LR-west

, L F an d LG

, potentia l cance r risk s t o hypothetica l futur e worker s ar e withi n th e USEPA' s rang e o f acceptabl e risk s (IE- 4 t o IE-6)

. However

, fo r hypothetica l futur e resident s o n Parce l WESE

, th e potentia l cance r ris k exceed s th e acceptabl e range
. Fo r curren t resident s on th e Wincheste r Estate s developmen t (Parce l WENW)

, th e potentia l cance r risk s excee d th e acceptabl e rang e o n 1 1 o f th e residentia l yards

. Al l o f th e cance r ris k probabilitie s presente d o n Tabl e 3 an d Figur e 5 ar e du e t o arsenic

. utihdcq\rod\l£Xt.ap r Pag e 1 0Potential

concer n fo r non-carcinogeni c effect s o f a singl e contaminan t i n a singl e mediu m i s expresse d a s th e hazar d quotien t (HQ)(o r th e rati o o f th e estimate d intak e derive d fro m th e contaminan t concentratio n i n a give n mediu m t o th e contaminants RfD)

.

B y addin g th e HQ' s fo r al l contaminant s withi n a mediu m o r acros s al l medi a t o whic h a give n populatio n ma y reasonabl y b e exposed
, the Hazar d Inde x (HI ) can b e generated

. The H I provide s a usefu l referenc e poin t fo r gaugin g th e potentia l significanc e o f multipl e contaminan t exposure s withi n a singl e mediu m o r acros s media

. Th e chemical-specifi c H I value s fo r th e population s (curren t and hypothetica l futur e base d o n curren t lan d zoning ) expose d a t th e sit e ar e summarize d i n Tabl e 3

. Th e Hi' s fo r arseni c and cadmiu m wer e no t summe d becaus e thei r effect s ar e judge d no t t o b e additive

. CO C concentration s equivalen t t o a n H I equa l t o o r greate r tha n on e ma y caus e non-cance r effects

. A s show n o n th e table
, fo r Parcel s LR-east

, LR-west

, L F and LG

, th e H I fo r hypothetica l futur e worker s i s les s tha n one , indicatin g non-cance r risk s ar e no t o f concern
. However

, for hypothetica l futur e resident s on Parce l WESE

, th e H I exceed s one
. For curren t resident s o n th e Wincheste r Estate s developmen t (Parce l WENW)

, th e H I exceed s 1 o n 1 0 residential yards

. Figur e 6 illustrate s th e distributio n o f H I value s o n a yard-by-yar d basis

. Th e non-cance r effect s o f lea d wer e evaluated usin g a mathematica l mode l develope d b y USEP A calle d th e Uptake/Biokineti c (UBK ) Model

. Th e mode l predict s th e probabilit y o f a chil d havin g a blood-lea d concentratio n ove r 1 0 microgram s pe r decilite r (pg/dl ) give n th e followin g inputs : • Lea d concentratio n i n a give n mediu m o r media

. • Huma n chil d intak e o f th e medium

. • Absorptio n fractio n o f lea d fro m th e medium

. • Biokineti c slop e facto r relatin g bloo d lea d t o absorbe d dose

. I f a chil d ha s a 5 % o r les s chanc e o f exceedin g a bloo d lea d concentratio n o f 1 0 pg/dl

, th e concentratio n o f lea d i n th e environmenta l mediu m i s considere d t o b e acceptable

. Th e mode l result s fo r hypothetica l futur e resident s o n Parce l WES E ar e summarize d o n Tabl e 3

. Fo r Parce l WESE

, th e mode l result s indicat e a 3 % probabilit y o f exceedin g a 1 0 jig/d l blood-lea d concentration , whic h i s considere d acceptable

. Becaus e th e UB K mode l applie s onl y t o children
, th e mode l wa s no t ru n fo r worker s i n Parcel s LR

, LG

, an d LF

. Fo r Parce l WEN W (curren t residential development)

, th e mode l wa s ru n fo r eac h individua l residential yard
, an d th e result s ar e illustrate d o n Figur e 7

. Fo r thi s parcel
, 1 3 residential yard s excee d th e USEP A threshol d criterio n o f 5%

. Uncertaintie s Ther e ar e a numbe r o f steps i n th e ris k assessmen t proces s wher e uncertaint y exists

. I n general
, USEP A employ s conservativ e assumption s whe n uncertaintie s an d dat a gap s exist

. Fo r example
, USEP A intentionall y seek s t o calculat e dose s t o human s tha t o n averag e ar e highe r tha n mos t peopl e woul d actuall y receive , bu t ar e stil l withi n a reasonabl e range
. Likewise

, i n orde r t o preserv e a margi n o f safety
, USEP A employ s estimate s o f chemica l toxicit y tha t are intentionall y conservative ; tha t is , the y ar e mor e likel y to o hig h tha n to o low

. A n exampl e o f thi s i s th e cance r slop e facto r i n whic h th e "upper-bound " reflect s th e conservativ e estimat e o f utahdeq\rod\text.ip r Pag e 1 1th e risk s calculate d fro m th e cance r slop e factor

. Use o f thi s approac h ensure s tha t ris k estimate s an d clean-u p goal s ar e conservative

. Environmenta l Risk s I n orde r t o determin e an d evaluat e th e threa t o r potentia l threa t t o th e environmen t pose d b y contamination a t th e Midval e Sla g Site

, OU1

, a n Environmenta l Evaluatio n wa s prepare d b y Lif e System s a s a par t o f th e BR A proces s (NCP

, 40CFR300.42 0 [d ] [4])

. Th e scop e o f th e evaluation wa s limite d t o considerin g th e potentia l exposure s an d impact s t o selecte d ecologi c resource s fro m site-relate d contamination

. Thi s summar y addresse s onl y OU 1 (th e norther n par t o f th e Site)

. However

, i t ma y b e recognize d tha t potentia l ecologi c receptor s i n bot h th e terrestria l an d aquati c environmen t ar e mobil e an d ma y cros s operabl e uni t boundarie s a s wel l a s mov e on
- an d off-sit e withou t an y rea l restrictions

. Th e dat a use d i n thi s evaluation ar e limite d t o soil
, surfac e water , an d sedimen t dat a collecte d withi n th e boundar y o f th e OU

, an d th e surfac e wate r an d sedimen t dat a fro m th e Jorda n River

. Contaminant s o f potentia l ecologi c concer n ar e chemical s presen t o n th e O U tha t coul d pos e a ris k o f advers e impact s t o expose d ecologi c receptors

. Contaminant s o f concer n wer e selecte d for th e ecologi c evaluatio n usin g th e sam e guideline s applie d i n th e Huma n Healt h Evaluation

. A s determine d a t man y othe r mining/smelte r wast e sites , ris k i s nearl y alway s dominate d b y arsenic , cadmium
, and/o r lead

. Additionally

, copper , zinc , an d aluminu m ar e commonl y o f
concer n fo r aquati c receptor s o n suc h sites

. A t th e Midval e Sla g Site

, th e potentia l toxi c effect s appea r t o b e dominate d b y arseni c an d lea d foun d i n th e sit e soils

. Th e potentia l for advers e effect s fro m exposur e t o COC s a t OU 1 wa s evaluate d usin g th e followin g combinatio n o f approaches : 1 ) Compariso n o f measure d soi l concentration s t o concentration s o f metal s i n soil s know n t o b e toxi c t o plant s an d soi l invertebrate s (e.g.

, worms , snails
, slugs
, insects , mites , etc.)

. 2 ) Compariso n o f measure d sedimen t concentration s t o concentration s o f chemical s associated wit h advers e biological effect s a t othe r sites

. 3 ) Compariso n o f measure d surfac e wate r concentration s t o Federa l Ambien t Wate r Qualit y Criteri a and the Uta h Wate r Qualit y Standards

. 4 ) Identificatio n o f site-relate d chemical s wit h the potentia l fo r food-chai n transfer

. 5 ) Identificatio n o f site-relate d chemical s tha t ar e toxi c t o mammal s an d bird s potentiall y expose d t o sit e soil s an d sediments

. 

### Usin g th e abov e approaches
, th e ecologi c evaluation determine d tha t th e potentia l for advers e effect s t o plant s an d anima l communitie s d o exis t a t th e Midval e Sla g Site

. Th e USEP A i s no t utahdcq\rod\tcxt.ap r Pag e 1 2awar

e o f an y critica l habitat s affecte d b y sit e contamination , no r o f an y endangere d specie s o r habitat s o f endangered specie s affecte d b y sit e contamination

. Furthermore

, th e findin g o f potentia l advers e ecologi c effect s at th e Midval e Sla g Sit e i s tempere d b y a significan t numbe r o f uncertaintie s including : 1 ) a nonstatistica l compariso n betwee n sit e sampl e concentration s an d backgroun d concentrations ; 2 ) unknow n lengt h o f exposur e o f sit e receptor s t o contaminant s i n soils
, surfac e water , an d sediments ; 3 ) unknow n biologica l uptak e resultin g fro m exposur e t o chemica l concentration s i n environmenta l media l (bioavailability) ; 4 ) us e o f calculate d toxicit y referenc e value s (TRY ) fo r determinin g soi l toxicit y levels ; an d 5 ) use o f surrogat e specie s fo r developmen t o f acceptabl e soi l concentrations

. Althoug h USEP A recognize s the potentia l fo r advers e ecologi c effect s a s discusse d i n the Environmenta l Evaluatio n o f th e BRA

, th e intende d futur e us e o f thi s Operabl e Uni t a s a commercial/industria l developmen t sit e couple d wit h th e cos t an d technica l impracticabilit y o f
a pristin e clea n u p precludes th e nee d t o tak e an y actio n t o address thes e potentia l effects

. V I L REMEDIA L ACTIO N OBJECTIVE S Remedia l actio n objective s wer e develope d b y USEP A an d UDE Q base d o n a n evaluation o f th e BRA

. Th e objective s incorporat e join t decision s o n ris k managemen t issue s an d wer e use d t o guid e developmen t o f remedia l alternative s an d clean-u p levels

. A s discusse d i n Sectio n V

, USEPA/UDE Q selecte d arsenic , cadmiu m an d lea d a s th e COC s a t OU1

. I n addition
, soi l wa s determine d t o b e th e onl y mediu m o f concern
. Clean-u p level s ar e media-specific concentration s o f COC s whic h represen t huma n healt h ris k equivalen t t o a pre-specifie d cance r risk
, H I o r distributio n o f blood-lea d levels

. Clean-u p level s ar e presente d i n Tabl e 4 an d ar e calculate d usin g th e sam e exposur e algorithm s use d t o calculat e healt h risk s incorporatin g th e expecte d media-specifi c ingestio n rates, exposur e duration
, an d 

### bod y weigh t fo r th e expose d population

. Usin g thes e variables
, th e carcinogeni c an d non
carcinogeni c toxicit y o f a give n CO C (slop e facto r o r RfD

, respectively ) an d a targe t ris k level
, on e ca n solv e fo r th e clean-u p level

. Fo r curren t an d hypothetica l futur e residents
, clean-u p level s fo r arsenic , cadmiu m an d lea d ar e 7 3 rag/kg

, 4 9 mg/k g an d 65 0 mg/kg

, respectively

. Fo r hypothetica l futur e workers
, clean-u p level s fo r arseni c an d cadmiu m ar e 96 0 mg/k g an d 2,98 0 mg/kg

, respectively

. Becaus e lea d i s o f primar y concer n fo r children
, a clean-u p leve l wa s no t calculate d fo r worke r exposure

. Clean-u p level s ca n also b e ARARs

, however
, ARAR s d o no t exis t fo r soils
, s o clean-u p level s ar e th e health-based concentratio n threshold s calculate d b y th e metho d describe d above

. Clean-u p level s develope d fo r OU 1 ar e chemical-specifi c concentration s i n soil s tha t whe n achieve d wil l resul t i n a cance r ris k o f IE- 4 o r les s an d a H I o f les s tha n 1

. Thes e clean-u p level s tak e int o consideratio n th e tota l sit e ris k du e t o ingestio n o f groun d wate r (excludin g Parce l WEN W wher e resident s ar e serve d b y municipa l water)

, ingestio n o f soil
, ingestio n o f hous e dust
, an d ingestio n o f garden vegetables

. utabdeq\rod\texLtp r f*gc 1 3Vin

.

DESCRIPTIO N O F ALTERNATIVE

S A focuse d F S (WESTON

, 1994 ) wa s conducted t o develo p an d evaluat e remedia l alternative s fo r a limite d numbe r o f COC s i n on e environmenta l mediu m (arsenic

, cadmiu m an d lea d i n soil s only)

. Remedia l alternative s wer e assemble d fro m applicabl e remedia l technolog y proces s option s an d wer e evaluate d base d o n th e nin e criteri a specifie d i n th e NCP

. Als o take n int o accoun t i n lookin g a t remedia l alternative s i s th e fac t tha t onl y Parcel s WES E

an d WEN W ar e currentl y zone d fo r residential us e an d tha t Parcel s LR-east

, LR-west

, L F an d L G ar e currentl y zone d fo r commercial/industria l

use

. Remedia l alternative s wer e evaluated tha t woul d permi t continue d lan d us e unde r th e curren t zonin g plan ; however
, fo r evaluation purposes , alternative s wer e evaluated tha t woul d permi t flexibilit y fo r lan d use , suc h a s residentia l us e o n those parcel s currentl y zone d commercial/industria l

an d commercial/industria l
us e o n Parce l WESE

. Summarie s o f th e alternative s retaine d fo r fina l consideratio n t o addres s th e overal l sit e risk s ar e liste d below

. Mor e detaile d description s ca n b e foun d withi n th e F S report

. I n additio n t o th e remedia l alternatives
, th e NC P require s tha t a no-actio n an d limited-actio n alternativ e b e considere d a t ever y site

. Th e no-actio n alternativ e serve s primaril y a s a poin t o f comparison fo r othe r alternatives

. Mos t remedia l technologie s an d proces s option s wer e eliminate d i n th e preliminar y screenin g proces s becaus e ther e currentl y i s n o practical wa y t o remov e lo w level s o f metalli c contaminant s (i n a sla g matrix ) fro m large volume s o f soils

. Therefore

, th e remedia l alternative s wer e assembled fro m tw o primar y remedia l technologies : cappin g an d excavation

. Institutiona l control s ar e also incorporate d int o severa l o f th e remedia l alternative s t o maintai n th e protectiveness o f th e remedy

. Alternativ e No

. 1 Alternativ e 1 i s th e no-actio n alternative
, require d b y th e NCP

, an d provide s a baselin e fo r comparison wit h othe r alternatives

. A groun d wate r monitorin g progra m woul d b e conducte d unde r th e no-actio n alternative

. Th e 5-yea r present-wort h cos t i s $48,000 includin g contingencies

. Th e estimate d operatio n an d maintenanc e (O&M ) cost s incurre d unde r thi s alternativ e woul d b e associate d wit h samplin g an d analyse s o f groun d wate r i n existin g wells

. I t ma y b e necessar y t o instal l additiona l well s a t additiona l cost

. Alternativ e No

. 2 Alternativ e 2 i s a limited-actio n alternativ e whic h woul d includ e institutiona l controls
, suc h a s dee d restrictions , an d workin g wit h loca l zonin g agencie s t o chang e th e lan d zonin g fo r th e undevelope d are a (Parce l WESE ) fro m residential t o commercial/industrial

. I n addition
, thi s alternativ e woul d entai l th e excavatio n an d off-sit e disposa l o f th e uppe r 1 8 inche s o f nativ e soil s a t 1 4 residential yard s i n th e curren t developmen t (Parce l WENW)

. Th e 18-inc h dept h i s utahdcq\nxi\tcxtap r Pag e 14considere

d t o b e a minimum , wit h confirmator y samplin g use d t o identif y area s requirin g additiona l excavation

. Clea n fil l woul d b e importe d t o restor e th e yard s t o origina l grade

. Sinc e th e soil s ar e no t considere d RCR A hazardou s waste , the y woul d b e transporte d t o a nearb y permitte d soli d wast e (RCR A Subtitl e D ) landfil l o r store d o n OU 2 o f th e sit e pendin g remed y selectio n fo r OU2

. Th e selectio n o f 1 4 residential yard s fo r remedia l actio n i s base d o n th e numbe r o f individual yard s tha t contai n surfac e soi l wit h CO C concentration s constitutin g a n unacceptabl e cance r o r non-cance r ris k (Refe r t o Sectio n VI)

. Dee d restriction s o r othe r institutiona l control s prohibitin g futur e residentia l lan d us e withou t additiona l propert y remediatio n t o residentia l soi l clean-u p level s o n Parcel s LR-east

, LR-west

, L F an d L G woul d b e par t o f thi s alternativ e Th e timefram e t o implement Alternativ e 2 i s les s tha n 1 year
. Th e 5-yea r present-wort h cos t o f thi s alternativ e i s $1,252,00 0 includin g contingencies

. Long-ter m (5-year ) cost s ar e associated wit h groun d wate r monitoring

. Th e cost s associated wit h remediatio n o f selecte d residentia l yard s wer e extracte d fro m contracto r bid s fo r simila r wor k a t th e Sharo n Stee l OU 2 Site

. Alternativ e No

. 3 Alternativ e 3 consist s o f placin g a compacte d permeabl e soi l cove r (non-RCR A Cap ) ove r expose d nativ e soil s i n th e undevelope d residentia l are a (Parce l WESE)

, an d excavatin g th e uppe r 1 8 inche s o f nativ e soil s a t 1 4 residential yard s i n th e curren t residentia l developmen t (Parce l WENW)

. Dee d restriction s o r othe r institutiona l control s woul d b e utilize d t o prohibi t residentia l lan d us e o n th e remainin g parcel s o f th e O U unles s additiona l propert y remediation t o residential soi l clean-u p level s occurs

. Residentia l yard s woul d b e remediated b y excavatio n o f th e uppe r 18-inche s o f nativ e soils

. Th e 18-inc h dept h i s considere d t o b e a minimum , wit h confirmator y samplin g use d t o identif y 

### area s requirin g additiona l excavation

. Clea n fil l woul d b e importe d t o restor e th e origina l grade
, an d eac h yar d woul d b e restore d a s closel y a s possibl e t o it s origina l condition

. Th e wastes , bein g non-hazardous
, woul d b e transporte d t o th e neares t soli d wast e (RCR A Subtitl e D ) landfill

. Alternatively

, th e soil s ma y b e store d o n th e Midval e Sla g OU 2 sit e pendin g remed y selectio n fo r OU2

. Emplacemen t o f a compacte d permeabl e cove r o n th e undevelope d residential are a woul d b e accomplishe d usin g materia l take n fro m th e 1-21 5 fil l place d o n th e res t o f th e site

. Thi s remedia l actio n woul d b e couple d wit h erosio n control s (gradin g an d revegetation)

, institutiona l controls
, an d groun d wate r monitoring

. Th e placemen t o f a soi l cove r ove r nativ e material s woul d creat e a barrie r betwee n th e waste s an d potentia l huma n receptor s interruptin g th e rout e fo r derma l exposure , ingestion , and inhalatio n o f contaminated soils

. The fina l compacte d surfac e woul d b e covere d wit h topsoi l an d revegetate d wit h nativ e plant s t o minimiz e erosio n b y win d an d surfac e water

. Th e compacte d permeabl e soi l cove r woul d hav e a minimu m thicknes s o f 2 fee t (includin g topsoil)

. Thi s minimu m thicknes s o f soi l cove r i s necessar y t o ensur e publi c healt h protectio n utahdcq\rod\tcxt.ap r Pag e 1 5base

d o n preventin g eart h movin g equipmen t tire s fro m penetratin g th e cove r i n th e even t o f futur e lan d development

. T o minimiz e activitie s tha t woul d breac h th e protectiv e soil s cover , thi s remedia l actio n woul d b e couple d wit h th e followin g dee d restriction s o r othe r institutiona l control s fo r Parce l WESE : • Excavation s woul d b e permitte d o n a case-by-cas e basi s t o b e reviewe d an d approved

. Nativ e soil s tha t ar e brough t t o th e surfac e woul d b e segregate d fro m clea n cove r soil s an d place d bac k i n th e excavatio n an d covere d wit h clea n overburden

. Exces s nativ e soil s woul d b e dispose d o f a t a soli d wast e (RCR A Subtitl e D ) landfill

. O n th e undevelope d commercia l zone d area s o f OU 1 (Parcel s LR-wes t an d east , L G an d LF ) futur e lan d us e woul d b e commercial/industria l

unles s additiona l propert y remediation t o residential soi l clean-u p level s occurs

. Unde r thi s alternative
, a groun d wate r monitorin g progra m woul d b e implemente d acros s OU1

. Th e timefram e t o implemen t Alternativ e 3 i s les s tha n 1 year
. Th e 30-yea r present-wort h cos t fo r Alternativ e 3 i s $2,597,000

. Alternativ e No

. 4 Alternativ e 4 consist s o f placin g a compacte d permeabl e soi l cove r (Non-RCRA Cap ) ove r expose d nativ e soil s o n th e undevelope d residentia l are a (Parce l WESE ) an d undevelope d commercia l are a withou t fil l (Parcel s LR-wes t an d LF)

, an d excavatin g surfac e soil s t o a dept h
o f 1 8 inche s a t 1 4 residential yard s (Parce l WENW)

. Th e 18-inc h dept h i s considere d t o b e a minimu m wit h confirmator y samplin g use d t o identif y area s requirin g additiona l excavation

. Th e placement o f a soi l cove r woul d permi t residential developmen t o f OU 1 wit h restriction s o n th e dept h o f futur e excavations

. Dee d restriction s o r othe r institutiona l control s woul d b e implemente d o n Parcel s WESE

, LR-west

, an d L F t o preven t futur e developmen t activitie s fro m 

### breachin g th e soi l cove r (wit h th e limite d exception s describe d unde r Alternativ e 3)

. A portio n o f th e clea n fil l place d o n Parcel s L G an d LR-eas t i n 198 7 woul d b e use d t o cove r area s o f expose d nativ e soil s o n adjacen t parcels

. Th e compacte d permeabl e soi l cove r woul d hav e a minimu m thicknes s o f 2 feet

. This minimu m thicknes s o f soi l cove r i s necessar y t o ensur e publi c healt h protectio n base d o n preventin g eart h movin g equipmen t tire s fro m penetratin g th e cove r i n th e even t o f futur e lan d developmen t activities

