report "east helena superfund site east helena, montana third

Eas

T

st HeEa

Third

Envir

elena st Hele

FiveSepte

Unit

ronmenta

R

Supeena, Mo

‐Yearmber 2

ted State

al Protect

egion 8

erfunontana

r Rev011

s

tion Agen

nd Sita

view

cy

e

lhallaue

Text Box

1210484 - R8 SDMS

i

Table of Contents Section Page

List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1

Third Five-Year Review Summary Form ............................................................................................ 3

I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

II. Site Chronology ................................................................................................................... 2

III. Background .......................................................................................................................... 3

Location and Operable Units ................................................................................................................ 3

Land and Resource Use ....................................................................................................................... 4

History of Contamination ....................................................................................................................... 5

Initial Response ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Basis for Action ....................................................................................................................................... 7

IV. Remedial Actions ................................................................................................................. 8

Remedy Selection .................................................................................................................................. 8

Remedy Implementation ..................................................................................................................... 10

Institutional Controls ............................................................................................................................ 13

Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................................. 14

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ..................................................................... 14

VI. Five-Year Review Process ................................................................................................ 15

Administrative Components ................................................................................................................ 15

Community Notification and Involvement ......................................................................................... 15

Document Review ................................................................................................................................ 16

Data Review .......................................................................................................................................... 16

Site Inspection ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Interviews............................................................................................................................................... 17

VII. Technical Assessment ...................................................................................................... 18

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ..................... 18

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? ............................................. 19

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? ........................................................................................................... 20

ii

Table of Contents (Cont.) Section Page

Technical Assessment Summary ...................................................................................................... 20

VIII. Issues .................................................................................................................................. 22

IX. Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions ..................................................................... 24

X. Protectiveness Statement(s) ............................................................................................ 27

XI. Next Review ........................................................................................................................ 27

References ................................................................................................................................. 28

List of Tables

Third Five-Year Review Summary Form ................................................................................. ES-3 Table 1: Chronology of Site Events ............................................................................................. 2 Table 2: Blood-lead Testing Results ............................................................................................. 8 Table 3: Cleanup Levels by Land Use .......................................................................................... 9 Table 4: Completed Removal Actions by Land Use Categories ................................................. 11 Table 5: Remediation Required by Land Use ............................................................................. 11 Table 6: Actions Taken Since the Last Five-Year Review at OU1 .............................................. 15 Table 7: Remedial Action Objectives for OU2 ............................................................................ 21 Table 8: Issues ............................................................................................................................ 22 Table 9: Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions ................................................................... 24 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map of East Helena Figure 2 Site Remedy Status Map Figure 3 Trust Properties in East Helena Figure 4 Existing Land Use Map Figure 5 Proposed Institutional Controls Program Boundary List of Appendices Appendix A Five-Year Review Community Notification Appendix B Site Inspection Checklist Appendix C Interview Questions Appendix D Letter of Non-concurrence, Montana Department of Environmental Quality

iii

List of Acronyms

AOC Administrative Order on Consent ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements CD Consent Decree CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CMS Corrective Measures Study EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESD Explanation of Significant Differences FYR five-year review HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables IC Institutional Controls IEUBK Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokenetic model IRIS Integrated Risk Information System Lead Program Lead Education and Abatement Program µg/dL micrograms per deciliter MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality METG Montana Environmental Trust Group MPDES Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System mg/kg milligrams per kilogram NCP National Contingency Plan O&M Operations and Maintenance OU Operable Unit RAO Remedial Action Objective RBC risk-based concentration RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROD Record of Decision RPM Remedial Project Manager Site East Helena Superfund Site

ES‐1

Executive Summary

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region VIII has conducted a five-year review (FYR) of the remedial actions implemented at the East Helena Superfund Site (Site), Lewis and Clark County, Montana. The purpose of an FYR is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine whether the remedy at a site is or will be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports. In addition, FYR reports identify any issues or concerns found during the review, and provide recommendations to address them.

The East Helena Superfund Site includes areas of soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater contamination within the city of East Helena, as well as portions of Lewis and Clark County and Jefferson County. Contaminants of concern include lead and arsenic.

In 1987, EPA divided the Site into five operable units (OU):

OU1: Process Ponds and Fluids – including Lower Lake, the Speiss Granulating Pond and Pit, the Acid Plant Water Treatment Facility, former Thornock Lake, and the process fluids circuitry, all on the former smelter property.

OU2: Ground Water – both on the Asarco smelter property and that which emanates from the plant property.

OU3: Surface Soils, Surface Water, Vegetation, Livestock, Fish and Wildlife, and Air – including soil on the plant site, residential soil in East Helena and the Helena Valley, Prickly Pear Creek and Wilson Irrigation Ditch.

OU4: Slag Pile – including the approximately 49.8 acre slag pile (over 3.5 million cubic yards) and any contaminated soil under the slag pile on the former smelter property.

OU5: Ore Storage Area – including impacts to air, groundwater and surface water. Ore was stored outside until late 1990, when the ore storage building was completed.

A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in 1989 for OU1. The first Five-Year Review, East Helena Smelter Superfund Site, East Helena, Montana (USEPA, 1999) discussed activities of three main areas: process ponds, groundwater, and the remainder of the site.

Working from the OU designations of 1987, groundwater (OU2), surface water, such as Prickly Pear Creek (part of OU3), the slag pile (OU4) and the ore storage area (OU5) have not been addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), but deferred to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In 1998, a Consent Decree (1998 RCRA CD) (USEPA, 1998) issued between the United States Department of Justice and Asarco required Asarco to resolve major environmental compliance issues under the RCRA authority at the smelter property and its ancillary features, including the slag pile, former ore storage areas, Upper Lake, Lower Lake, Prickly Pear Creek and its riparian corridor, and groundwater.

Subsequently, EPA Region 8 changed the OU designations for the East Helena Superfund Site. Currently, EPA recognizes two OUs associated with the Superfund Site; these include OU1 – Process Ponds, and OU2 – Residential Soils and Undeveloped Lands.

ES‐2

The Second Five Year Review Report for the East Helena Superfund Site, East Helena, Montana (USEPA, 2006) focused on the Process Ponds (OU1) and included details regarding the remainder of the site in an appendix, because at that time, no other decision documents had been completed for the Site.

The ROD for OU2 (2009 OU2 ROD) (USEPA, 2009) was signed in 2009 and included certain Asarco-owned properties for cleanup consistent with the 2009 OU2 ROD. Those properties include Lamping Fields, the Dartman parcel, and the East Fields east of State Highway 518. The Superfund Program retained authority for the remediation of OU2, which includes non-smelter-property surface soils in the residential areas, irrigation ditches, rural developments, and surrounding undeveloped land. Final remedies for the remainder of the Asarco-owned lands are subject to the 1998 RCRA CD.

On June 5, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement Regarding the Montana Sites. The Settlement Agreement was between Asarco subsidiaries, the United States and the State of Montana. The Settlement Agreement provides for the transfer of the formerly owned Asarco properties to the Custodial Trust to be administered by the Custodial Trustee. The Custodial Trustee for the Montana properties is the Montana Environmental Trust Group (METG). As successor to Asarco, METG has assumed the responsibility for the corrective action cleanup as dictated in the 1998 RCRA CD. This includes all environmental compliance obligations of the 1990 Process Ponds CD (USEPA 1990) and the 2009 OU2 ROD for the former Asarco properties.

This third FYR Report focuses on OU2 and provides an update and status report for the other components within the Superfund site being cleaned up under RCRA authority.

The 1989 OU1 ROD remedy elements still apply and were transferred to RCRA authority in the 1998 RCRA CD. The remedy at OU1 is not protective because implementation of the ROD is incomplete. Completion of the RCRA investigations and identification and implementation of appropriate corrective actions are needed to ensure protectiveness for this OU.

The remedy at OU2 is under construction and is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.

ES‐3

East Helena Superfund Site

Third Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site name (from WasteLAN): East Helena Superfund Site

EPA ID (from WasteLAN): MTD006230346

Region: VIII State: MT City/County: East Helena/Lewis and Clark

SITE STATUS

NPL status: Final Deleted Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): Under Construction Operating

Complete

Multiple OUs?* YES NO Construction completion date:

Has site been put into reuse? YES NO

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: EPA State Tribe Other Federal Agency ______________________

Author name: Betsy Burns

Author title: Remedial Project Manager Author affiliation: EPA Region VIII

Review period:** 04 / 01 / 2011 to 09 / 30 / 2011

Date(s) of site inspection: 06/02/2011

Type of review: Post-SARA Pre-SARA NPL-Removal only

Non-NPL Remedial Action Site NPL State/Tribe-lead Regional Discretion

Review number: 1 (first) 2 (second) 3 (third) Other (specify) __________

Triggering action:

Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #____ Actual RA Start at OU#____

Construction Completion Previous Five-Year Review Report

Other (specify)

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 03 / 31 / 2006

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 03 / 31 / 2011

* [“OU” refers to operable unit.]

** [Review period should correspond to the actual start and end dates of the Five-Year Review in WasteLAN.]

ES‐4

Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont’d.

Issues: Affects Current Protectiveness

Affects Future Protectiveness

1 The prescribed standards for surface water in Lower Lake have not been met.

Yes Yes

2 The drying area between Upper and Lower Lakes has not been remediated.

Yes Yes

3 Groundwater monitoring wells have not been installed and performance standards for groundwater related to OU1 have not been established.

Yes Yes

4 Closure of the MDEQ AOC and the 1989 OU1 ROD is in process. The OU1 ROD is under review to confirm that the remedial actions pursuant to the 1989 OU1 ROD will be implemented under the 1998 RCRA CD.

Yes Yes

5 There are 73 properties (30 residential/commercial, 33 road aprons, 10 flood channels) that qualify for remedial action on which no action has been taken.

Yes Yes

6 Work Plan for Excavation and Removal of Residential Soils has not been updated to comply with the modifications to the 1991 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC).

Yes Yes

7 There is no Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the East Field repository.

Yes Yes

8 The most recent blood-lead level data is from 2008. Child blood-lead levels in East Helena were noted in the 2009 OU2 ROD as having a direct correlation to the success of the remedial actions.

Yes Yes

9 A comprehensive Institutional Controls program is not in place.

Yes Yes

10

The impacts of the former smelter facility do not stop at the county line. Jefferson County has not historically been included in site activities. Jefferson County and Lewis and Clark County will complete a Memorandum of Understanding (expected late 2011) in order to work cooperatively on the ICs.

Yes Yes

11

The Annual Reports include discussions of a Long-Term Monitoring program. The program is intended to monitor the potential for reintroduction of metals into post-removal soil throughout OU2. However, there is not a comprehensive document with the implementation, progress, historical results and future plans for the program available for review.

Yes Yes

12 The 2009 OU2 ROD notes the use of Best Agricultural Management Practices to reduce wind-borne contamination into residential areas. However, they do not exist in written form and ICs are not in place to implement these practices.

Yes Yes

13

Public perception/confusion around the cleanup priorities, METG intentions for future disposition of lands, funding sources and amounts, and concerns over recent flooding are some of the issues raised through the interview process for this FYR. While they do not directly impact the protectiveness of the remedy, they are noteworthy and should be addressed.

