534693 STATE OF COLORADO

Roy Romer, Governor Patti Shwayder, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado

HAZARDOU S MATERIALS AN D WAST E MANAGEMEN T DIVISION http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/

4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232 prj—— ,

 n

 -—; Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Grand Junction , Colorado 81501 -2768 VXUOradO Uepartment Phone (303) 692-3300 Phone (970) 248-7164 of Public Health F ax (303) 759-5355 Fax (970) 248-7198 and Environment

November 10,1998 :,-,

Ms. Rebecca Thomas c:: ^ Remedial Project Manager ~~ ••

U.S. EPA, Region VIII, EPR-SR g ;

 :

 ° 999 18th Street, Suite 500 £5 ^ g Denver, Colorado 80202-2405 i: t; S

RE: State Concurrence on OU-9 Final Residential Soil s Feasibility Study (dated July 1998)

Dear Ms. Thomas:

The comments below reflect our remaining major issues and State ARARs deficiencies pertaining

to the final FS document.

T he followin g items remain FS issues of concern:

1. The text for Alternative 7 should be revised to more accurately reflect the current Kids First Program' s practice of accomodating the homeowner' s preferences as part

of the Kids First Work Group deliberative process of remedy selection. Typically , the

deliberative remedy selection process associated with Alternative 7 should be in

accordance with the property owner' s preference. In addition, the property owner

should full y understand any institutional controls that would be associated with

leaving wastes on his/her property.

2. Section 3.4.3.5 of the FS mentions various institutional controls such as land use

controls, deed restrictions, permitting, etc., that could be used as a separate remedial

alternative or as a component of various other remedial alternatives. However, the FS fail s to present an in-depth discussion of this issue. A more detailed discussion

of all the potential institutional controls is needed, especially a discussion of how

they would apply to remedial Alternative 7 (see previous comment). Such specifics

as: which institutional controls will be employed for the various alternatives, how

they will be employed, and by whom they will be employed should be full y

discussed. In order for the FS to adequately evaluate effectiveness, implementability,

and cost, this crucial issue should not be deferred until the design phase of the
remedial process. (Also see: CDPHE General Comment #2 in correspondence to

EPA dated May 28, 1996 on the Draft Residential Soil s FS and General Comment

#7 in correspondence dated January 8, 1997 on the Redraft of Alternatives 7a and

7b.) Also, please refer to EPA's Draft Reference Manual on Institutional Controls, March 1998, for early integration of institutional control considerations.

3. An on-site repository for the disposal of residential soils is mentioned, however,

there is no discussion of where the repository will be located. The specific location,

including size and a discussion of siting criteria should be included. Accordingly, State Solid Waste Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Site and Facilities

(6 CCR 1007-2) Sections 2 & 3 should be included as a potentially relevant and

appropriate ARAR.

4. The CDPHE, APCD, Regulation 19 is currently being evaluated as potentially

applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARAR) for lead-based paint abatements (i.e.,

remediations). The CDPHE, as you know, is currently actively working with EPA Region VIII lead-based paint program representatives to determine which elements

of this regulation may affect remedial activities in OU-9. Any issues in this context

will be resolved as soon as possible.

5. The CDPHE, APCD has identified the following ARARs that have been omitted,

in Section 2.4:

n Page 2-15. NAAOS - NAAQS apply because Colorado assesses air quality permits for

compliance with NAAQS. Although exempt from permit

administrative procedures, activities must comply with substantive

requirements.

2) Page 2-15 State Lead StandardThe Colorado ambient air quality standard for lead, contained in Regulation 8, applies to the site. The State standard is 1.5 ug/m3 as

a monthly average. This is more stringent than the lead NAAQS,

which is expressed as a quarterly average.

3^> Page 2-15. State TSP StandardsColorado has primary and secondary standards for Total Suspended
Particulate matter in ambient air. These may be found in the State

ambient air quality standards regulation. Both primary and secondary

standards apply.

4) Page 2-19. APEN RequirementThese work activities are not exempt from the requirement to file an APEN. Regulation 3, Part A, Section II, D, j states that the APEN

exemption is for: "Disturbance of surface areas for purposes of land

development, which do not exceed 25 contiguous acres and which do

not exceed six months in duration. (This does not include mining

operations or disturbance of contaminated soil)." Since these work

activities may involve the removal of contaminated soils, an APEN

must be filed.

5} Page 2-19. Regulation 1-

The text in section 2.4.5.2 indicates that an "air pollution control plan

will be prepared and submitted in the remedial design report",

therefore, Regulation 1 should be included in this section as an ARAR. The opacity standards in Regulation 1 would apply to these

activities.

6) Page 2-19. Regulation 2-

Regulation 2, odors, is an action-specific ARAR for any remedial

action because remedial actions cannot create odors that are in

violation. Although odor problems are unlikely for this remedial

activities, Regulation 2 should be included as an ARAR.

7) Table 2.1. Page 1 of 3-

T he NAAQS are ARARs. As Colorado permitting procedures assess NAAQS compliance for minor sources, the NAAQS apply to this

action.

T he Colorado standards for TSP and lead are also ARARs.

Table 2.1. Page 2 of 3-
An APEN must be filed, it will not be exempt.

Regulation 1 (opacity and dust control plans) and Regulation 2 (odors) are also applicable.

It is my understanding that, in order to facilitate schedule considerations, you intend to finalize the FS as soon as possible. Nevertheless, the CDPHE would hope that the EPA puts forth a concerted

effort to address these issues in the FS. The additional ARARs that have been identified could be

included as part of a final ARARs addendum to the FS. The CDPHE will expect that EPA also full y

address the above-listed comments in the Proposed Plan and ROD documents for OU-9, rather than

deferring institutional control issues to the design phase of the process.

If you have any questions, or wish to discuss these matters further, please don't hesitate in calling

me at (303)692-3382.

\

Russ Alien Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division

cc: Tom Hesemann, RMC Vicky Peters, CERCLA-AGO Jane Mitchell, DCEED Nancy, Chick, APCD