. I n orde r t o minimiz e erosio n o f th e soi l cove r an d t o minimiz e th e nee d t o adjus t th e grad e durin g an y futur e development
, th e existin g lan d surfac e woul d b e modifie d durin g th e remedia l design/remedia l actio n (RD/RA ) phase

. Th e R D woul d consis t o f a sit e Maste r Plan

, whic h woul d ensur e tha t th e R A i s implemente d suc h tha t futur e lan d use s woul d no t compromise th e remedy

. The Maste r Plan woul d establis h the genera l developmen t pla n fo r OU1

. A s par t o f thi s plannin g process , specifi c area s o f OU 1 woul d b e designate d fo r developmen t int o commercial/industrial

, office
, o r ope n spac e facilities

. Th e Maste r Plan woul d furthe r designat e ntahdeq\rod\texL«p r Pag e 1 6utilit y corridors
, includin g water/sewer

, electrical
, telephone
, an d stor m wate r drainage
, an d woul d establis h th e genera l gradin g pla n fo r th e developmen t o f OU1

. Th e R A woul d consis t o f construction o f th e basi c component s o f th e Maste r Plan

. Th e sit e woul d b e graded t o confor m wit h th e drainage an d erosio n aspect s o f th e Maste r Plan

, whil e adherin g t o th e minimu m soi l cove r requirements

. Th e utilit y corridor s woul d b e constructed usin g condui t banks
, wher e appropriate , o r designate d fo r futur e overhea d o r undergroun d development

. Th e sit e Maste r Plan woul d provid e limit s an d restriction s o n th e futur e excavations

. Th e fina l compacte d surfac e woul d b e covere d wit h topsoi l an d revegetate d wit h nativ e plant s t o minimiz e erosio n b y win d an d surfac e water

. I t i s anticipate d tha t maintenanc e o f th e compacte d cove r woul d b e require d unti l th e lan d i s developed

. Onc e th e lan d i s developed
, th e propert y owne r ca n b e expecte d t o maintai n eithe r a har d to p (asphalt

, concrete , o r a structure )

o r landscape d surface

. Unde r thi s alternativ e a groun d wate r monitorin g progra m woul d b e implemented

. Th e timefram e t o implement Alternativ e 4 i s les s tha n 1 year
. Th e 30-yea r present-wort h cos t fo r Alternativ e 4 i s $4,543,000

. Alternativ e No

. S Alternativ e 5 i s identica l t o Alternativ e 4 excep t tha t th e undevelope d residentia l are a (Parce l WESE ) woul d undergo excavatio n and off-sit e disposa l o f nativ e soil s rathe r tha n wast e containment

. Prio r t o excavation , existin g vegetatio n woul d b e removed
, an d th e nativ e soil s excavate d t o a dept h o f 1 0 feet

. Remova l o f th e uppe r 1 0 fee t o f soil s o n th e undevelope d residentia l are a i s base d o n th e expectatio n tha t unde r unlimite d futur e use , excavation s fo r home/buildin g foundations
, utilities
, an d lan d gradin g woul d no t excee d thi s depth

. Th e wastes , no t bein g classifie d a s a RCR A hazardou s wast e woul d b e transporte d t o a RCR A Subtitl e D landfill

. Alternatively

, th e soil s ma y b e store d o n th e Midval e Sla g OU 2 Sit e pendin g remed y selectio n fo r OU2

. Th e excavatio n woul d b e fille d wit h importe d clea n fill

. I n orde r t o minimiz e erosio n an d t o minimiz e th e nee d t o adjus t th e grad e durin g an y futur e development
, th e existin g lan d surfac e woul d b e worke d t o establis h a unifor m grade

. Th e fina l graded surfac e woul d b e compacted
, covere d wit h topsoil
, an d revegetate d wit h nativ e plant s t o minimiz e erosio n b y win d an d surfac e water

. Becaus e waste s woul d remai n on-sit e o n Parcel s LR

, L F an d LG

, a groun d wate r monitorin g progra m woul d b e implemented

. Th e timefram e t o implement Alternativ e 5 i s 2 years

. Th e 30-yea r present-wort h cos t fo r Alternativ e 5 i s $43,936,000

.

uUhdcq\rod\tcxt.ap r Pag e 1 7Alternativ e

No

. 6 Alternativ e 6 include s excavatio n t o a dept h o f 1 8 inche s an d off-sit e disposa l o f nativ e surfac e soil s i n 1 4 residentia l yard s (Parce l WENW)

. Th e 18-inc h dept h i s considere d t o b e a minimu m wit h confirmator y samplin g use d t o identif y area s requirin g additiona l excavation

. Nativ e soil s woul d als o b e excavate d t o a dept h o f 1 0 fee t an d dispose d o f off-sit e fo r th e remainin g area s ofOUl

. Implementatio n o f Alternativ e 6 o n th e undevelope d residential are a (Parce l WESE ) an d undevelope d commercia l area s (Parcel s LR-wes t an d east , L F an d LG ) woul d involv e firs t excavatin g those area s wit h nativ e soil s expose d a t th e surface

. Then

, existin g clea n fil l o n Parcel s LR-eas t an d L G an d importe d fil l woul d b e use d t o fil l th e excavation(s)

. Th e newl y expose d nativ e soil s o n th e easter n portio n o f OU 1 woul d the n b e excavate d t o 1 0 feet

. This secon d excavatio n woul d b e fille d usin g importe d fill

. Th e timefram e t o implemen t alternativ e 6 i s 8 years

. Th e capita l cos t for Alternativ e 6 woul d b e $204,816,000

. I t i s important t o not e tha t th e remediation cost s fo r Alternativ e 6 represen t approximatel y $1,000,00 0 pe r acre
. I X

. SUMMAR Y O F COMPARATIV E ANALYSI S O F ALTERNATIVE S The comparativ e analysi s provide s the basi s fo r explainin g ho w the selecte d remed y satisfie s the statutor y requirement s a s t o th e effectivenes s an d implementabilit y o f th e alternative

. Th e remedia l alternative s presente d i n Sectio n V m wer e analyze d i n detai l i n th e F S usin g th e nin e evaluatio n criteri a specifie d i n th e NCP

. Th e nin e criteri a are : 1 ) overal l protectio n o f huma n healt h an d th e environment ; 2 ) complianc e wit h ARARs ; 3 ) long-term effectiveness ; 4 ) reductio n i n toxicity , mobility
, o r volum e throug h treatment ; 5 ) short-ter m effectiveness ; 6 ) implementability ; 7 ) cost ; 8 ) stat e acceptance ; an d 9 ) communit y acceptance

. Th e resultin g comparison s o f eac h alternativ e b y th e nin e criteri a ar e discusse d below

. Criterio n 1 : Protectio n o f Huma n Healt h an d th e Environmen t Thi s criterio n addresse s whethe r o r no t a remed y provide s adequat e protectio n an d ho w risk s pose d throug h eac h pathwa y ar e eliminated
, reduced
, o r controlle d throug h treatment , engineerin g controls
, o r institutiona l controls

. Al l o f th e fina l alternative s considered excep t alternativ e one , ar e protectiv e o f huma n healt h an d th e environment

. However

, th e amoun t o f protectio n increase s incrementall y wit h eac h alternativ e throug h Alternativ e 6

. Onl y Alternativ e 1 doe s no t provid e overal l protectio n o f huma n healt h an d th e environment

. Alternative s 2 throug h 6 rel y o n a combinatio n o f wast e remova l wast e containment , an d institutiona l control s fo r protectio n o f huma n healt h an d th e environment

. Fo r logistica l an d engineerin g reason s detaile d i n th e F S Repor t (UDEQ

, 1994)

, excavatio n an d 

### disposa l o f sit e waste s fro m th e curren t residential are a i n Wincheste r Estate s i s considere d th e onl y possibl e remedia l action

. Alternativ e 2 couple s thi s actio n wit h institutiona l control s o n utahdeq\rod\textap r P«g e 18othe

r parcel s t o limi t th e huma n exposure

. Alternative s 3 an d 4 combin e excavatio n an d disposa l
a t residential yard s wit h cappin g o f th e remainin g area s a t OU1

. Th e creatio n o f a physica l barrie r betwee n th e waste s an d th e recepto r populatio n couple d wit h institutiona l control s ensure s th e protectivenes s o f th e remedy

. Alternative s 3 an d 4 provid e a reductio n i n th e sit e ris k leve l
ove r tha t achieve d unde r Alternative s 1 an d 2

. Alternative s 5 an d 6 ar e analogou s t o Alternative s 3 an d 4 excep t tha t excavatio n an d off-sit e disposa l o f sit e waste s ar e substitute d fo r capping

. However

, Alternative s 5 an d 6 d o no t resul t i n an y furthe r reductio n i n sit e ris k whe n compare d wit h Alternative s 3 an d 4

. Remainin g soi l concentration s o f COC s a t th e surfac e woul d b e equa l t o o r belo w backgroun d concentrations

. Implementatio n o f Alternative s 5 and 6 will
, however
, furthe r reduc e th e possibilit y o f futur e groun d wate r impact s o n thi s O U an d eliminat e th e nee d fo r institutiona l control s an d accompanyin g enforcement o n th e treated parcels

. Criterio n 2 ; Complianc e wit h ARAR s Complianc e wit h ARAR s addresse s whethe r a remed y wil l mee t al l Federa l an d Stat e environmenta l law s and/o r provid e a basi s for a waive r fro m an y o f thes e laws

. Th e ARAR s ar e divide d int o chemical-specific
, action-specific
, an d location-specifi c groups

. Ther e are n o chemica l qualit y standard s fo r soil s promulgate d throug h Federa l o r Stat e regulations

. Therefore

, complianc e wit h ARAR s i s no t applicabl e fo r contaminated soil s a t OU1

. ARAR s d o exis t for groun d water , the y includ e Federa l an d Stat e drinkin g wate r standard s suc h a s Maximu m Contaminatio n Limi t Goal s (MCLGs)

, o r MCL s whe n MCLG s ar e zero
. Groun d wate r ARAR s ar e summarize d o n a tabl e presente d a s Appendi x Al

. USEP A an d UDE Q ar e workin g togethe r t o determin e ho w an d unde r wha t circumstance s th e Uta h Groun d Wate r Qualit y Protectio n Rule

, R317-6

, Uta h Admin

. Code

, i s applicabl e o r relevan t an d appropriate

. Thos e determination s hav e no t ye t bee n made

. However

, sinc e USEP A an d UDE Q hav e agreed
, tha t eve n i f th e Groun d Wate r Qualit y Protectio n Rul e i s a n ARA R i n thi s situation , a n alternat e concentratio n limi t shal l appl y an d th e ARA R wil l b e me t
a s set fort h below
, a fina l determinatio n o n the statu s o f UDEQ' s Groun d Wate r Qualit y Protectio n Rul e wil l not b e mad e fo r the purpose s o f thi s ROD

. Utah' s Groun d Wate r Protectio n Standar d (Rule ) fo r lea d i s 1 5 microgram s per lite r G*g/£ ) R317-6-2.1

, Uta h Admin

. Code

. A sampl e fro m on e o f th e 2 5 groun d wate r monitorin g station s o n OU 1 (Wel l No

. LF

08 ) wa s foun d t o excee d thi s standard b y 8 pg/l

. I n respons e t o thi s occurrence , th e USEP A

an d UDE Q hav e agree d t o th e applicatio n o f a n Alternat e Concentratio n Limi t (ACL ) fo r OU 1 tha t wil l brin g OU 1 int o complianc e wit h th e Rule

. A n AC L i s permitte d unde r th e Rul e providin g tha t i t meet s certai n requirements, includin g requirement s tha t th e AC L i s protectiv e o f huma n healt h an d th e environment , an d i s justifie d b y site-specifi c circumstances

. Th e decisio n t o appl y a n AC L fo r Wel l No

. LF-0 8 i n thi s cas e i s base d o n th e following : (1 ) Th e magnitud e o f th e exceedance

. (2 ) The ver y limite d spatia l distributio n o f exceedance s indicate s tha t Wel l No

. LF-0 8 i s no t representativ e o f th e groun d wate r qualit y unde r th e entir e site

. ntahdeq\rod\text.ap r Pag e 1 9(3

) Th e relativel y hig h cos t o f implementin g a remed y t o addres s thi s smal l suspect area , an d th e smal l benefi t o f doin g so

. Give n th e applicatio n o f th e AC L fo r Wel l No

. LF-0 8 i n thi s manner , OU 1 i s considere d a t thi s tim e t o b e i n complianc e wit h th e Rule

, an d al l propose d remedie s ar e als o i n compliance

. Action-specifi c ARAR s are detaile d i n Appendi x A2

. Alternative s 2 throug h 6 woul d compl y wit h al l action-specifi c ARARS

. Location-specifi c ARAR s are detaile d i n Appendi x A3

. Alternative s 2 throug h 6 woul d compl y wit h location-specific ARARs

. Criterio n 3 : Long-Ter m Effectivenes s Thi s evaluatio n criteri a involve s consideration o f th e risk s tha t remai n afte r th e sit e ha s bee n remediated

. Item s o f concer n ar e th e presenc e o f an y receptor s nea r th e site, magnitud e o f th e remainin g ris k fro m untreated wast e o r treatmen t residuals
, adequac y o f control s tha t ar e use d t o manag e treatmen t residual s o r untreated waste, an d reliabilit y o f these controls

. Unde r Alternativ e 1 , th e risk s pose d b y OU 1 wil l remai n unchange d an d therefore
, th e remed y i s no t considere d t o b e effective

. Long-ter m effectivenes s increase s incrementall y fro m Alternative s 2 throug h Alternativ e 6

. Althoug h Alternative s 2 throug h 6 al l achiev e protectio n o f huma n healt h an d th e environment , eac h successiv e alternativ e require s fewe r restriction s o n futur e lan d use

. Alternativ e 3 offer s a hig h leve l o f long-term effectivenes s usin g a combinatio n o f engineerin g an d institutiona l controls

. Excavatio n an d off-sit e disposa l o f waste s o n Parce l WEN W provide s th e maximu m possibl e long-term effectivenes s b y removin g th e waste s fro m th e site

. Fo r Parce l WESE

, th e placement o f a soi l cove r wil l interrupt th e rout e fo r huma n exposur e t o contaminated nativ e soil s permittin g futur e residentia l developmen t althoug h maintenanc e o f the cove r ma y b e required

. Cove r maintenanc e ma y includ e periodi c fillin g o f erosiona l feature s couple d wit h revegetation

. B y us e o f institutiona l control s prohibitin g futur e residential development
, th e existin g risk s pose d b y th e remainde r o f OU 1 ar e belo w a leve l o f concern
. Therefore

, Alternativ e 3 i s a n effectiv e remed y for thi s portio n o f th e site

. Criterio n 4 ; Us e o f Treatmen t t o Reduc e Toxicitv

. Mobility

, an d Volum e Treatmen t o f th e waste s i s no t considered unde r an y o f th e alternatives

. A considerabl e portio n o f th e wast e appear s t o b e sla g distribute d throughou t a soi l matrix

. Th e larg e volume s o f slag

containin g soils
, couple d wit h th e natur e o f slag
, preclude s th e effectiv e us e o f treatmen t technologies

. Essentially

, ther e i s n o practical an d cost-effectiv e wa y t o remov e th e toxi c metal s fro m th e sla g matrix ; therefore
, th e propose d alternative s wil l no t satisf y th e statutor y preferenc e for treatmen t a s a principa l elemen t o f remediation wit h a stron g bia s agains t off-sit e landfillin g o f untreated wastes

.

titahdcq\rod\texLap r Pag e 2 0Criterio n

S : Short-Ter m Effectivenes s Thi s criterio n involve s investigatio n o f th e effect s o f th e alternative s durin g construction an d implementation

. Item s o f concer n ar e th e protectio n o f th e communit y an d th e worker s durin g implementatio n o f remedia l measures , potentia l environmenta l impacts , an d th e tim e require d t o achiev e remedia l actio n goals

. Th e remedia l alternative s ar e combination s o f thre e components : excavation , cappin g an d institutiona l controls

. Short-ter m risk s increas e wit h a n increasin g amoun t o f eart h wor k an d increas e furthe r wit h th e off-sit e transpor t o f excavate d soil

. Thes e risk s tak e th e for m o f potentia l injur y or deat h fro m eart h movin g equipmen t an d traffi c accident s durin g transpor t o f contaminate d soil s t o th e disposal/storag e site

. Othe r short-ter m risk s woul d includ e fugitiv e dus t an d potentia l impact s t o surfac e wate r bodie s du e t o sit e runof f durin g remediation activities

. Base d o n th e abov e analysis
, short-ter m effectivenes s decrease s (short-ter m ris k increases ) incrementall y fro m Alternativ e 1 throug h Alternativ e 6

. Criterio n 6 : Implementabilft v This criterio n refer s t o th e technica l an d administrativ e feasibilit y o f th e remedy
, includin g th e availabilit y o f material s an d service s neede d t o implement th e chose n solution

. I t als o include s coordination o f Federal

, State

, an d loca l government s t o clea n u p th e site

. Al l o f th e remedia l alternative s ar e implementable

. Equipment

, material s an d manpowe r fo r earthwor k project s are readil y availabl e i n th e Sal t Lak e Cit y area
. I n addition
, disposa l facilitie s exis t withi n 10 0 mile s o f th e sit e tha t ca n accep t excavate d soils

. Treatabilit y studies performe d o n OU 1 soil s indicat e tha t al l waste s ar e no t characteristi c hazardou s wast e b y toxicit y an d ma y b e dispose d o f i n a RCR A Subtitl e D landfill

. Alternatively

, th e waste s ma y b e store d
o n th e Midval e Sla g OU 2 Sit e pendin g remed y selectio n fo r OU2

. Th e us e o f institutiona l control s o n Parce l WES E woul d b e possibl e wit h th e agreemen t o f th e propert y owne r an d th e approva l o f th e citie s an d countie s involved

. Althoug h al l o f th e remedie s ar e implementable
, Alternative s 4, 5 an d 6 wil l requir e significantl y mor e tim e t o implement

. I n particular
, Alternativ e 6 wil l requir e 8 year s a s compare d wit h Alternativ e 3 , whic h wil l requir e les s tha n 1 year
. Criterion? ! Cos t Alternative s 1 throug h 4 ar e considere d cost-effective

. Eac h o f thes e alternative s provide s a n incrementa l increas e i n protectivenes s wit h a reasonabl e incrementa l increas e i n cost

. Alternative s 5 an d 6 , however
, ar e no t considere d cost-effective

. Th e smal l incrementa l increas e i n protectivenes s achieve d unde r Alternative s 5 an d 6 a s a resul t o f wast e remova l contrast s sharpl y wit h th e 10

- t o 100-fol d increas e i n cost

.
utahdeqVrodMextap r Pag e 2 1Criterio n

8 ; Stat e Acceptanc e UDE Q ha s worke d i n partnershi p wit h USEP A throughou t th e RI/F S an d concur s wit h th e selecte d remed y fo r thi s site

. Criterio n 9 : Communit y Acceptanc e Th e Propose d Plan wa s issue d o n 7 Jul y 1994

. A publi c meetin g wa s hel d o n 2 7 Jul y 199 4 a t th e Midval e Cit y Hal l i n Midvale

, Utah

. Member s o f th e communit y attende d th e meetin g an d aske d question s an d mad e statements

. Littl e oppositio n t o th e propose d remed y wa s expressed

. Som e o f those tha t di d objec t questione d th e nee d fo r an y remedia l action

. Prio r t o th e publi c meetin g th e Citizen s Fo r A Saf e Futur e Fo r Midval e (Citizen s Group ) requeste d a 30-da y extension o f th e publi c commen t perio d s o tha t a n independen t contracto r coul d revie w th e F S Repor t fo r technica l accuracy
. Th e extension wa s grante d an d a n advertisemen t wa s place d i n th e Sal t Lak e Tribun e providin g notic e tha t th e clos e o f th e publi c commen t perio d wa s extende d t o 1 0 Septembe r 1994

. A secon d extensio n wa s requeste d b y th e Citizen s Grou p o n 9 Septembe r 1994 , an d wa s denie d b y USEP A o n 1 2 Septembe r 1994

. Th e basi s fo r th e denia l wa s th e fac t tha t th e document s t o b e reviewe d b y th e Citizen s Grou p ha d bee n availabl e t o th e publi c fo r severa l month s prior t o th e issuanc e o f th e Propose d Plan

. Writte n comment s an d question s wer e receive d prior t o th e close o f th e publi c commen t period

. Thos e comment s an d response s ar e presente d i n thi s RO D i n Sectio n Xn

. X

. SELECTE D REMED Y Alternativ e 3 ha s bee n selecte d a s th e remed y fo r OU1

. Alternativ e 3 consist s o f excavatin g surfac e soil s a t 1 4 residential yard s (Parce l WENW)

, placin g a compacte d permeabl e soi l cove r (Non-RCRA Cap ) ove r expose d nativ e soil s i n th e undevelope d residentia l are a (Parce l WESE)

, an d implementin g dee d restriction s o r othe r institutiona l control s o n th e remainin g parcel s o f th e O U t o prohibi t residentia l lan d us e unles s additiona l remediatio n t o residentia l soi l clea n u p level s occurs

. Residentia l yard s wil l b e remediate d b y excavatio n o f th e uppe r 1 8 inche s o f nativ e soils

. Th e 18-inc h dept h i s considere d t o b e a minimu m wit h confirmator y samplin g use d t o identif y area s requirin g additiona l excavation

. Clea n fil l woul d b e importe d t o restor e th e origina l grade
, an d
eac h yar d wil l b e restore d a s closel y a s possibl e t o it s origina l condition

. Th e wastes, bein g nonhazardous
, woul d b e transporte d t o th e neares t soli d wast e (RCR A Subtitl e D ) landfill

. Alternatively

, th e soil s ma y b e store d o n th e Midval e Sla g OU 2 Sit e pendin g remed y selectio n fo r OU2

. Emplacemen t o f a compacte d permeabl e cove r o n th e undevelope d residentia l are a woul d b e accomplishe d usin g a portio n o f th e existin g clea n fil l o n th e L G an d L R parcels

. This remedia l actio n woul d b e couple d wit h erosio n control s (gradin g an d revegetation)

, institutiona l controls
, an d groun d wate r monitoring

. Th e fina l compacte d surfac e wil l b e covere d wit h topsoi l an d revegetate d wit h nativ e plant s t o minimiz e erosio n b y win d an d surfac e water