No No

ES‐5


14

The Remediation Status database is not governed by a management plan or quality control document. The database is not accessible by the Lead Program nor does a plan exist to transition the database to the Lead Program for future use.

No Yes

Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions: Issue Recommendation and

Follow-Up Actions Party

Responsible Milestone

Date Affects Current Protectiveness


1

Treat Lower Lake in the High Density Sludge facility until it reaches prescribed standards.

METG September

2013 Yes Yes

2 Remediate the area between Upper and Lower Lakes.

METG September

2013 Yes Yes

3

Install groundwater monitoring wells and establish performance standards for groundwater related to OU1.

EPA September

2012 Yes Yes

4

No action under CERCLA necessary. EPA and MDEQ’s RCRA program will manage the remedial needs.

EPA Ongoing Yes Yes

5 Complete soil removal activities on all eligible properties.

EPA October

2012 Yes Yes

6 Prepare comprehensive and updated Work Plan for Excavation and Removal of Residential Soils.

EPA June 2012 Yes Yes

7 Prepare O&M Plan for the East Field repository.

EPA March 2012

Yes Yes

8 Conduct child blood-lead level screening incentive event. Continue to offer screening as requested.

Lead Program December 2011 and ongoing

Yes Yes

9 Develop and implement a Comprehensive IC Program.

IC Stakeholders*

June 2012 Yes Yes

10

Include Jefferson County government and appropriate property owners in sampling, remediation, and IC programs.

EPA November

2011 Yes Yes

ES‐6


11

Formalize the Long-Term Monitoring program in a single document with the implementation, progress, historical results and future plans for the program.


12

Develop Best Agricultural Management Practices and include their use in the Comprehensive IC Program.

IC Stakeholders*

June 2012 Yes Yes

13

Host Public Meetings and Availability sessions, attend local government meetings, and publish fact sheets/newsletters to educate public on Site activities and METG involvement.

EPA October

2011 and ongoing

No No

14

Prepare a Data Management Plan for the Remediation database and transition the management of the database to the Lead Program.

Lead Program June 2012 No Yes

* IC Stakeholders include Lewis and Clark County, Jefferson County, City of East Helena, and the Lead Program.

Protectiveness Statement(s): The 1989 OU1 ROD remedy elements still apply and were transferred to RCRA authority in the 1998 RCRA CD. The remedy at OU1 is not protective because implementation of the ROD is incomplete. Completion of the RCRA investigations and identification and implementation of appropriate corrective actions are needed to ensure protectiveness for this OU. The remedy at OU2 is under construction and is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.

1

I. Introduction

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region VIII has conducted a five-year review (FYR) of the remedial actions implemented at the East Helena Superfund Site (Site), Lewis and Clark County, Montana (Figure 1). The purpose of a FYR is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in order to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports. In addition, FYR reports identify any issues or concerns found during the review and provide recommendations to address them.

The first Five-Year Review East Helena Smelter Superfund Site, East Helena, Montana (USEPA, 1999) discussed activities of three main areas: process ponds, groundwater, and the remainder of the site. The Second Five Year Review Report for the East Helena Superfund Site, East Helena, Montana (USEPA, 2006) focused on the Process Ponds - Operable Unit 1 (OU1) and included details regarding the remainder of the site in an appendix. This third FYR focuses on OU2 and provides an update and status report for the other components within the Superfund site that were deferred to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authority.

This review provides an opportunity for the new EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) to discuss the Site with other governmental agencies, the Montana Environmental Trust Group (METG), and other Site stakeholders in terms of the Site’s current activities, concerns, observations, and future goals.

The EPA has prepared this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §121 and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA §121 states:

“If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews.”

The EPA interpreted this requirement further in the NCP where 40 CFR §300.430(f)(4)(ii) states:

“If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.”

The EPA is the lead agency for this action and is conducting the FYR. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is the support agency for this review. The review was conducted from April 2011 through September 2011and is the third five-year review for the Site. The triggering action for this statutory third review is the signature date of the second review: March 31, 2006. This FYR is required because hazardous substances, pollutants, or

2

contaminants, e.g., lead and arsenic, remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

II. Site Chronology

Table 1 includes important events for the East Helena Superfund Site.

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event Date

Lead smelter operations began 1888

First blood-lead study 1975

Preliminary Assessment 1981

Site Inspection and Hazard Ranking System Package 1983

Placement on the National Priorities List 1984

Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for groundwater and surface water investigations and Endangerment Assessment

1984

1984 AOC Modification for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) (Process Ponds, OU1)

1987

RI/FS complete (Process Ponds, OU1) 1987

AOC for Comprehensive RI/FS (signed late December 1988) 1989

ROD signed, OU 1 – Process Ponds 1989

Comprehensive RI/FS complete 1990

Remedial Design, OU1 start 1990

Consent Decree (CD) for remedial design and remedial action pursuant to the OU1 ROD

1990

Action Memorandum and AOC for non-time critical removal actions of soil in residential areas and disposal at West and East Fields

1991

Non-time critical removal actions for soil removal start 1991 (ongoing)

Remedial Action, OU1, start 1992

1991 AOC Modification for several non-time critical removals 1992

Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), Process Ponds, OU1 1993

1991 AOC Modification for number of non-time critical removals 1993

Lead Education and Abatement Program established 1995

3

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events

Event Date

1991 AOC Modification to select only residences with children or expectant mothers for non-time critical removal actions

1996

CD, RCRA corrective actions for former smelter site and other Asarco-owned properties

1998

First five-year review (FYR) 1999

Smelter ceased operations 2001

1991 AOC Modification to select all residences above 1,000 mg/kg lead regardless of children/expectant mothers

2005

Asarco filed for bankruptcy (EPA filed a claim in the proceedings) 2006

Second FYR 2006

ROD signed, OU 2 – Residential Soils and Undeveloped Lands 2009

III. Background

Location and Operable Units

The East Helena Superfund Site includes areas of soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater contamination within the city of East Helena and portions of Lewis and Clark County and Jefferson County. Contaminants of concern include lead and arsenic.

In 1987, EPA divided the Site into five OUs:

OU1: Process Ponds and Fluids – including Lower Lake, the Speiss Granulating Pond and Pit, the Acid Plant Water Treatment Facility, former Thornock Lake, and the process fluids circuitry, all on the former smelter property.

OU2: Ground Water – both on the Asarco smelter property and that which emanates from the plant property.

OU3: Surface Soils, Surface Water, Vegetation, Livestock, Fish and Wildlife, and Air – including soil on the plant site, residential soil in East Helena and the Helena Valley, Prickly Pear Creek and Wilson Irrigation Ditch.

OU4: Slag Pile – including the approximately 49.8 acre slag pile (over 3.5 million cubic yards) and any contaminated soil under the slag pile on the former smelter property.

OU5: Ore Storage Area – including impacts to air, groundwater and surface water. Ore was stored outside until late 1990, when the ore storage building was completed.

4

A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in 1989 for OU1. The first Five-Year Review, East Helena Smelter Superfund Site, East Helena, Montana (USEPA, 1999) discussed activities of three main areas: process ponds, groundwater, and the remainder of the site.

Working from the OU designations of 1987, groundwater (OU2), surface water, such as Prickly Pear Creek (part of OU3), the slag pile (OU4) and the ore storage area (OU5) have not been addressed under the CERCLA authority, but deferred to the RCRA authority. In 1998, a Consent Decree (1998 RCRA CD) (USEPA, 1998) issued by between the United States Department of Justice and Asarco required Asarco to resolve major environmental compliance issues under the RCRA authority at the smelter property and its ancillary features, including the slag pile, former ore storage areas, Upper Lake, Lower Lake, Prickly Pear Creek and its riparian corridor, and groundwater.

Subsequently, EPA Region 8 changed the OU designations for the East Helena Superfund Site. Currently, EPA recognizes two OUs associated with the Superfund Site; these include OU1 – Process Ponds, and OU2 – Residential Soils and Undeveloped Lands.

The ROD for OU2 (2009 OU2 ROD) (USEPA, 2009) was signed in 2009 and included certain Asarco-owned properties for cleanup consistent with the 2009 OU2 ROD. Those properties include Lamping Fields, the Dartman parcel, and the East Fields east of State Highway 518. The Superfund Program retained authority for the remediation of OU2, which includes non-smelter-property surface soils in the residential areas, irrigation ditches, rural developments, and surrounding undeveloped land. Final remedies for the remainder of the Asarco-owned lands are subject to the 1998 RCRA CD.

On June 5, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement Regarding the Montana Sites. The Settlement Agreement was between Asarco subsidiaries, the United States and the State of Montana. The Settlement Agreement provides for the transfer of the formerly owned Asarco properties to the Custodial Trust to be administered by the Custodial Trustee. The Custodial Trustee for the Montana properties is the METG. As successor to Asarco, METG has assumed the responsibility for the corrective action cleanup as dictated in the 1998 RCRA CD. This includes all environmental compliance obligations of the 1990 Process Ponds CD and the 2009 OU2 ROD for the former Asarco properties.

Figure 2 illustrates the RCRA corrective action units. Figure 3 identifies the METG Properties; formerly owned by Asarco.

Land and Resource Use

Land use includes the former smelter facility, lands owned by the METG (formerly Asarco-owned properties), and residential, agricultural, recreational/open space, and commercial properties.

According to the 2009 OU2 ROD and confirmed during this FYR Site inspection, current land uses include established residential areas and commercial businesses, newer residential subdivisions and acreage home sites, agricultural lands and open spaces, and industrial facilities (primarily the former Asarco smelter and American Chemet plant).

The EPA reasonably anticipates that existing residential properties will remain residential and that new residential subdivisions may be developed on land that is currently agricultural or

5

undeveloped, while some agricultural lands will remain agricultural. The East Fields have been used as a repository for contaminated soil; consequently, future development there will be restricted. Figure 4 shows current land use for the Site.

The METG responsibilities for this Site are primarily focused on the management of RCRA and CERCLA obligations on trust-owned lands that include the current repository for the contaminated soil.

History of Contamination

Smelting operations at the Site began in 1888. Concerns of contamination led the State of Montana to initiate environmental and human health investigations in the early 1970’s that revealed high levels of lead, arsenic, cadmium, copper and zinc in the air, soil, surface water, and dust in and around East Helena. The sources of this contamination were found to include the smelter stack, fugitive emissions from plant operations, process ponds, and direct surface water discharges. Historically, the mode of transport for the contaminants was air and surface water. The smelter closed in 2001, reducing the airborne source of contamination.

Initial Response

The 1989 ROD and subsequent Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) in 1993 detailed the remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environment with regards to OU1. Pursuant to the ROD and ESD, the actions listed below were completed as reported in the second FYR. The second FYR identified outstanding issues with some of the OU1 remedy components and those are discussed further in Section V, entitled “Progress Since the Last Review” of this FYR. The following are some of the progress points of note:

The Lower Lake was replaced with two large steel tanks, acting as the plant’s primary holding facility for process waters.

Instead of treating Lower Lake water in place, water is treated in the High Density Sludge Water Treatment Plant, constructed in 1994. The plant met MPDES effluent requirements that are different from the ROD. The results of this treatment are unknown. RCRA investigations are still ongoing.

The ESD changed the remedy for the saturated sediments in the area between Upper and Lower Lake to include excavation and smelting after the same had been completed for Lower Lake sludge and sediment. As of the second FYR, the remedy had not been completed for Upper Lake, Lower Lake, or the area between.

The ESD required that monitoring wells be installed no later than July 1, 1993 in order to monitor for compliance with performance standards. As of the second FYR, some monitoring wells have been installed, but no performance standards have been set for groundwater.

A storm water collection tank was constructed in 1997, discharge of which is permitted through the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) program.

The Speiss Granulating Pond was replaced with a containment facility in 1995.

The Speiss Granulating Pit was demolished in 1995 and concurrent changes in the smelting process negated the need for the concrete pit.

6

Contaminated soils in and near the Speiss Granulating Pond and Pit were excavated and smelted onsite; this was completed in 1995.

The settling dumpsters and pond associated with the Acid Plant Water Treatment facility were replaced with a closed circuit filtration treatment system in 1992 and demolished in 1993.

The former Thornock Lake was replaced with a containment facility in 1991.

The 1990 Comprehensive Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS) included the results of investigations on every portion of the site, including OU1. This RI showed that slag did not have significant impacts to groundwater, surface water, or air quality. The study concludes that no action is necessary for remediation of the slag pile. However, subsequent investigations under RCRA authority have determined that there is a minimal risk associated with the slag pile and it is being evaluated as part of the RCRA Corrective Measures Study (CMS).

As noted in the 1990 Comprehensive RI/FS, ore was stored outdoors until late 1990 at which time the ore storage building was built for the purpose of reducing airborne lead particulates. In 1991, after the completion of the RI and an endangerment assessment, the EPA and Asarco signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) (USEPA, 1991b) to begin a non-time critical removal action for lead- and arsenic-contaminated soil. The 1991 AOC is the guiding document for the soil removal actions in the area now known as OU2.

Properties were subdivided into sections, and if any section had lead in soil above 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), the property was eligible for removal of the contaminated soil1. The removal actions initially focused on properties within close proximity to the smelter site that had children present, including daycares and schools. Now, however, all properties with elevated lead levels (and arsenic2 above 100 mg/kg) in soil are on the “cleanup list.” Soil is excavated to a depth of 12 to 18 inches and replaced with non-contaminated backfill soil and cover as appropriate. Contaminated soil is disposed of at the East Fields repository.

The removal actions are being conducted pursuant to the Work Plan for Excavation and Removal of Residential Soils, East Helena, Montana (Residential Work Plan) (Hydrometrics, Inc., 1991). The Residential Work Plan is incorporated by reference to the 1991 AOC. In both 1992 and 1993, the scope of the AOC increased as additional properties were identified for cleanup. The 1992 AOC Modification also specified requirements for backfill soils, changed the sampling strategy from a 3-point to a 5-point composite per section, and extended the boundaries of the focus area and type of properties eligible for cleanup (e.g., added Wilson Ditch). The 1993 AOC Modification also included the implementation of a pilot project for disposal of contaminated soils in the East Field.

The Third Modification of the Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action, East Helena Soils (USEPA, 1996) further modified the scope of the 1991 Residential Work Plan as follows: “…residential yards with a soil lead concentration greater than 1,000 mg/kg will be removed and replaced when a child who is 83 months of age or younger resides at that property year-round, or when a woman residing at that property year-round is expecting a baby. Other residential yards with elevated soil lead concentrations will not be removed or replaced, except in special

1 If a section of a residential yard exceeds 1,000 mg/kg lead, all sections of the yard with concentrations of lead exceeding 500 mg/kg will be cleaned up. This is described as a cleanup level of 1,000/500 mg/kg lead. 2 The 2009 OU2 ROD identified arsenic as a contaminant of concern and established a cleanup level for arsenic that is independent of lead.

7

circumstances as determined by EPA in consultation with the State and County.” The 2005 modification to the 1991 AOC stated that the 1996 protocol is no longer cost-effective and any remaining residential properties with soil lead levels above the 1,000 mg/kg action level are eligible for cleanup.

The Lead Education and Abatement Program (Lead Program) was established in 1995. The Lead Program focuses on lead education, health intervention, blood screening, institutional controls (IC), environmental assessment and sampling, and multi-pathway lead abatement. The Lead Program’s activities are mainly governed by a cooperative agreement with EPA and the Lead Advisory Committee. The Lead Advisory Committee is comprised of stakeholders (EPA, MDEQ, Lewis and Clark County, the removal contractor, City of East Helena, Jefferson County, local redevelopers) of the Lead Program and meets monthly to discuss current issues, specific residential yards as needed, and provides updates for the different aspects of the Lead Program. EPA has historical “work plans” that include a bullet list of goals and a year-end report identifying the goals that have been met. The Lead Program has reporting requirements to both the Lewis and Clark County Health Department and EPA. Until 2009, the program was funded directly by Asarco. MDEQ provided funding in 2010 through a Cooperative Agreement with the EPA. Currently, the program is funded in a five year Cooperative Agreement between the EPA and Lewis and Clark County, totaling approximately $1 million.

Basis for Action

The 1989 OU1 ROD provided extensive justification for remedial action on the former smelter facility. Most of the OU1 remedial work under CERCLA has been completed, with a few issues, such as the acid plant sediment drying pad, to be addressed under RCRA. Further discussion of the progress made since the last FYR is included in Section V.

The 2009 OU2 ROD provided the following supportive reasons for the remedial actions at OU2.

Exposure to high concentrations of lead is known to cause behavioral problems and learning disabilities in children. Exposure to arsenic has been linked to an increase of skin and lung cancers in adults. Early in the history of the Site, the EPA found lead levels in soil to be in excess of 8,000 mg/kg and arsenic levels as high as 218 mg/kg. Later soil samples from residential yards presented lead levels greater than 27,000 mg/kg and arsenic present above 3,100 mg/kg.

A common test utilized to demonstrate exposure to lead is to measure the level of lead in a person’s blood. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the EPA have determined that a blood-lead level above 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (µg/dL) can cause negative health effects, primarily in children.

The East Helena Superfund Site has maintained a goal of blood-lead levels at or below 4 µg/dL for 95 percent or more of the children. The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, in conjunction with the CDC, began testing the level of lead in children’s blood in 1983. In 1995, 55% of those tested had blood-lead levels above 4 µg/dL. Only 5 percent of the children tested in 2008 had blood-lead levels above 4 µg/dL. Table 2 summarizes the history of blood-lead testing results at the Site for children up to 72 months old. The next blood-lead screening event for the community is tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2011. The EPA and the Lead Program will re-evaluate the new data when available.

8

Table 2: Blood-lead Testing Results

Year Number Mean

µg/dL Number Number Number Number Number

Screened Non-Detect 1-4 µg/dL

5-9 µg/dL

10 –15 µg/dL

16-25 µg/dL

1995 82 5.6 0 37 38 7 0 1996 95 4.3 0 60 31 5 0 1997 89 5.6 0 48 28 11 2 1998 137 3.9 0 100 30 5 2 1999 66 6.6 1 25 37 5 0 2000 190 3.7 30 110 45 6 0 2001 135 2.4 34 88 13 0 0 2002 44 2 18 26 0 0 0 2003 208 1.7 86 116 6 0 0 2004 123 2.4 12 104 7 0 0 2005 10 0.75 7 3 0 0 0 2006 115 1.3 55 58 2 0 0 2007 9 1.6 2 7 0 0 0 2008 170 2 27 134 7 2 0

IV. Remedial Actions

This third FYR includes a complete history of the non-time critical removal actions in OU2. The Site history through 2009 has been extracted from the 2009 OU2 ROD. The actions of the last three years (2009, 2010, and 2011) were obtained through document review and Site interviews.

Remedy Selection

The selected remedy for OU2 includes the removal of lead and arsenic contaminated soil immediately available for human contact, placement of contaminated soil in an EPA-approved repository, cleanup of undeveloped lands as land use changes, and ICs to protect the integrity of the completed actions. The remedial actions at OU2 are generally consistent with the removal actions that began in 1991. Elevated levels of these contaminants remain on certain properties and at depths that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, necessitating five-year reviews.

As stated in the 2009 OU2 ROD, the Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for OU2 are as follows:

Continue to have no child in the East Helena area exhibit a blood-lead concentration greater than 10 µg/dL.

Continue the Lead Program and continue to seek ways to improve its effectiveness and outreach.

Maintain 95 percent or more of the children at or below 4 µg/dL blood-lead and the average blood-lead concentration for area children at a level less than the national average for children less than seven years old.

9

Prevent direct contact/ingestion with soil having contaminant concentrations in excess of cleanup levels within existing residential areas.

Prevent recontamination of areas already cleaned up; Minimize wind-borne migration of lead into residential areas; Minimize lead and arsenic exposures to livestock and wildlife. Prevent direct contact/ingestion with soil having concentrations in excess of cleanup

levels within undeveloped lands that may be used by workers or recreational visitors. Ensure that soil lead and arsenic concentrations do not exceed established cleanup

levels within undeveloped areas that are proposed for future residential development.

Table 3 details the lead and arsenic cleanup levels for specific land uses.

Table 3: Cleanup Levels by Land Use Land Use Lead (mg/kg) Arsenic (mg/kg)

Existing Residential (including non-yard features either in or adjacent to

residential areas) 1,000/500 100

Undeveloped Commercial Use (farm, ranch, irrigation)

1,482 572

Recreational Visitors 3,245 794 Future Residential 500 100

Elements of the selected remedy for OU2 include the following:

On a residential property, where any section of a yard is found to have a soil lead concentration greater than 1,000 mg/kg, all portions of the yard with soil lead levels greater than 500 mg/kg will also be cleaned up. Where the yard-wide average soil arsenic concentration exceeds 100 mg/kg, the entire yard will be cleaned up. Arsenic was not evaluated independently of lead during the removal actions. The arsenic cleanup level added three (3) residences to the cleanup list that do not have elevated lead in the soil.

Unpaved streets, aprons, alleys, historic irrigation ditches, water-spreading channels and portions of the railroad right-of-ways that are either in or adjacent to residential areas with lead levels greater than 1,000 mg/kg or arsenic levels greater than 100 mg/kg will be cleaned up.

For undeveloped areas that are proposed for residential development in the future, soil lead and arsenic concentrations shall not exceed 500 mg/kg lead or 100 mg/kg arsenic. Use-specific lead and arsenic cleanup levels will be applied to undeveloped lands proposed for future commercial or recreational use, which may be achieved through excavation, in-place treatment, or capping.

Soil from excavated areas will be replaced with clean topsoil, revegetated and landscaped, and the contaminated soil will be disposed of in an EPA-approved soil repository (e.g., East Fields).

The continued cleanup of properties is presently performed through funding from the Asarco Prepetition Environmental Trust, established before Asarco’s bankruptcy petition. These funds will be used for continued cleanup actions at Asarco properties until the money is spent. EPA is confident that there is enough money available to complete the remaining existing residential properties with this fund.