.

utahdeq\nxIVtexLip r Pag e 2 2Th e compacte d permeabl e soi l cove r woul d hav e a minimu m thicknes s o f 2 feet

. Thi s minimu m thicknes s o f soi l cove r i s necessar y t o ensur e publi c healt h protectio n base d o n preventin g eart h movin g equipmen t tire s fro m penetratin g the cove r durin g potentia l futur e lan d development

. T o minimiz e activitie s tha t woul d breac h th e protectiv e soi l cover , thi s remedia l actio n woul d b e couple d wit h th e followin g institutiona l controls

. • Excavation s woul d b e permitte d o n a case-by-cas e basi s t o b e reviewe d an d approved

. Nativ e soil s tha t ar e brough t t o th e surfac e woul d b e segregate d fro m clea n cove r soil s an d place d bac k i n th e excavatio n an d covere d wit h clea n overburden

. Exces s nativ e soil s woul d b e dispose d o f a t a soli d wast e (RCR A Subtitl e D ) landfill

. Th e followin g institutiona l control s woul d b e imposed o n th e undevelope d commercia l zone d
area s o f OU 1 (Parcel s LR-wes t an d east , L G an d LF) : • Futur e us e o f th e propert y wil l b e industrial/commercia l

unles s additiona l remediation t o residentia l soi l clea n u p level s occurs

. • I f fo r an y reaso n sit e soil s nee d t o b e transported/dispose d o f off-sit e (e.g

. exces s soil s fro m utilit y o r foundatio n excavation ) the y wil l b e dispose d o f i n a RCR A Subtitl e D facility

. Th e abov e mixture o f remedia l action s an d dee d restriction s o r othe r institutiona l control s wil l provid e fo r lan d us e tha t i s consisten t wit h th e curren t zonin g o f th e OU

, an d wil l also allo w fo r a chang e i n lan d us e i n th e futur e fo r som e o f th e parcel s fro m commercial/industria l

t o residentia l shoul d suc h a chang e b e desire d b y th e lan d owner(s ) an d th e loca l cit y governments

. Implementatio n o f th e above-describe d remedia l action s an d institutiona l control s wil l resul t i n a pos t remediatio n cance r ris k an d non-cance r H I les s tha n IE- 4 an d 1 , respectively
, fo r th e entir e OU

. Pre

- an d post-remediatio n soi l concentration s an d ris k level s ar e presente d o n Table s 5 an d 6 , respectively

. Groun d wate r i n th e Uppe r San d & Grave l Aquife r woul d b e monitore d (semi-annua l wate r leve l measurement s an d wate r samples ) fo r a t leas t 5 year s followin g completio n o f remedia l action

. Th e poin t o f complianc e (wit h ARARs ) fo r groun d wate r wil l b e th e hydraulicall y downgradient sit e boundar y (portion s o f th e wes t an d nort h sit e boundarie s a s show n o n Figur e 8)

. Existin g monitorin g well s wil l b e supplemente d wit h on e o r mor e additiona l monitorin g well s t o b e installe d durin g o r immediatel y afte r th e remedia l action

. Groun d wate r sample s wil l b e analyze d fo r tota l an d dissolve d arsenic , cadmium
, an d lead

. I f a t th e en d o f th e 5-yea r monitorin g perio d ARAR s hav e no t bee n exceede d i n an y o f th e samples analyzed
, groun d wate r monitorin g wil l b e discontinued

. Th e estimate d cos t o f thi s remed y i s $2,597,000

. Th e capita l cos t o f eac h majo r componen t o f th e remed y alon g wit h operatio n an d maintenanc e cost s ar e summarize d below :

utahdeq\rod\text.«p r Pag e 2 3Estimate d Cost s o f the Selecte d Remed y Capita l Cost s Remova l Component Uni

t Quantit

y Uni t Cos t Estimate d Cos t 1 ) Excavation/off-sit e Disposa l Containmen t Component 1 ) Prepare sit e 2 ) Instal l cove r Institutiona l Control s Residential

Yar d 14

Acr e Acr e

1 ) Administrativ e Cost s L S

Ooeratio n an d Maintenanc e Cost s $59,00 0

3 7 3 7
N / A $ 4,67 6 21,29 7
N / A Desig n Cost s (20% ) Contingencie s (20% ) $826,00 0

$173,00 0 788,00 0

$ 10.00 0 $1,797,00 0 359.00 0 $2,156,00 0 431.00 0 $2,587,00 0 Annua l Cos t 1 ) Cove r maintenanc e an d groun d wate r monitorin g TOTA L COST S (Presen t valu e usin g 5 % discount ) $ 9,67 0

$2,597,00 0 X L STATUTOR Y DETERMINATIO N Protectio n o f Huma n Healt h an d Th e Environmen t Th e potentia l fo r exposur e t o soil s posin g a n exces s cance r ris k o r non-cance r H I o f IE- 4 an d 1 , respectively
, i s eliminate d throug h wast e remova l b y excavation , wast e containmen t o r institutiona l controls

. Complianc e wit h ARAR s Ther e ar e n o chemical-specifi c ARAR s fo r soil s a t OU1

, an d groun d wate r i s i n complianc e wit h ARARs

. Th e selecte d remed y include s th e installatio n o f a permeable
, single-laye r soi l cover , th e onl y objectiv e o f whic h i s t o preven t direc t contac t betwee n huma n receptor s an d th e contaminated nativ e soils

. Accordingly

, th e inten t i s inconsisten t wit h tha t o f a RCR A ca p an d utahdeq\rod\t£XLap r Pag e 2 4th e RCR A requirement s ar e no t ARAR

. Th e remed y complie s wit h thos e location-specifi c ARAR s tha t wer e identifie d a s applicable

. Cost-Effectivenes s Althoug h Alternative s 2 throug h 6 al l achiev e acceptabl e level s o f protectiveness , Alternativ e 3 doe s thi s withou t changin g th e existin g lan d zonin g o r requirin g th e excavatio n an d off-sit e disposa l o f larg e soi l volumes

. Th e limite d additiona l protectivenes s associate d wit h wast e remova l (Alternative s 5 an d 6 ) contrast s sharpl y wit h th e 10

- t o 100-fol d increas e i n cost s whe n compare d wit h Alternativ e 3

. Utilizatio n o f Permanen t Solution s an d Alternativ e Treatmen t Technologie s Treatmen t o f waste s i s no t considere d unde r an y o f th e alternatives

. A considerabl e portio n o f th e wast e appear s t o b e sla g distribute d throughou t a soi l matrix

. Th e larg e volum e o f slag

containin g soils
, couple d wit h th e natur e o f th e slag
, preclude s th e effectiv e us e o f treatmen t technologies

. Essentially

, ther e i s n o practical an d cost-effectiv e wa y t o remov e th e toxi c metal s fro m th e slag ; Therefore

, permanen t solution s woul d b e limite d t o wast e removal
, which
, a s previousl y discussed
, i s no t considere d t o b e cost-effective

. Preferenc e fo r Treatmen t a s a Principa l Elemen t A s previousl y discussed
, treatmen t o f waste s i s no t considere d unde r an y o f th e alternatives
, therefore
, th e selecte d remed y wil l no t satisf y th e statutor y preferenc e fo r treatmen t a s a principa l elemen t o f remediation

. Alternativ e 3 woul d resul t i n som e incrementa l reduction i n mobilit y fo r th e treated area s (excavation/remova l an d capping)

. However

, transpor t o f sit e waste s vi a surfac e wate r o r ai r i s no t considere d t o represen t a significan t exposur e pathwa y (LSI

, 1992)

. X H

. RESPONSIVENES

S SUMMAR Y Overvie w A t th e tim e o f th e publi c commen t period
, USEP A an d UDE Q ha d alread y selecte d a preferre d alternativ e fo r Midval e Sla g OU 1 i n Midvale

, Utah

. Th e preferre d alternativ e addresse s soi l contamination b y eithe r removin g th e contaminated soil
, cappin g th e contaminated soi l o r restrictin g th e typ e o f futur e lan d use

. Base d o n th e comment s receive d durin g th e publi c commen t perio d an d durin g publi c meetings , th e resident s o f th e surroundin g communitie s an d loca l communit y group s suppor t th e preferre d remed y fo r OU1

. Objection s t o th e propose d remed y wer e limite d t o concern s abou t curren t o r futur e effect s o f OU 1 waste s o n th e dee p principa l aquife r an d i n som e cases , commentor s questione d th e nee d fo r an y remedia l actio n a t all

. utahdeqVrodMexLip r Pag e 2 5Thes e

section s follow : • Backgroun d o n Communit y Involvement • Comment s Receive d Durin g th e Publi c Commen t Perio d

- Par t I : Respons e t o Loca l Communit y Concern s

- Par t II : Respons e t o Specifi c Lega l and Technica l Question s Backgroun d o n Communit y Involvemen t UDE Q an d USEP A communit y relation s staf f conducted interview s wit h resident s i n th e impacte d are a t o determine thei r concerns

. A s par t o f thes e interviews , eac h interviewe e wa s aske d wha t woul d b e th e mos t effectiv e wa y t o kee p th e publi c involved

. Thes e suggestion s wer e incorporate d int o a Communit y Relation s Plan

, develope d b y UR S (a n USEP A contractor )

an d adopte d i n 1991

. Al l publi c document s relatin g t o OU 1 wer e mad e availabl e a t th e Rut h Vine Librar y i n Midvale

. Municipalitie s suc h a s th e citie s o f Midval e an d Wes t Jorda n a s wel l a s th e Uta h Departmen t o f Transportatio n wer e particularl y intereste d i n ho w Superfun d activitie s woul d impac t th e propose d extension o f th e Jorda n Rive r Boulevar d throug h th e OU1

. Regula r meeting s wer e hel d betwee n thes e intereste d partie s beginnin g i n 1990

. Official s fro m th e citie s wer e briefe d periodically
, and UDE Q responde d t o request s fo r informatio n fro m potentia l businesse s seekin g t o locat e i n th e area
. I n preparatio n fo r a soi l samplin g progra m conducted i n 199 1 a t Wincheste r Estate s residential yards
, a pre-samplin g meetin g wa s hel d wit h th e owne r o f th e traile r park

. Whe n th e sampl e analyse s wer e completed
, a n availabilit y sessio n wa s hel d a t whic h resident s coul d pic k u p thei r sampl e result s an d tal k t o representative s o f USEP A an d UDE Q abou t th e results

. Fac t sheet s wer e maile d t o intereste d parties , an d a publi c informationa l meetin g o n th e statu s o f th e sit e wa s hel d o n 2 Ma y 1991

. Additiona l samplin g o f residential yard s i n lat e 199 3 wa s precede d b y meeting s betwee n UDE Q

an d th e traile r par k manage r wh o subsequentl y notifie d th e resident s o f th e planne d fiel d activities

. Th e result s o f th e secon d roun d o f samplin g wer e maile d t o individual residents

. A Propose d Plan

, outlinin g USEPA' s an d UDEQ' s preferre d remed y an d th e publi c participatio n process , wa s mailed o n 7 Jul y 1994

. A n advertisemen t wa s place d i n th e Sal t Lak e Tribun e providin g notic e o n th e availabilit y o f th e Propose d Plan

, th e tim e an d locatio n o f th e publi c meeting s an d th e duratio n o f th e publi c commen t perio d (1 1 Jul y throug h 1 0 Augus t 1994)

. A publi c meetin g wa s hel d o n 2 7 Jul y 199 4 a t th e Midval e Cit y Hal l i n th e cit y counci l chambers

. Approximatel y 35 member s o f th e communit y wer e presen t wit h question s focusin g o n th e compatibilit y o f th e preferre d remed y wit h futur e developmen t plan s fo r OU1

. Prio r t o th e publi c meetin g th e Citizen s Fo r A Saf e Futur e Fo r Midval e (Citizen s Group ) requeste d a 30

- da y extension o f th e publi c commen t perio d so.tha t a n independen t contracto r coul d revie w th e F S Repor t fo r technica l accuracy
. Th e contracto r woul d b e hire d b y th e Citizen s Grou p usin g fund s provide d b y USEP A Technica l Assistanc e Grant

. Th e extension wa s grante d an d a n
ut*hdeq\rod\tcxt.ip r Pag e 2 6advertisemen

t wa s place d i n th e Sal t Lak e Tribun e providin g notic e tha t th e close o f th e publi c commen t perio d wa s extende d t o 1 0 Septembe r 1994

. A secon d extensio n wa s requeste d b y th e Citizen s Grou p o n 9 Septembe r 1994 , an d wa s denie d b y USEP A o n 1 2 Septembe r 1994

. Th e basi s fo r th e denia l wa s th e fac t tha t th e document s t o b e reviewe d b y th e Citizen s Grou p ha d bee n availabl e t o th e publi c fo r severa l month s prior t o th e issuanc e o f th e Propose d Plan

. A t th e clos e o f th e publi c commen t period
, writte n an d ora l comment s ha d bee n receive d fro m th e Citizen s Group ; Mr

. Davi d Ovar d o f th e Sal t Lak e Count y Wate r Conservanc y District ; Mr

. Bruc e Nieveen

, Environmenta l Enginee r for Midval e City; Mr

. Volne y Wallace

, a privat e citizen , Ms

. JoAn n Seghini

, Midval e Councilwoman ; Mr

. Wayn e Harper

, Wes t Jorda n Councilman ; Ms

. Jea n Barbuto

, a privat e citizen ; Ms

. Cind y Merril

, a privat e citizen; Mr

. Gart h Pimm

, manage r o f Wincheste r Estates ; Mr

. Leo n Hansen

, a privat e citizen ; an d Mr

. Bo b Davis

, Directo r o f Developmen t Service s for th e Cit y o f Wes t Jordan

. Response s t o these comment s ar e presente d below

. RESPONSE S T O PUBLI C COMMENT S RECEIVE D DURIN G PUBLI C COMMEN T PERIO D Par t I

. — Summar y an d Respons e t o Loca l Communit y Concern s Note : Som e o f th e followin g comment s an d question s wer e receive d verball y a t th e 2 7 Ma y 199 4 Publi c Meetin g i n Midvale

, Utah

. Th e response s presente d her e ar e modifie d i n som e case s fro m th e response s provide d a t th e publi c meeting

. Thi s wa s don e t o mor e clearl y represen t UDEQ' s an d USEPA' s positio n o n these issues

. Adequac y o f RI/F S

> • Comment s b y "Citizen s Fo r A Saf e Futur e Fo r Midvale " Commen t No

. 1 The Citizens for a Safe Future for Midvale indicated they had asked for an extension and would be submitting written comments, once their consultants had had an opportunity to 

### look at the data. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 USEP A acknowledge s these comment s an d responde d t o th e writte n comment s submitted

. Commen t No

. 2 

### My name is Alien Lister and I am addressing this public hearing tonight representing Citizens For A Safe Future For Midvale, an organization formed to monitor the findings of USEPA in behalf of the Citizens of Midvale.
Dtahdeq\rod\text»p r Pag e 2 7We

thank the USEPAfor the opportunity to comment on the RI/FS as it relates to the OU1 area of the Midvale Slag Superfund Site. We also appreciate USEPA 's immediate response in granting us a 30-day minimum extension of the Public Comment period to allow us to prepare the study authorized in our USEPA TAG grant to validate the findings of the RI/FS. The objective of the extension is to gain independent assurance that the USEPA preferred alternative (#3) for the remediation of the OU1 portion of the Midvale Slag Superfimd Site will property protect the health and safety of the citizens of Midvale. Preparation of this documentation may necessitate us to request a Junker extension of the public comment period. We have carefully reviewed the USEPA fact sheet and other information available from state and local offices and will proceed to engage an independent consultant to review the RI/FS to evaluate its content and the USEPA's conclusions. During

our consultants' renew

we will expect them to carefidfy consider the following matters. We will share with the USEPA any concerns which may arise from our consultants' evaluation

of their report and its conclusions. 1) A determination will be made of the adequacy of the evaluations of the "hot spots" located in the Midvale Slag site relative to their potential for surface and subsurface contamination. 

### 2) A careful evaluation will be made of the institutional controls that would be in place to ensure contamination is contained on-site. 3) Procedures to ensure satisfactory site monitoring of the potential contamination of the upper and lower aquifers will be evaluated. 4) The adequacy of the testing for existing contamination of the Jordan River's surface water as well as of its sediment will be evaluated. Similarly, the testing methods used to evaluate water contamination in the upper and lower aquifers and conclusions made from the data will be substantiated or concerns identified. 5) An evaluation will be made of the reasonableness and consistency of standards that were utilized in all aspects of testing for contamination. 6) An assessment will be made of the adequacy of the grid pattern used as the basis for testing and evaluating the information used in the final RI/FS for OU1. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 2 (Items 1-6 ) Th e reviewe r indicate s tha t Citizen s fo r a Saf e Futur e Fo r Midval e believ e tha t th e purpos e o f
a TA G grant i s t o validat e th e finding s o f th e RI/FS

. This i s incorrect

. The purpos e o f th e TA G grant i s t o allo w a publi c interes t grou p t o acquir e technica l assistanc e t o "interpret " informatio n develope d durin g the investigatio n o f a Superfun d Sit e liste d o n the Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t t o "facilitat e th e public' s overal l understanding " o f Superfun d activities

. utahdeq\rod\text.ip r Pag e 2 8Alternativ e

Remedia l Actions

» • Comment s b y Mr

. Bruc e A

. Nieveen

, Environmenta l Enginee r fo r Midval e Cit y Commen t No

. 1 The USEPA and DEQ have determined that certain environmental hazards exist on the properties designated as Midvale Slag Superfund OU1 and OU2. It is known that there are several localized areas which have very high concentrations of arsenic and lead. Inasmuch as these problems exist and both the City of Midvale and Valley Materials would like to see the property developed. Midvale proposes the following plan. We believe that there are simple precautions which can be taken to prevent human and wildlife exposure or ingestion. Since these properties will 

### be designated industrial and commercial, the USEPA has conceded that the action level can be higher than residential is acceptable. This action level for exposed soil is likely to be designated around I,300ppmfor arsenic. Regulations will be enforced by either Administrative Orders, building permits, and oversight by the appropriate and assigned individual on the Midvale Staff. Import or fill material brought on to the site shall not exceed 5,000ppmfor lead and 1,200ppm for arsenic. A tiered approach for the site will be used. This tiered approach shall be similar 

### to the post remedial regulation which are used in the residential clean up of the Sharon Steel OU2 area, except that the contaminant levels are different. Testing will be required as part of the development to determine what actions are to be taken for the soil. Each section will be tested individually, and approval 

### actions will be taken individually for contaminated soil within that section. This
means because one section of the property is required to a certain set of guidelines, the entire property is not bound by those same actions. More specifically, although a specific area within the boundaries of the property may require certain remedial actions or capping or other involved procedures, the entire property will not necessarily have to follow that pattern. Midvale ordinance requires that 5% of an industrial or commercial area be landscaped. In the area near the Jordan River and the Jordan River Parkway,

we intend to increase the required landscape area to be 10%. Elimination of the landscaped area is not practical nor acceptable from Midvale's perspective. It is because Midvale requires a minimum area to be landscaped that we have used the tiered approach. It can be readily assumed that children will not play in these areas, and if that occurs on a rare basis, there is certainly not the probability that 

### this could occur on a weekly basis because the area is one of either offices or industry. Grass cover significantly reduces the dust which can occur from soil. utahdcq\rod\lcxt.ap r Pag e 2 9In

those areas where the landscape area may consist of flowers with some exposed soil, the maximum contaminant level has been set at 5,000for lead and 750ppm for arsenic. These levels would also pertain to certain types of bushes or trees which would leave large open areas of bare soil Those shrubs which would adequately cover the ground are would be able to conform to the same contaminant levels as grass. Shrubs and trees will be designated under the regulations specifically stated for the site. Clean import material (from off-site) 

### for the Industrial/Commercial zone will be designated as 3,000 ppm lead and 750 ppm arsenic. Furthermore, if fill material were needed then the levels would be raised to 1,200 ppm for arsenic and 5,000 ppm for lead; these, however, would have to be placed beneath a cap of "clean" material. Where necessary and when applicable, the most contaminated material will be placed under the foundations of the buildings or under the driveways and parking lots.

ACTION A ACTIO N B ACTIO N C ACTIO N D ACTIO N E (Impor t Material ) (Fil l Material ) ARSENI

C LEVEL S Greate r Tha n Opp m 75 0 pp m 1,85 0 ppm
15,00 0 pp m 0 pp m
75 0 pp m Equa l t o o r Les s Tha n 75 0 pp m 1,30 0 pp m 15,00 0 pp m N o Limi t 75 0 pp m 1,20 0 pp m LEA D LEVEL S Greate r Tha n Opp m N A N A N A
0 pp m
3,00 0 pp m Equa l t o o r Les s Tha n 5,00 0 pp m N A N A N A 3,0 0 pp m
5,00 0 pp m N o restriction s on-site

. Gras s cover
. 6 inche s o f earthfil l cove r o n to p fo r gras s cove r o r landscape d cover
. Minimu m o f 1 2 inche s o f
cove r wit h line r o r barrier

. Ope n soi l use d fo r flower s o r ope n shrubs

. Used fo r fil l t o b e covered

. Drawing of proposed landscape areas and a sample ordinance or administrative order would be similar to that of Park Gty (enclosed). Special precautions will be taken in the event of development of businesses or buildings like condominiums or a day care. Though this particular type of development will be discouraged, it would be allowed with additional requirements and precautions. Any similar business which would have children that may spend a regular routine or daily amount of time on the site would 

### require a variance. Further, the additional safety requirements would be to place 24 inches of fill material with contaminate levels below 1,000 ppm lead and 130 ppm arsenic on top of a membrane barrier unless the proposed site already meets that criteria to the depth of 4 feet, 4 feet being a practical depth that occur with placement waterlines and other utilities. If soil at depths greater than 4 feet 

### exceeds limits, and it is necessary for removal for such activities as building foundations or footing, then the contaminated material must be disposed of and 

### handled in a manner conforming to the regulations to be put in place. In the

utihdcq\rod\lcxt.ip r Pag e 3 0

### planning

stages of these types of businesses, specific processes witt be outlined for the building and construction processes. In all cases strict adherence to landscaping codes will be required. Midvale's code enforcement officer -will make certain that the proper vegetation be placed and remain in healthy condition. Groundwater monitoring is a concern for both DEQ and USEPA. We proposed 

### that the DEQ place a sum of money into a fund which would cover the cost of testing, maintaining the wells, and personnel costs. Test results will be sent directly to the USEPA for their review. Knee the State of Utah is responsible for Operation and Maintenance, any future costs for the treatment of groundwater would fall under their jurisdiction. Considering that Superfimd has and will continue to discourage the investing of 

### money and buying of property that falls within the Superfimd boundaries, we believe that by implementation of these regulations the Superfimd listing can be removed from this property. 

### Slag on-site will be used in certain specifically designated circumstances. Those situations would be a soil which does not have a soil acidity pH below 6.3. The slag could be placed under a future hard surface only. These would be areas 

### such as concrete or asphalt, which, in effect, would be a cap and prevent water from coming into contact with it. The material would also not be allowed in wetlands or where flooding may regularly occur. Further restrictions would not allow the slag to be ground and used as blasting material. It should be noted that after the failure ofSyncrete on Interstate 15, the material was considered to be hazardous by the USEPA. At that time the UDEQ went to considerable lengths to find a use for the material. It was able to be used as an encapsulated base 

### material in concrete which was used for roadways. We believe that the slag can be used for similar purposes. Slag dust would remain on-site and be placed in a centralized location that would be permanently capped. Areas on top would remain open space and building would not be allowed. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 Som e o f Mr

. Nieveen' s comment s appea r t o b e directe d towar d remedia l actio n a t th e Midval e Sla g OU 2 site , e.g. , suggestion s for remediation o f th e sla g pile

. Thos e comment s wil l b e considere d a s USEP A an d UDE Q develo p a fina l remed y fo r Midval e Sla g OU2

, bu t wil l no t b e responde d t o i n th e contex t o f thi s OU 1 ROD

. Mr

. Nievee n ha s also mad e comment s regardin g th e propose d establishment o f institutiona l control s b y Midvale

. Institutiona l control s wil l b e addresse d an d develope d durin g Remedia l 

### Design

, an d wil l no t b e incorporate d i n detai l i n th e ROD

. USEP A an d UDE Q wil l wor k wit h Midval e durin g th e Remedia l Desig n proces s t o assur e tha t th e institutiona l control s implemente d
ar e appropriat e an d workable

.

Btahdeq\rod\text«p r Pag e 3 1Acceptabilit

y o f Preferre d Remed y

» • Commen t b y Cit y o f Wes t Jorda n Commen t No

. 1 Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 2980, the City of West Jordan respectfully submits the following formal comments on the preferred alternative for remedial action to be included 

### in the decision-making process leading to the final Record of Decision by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on the Midvale Slag Superfimd Site, OU-1. We understand that the Feasibility Study Report leading to the final Record of Decision (ROD) represents an abbreviated remedial investigation and feasibility 

### study process. This abbreviation is the result of a request by the USEPA to the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality and its contractor, WESTON, 

### Inc., that a "focused''feasibility study be conducted "that would develop and analyze remedial alternatives appropriate for a limited number of contaminants in a limited number of environmental media." (WESTON 1994) The City of West Jordan'sprofessional staff, Department of Development Services Director D. Robert Davis, P.E., and City Engineer, Clarke MacFarland, P.E., and our professional consultants, Jim Horrocks, P.E., Russell Youd, P.E., and Pamela Dee Parldnson, J.D. have reviewed the abbreviated process and have found it to be efficient, comprehensive, and cost effective. The City, therefore, is in agreement with the process that the USEPA and the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality have chosen to utilize. The following represents our comments on the results of that process. Part I. Introduction The City of West Jordan has been involved with the Valley Materials site since the mid-1980s. That involvement springs from the City's interest in constructing a six-lane roadway across the site at 7200 South on the east side of the site, and connecting with 7000 South on the west side of the site. This is a road length of approximately 1.37 miles. The Midvale Slag Superfimd Site encompasses approximately 500 acres. The site is located 12 miles south of Salt Lake City, Utah, and is within the municipal limits of Murray and Midvale Cities, Utah. Parcel OU-1 of the Midvale Slag Superfimd Site encompasses approximately 330 acres and is bounded by the following: an arbitrary tine north of the smelter slag deposits marks the southern border; the Jordan River marks the western border; 5400 South Street marks the norther border; and South Main Street (700 West) marks the eastern border.OU1 also includes the Winchester Estates area and the abandoned Midvale Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and lagoon areas. utahdcq\rodUcxt-»p r Ptg e 3 2The

western border of the site, the Jordan River, is also the eastern municipal boundary of West Jordan. As such, the City of West Jordan is directly impacted by the decisions made and actions taken -with regard to the site. Although minimal actual, physical contamination has migrated to West Jordan, the public's perception of the site in relationship to our City has contaminated the manner in which residents, area citizens, agencies, and organizations relate to and deal with
our city. The remedial action that the USEPA and UDEQ take on the site will only help alleviate the misconceptions that the public hold about the safety, cleanliness, and security of West Jordan. We are further encouraged by the minimalist stance that has been adopted with regard to the threat posed by the contaminants of concern. 

### This attitude has been encouraged by the City for the past three years and we are gratified to see the findings of our professional staff verified and implemented. The proposed Jordan River Boulevard will provide a desperately needed connecting corridor for the east-west commuters in the Salt Lake Valley. Between 

### 5400 South and 9000 South there is no other east-west roadway enabling the motorist to travel directly from the Wasatch Range to the Oquirrh Range. This east-west travel ability is crucial because the most dramatic Salt Lake Valley growth and expansion is in the southwestern comer of the Valley, to wit: West Jordan, South Jordan, Draper, and Riverton. An aerial view of the Valley shows that only in this corner is there land and room for growth. This view is evidenced by the State of Utah's Department of Transportation's investment in the Bangerter 

### Highway and the development and expansion of 5600 West. Jordan River Boulevard is the mainstay of West Jordan's economic development master plan for Juture quality growth and development. The proposed roadway allows the commuter, the traveler, the consumer quick, safe, and easy access from the 1-15 freeway directly into the heart of West Jordan's rapidly expanding commercial district. As the limited access currently exists, there is confusion, hazards, and congestion when the motorist tries to wend their way from 1-15 down 7200 South, onto 700 West, then to 7800 South, and finally reaching the city 

### limits of West Jordan. Not only is the motorist at risk due to the poor conditions, they are bombarded with the sight ofMidvale Slag and Sharon Steel abandoned 

### sites and left with the perception that they are entering a filthy, rundown, industrial park rather that the clean, dynamic, residential and commercial community that is the City of West Jordan. Part n. Analysis of Alternative The feasibility study, even in its abbreviated form, was designed and conducted to investigate and evaluate alternatives, utilizing best management technology, to clean up OU-1 and address the current health risks identified on the site. Lifeline Systems, Inc., an USEPA contractor, performed the Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) for OU-1 in 1992. A BRA is prepared to identify and estimate current and potential risks evaluating the manner in which humans may have «tahdcq\iDd\textap r Pag e 3 3contact

-with site contamination. Based on the information provided by the BRA, preliminary recommendations for clean up can be made by USEPA. To be classified as a "risk," three criteria must be met: 1) Site contamination must be present; 2) a media must exist to bring that contamination in contact with the population; and 3) there must be a resident population that may be exposed to the site hazards. The BRA showed that there existed contaminants of lead, arsenic, cadmium, and others in the soils. These compounds were present in such numbers that their levels could present a risk to human health. Ingestion and inhalation are the most common ways that human health is put at risk by contaminated soils. 

### The OU-1 site is surrounded by residential and commercial populations. In fact, the Winchester Estates Mobile Home Park has contamination within its boundaries. This residential area is populated by many very young children and many older retired individuals. These are the two population bases most at risk from contaminated soils and water. 

### Based on these findings, a wide range of remedies were considered. Those remedies most protective, feasible, and cost effective were assessed by the 

### following nine evaluation criteria. 1) Overall protection of human health and the environment addressed whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled. 2) Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all federal and state environmental laws and/or provide grounds for a waiver. 3) Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to complete the remedy and any adverse effects to human health and the environment that may be caused during the construction and implementation of the remedy. 

### 4) Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to provide reliable protection of human health and environment over time. 5) Reduction oftoxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment refers to the preference for a remedy that reduces health hazards, the movement of contaminants, or the quantity of contaminants at the site. 6) Implementabittty refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy. 

### This includes the availability of materials and services needed to carry out a
utahdeq\rod\teit.ap r Pag e 3 4remedy.

It also includes the coordination of federal, state, and local governments to work together to clean up the site. 7) Cost evaluates the estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs of each alternative in comparison to other equally protective alternatives. 8) State acceptance indicates whether the State agrees with, opposes, or has
no comment on the preferred alternative. 

### 9) Community acceptance includes determining which components of the alternative interested persons in the community support, have reservations about or oppose. This assessment may not be completed until public comments on the alternatives are received. The City of West Jordan, after evaluating the criteria and the six alternatives presented for final consideration, agrees with and supports USEPA's decision to 

### pursue remediation through the implementation of Alternative #3. We believe that the two-foot layer of compacted soil placed over exposed native soils, and the removal of contaminated soils from the Winchester Estates Mobile Home Park is compatible with the protective cap of clean fill currently in place over the majority 

### of acreage comprising OU-1. Part m. Comments on USEPA CERCLA RI/FS Process The City Council of West Jordan is proud to have been a contributing member 

### of the precedent setting inter-agency cooperative effort that has highlighted this process. We are not aware of any other Superfund project of this complexity and size that has brought together so many professional and talented people in an effort to complete a remedial action. It is gratifying to see the respect that our 

### City staff was accorded by the fine members of your staff, UDEQ, the USEPA's legal counsel, the Utah Attorney General's office, the Federal Highways Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife staff, the Utah Department of Transportation, URS, WESTON, and the Salt Lake County Commission and Board of Health. Although this process has been, for the City, many years in length, the twists and 

### turns, highs and lows, stops and starts of it have made this City more aware of 

### and sensitive to the requirements, rules, and administration involved in the intricate processes of environmental regulation and cleanups. We will never again be so naive as to believe that the "feds" can solve it all or that the State or the City alone will know what is the only action to be taken in any given environmental situation. The Technical Advisory Grant (TAG) program implemented by USEPA is an attempt to ensure that the lay population is provided with non-agency information 

### in a manner designed to communicate the most technical data in non-technical 

### language. Bruce Nieveen, the Midvale Environmental Engineer, is charged with that very task for Midvale City, as his job description makes clear. Therefore, the uUhdeq\rod\tcxLip r Pag e 3 3City

of West Jordan finds the latest TAG to "Citizens for a Safer Midvale° (CSM)

a redundant and possibly non-efficient use of tax-payer monies. We also find CSM's repeated demands for additional time to examine the USEPA 's findings to be unwarranted and untimely. We would encourage the USEPA to deny any Junker such delaying tactics and to advise CSM that this project has been in the works for more than a decade and that their fervent, but misguided, attempts to engage the USEPA in a dialogue at this late date is neither timely, nor credible. Part IV. Conclusion 

### The City of West Jordan is already experiencing a tumbling from the economic development and investment sector because Jordan River Boulevard is not in place to allow access to the Redwood Road corridor of the City. The Bateman Family 

### and other prominent and innovative City families are worried that any more delays in the Boulevard's construction will cost them investment opportunities that they have relied upon for decisionmoMng over the past decade. Not only are their private funds being expended in anticipation of the remedial action and the resulting construction of Jordan River Boulevard, but there are governmental 

### funds appropriated and being held for dispersement that face redistribution if the project is not begun during the 1994 construction period. 

### Due to the uncertain nature of federal monies in these tight budgetary times, there is a real danger that the funding for the bridge across the Jordan River will disappear. There is also the specter of permits issued by federal agencies expiring and not being renewed based on the lengthy time frame involved to date. The most precarious of all of the funding involved is those monies appropriated by the legislature of the State of Utah. The budget for the Jordan River Boulevard was set during Governor Norman Bangerter's administration in the early 1980s. Because the appropriation originated in the Executive Branch, the Legislature has not had a firm hand in the dispersement of these monies and therefore, with the uncertainty of the project's start date, there is a real and present danger of these monies being reappropriated for another state-funded project. We cannot overemphasize the commitment of the City of West Jordan to both the remedial action and the Jordan River Boulevard construction project. 

### To date, the City has invested over one million dollars in planning, engineering, staffing, and consulting services on Jordan River Boulevard. For a city the size of West Jordan, this is a massive commitment of resources. But, have no doubt,
our commitment is ongoing and we will see this project to fruition as a participating, cooperative partner. 

### The City Council and the City's administration and staff are ready, willing, and 

### able to continue their 100% commitment to Ms project, and stand ready to assist and support the federal and state agencies involved in any way that we can. utahdeq\rod\texi.ip r Pag e 3 6What

we ask in return for our commitment is the USEPA 's commitment to use the fall force of its Congressionalfy mandated powers to continue its forward course in remediating the OU-1 portion of the Midvale Slag Superfund site and to support the construction of the Jordan River Boulevard project. Once again, we commend the staff and management of Region VIII of the United 

### States Environmental Protection Agency for their cooperative and supportive relationship with the Gty of West Jordan's officials and administrative staff. We look forward to the completion of this task and to the day when your agency's very existence will no longer be necessary to the citizens of our country because
we have all grown to respect our environment and the role we each play in it. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 Commen t i s acknowledged

.

* • Commen t b y Mr

. Wayn e Harpe r — Wes t Jordo n Councilma n Commen t No

. 1 Councilman Harper said West Jordan was pleased with the progress being made. He said the property owners echoed Councilmember Seghini's comments and that the cities 

### wanted total access for the property owners to develop the site industrially and commercially. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 USEP A acknowledge s th e comment

.

> Commen t b y Ms

. Jea n Barbut o — Residen t Commen t No

. 1 An eight-year time frame is cited for removing the soil in Winchester Estates. Why wait eight years? Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 Th e Selecte d Alternative

, Alternativ e Three

, wil l tak e les s tha n on e yea r t o implemen t soi l
remova l a t Wincheste r Estates

. Th e eigh t yea r tim e fram e i s associate d wit h Alternativ e Six

, whic h wa s no t selected

. I t i s th e mos t expensiv e alternativ e an d woul d involv e excavatio n o f al l contaminated materials
, eve n underneat h th e existin g fill

.

utahdcq\rod\textap r Pag e 3 7Disseminatio n

o f Informatio n

» • Commen t b y Ms

. JoAn n Seghin i — Midval e Councilwoma n Commen t No

. 1 Several people are trying to figure out if they are at risk. "Whom might they address after the meeting to identify the properties in Winchester Estates that need to be remediated? There are only twelve properties that need to be remediated. All the rest are safe? Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 Fourtee n propertie s wil l b e remediate d i n Wincheste r Estates

. Al l other s teste d belo w th e healt h base d actio n level s fo r soils

. Justificatio n fo r th e actio n level s ca n b e foun d i n th e RI/F S an d i n the Ris k Assessment

. Thes e document s ar e include d i n the site' s administrativ e record

. Representative s fro m USEP A an d UDE Q ar e happ y t o tal k t o those wit h concern s abou t th e level s o n thei r propertie s o r i n th e area
. Propert y owner s hav e bee n notifie d o f then

- result s an d wil l b e consulte d befor e wor k begins

.

* Commen t b y Unidentifie d Privat e Citize n Commen t No

. 1 When mil work begin? Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 Onc e th e Recor d o f Decisio n i s published
, th e projec t move s int o th e Remedia l Desig n phas e whic h addresse s how
, fro m a n engineerin g standpoint
, th e wor k wil l b e done

. This phas e wil l tak e tw o o r thre e months

. Th e agencie s wil l the n begi n wor k i n th e followin g constructio n season

. Par t n
. — Comprehensiv e Respons e t o Specifi c Lega l an d Technica l Question s Impact s t o Dee o Princioa l Aauife r

* Comment s b y Mr

. Davi d 6

. Ovard

, Genera l Manage r o f th e Sal t Lak e Count y Wate r Conservanc y Distric t (SLCWCD ) Commen t No

. 1 

### We have reviewed the report entitled "Final Feasibility Study Report, Operable Unit #7 , Midvale, Utah, Volume 1 — Text." W e ar e also familiar with th e groundwater conditions in this vicinity, as weU as throughout the Salt Lake Valley. As a result of our review, we offer the following comments: ntahdeq\rod\texup r Pag e 3 81.

"Utah's policy is that water, as well as the property of the public, should be so managed by the public that it can be put to the highest use for public benefit" (State Water Plan, Utah Division of Water Resources, 

### Section 6.1).
2. In 1984, Governor Matheson issued an executive order defining Utah's groundwater policy. The State Groundwater Protection Strategy was then prepared, and is a part of the State Water Plan. The strategy reviews the importance ofgroundwater as a resource, the need to protect groundwater quality, and reviews management alternatives for protecting groundwater (State Water Plan, Section 7.7). Groundwater is a necessary supplement to surface water supplies for the urban areas of Utah (State Water Plan, Section 19.2.2).
3. The Utah Legislature issued a finding "that the conservation, development, 

### treatment, restoration, and protection of the waters of this arid state are a State purpose and a matter of Statewide concern " (UCA 70-10C-1). All waters in the State, whether above or under the ground, are declared to be the property of the public (UCA 73-1-1). Beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure and the limit of all rights to the use of water in the State (UCA 73-1-3). The use of water for beneficial purposes is declared to be a public use (UCA 73-1-5).
4. The Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District (SLCWCD) was established by the Legislature under the Water Conservancy Act. The duties and obligations of water conservancy districts are explained in Section 17-A of the Utah Code. "It is declared that to provide for the conservation and development of the water and land resources of the State of Utah and for the greatest beneficial use of water within this State, the organization of water conservancy districts and the construction or works

. . . by such districts are a public use" (UCA 17A-2-1401). The organization of water conservancy districts is essentially for the public benefit and advantage of the people of the State of Utah and promotes their comfort, safety and welfare (UCA 17A-2-1401).
5. UCA 17A-2-1401 declares the policy of the State of Utah to be:

a. To control, make use of and apply to beneficial use att 

### unappropriated waters in this State to a direct and supplemental use of such waters for domestic, manufacturing, irrigation, power and other beneficial uses; and 

### b. To promote the greater prosperity and general welfare of the people of the State of Utah by encouraging the 

### organization of water conservancy districts.

utahdc4\rod\tcxuap r Pag e 3 96.

The SLCWCD currently serves municipal "water to a population of approximately 500,000 people. 7. SLCWCD believes that comments 1-6 represent pertinent State policies and statutes to be considered under evaluation criterion 8 of the NCP (40CFR Part 300) in evaluating feasibility study alternatives. 8. SLCWCD relies heavily upon groundwater from the deep, principal aquifer in the Salt Lake Valley as a municipal supply. SLCWCD delivers approximately 20,000 acre-feet from this source. 9. SLCWCD operates 21 production wells throughout Salt Lake Valley to extract and deliver groundwater for municipal purposes. One of these wells, located at approximately 500 West 6400 South, is located only 1,100 feet from Operable Unit #1 (OU1).
10. The feasibility study for OU1 only involved groundwater monitor wells which penetrated the shallow, unconfined aquifer. No sampling or 

### investigation of the deep, principal aquifer was performed. Although the report acknowledges that the clay layer separating the shallow aquifer and the deep aquifer "may not be laterally continuous throughout the Midvale slag Superfundsite area" (FSReport, page 2-1), no discussion regarding exposure of the principal aquifer is included. 11. In its recent groundwater study work in the Midvale Superfund site area, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studied shallow and deep aquifer 

### waters by means of oxygen isotope analyses. The USGS has identified the existence of waters in the deep, principal aquifer with a similar isotopic "signature'' as those existing in the shallow aquifer beneath OU1, indicating downward travel of shallow water. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 (Item s 1-9 ) Comment s ar e acknowledged

. Respons e t o Ite m No

. 1 0 USEP A ha s no t performe d samplin g o r investigatio n o f th e dee p principa l aquife r becaus e th e shallo w groundwate r unde r OU 1 doe s no t appea r t o b e contaminated

. Onl y on e wel l ou t o f 2 5 ha s wate r wit h concentration s o f lea d greate r tha n th e lea d standard o f I S ug/1

. Th e vertica l gradien t i n th e vicinit y o f th e sit e i s probabl y upwar d fro m th e dee p principa l aquife r t o th e 

### shallo w unconfine d aquifer

. However

, eve n i f th e gradien t betwee n th e tw o aquifers wa s reversed
, ther e coul d b e n o contamination o f th e dee p principa l aquife r withou t contamination o f th e shallo w unconfine d aquifer

. USEP A an d th e stat e wil l b e monitorin g th e shallo w unconfine d aquife r fo r fiv e year s t o ensur e tha t ther e i s n o contamination i n th e shallo w
utahdeq\rod\tcxLip r Pag e 4 0unconfine d

aquifer

. I f contamination i s detected
, deepe r well s an d additiona l actio n ma y b e required

. Respons e t o Ite m No

. 1 1 Th e Midval e OU 1 sit e tea m ha s bee n i n contac t wit h th e USG S regardin g thei r man y studie s th e USG S i s conductin g i n th e Valley

. W e are awaitin g th e USG S interpretatio n o f thes e dat a an d als o othe r studie s currentl y bein g conducted i n th e Valley

. However

, th e presenc e o f a downwar d gradien t i s no t problemati c i n term s o f dee p aquife r contamination , a s lon g a s th e shallo w groun d wate r i s no t contaminated

. Commen t No

. 2 We believe that the deep, principal aquifer is endangered by the contaminated waters underlying OU1. In fact, it is likely that downward vertical travel through the discontinuous clay layer is occurring, based upon the recent USGS findings. The SLCWCD encourages USEPA and UDEQ to contact the USGS and review their findings. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 2 Se e Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 , Ite m No

. 11

. Commen t No

. 3 

### We believe that the Feasibility Study is flawed by not investigating the principal aquifer. We recommend that the decision process be halted at this time to allow the Feasibility Study to be supplemented with this information. This effort should include drilling of deep monitor wells, and sampling of the principal aquifer water. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 3 Se e Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 , Ite m Nos

. 1 0 an d 11

. Commen t No

. 4 Monitoring the principal aquifer water quality over a period of several years should be included with any alternative which is finally selected.