10

ICs are necessary when a selected remedy leaves contamination at a site above cleanup levels. The remedy for OU2 leaves properties with contamination to be evaluated at the time of land use changes, and contamination at depth or under sidewalks, foundations, etc. on certain properties. ICs such as zoning regulations, deed restrictions, easements, permits, best management practices, and public education serve to limit use of reclaimed areas to acceptable activities or guide behavior to avoid exposure to lead that may exceed health-based levels.

Remedy Implementation

For Site components other than those included in OU2, there have been no remedial actions since the second FYR. Information regarding the current status of the RCRA actions was provided by the EPA RPM. At this time, some of the key RCRA documents are still being developed and not available for public review. Under RCRA authority, a Phase I RCRA Facility Investigation was completed in 2003, and currently a Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation is in progress. The METG has begun a RCRA CMS for the former Asarco-owned lands, focusing on the former smelter facility. The CMS will identify and evaluate alternatives to prevent or mitigate the continuing migration of or future release of contaminants and restore contaminated media to acceptable standards. Details of outstanding issues noted in the second FYR Report and proceedings under RCRA authority are detailed in following sections.

In 1991, non-time critical removal actions for the residential properties began pursuant to the AOC (USEPA, 1991b). Early in the Site’s history, the EPA estimated that approximately half of the yards, playgrounds, and parks in East Helena would require remedial action. As the Site activities progressed through annual sampling and AOC modifications and updates, the number of properties varied and increased. Therefore, the EPA is currently unable to tabulate a total number of parcels that required remediation from 1991. The cost estimate in the 2009 OU2 ROD was based on the estimated number of parcels remaining to be remediated at the time of the ROD.

Table 4 summarizes the completed removal/remedial actions by land use categories. The numbers were obtained from the East Helena Residential Soils Removal Action 2010 Year End Report (Zanetti Bros., Inc., June 2011). The discrepancies in the tallies between the annual Year End Reports, the 2009 OU2 ROD, and the remediation database are due to the way different reporting mechanisms for different land uses are consolidated. The actual number of properties requiring and receiving removal actions vary each year partly because additional properties are sampled each year. For example, 51 additional properties were sampled in 2010 as new owners request the sampling, others who may have been unwilling to participate in the program have changed their minds, or children are now present in the homes. The list of unsampled properties and current lead levels of un-remediated properties is managed through the Lead Program, supported by the Remediation database, and properties with levels of lead or arsenic above cleanup goals are placed on the remediation list.

The remoas of Julythat reporevieweddiscrepain the soremainin

The bounCounty. and Lew2011) in

The Leador routinemethodicand re-coand the rnew occuownersh

For examhistoricalProgramProgramconcentrthere are

Table

oval actions y 13, 2011.

orted in the 2d each parcencies. Thesil that exceeg to be reme

PrReFlRo

ndaries of OJefferson Cis and Clarkorder to wor

d Program aely visiting pcally go throuontact each removal conupants (examip.

mple, earlier lly denied ac representat representat

rations in thee no other pr

e 4: Comple

continue todThis numbe

2010 Annualel identified ise propertieseds the cleanediated as o

Table 5

roperty Ownesidential/Coood Channeoad Apron

OU2 include pCounty has nk County will rk cooperativ

and the remoroperties witugh the list oproperty owtractor periomple below)

this year, reccess. The ptive noted thtive then cone soils, and oroperties kno

eted Remov

day, with aner of properti Report. Inn the 2010 A

s have been nup levels. Tof July 13, 20

: RemediatiLand Use

ner Refuses ommercial el

portions of Lot historicallcomplete a

vely on the I

oval contractth known coof properties

wner. Since todically drive) or confirm w

emediation wproperty had

here were chntacted the pobtained theown to need

11

al Actions b

estimated 1ies still requJuly 2011, t

Annual Reposampled in

Table 5 deta011.

ion Require

Remediation

Tota

Lewis and Clly been incluMemorandunstitutional C

tor work togeontaminations requiring rethe list is rela

e by the propwith the prop

was completed recently chhildren preseproperty own owners agrremediation

by Land Us

135 propertieiring remedihe EPA remort and correthe past and

ails the numb

ed by Land Numbe

n

al

lark County,uded in site aum of UnderControls.

ether to ens. In the pas

emediation, iatively smal

perty to evaluperty owner

ed on one phanged owneent (toys notener, informereement to an with childre

se Categorie

es still requiation differs

moval contracected databad have lead ber of qualify

Use er of Proper

9 30 10 33 82

, East Helenactivities. Jerstanding (ex

sure no childst, the partiesincluding thol now, the Leuate whethethat is has n

property fromership and ted in the yard them of th

allow remedien living the

es

ring remedia slightly fromctor manualase and/or arseying propert

rties

na, and Jeffeefferson Couxpected late

ren are livins would ose with refuead Programer it may havnot changed

m which EPAthe Lead rd). The Lea

he elevated liation. Currere.

ation m ly

enic ies

erson unty e

g at

usals, m ve d

A was

ad ead ently,

12

The Remediation database is managed by the METG’s contractor. The removal contractor and the Lead Program receive the database on compact disk and can query or otherwise view the data, but are unable to alter the data. The removal contractor submits property status updates and suggestions for corrections to a third-party independent contractor who also uploads analytical data, enters pertinent information and validates the data. The third-party contractor corrects any discrepancies reported by the Lead Program or the removal contractor.

In 2009, the Lead Advisory Committee implemented a program to sample targeted remaining residential properties in an effort to bring closure to the removal program. The Lead Advisory Committee reviewed figures showing historical data results and determined appropriate locations and frequency of future sampling both within East Helena (100 percent of remaining properties) and outlying areas (only 10-20 percent of remaining properties). The locations were selected based on known lead concentrations in the surrounding areas (neighborhoods close to the smelter) or if there were areas where limited sampling is available but the potential for lead contamination is low (outlying areas). The Lead Program then contacted property owners, obtained access agreements, and sampled. This focused study, in addition to residential requests, is what builds the database to identify future remedial needs.

The Lead Program also provides voluntary children’s blood-lead level screening for those less than 72 months of age. They will screen any age; however, the focus is on those under six years old. The last community screening event was held in 2008, with another being planned for 2011. The Lead Program offers the blood screening to anyone requesting it at no cost. The Lead Program also urges parents to have their children tested during routine doctor visits. In 2011, the Lead Program will offer their “community incentive testing” event by offering $20 and a large pizza to every child tested. They have been unable to host such events since 2008 due to uncertain funding sources and the Asarco bankruptcy. However, this does not mean there have been no children tested, as doctor’s offices and the County Health Department do not report any testing to the Lead Program.

There are 20 years of annual reports for the removal/remedial actions for the residential and undeveloped lands of the Site. Each report provides a cumulative summary table of property completions, a table of annual completions, street addresses, start and finish dates, pre- and post- property sampling results, activities at the East Fields, a discussion of the Long-Term Monitoring program, pre- and post- sampling and remediation figures for each property cleaned that year, and a narrative of the cumulative history of the removal actions to date. Table 4 above illustrates the completed removal actions by land use category and is compiled from these annual reports.

The East Field is approximately 225 acres in area and is the repository for the contaminated soil removed from OU2 properties. Soils of differing estimated lead concentrations are blended together to achieve a soil layer of approximately 12 inches thick with an average lead concentration of below 1,000 mg/kg. The 1993 modification to the 1991 AOC (USEPA 1993b) governs the management of the East Fields. Currently, there is a fence and signage limiting access to the property.

The Annual Reports include discussions of a Long-Term Monitoring Program. This program is intended to monitor the potential for reintroduction of metals into post-removal soil throughout OU2. However, no document was identified with the implementation, progress, historical results and future plans for the program available for review. This is a concern and is noted in further detail in Section VIII of this third FYR. This quality assurance program is mostly managed by the Lead Advisory Committee.

13

Institutional Controls

ICs are necessary components of any remedy in which waste materials will remain onsite at levels above unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

Section 12 of the 2009 OU2 ROD describes the intent of the IC program and provides guidance and suggestions on specific ICs that may be applicable to the Site. Such suggestions include local regulations to prevent or reduce recontamination of areas that have already been cleaned up, coordination of planning and zoning efforts, local use and permitting requirements, management of the soils repository, deed notices, easements, public education, Best Agricultural Management Practices (e.g., minimal tilling and burning), and continuation of the Lead Program.

The EPA consulted with the coordinators of the Lead Program, members of the East Helena IC Work Group (Federal, state, and local governments, their contractors, and local developers), and the Division Administrator for the Lewis and Clark City/County Health Department regarding the current status and future objectives for the East Helena Site ICs Program. The EPA routinely attends the IC Work Group meetings, and some information from those meetings was used in support of this FYR Report.

The Lead Program is the cornerstone for the current IC program and for the future IC and O&M programs. Started in 1995, the Lead Program provides Environmental Assessments to residential properties, education to realtors and prospective purchasers, outreach to new residents through pre-natal and new mother packets at St. Peter’s Hospital, blood-lead testing, and soil and water testing. It also acts as a liaison between the property owners and the remedial contractor, the EPA, and the State in addressing comments or concerns. As the remediation nears completion, the Lead Program is changing focus from remediation oversight to implementation and enforcement of ICs and O&M.

The East Helena IC Work Group recognizes the need to establish additional ICs, including those with enforcement authority, to create a comprehensive IC Program. The Work Group members are working towards integrating the existing IC measures into a comprehensive program that will include the cities of East Helena and Helena, Lewis and Clark County, and Jefferson County. The EPA has provided both the City of East Helena and Lewis and Clark County with funding to assist with IC Program development efforts. Both governments currently employ consulting firms to help guide this process. Components of the IC Program under development for both the City of East Helena and Lewis and Clark County are expected to include:

Development of a Geographic Information System layer identifying the “area of interest” for soils management, to include the City of East Helena and surrounding portions of Lewis and Clark County and Jefferson County

Web-based public access to property contamination and status information

Modification of city building permits, zoning policies, and East Helena’s growth policy

UDig (a One Call underground utilities location tool)

Deed notices

Best management options for cleanup during property development

14

Repository management

Memorandums of Understanding between Lewis and Clark County, the City of East Helena, and Jefferson County for administrative and enforcement authorities

Subdivision regulations for the City of East Helena

City excavation permits.

Figure 5 illustrates the proposed administrative boundary for the IC Program. EPA and MDEQ are providing oversight of the IC development. EPA will have approval authority of the ICs, as they are part of the remedy detailed in the ROD. It is anticipated that the first phase of the IC program will be in place by the end of 2011. The Lead Program will continue to receive funding from the special account established for East Helena as a result of the 2009 Asarco bankruptcy.

Operations and Maintenance

The second FYR Report did not include a discussion of O&M activities for OU1. Currently there is a water treatment plant on the smelter property operating with a MPDES permit for storm water discharge. There are two Corrective Action Management Units (onsite landfill) in use for contaminant disposal, under RCRA jurisdiction.

There are no O&M activities defined for OU2. The 2009 OU2 ROD does not directly address O&M requirements, stating all future management will occur through ICs, including long-term management of the East Field repository.

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

The second FYR offers the following protectiveness statement for OU1:

“The remedy as implemented is not yet fully protective of human health and the environment.”