ntahdeq\rod\text.ap r Pag e 4 1Respons e

t o Commen t No

. 4 A s i t i s no t possibl e t o contaminat e th e principa l aquife r withou t firs t impactin g th e shallo w aquifer
, onl y th e shallo w aquife r wil l b e monitore d durin g th e fiv e yea r RO D revie w period

. Also

, se e th e Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 , Ite m Nos

. 1 0 an d 11

. Commen t No

. 5 We realize that the cost of alternatives 5 and 6 rises dramatically above the costs of alternatives 1-4. However, based upon the future findings of the principal 

### aquifer investigation, these costs may be warranted if the protection of the principal aquifer municipal water supply for the public relies upon implementation of alternatives 5 or 6. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 6 Se e Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 , Ite m Nos

. 1 0 an d 11

. ARAR s

+ Comment s b y Mr

. Davi d 6

. Ovard

, Genera l Manager o f th e Sal t Lak e Count y Wate r Conservanc y Distric t (SLCWCD ) Commen t No

. 1 The feasibility study report eliminates groundwater as a "medium of concern " (FS Report, page 3-3). This is based on shallow groundwater metals concentrations not exceeding drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). However, the MCL for lead is incorrectly listed. The former lead MCL of 50 micrograms per 

### liter was replaced by the lead action level of 15 micrograms per liter in 1991. The shallow groundwater lead concentration at monitor well LF-08 exceeds the lead action level, with a concentration of 23.7 micrograms per liter. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 A s note d b y th e reviewer , th e lea d groundwate r protectio n standard unde r th e Uta h Groundwate r Protectio n Rul e (Rule ) wa s incorrectl y liste d i n Fina l F S Report

. Thi s erro r wa s identifie d b y th e author s an d a n errat a shee t wa s issue d t o al l o f th e origina l recipient s o f th e F S Repor t o n 2 Jun e 1994

. USEP A an d UDE Q ar e workin g togethe r t o determin e ho w an d unde r wha t circumstance s th e Uta h Groundwate r Qualit y Protectio n Rule

, R317-6

, Uta h Admin

. Code

, i s applicabl e o r relevan t an d appropriate

. Thos e determination s hav e no t ye t bee n made ; however
, sinc e USEP A


### an d UDE Q hav e agree d that
, eve n i f th e Groundwate r Qualit y Protectio n Rul e i s a n ARA R i n thi s situation , a n alternat e concentratio n limi t shal l appl y an d th e ARA R wil l b e me t a s se t fort h
otahdcq\rod\tcxt.«p r Pag e 4 2below

, a fina l determinatio n o n th e statu s o f UDEQ' s Groundwate r Qualit y Protectio n Rul e wil l
no t b e mad e fo r th e purpose s o f thi s ROD

. Utah' s Groundwate r Protectio n Standar d (Rule ) fo r lea d i s I S microgram s pe r lite r (jtg/t). R317-6-2.1

, Uta h Admin

. Code

. A sampl e fro m on e o f th e 2 5 groundwate r monitorin g station s o n OU 1 (Wel l No

. LF-08 ) wa s foun d t o excee d thi s standard b y 8 /*g/l

. I n respons e t o thi s occurrence , th e USEP A an d UDE Q hav e agree d t o th e applicatio n o f a n Alternat e Correctiv e Actio n Concentratio n Limi t (ACACL ) for OU 1 tha t wil l brin g OU 1 int o complianc e wit h th e Rule

. A n ACAC L i s permitte d unde r th e Rul e provide d tha t i t meet s certai n requirements, includin g requirement s tha t th e ACAC L i s protectiv e o f huma n healt h an d th e environment , an d i s justifie d b y site-specific circumstances

. R317-6-15.G

, Uta h Admin

. Code

. USEPA' s an d UDEQ' s decision t o appl y a n ACAC L fo r Wel l No

. LF-0 8 i n thi s cas e i s base d
o n th e following : (1 ) Th e magnitud e o f th e exceedance

. (2 ) Th e ver y limite d spatia l distributio n o f exceedance s indicate s tha t Wel l No

. LF-0 8 i s no t representativ e o f groundwate r unde r th e entir e site

. (3 ) Th e relativel y hig h cos t o f implementin g a remed y t o addres s thi s smal l suspect area , an d th e smal l benefi t o f doin g so

. Ris k Estimations * • Comment s b y Mr

. Volne y Wallace

, residen t o f th e Cit y o f Murra y I am a retired Ph.D. research chemist. I have examined the Superfimd study final report of the north end of the Midvale Superfimd site (Operable Unit No. 1) and find it wanting. I recommend that no remedial action be taken -without better data. This study overlooked the simple fact that the soil studied is loaded with slag gravel. This completely invalidates the study. Two Basic Errors This Superfimd study is not valid because of sampling error and misuse of 

### statistics. Sampling: The trailer park is on fill, it is not native land surface. There is no possibility for 

### contamination to have migrated to the present surface of the park by flow of water. If there is a serious wind deposition of lead and arsenic there, there is 

### much housing much closer that is more susceptible and would be more seriously affected. That more susceptible area has been studied already as to blood lead otabdeq\rod\texLap r Pag e 43level

in children (Midvale Community Lead Study, "Chemical Spedation" and "Bioavailabittty, * 3 (3/4) 2991, pp 149-162 by Bomschein, Pan and Succop, a study by the University of Cincinnati). It reported that the strongest correlation of blood level was with socioeconomic status and highest lead assay of vicinal soil samples. "The effect of soil lead on blood lead was both small and weak. " Lead in house paint was indicted as a cause of the elevated levels of lead that were 

### seen (the blood levels found were essentially national average and none of the 

### higher levels were alarmingly high by present (1994) standards). Since this is a problem in older housing and since the older housing is near the site there ought to be a correlation with distance from the site. A "small" statistical difference was found. There is no indication in this of a serious wind-carried contamination of lead and arsenic in the vicinity of the smaller. Slag gravel is ubiquitous in the trailer park and occurs in afield immediately south of the southern extension of the trailer park, in afield immediately to the east of the park and on the levee between it and the Jordan River. There are areas within the park that are solidly covered with slag gravel. I noticed on 

### inspection of the site that the slag gravel content of the soil was especially high in the west end of the trailer park where the reported lead and arsenic values


### were especially high. The "soil" lead and arsenic values in this study appear therefore to be simply measurements of the amount of slag admixed with the soil. 

### This is further indicated by the lack of particle size control in the study and the high correlation between lead and arsenic assay values. The correlation of lead and arsenic was noted oho in the Midvale blood lead study. The correlation of these two metals indicates that they are intimately associated rather than separate and distinct components of the soil mixture. The lead and arsenic were assumed to be of high biological availability. This was an unwarranted assumption. It might be true in other situations but in slag the great majority of the contamination is present in the interior of the fragments of slag, sequestered as a component of glass, as mineral grains with atomic substitution of lead and arsenic and possibly as lead and arsenic mineral particles contained within a matrix of glass. The slag would have to be dissolved by body fluids for the lead and arsenic in it to be biologically available. From the viewpoint of a chemist that is so unlikely as to require strong, positive demonstration to establish the contrary. Misuse of statistics: If one takes a statistically significant finding as an absolute truth, the blood lead findings showed a distinct problem at Midvale. That study examined a number of possible correlations, none of which proved strong. It is a corollary of statistical analysis that which is statistically significant may be a fluke and that the chance of it mounts with increasing number of trials. The blood level study was one of those multiple test studies in which one or more of the higher 

### correlation values obtained could be flukes.

utahdcq\rod\text.ap r Pag e 4 4

### As

indicated above, the study found a "small and weak" correlation of lead in 

### blood and lead in vicinal soil. Caveats aside, the direct conclusion is that soil lead level is a POOR predictor of blood lead level. Any prediction of blood level
on the basis of soil lead level would have to be accompanied by large ± values. 

### The Superjund study did not take this into consideration. Instead, it treated the correlation as an absolute truth. It took dirt samples from floors, which it incorrectly describes as "dust" samples, and found a highly questionable, very poor correlation between those values and vicinal soil lead level. Any use of soil lead level to estimate level of lead in floor dirt would have to be accompanied by 

### large ± values. It then speculated a relationship between the suppositional level of floor dirt and blood lead level. This again would have to be accompanied by large ± values. We have thus a compounding of improbable relationships, which led to hard and fast estimates of lead and arsenic contamination in the area. This is misuse of statistics, exceedingly poor science. It is so poorfy founded and the resulting uncertainty so great that the proposed remedial action could be absolutely unnecessary. If there is indeed a lead and arsenic contamination problem there, there is very high probability that the study has misidentified the 

### intensity and extent of it. The statistical parameters derived in the Superjund study are the locus of the line best fit of regression line. "Best" can be anything. One can get a best fit regression tine for even a triangular array of data points. One is assured at the outset that there will be a best fit. The problem is how good the fit is, and the measure of that is correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient was horribly poor. No consideration was given in the Superjund study to correlation coefficient. The study invokes statistical analysis but it appears to be an analysis applied in ignorance. Bingham Creek A few miles to the west, Bingham Creek sediment was contaminated by lead from ills on its watershed. Blood tests of children exposed to this contamination showed blood lead levels about half national average with very few. outliers, none at alarmingly high level. One of the major conclusions from this study is that soil lead level is not necessarily predictive of lead uptake. As in the Midvale situation, there was correlation of lead and arsenic assays. This correlation implies that the lead and arsenic occurred inseparably together, which is inconsistent with the supposition that they are separate contaminations, each biologically available. The lack of serious cases of lead poisoning along Bingham Creek raises further question of the concern for lead poisoning at the Midvale site. Jordan River Data This Superjund study presented a table showing an increase in lead and arsenic in the Jordan River in its flow past the Superjund site. To me, a chemist, this table is prima facia evidence of prejudiced study. otahdeq\rod\lext.ap r Pag e 4 5Said

table shows arsenic in the river increasing from a level oflSppm upstream to 47ppm downstream. The inference is that groundwater from under the site seeping into the river caused this rise in arsenic level For it to have done so, the groundwater would have had to be orders of magnitude higher in arsenic 

### concentration than the river. The table shows it lower, not higher, in arsenic content. If one assumes that the increase is due to erosion of a contaminated bank, one assumes a feet-per-day rate of erosion of the bank. The situation is similar for the supposed contamination of the river by lead. Cadmium level magically dropped to zero in passage of the river past the mill site. This table is paradoxical, an absurdity. 

### I do not know if the absurdity of this data was overlooked or if discussion of its was intentionally withheld. In the one case ineptness and bias are implied, in the other dishonesty. Either way, the basis dependability of the study is brought in question. Arsenic There is no direct data showing the elevated arsenic level at the site is a human health hazard. The treatment of arsenic by the study is suppositional with the basic supposition being that the arsenic present was not as arsenic-containing slag. It is inexcusable that urine samples of the inhabitants were not tested for arsenic. The correlation of lead with arsenic and the correlation of slag with 

### reported soil contamination implies strongly that it is present in slag. Lead is geochemicalfy immobile while arsenic migrates readily. If they were separate and distinct occurrences, the separator processes of nature should have 

### disproportionated them. Arsenic should have been preferentially leached out of the superficial layer of soil, for example. For the arsenic in the slag to be a serious presence, the slag would have to be dissolved by body fluids on ingestion. In the laboratory it requires boiling with concentrated acid, fusion with alkali, or treatment with hydrofluoric acid to get the arsenic out. Recommendations I would strongly recommend a determination of particle size distribution of the lead and arsenic contamination in the trailer park area and the extractabitity of those metals under mild extraction conditions. This should provide data showing whether to close down the study and if not what course should be taken. Respons e t o Comment s b y Mr

. Volne y Wallac e Mr

. Wallace' s expresse s concer n ove r severa l issues

. Thes e issue s are addresse d individuall y below

. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 Th e reviewe r state s tha t th e mechanism s for transport o f contaminant s t o th e Wincheste r Estate s Taile r Par k d o no t includ e surfac e wate r an d tha t win d transport o f sit e contaminant s woul d hav e utahdeq\rod\tcxt.ap r pag e 4 6impacte d

residentia l area s close r t o th e forme r smelte r tha n th e traile r park

. A n additiona l poin t wa s mad e tha t bloo d lea d studie s i n th e are a sho w littl e correlation betwee n lea d i n soil s an d lea d i n blood

. Th e F S Repor t identifie s th e possibl e transport mechanism s tha t woul d accoun t fo r contamination acros s al l o f OU1

. I n additio n t o surfac e wate r transport , th e Repor t liste d win d transpor t o f sla g dust
, win d transport o f smelte r stac k fum e a s wel l a s th e intentiona l placemen t o f sla g a s fil l an d fo r roa d sanding

. W e agre e tha t recen t surfac e wate r transpor t o f sla g ont o th e presen t surfac e o f th e traile r par k i s no t possibl e a s a n east/wes t oriente d ditc h separate s th e traile r par k fro m th e res t o f OU1

. Th e stud y are a fo r th e sit e characterization effor t include d a 1,00 0 t o 2,00 0 foo t wid e borde r aroun d OU1

. Withi n thi s are a samples o f soil
, groundwater
, an d surfac e wate r wer e collecte d
an d analyzed

. Include d i n thi s stud y are a i s th e "Wes t Zone" ; a n existin g residentia l are a wes t o f th e Jorda n Rive r an d slightl y close r t o th e forme r smelte r sit e tha n th e traile r park

. Th e Baselin e Ris k Assessmen t (USEPA

, 1992 ) conclude d tha t th e exces s cance r ris k an d non-cance r hazar d indice s i n thi s are a wer e belo w a leve l o f concer n an d lowe r tha n th e value s calculate d fo r th e traile r park

. Othe r residentia l area s exis t immediatel y eas t o f th e forme r smelte r site, however
, thes e area s ar e withi n th e OU 2 stud y area
. Whil e w e d o no t disput e th e result s o f bloo d lea d studie s i n th e area , th e ris k calculatio n an d remed y selectio n issue s ar e a matte r o f th e degre e o f conservatism applie d t o th e protectio n o f huma n healt h an d th e environment

. USEP A an d UDE Q hav e decide d t o us e th e Integrate d Exposur e Uptak e Biokineti c Mode l (ffiUBK ) mode l (USEPA

, 1994 ) t o predic t th e probabilit y o f bloo d lea d level s i n exces s o f 1 0 microgram s pe r decilite r (ug/dl)

. Th e issu e o f ho w lea d risk s ar e derive d i s mor e o f a philosophica l argumen t rathe r tha n a practical on e give n tha t th e sit e risk s ar e drive n b y arsenic

. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 2 Th e reviewe r emphasize s tha t th e arseni c an d lea d measure d i n talle r par k soil s i s primaril y containe d withi n sla g particle s an d no t separat e an d distinc t component s o f th e soils

. USEPA/UDE Q suspect s tha t th e reviewers observation

s ar e correc t althoug h thi s ha s no t bee n proven

. Circumstantia l evidenc e exist s suggestin g tha t a significan t portio n o f th e arseni c an d lea d detecte d i n traile r par k soil s derive s fro m visibl e and microscopi c sla g particles

. The F S Repor t repeatedl y make s thi s poin t no t onl y fo r th e traile r par k bu t fo r al l o f OU1

. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 3 Th e reviewe r object s t o a presumptio n b y USEP A an d UDE Q tha t arseni c an d lea d ar e highl y bioavailabl e give n tha t a significan t proportio n o f thes e contaminant s occu r a s slag

. Th e reviewe r incorrectl y conclude s tha t th e meta l component s o f sla g ar e no t biologicall y available

. Althoug h a portio n o f th e meta l contaminant s ar e isolate d withi n a glass y matrix , a portio n o f th e meta l bearin g minera l particle s ar e intercepte d b y th e surfac e o f th e sla g particle

. uUhdeq\rod\texLap r Pag e 4 7Th e proportio n o f availabl e metal s pe r uni t mas s o f sla g i s a functio n o f surfac e are a an d therefor e particl e size

. I n addition
, th e glass y matri x i s no t entirel y iner t an d ca n b e susceptibl e t o weatherin g whic h wil l furthe r enhanc e th e availabilit y o f th e meta l bearin g portio n o f th e slag

. Fo r th e purposes o f calculatin g cance r an d non-cance r risk
, lea d wa s presumed t o b e 30 % bioavailabl e (defaul t valu e i n IEUB K model ) an d arseni c wa s presume d t o b e 80 % bioavailable

. Studie s currentl y underwa y (USEP A Phas e n Swin e Stud y an d others ) wil l hel p t o refin e the bioavailabilit y factor s use d i n futur e ris k assessment s a t othe r sites

. However

, i n th e absenc e o f reliabl e informatio n o n th e bioavailabilit y o f sit e contaminants , th e approve d USEP A Regio n bioavailabilit y factor s wer e applie d t o OU1

. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 4 Th e reviewe r point s ou t tha t ther e i s a poo r correlation betwee n contaminan t concentration s i n hous e dus t an d i n surfac e soils

. Th e reviewe r als o expresse s concer n ove r th e uncertaint y associated wit h severa l variable s an d th e potentia l fo r large error s whe n thes e variable s ar e combine d i n a ris k calculation

. Th e plot s o f contaminan t concentration s i n hous e dus t vs

. surfac e soil s (UDEQ

, 1993 ) d o no t sho w a clea r correlation
, althoug h a stronger correlatio n woul d b e expecte d wit h a large r sampl e size

. Th e plot s d o sho w tha t hous e dust generall y i s les s contaminated tha n surfac e soils

. Th e dus t an d soi l samplin g progra m wa s undertaken t o permi t th e us e o f sit e specifi c measurement s rathe r tha n th e standard defaul t assumptio n tha t contaminan t concentration s ar e th e sam e i n hous e dus t an d surfac e soils

. I n th e ris k calculatio n a larg e portio n o f th e solid s ingeste d b y a perso n i s presumed t o b e hous e dus t (typicall y 40 % o f th e solids)

. Therefore

, us e o f th e equatio n describin g th e 9 5 % uppe r confidenc e limi t o f th e bes t fi t lin e throug h th e paired hous e dus t an d surfac e soi l dat a resulte d i n a lowerin g o f th e ris k posed b y lea d whe n compare d wit h th e standard defaul t assumption s use d b y USEP A i n ris k calculations

. I t i s reasonabl e t o conclud e tha t man y o f th e variable s use d i n th e ris k calculatio n ar e estimate s an d tha t whe n these estimate s ar e combine d i n a ris k calculatio n th e erro r ma y b e large

. Whe n possible
, sit e specifi c dat a i s collecte d (suc h a s hous e dus t chemistry ) an d whe n defaul t value s ar e use d the y ar e conservativ e value s t o minimize th e possibilit y o f underestimatin g th e risk

. Th e reviewe r conclude d tha t th e remedia l action s propose d ma y b e unnecessary

. Whil e thi s i s a possibility
, USEP A an d UDE Q a s a matter o f polic y choos e t o tak e th e conservativ e positio n o n issue s o f huma n healt h protection

. Respons e t o Commen t No

. S Th e reviewe r questioned th e surfac e wate r contaminan t concentration s summarize d i n th e F S Report

. I n respons e t o th e comment , th e Jorda n Rive r dat a wa s rechecke d (URS

, 1992 ) an d th e reviewe r 

### i s correct

. N o difference s i n arseni c an d lea d concentration s wer e apparen t betwee n th e
utahdeq\rod\texuap r Pag e 4 8samplin

g locatio n up-strea m o f OU 1 an d adjacen t t o OU1

. Th e correc t range s fo r up-strea m samplin g station s an d station s adjacen t t o OU 1 ar e summarize d below

. Concentration s o f Selecte d Metal s i n Surfac e Wate r
Locatio n Backgroun d Station s (Upstream ) On-Sit e Station s (Adjacen t t o OU1 ) Rang

e Average Rang e Average Concentratio n pglt Arseni c 14-1 6 1 6
15-1 7 1 6 Cadmiu m 1 1
1 1 Lea d 5-2 2 8
6-1 1 8 Antimon

y 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 Berylliu m 1- 2 1
1 1 Respons e t o Commen t No

. 6 Th e reviewe r object s t o th e lac k o f systemati c testin g o f urin e sample s fro m th e curren t resident s o f th e traile r par k for arsenic

. Whil e a stud y o f arseni c i n urin e ma y hav e bee n useful
, i t i s no t certai n th e result s woul d b e meaningful

. N o childre n currentl y resid e i n th e traile r park
, therefore
, an y urin e stud y woul d exclud e a portio n o f a hypothetica l futur e population

. I n addition
, arseni c concentration s i n urin e ca n var y significantl y withi n on e day
, betwee n day s an d seasonall y makin g suc h studie s difficul t t o design
, implement an d interpret

.

+ Additiona l Verba l Commen t b y Mr

. Volne y Wallace

, residen t o f th e Cit y o f Murra y Commen t No

. 1 Mr. Wallace felt USEPA's site investigation was poorly done. He indicated it was his understanding that at first, it was determined there was no problem. Soil levels were 

### relatively low and the ground water had a lower concentration of lead and arsenic than the river had. Mr. Wallace said there was no sign the shallow aquifer had been contaminated and that the deep aquifer; which was under artesian pressure, was not 

### contaminated. Mr. Wallace said the agencies had changed their minds on the basis of suppositions. He felt that suppositions were not needed because there was a population which could be tested to see if there really is a need for cleanup. He also said the soils analysis was questionable. 