Asarco filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on August 9, 2005. In 2009, the METG acquired responsibility to manage and remediate lands formerly owned by Asarco. The METG is focused on completing investigations, initializing interim actions and defining final corrective measures under RCRA authority. Currently the RCRA Phase II Facility Investigation is under review as an internal draft document and EPA and MDEQ are scoping the Corrective Measures Study. The EPA RPM reported that investigations and storm water management and treatment continue on the former smelter property. Table 6 provides the list of issues identified for OU1 in the second FYR and the current status of each.

15

Table 6: Actions Taken Since the Last Five-Year Review at OU1 Issues from the

second FYR Recommendations/ Follow-up Actions

Party Responsible

Milestone Date

Action Taken and Outcome

Date of

ActionThe prescribed standards for surface water in Lower Lake have not been met.

Lower Lake should be treated in the High Density Sludge facility until it reaches prescribed standards.

Formerly Asarco (now METG)

2006 No action to date. RCRA investigation continues.

N/A

The drying area between Upper and Lower Lakes has not been remediated.

The area between Upper and Lower Lakes should be remediated.

Formerly Asarco (now METG)

2007 No action to date. RCRA investigation continues.

N/A

Install monitoring wells to monitor performance compliance.


EPA 2006 No action to date. RCRA investigation continues.

N/A

No further remedial action has occurred on OU1 since 2006. The METG continues RCRA investigations on the former smelter property. At the time of this third FYR, investigation documents (including the Phase II RCRA Facility Investigation Report and the Corrective Measures Study) are in draft form and are not available for review.

The second FYR Report did not include a discussion of OU2. All progress for OU2 has been discussed in prior sections of this third FYR Report.

VI. Five-Year Review Process

Administrative Components

Through periodic meetings and personal communication, the EPA has notified stakeholders of the FYR process. The review team consisted of the former RPM – Scott Brown, the new RPM – Betsy Burns, EPA’s Community Involvement Coordinator – Wendy Thomi, the MDEQ Project Manager – Daryl Reed, and the EPA’s contractor – Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd. This review began on April 14, 2011 with a completion date of September 30, 2011.

Community Notification and Involvement

The EPA placed an ad in the Helena Independent Record newspaper on May 11, 2011. The advertisement is included as Appendix A of this third FYR Report. The ad announced the start of the five-year review process, identified the team members, and provided opportunities for public involvement and comment. The EPA and their contractor attended meetings (e.g., Lead Advisory Committee and East Helena ICs Workgroup on June 8, 2011) and interviewed

16

stakeholders and residents for this report. The EPA will place another display ad upon the completion of the third FYR Report.

Document Review

The References Section of this report lists all of the Site-specific documents reviewed for the compilation of this third FYR Report. These documents provide the EPA with information critical to the accuracy of the report, including: guidance on the format of the Report, background information for the Site, RAOs and cleanup levels for OU2, and clarification on the RCRA authority for non-OU2 properties. Additionally, the Lead Program provided blood-lead level data and Program costs, and the removal contractor provided cleanup statistics for recent years.

Data Review

See the References Section for a complete list of documents and data reviewed. Annual reports are available for removal actions in OU2. Actions completed pursuant to RCRA and associated data for OU1 are still in confidential draft form and are not available for public review.

The Lead Program has read-only capabilities for the remediation status database. The removal contractor working with an independent database contractor manages the remediation database, which includes those properties left to be sampled. The Lead Program requests data from the removal contractor in order to select properties for sampling or remediation. The Lead Program manages the blood-lead screening database.

There are noted discrepancies between the annual reports and the database. The discrepancies have been rectified or explained through tally inconsistencies or other categorization issues. The discrepancies have not been data related rather they are “counting” issues with classifications of properties (e.g., multiple residences on a single parcel).

Through the review process conducted by the removal contractor and the Lead Program, the database stays current and accurate. However, it is not known whether a data management plan, quality control process, or transition plan to transfer the database to the Lead Program for IC management exist.

Site Inspection

The Site inspection was conducted on June 2, 2011 and included Ms. Betsy Burns, EPA’s RPM, Ms. Catherine LeCours, EPA’s contractor from Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd., and Ms. Alicia Voss, METG. Site conditions observed during the inspection included area flooding from rain. As a result of the weather, certain Site activities, such as soil removal, were not taking place during the inspection. The Site inspection focused on the former Asarco-owned property and interviews with members of the METG. In order to augment the collective information on current Site conditions, Ms. LeCours visited the accessible portions of OU2 and relevant agency offices (e.g., the Lead Program) on later dates. The Site Inspection Checklist (USEPA, 2001) is provided as Appendix B of this document.

Other than significant water and flooding potential noted as being actively managed by the inspectors, no issues or concerns were raised during the inspection.

17

Interviews

The EPA RPM, Community Involvement Coordinators, and PWT personnel conducted Site interviews with the EPA, state and local government personnel, the Lead Program coordinators, representatives of the METG, the removal contractor, and private citizens. A list of the general questions that were asked is included in Appendix C. A summary of the interview results follow.

The overall impression of the project is very good. The current removal contractor was praised for competent attention to detail, strength of working relationships with agencies and other stakeholders, and public relations with residents. The Lead Program coordinators are viewed as members of the community and trusted liaisons for the Site activities. They clearly function as the backbone of the continuing success of the Lead Program. All parties noted the Lead Program’s importance and value for the success of the Site activities and the protection of human health: past, present and future.

Those interviewed consistently urged frequent and transparent communication between EPA, stakeholders and the general public. While most individuals feel well-informed of the activities and progress at the site, a few of the non-federal government agency representatives expressed a desire for more consultation and direct involvement in the decision-making process. Regular meetings of the East Helena IC Work Group, the Lead Advisory Committee, and the East Helena Entire Cleanup Team in Coordination (quarterly meeting of persons interested in any aspect of the Site) are well attended and noted as important contributors in maintaining ongoing communications. Stakeholders were also encouraged by the EPA’s transition to a single EPA manager for the entire East Helena Site, combining RCRA and CERCLA authorities under one project manager.

The residents who were interviewed noted that most of their knowledge of the Site came from reading the paperwork that came with the cleanup. Property values have increased due to the aesthetic difference the cleanup has made for some residences. One noted the positive impact other community members had on his decision to voluntarily become involved with the project. Knowledgeable members of the community encourage and educate others on the process and urge neighbors to get involved and have their property tested.

The MDEQ did not concur with the 2009 OU2 ROD. A letter regarding this subject, dated September 15, 2009 from the State of Montana to the EPA, is provided as Appendix D. This letter states that the State believes the cleanup level should be 500 mg/kg lead in soil and not only if a “trigger” level of 1,000 mg/kg lead is present on the property. According to the state’s calculations shared during an interview, there may be as many as 300 additional properties requiring cleanup based on a trigger and action level of 500 mg/kg lead. The State’s letter quotes EPA’s October 2008 regulatory impact analysis of its proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, which suggests that 10 µg/dL is not low enough to protect the health of children. The State also indicated during their interview that the State does not support blood-lead levels as an indicator, and that position is consistent with EPA guidance and policy. The State also indicated the blood-lead levels used to support the 2009 OU2 ROD may only represent 20 percent of the children under the age of seven living in East Helena, and some of those samples were not collected at an appropriate time in the year. According to the State, individual lead levels in blood are representative of approximately the previous 30 days of exposure. Therefore, testing in October does not capture a late-summer potential for high lead exposure to children. The State also suggests that long-term protectiveness is questionable when relying only on ICs and public education. In addition, DEQ is concerned about the possible exposure from attic dust in East Helena residences. The 2009 ROD explained how

18

interior dust issues would be dealt with through education to homeowners on how to minimize exposure. DEQ notes that other mining smelter communities (like Butte and Anaconda) have established a mitigation or removal component to proactively address interior dust. DEQ is advocating that a more protective attic dust removal program be pursued for East Helena.

Some stakeholders indicated confusion regarding the recent inclusion of the METG as partners in the overall East Helena Superfund Site. There is misunderstanding and some mistrust regarding the funding mechanisms, plans for future redevelopment of trust-owned lands, cleanup standards, and priorities of the METG.

The Lead Advisory Group is available to review unique situations at specific residential properties. As a group, the members suggest exceptions to the 2009 OU2 ROD and are instrumental in making recommendations to the EPA in instances where additional support and cleanup are needed.

When asked about complaints or violations related to the Site, only routine issues surrounding residential soil removal activities were noted. Those issues included dust, traffic, grass not growing, weeds, alleged damage from the construction equipment, non compacted road aprons, and the perception of a slowly-moving cleanup process. One stakeholder pointed out that the complaints were fewer than the compliments. The METG representatives noted some minor trespass issues related to fishing access but no vandalism or other major damages.

It was noted that East Helena is moving from the stigma of a Superfund Site to having a sense of community. It was suggested that a “significant economic development project” in this community may serve to show other communities the beneficial a value inherent in cleanup projects and could serve as a positive example for social, environmental, and economic community health.

VII. Technical Assessment

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

No, the remedy for OU1 and OU2 is not functioning as intended.

All Site components not included in OU2 are currently under RCRA authority or METG responsibility. As successor to Asarco, METG has assumed the responsibility for the corrective action cleanup as dictated in the 1998 RCRA CD. Additionally, several of the former Asarco properties are held by METG and the cleanup will be consistent with the 2009 OU2 ROD.

Portions of the remedial action were implemented prior to the 1998 RCRA CD. Those activities are detailed in the first and second FYR Reports. The METG is performing additional investigations of the former smelter property and groundwater emanating from the property to complete RCRA investigation, reporting, and remediation requirements. The original OU1 remedy has not been fully implemented and subsequent investigations done under RCRA authority suggest (according to the EPA RPM) that the nature and extent of contamination has not been fully characterized. Contamination remains at the smelter property.

The remedial action for OU2 is removal of contaminated soil and disposal in an EPA-approved repository. Implementation of the remedial action continues through residential cleanups and the development of the IC Program. To date, cleanup levels are being met through removal of the contaminated soil to the “East Fields” soil repository location. However, without a formal

19

O&M plan, the protectiveness of the repository cannot be confirmed. ICs are a primary part of the remedial action and final cleanup decision. Lewis and Clark County and the City of East Helena are working diligently to enhance existing or develop new procedures, authorities, and processes to ensure the continued protection of human health and the remedy. The Lead Program is a successful and integral part of the current and future ICs Program. However, the lack of ICs during remedial actions has allegedly allowed for un-documented relocation of contaminated soil, which, if true, may cause further cleanup issues in the future for this “relocated soil”.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?

Yes, the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection are still valid.

The RAOs and other exposure assumptions for OU1 were formulated under CERCLA authority and are no longer applicable to the RCRA process. The METG and EPA are re-evaluating the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, etc. for the trust-owned lands, mainly the former smelter property. The exposure assumptions for OU1 were not evaluated for this third FYR.