### Mr. Wallace asked about the distribution of these toxins as a Junction of paniculate size. He said his real concern was with the dust. He also asked about a depth profile. He said the contamination would be superficial if it came out of a smoke stack and landed
on the ground. He recommended rototilh'ng the soil to dilute out the contamination.
utahdeq\rod\text.ip r Pag e 4 9Respons e

t o Commen t No

. 1 Earl y opinion s wer e base d o n ver y preliminar y information

. Th e finding s referre d t o i n th e propose d pla n an d detaile d i n th e Remedia l Investigation/Feasibilit

y Stud y an d i n th e Ris k Assessmen t ar e par t o f a mor e exhaustive sit e investigation

. USEP A agree s wit h th e assessmen t o f th e groundwate r issue

. Th e concentration s i n th e uppe r aquife r an d th e lowe r aquife r ar e belo w thos e i n surfac e wate r o f th e Jorda n Rive r an d pos e n o threa t t o th e public

. Th e practic e o f ris k assessmen t include s component s o f scienc e an d professiona l judgement

. USEP A use s a s muc h scienc e a s i s available
, an d the n make s a publi c healt h judgemen t cal l base d o n staf f experience an d bes t professiona l judgement

. Mr

. Wallac e indicate d tha t biological tissu e samplin g woul d b e a n effectiv e wa y t o asses s th e proble m o n thi s site

. USEP A take s issu e wit h tha t fo r a variet y o f reasons

. Epidemiologically

, ther e ar e no t enoug h peopl e o n th e sit e t o ge t th e statistica l powe r an d confidenc e tha t woul d allo w a soun d publi c healt h decision

. I n addition
, th e pharmacokinetic s distributio n o f arsenic , whic h i s th e principa l contaminan t o n thi s site , i s suc h tha t i t i s no t expecte d t o b e foun d i n th e tissue

. I t move s ver y quickl y throug h th e bod y an d i s excrete d i n urine

. I t come s in , create s tissue damage
, an d leave s quickly

. Becaus e exposure s ar e lo w an d arseni c move s quickl y t o urine , tissue samplin g for arseni c woul d b e essentiall y fruitless

. O n th e issu e o f depth : USEP A agree s tha t exposure occur s a t th e surface

. Th e agenc y typicall y focuse s o n th e to p tw o centimeters

. Th e concentration s take n fro m thi s surfac e horizo n wer e analyzed ver y carefull y an d ar e th e principa l basi s fo r ou r publi c healt h decisio n makin g o n th e site

.

» • Commen t b y Ms

. Jea n Barbuto

, residen t Commen t No

. 1 There is a well in Winchester Estates near the river. Who uses the water? Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 N o on e appear s t o b e usin g th e wel l a s thi s point

. Th e wel l wa s installe d b y Valle y Material s an d ha s neve r bee n hooke d u p t o an y domesti c system

. Th e resident s o f Wincheste r Estate s receiv e thei r wate r fro m Murra y Cit y wells

. Commen t No

. 2 Do you have reports from the medical community regarding the health of people living in Winchester Estates?

ntahdcq\rod\text.ap r Pag e 5 0Respons e

t o Commen t No

. 2 USEP A doe s no t hav e an y specifi c medica l reports

.

» • Commen t b y Cind y Merril

, Wincheste r Estate s residen t Commen t No

. 1 Has anyone addressed the issue of the material underneath the mobile homes? Respons e t o Commen t No

, 1 Th e issu e wa s addresse d durin g th e ris k assessment

. Sinc e th e contaminated materia l i s underneat h th e mobil e home
, peopl e ar e no t regularl y expose d t o i t an d ther e i s n o nee d t o b e concerne d abou t risk

. USEPA's lexicologis t fel t i t woul d b e unnecessaril y disruptiv e an d no t i n th e interes t o f publi c healt h t o remov e material s underneat h th e trailer s a t thi s time

. Institutiona l control s ma y b e require d i n th e even t mobil e home s ar e moved

. K Summar y o f Comment s b y Mr

. Leo n Hansen

, are a residen t Summar y Commen t Mr. Hansen said he was a geotechnical expert who had spent his early years qualifying the chemistry and characteristics of the chemistry of the ores shipped to area smelters. He explained that the area embraced one common, huge aquifer system comprised of various aquifers which have been disrupted, in part, by recent faulting. He said the aquifer system was injected with the waters of the Wasatch Mountains, including water from the east side of the mountain from Deer Creek and the new Jordanelle Reservoir. Mr. Hansen said Deer Creek was being chlorinated and those waters were then going into the pristine aquifers. Near the new Jordanelle Reservoir was a regional tailings dump where Mr. Hansen said samples had shown heavy metals contamination in concentrations tens of thousands of times greater than the concentrations found at Midvale Slag. Mr. Hansen said the agencies hadn't addressed the means that water was being injected into the common aquifer system along with the Deer Creek water. He said he was concerned about soils from former smelter sites which had water/lowing over them. Mr. Hansen asked about remedial procedures at the Midvale Slag and Sharon Steel 

### Tailings sites. He asked how long-term ongoing remedial problems from blowing slag and tailings would be addressed? He also asked if there had been a demonstration of any toxic problems with children or adults? He wondered if there had been any basis for the risk findings which hadn't been extrapolated from a distance statistically without regard to analytical proof? Had a medical fraternity been involved?

obhdeq\rod\texUip r Pag e 5 1Respons e Th e global perspectiv e i s appreciated

. Th e agencie s realiz e tha t the y ar e workin g wit h a syste m an d no t individual parts

. Often

, however
, on e sit e o r on e operabl e uni t i s focuse d on
. Th e U.S

. Geologica l Servic e i s currentl y doin g a comprehensiv e evaluatio n o f th e groun d wate r whic h shoul d addres s th e issue s raise d here

. Preliminar y result s shoul d b e availabl e withi n a year
. Remedia l actio n fo r th e Sharo n Stee l Tailing s an d th e Midval e Sla g OU 2 wil l b e addresse d i n late r documents

. Problem s associate d wit h blowin g tailings an d othe r contaminant s wil l b e addresse d a s par t o f remedia l desig n for thes e projects

. A stud y wa s complete d severa l year s ag o fo r th e Sharo n Stee l projec t t o asses s lea d exposure i n Midvale

. I t showe d clearly
, wit h a goo d degre e o f statistica l power , tha t childre n livin g i n proximit y t o th e contamination ha d elevate d bloo d lea d a s a resul t o f thei r proximit y t o tha t material

. Th e close r the y wer e t o th e site , th e higher th e bloo d lead

. Severa l othe r studie s whic h hav e recentl y bee n complete d b y th e minin g an d smeltin g industrie s i n th e Sal t Lak e Valle y ar e currentl y unde r evaluation

. Thes e epidemiologica l studie s measure d meta l concentration s i n childre n an d adul t bloo d an d urine

. Othe r studie s ar e planned

. USEP A recognizes, however
, tha t thes e studie s ar e no t th e fina l answer

. Th e issu e i s a littl e mor e tha n makin g a singl e measurement

. Th e heav y metal s foun d a t thes e site s ar e transien t throug h biological systems

. The y ca n com e in , caus e damage
, an d the n leave

. I f th e timin g i s no t right
, th e appropriat e measuremen t isn' t made

. However

, th e result s ar e valuabl e an d ar e assesse d a s par t o f th e ris k analysi s process

. Regio n 8 doe s us e extrapolation

. That' s generall y th e approac h use d nationally

.

> Commen t b y Ms

. JoAn n Seghini

, Midval e City Counci l Commen t No

. 1 The lead study done in the Midvale area showed no significant lead levels in children, in pregnant or lactating females except for one child who only lived in the. community a week. Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 Ther e wa s a relationshi p betwee n proximit y t o th e Sharo n Stee l tailing s an d bloo d lead

. See als o respons e t o previou s question

.

» Commen t b y Unidentifie d are a residen t Comment No

. 1 What does USEPA think of Dr. Bill Banner's review from the Primary Medical Center in matters related to what we're discussing? He was very adamant that there have been no 

### tests, no indications of any kind, to any toxic damage or risk to anyone in any of these areas that have been under study.
utahdcq\rod\l£it.ap r Pag e 5 2Respons e

t o Commen t No

. 1 The commento r wa s invite d t o submi t the informatio n fo r the record

. N o furthe r informatio n wa s received

. Result s o f Sit e Investigatio n * Commen t b y Ms

. JoAn n Seghini

, Midval e Councilwoma n Commen t No

. 1 Was sampling done west of the Jordan River? Was contamination found? Respons e t o Commen t No

. 1 Sample s wer e take n i n a half-mil e perimete r aroun d th e site

. Severa l area s o f contamination wer e found
, primaril y nort h o f 640 0 Sout h an d wes t o f Murra y gol f cours e an d i n a n are a betwee n th e Jorda n Rive r an d th e Jorda n Canal

. Detai l abou t th e samplin g i s availabl e i n th e 199 2 URS Sit e Characterizatio n Report

. Commen t No

. 2 The site map, LR east section, indicates an arsenic average of280ppm even though the range was 1.9 to 2,000 ppm. Is the same kind of range found in other areas? Can you demystify the map? How were samples taken in the Winchester Estates area? Respons e t o Commen t No

. 2 Th e ma p reflect s th e rang e fro m th e hottes t soi l sampl e t o th e coldes t soi l sample

. Thi s concentratio n rang e i s simila r t o tha t foun d o n th e souther n 2/ 3 o f th e sit e wit h di e highes t concentration s attributabl e t o visibl e layer s o f slag

. I n th e residentia l are a (Wincheste r Estates)

, eac h lo t wa s evaluated

. Fou r t o fiv e sample s wer e take n pe r yard

. Thes e sample s wer e the n combine d to mak e one composit e sample

. Commen t No

. 3 

### Will Winchester Estates residents be told what their sample results are? Respons e t o Commen t No

. 3 Sampl e result s an d a lette r o f explanatio n for eac h propert y wer e maile d t o residents

. Sinc e th e letters wer e mailed
, UDE Q ha s responde d t o severa l call s fro m peopl e wh o wante d mor e information

. UDE Q an d USEP A representative s ar e availabl e t o answe r an y additiona l question s whic h resident s migh t have

.

ntahdcqNrod\tcxt.ap r Pag e 5 3* Commen t b y Gart h Plmm

, Wincheste r Estate s Manager Commen t No

. 1 Define the sampling process. Is the slag the source of contamination or is it the dust accumulation within the soil itself? Respons e Fou r t o fiv e soil s sample s wer e take n pe r yard

. Th e sample s fro m eac h yar d wer e the n composite d int o on e sample

. Dus t sample s wer e collecte d i n on e ou t o f ever y fiv e homes

. Fo r adult s an d children
, th e principl e exposur e concer n i s ver y smal l particulate
, o r dust

. Sla g grain s an d smal l particle s tha t wer e emitte d fro m th e smelte r chimne y ar e th e sourc e o f contamination i n soils

. Hous e dus t sample s ar e collecte d becaus e contaminated soi l ca n b e tracke d o r blow n int o a home

. Institutiona l Control s

» • Commen t b y Mis

. JoAn n Seghini

, Midval e Cit y Counci l Commen t No

. 1 

### Would the only limit on investment for the site be to remove contaminated soils? Would 

### those have to be tested by the builder? Would that cost be assumed by the builder? Will USEPA define the depth of the cap or would that be defined by the local ordinance which establishes the institutional control? Will there be any limit to the length of foundation for any kind of building or structure? Respons e t o Commen t No

, 1 Durin g th e Remedia l Desig n phase
, USEP A an d UDE Q wil l wor k wit h th e propert y owne r an d th e appropriat e cit y t o develo p institutiona l controls

. Th e primar y focu s wil l b e t o assur e th e contaminan t exposure pathwa y i s broken

. An y exces s contaminated soil s whic h ar e remove d durin g excavatio n woul d nee d t o g o t o a Subtitl e D landfill

. Excavated

, contaminated soil s coul d b e lef t o n site, provide d the y ar e adequatel y covere d whe n construction i s completed

. I f a residentia l developmen t i s t o b e built
, th e develope r woul d nee d t o assur e tha t soi l level s me t th e residentia l requirement s outline d i n th e ROD

. Commen t No

. 2 Would there be restrictions on OU2 since the highway and that operable unit are 

### contiguous or will OU2 be open to development once it is remediated? Afidvale is 

### reluctant to build a highway that would restrict any development on our properties and literally funnel everything to other communities. You say no restrictions north of your OU dividing line?

ulahdeq\rod\text.ap r Pag e 5 4Respons e OU 2 issue s wil l b e addresse d i n a late r decisio n document

. I f institutiona l control s ar e require d fo r OU2

, USEP A an d UDE Q wil l wor k wit h th e propert y owne r an d th e appropriat e cit y t o develo p the m durin g tha t portio n o f th e site' s Remedia l Desig n phase

. Xm

. REFERENCE S Camp

, Dresser

, an d McKee

. 1990

. Remedia l Investigatio n Addendu m fo r Sharo n Steel / Midval e Tailing s Site

, 1989-1990

. "Groun d Water/Geochemistr y Dat a Repor t Vols

. 1, 2,3. " Hely

, A.

, R

. Mower

, an d C

. Harr

. 1971

. Wate r Resource s o f Sal t Lak e County

, Utah

. Stat e o f Uta h Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s Technica l Publicatio n #31

. LSI

, 1992

. Baselin e Ris k Assessment-Huma n Healt h Evaluation

, Midval e Sla g Superfun d Site

, Operabl e Uni t 1 , Midvale

, Utah

. URS

. 1992

. Sit e Characterizatio n Report

, Midval e Sla g Superfun d Site

, Operabl e Uni t No

. 1 (OU1)

, Midvale

, Utah

. UDEQ

. 1994

. Feasibilit y Stud y Report

, Operabl e Uni t No

. 1 , Midval e Sla g Site

, Midvale

, Utah

.

utahdeq\rod\textap r Pag e 5 5Tabl e 1 Exposur e Poin t Concentration s

Parce l LR(West ) LR(East ) L F L G WES E WENW * Exposur e Poin t Concentration * (rag/kg ) Arseni c 21 0 28 0 24 0 £6 0 39 0 16-52 0 OidTpfaif

n 2 8 3 2 1 8 4 8 2 0 N S 6 Lea

d 79 3 154 5 49 2 50 5 61 9 12 0 - 2,30 0

* Exposur e Poin t Concentration s (EPCs ) fo r arseni c an d cadmiu m ar e th e 9 5 % Uppe r Confidenc e Limi t o f th e arithmeti c mea n o f a lo g norma l distributio n o r maximu m detecte d concentration , whicheve r i t smaller

. EP C fo r lea d i s th e arithmeti c mean
. b Parce l WEN W i s curren t residentia l development ; eac h residentia l lo t wa s individuall y aampled
, rang e o f value s presente d i s rang e o f concentration s detected

. c N S

- No t aampled ; previou s wor k performe d a t OU I indicate d ma t th e healt h risk s du e t o cadmiu m ar e amal l whe n compared wit h arsenic

. mg/k g * * milligram s pe r kilogra mTabl e 2 Summar y o f Huma n Exposur e Parameter s Expose d Populatio n Residen t Adul t

Residen t Chil d
Worke r Genera

l Parameter s Bod y weigh t = 7 0 k g Exp

. Freq

. = 35 0 day/y r Exp

. Duratio n = 30 y r Bod y weigh t = 1 5 k g Exp

. Freq

. = 35 0 day/y r Exp

. Duratio n — 6 y r Bod y weigh t = 7 0 k g Exp

. Freq

. = 25 0 day/y r Exp

. Duratio n « = 2 5 y r Exposur e Mediu m Groundwate r Soi l Groundwate r Soi l Groundwate r Soi l Exposur e

Rout e Ora l Ora l Ora l Ora l Ora l Ora l Rout

e Parameter s (RME )
2 //da y
10 0 mg/da y (2 4 yr ) 20 0 mg/da y ( 6 yr ) l//da y
20 0 mg/da y l//da y 5 0 mg/da y k g « = kilogra m //da y = lite r pe r da y mg/da y — milligram s pe r da y RM E

— Reasonabl e Maximu m Exposur e y r - yea rTabl e 3 Tota l Sit e Ris k Estimates

Parce l LRWes t LREas t L F L G WES E Populatio n Worke r Worke r Worke r Worke r Residen t RME * Non-Cance r Hazar d Inde x fjidmiiir q
0.0 6 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 6 0. 4 Arseni c
0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 8 3 RM

E Cance r Ris k 5E- 5 6E- 5 6E- 5 IE- 4 8E- 4 P C

1 0 N E N E N E N E
3

* Tota l sit e ris k refer s t o th e ris k posed b y contaminant s i n soils
, hous e dust
, an d groundwater

. Th e relationshi p betwee n toi l an d hous e dust fo r arsenic , cadmium
, an d lea d i s define d b y Cdus t - 0. 2 Csoil+2 0 , Cduc t - Csoi l and
, Cdus t - 0. 2 Csoi l + 290 , respectively
, wher e Cdus t an d Csoi l » contaminan t concentration s i n dus t an d soil
, respectively

. Thes e relationship s wer e develope d fro m paire d hous e dust
an d surfac e soi l chemistries

. I n addition
, fo r computatio n o f non-cance r ris k th e effect s o f arseni c an d cadmiu m ar e presume d no t t o b e additive

. Additiona l discussio n o n soil/dus t ratio s and additrvit y o f healt h effect s i s presente d i n the Feasibilit y Stud y Repor t (UDEQ

, 1994 )

and Baselin e Ris k Assessmen t Repor t (LSI

, 1992)

. b Tota l sit e risk s ar e presente d b y parce l assumin g th e typica l groundwate r contaminan t level s usin g th e calculatio n metho d describe d i n RAO s (95 % UC L o f th e mea n (assumin g a lognorma l distribution ) fo r al l o f OU 1 I At

- 3. 1 w>lt, Cd-2. 1 fig"
, an d Pb-2. 1

c P,

, - Probabilit y fi n percent ) tha t a chil d expose d woul d hav e a bloo d lea d concentratio n > 1 0 ng/dt. Onl y evaluate d fo r residentia l settin g (WESE)

. N E * No t Evaluate d RM E « Reasonabl e Maximu m Exposur eTabl e 4 Soi l Clean-U p Level s

(Contaminan t Arseni c fy^mh' m Lea d Healt

h Criterio n Ris k = IE- 4 Hazar d Inde x = 1 P

w b <5 % Soi

l Clean-u p Level * (mg/kg ) Residen t 7 3 4 9 65 0 Worke r

96 0 298 0 N E

* Soi l clean-u p level s ar e calculate d assumin g di e typica l groundwate r contaminan t levels

. Th e typica l contaminan t level s use d ar e th e exposure poin t concentratio n (EPCs ) usin g di e calculatio n metho d describe d i n RAGS

, namel y th e 95 % UC L o f di e mea n (assumin g a lognorma l distribution ) fo r al l o f OU 1 [As=3. 1 ftglt, Cd=2. 1 fig/t, and Pb=2. 1 jtg//])

. Additiona l discussio n o n soil/dus t ratio s and additivit y o f healt h effect s i s presente d i n th e Feasibilit y Stud y Repor t (UDEQ

, 1994 ) an d Baselin e Ris k Assessmen t Repor t (LSI

, 1992)

. b P
1 0 correspond s t o di e probabilit y tha t a chil d expose d woul d hav e a bloo d lea d concentratio n o f > 1 0 pg/dl

, estimate d usin g di e lea d 6. 0 UBK model
, a s discusse d i n di e text

. mg/k g = milligram s pe r kilogra m N E = Not Evaluate d

### Tabl e 5 Reductio n i n Soi l Contaminan t Concentration s Unde r the Selecte d Remedy * Exposur e Poin t Concentratio n (iag/kg) b
Parce l WES E WEN W Arseni

c Pre-Remedia l 39 0 16-52 0 Post-Remedia

l 11 " 16-7 0 f-p^inii"

1 ? Pre-Remedia l 2 0 N S Post-Remedia

l 2 C
2 " Lea

d Pre-Remedia l 61 9 12 0 - 2,30 0 Post-Remedia

l 87 120-60 0

* Unde r th e selecte d remedy
, ther e i s n o reduction i n soi l contaiminan t concentration s o n Parcel s LR-West

, LR-East

, L F

, an d LG

. b mg/k g = milligram s pe r kilogra m e concentratio n value s equa l t o loca l backgroun d (LSI

, 1992 ) 6 Pos t remedia l concentration s o n treated yard s wil l b e fli c loca l backgroun d concentratio n o f 2 mg/k g (LSI

, 1992 ) N S

— No t sampled ; dat a no t availabl eTabl e 6 Tota l Sit e Ris k Reduction * Unde r Selecte d Remed y

Parce l LR-Wes F LR-Eas f L P LG " WES E WEN W Populatio n Worke r Worke r Worke r Worke r Residen t Residen t RM

E Non-Cance r Ris k Hazar d Index Befor e Remediatio n 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 8 3 Se e Figur e 6 Afte r Remediation 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 8 0. 3 0. 2 RM

E Cance r Ris k Befor e Remediatio n 5E- 5 6E- 5 6E- 5 IE- 4 8E- 4 Se e Figur e 5 Afte r Remediatio n 5E- 5 6E- 5 6E- 5 IE- 4 6E- 5 4E- 5 p

* M O Befor e Remediatio n N A N A N A N A 3 Se e Figur e 7 Afte r Remediation N A N A N A N A

< 1

< 5

* Thi a tabl e provide * fummar y o f risk s du e t o aoila
, hous e dust
, an d groundwate r befor e an d afte r implementatio n o f th e (electe d remedy

. Th e relationshi p betwee n toi l an d hous e din t for anenic , cadmium
, an d lea d i i define d b y Cdut t = 0. 2 Csoi l + 20 , Cdus t = Csoi l and
, Cdu« t = 0. 2 Csoi l + 290 , respective^

. Oroundwate r contaminan t concentntio m use d fo r computatio n o f risk

. ar e typica l fo r al l o f OUI

. Thes e hav e bee n calcuUtedutiii g th e memo d describe d i n RAG s (9 5 f t UC L o f m e mea n [a**u ^ Cd»2. 1 ftglt, an d Pb

— 2. 1 ftg/tj). Fo r computatio n o f non-cance r ris k th e effect s o f aneni c an d cadmiu m ar e presumed no t t o b e additive

. b P ) 0 correspond s t o th e probabilit y i n percen t tha t a chil d expose d woul d hav e a bloo d lea d concentration > 1 0 microgram * per decilite r (/tg/dQ

. Onl y evaluate d fo r residential settin g (WES E

an d WEN W Parcels)

. 0 Not e ma t unde r th e selecte d remedy
, th e ris k t o a hypothetica l worke r remain s unchange d o n thes e parcel*

. N A = No t Applicabl e RM E = Reasonabl e Maximu m Exposur eafte r

UR S (1992b )

mvcas 21 5

Unio n Boulevor d Suit e 55 0 Lokewood

. C O 8022 6 (303 ) 980-680 0 UTA H DEPARTMEN T O F ENVIRONMENTA L QUALIT Y SAL T LAK E CITY

. UTA H MIDVAL E SLA G SUPCRFUN D SIT E INDE X MA P FIGUR E

18 PARCE L WEN W PARCE

L WES E

PARCE L L F

PARCE L L R PARCE

L L G

PARCE L LR-EAS T MURRA

Y IflOVAL E

720 0 S

. ST

.

SOU: 1 M M -M O rtE T EXPLANATIO N

..__._. . PARC a BOUNDARIE

S •GU I BOUNDAR Y

a
. g o
wuass KSOCRS/CONSJlWn S 21 5

Unio n Boulevar d Suit e 55 0 Lakewood

, C O 8022 8 (303 ) 980-680 0 RECOR

D O F DECISIO N MIDVAL E SLA G SUPERFUN D SIT E O U 1 PARCEL S FIGUR E



### 2E P A REGIO N VII I SUPERFUN D DOCUMEN T MANAGEMEN T SYSTE M
DO

C I D # PAGE # IMAGER Y COVE R SHEE T UNSCANNABL E ITE M Contac t th e Superfun d Record s Cente r t o vie w thi s document

. (303-312-6473)

SIT E NAM E

REPOR T O R DOCUMEN T TITL E

< y DAT E O F DOCUMEN T DESCRIPTIO N O F IMAGER YMIDVAL

E SLA G SITE

, SEPTEMBE R 21 , 1987

. APPROXIMAT E SCAL E 1:11,45 0

o > 2 1 5

Unio n Boulevar d Suit e 55 0

_ ! ® Lakewood

, C O 8022 8 KMWH 5 V^/DESOOS/MNSUITM

S (303 ) 980-680 0 MIDVAL E

SLA G OPERABL E UNI T 1 INFRARE D FALS E COLO R AERIA L PHOTOGRAP H FIGUR E
31009247.MBDS10039 4 

### CONTAMINATE D MEDIU M EXPOSUR E

PATHWA Y EXPOSE D

POPULATIO N
CURREN T RESIDEN T (WENW ) FUTUR E

RESIDEN T FUTUR E WORKE R (WESE ) (LF.LR.LG

) DUS T INGESTIO N

SOI L INGESTIO N
VEGETABLE S INGESTIO N
GROUNDWATE R INGESTIO N

PATHWA Y I S O R MIGH T B E COMPLET E PATHWA Y I S NO T COMPLET E

MWGER S V^/Kswos/cowuiwn s 21 5

Unio n Boulevar d Suit e 55 0 lakewood

. C O 8022 8 (303 ) 980-680 0 RECOR D

O F DECISIO N MIDVAL E SLA G OU 1 SUPERFUN D SIT E CONCEPTUA

L SIT E MODE L O F EXPOSUR E PATHWAY S FIGUR E

4E P A REGIO N VII I SUPERFUN D DOCUMEN T MANAGEMEN T SYSTE M

IMAGER Y COVE R SHEE T UNSCANNABL E ITE M Contac t th e Superfun d Record s Cente r t o vie w thi s document

. (303-312-6473) DO C I D f t PAGE #



## SITENAM E middaie. Sk a \

REPOR T O R DOCUMEN T TITL E 

## l)ed£rd>rfafij m /u £ record & T

DAT E O F DOCUMEN T DESCRIPTIO N O F IMAGER Y 

## 3 c &l *r+ coded Ma 1>1

# J J J

J J C M o 

## R M

E Cance r Ris k Fro m Arseni c

LEGEN D
1 2 £ IE- 4 I — I EE- 4 t o 5E- 4 • S 6E- 4 2 1 5 Unio n Boulevar d Suit e 55 0 Lakewood

, C O 8022 8 (303 ) 980-680 0 

### UTA H DEPARTMEN T O F ENVIRONMENTA L EQUALIT Y MIDVAL E SLA G SUPERFUN D SIT E FIGUR E 5 

## WINCHESTE R ESTATE S 

## R M E CANCE R RIS K FRO M ARSENI C

# J J J J J

$ 

# I RM E Chroni c Hazar d Inde x Fro m Arseni c

LEGEN D g 1 2 2 3 2 1 5 Unio n Boulevar d Suit e 55 0 Lakewood

, C O 8022 8 (303 ) 980-680 0 

### UTA H DEPARTMEN T O F ENVIRONMENTA L EQUALIT Y MIDVAL E SLA G SUPERFUN D SIT E 

### i FIGUR E 6 WINCHESTE R ESTATE S M E CHRONI C HAZAR D NDEX FRO M ARSENI C

# J ] J 

# J J J

g 

# 1 , I 2 J 3 

## Probabilit y o f Bloo d Lea d Exceedin g 1 0

LEGEN D (UNIT S = % )



# a < = 5 I D > 5 an d < = 1 5 

## • > 1 5 N O T T O SCAL E

WNNXR S OfiSHCB/CONSUlttNr S 

### UTA H DEPARTMEN T O F ENVIRONMENTA L EQUALIT Y MIDVAl[ E SLA G SUPERFUN D SIT E FIGUR E 7 

## WINCHESTE R ESTATE S PROBABILIT Y O F BLOO D 

## LEA D EXCEEDIN G 1 0 2 1 5 Unio n Boulevar d Suit e 55 0 Lakewood

, C O 80228 (303 ) 980-680 0EXPLANATIO N

..-.-._. . PARCE L BOUNDARIE

S OU 1 BOUNDAR Y WOI S X X X X TOU T O f COUPUANC E

muaas 21 5

Unio n Boulevar d Suit e 55 0 Lokewood

. C O 8022 8 (303 ) 980-680 0 POIN

T O F COMPLIANC E F O R GROUNDWATE R ARAR S O U 1 PARCEL S FIGUR E



### 891628 6 628 7 628 8

70226 9 #1629 0 7x1629 1 ,51629 2 MS'1629 3 // 1 629 4 I 629 5 1629 7 629 8 629 9 711630 1 1 630 2 1 630 4 #1630 6 /Vl630 7 1^637

9

631 7 631 8 631 9 /1632 1 $632 2 ^1632 4 '51632 6 £1632 8 5/1632 9 #1633 0 J51633 5 

## iv &1638 1

«'1638 2 71638 3 ^1638 7 5^639 6 ^352 0 54355 0 ^376 3 ^376 4 ^376 5 ^376 6 ^376 7

^2377 0 /5i377 1 >82377 3APPENDI X A APPLICABLE

, RELEVAN T O R APPROPRIAT E REQUIREMENT

S



## LAPPENDI X A l Groundwate r ARAR s



# LTabl e A- l Chemical-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Groundwate r (concentratio n show n i n pgfl)

Paramete r Arseni c Cadmium Lea d SDW

A M C L
5 0

5 N S SDW A MCL G N S

5

0 " C W A Wate r Qualit y Criteria *
19 0

1 0

5 0 Uta

h Drinkin g Wate r MC L
5 0

5

1 5 Uta

h Groundwate r Protectio n Standards *
5 0

5

1 5 ARA

R
5 0

5 TB D ARA

R Basi s SDW A M C L SDW A MCL G TB D

* No t considered « n ARA R u discusse d i n precedin g text

. N S = N o Standar d SDW A * Saf e Drinkin g Wate r Ac t CW A « = Clea n Wate r Ac t MCL(O ) * Maximu m Contaminatio n Limit s (Goal ) TB D

- T o B e Determine d

utahdcq\rod\»ppd-« l .ja nAPPENDI X A 2 Action-Specifi c ARAR s



# LAppendi x A 2 Analysi s o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedia l Action s a t Midval e Sla g OU I
Actio n Cappin g Requiremen

t Placemen t o f a ca p ove r wast e (e.g.

, closin g a landfill
, o r closin g a surfac e impoundmen t o r wast e pil e a s a landfill
, o r simila r action ) require s a cove r designe d an d constructe d to : • Provid e long-ter m minimizatio n migratio n o f liquid s throug h th e cappe d area ; • Functio n wit h minimu m maintenance ; • Promot e drainag e an d minimiz e erosio n o r abrasion o f th e cover ; • Accommodat

e settlin g an d subsidenc e t o tha t th e cover' s integrit y i s maintained ; an d • Hav e a permeabilit y les s tha n o r equa l t o th e permeabilit y o f an y botto m line r syste m o r natura l sub

toil s present

. • Eliminat e fre e liquids
, stabiliz e waste s befor e cappin g (surfac e impoundments ) • Restric t post-closur e us e o f propert y a s necessar y t o preven t damage t o th e cover
. • Preven t runo n an d runof f fro m damagin g cover
. • Protec t an d maintai n surveye d benchmark s use d t o locat e wast e cell s (landfills

, wast e piles. ) • Eliminat e fre e liquid s b y remova l
o r solidification

. • Stabilizatio n o f remainin g wast e an d wast e residue s t o suppor t cover
. Installatio n o f fina l cove r t o provid e long-ter m minimizatio n o f infiltration

. Post-closur e car e an d groundwate r monitoring

. Prerequisit e RCR A hazardou s wast e place d
a t sit e afte r Novembe r 19 , 1980 , o r movemen t o f hazardou s wast e fro m on e unit , are a o f contamination , o r locatio n int o another uni t o r are a o f contaminatio n wil l mak e requirement s applicable

. Cappin g withou t suc h movemen t wil l no t mak e requiremen t applicable
, bu t technica l requirement s ar e likel y t o b e relevan t an d appropriate

.

1 Citatio n

4 0 CF R 264.258(b) ; UA C R315-8-12.6(b ) 4 0 CF R 264. 3 10(a) ; UA C R313-8-I4.5(a )

4 0 CF R 264.228(a)

, UACR315-8-ll.S(a )

4 0 CF R 264. 1 17(c) ; UA C R 3 15-8- 7

4 0 CF R 264.228(b)

, UA C R315-8-lI.5(b ) 4 0 CF R 264. 3 10(b)

, UA C R315-8-14.5(b )

4 0 CF R 264.228(a)(2)

, UA C R3 1 5-8- 1 1.5(a)(2 )
4 0 CF R 264.228(a)(2 ) an d 4 0 CF R 264.258(b)

, UA C R 3 15-8- 1 1.5(a)(2)

, an d R315-8-12.6(b )
4 0 CF R 264.310 ; UA C R 3 15-8

- 14

. 5 ARA

R N o t ARA R Comment

s Alternativ e 3 involve s th e installatio n o f t permeabl e tingle-laye r •oi l cover , th e onl y objectiv e o f whic h i i t o preven t direc t exposure

. Accordingl y th e inten t i c inconsisten t wit h tha t of t RCR A ca p an d thes e requirement s ar e no t ARAR

.Appendi x A 2 (Continued ) Analysi s o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedia l Action s a t Midval e Sla g OU I

Actio n Requiremen

t Prerequisit

e Citatio n ARA R Comment

s Excavatio n Placemen t

o n o r i n lan d ouUid e uni t boundar y o r are a o f contaminatio n wil l trigge r lan d disposa l requirement s an d restrictions

. Movemen t o f excavate d material s l o ne w locatio n an d placemen t i n o r o n lan d wil l trigge r lan d disposa l restriction s fo r th e excavate d wast e o r closure requirement s fo r th e uni t i n whic h th e wast e i s bein g placed

. Are a fro m whic h material s ar e excavate d
ma y requir e cleanu p l o level s establishe d b y closur e requirements.________

_ Material

s containin g RCR A hazardou s waste s subjec t t o lan d disposa l restriction s ar e place d i n anothe r unit

. RCR A hazardou s wast e place d
a t sit e afte r th e effectiv e dat e o f
m e requirements.__

_

_ _ 4 0 CF R 26 8 (Subpar t D ) UACR315-13- 1

4 0 CF R 26 8 (Subpar t D ) UA C R315-13- 1

Se e Closur e i n thi s exhibit

. N o t

ARA R Requirement

s ar e applicabl e fo r RCR A hazardou s waste

. OU I soil s hav e bee n teste d an d foun d no t t o exhibi t an y hazardou s wast e characteristic s an d lan d disposa l restriction s ar e accordingl y no t identifie d
a s ARARs

.

Treatmen t o r storag e i n tank s Tank s mus t hav e sufficien t shel l strengt h (thickness)

, and
, fo r elose d tanks
, pressur e controls
, t o assur e tha t the y d o no t collaps e o r rupture

. Wast e mus t no t b e incompatibl e wit h th e tan k materia l unles s th e tan k i s protecte d b y t line r o r b y othe r means

. New tank s or component s mus t be provide d wit h secondar y containment

. Tank s mus t b e provide d wit h control s t o preven t overfilling
, an d sufficien t freeboar d maintaine d i n ope n tank s t o preven t overtoppin g b y wav e actio n o r precipitation

. Inspec t th e following : overfillin g control
, contro l equipment , monitorin g data
, wast e leve l (fo r uncovere d tanks)

, lan k condition
, above-groun d portion s o f tanks
, (t o asses s thei r structura l integrity )

an d th e are a surroundin g th e tan k (t o identif y sign s o f leakage)

. Repai r an y corrosion , crack
, o r leak

. RCR

A hazardou s wast e (liste d
o r characteristic)

, hel d i n a tan k f o r temporar y perio d befor e treatment , disposal
, or storag e elsewhere
, (4 0 CF R 264.10)

. 4 0

CF R 264.19 0 UA C R315-8-1 0

4 0 CF R 264.19 1 UA C R315-8-1 0

4 0 CF R 264.193 UA C R315-8-1 0 4 0 CF R 264.194 UA C R315-8-1 0

4 0 CF R 264.19 5 UA C R315-8-1 0 N o t ARA R Non e o f the alternative s involv e treatmen t o r storag e i n tanks

.

4 0 CF R 264.19 6 UA C R315-8-1 0Appendi x A 2 (Continued ) Analysi s o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedial Action s a t Midval e Sla g OU I

Actio n Treatmen t o r storage i n tank s (coo't. )

Containe r Storag e (on-site ) Requiremen

t A t closure
, remov e il l hazardou s wast e an d hazardou s wast e residues fro m tanks
, discharg e contro l equipmen t an d discharg e confinemen t structures

. Stor e igniubl e an d reactiv e wast e s o a s t o preven t th e wast e fro m ignitin g o r reacting

. Igniubl e o r reactiv e waste s i n covere d tank s mus t compl y wit h buffe r zon e requirement s i n "Flammabl e an d Combustibl e Liquid s Code, * Table s 2- 1 throug h 2- 6 (Nationa l Fir e Protectio n Association

, 197 6 o r 1981)

. Container s o f hazardou s wast e mus t be : • Maintaine d i n goo d condition

. • Compatibl e wit h hazardou s wast e t o b e stored ; an d
• Close d durin g storage (excep t t o ad d o r remov e waste)

. Inspec t containe r storage area s weekl y f o r deterioration

.

Plac e container s o n a sloped
, crack-fre e base
, an d protec t fro m contac t wit h accumulate d liquid

. Provid e containmen t syste m wit h a capacit y o f 1 0 * o f th e volum e o f container s o f fre e liquids

. Remov e spille d o r leake d wast e i n a timel y manne r t o preven t overflo w o f th e containmen t system

. Prerequisit e

Storag e o f RCR A hazardou s wast e (liste d o r characteristic )

no t meetin g smal l quantit y generator criteri a hel d i n a container fo r a temporar y perio d greate r than 9 0 day s befor e treatment , disposal
, o r storag e elsewhere

. A generato r wh o accumulate s o r store s hazardou s wast e o n sit e fo r 9 0 day s o r les s i n complianc e wit h 4 0 CF R 262.34(a)(l-4) ; 4 0 CF R 264.176 , UA C R 3 15-8-9. 6 i s not subjec t t o ful l RCR A storag e requirements

. Smal l quantit y generator s ar e no t subjec t t o th e 90-da y limi t [4 0 CF R 262.34(c)

, (d)

, an d (e) ; UA C R 3 15-5-10)

. Citatio n 4 0 CF R 264

. 19 7 UA C R315-8-1 0

4 0 CF R 264.19 8 UA C R 3 15-8-1 0

4 0 CF R 264

. 17 1 UA C R 3 15-8-9. 2 4 0 CF R 264.17 3 UA C R 3 15-8-9. 3 4 0 CF R 264.17 4 UA C R315-8-9. 4 4 0 CF R 264.17 5 UA C R 3 15-8-9. 5

4 0 CF R 264

. 17 5 UA C R 3 15-8-9. 6 ARA R

NotARA R Comment

s

Containe r ftong e o f hazardou s waste s o r simila r wicte i i t no t • pu t o f an y alternatives

.



## f c 

# IAppendi x A 2 (Continued ) Analysi s o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedia l Action s a t Midval e Sla g OU I

Actio n Requiremen

t Prerequisit

e Citatio n ARA R Comment

s Containe r Storag e (on-site ) (con't. ) Kee

p container s o f igniubl e or reactiv e wast e a t leas t 5 0 fee t fro m th e facility' s propert y line

. Kee p incompatibl e material s separate

. Separat e incompatibl e material s store d
nea r eac h other b y • dik e o r othe r barrier

. A t closure
, remov e al l hazardou s wast e an d residue s fro m th e containmen t system , an d decontaminat e o r remov e al l containers , liners

. 4 0 CF R 264.17 6 UA C R315-8-9. 7

4 0 CF R 264.17 7 U A C R315-8-9. 8

4 0 CF R 264.17 8 UA C R315-8-9. 9 Clea n Closur e Genera

l performanc e standar d require s minimizatio n o f nee d fo r furthe r maintenanc e an d control ; minimizatio n o r eliminatio n o f post-closur e escape o f hazardou s waste , hazardou s constituents , leachate
, contaminate d runoff
, o r hazardou s wast e decompositio n products

. Disposal o r decontaminatio n o f equipment , structures,an d toils

. Remova l o r decontaminatio n o f al l wast e residues
, contaminate d containmen t syste m component s (e.g.

, liners
, dikes)

, contaminate d subsoils
, an d structure s an d equipmen t contaminate d wit h wast e an d leachate
, an d managemen t o f the m a s hazardou s waste

. Mee t health-base d level s a t unit

. RCR A hazardou s wast e (liste d
o r characteristic ) place d a t sit e afte r Novembe r 19 , 1980 , o r movemen t o f hazardou s wast e fro m on e unit , are a o f contamination , o r locatio n int o another uni t o r are a o f contamination

. No t applicabl e t o materia l undisturbe d sinc e Novembe r 19 , 1980

. Ma y appl y t o surfac e impoundmen t an d container o r tan k liner s an d hazardou s wast e residues ; contaminate d soil
, includin g soi l fro m dredgin g o r soi l disturbe d i n th e cours e o f drillin g o r excavation , an d returne d t o land

. 4 0

CF R 264.111 ; UA C R315-8- 7 UACR-315-8-11. 5

4 0 CF R 264.11 1 40CF R 264.17 8 4 0 CF R 264.19 7 4 0 CF R 264.228(a)(l )

an d 4 0 CF R 264.25 8 UA C R315-8-9. 9 U A C R315-8-11. 5
4 0 CF R 264.11 1 UA C R315-8- 7 N o t ARA R Onl y Alternativ e 4 involve s remova l o f contaminants

. Thes e contaminant s ir e no t identifiabl e a s hazardou s waste s an d clea n closur e requirement s ar e accordingl y no t ARAR

.Appendi x A 2 (Continued ) Analysi s o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedial Action s a t Midval e Sla g OU I

Actio n Off-Sit e Treatmen t Storag e o r Disposa l

Discharg e t o Stor m Sewer s

f Requiremen

t I n th e cas e o f an y remova l o r remedia l actio n involvin g th e transfe r o f an y hazardou s substanc e o r pollutan t o r contaminant off-site
, suc h hazardou s substanc e o r pollutan t o r contaminan t shal l onl y b e transferre d t o a facilit y whic h i s operatin g i n complianc e wit h sectio n 300 4 an d 300 5 o f th e Solid Wast e Disposa l Ac t (o r wher e applicable
, i n complianc e wit h th e Toxi c Substance s Contro l Act o r other applicabl e Federa l law ) an d al l applicabl e Stat e requirements

. Suc h substanc e o r pollutan t o r contaminan t ma y b e transferre d t o a lan d disposa l facilit y onl y i f the Presiden t determine s tha t bot h o f th e followin g requirement s ar e met : • Th e uni t t o whic h th e hazardou s substance o r pollutan t o r contaminan t i s transferre d i s no t releasin g an y hazardou s waste , o r constituent thereof
, int o th e groundwate r o r surfac e water o r soil

. • Al l suc h release s fro m othe r unit s a t th e facilit y ar e bein g controlle d b y a correctiv e action progra m approve d b y th e Administrato r unde r Subtitl e C o f th e Soli d Wast e Disposa l Act

. Require s stor m wate r discharge s t o b e permitte d under th e Federa l (o r state ) Nationa l Pollutio n Discharg e Eliminatio n Systems (NPDES ) program

. Differen t requirement s ar e applicabl e fo r differen t classe s an d type s o f discharges

. Prerequisit e Transfe r off-sit e o f CERCL A hazardou s substance
, pollutant
, o r contaminant

.

Protectio n o f surfac e water s agains t degradatio n resultin g fro m sit e discharge s Citatio n

CERCL A sectio n I21(d)(3 )

4 0 CF R 12 2 40CFR12 5 UACR317- 8 ARA R Applicabl e

Applicabl e Comment

s Applicabl e t o th e off-sit e treatment , storage , o r disposa l o f waste s generate d durin g on-sit e remedia l actions

. Off-sit e disposa l i s include d a s par t o f Alternative s 4

.

Applicabl e t o th e construction phas e o f Alternative s 3 an d 4

. Protectio n o f stat e surfac e water s wil l als o b e require d durin g the implementatio n phas e o f these alternative!

.Appendi x A 2 (Continued ) Analysis o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedia l Actions a t Midval e Sla g OU I

Actio n Discharg e o f Wate r int o Surfac e Wate r Bodie s
Discharg e t o Publicly-Owne d Treatmen t Work s (POTW ) (off-sit e activity )

U.S

. EP A Oroundwater Protectio n Strateg y
Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s Constructio n Requiremen t A n NPDE S permi t i s require d fo r dischargin g water off-sit e int o surfac e wate r bodies

. Al l surfac e wate r discharges mus t b e i n complianc e wit h promulgate d Uta h Strea m Discharg e Standard s Discharg e o f pollutant s mat pas s throug h th e POT W withou t treatment , interfer e wit h POT W operation , contaminat e POT W sludge
, o r endange r health/safet y o f POT W worker s i s prohibited

. • Discharg e mus t compl y wit h loca l POT W pretreatmen t program , includin g POT W specifi c pollutants
, spil l preventio n progra m requirements , an d reportin g an d monitorin g requirements

. • RCR A permit-by-rul e requirement s (includin g correctiv e action wher e di e NPDE S permi t wa s issue d afte r Nov

. (

, 1984 ) mus t b e complie d wit h fo r discharge s o f RCR A hazardou s waste s t o POTWs

. The strateg y include s guideline s o n classifyin g groundwate r fo r EP A decision s affectin g groundwate r protectio n an d correctiv e actions

. Criteri a includ e ecologica l importance , replaceability
, an d vulnerabilit y consideration

. Standard s for ne w source s o f ai r emissions

. Requirement s ar e source

specific

. Fugitiv e dust control

. Prerequisit e Protectio n o f surfac e water s agains t degradatio n resultin g fro m sit e discharge s

Discharg e t o a POTW

.