The East Helena cleanup levels for lead were based on Site-specific data for concentrations in blood, soil, and air (fine dust particulates). The 2009 OU2 ROD states, “The East Helena site-specific data are a primary basis for the soil lead cleanup levels identified in Section 8 of this ROD, and were selected in lieu of results from EPA’s lead model as a basis for selection of cleanup levels.” The EPA has the blood-lead results from 1995 to 2008. No additional blood-lead data is available beyond 2008. Non-time-critical removal actions continue to reduce the soil lead concentrations at the East Helena Site. Air sampling for lead discontinued shortly after the smelter plant closed in 2001. Given the status of these three data sets, the basis for the cleanup levels used in the 2009 OU2 ROD has not changed. The EPA is currently re-evaluating some of the default values for input parameters in the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model; however, these potential changes do not affect the basis of the selected cleanup levels at East Helena.

The risk-based concentration (RBC) for arsenic was calculated to be 176 mg/kg based on EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (USEPA, 1989b) methodology. However, the EPA selected a concentration of 100 mg/kg as the cleanup action level for arsenic in the 2009 OU2 ROD. The 2009 OU2 ROD states “EPA has selected in this ROD a lower cleanup action level for arsenic in residential soil (100 mg/kg), which is the concentration of arsenic that is readily and cost-effectively attained in combination with the selected cleanup action level for lead in residential soil (1,000/500 mg/kg) and is within the range of the EPA’s generally accepted risk range of 1 x10-4 to 1x10-6.”

On June 1, 2011, PWT consulted the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (http://www.epa.gov/iris/) and the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2877) for changes to the current toxicological data for arsenic. No changes to the oral reference dose (0.0003 mg/kg-day) and the oral slope factor (1.5 mg/kg-day) used in the 2009 OU2 ROD were noted. There are not any changes to the risk characterization methodology since 2009 that would materially affect the RBC for arsenic.

Therefore, there does not appear to have been any changes to the risk assessment for arsenic that would result in reevaluation of the arsenic cleanup level for the protection of human health.

20

Risks to ecological receptors were first evaluated in a Comprehensive Endangerment Assessment in 1989. The aquatic habitats of Upper Lake and marshy areas, Lower Lake, and Prickly Pear Creek, including riparian areas, are all now the responsibility of RCRA and are being addressed under the 1998 RCRA CD. Whether or not the ecological toxicity values have changed does not impact the protectiveness of the OU2 cleanup levels.

Livestock and wildlife receptors in upland areas remain a concern in OU2. The Anaconda Smelter Biomonitoring study was conducted from the spring of 1999 through the fall of 2000 for the Anaconda Smelter Superfund Site near Anaconda, Montana. The Anaconda Study showed a risk to insectivorous passerine species (e.g. perching and song birds) at lead concentrations of about 650 mg/kg. The current soil remediation approach is expected to result in a community-wide average of less than 500 mg/kg and would, therefore, lower the risk to these species.

There does not appear to have been any changes to the ecological risk assessment for lead that would result in reevaluation of the lead cleanup level for the protection of livestock and wildlife receptors in OU2.

EPA conducted a review of the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) listed in Appendix C of the 2009 OU2 ROD. No changes were identified in the contaminant, location or action specific ARARs.

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

No, additional information has not come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy for OU2. RCRA will continue to manage the non-OU2 Site components as appropriate. When the remedy for OU2 is fully implemented and the ICs are functioning, the remedy for OU2 should be protective.

Technical Assessment Summary

The remedy for OU1 is not functioning as intended. There are no RCRA decision documents governing the former plant site and other Site areas. As successor to Asarco, METG has assumed the responsibility for the corrective action cleanup as dictated in the 1998 RCRA CD. Additionally, several of the former Asarco properties are held by METG and the cleanup will be consistent with the 2009 OU2 ROD.

Subsequent to the 1998 RCRA CD, selenium has been identified in monitoring wells above the MCL and is being evaluated in the RCRA CMS. Additionally, data acquired during the RCRA Phase II Facility Investigation indicates that there is slag that is leaching arsenic. This new data is being evaluated in the CMS.

According to the data and documents reviewed, Site inspection, and interviews, the remedy for OU2 is partially functioning as intended by the ROD. Table 7 lists the RAOs from the 2009 OU2 ROD and identifies if the RAO has been met or not.

21

Table 7: Remedial Action Objectives for OU2 Remedial Action Objective Current Status Continue to have no child in the East Helena area exhibit a blood-lead concentration greater than 10 µg/dL

No blood screening data is available since 2008. A blood-lead screening is scheduled for the fall of 2011 which will provide updated information for child blood-lead levels in the East Helena area

Continue the Lead Program and continue to seek ways to improve its effectiveness and outreach

The Lead Program still exists and program coordinators are constantly seeking and implementing ways to improve the program

Maintain 95 percent or more of the children at or below blood-lead levels of 4 µg/dL and maintain the average blood-lead concentration for area children at a level less than the national average for children less than seven years old

No blood screening data is available since 2008. A blood-lead screening is scheduled for the fall of 2011 which will provide updated information for the average child blood-lead levels in the East Helena area

For existing residential areas, prevent direct contact/ingestion with soil having contaminant concentrations in excess of cleanup levels

Removal of contaminated soil continues up to a depth of 18 inches. Additional properties require remediation and an IC program is necessary to ensure remedy protection

Prevent recontamination of areas already cleaned up

There is no established program by which to evaluate whether recontamination is occurring

Minimize wind-borne migration of lead into residential areas

The 2009 OU2 ROD identifies the implementation of Best Agricultural Management Practices to minimize migration; however, such practices are not established. Without quantifiable goals or a program in place to evaluate the success of the practices, it is difficult to evaluate the functionality of the ROD

Minimize exposures to livestock and wildlife Without quantifiable goals, it is difficult to evaluate the functionality of the ROD

For undeveloped lands that may be used by workers, prevent direct contact/ingestion with soil having concentrations in excess of cleanup levels


For undeveloped areas that are proposed for future residential development, ensure that soil lead and arsenic concentrations do not exceed established cleanup levels


The removal of contaminated soil continues as property owners allow access to their properties. Although the East Field is secured by a fence and being managed by the removal contractor, the protectiveness of the remedy cannot be ensured due to the lack of a governing document.

22

VIII. Issues

A few major issues and some minor issues were raised during this FYR process. Table 8 identifies these issues and evaluates their impact on the protectiveness of the remedy currently and into the future.

Table 8: Issues

Issue Affects Current Protectiveness


1 The prescribed standards for surface water in Lower Lake have not been met.

Yes Yes

2 The drying area between Upper and Lower Lakes has not been remediated.

Yes Yes

3 Groundwater monitoring wells have not been installed and performance standards for groundwater related to OU1 have not been established.

Yes Yes

4

Closure of the MDEQ AOC and the 1989 OU1 ROD is in process. The OU1 ROD is under review to confirm that the remedial actions pursuant to the 1989 OU1 ROD will be implemented under the 1998 RCRA CD.

Yes Yes

5 There are 73 properties (30 residential/commercial, 33 road aprons, 10 flood channels) that qualify for remedial action on which no action has been taken.

Yes Yes

6

Work Plan for Excavation and Removal of Residential Soils has not been updated to comply with the modifications to the 1991 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC).

Yes Yes

7 There is no Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the East Field repository.

Yes Yes

8

The most recent blood-lead level data is from 2008. Child blood-lead levels in East Helena were noted in the 2009 OU2 ROD as having a direct correlation to the success of the remedial actions.

Yes Yes

9 A comprehensive Institutional Controls program is not in place.

Yes Yes

10

The impacts of the former smelter facility do not stop at the county line. Jefferson County has not historically been included in site activities. Jefferson County and Lewis and Clark County will complete a Memorandum of Understanding (expected late 2011) in order to work cooperatively on the ICs.

Yes Yes

11

The Annual Reports include discussions of a Long-Term Monitoring program. The program is intended to monitor the potential for reintroduction of metals into post-removal soil throughout OU2. However, there is not a comprehensive document with the implementation, progress, historical results and future plans for the program available for review.

Yes Yes

12

The 2009 OU2 ROD notes the use of Best Agricultural Management Practices to reduce wind-borne contamination into residential areas. However, they do not exist in written form and ICs are not in place to implement these practices.

Yes Yes

23

Table 8: Issues (Cont.) Issue Affects Current

Protectiveness Affects Future Protectiveness

13

Public perception/confusion around the cleanup priorities, METG intentions for future disposition of lands, funding sources and amounts, and concerns over recent flooding are some of the issues raised through the interview process for this FYR. While they do not directly impact the protectiveness of the remedy, they are noteworthy and should be addressed.

No No

14

The Remediation Status database is not governed by a management plan or quality control document. The database is not accessible by the Lead Program nor does a plan exist to transition the database to the Lead Program for future use.

No Yes

Others, in addition to state representatives, indicated confusion with regard to the intent and/or the language in the 2009 OU2 ROD accurately matching the reality of the cleanup. As noted before, there is not an updated work plan for the removal of contaminated soil in OU2. The 1991 Residential Work Plan is included by reference in the AOC but its changes are indirect, through modifications to the AOC. Currently, no work plan exists for the long-term operation and management of the East Field as a soil repository.

When soil was being removed and the smelter was still operating, the EPA directed its contractor to implement a sampling program to ensure there was not re-contamination of properties. That program ended shortly after the smelter closed in 2001. Since then, there has been no established program to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the soil removal actions.

Additional issues include some confusion and skepticism regarding the involvement of the METG, funding, and obligations to the Site and to the City of East Helena. Soil at Wilson Ditch was remediated in 1993 and 1994 with further requirements in the OU2 ROD, yet Prickly Pear Creek has not been remediated. There is a concern regarding contaminant exposure to children who play in Prickly Pear Creek, especially where it runs through JFK Park. Recent flooding has raised some questions regarding re-contamination within the new flood channels and overland flow of canal and ditch water created by heavy rainfall events. Also, the public’s perception and acceptance of ICs can directly impact the protectiveness of the remedy into the future.

24

IX. Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

Table 9 lists the recommendations and follow-up actions for the issues identified in Table 8. Some of the actions are further discussed in the text following Table 9.

Table 9: Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions Issue Recommendation

and Follow-Up Actions

Party Responsible

Milestone Date

Affects Current Protectiveness


1

Treat Lower Lake in the High Density Sludge facility until it reaches prescribed standards.

METG September

2013 Yes Yes

2 Remediate the area between Upper and Lower Lakes.

METG September

2013 Yes Yes

3


EPA September

2012 Yes Yes

4

No action under CERCLA necessary. EPA and MDEQ’s RCRA program will manage the remedial needs.

EPA Ongoing Yes Yes

5 Complete soil removal activities on all eligible properties.

EPA October

2012 Yes Yes

6

Prepare comprehensive and updated Work Plan for Excavation and Removal of Residential Soils.


7 Prepare O&M Plan for the East Field repository.

EPA March 2012

Yes Yes

8

Conduct child blood-lead level screening incentive event. Continue to offer screening as requested.

Lead Program December 2011 and ongoing

Yes Yes

9 Develop and implement a Comprehensive IC Program.

IC Stakeholders*

June 2012 Yes Yes

25

Table 9: Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions (Cont.) Issue Recommendation

and Follow-Up Actions

Party Responsible

Milestone Date

Affects Current Protectiveness


10

Include Jefferson County government and appropriate property owners in sampling, remediation, and IC programs.

EPA November

2011 Yes Yes

11

Formalize the Long-Term Monitoring program in a single document with the implementation, progress, historical results and future plans for the program.