Transpor t o f RCR A hazardou s waste s t o POTW s b y truck
, rail
, or dedicate d pip e (i.e.

, pip e solel y dedicate d fo r hazardou s wast e (a s define d i n 4 0 CF R 264 ] whic h discharge s fro m withi n th e boundarie s o f th e CERCL A sit e t o withi n the boundarie s o f th e POTW)

. Th e protectio n strateg y doe s no t involve applicabl e ARAR s bu t doe s contai n polic y statement s t o b e considered

.
Nee d t o determin e i f thes e standard s appl y t o potentia l remedia l actions

. Citatio n

4 0 CF R 12 2 an d 4 0 CF R 12 5 UA C 317- 8

4 0 CF R 40 3

. 5 UA C R317-S-8. 4

4 0 CF R 270.60(c ) UACR315-3-18(b )

C A A Sectio n II I UA C R307-1- 3 R307-1-3

, l.S(A ) R307-I-4.5.2

, U.A.C

. ARA

R Applicabl e

N o t ARA R

.

T o b e considere d

N o t ARA R

ARA R Comment

s Applicabl e t o th e constructio n phas e o f Alternative ! 3 tn d 4

. Protectio n o f Mat e surfac e water s tril l als o b e require d durin g th e implementatio n phas e o f these alternatives

. Alternative s d o no t involv e discharg e t o POTWa

.

Concentration s o f COC s ar e locall y elevate d abov e apparen t backgroun d conditions

. Al l CO C concentration s ar e below MCLa

. Non e o f the alternatives involve installatio n o f
ne w sourc e o f ai r pollution

. Alternative s 3 an d 4 requir e earthwor k whic h
ma y generat e fugitiv e dust

.Appendi x A 2 (Continued ) Analysi s o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedia l Action s a t Midval e Sla g OU I

Actio n Corrective Actio n Cleanu p Standard s Polic y forUST

, an d CERCL A Site s Wast e Treatmen t Undergroun d injectio n o f waste s an d treate d groundwate r

Closur e o f Lan d Treatmen t Unit s Requiremen

t List s genera l requirement s t o b e considered i n establishin g cleanu p standards

.

Treatmen t o f restricte d hazardou s waste s prio r t o lan d disposa l mus t attai n concentration-based o r technology-base d treatmen t standards

. U I C progra m prohibits : • Injectio n activities tha t allo w movemen t o f contaminant s int o undergroun d source s o f drinkin g wate r whic h ma y resul t i n violation s o f MCL s o r adversel y affect s health

. • Constructio n o f ne w Clas s I V wells
, an d operatio n an d maintenance o f existin g wells

. Clas s I V well s ar e banne d except fo r reinfectio n o f treated groundwate r int o th e sam e formatio n fro m whic h i t wa s withdrawn
, a s par t o f a CERCL A cleanu p o r RCR A correctiv e action

. Maximiz e degradation
, transformation
, o r immobilizatio n o f hazardou s constituent s withi n th e treatmen t zone , minimiz e runof f o f constituents , maintai n runo n contro l syste m an d runof f managemen t system , contro l win d dispersa l o f hazardou s waste , maintai n tmsaturate d con e monitoring , establis h vegetativ e cover , an d establis h backgroun d soi l value s t o determin e consistenc y wit h permi t values

. Prerequisit

e

Waste s t o b e treate d mus t b e identifiabl e a s restricte d hazardou s wastes

. Approve d UI C progra m i s require d i n State s liste d unde r SDW A section 1422

. (Al l state s hav e bee n listed. ) Clas s I well s an d Clas s I V well s ar e th e relevan t classification s fo r CERCL A sites

. Clas s I well s ar e use d i n injec t hazardou s wast e beneat h th e lowermos t formatio n containing , withi n on e quarte r mile
, a n underground sourc e o f drinkin g wate r (USDW)

. Clas s I V well s ar e use d t o injec t hazardou s o r radioactiv e wast e int o o r abov e di e formatio n whic h contains , withi n on e quarter mil e o f th e well
, a n undergroun d sourc e o f drinkin g water

. Closur e o f lan d treatmen t units

. Citatio n "A C mi l

40CFR268(SubpartD

) UA C R 3 15-1 3
4 0 CF R 144.1 2 4 0 CF R 144.1 3 UA C R317- 7 UA C R315-7-2 5

4 0 CF R 264.28 0 UA C R 3 15-8-13. 8 ARA R Applicabl e

N o t ARA R

N o t ARA R

N o t ARA R Comment

s Applicabl e to t CERCL A sites

. Consisten t wit h activitie s currentl y bein g undertake n a t OU I pursuan t t o CERCLA

. Non e o f di e alternative s involve s treatmen t o f hazardou s waste s o r simila r wastes

. N o undergroun d injectio n activitie s ar e propose d fo r di e fina l remedy

.

Non e o f di e alternative s involve on-sit e lan d treatment

. 

# IAppendi x A 2 (Continued ) Analysi s o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedia l Action s a t Midval e Sla g OU I

Actio n Placemen t o f Liqui d Wast e i n Ltndfil l

Closur e wit h Wast e I n Place

Operatio n an d Maintenanc e Requiremen t Liquid s i n Landfill s Prohibition : N o bul k o r non-containerize d liqui d hazardou s wute o r hazardou s wast e containin g fre e liquids
, o r soli d wast e containin g fre e liquid
, ma y b e dispose d
o f i n landfills

. Container s holdin g fre e liquid s ma y not b e place d i n I landfil l unles s th e liqui d i s mixe d wit h a n absorben t o r solidified

. Eliminat e fre e liquid s b y remova l o r solidification

. Stabilizatio n o f remainin g wast e an d wast e residue s t o suppor t cover
.

Installatio n o f fina l cove r t o provid e long-term minimizatio n o f infiltratio n (se e Capping)

. 30-yea r post-closur e car e an d froundwate r monitoring

. 30-yea r post-closur e car e t o ensur e tha t sit e i s maintaine d an d monitored

. Prerequisit

e Placemen t o f a bul k o r non
containerize d RCR A hazardou s wast e o r soli d wast e i n a landfill

. Placemen t o f containerize d RCR A hazardou s wast e i n • landfill

. Applicabl e t o lan d disposa l o f hazardou s waste

. Applicabl e t o RCR A hazardou s wast e (liste d
o r characteristic ) place d a t sit e afte r th e effectiv e dat e o f th e requirements , o r place d int o anothe r unit

. No t applicabl e t o materia l treated
, stored
, o r dispose d onl y befor e th e effectiv e dat e o f th e requirements , o r i f treated i n situ o r consolidate d withi n are a o f contamination

.

Lan d disposa l closure

. Citatio n

4 0 CF R 258.2 8 4 0 CF R 264.31 4 UA C R31S-8-14. 8

4 0 CF R 264. 3 14(d ) UACR315-8-14.8(a)(2

)

4 0 CF R 264.228(a)<2 ) U A C R 3 15-8- 1 1.5(2)0 )
4 0 CF R 26 4 J28(a)(2 ) UA C R 3 15-8- 1 1.5(2)0 )
4 0 CF R 264.258(b ) UA C R315-8-12.6(b )

4 0 CF R 264. 3 1 0 UA C R315-8-14. 5

4 0 CF R 264.31 0 UA C R 3 15-8-14. 5 4 0 CF R 264. 3 1 0 UA C R 3 15-8-14. 5 ARA R NotARA R

N o t ARA R

NotARA R Comment

s N o fre e liquid s wil l be dispose d i n a n on-sit e lan d disposa l unit

.

OU I toil s hav e bee n teste d an d foun d no t t o exhibi t an y hazardou s wast e characteristics

. Alternativ e 3 involve s th e installatio n of * permeabl e cover , th e onl y objectiv e o f whic h i s t o preven t direct exposures

. Accordingl y th e inten t i t inconsisten t wit h tha t require d unde r RCR A

an d RCR A requirement s ar e no t ARAR

.
OU I toil s hav e bee n teste d an d foun d no t t o exhibi t an y hazardou s wast e characteristics

. Alternativ e 3 involve s th e installatio n o f a permeabl e cover , th e onl y objectiv e o f whic h i s t o preven t direc t exposures

. Accordingl y th e inten t i s inconsisten t wit h tha t require d unde r RCR A

an d RCR A requirement s ar e no t ARAR

. 

# * 

# IAppendi x A 2 (Continued ) Analysi s o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedia l Action s a t Midval e Sla g OU I

Actio n Requiremen

t Prerequiih e Citatio n ARA R Comment

s Surfac e Wate r Contro l Preven

t runo n an d contro l an d collec t runof f fro m a 24-hour
, 25-yea r stor m (wast e piles
, lan d treatmen t facilities
, landfills)

. RCR A hazardou s wast e treated
, stored
, o r dispose d afte r the effectiv e dat e o f th e requirements

. 4 0

CF R 264.2Sl(c)

, (d ) UACR3l5-8-12.2(c)(d

) 4 0 CF R 264.273(c)

, (d ) UACR3l5-8-I3.4(c)(d

) 40CFR264.310(c)

, (d ) UACR315-8-14.2(c)(d

) N o t

ARA R Surfac e wate r ha s no t bee n identifie d a s a pathwa y o f concer n fo r OUI

.
Wast e Pil e Use a double-line r an d leachat e collectio n system

. Wast e pu t int o wast e pil e subjec t t o lan d disposa l restriction s regulations

. RCR

A hazardou s waste , non
containerize d accumulatio n o f •olid
, nonflammabl e hazardou s wast e tha t i s use d fo r treatmen t o r storage

. 4 0

CF R 264.25 1 UA C R315-8-1 2 4 0 CF R 268.2 , UA C R315-13- I N o t

ARA R Non e o f th e alternative s involv e managemen t o f hazardou s waste s o r simila r waste s i n a wast e pile

. Incineratio n

I Analyz e

th e wast e feed

. Dispos e o f al l hazardou s watt e an d residues
, includin g ash
, scrubbe r water , an d scrubbe r sludge

. N o furthe r requirement s appl y t o incinerator * tha t onl y bu m waste s tha t ar e liste d a * hazardou s solel y b y virtu e o f combination wit h othe r wastes , an d i f th e wast e analysi s demonstrates tha t n o Appendi x V D constituen t i s presen t tha t migh t reasonabl y b e expecte d t o b e present.__________________

_ RCR A hazardou s waste

. 4 0

CF R 264.34 1 UA C R315-8-15. 2 4 0 CF R 264.35 1 UA C R315-8-15. 8

4 0 CF R 264.34 0 UA C R315-8-15. 1

Performanc e standard s fo r incinerators : • Achiev e a destructio n an d remova l efficienc y o f 99.9 9 percent fo r eac h principa l organi c hazardou s constituent i n th e wast e fee d an d 99.999 9 percen t fo r dioxins

. • Reduc e hydroge n chlorid e emission s t o 1. 8 kg/h r o r 1 percent o f th e HC I i n th e stac k gase s correcte d fo r amoun t o f oxyge n i n stac k gas

. • No t releas e particulat e i n exces s o f I S O mg/dsc m correcte d fo r amoun t o f oxyge n i n stac k gat

. _ _ RCR A hazardou s wastes

. 4 0

CF R 264.34 3 UA C R315-8-15. 4

4 0 CF R 264.34 2 UA C R315-8-15. 3

4 0 CF R 264.34 3 UA C R315-8-15. 4 N o t ARA R Non e o f th e alternative ! involv e on-sit e incineration

.Appendi x A 2 (Continued ) Analysi s o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedial Action s a t Midval e Sla g OU I

Actio n Incineratio n (con't. ) Requiremen t Monitorin g o f variou s parameter s durin g operatio n o f th e incinerato r i i required

. TTie* e parameter s include : • Combustio n temperature

. • Wut e fee d rate

. • A n indicato r o f combustion ga s velocity

. • Caibo n monoxide

. Contro l fugitiv e emission s eithe r by : • Keepin g combustion zon e sealed
, o r • Maintainin g combustio n zon e pressur e lowe r than atmospheri c pressure

. Utiliz e automati c cutof f syste m t o sto p wast e fee d whe n operatin g conditions deviate

. Specia l performanc e standar d fo r incineratio n o f PCBs : • Achiev e t destructio n an d remova l efficienc y o f 99.999 9 percent

. • Eithe r 2 secon d dwel l tim e a t 1,20 0 degree s C ( ± 100 ) an d 3 percen t exces s oxyge n i n stac k gas ; o r 1. 5 secon d dwel l time a t 1,60 0 degree s C

, an d 2 percen t exces s oxyge n i n (tac k gas ; an d • For non-liqui d PCBs

, mas s ai r emission s fro m th e incinerato r shal l b e n o greater than 0.00 1 g
. K B per k g o f th e PCB s enterin g th e incinerator

. • Prerequisit e

Liqui d an d non-liqui d PCB s a t concentration s o f S O pp m o r greater

. Citatio n

4 0 CF R 264.34 3 U A C R315-8-1S. 4

4 0 CF R 264.34 5 UA C R 3 15-8-15. 6

4 0 CF R 76 1 .7 0 ARA R NotARA R Comment

s Non e o f th e alternative s involv e incineratio nAppendix A 2 (Continued ) Analysi s o f Action-Specifi c ARAR s fo r Remedia l Action s a t Midval e Sla g OU I

Actio n Constructio n o f N e w Undfil l On-iit e (se e Clotur e wit h Wast e i n Place ) Requiremen

t Minimu m Technolog y Reguirementi : Instal l tw o line n o r more , a to p line r tha t prevent s wast e migratio n int o di e liner

. an d a botto m line r tha t prevent s wast e migratio n throug h th e liner

. Instal l leaehat e collectio n syste m abov e an d betwee n th e linen

. Construc t nino n an d runof f contro l system s capabl e o f handlin g th e pea k discharg e o f a 25-yea r storm

. Contro l win d dispersa l o f particulates

. Operatio n an d maintenance

. Clos e eac h cel l wit h a fina l cove r afte r th e las t wast e ha s bee n received

. Oroundwste r Monhorine : Establis h a detectio n monitorin g progra m (264.98)

. Establis h a complianc e monitorin g progra m (264.99 ) an d correctiv e actio n monitorin g progra m (2641100 ) whe n require d b y 4 0 CF R 264.91

. Al l monitorin g program s mus t
mee t RCR A genen l groundwate r monitorin g requirement s (264.97)

. Prerequisit

e RCR A hazardou s wast e (liste d
o r characteristic ) currentl y bein g place d i n a new , replacement
, o r expande d landfill

.

Creatio n o f a new landfil l uni t t o treat , store , o r dispos e o f RCR A hazardou s wast e a s par t o f a respons e action

. Citatio n

4 0 CF R 264.30 1 UACR315-S-I 4

4 0 CF R 264.303-30 4 UA C R315-8-14. 3 4 0 CF R 264. 3 1 0 UA C R315-8

. 14. 5 4 0 CF R 264.9 1 -264.10 0 ARA R NotARA R Comment

s Non e o f the alternative ! involv e constructio n o f a ne w landfill

. Waste s ti e no t RCR A hazardou s wastes

.

# 1

1
I APPENDI X A 3 Location-Specifi c ARAR s 

# n

a

] UAppendi x A 3 Identificatio n o f Potentia l Locatio n Specifi c ARAR s fo r th e Midval e Sla g OU I Sit e Standar d Requirement

, Criteria

, o r Limitatio n Citatio n Descriptio n ARA R Commen

t Histori c Sites

, Buildin g an d Antiquities Ac t 1 6

US C Sec

. 461-46 7 4 0 CF R Sec

. 6.30(a ) Require s Federa l agencie s t o conside r th e existence an d locatio n o f landmark s o n th e Nationa l Registr y o f Natura l landmark s t o avoi d undesirabl e impact s upon suc h landmarks.__

_ N o t

ARA R Propose d activitie s wil l no t adversel y affec t historica l landmarks

. Nationa l Histori c Preservation 1 6

US C Sec

. 47 0 4 0 CF R Sec

. 6.301 (B ) Require s Federa l agencie s t o tak e int o accoun t m e effec t o f an y Federally-assiste d undertakin g o r licensin g o n an y district
, site, building
, structure , o r objec t ma t i s include d i n o r eligibl e fo r inclusion i n th e nationa l registe r o f histori c places._____________________

_ N o t ARA R Propose d activitie s wil l no t adversel y affec t historica l district
, site , building
, structure o r object

. Archaeologica l an d Histori c Preservatio n 1 6

US C Sec

. 46 9 UCA

, Tid e 6 3 Chapte r 18 ; UC A R21 2 Establishe s procedure s t o provid e fo r preservatio n o f historica l an d archaeologica l dat a whic h migh t b e destroye d throug h alteratio n o f terrai n a s a resul t o f a Federa l constructio n projec t o r a Federally-license d activit y o r program

. Preservatio n o f archeological
, anthropological
, o r paleontologica l landmark s i s provide d fo r b y Stat e law.___________

_ N o t ARA R Propose d activitie s wil l no t adversel y affec t archaeologica l dat a or landmarks

.
Endangered Specie s Ac t 1 6

US C Sec

. 1531-154 3 5 0 CF R Part s 200.40 2 3 3 CF R Part s 320-33 0 4 0 CF R Sec

. 630 2 (ca ) Require s tha t Federa l agencie s ensur e tha t an y actio n authorized
, funded
, o r carrie d b y th e agenc y i s no t likel y t o jeopardiz e th e continue d existenc e o f an y threatened o r endangere d specie s o r destro y o r adversel y modif y critica l habitat

. N o t ARA R N o critica l habita t ha s bee n identifie d i n Sal t Lak e Count y for endangere d species

. Executiv e Orde r o n Protectio n o f Wetland s Exec

.

Orde r #11,99 0 4 0 CF R Sec

. 6.302(A )
an d Appendi x A
4 0 CF R Part s 230,23 1 Require

s Federa l agencie s t o avoid
, t o th e exten t possible
, (h e advers e impact s associate d wit h th e destructio n o r los s o f wetland s an d t o avoi d suppor t o f ne w constructio n i n wetland s i f a practicabl e alternativ e exists

. Action s mus t no t discharg e dredge d o r fil l materia l int o wetland s withou t permit._____

_ N o t

ARA R Propose d activitie s wil l no t adversel y affec t wetlands

.

Are a affectin g Strea m o r Rive r 4 0 CF R 6.30 2 Actio n

mus t protec t fis h o r wildlif e N o t

ARA R N o activitie s ar e propose d tha t wil l affec t river s o r streams

. Faul t Zon e 4 0

CF R 264.18(a ) UA C R315-8-2.9(a ) RCR A regulation s specif y ma t hazardou s wast e treatment , storage , o r disposa l mus t no t tak e plac e withi n 20 0 fee t o f a Holocen e faul t N o t ARA R N o fault s displace d durin g Holocen e time s exis t withi n 20 0 fee t o f thi s site

.Appendi x A 3 (continued ) Identificatio n o f Potentia l Locatio n Specifl c ARAR s fo r th e Midval e Sla g OU I Sit e Standar d Requirement

, Criteria

, o r Limitatio n Floo d Plai n Undergroun d mine , caves , o r sal t dom e formation s Wildernes s are a Wildlif e refug e
Withi n are a affectin g nationa l wild
, scenic , o r recreationa l rive r Citatio n

4 0 CF R 264.18(b ) UA C R315-8-2.9(b )

4 0 CF R 264.18(c ) UA C R315-8-2.9(c ) Wildernes s Act ( 6 US C 113 1 ettea.l ; 5 0 CF R 35. 1 e t tea

. 1 6 US C 68 8 d d etseo. ; 5 0 CF R Par t 2 7 Wil d an d Sceni c River s Ac t (1 6 US C 66 1 e t seg. ; 4 0 CF R 6.30 2 Descriptio n An y RCR A treatment , storage , o r disposa l facilit y whic h lie s withi n • 100-yea r floo d plai n mus t b e designed
, constructed
, an d operate d t o avoi d washou t RCR A regulation s specif y tha t th e placement o f non-containerize d o r bul k liqui d hazardou s wast e i s prohibited

. Are a mus t b e administere d i n suc h manne r a s wil l leav e i t unimpaired a s wildernes s an d t o preserv e it s wildness

. Onl y action s allowe d unde r th e provision s o f 1 6 US C Sectio n 66 8 DD(c ) ma y b e undertake n i n area s tha t are par t o f th e Nationa l Wildlif e Refug e System

. Diversion

, channelin g o r othe r activit y tha t modifie s a strea m o r rive r an d affect s fis h o r wildlif e i s prohibited

. ARA

R NotARA R

N o t ARA R
NotARA R
NotARA R

NotARA R Commen

t RCR A Hazardou s Waste s wil l no t b e treated
, stored
, o r dispose d o f o n site

. Hazardous wast e wil l no t b e place d withi n a n undergroun d mine , cave , o r sal t dome

. Propose d activitie s wil l no t adversel y affec t wildernes s areas

. Propose d activitie s wil l no t adversel y affec t wildlif e refug e areas

. Propose d activitie s wil l no t adversel y affec t nationa l wild
, scenic , o r recreationa l rivers

.EP A REGIO N Vi n SUPERFUN D DOCUMEN T MANAGEMEN T SYSTE M DO C I D # PAG E # IMAGER Y COVE R SHEE T UNSCANNABL E ITE M Contac t th e Superfim d Record s Cente r t o vie w thi s document

.

SIT E NAM E S

f OPERABL E UNI T

REPOR T O R DOCUMEN T TITLEfi^«iftrfJfriD < DAT E O F DOCUMEN T DESCRIPTIO N O F IMAGER Y

. 2 oP< M
NUMBE R AN D TYP E OF IMAGER Y ITEM(S) \