12

Develop Best Agricultural Management Practices and include their use in the Comprehensive IC Program.

IC Stakeholders*

June 2012 Yes Yes

13

Host Public Meetings and Availability sessions, attend local government meetings, and publish fact sheets/newsletters to educate public on Site activities and METG involvement.

EPA October

2011 and ongoing

No No

14

Prepare a Data Management Plan for the Remediation database and transition the management of the database to the Lead Program.

Lead Program June 2012 No Yes

* IC Stakeholders include Lewis and Clark County, Jefferson County, City of East Helena, and the Lead Program.

The implementation of a comprehensive IC program is a key component of the remedy. The City of East Helena and Lewis and Clark County, with consultation and support from the EPA and MDEQ, are working diligently to develop the IC Program that will include authorities, permits/tracking systems, and enforcement. In the interim, the Lead Program continues to provide education, assessments, and oversight of soil activities at the Site. The IC Work Group anticipates an IC Program completion date of late 2011 or early 2012. Throughout the process and during implementation, the EPA recommends continuing and increasing the transparency and strength of the communication that is already happening with and amongst the

26

stakeholders. The stakeholders may expand to include realtors, developers, and excavation and landscaping companies.

If the IC Program is not established and functional in the immediate future, it is recommended that the movement of contaminated soil be tightly controlled. There have reportedly been instances of unmanaged sale and transport of contaminated soil in the East Helena area. The EPA should assist the local authorities with interim methods for control, including but not limited to educational materials for heavy equipment operators, rental stores, and local landscaping businesses.

It appears that the sampling procedures used at East Helena are consistent with the Lead Handbook (USEPA, 2003). However, an updated and comprehensive Residential Work Plan is needed and EPA should compare the sampling procedures to that suggested in the Lead Handbook to ensure the sampling procedures are consistent with the Lead Handbook.

It is also recommended that the EPA design and implement a sampling program to track the continued protectiveness of the soil removal actions and provide for corrective measures if recontamination is discovered. Such a program should include the sampling of previously remediated properties to rule out recontamination and, more immediately, confirm the lack of recontamination from the 2011 spring flooding.

There are a few topics that the EPA should clarify for the stakeholders and residents. Such topics include the involvement, authority, and future responsibilities and actions of the METG, funding sources and limitations for current and future Site activities (both CERCLA and RCRA), priorities for cleanup for both CERCLA and RCRA, and how those two programs will interrelate.

Additional questions have been raised with respect to the alleged inconsistency in the 2009 OU2 ROD that provides developed, residential properties have a cleanup action level of 1,000 mg/kg but undeveloped land that is proposed for future residential development has a cleanup action level of 500 mg/kg. Clarification on these topics can be as simple as fact sheets or meetings to help educate the community residents, general public, and stakeholders, and answer questions. However, other types of communication may enhance stakeholder and resident participation and understanding.

Some individuals recommended additional activities to enhance the EPA’s communication with other stakeholders and the general public. Recommendations included meeting with the City/County Board of Health a few times a year, periodically and unofficially attending East Helena City Council, school board, and East Helena Improvement District meetings, publishing a quarterly newsletter with the most current Site information, and frequent updates and maintenance to the EPA’s webpage. Such communications should include celebrations of success in addition to facts and updates.

Several stakeholders have suggested that the Lead Education and Abatement Program is ready for a new image. The acronym “LEAP” and the mascot “Leo the Lead Lion” may be ready for new images that reflect the Site’s cleaner, healthier, and community-based image. The transition from removal actions to an IC/O&M focus and the move to the East Helena City Hall can provide the start.

27

X. Protectiveness Statement(s)

The 1989 OU1 ROD remedy elements still apply and were transferred to RCRA authority in the 1998 RCRA CD. The remedy at OU1 is not protective because implementation of the ROD is incomplete. Completion of the RCRA investigations and identification and implementation of appropriate corrective actions are needed to ensure protectiveness for this OU.

The remedy at OU2 is under construction and is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon completion, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.

XI. Next Review

The next FYR for the East Helena Site is required by September 2016, five years from the completion date of this review.

28

References

ASARCO. 2005. RCRA/CERCLA Coordination Letter to MDEQ. January 26.

CH2MHill. 1987. Remedial Investigation of Soils, Vegetation and Livestock for East Helena Site (ASARCO), East Helena, Montana. May.

EPA and Asarco Discussion Meeting. 1997. Process Fluids Summary ASARCO East Helena Plant. September 8.

EPA and Asarco Discussion Meeting. 1997. Slag Pile Summary ASARCO East Helena Plant. August 4.

Hydrometrics, Inc. 1990. Comprehensive Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study – ASARCO, Inc. East Helena, Montana, Volumes 1-6. March.

Hydrometrics, Inc. 1991. Sampling and Analysis Plan Part 1 – Field Sampling Plan, Part 2 – Quality Assurance Project Plan, Work Plan for Excavation And Removal Of Residential Soils, East Helena, Montana. July.

Hydrometrics, Inc. 1995. 1995 Work Plan For Excavation And Removal of Residential Soils, East Helena, Montana. March 1.

Randall Contracting, Inc. 2006. East Helena Residential Soils Removal Action 2005 Year End Report, East Helena, Montana. May.

Randall Contracting, Inc. 2007. East Helena Residential Soils Removal Action 2006 Year End Report, East Helena, Montana. June.

USEPA. 1984. Administrative Order on Consent, Docket No. CERCLA-VIII-84-006. August.

USEPA. 1987. Amended Administrative Order on Consent Re: Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Docket No. CERCLA-VIII-84-006. January 29.

USEPA. 1988. Administrative Order on Consent Re: Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. Docket No. CERCLA-VIII-89-10. December 30.

USEPA. 1989a. Record of Decision, East Helena Smelter Site, Process Ponds Operable Unit, East Helena, Montana. November.

USEPA. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA 540-1-89-002. December.

USEPA. 1990. Consent Decree. Unknown date.

USEPA. 1991a. Action Memorandum. June.

USEPA. 1991b. Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action, Docket No. CERCLA-VIII-91-17. July.

29

USEPA. 1992. Modification of the Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action, East Helena Soils. October 13.

USEPA. 1993a. Explanation of Significant Differences, East Helena NPL Site, East Helena, Montana, Process Ponds Operable Unit (OU1). June 17.

USEPA. 1993b. Modification of the Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action, East Helena Soils. May 11.

USEPA. 1996. Third Modification of the Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action, East Helena Soils. August 23.

USEPA. 1998. Consent Decree. Unknown date

USEPA. 1999. Five-Year Review, East Helena Smelter Superfund Site, East Helena, Montana, NPL Site No. 30. September.

USEPA. 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA 540-R-01-007. OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P. June.

USEPA. 2003. Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites Handbook, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, OSWER 9285.7-50. August.

USEPA. 2005. Fourth Modification of the Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action, East Helena Soils. April 19.

USEPA. 2006. Second Five-Year Review Report for the East Helena Superfund Site, East Helena, Montana. March.

USEPA. 2009. Final Record of Decision, East Helena Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 2, Residential Soils and Undeveloped Lands. September.

United States District Court for the District of Montana. 1990. USA vs ASARCO, Inc., Consent Decree.

United States District Court for the District of Montana. 1998. USA vs ASARCO, Inc., Consent Decree. May.

Zanetti Bros, Inc. 2008. East Helena Residential Soils Removal Action 2007 Year End Report. May.

Zanetti Bros, Inc. 2009. East Helena Residential Soils Removal Action 2008 Year End Report. March.

Zanetti Bros, Inc. 2010. East Helena Residential Soils Removal Action 2009 Year End Report. June.

Zanetti Bros, Inc. 2011. East Helena Residential Soils Removal Action 2010 Year End Report. June.

FIGURES

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Ip

Ip

!"̀$

!"̀$

_̂EAST HELENA SUPERFUND SITE

L E W I S A N D C L A R KC O U N T Y

B R O A D W A T E RC O U N T YJ E F F E R S O N

C O U N T Y

Craig

Basin

Clancy

Helena

Winston

Boulder

Elliston

Townsend

Wolf Creek

East Helena

Montana City

FIGURE 1SITE LOCATION MAP OFEAST HELENA

EAST HELENA SUPERFUND SITE

GIS map by Ed Madej TTEMI-HEFIG1_EAST_HELENA_SITE_LOCATION_052311.mxd

0 4Miles ±

M O N T A N A

LOCATION OFLARGER MAP

Legend!(

COUNTY BOUNDARIESURBAN AREASRIVERS AND STREAMS

ROADSINTERSTATE HIGHWAYUS HIGHWAYOTHER ROADS

TOWNS

US HIGHWAY 12

RO

UTE

518

E MAIN ST

LAK

E H

ELE

NA

DR

VALL

EY

DR

SMEL

TER

RD

S

BOUNDARY ST

ROUTE 240 OA

K A

VE

WILDFIRE RD

SMELTER RD

E OLD HIGHWAY 12MANLOVE AVE

S M

ON

TAN

A AV

E

Prickly Pear Creek

Wilson D

itch

RCRA Corrective Action Management Units

Former Smelter Facility(RCRA Corrective Actions underway)

East Fields (former soil repository)

Dartman Parcel

East Fields

Lamping Fields

Rodeo Grounds

Process Ponds

East Helena

0 0.50.25Miles

Key

East Helena Soils (OU2)

Smelter Facility (OU1)

Cleanup complete(consistent with current land use)

Former Soil Repository(potential for reuse with restrictions)

Investigations / Study Underway

Designated Disposal Area (long-term remedy components, restricted access)

Open Space / Undeveloped Land(additional cleanup may be needed to support future change in land use)

Site Remedy Status MapEast Helena Smelter Site

Additional FeaturesRoads

East Helena City Limits

StreamsRail Line

Prickly Pear Creek

Wilson D

itch

Former SmelterFacility (130 acres)

Lamping Fields(280 acres)

East Fields(840 acres)

DartmanParcel(158 acres)

CorrectiveAction Management Units (120 acres)

NRDSettlementProperty(40 acres)

NRDSettlementProperty(190 acres)

East Helena

FormerPlant Manager’sProperty(1 acre)

Rodeo Grounds &Adjacent Land(255 acres)

Trust Properties in East Helena MapEast Helena Smelter Site

Key:

ParcelBoundaries

Trust-owned Land

DesignatedNRD Settlement Properties

Streams

Properties identified by Trust for potential ownership transfer and reuse


Rail Line

US HIGHWAY 12

RO

UTE

518

E MAIN ST

LAK

E H

ELE

NA

DR

VALL

EY

DR

SMEL

TER

RD

S

BOUNDARY ST

ROUTE 240 OA

K A

VE

WILDFIRE RD

SMELTER RD


S M

ON

TAN

A AV

E

0 0.50.25Miles

Prickly Pear Creek

Wilson D

itch

US HIGHWAY 12

RO

UTE

518

E MAIN ST

LAK

E H

ELE

NA

DR

VALL

EY

DR

SMEL

TER

RD

S

BOUNDARY ST

ROUTE 240 OA

K A

VE

WILDFIRE RD

SMELTER RD


S M

ON

TAN

A AV

E

Key:

Single-Family Residential (153 acres / 7%*)

Existing Land Use MapEast Helena Smelter Site

Multi-Family Residential (6 acres / 0.3%)

Commercial(21 acres / 4%) Industrial - active(4 acres / 0.2%)

Parks(6 acres / 1%)

Public(36 acres / 2%)


Land Use

Agricultural / Vacant -Trust-owned land available for reuse(1,635 acres / 72%)

Streams

Note: Percentage of land use types are in relation to total land area within East Helena City Limits (2,242 acres).

Industrial - vacant(250 acres / 11%)

Additional Features

Church Property(6 acres / 1%)

Rail Line

0 0.50.25Miles

Former SmelterFacility

Lamping Fields

East Fields

DartmanParcel

CorrectiveAction Management Units

APPENDIX A

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) are conducting a Five-Year Review of the East Helena Smelter Superfund Site. The Five-Year Review is a regular checkup on a Superfund site to ensure that cleanup actions continue to protect people and the environment. It will be completed by September 2011. The review team is composed of EPA, DEQ and their consultants. The team will address the status of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund portions of the cleanup and the regulations that apply to the site. Particular attention will be paid to the following:

residential areas future land development institutional controls community education corrective action on the former smelter site groundwater evaluation

The review team members evaluate information about site clean-up activities from the last five years. They talk with local officials to see if changes in resources and local policies might affect the original cleanup plan. The team will visit the site to see if the cleanup is protective. EPA will meet with citizens individually or as a group about the cleanup before June 28, 2011. If you have concerns or questions about this process, please let the site team know. Written comments may be submitted by June 3, 2011 to:

Betsy Burns, Remedial Project Manager EPA Montana Office; 10 W. 15th St.; Helena, MT 59626

Or call: Betsy Burns, EPA at 406-457-5013

Daryl Reed, DEQ at 406-841-5041 If you would like to learn more about the site or the five-year review you may review documents at:

East Helena’s Lead Education and Abatement Office is at 2 S. Morton in East Helena EPA’s Montana Office Record Center at 10 W. 15th St. in Helena

Or call: Nikia Greene, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator at 406-457-5019

Five Year Review of Cleanup at the East Helena Smelter Superfund Site

APPENDIX B

SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

Site Inspection Checklist

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name: East Helena Superfund Date of inspection: 6/2/2011

Location and Region: MT-Reg 8 EPA ID: MTD006230346

Agency, office, or company leading the five-year review: Pacific Western Technologies, Ltd.

Weather/temperature: Rainy, 40

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) Landfill cover/containment Monitored natural attenuation Access controls Groundwater containment Institutional controls Vertical barrier walls Groundwater pump and treatment Surface water collection and treatment Other______________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Attachments: Inspection team roster attached Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. O&M site manager ____________________________ ______________________ ____________ Name Title Date

Interviewed at site at office by phone Phone no. ______________ Problems, suggestions; Report attached ________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

2. O&M staff ____________________________ ______________________ ____________ Name Title Date

Interviewed at site at office by phone Phone no. ______________ Problems, suggestions; Report attached ________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency: Montana Environmental Trust Group Contact: Alicia Voss Project Manager 6/2/2011 ____________

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached ___mostly focused on the Trust owned and RCRA lands_ __________________________________________________________________________________

Agency: Montana Environmental Trust Group Contact: Blaine Cox Plant Manager 6/2/2011 ____________

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached ________Trespass for fishing access_________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Agency: Lead Education and Abatement Program Contact: : Debb Tillo, Jan Williams Coordinator 6/2/2011 ____________

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached ____Unknown future IC___________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

Agency: Montana Department of Environmental Quality Contact: Daryl Reed Superfund Project Manager 6/7/2011 ____________

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; Report attached _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

4. Other interviews (optional) Report attached.

Lewis and Clark City/County Health Department, Kathy Moore, Environmental Health Division Administrator

Zanetti Brothers, Inc., Steven Lindberg, Project Manager

Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Brown, Former RPM

Two private residents

III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

1. O&M Documents O&M manual Readily available Up to date N/A As-built drawings Readily available Up to date N/A Maintenance logs Readily available Up to date N/A

Remarks: as-built drawings of removal actions for each residential property are available annually or as needed

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan Readily available Up to date N/A Contingency plan/emergency response plan Readily available Up to date N/A

Remarks: current as of May 2011

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Permits and Service Agreements Air discharge permit Readily available Up to date N/A Effluent discharge Readily available Up to date N/A Waste disposal, POTW Readily available Up to date N/A Other permits_____________________ Readily available Up to date N/A

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Gas Generation Records Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

6. Settlement Monument Records Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

8. Leachate Extraction Records Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

9. Discharge Compliance Records G Air Readily available Up to date N/A G Water (effluent) Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

10. Daily Access/Security Logs Readily available Up to date N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization State in-house Contractor for State PRP in-house Contractor for PRP Federal Facility in-house Contractor for Federal Facility Other: None yet – Still in Remedial Action

2. O&M Cost Records – pertinent to the Lead Education and Abatement Program for IC Readily available Up to date Funding mechanism/agreement in place

Original O&M cost estimate____________________ Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From__________ To__________ __________________ Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost





3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: _____N/A__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Applicable N/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged Location shown on site map Gates secured N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures Location shown on site map N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Yes No N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Yes No N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) _________________________________________ Frequency ________________________________________________________________________ Responsible party/agency ____________________________________________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________

Name Title Date Phone no.

Reporting is up-to-date Yes No N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency Yes No N/A

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Yes No N/A Violations have been reported Yes No N/A Other problems or suggestions: Report attached ___________________Work in Progress________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Adequacy ICs are adequate ICs are inadequate N/A Remarks___ Other than LEAP, there are no ICs in place to date - work in progress ______________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

D. General

1. Vandalism/trespassing Location shown on site map No vandalism evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Land use changes on site N/A Remarks_______ RCRA/Asarco to Trust-owned lands, see report figure_______________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Land use changes off site N/A Remarks ____RCRA/Asarco to Trust-owned lands, see report figure __________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Roads Applicable N/A

1. Roads damaged Location shown on site map Roads adequate N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks ______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable N/A

A. Landfill Surface

1. Settlement (Low spots) Location shown on site map Settlement not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

2. Cracks Location shown on site map Cracking not evident Lengths____________ Widths___________ Depths__________ Remarks____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

3. Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Holes Location shown on site map Holes not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Vegetative Cover Grass Cover properly established No signs of stress Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

7. Bulges Location shown on site map Bulges not evident Areal extent______________ Height____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

8. Wet Areas/Water Damage Wet areas/water damage not evident Wet areas Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Ponding Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Seeps Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Soft subgrade Location shown on site map Areal extent______________

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

9. Slope Instability Slides Location shown on site map No evidence of slope instability Areal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

B. Benches Applicable N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)

1. Flows Bypass Bench Location shown on site map N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Bench Breached Location shown on site map N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Bench Overtopped Location shown on site map N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

C. Letdown Channels Applicable N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)

1. Settlement Location shown on site map No evidence of settlement Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Material Degradation Location shown on site map No evidence of degradation Material type_______________ Areal extent_____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Erosion Location shown on site map No evidence of erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Undercutting Location shown on site map No evidence of undercutting Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Obstructions Type_____________________ No obstructions Location shown on site map Areal extent______________

Size____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type____________________ No evidence of excessive growth Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow Location shown on site map Areal extent______________

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

D. Cover Penetrations Applicable N/A

1. Gas Vents Active Passive Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Gas Monitoring Probes Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A

Remarks___________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

4. Leachate Extraction Wells Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Settlement Monuments Located Routinely surveyed N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

E. Gas Collection and Treatment Applicable N/A

1. Gas Treatment Facilities Flaring Thermal destruction Collection for reuse Good condition Needs Maintenance

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping Good condition Needs Maintenance

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) Good condition Needs Maintenance N/A

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

F. Cover Drainage Layer Applicable N/A

1. Outlet Pipes Inspected Functioning N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Outlet Rock Inspected Functioning N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Applicable N/A

1. Siltation Areal extent______________ Depth____________ N/A Siltation not evident

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Erosion not evident

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Outlet Works Functioning N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Dam Functioning N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

H. Retaining Walls Applicable N/A

1. Deformations Location shown on site map Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement____________ Vertical displacement_______________ Rotational displacement____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

2. Degradation Location shown on site map Degradation not evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge Applicable N/A

1. Siltation Location shown on site map Siltation not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Vegetative Growth Location shown on site map N/A Vegetation does not impede flow

Areal extent______________ Type____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Discharge Structure Functioning N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS Applicable N/A

1. Settlement Location shown on site map Settlement not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring__________________________ Performance not monitored

Frequency_______________________________ Evidence of breaching Head differential__________________________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

C. Treatment System Applicable N/A

1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) Metals removal Oil/water separation Bioremediation Air stripping Carbon adsorbers Filters_________________________________________________________________________ Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________ Others_________________________________________________________________________ Good condition Needs Maintenance Sampling ports properly marked and functional Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Equipment properly identified Quantity of groundwater treated annually________________________ Quantity of surface water treated annually________________________

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) N/A Good condition Needs Maintenance

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels N/A Good condition Proper secondary containment Needs Maintenance

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances N/A Good condition Needs Maintenance

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Treatment Building(s) N/A Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repair Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition All required wells located Needs Maintenance N/A

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

D. Monitoring Data – Annual Removal Report

1. Monitoring Data Is routinely submitted on time Is of acceptable quality

2. Monitoring data suggests: N/A Groundwater plume is effectively contained Contaminant concentrations are declining

D. Monitored Natural Attenuation

1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled

Good condition All required wells located Needs Maintenance N/A

Remarks__________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

X. OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.

XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

A. Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). ____In the 2009 ROD, the remedy is to remove high levels of lead and arsenic in the soil to protect humans from exposure. The remedy is on-going and requires IC to be protective.___________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

B. Adequacy of O&M

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy. ___This will be determined. The LEAP program is a foundation from which to build the O & M and the IC programs. When the soil repository is closed, it will require O&M. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future. None noted to date – the ongoing work to implement the institutional control program is key for a protective remedy. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

D. Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy. ____________None____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

East Helena Superfund Site East Helena, Montana

Third Five Year Review

Interview Questions – General Public

Overall impression of the project? What effects has the project had on the surrounding community? Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the Site or its operations and

administration? Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at any parts of the Site (residential,

Asarco plant) such as vandalism, trespassing, or emergency response by the local authorities? Any concerns about the Site security and access? If so, please provide details.

Do you feel well informed about the Site's activities and progress? Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding Site

management or operation?

Interview Questions – State and Local Government

What was your involvement with the Project? Overall impression of the project? Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting

activities) conducted by your office regarding the Site? If so, please provide the purpose and results.

Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the Site requiring a response by your office? If so, please provide details.

Do you feel well informed about the Site's activities and progress? Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding Site


Interview Questions – Site Workers/Construction/Emergency Response

What is your role on the Project? Overall impression of the project? What is the current status of construction (e.g., budget and schedule)? Have any problems been encountered which required, or will require, changes to this

remedial design or ROD? Have any problems or difficulties been encountered which have impacted construction

progress or implementation? Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding Site


APPENDIX D

LETTER OF NON-CONCURRENCE, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY