HomeMy WebLinkAboutSmuggler Superfund - Maps & DrawingsSuperfund Smuggler Maps
�� t� ���
5��.�
� �'
� I,
��
� s
i '-.
e
s
17
f
d
9
�
9
5
s'
p
I
r j f
S
's4
�
agg
mom'
2 -
°
w
t
u
°
;
�
p
t
`
`
x P
n
[! /
q
fo-�
i
g
i "
���
o i�„
k ..i
�9
.. �ieo
� Y4�
�� ��., ,,PP
s.w9,
�A��
�u� �
0 0
iil
Superfund Smuggler Maps
IN
1..-
Z
I
f v
F I �
3
_.1
Q:
tY
L. J
F --
S
z
_J
1
LJ
I-
Z
Cl�
U
x
W
1_
i
ill
Ll
-7
I �
j
1..-
Z
I
f v
F I �
3
>
ƒ\
� \
9t
\
\\ / \\ \
� Q Q ,
�\
mr
»\
�k,
...,
w,y,
M
ra:
"" ..�,., ...
��
�.m..,�„�.,,�-.
w W
W�
N �.� ffyi
�M�"�µ`
���
4 ....... ""gym o.
�
���d
Iwa.r.,..W,a.�wwrs"�
Cr1
W
�
G
�mii+a. i��""�
M4 pp
"
,.��
� 0 �",�
t s � ` 'a
�
� V ar
"ea�
��
�
C`
a � �. a r'
q "��
s
��
�DW;r
�
�.
��
V ��
4 �w��„
� mn
a a
�k
_ s(i, N
V �.,
"�^
F
„;r " I
� I
V i.'�
� &
_..
'p
t. �
�`
�
My .^”
i
��„„°"*waw .�M��'
4 ,,,.
.,.."
�"+
w
M �
i��"'
a
.�
�
" ..,..
w
q
V
8
4 0
n
� o
�°~�, �
�.. g
w""�.u.,�.�wyyw�w
{ .wad
"'�. .,��
�""'�n„� ��"
Y "'qw
� e
'rv� I Agg,ww�A�''' Q�U °� 'M
��
Iu
M Eby
w �W
�
MAS 4
rebv p
���� �
�w
�
��
¢�u � A
�
� ���
����� ��"a wwd
�/" " ���""
�
� ^�� d
w
� ,,,,
"rx ...�
"""`I
tzq�ye�..
,.✓
.. ': pew
V
�
e�
w"
��
g
w.. � �,wq}kl� �
f w� !
'�'
s � "
� i �
". r
A
u
�•
� *P
�
if ✓
� �^
...
� v� �„I
p �i
A *� "',m
w..
wpA
P �
v
'4
(�
"""'m, '�' w
�r n
.. ..
b
r
k
���ww.
”
Superfund Smuggler Maps
9 v
9 q
T—� 10 0 0IN
u pp� OOr� a u
0O 0S m o OOo OQO _.' a
n n
D m nL \ \ ~
v
co
-.r
uu^
Ju�
Ln
OrZ._i R 1
\ m
m
N
00
a.
U u isV� u/ / U uU�CU UU1m'1�
� I / ` � q 9q CD P
o OO/J
�cj
01°0° I u o ��� o�� � I a
l000u�
O m
CD rl
CD
o : 00pT
a
I��
"o
5 M
1p
"�,l C.— — — —1
-07%� # . \.,: �, �E=li
lot, ..........
v,
LLI
IT
x
IV
w
cc
0
Fl -
UJ x
C-0
Z
Z,
z
Im 0
w LU
W
th le
z
•
0
W
0
LL
uj
zrnZ j
O IQ J
Z 7 Z
4 _ p
z0
W Q LLjLu
a
fe
ri
CABLE:"ARFOPO"
TELECOPIER: (303) 832.0428
TELEX: 89-2733
IAN K. WHITLOCK
I)IRECT LINE. (303) 863-2306
ALRNOLD 8c POIRTEIR
ONE UNITED BANK CENTER
1700 LINCOLN STREET
DE:NvER, COLORADO 80203
(303) 863-1000
November 18, 1985
Paul Phillips, Esquire
Holland & Hart
Suite 2900
555 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
(Hand Delivery)
Paul Johnson, Esquire
Palmer & Dodge
One Beacon Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Steven Smathers, Esquire
Johnson & Swanson
4700 Interfirst Two
Dallas, Texas 75270
Gentlemen:
1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20036
(202) 872-6700
lJ 'VV2
f4O1985
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ASPEN/P1zKIN
Thomas F. Smith, Esquire
Pitkin County Attorney
Pitkin County Courthouse
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Mr. Sam Brown, Jr.
President
World Class Housing, Inc.
Suite 4010
1700 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site --
Status Report
Attached is the most recent letter from Scott
Mernitz at Camp Dresser & McKee, with attachments.
I asked Mernitz to supply us with a copy of his
geostatistical map containing both the lead contamination
contours and the specific lead values found at each
sampling location. You will see, when examining the
enclosed blueprint map, that in many instances lead
values below 1,000 ppm are found in areas which the
contours would indicate exceed the 1,000 ppm level.
Obviously, this leads to concern about the credibility of
the geostatistical approach.
•4
A13NOLD 8c PORTER
Messrs. Phillips, Smith,
Johnson, Brown and Smathers
November 18, 1985
Page 2
I spoke with Tom Staible at EPA on Friday,
November 15. He said there had been some delay in EPA's
preparation of written comments on our Remedial Investi-
gation/Feasibility Study, but that he would have them to
us this week.
We are still waiting for Hart Associates to
provide us with an updated budget report.
Please call us with any questions you may have.
Enclosures
cc w/o enclosures:
Mr. James Curtis
Mr. Thomas Dunlop
Mr. Thomas Morahan
Sincerely,
Ian K. Whitlock
CDM
environmental engineers, scientists,
planners, & management consultants
November 14, 1985
Mr. Ian K. Whitlock
Arnold & Porter
1700 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Riverpoint
230015th Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
303 458-1311
NOV 1 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ASPEN/PITKIN
Subject: Transmittal of Map Showing Lead Kriged Contour Lines, Property
Boundaries, Data Sampling Points, and Soil/Tailings Lead Values,
Smuggler Mountain Site, Colorado
Document Control No.: 149-WPI-IN-BXKZ-1
Dear Mr. Whitlock:
Enclosed please find one copy of the described map. Copies of this map
have been transmitted to those individuals noted below.
This material was prepared by Geostat Systems using data already in their
computer files, which were then recompiled for purposes of your request.
These data are present in Appendix 1 of the Geostat report. We plotted
only the 1,000, 3,000, 5,000 and 10,000 ppm Pb lines from the 66%
confidence map (see letter of October 28, 1985).
As a guide to the use of the enclosed map, the following example is
suggested. The 1,000 ppm contour at the north central boundary of the
Centennial property (see arrow on map) encloses a semi -circle. We can make
the following statements about areas in this vicinity.
1. The 1,000 ppm line here is plotted with a 20-50% level of error
(see arrow on attached small Figure 6.3 from the Geostat report).
2. Therefore, Pb values on this line could range from 500-1,500 ppm
(at 50%) or 800-1,200 ppm (at 20% error).
3. Based upon the way this map was compiled, we can male statement
No. 2 above two times out of three (with a 66%, or - one standard
deviation level of confidence).
a
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Mr. Ian K. Whitlock
11/13/85
Page 2
4. The 99% confidence line (see October 28 letter) could be used if
an even more conservative estimate of areas of contamination is
desired. The shift in the line between the 65% and 99% displays
indicates also our confidence in the data (minor shift (-50') =
greater confidence in the line).
5. Using this guidance, one can address this and various other areas
on the site for remediation purposes.
Please call me if you have additional questions or requests.
Sincerely,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Scott Mernitz
Site Manager
Enc.
SM/cs
cc: T. Staible, EPA
P. Phillips, Holland & Hart
T. Morahan, F.C. Hart
T. Dunlop, Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health V
C. Russell, CDH
R. Bryan, Geostat, (without attachments)
File/IN-PR Smuggler Site
0
0
B
9-T
i
I
I.
9
0
B C;
-�" gm U
ge i
` 0 C
p � Q
f
O1
cj
O
S
9
B
i
6
d
I
r
E
Of Lr
LIJ Off
� C
M �
M u
f
�r. w
Y
4 O
CE (M
a a
i
c r
FF
J G 8
Figure 6.3, S8 Contours of Composite Errors
66
w
U
cc
M
O
co
O
Q
O
J
O
U
Z
w
a/�
r�.
VJ
a
z
z
D
O
2
OC
w
J
c
0
CO
PUBLIC LAW 96 -510 --DEC. 11, 1980 X94 STAT. 2781
(era
c1 thin one hundred and eighty days after enactment is Act, Guidelines.
tor of the Environmental protection ncy shall,
after, consu 'on with the Attorney General, es and publish
guidelines for ' the imminent Hazard, int' menta and bush
g�eary response au 'ties of this section an er existingg statutes
adm;aistered b the vironmentat l?r�tection
Agency to elle by
the . nsibilif ' and powers created by this
� Such �usdeamw �sub�stain t Practicable be consistent with
a minimum, thenae Plan, and shall include. at
rapon" actions
with �' nsibility for coordinating
meat of standards of five orders. enforce -
other imminent lints. the ncy ' of information. and
sections 311(cx .309 and (and ra}�ofrythe Fede esteauthorized 11 ti(1)
on
Control Act, sections 3007.3008, 3013, and 7003 o Solid Waste
Disposal (3) sections 1445 and 1431 of the Safe Drip Water
Act, (4) ions 113,114, and 303 of the Clean Air Act, and (5 '
7 of Toxic Substances Control Act. an
IJABILM
SW- 107. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law,
and subject only to the defenses set forth in subsection (b) of this
section—
(1) the owner and operator of a vessel (otherwise subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States) or a facility,
(2) anY Person who at the time of disposal of -any hazardous
substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazard -
(3)
substances were disposed of
(3) any Person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise
arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a trans.
porter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous
substances owned or possessed by such
ther
party or entity, at any facility owned or operated byyaoother
party or entity and containing such hazardous substances, and
Y person who accepts or accepted any hazardous sub.
stances for transport to d*MW or treatment facilities or sites
selected b such Person, from which there is a release, or a
threatened release which causes the incurrence of
of a hazardous substance, shall be liable for --
response costs,
(A) all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the
United States Government or a State not inconsistent with
the national contingency, Plan;
othery other necessary costs of rse esponincurred by any
and person consistent with the national contingency Plan;
(C) damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural
resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing such
injury, destruction, or loss resulting from such a release.
(b) There shall be no liability under subsection (a) of this section for
a person otherwise liable who can establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the release or threat of release of a hazardous sub.
stance and the damages resulting therefrom were caused solely by—
(1) an act of Cod;
(2) an act of war,
(3) an act or omission of a third Party other than an employee
or agent of the defendant, or than one whose act or omission
occurs in connection with a contractual relationship, existing
33 USC 132I,
1318, 1319. 1364.
42 USC 6927,
6928: Ante, p.
2344: 42 USC
&973.
42 USC 300f-4,
300i,
42 USC 7413,
7414. 7603.
15 USC 2606.
42 USC W.
94
94 STAT. 2782 PUBLIC LAW 96-514—DEC. 11, 1980
directly or indirectly, with the defendant (except where the sole
contractual arrangement arises from a published tariff and
acceptance for carriage by a common carrier by rail), if the
defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that (a)
he exercised due care with respect to the hazardous substance
concerned, tatting into consideration the characteristics of such
hazardous substance, in light of all relevant facts and circum-
lamc , and (b) he took pprec�autions against foreseeable acts or
omissions of any such third party and the consequences that
could foreseeably result from such acts or omissions; or
(4) any combination of the foregoing paragraph&
(eX1) Except as provided in paragraph (22) of this subsection. the
liability under this section of an owner or operator or other responsi-
hieperson for each release of a hazardous substance or incident
involve.' release of a hazardous substance shall not exceed -
0 for any vessel which carries any hazardous substance as
cargo or residue, $300 per gross ton, or $5,000,000, whichever is
M for any other vessel, $300 per groes ton, or 5500,000,
whichever is greater;
(C) for any motor vehicle, aircraft, pipeline (as defined in the
49 USC 2001 Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 19791. or � stock,
note. $50,000,000 or such lesser amount as the President estab-
lish by regulation, but in no event less than $5,000,000 (or, for
releases of hazardous substances as defined in section 101(14XA)
of this title into the navigable waters, $8.000,000). Such regula
tions shall take into account the size, type, location, stomm and
handling capacity and other matters relating to the likelihood
release M each such class and to the economic impact of such
limits on each such class; or
(D) for any facility other than those ed in subparagraph
(C) of this pa ph, the total of a�cost$ of response plus
$50,000.000 of r any damages under this title.
(2) Notwithgt&nnd g the limitations in paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion, the liabUity of an owner or operator or other responsible person
under this sectio shall be the full and total costa of response and
damages, if (A (i) the release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance was the result of willful misconduct or willful negligence
within the privity or knowledge of such person, or(ii) the perry
cause of the release was a violation (within the privity or knowledge
of such person) of applicable safety, construction, or operating stand-
ards
tandards or regulations; or (B) such person fails or refuses to provide all
reasonable cooperation and assistance requestedby a responsible
public official in connection with response activities under the
national contingency plan with respect to regulated carriers subject
to the provisions of title 49 of the United States Code or vessels
subject to the provisions of title 33 or 46 of the United States Code,
subparagraph (AXii) of this paragraph shall be deemed to refer to
Federal standards or regulations.
(3) If any person who is liable for a release or threat of release of a
hazardous substance fails without sufficient cause to properly pro-
vide removal or remedial action upon order of the President pursuant
to section 104 or 106 of this Act, such person may be liable to the
United States for punitive damages in an amount at least equal to,
and not more than three times, the amount of any costs incurred by
the Fund as a result of such failure to take proper action. The
President is authorized to commence a civil action against any such
person to recover the punitive damages, which shall be in addition to
-2-
3
pUBLIC LAW 96-51.0—DEC. 11, 1980 94 STAT. 2783
any costs recovered from such person pursuant to section 112(c) of
this Act. Any moneys received by the United States pursuant to this
subsection shall be deposited in the Fund.
(d) No person shall be liable under this title for damages as a result
of actions taken or omitted in the course of rendering care,plan
assistance,
or advice in accordance with the national contingency p
direction of an onscene coordinator appointed under such plan, with
respect to an incident creating a danger to public health or welfare or
the environment as a result of any release of a hazardous substance
or the threat thereof. This subsection shall not preclude liability for
damages as the result of groes negligence or * entional misconduct
on the part of such ppeer�son. For the purposes
of the ng
sentence, reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct shall constitute
gross negligence' meat or
(eX1) No indemnification, hold harmless, or similar agree
conveyance shall be effective to transfer from the owner or operator
of any vessel or facility or from any person who may be liable for a
release or threat of release under this section, to any other person the
liability imposed under this section. Nothing in this subsection shall
bar any agreement to insure, hold harmless, or indemnify a party to
such agreement for any liability under this section.
(2) Nothing in this title. including the provisions of paragraph (1) of
this subsection, shall bar a cause of action that an owner or operator
or any other person subject to liability under this section, or a
guarantor, has or would have, by reason of subrogation or otherwise
against any person.
(f) In the case of an injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural
resources under subparagraph (G) of subsection (a) liability shall be to
the United States Government and to any State for natural resources
within the State or belonggmgg to, managed by, controlled by, or
a pertaining to such State: Pr U44 houwT4r That no liability to the
United States or State shall be im un4er sub=P) (Ci of
subsection (a). where the party so t to be chaigedhasmonstrat-
ed that the damages to natural resources complained of were specifi-
cally identified as an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
natural resources in an environmental impact statement oro het
comparable environment analysis, and the decision to gran lie
or license authorizes such commitment of natural reso�ircm and the
EE
project was otherwise operating within the terms of its
license. The President, or the authorized representative of
shall act on behalf of the public as trustee of such natural
resources to recover for such damages. Sums recovered shall be
available for use to restore, rehabilitate, or acquire the
eqvalent of
such natural resources by the appropriate agencies of the Federal
Government or the State government, but the measure of such
damages shall not be limited by the sums which can be used to oro
or replace such resources. There shall be no recovery
authority of sub agraph (C) of subsection (a) where such damages
and the release of a hazardous substance from which such damages
Yesulted have occurred wholly before the enactment of this Act.
(ta) Each department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive,
t lative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government shall be
subject to, and comply with, this Act in the same manner and to the
same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovern-
mental entity, including liability under this section.
(h) The owner or operator of a vessel shall be liable in accordance
with this section and as provided under section 114 of this Act
79-139 (350) 0 - 01 - 3
94 STAT. 2784 PUBLIC LAW 96-510—DEC. 11, 1980
notwithstanding any provision of the Act of March 3,1851(46 U.S.C.
- 183ffl.
(i) person (including the United States or any State) may
recover under the authority of this section for any response costs or
damages resulting from the application of a pesticide product regia -
7 use 1s6 now. ter+ed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
Nothing in this p�ragr ph shall affect or modify in any war the i
obligations or . ility of any person under any other provision of
State or Federal law, Including common law, for damages, injury, or
lass resulting from a release of any hazardous substance or for -
removal or remedial action or the costs of removal or remedial action
of such hazardous substance.
(j) Recovery by any person (including the United States or any
State) for response costs or damages resulting from a federally
permitted release shall be pursuant to existing law in lieu of this
section. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or modify in any way
the obligations or liability of any person under any other provision of
State or Federal law, including common law, for clam es, injury, or
loss resulting from a release of any hazardous substance or for
removal or remedial action or the costs of removal or remedial action
of such hazardous substance. In addition, costs ofnse incurred
by the Federal Government in connection with a c=rge specified
in section 101(10) (B) or (C) shall be recoverable in an action brought
33 USC 13W. under section 309(b) of the Clean Water Act.
(kXD The liability established by this section or way other law for
the owner or operator of a hazardous waste disposal faeilit which
has received a permit under subtitle C of the Solid Waste is city
Act, shall be transferred to and assumed by the Post -closure
A.t, p. 2804. Fund established by section 232 of this Act when—
(A) such facility and the owner and operator thereof has
complied with the requirements of subtitle C of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act and regulations issued thereunder, which may
affect the performance of such facility after closure; and
(B) such facility has been closed in accordance with such
regulations and the conditions of such permit, and such facility
and the surrounding area have been monitored as required by
such regulations and permit conditions for a period not to exceed
five years after closure to demonstrate that there is no substan-
tial likelihood that any migration offsite or release from confine-
ment of any hazardous substance or other risk to public health or
welfare will occur.
(2) Such transfer of liability shall be effective ninety days after the
owner or operator of such facility notifies the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (and the State where it has an
authorized program under section 3006(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal
42 USC 6926. Act) that the conditions imposed by, this subsection have been
satisfied. If within such ninety -lay period the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency or such State determines that any
such facility has not complied with all the conditions imposed by this
subsection or that insufficient information has been provided to .
demonstrate such compliance, the Administrator or such State shall
so notify the owner and operator of such facility and the administra-
tor of the Fund established by section 232 of this Act, and the owner
and operator of such facility shall continue to be liable with respect to
such facility under this section and other law until such time as the
Administrator and such State determines that such facility has
complied with all conditions imposed b this subsection. A determina-
tion by the Administrator or such State that a facility has not
PUBLIC LAW 96-510—DEC. 11, 1980 94 STAT. 2785
complied with all conditions imposed by this subsection or that
insufficient information hes been supplied to demonstrate compli-
ance, shall be a final administrative action for purposes of judicial
review. A request for additional information shall state in specific
terms the data required.
(3) In addition to the assumption of liability of owners and opera-
tors under parTaph (1) of this subsection, the Po"osure Liability
Fund estab by section 232 of this Act may be used to pay costs of
monitoring and can and maintenance of a site incurred by other
persons after the period of monitoring required by regulations under
subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act for hazardous waste 42 USC 6921.
disposal facilities meeting the conditions of paragraph (1) of this
subsection.
(4XA) Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Treasury snail conduct a study and shall
submit a re
port thereon to the Congress on the feasibility of establish-
ing
stablishing or qualifying an optional system of private insurance for
sure financial responsibility for hazardous waste disposal facilities to
which this subsection applies. Such study shall include a specification
of adequate and realistic minimum standards to assure that any such
privately placed insurance will carry out the purposes of this subsec-
tion in a reliable, enforceable, and practical manner. Such a study
shall include an examination tion of the public and private incentives,
programs, and actions necessary to make privately placed insurance
a practical and effective option to the financing system for the Post.
closure Liability Fond provided in title II of this Act.
(B) Not later than eighteen months after the date of enactment of
this Act and after a public hearing, the President shall, by rule
determine whether or not it is feasible to establish or qualify an
optional "m of private insurance for postclosure financial
responsibility for hazardous waste disposal facilities to which this
subsection applies. If the President determines the establishment or
qualification of such a system would be infeasible, he shall promptly
up bush an explanation of the reasons for such a determination. If the
dent determines the establishment or qualification of such a
system would be l°essible, he shall promptI publish notice of such
determination. Not later than six months after an affirmative deter-
mination under the preceding sentence and after a public hearing,
the President shall by rule promulgate adequate and realistic mini-
mum standards whl& must be met by any such privately placed
insurance, tahing into account the of this Act and this
subsection. Such rules shall also s �Wreasonably expeditious
procedures, by which psisately. placed insurance plans can qualify as
meeting such minimum standards.
(C) In the event any privately placed insurance plan qualifies under
subparagraph (B), an lemon enrolled in, and complying with the
terms of, such plan shall be excluded from the provisions of para-
graphs (1), (2X and (3) of this subsection and exempt from the
requirements topay any tax or fee to the Post-closum Liability Fund
under title II of this Act
(D) The President may issue such rules and take such other actions des•
as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this paragraph.
MANCUL sEsrortsmu rn _
Sec. 108. (01) The owner or operator ofeach vessel (except a on- 42 USC 9608.
does ..not- carry. hazardous substances as
cargo) over_tthreet undyed groes rt or place in the
�9cpitJCYrrJE'�=� 1 0
S�c�aru YO 7
J
7`1-)
H. R. 2005-16
106. REIMBURSEMENT.
action 106(b) of CERCLA is amended as follows:
(1) Insert "(1)" after "(W.
(2) Strike out "who willfully" and insert "who, without suff
ci t cause, willfully".
(:Add at the end thereof the following new par p
"( A) Any person who receives and complies with th rms
of anorder Issued under subsection (a) may, withi 0 days
after cd pletion of the required action, petition th ident
for reign ursement from the Fund for the reason" le costs of
such act: , plus interest. Any inter;1n':rnal
payab under this
paragraph' all accrue on the amountsnd from the date
of expendit at the same rate as sfor interest on
investments a the Hazardous Substanrfund established
under subchap r A of chapter 98 of the Revenue Code
of 1954.
"(B) If the Pres e
made under this
of receipt of such re
the appropriate Unii
ment from the Fund.
/i
refuses to grantAl or part of a petition
raph, the petitidner may within 30 days
B file an "bn against the President in
Atates district court seeking reimburse -
{C) Exceptas prav14
imbursement, the petiti
of the evidence that it
section 107(a) and that
are reasonable in light
order.
"(D) A petitioner w
107(a) may also pp4ex
extent that it can/dem
that the P
ordered w
accordance
subuaraera
curred
found
ante w
in 6bparaa �ta . h (D), to obtain re-
n alI establish by a preponderance
is, t liable for response costs under
r which it seeks reimbursement
pig the ction required by the relevant
is liable response costs under section
its reason le costs of response to the
anstrate, on a administrative record,
resiWt's decision in sel ng the response action
as a Itrary and capricious was otherwise not in
awlth law. Reimbursement warded under this
oti shall include . all reasonab response costs in -
he petitioner pursuant to the po 'ons of the order
arbitrary and capricious or otherw not in accord -
law.
' E'Rei-mbursement awarded by a court under paragraph
(C) (D) may include appropriate costs, fees, an other ex -
pe ses in accordance with subsections (a) and (d) of on 2412
. title 28 of the United States Code.".
SEC. 107. LIABILITY.
(a) FOREIGN VEssELs.---Section 107(a)(1) of CERCLA is amended by
strikinf out "(otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States) '.
(b) RzcovERABLE COSTS AND DAMAGES.—Section 107(a) of CERCLA
is amended by striking out "and" at the end of subparagraph (B),
striking out the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting
and' and inserting at the end thereof the following
"(D) the costs of any health assessment or health effects
study carried out under section 104(i).
The amounts recoverable in an action under this section shall
include interest on the amounts recoverable under subparagraphs
(A) through (D). Such interest shall accrue from the later of (i) the
date payment of a specified amount is demanded in writing, or (ii)
the date of the expenditure concerned. The rate of interest on the
H. R. 2005-15
or pollutants or contaminants from a site which is listed by the
President as a `Site Cleaned Up To Date' on the National Priorities
List (revised edition, December 1984) the site shall be restored to the
National Priorities List, without application of the hazard ranking
system.
"(f) MINORITY CONTRACTORS. --In awarding contracts under this
Act, the President shall consider the availability of qualified minor-
ity firms. The President shall describe, as part of any annual report
submitted to the Congress under this Act, the participation of
minority firms in contracts carried out under this Act. Such report
shall contain a brief description of the contracts which have been
awarded to minority firms under this Act and of the efforts made by
the President to encourage the participation of such firms in pro-
grams carried out under this Act.
"(g) SPECIAL STUDY WASTES.—
"M APP=Amom—This subsection applies to facilities—
"(A) which as of the date of enactment of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 were not
included on, or proposed for inclusion on, the National
Priorities List; and
AB) at which special study wastes described in paragraph
(2), (3KAXii) or (3i(AXiii) of section 3001(b) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act are present in significant quantities, including
any such facility from which there has been a release of a
special study waste.
"(2) CONSIDERATIONS IN ADDING FACILSrIBB To I+iPL —Pending
revision of the hazard ranking system under subsection (c), the
President shall consider each of the following factors in adding
facilities covered by this section to the National Priorities list:
"(A) The extent to which hazard ranking system score for
the facility is affected by the presence of any special study
waste at, or any release from, such facility.
"(B) Available information as to the quantity, toxicity,
and concentration of hazardous substances that are
constituents of any special study waste at, or released from
such facility, the extent of or potential for release of such
hazardous constituents, the exposure or potential exposure
to human population and the environment, and the degree
of hazard to human health or the environment posed by the
release of such hazardous constituents at such facility. This
subparagraph refers only to available information on actual
concentrations of hazardous substances and not on the total
quantity of special study waste at such facility.
"(3) SAVINGS PRovisloNs.—Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to limit the authority of the President to remove any
facility which as of the date of enactment of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 is included on
the National Priorities List from such List, or not to list any
facility which as of such date is proposed for inclusion on such
list.
"(4) INFORMATION GATHERING AND ANALYSIS.—Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to preclude the expenditure of monies
from the Fund for gathering and analysis of information which
will enable the President to consider the specific factors re-
quired by paragraph (2).".
7
O
e
U)
0
W
LOU
1N
Z
CL
i
o
Q
aul
a
1 Y S
r
cc
Z
U.
4�Q.
CL
f
a
�2
[Y O
I
$
uus
of
O
�
Z
_ �Qr
a
O
e
U)
0
W
LOU
1N
Z
CL
o
Q
aul
a
1 Y S
r
cc
Z
U.
4�Q.
CL
f
a
�2
[Y O
I
$
uus
of
O
�
Z
_ �Qr
W
Q��
U
J
o
LL
N
oCIO
c
C
7
ti
0=
Lu►
-
J
W
Z
Wuh
CL
~
i
3
♦
y
T
�
»
# c
C
v
c
1-4
�
u
i
I
¢t
c w
c c c I
Y>R
6
Ic
o
1
cc
Uj
h
0
. j VQ
y
goal
s
caa
.�
V
Cl
ti
W
�0
a
V
Qi
CO
Zo W
H
x
O
F-
p
V
u s
oc
Z
va
I 4
tea'
v
�
Z
,P,
Z
�
z- Q
O
W
W
v
LL it
O
CO
O
''�^^
v/
Ik
Figure
O
7.12, ooverla o
LL W ~
nn O
�cz
O
16
s '
N W d C f
F
H 2 f
j uIj
a 1
I
4
i
1
I�
I
Figure 7.12, Overlay of Action Line
� m
r
USE to
�1� r
Oegr BBgy
�Maz g
Sao
88HZ
I r I
Figure I.I. Overlay Contour of Composite Lead Estimates
1..
All IL
`^
� Z
w w
LU
cn
low Z
IL Z
o p
LL �r_a
cc V Q U7
Q N
w of H
i Z O W O
s4r
Q o
w U
r
� 3
01
O01)
CA
W'
Figure 1.1. Overlay Contour o Composide L4Fad F�tu*teg
\ w v
CL H
- o
FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTANTS
530 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10036
October 3, 1985
Ian K. Whitlock, Esquire
Arnold & Porter
1700 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80203
Dear Ian:
(212) 840-3990
Enclosed please find a copy of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study for the Smuggler Site which was delivered to EPA on October 1,
1985. In addition, we have also enclosed a copy of the revised Appendices
and a revised Plate No. 1, along with a note, which should be inserted in
place of the original Plate No. 1 which was previously sent to you.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
TJM:aa
(FOg6)
cc with enclosures:
Mr. Samuel Brown
Mr. James Curtis
Mr. Thomas Dunlop
Paul Johnson, Esq.
Dr. Phyllis Koteen
Paul Phillips, Esq.
Steven Smathers, Esq.
Mr. Thomas Smith
Sincerely,
FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, INC.
Thomas J. Morahan
Project Manager
Water Resources Group
= geostat systems enc
ILLnn�
�
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ASPEN/PITKIN
ON-SITE GEOSTATISTICS:
A SAMPLING PROGRAM FOR SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN
PREPARED BY GLOSTAT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AUGUST 30, 1985
geostat systems inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 The Situation
2.0 The Solution
2.1 The X -Met
2.2 Geostatistics
2.3 Broken Pattern Sampling
2.4 Binary Model
2.5 Defensibility
3.0 Recommendations
4.0 Conclusions
1.0 The Situation
S-2uggler :fountain, located near Aspen in Pitkin County, Colorado, is the
site of several inactive mines and one small active exploratory sire. Working
around rhe turn or the century, the mines produced miil tail. ngs, s;teiter wastes
and other mine wastes. These wastes contain high enough levels of heavy metals
that the EPA has proposed Smuggler Mountain for the Suoerfund National
riorities List. The task was to quantify the contaminant levels and show their
locations.
71,e site presented a challenge to standard sampling procedures.
istoricall y, the tailings from the mine entrances have been used as
construction fill. These tailings, bearing heavy metal coatamiinaats, have been
dispersed throughout the 75 acre evaluation site. Construction continued during
the entire sampling period, including moving earth and erecting multi --unit
condominiums.
The previous sampling crew, supervised by another consultant, evaluated 34
surface samples and seven test pits in the 75 acre site. This sampling, using a
grid with 400 foot centers, did not adequately characterize the site
con tamiaa.Lion. The sampling proposed taking a predetermined number of samples
is each grid cell and sending those samples to a contract lab. The assay
anal;�sis .,,ould be returned four to eight weeks later.
The small number of samples and large size of the gr -id concerned Camp,
Dresser and McKee (CDM). CDM searched for a more accurate way to map the
contaminants on the site and define the I000 ppm action line. To address the
ite'specific problems and improve standard operating pr3cedure, CDYI needed a
method to:
o characterize the site is less than two months,
o characterize the site accurately --including the action line,
o conduct cost effective site sampling, and
o provide defeasible information if the site were litigated.
Page 3 of 9
2.0 The Solution
The mine sites at Smuggler Mountain demanded a different approach. It had
to incorporate on-site sample analysis with revolutionary toxic waste sampling
strategy. To meet this challenge CDM contracted geostatistical consultants,
Geostat Systems, and acquired a portable X-ray analyzer, the Columbia Scientific
X -?let 840. The samples were analyzed straight from the field and the results
input into Geostat's portable computer. Geostatistics quantified the data
confidence and helped determine optimum sampling locations. The assays, sample
locations, geostatistical estimations and error percentages were constantly
plotted onto maps and overlays. This output was evaluated by the CDM field team
and the geostatistical specialist to determine where more data was needed.
2.1 X -Me t
The Smuggler Mountain site was the first time CDM had used the X --Met. The
1000 ppm action level, determined by the EPA, was within the analytical range of
the X -Met. After the initial calibration time of about 3 hours, the machine
could analyze samples for lead content at the rate of about 4 per hour.
Analysis time is dependent on the element chosen and its relative concentration.
Cadmium, the other element of primary concern, had concentration levels too low
to be effectively analyzed by the X -Met. The machine can analyze up to six
elements at a time without altering the sample.
Sample preparation was carried out at site headquarters, where the soil
samples were dried and ground for the X -Met. A mortar and pestle was used, with
one member of the field team grinding while another operated the X -Met. Sample
quality control included sterilization of both the field instruments and the
preparation tools.
If standard procedure were used, lab analysis of the samples would have
cost about $10 each, with a turn around time of 6 to 8 weeks. In contrast, the
X -Met analyzed lead samples in about 15 minutes. It is a fixed cost and can be
used at many sites.
Page 4 of 9
Paperwork on the project was reduced and simplified
by having
the X --Met. It
required
only one bound log of sample information and
results.
Considerable
paperwork
is involved in releasing samples to a contract
lab for analysis.
However,
the CDM site plan still called for 10% of the
samples to
be sent to a
contract
lab to determine the correlation between lead and cadmium
and to check
X -Met accuracy.
2.2 Geostatistics
Geostatistics was used in the analysis of the data from the X -Met because
it could provide quality results almost as fast as the samples were taken.
Informed sampling decisions were made, and no time was wasted sampling randomly.
The
geostatistical procedures maximized
the time and energy of
the entire
project.
After X -MET analysis, sample assays and locations were entered into
Geostat's
COMPAQ+ portable microcomputer.
Results were input into
Geostat's
TOXIPAC
Hazardous Waste Evaluation System;
output was plotted using
a Houston
Instruments DMP -42 Plotter and printed using
an Epson MX80 dot matrix
printer.
The Geostat analyst produced estimates of the contaminant spread using
kriging, a method superior to inverse distance estimators. Kriging estimates
values at unsampled locations based on the theory that nearby samples are
related to one another. The algorithms consider not only the distance between
the samples, but also their relative distances, direction in 2 dimensions and
assay values. The Geostat kriging program also mathematically evaluated the
percent error of its estimates based local sample information. The binary
method, explained in Section 2.3, managed the estimation problems associated
with disturbed tailings.
2.3 The Binary Model
The binary model was developed by Geostat Systems and CDM to address the
random movement of the contaminated tailings and maximize the information
available at the site. This model adds an enhancement to standard kriging
(2.2). Based on the binary model and kriging algorithms, indicator kriging
proved to be the answer.
Page 5 of 9
The characterization of the soils at the site revealed that the native soil
and off-site fill did not contain high concentrations of lead. Sample analysis
correlated the presence of lead with the presence of tailings, which did contain
concentrations above. the 1000 ppm action level. The tailings could be
distinguished from fill and native soil by their dark color and high degree of
angularity. The solution was to estimate the spread of tailings.
The binary model permitted the field geologist to classify the material
surrounding the sample according to whether or not tailings were present. This
information, based on geologic experience and field observation, was input into
the indicator kriging program to produce contour estimation maps of the
percentage of tailings present.
The tailings maps, plotted on clear mylar, were laid over the kriged maps
to show the correlation between estimations. The binary method accounted for
the mixed soil populations from the random movement of the tailings. Correlated
with X -Met sample analysis, indicator kriging gives a better estimate of the
average contamination because it checks estimation against field observation.
2.4 Broken Pattern Sampling
The geostatistical analyses were carried out in stages as the samples were
analyzed. Data was added and new maps produced incrementally, as they were
needed by the field team. Field analysis and mapping of this kind permitted
broken pattern sampling, or sampling strategy based on assay maps with error
percentages.
At this site, a regular grid with a predetermined number of samples was not
imposed, because the contaminant was not spread regularly (2.3). Samples were
taken where they were needed to complete the data set. The contour maps and
percent tailings maps showed the direction of the action line. With this
information, the field team was able to further sample using the last sample
location as a reference point. This saved location orientation time in the
field and improved the sampling efficiency.
Page 6 of 9
On-site services permitted the analysis of 180 samples, about 20 were taken
per day. This sampling ratio was higher than previous crews at the site had
achieved, despite the sampling problems inherent at a constuction site..
Sampling efficiency was further hindered by the field base map. This map,
showing site reference points and sample locations, was a county aerial map over
a decade old.
2.5 Defensibility
Defensibility of data is an important issue for any potential Superfund
site. The field team carefully documented the sampling process using standard
procedure: logging the sample location and its characteristics, taking a
photograph of the sample site each time a sample was taken, and meticulously
labeling each sample and the map. The geochemist's log from the X --Met provided
further documentation; but on this project, defensibility beyond procedural logs
is available.
Geostatistics and the contour, location, estimate and error maps it
produced are objective and repeatable data. The results are not biased by
opinion, but derived from explainable methods and algorithms. Geostatistical
methods have been used for estimation in industrial applications for over 30
years. Geostat Systems is a leader in the development of geostatistical
applications and provided qualified, experienced analysts capable of court
defense.
3.0 Recommendations
* The X -Met
The X -Met 840 was used for the first time at Smuggler Mountain and was a
success. Although it required calibration and learning time, the machine
exceeded expectations. After more field use, analysis time estimates for
different elements will be available to aid future project time planning. At
this site, the geochemist and X -Met could analyze samples faster than they could
be prepped.
Page 7 of 9
* The Sampling Team
Since the X -Met was not always in use, a larger sampling team could have
collected the same number of samples in less time. This would require
additional people and an automatic grinding machine to reduce the bottleneck in
the preparation of samples.
*
The Computer Hardware and Peripherals
Again, if more sampling crews were put in the field with the intention of
decreasing total project time, the geostatistical analysis would have to be
produced faster. Faster computers, spread sheets, printers and plotters are
available, namely the COMPAQ 286, Spreadsheet Accelerator, EPSON FXZ00 and DMP
52 Plotter.
* The X -Met and the Computer
A direct link between the X -Met and the Geostat computer would insure
correct transfer of assay values. At this site, the results were copied from
the X -Met output and X -Met log; this transfer is a possible source of incorrect
data input.
* The Base Map
More precise field sampling could have taken place at the site if an
accurate base map were available; the map used was a county aerial map of the
site before any construction. However, the field supervisor was able to
partially compensate for the lack with geologic and sampling experience. A
ground survey team taping the distance to samples is the most accurate method,
although not always the most feasible.
4.0 Conclusions
in comparing other sampling methods with on-site geostatistical services,
the main criterium is quality of the results. Accurate, repeatable, defensible
results are required. Geostatistics provides those quality results, with
percent error evaluations and prover algorithms.
Timeliness is also important, toxic materials are a problem that must be
addressed with all possible speed. With geostatistics, informative data was
Page 8 of 9
available to the EPA for discussion immediately. The project turnaround time at
this site was less than one-third of the previous method, leaving more time for
the important decisions surrounding such sites.
It is difficult to compare the costs of non-geostatistical methods with a
geostatistical evaluation. Although the objectives of both procedures are the
same, the quality of the results produced are very different. Geostatistics is
cost-effective when quality, time, defensibility and objectivity are concerns.
As a test site for field analysis, geostatistics and broken pattern
sampling, Smuggler Mountain was an ideal location. The specific problems of
contaminant dispersal, soil mixing, ppm line identification and building
construction were best handled using kriging techniques. The EPA needed
objective, repeatable data to evaluate site remediation. Geostat Systems and
CDM produced it.
Page 9 of 9
i
PR
A4 n D ��g�
1
0
9
t
LCT CLEANUP
30 da s before beoinning cl
Contractor notifies Bureau
where he plans to work
Bureau conducts field
testing, stakes
cleanup areas
Bureau contacts owner
- identifies cwner concerns
- sets meeting date for
review of cleanup plan
21 days before beginning cleanup
Bureau notifies Contractor of
cleanup areas, specific
lot parameters
14 days before beginning cleanup
Contractor submits cleanup
clan to Bureau
Bureau meets with owner to
review cleanup plan
- revise as needed
5 days oetore oeginning beginningcieanu
Bureau returns approved cleanup
plan to Contractor
I Contractor beGlns cieanupy
Owner may wish to relocate
during excavation, backfill
and sodding - approx.
7 to 12 days
ter
Bureau meets with owner to
discuss anv problems
Final inspection with owners]
Bur eau : Bureau of Reclamation
MAR 0 7 1989
t
SAMPLE INDIVIDUAL LOT PLAN
LAWN
4
0
•iii'•+•i+•iiriiiiiii�i/i•
1
>•iiiiiiiiGARpENiiiiiiii•
immamossoieieiisees
NOTES
Exi3ting tree to
remajn. 5011 Will be'
nand c !eared B tree
,or.:)t"e3, ;oral 1 u.
cr
■
. �?Crngve
3 'c i tree
g>-
3
J. h'emp,,e
� e0 i a'Ge
r
NOTES
Exi3ting tree to
remajn. 5011 Will be'
nand c !eared B tree
,or.:)t"e3, ;oral 1 u.
cr
o
. �?Crngve
3 'c i tree
g>-
3
J. h'emp,,e
� e0 i a'Ge
I
a, place concrete on
around
3urlaCe
un der decx.
5. Shed on
concrete
pad to
remain
16.Exl3ting
Shrub to
remaj n.
Soil will
be hand
cleared
8 Shrub
pruned.
?. Remove
$ replace
3hrub3
8 tree3
I;
I i nk i nd.
�S.Remove 3 replace
LAWN lawn w� 30 i ! 8
Sod
I
.� C ncrate drivewa
I 'I
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN SITE
---
WORK COMPLETED 7/ 71'2-
� /F
OWNER .l`"� --- ADDRE55 .
,milk de 09
o
to remain.
g>-
3
O
I 'I
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN SITE
---
WORK COMPLETED 7/ 71'2-
� /F
OWNER .l`"� --- ADDRE55 .
,milk de 09
`
J
je"
`Pw�b
4
w
M w
w
�� Mr%
�{ , '�,
�_ � ,;
f>;
�x+���•s�s�s���t�.��;;
., .
.. . ' - `�
e .. — �
g� — -� �� � � � � .1
CuA✓,
r=o}
wI/>-
Ce�ftc)
Jew-
Cewea)
� Td Gri�:Tes .�!}ZL%ri y5'
�`.EeYf1s di�i`e
iyi aY`a�v
� Y1
S 7 -10
�N�r Gree, �ibf�iAT%caS �
�G r7-�j
SAry« ST ffad'
Aac e sT, / a e L
7-5bk"V L��Q 7/z }�c�b Ami" i d Stele
I.
G&ArFeAw rr G
( C 17� uJ�7e,)
Gi777
,
G�
r�
3
Las+/isKi
Ctv8//�
Gam s/,
�il�r CcuyTS
C- C-/727
C4444a,ev,q (;,B//,
r—Y , /.
7-1654 (1-89) COMPUTATION SHEET
Bureau of Reclamation
BY
OX TE
PROJECT
SHEET OF
CHKD BY
DATE
FEATURE
DETAILS
�� I�j }4.r}Ir�� �•5 _ � -.ems_ .i f �• - (�y�5j
% - .• 4 l.l. �� - t �. � \. - 1 tee• ,J�q(•/+ -. i. � . 1 \,�'-* /�• }:r`
LU
111A,
4Cttl .�•op
.lam j �� � �l ✓J� ��I ,\/ i
41
If
is J it ,� �'C ,! ��.,k,._ .• �
Al
/ ^.jam/�/ C �•--=x- ',��! 4. %/
rzl
1�'i
�� � / f .�`��` �� l—, - `1� '-l1 111 � -•��. i Ili !I !
p
PUBLIC LAW 96-510—DEC. 11, 1980
thee) thin one hundred and eighty days after enactment Ate,
rator of the Environmental Protection n
after coasu 'on with the Attorne General, este o3' shall,
guidelines for ' the imminent and publish
g+eacy response au 'ties of this �• en Ment, an emer-
administered by the section an er existin statutes
AgeSucrator of thand viroranPowers created Lection
the. Such guidelines; ��1 to m t Practicable be consistent this
nsiSteat with
a minimum, the am" ns an, and shall include, at
response actions with th o f tY for coordinating
went of standards tive orders, enforce -
other
pern its, the gathe ' of information, and
sections �3li(cxt a emergency authorized by (1)
Control Act, oa�� 35Ma) of the Fede ater Pollution
D,sposa! (3) sections I445 a0a$d 1431 of X003 o solid Waste as USC 1321,
17 (4) lOnB 11.3, 114, snd 303 of the Clean Al Safe
13t�n Water 131&. 1319. 1364.
7 of To= Substances Control Act, 'pct, and (5 ion 42 USC 69.27.
6928; Antr. p.
23314, 42 USC
6973,
304L 41. USC 300j-4,
42 USC 7413,
7414.76o,3.
15 USC 2606,
42 USC 9607,
STAT. 2781
Guidelines.
LUBU Ty
Ste, 107. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law,
and subject only to the defenses Set forth in subsection (b) of this
section --
(1) the owner and operator of a vessel (otherwise subject
jurisdiction of the United States) or a facility,to the
(2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous
substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazard-
ous sut6tances were disposed of
(3) an Person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise
arranged for disposal or treatment, or arran
Porter for transport for disposal gid with atrans-
bstano�es awned or P� or treatment, of hazardous
Party or entity, at any sed by such person, by any other
Party or entity and con ty owned or operated by another
taining such
(4) any person who hazardous substances, and
stances for transport pts or accepted any hazardous sub-
selected by d*)0sal or treatment facilities or sites
threatened rSuc'h Pe�'�' from which there is a release, or a
ofa hazardot� substance,which
causes t� Incurrence of response casts,
shall be liable for—
(A) all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the
United Sates Government or a State not hlcoasistent with
the national contingency phm;
(B) any other necessarJ► costs of response incurred b an
other person censistent with the national contingency and 8e cy plant
mud cuor injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural
dla$ the reasonable costs of assessing such
iR1s'�'. destruction, or loss resulting frons such a release.
a Person otherwise liable under subset don (BJ of this section for
evidence that the release ho can establish by a preponderance of the
stance and the dam threat of release of a hazardous Sul).
(1) an act of Godes resulting therefrom were caused solely by—
(2) an act of war.
(3) an act or omission of a thirdparty other than an employee
Or agent of the a den with or haone whose act or omission
contractual relationship, existing
z
94 STAT. 2782 PUBLIC LAW 96-510—DEC. 11, 1980
directly or indirectly, with the defendant (except where the sole
contractual arrangement arises from a published tariff and
acceptance for carriage by a common carrier by rail), if the
defendant establishes by a reponderance of the evidence that (a)
he exercised due care with respect to the hazardous substance
concerned, taldn8 into consideration the characteristics of such
hazardous substance4 in light of all relevant facts and cireum-
stance% and (b) he took precautions against foreseeable acts or
omissions of any such third party and the consequences that
could foreseeably result from such acts or omissions; or
(4) any combination of the foregoing hs.
Wl) Except as provided in paragraph(2�this subsection, the
liability under this section of an owner or operator or other responm-
bie person for each release of a hazardous substance or incident
involving release of a hazardous substance shall not exceed—
(A} for any vessel which carries any hazardous substance as
cargo or residue, $300 per groes ton, or $5,040,000, whichever is
greater.
(B) for any other vessel, $Soo per groes ton, or $500,000,
whichever is greater;
49 USC 2001(C) for any motor vehicle, aircraft, pipeline (as defined in the
note. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979)2 or rollin stock,
$50,000,000 or such lesser amount as the Presidentahall estab-
relea�for
s o�haTardoua but
substano�es as defined insectaio'n010 (14xA)
of this title into the navigable waters, $8,000,000). Such regula-
tions shall take into account the size, type, location, storage, and
handling capacity and other matters relating to the likelihood of
release in each such class and to the economic impact of such
limits on each such class; or
(D) for any facility other than those spe�led in subparagraph
(C) of this paragraph, the total of all csoeta of response glue
$5(1000,000 for any damages under this title.
(2) N ' the Wes
inph (1) of this subeec-
tion. the liability of an owner or operator oro er responsible person
under this section shall be the full and total costa ofnse and
ges,
damaif (AM) the release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance was the result of willful misconduct or willful negligence
within the privity or knowledge of such person, or (ii) the primary
cause of the release was a violation (within the privity or knowledge
of such person) of applicable safety, construction, or operating stand-
ards
or regulations; or (B) such person fails or r refuses to provide all
reasonable cooperation and assistance requested by a responsible
public oBcud in connection with response activities tinder the
national contingency plan with respect to regulated farriers subject
to the provisions of title 49 of the United States Code or vessels
subject to the provisions of title 33 or 46 of the United States Code,
subparagra
ph or of this paragraph shall be deemed to refer to
regulations.
(3) if any person who is liable for a release or threat of release of a
hazardous substance fails without sufficient cause to pmperly pro-
vide removal or remedial action upon order of the President pursuant
to section 104 or 106 of this Act, such person may be liable to the
United States for punitive dumases in an amount at least equal to,
and not more than three times, the amount of any costs incurred by
the Fund as a result of such failure to take proper action. The
President is authorized to commence a civil action against any such
person to recover the punitive damages, which ahaU be in addition to
WW
PUBLIC LAW 96-510—DEC. 11, 1980 94 STAT. 2783
any costs recovered from such person pursuant to section 112(c) of
this Act. Any moneys received by the United States pursuant to this
subsection shall be deposited in the Fend.
(d) No person shall be liable under this title for damages as a result
of actions taken or omitted in the course of rendering care, assistance,
or advice in accordance with the national contingency plan or at the
direction of an onscene coordinator appointed under such plan, with
respect to an incident creating a danger to public health or welfare or
the environment as a result of any release of a hazardous substance
or the threat thereof. This subsection shall not preclude liability for
4 aanaas the result of grave negligence or intentional misconduct
on the part of such person. For the purposes of the preceding
sentence, reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct shall constitute
groes negligence -
(01) No indemnification, hold harmless, or similar agreement or
conveyance shall be effective to transfer from the owner or operator
of any vessel or facility or from any person who may be liable for a
release or threat of release under this section, to anV other person the
liability imposed under this section. Nothing in this subsection shall
bar any agreement to insure, hold harmless, or indemnify a party to
such agreement for any liability under this section.
(2) Nothing in this title, including the provisions of paragraph (1) of
this subsection, shall bar a cause of action that an owner or operator
or any other person subject to liability under this section, or a
guarantor, has or would have, by reason of subrogation or otherwise
against any person.
(0 In the ease of an injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural
resources under subparagraph (L7 of subsection (a) liability shallbe to
the United States Government and to any State for natural resources
within the State or belongl''aagg to, managed by, controlled by, or
appertaining to such State: PiuideA hOuNuer, That no liability to the
United States or State shall be imposedunder sub p (C} of
subsection (a), where the party sought charged onstrat-
ed that the damages to natural resources complained of were sperm
tally identified as an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
natural resources in an environmental impact statement, or other
es,
comparable environment analysand the decision to grant a permit
or license authorizes such commitment of natural resources. and the
facility orproject was otherwise operatingwithin the terms of its
_
permit or cense. The President, or the authorized representative of
any State, shall act on behalf of the public as trustee of such natural
resources to recover for such damages. Sams recovered shall be
available for use to restore, rehabilitate, or acquire the eQWvalent of
such natural resources by the appropriate agencies of the Federal
Government or the State government, but the measure of such
damages sha11 not be limited Lp the gums which can be used to restore
or replace such resources. There shall be no recovery under the
authority of sub graph (C) of subsection (a) where such damages
and the reIease off a hazardous substance from which such damages
resulted have occurred wholly before the enactment of this Act.
lIeeg�islative, landjudicial brraanchhes of tor heFederalCo ernment shall bof the e
subject to, and comply with, this Act in the same manner and to the
same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovern-
mental entity, including liability under this section.
(h) The owner or operator of a vessel shall be liable in accordance
with this section and as provided under section 114 of this Act
79-139 (350) 0 - 81 - 3
L(
94 STAT. 2784 PUBLIC LAW 96-510—DEC. 11, 1980
notwithstanding any provision of the Act of March 3,1851(46 U.S.C.
183M. .
. (i) No person (including the United States or any State) may
recover under the authority of this section for any response casts or
damages resulting from the application of a pesticide product regis-
7 USC 136 nom tered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
Nothing in this ph shall affect or modify in any war the
obligations orof any person under any other provision of
State or Federal law, uicluding common law, for damages, u;juryi or
lose resulting from a release of any hazardous substance or for
removal or remedial action or the costs of removal or remedial action
of such hazardous substance.
State)( for
by any person (including the United States or any
response costs or damages resulting from a federally
permitted release shall be pursuant to existing law in lieu of this
section. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect or modify in any way
the obligations or liability of any person under any other provision of
State or Federal law, including common law, for damages, injury, or
loss resulting from a release of any hazardous substance or for
removal or remedial action or the costs of removal or remedial action
of such hazardous substance. In addition, costs of response incurred
by the Federal Government in connection with a discharge specified
in section 101(10) 0 or (C) shall be recoverable in an action brought
33 USC 1319. under section 309(b) of the Clean Water Act.
(kXl) The liability established by this section or any other law for
the owner or operator of a hazardous waste dispasafaciiity which
has received a permit under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal
Asst 2804. Act, shall be transferred to and assumed by the Post -closure Liability
Fund established by section 232 of this Act when --
(A) such facility and the owner and operator thereof has
complied with the requirements of subtitle C of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act and regulations issued thereunder, which may
affect the performance of such facility after closure; and
0 such facility has been closed in socordanc:e with such
regulations and the conditions of such permit. and such facility
and the surrounding area have been monitored as required by
such regulations and permit conditions for a period not to exceed
five ye�aars after closure to demonstrate that there is no substan-
tial lilmlihood that any migration offsite or release from conf-xne-
meat of any hazardous substance or other risk to public health or
welfare will occur.
(2) Such transfer of liability shall be effective ninety days after the
owner or operator of such facility notifies the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (and the State where it has an
authorized program under section 3006(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal
42 USC 026. Act) that the conditions imposed by this subsection have been
satisfied. If within such ninety -day period the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency or such State determines that any
such facility has notcompplied with all the conditions imposed by this
subsection or that inaufficient information has been provided to
demonstrate such compliance, the Administrator or such State shall
so notify the owner and operator of such facility and the administra-
tor of the Fund established by secctio 1232 of this Act, and the owner
and operator of such facility shall continue to be liable with respect to
suchfacility under this section and other law until such time as the
Administrator and such State determines that such facility has
complied with all conditions imposed by this subsection. A determina-
tion by the Administrator or such State that a facility has not
PUBLIC LAW 96-510—DEC. 11, 1980 94 STAT. 2785
complied with all conditions imposed by this subsection or that
insufficient information has been supplied to demonstrate compli-
ance, shall be a final administrative action for purposes of judicial
review. A request for additional information shall state in specific
terms the data required.
(3) In addition to the assumption of liability of owners and one
tors under ph (1) of this subsection, the Post -closure Liabili on-
tors
estab=by section 232 of this Act may be used to pa costs of
monitoring and care and maintenance of a site incurred by other
Persons after the period of monitoring required by regulations under
subtitle C of the Solid Waste �Dis�poesjal Act for hazardous waste
disposal facilities meeting the conditions of paragraph (1) of this
subsection.
(4XA) Not later than one year atter the date of enactment of this
s
Act.
the Secretary
on to the shall conduct a study and shall
Congresson the feasibility of establish -
J g or qualifying an optional system of private insurance foro-
sure financial responsibility for hazardous waste disposal facilitiesdto
which this subsection applies. Such study shall incl e a specification
of adequate and realistic minimum standards to assure that any such
privately placed insurance will carry out the purposes of this subsec-
tion in a reliable, enforceable, and practical manner. Such a study
shall include an examination of the public and private incentives,
Programs, and actions necessary to make privately placed insurance
a practical and effective option to the financing system for the Post,
closure Liability Fund provided in title II of this Act. -
(B) Not later than eighteen months atter the date of enactment of
this Act and after a public hearing, the President shall by rule
determine whether or not it is feasible to establish or qualify an.
Optional system of private insurance for postclos ure financial
responsibility for hazardous waste disposal facilities to which this
subsection applies. If the President determines the establishment or
qualification of such a system would be infeasible, he shall promptly
Publish an explanation of the reasons for such a determinatiom if the
President determines the establishment or qualification of such a
s"m would be Feasible, he shall promptlypublish notice of such
rmination. Not later than six months after an allirmative deter.
mination under the preceding sentence and atter a public hearing,
the President shall by rule promulgate adequate and realistic abii-
mwn standards which moist be met by any such privately placed
insurance, ming into aemnt the=o€ this Act and this
subsection. Such riles shall alsoasonably expeditious
procedures by which Privately placed insurance plana can qualify as
meeting such minimum standard&
(C) In the event any privately placed. plan qualifies under
subparagraph (B). an person enrolled in, and cwmplying with the
terms of. such plan shall be excluded from the provisions of nam -
graphs (1). (2), and (3) of this subsection and exempt from the
requirements topay any tax or fee to the Poet -closure Liability Rind
under title II of this Act.
(D) The President may issue such rules and take such other actions
as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this paragraph.
Sze. 148.
cargo) aver
FWANCiAL REVONSMUMN
42 USC 6921. ,
Ruta.
The owner or operator of each vessel (except non- q 42 USC 9608.
zgs-t does riot- carry hazardous substances as
hundred grass rt or place in the
�eitJQl�f'� -7— / Q
SSG 77 7b7Lf /0-2
H. R. 2005-16
106. REIMBURSEMENT.
,ction 106(b) of CERCLA is amended as follows:
(1) Insert "UP after "(b)"".
(2) Strike out "who willfully" and insert/nn"without suff
ci t cause, willfully". f(9Add at the end thereof the followw par p"( A) Any person who receives and comith th imsof anorder issued under subsection (a) i daysafter cd pletion of the required action, pt esidentfar reim ursement from the Fund for thn le costs ofsuch act! , plus interest. Any interest under thisparagraph' all accrue on the amounts exfrom the dateof expendit at the same rate as specor interest oninvestments the Hazardous Substance Snd establishedunder subchap r A of chapter 98 of the In Revenue Code
of 1954.
"(B) If the Presi ent
made under this
of receipt of such re
the appropriate Uni
ment from the Fund.
"(C) Except as provi
imbursement, the petit!
of the evidence that it
section 107(a) and that
are reasonable in light
order. f'
"(D) A petitioner w
107(a) may also el
extent that it can`dem
refuses to grant�ll or part of a petition
agraph, the petit�'6ner may within 30 days
file an acttdr. against the President in
States district court seeking reimburse -
IN in 6[bparagraph (D), to obtain re -
3n all establish by a preponderance
is; • t liable for response costs under
costs r which it seeks reimbursement
the ction required by the relevant
is liable response costs under section
its reason le costs of response to the
�natrate,on a administrative record,
that the Presi , ` is decision in sel ' g the response action
ordered was a itrary and capricious was otherwise not in
accordance A"th law. Reimbursement warded under this
subparagraph shall include all reasonab response costs in-
curred by' he petitioner pursuant to the po 'ons of the order
found to`� arbitrary and capricious or othe not in accord-
ance with law.
"(E) -'Reimbursement awarded by a court under ftparagraph
1 ' (D) may include appropriate costs, fees, an other ex-
ses in accordance with subsections (a) and (d) of on 2412
title 28 of the United States Code.".
SEC. 107. LIABILITY.
(a) FOREIGN VESSELS.—Section 107(ax1) of CERCLA is amended by
strikinf out "(otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States) '.
(b) REeovEBABLE COSTS AND DAMAGEs.—Section 107(a) of CERCLA
is amended by striking out "and" at the end of subparagraph (B),
striking out the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting
and' and inserting at the end thereof the following:
"(D) the costs of any health assessment or health effects
study carried out under section 104(i).
The amounts recoverable in an action under this section shall
include interest on the amounts recoverable under subparagraphs
(A) through (D). Such interest shall accrue from the later of (i) the
date payment of a specified amount is demanded in writing, or (ii)
the date of the expenditure concerned. The rate of interest on the
H. R. 2045-15
or pollutants or contaminants from a site which is listed by the
President as a 'Site Cleaned Up To Date' on the National Priorities
List (revised edition, December 1984) the site shall be restored to the
National Priorities List, without application of the hazard ranking
system.
"(f) MINORITY CoNTRAcroRs.--In awarding contracts under this
Act, the President shall consider the availability of qualified minor-
ity firms. The President shall describe, as part of any annual report
submitted to the Congress under this Act, the participation of
minority firms in contracts carried out under this Act. Such report
shall contain a brief description of the contracts which have been
awarded to minority firms under this Act and of the efforts made by
the President to encourage the participation of such firms in pro-
grams carried out under this Act.
"(g) SPECIAL STUDY WASTES.—
"M APPLICATION.—This subsection applies to facilities—
"(A) which as of the date of enactment of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 were not
included on, or proposed for inclusion on, the National
Priorities List; and
"(B) at which special study wastes described in paragraph
(2), (3XA)(ii) or MA)( D of section 3001(b) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act are present in significant quantities, including
any such facility from which there has been a release of a
special study waste.
"(2) CONSIDERATIONS IN ADDING FAEILrI ES TO NPI..—Pending
revision of the hazard ranking system under subsection (c), the
President shall consider each of the following factors in adding
facilities covered by this section to the National Priorities List:
"(A) The extent to which hazard ranking system score for
the facility is affected by the presence of any special study
waste at, or any release from, such facility.
"(B) Available information as to the quantity, toxicity,
and concentration of hazardous substances that are
constituents of any special study waste at, or released from
such facility, the extent of or potential for release of such
hazardous constituents, the exposure or potential exposure
to human population and the environment, and the degree
of hazard to human health or the environment posed by the
release of such hazardous constituents at such facility. This
subparagraph refers only to available information on actual
concentrations of hazardous substances and not on the total
quantity of special study waste at such facility.
"(3) SAVINGS PRovisloxs. Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to limit the authority of the President to remove any
facility which as of the date of enactment of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1988 is included on
the National Priorities List from such List, or not to list any
facility which as of such date is proposed for inclusion on such
list.
"(4) INFORMATION GATHERING AND ANALYSIS.—Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to preclude the expenditure of monies
from the Fund for gathering and analysis of information which
will enable the President to consider the specific factors re-
quired by paragraph (2)."
o 0 oa
w>a i
I�III li I
11M,
iz
e
I �
—
1�'.
j
r
� ,, �' � : � � � .� �• , �/I �� / it � I �— � �/ I�� _ � -- � ` - �_� ,'
s
''' ,' �, r ;�• - � � � ; ���� !/� � % � � IFI C � % �� � �'��:� �� :.
—
�J 4 I v�
l i M, \
,
------------
I I
L
,
r
a_ J,
r \ -
rtlop�
51
E
lbj
F y.. p " � �M�I U• Y ,Y P aW�
✓ � � w r a r aft �� "�', " "�i�'" �
y.
skVA
p x u I y k
q 9
d " r
Pill
F
^ wef
ti
P
4r� .^ ry i,p!, "°:,. ��" M ✓' i "" ro F, "pip, "" rr ,',r i M'
pi Z( 6q " x rR1�Y . Wre r `"t
y
�p
205
LL
L�
F -R
ME
A � 4 ,,WVIIW'W �d.JMm 4�
s10
;n e rr r
E
222
W "
° J CL
CC
cc
CC
LLJ W
V Dc
9
° C/) m
w
r
223
IN
■
,
�� § ��\
;;
. �� `f %\�}>\\�
� w � � ) \�\] \� (
m
m N
j
0'
R
tp aap RN I!X la '1f�fi t^7 1� f5; e,� ia5= ''tg". Y�
t o _
■== ,a p'
lR�eA 1i�N �t= jRY �� �a� �t� 't; -!'= fC�"■�
IY7
is}R �iiS.
IlA
I■
ilaR� la:
I.1
-rcX ■�a t� lad y ■^w ;■ lic tx a. a� la - i��_
t
-�R fi s �_aC� R$p RAN
'a�=
fid_
■a' `�;-
It ■�.. Vit'
_i_x la x ■ _gR � �
ItR zq
{i#:
.
C�
I
MII
!IQ_ _
!s��
O U c o
41
\V
- , SRR att x _ea aux : �c
a' r
t
U
v
m
bE-�ait��„ -.
;�
1! I-'
-
i �1 A '', ! 6 t 5' m fi �^ _ F N■ t R
I �
-- j —I—�— r
,- r
' y� S >< T It
s
r
Et�IyA
!�S^-
7 J:
]I _. K G =:. ] -_
'
�a�f ra
•*
■n= N7^ 4X�i I S aR nailC 1p�i R iN i
r -
r—
!:_
Ilan: jPM1w ag: i, d- C7N w �i 7i 7teG
+FIY
y�R x�a =&t
1. -.�� f:'= R- RNa R -'s ■ e ■ � Rii � a qsR a�e
s_r
¢ � i i R
I I I
�-
G.. :.�. i+ Ila _ !t �; �tA- .aJI ��� �iC= 1i: _ I �k= file. P�a
I
�Sa
■F9 x,59 SCa
N R
INC■
a I0s2 ■ '-
■
_:a ':
7
If■
- a A i
GLS
la i x �' 'NEC
! =
1= x
N ■
RA7
ail■
A
t�YP
a� R
■ 81
iR
.0„X
EwF
a l,aa�,
saG
Y=
tx
i!x
BSc
`
�E�
�ra�
S^ a t G
R i fi a p a ■ fi T. r
A l
a L
i
l t 7
X A 7
R F 7
p
ag=
!+¢=
��n
kw�x
I:sx !���
fat �e�n ;lana laaa ¢x�c
a jt
�u,�■
a�:
a�`
aha
�s
!R7■R;
NAi
Ria
IS■7 IYYIF
iiS Y7 S�Fx 3 x�jM
7_R
q�'i A^Ji
G�■
7Fa
A�71
■���t■w�
ASC
Reil jaace
ay■'Raa f%�18 8 akS
NAS
1s
It a=
a -A
aFEi7
A��
-
-
1 -- --
f�fi
m N
j
0'
R
Q
m
m
�3
V
m
I.1
�
U
n
�
C�
I
MII
O U c o
41
\V
(dl`
11
t
U
v
m
m N
j
0'
R
Q
m
m
�3
V
m
I.1
�
U
j
0'
R
Q
m
m
�3
NY Y
m
I.1
Q
C�
I
MII
41
\V
(dl`
11
U
v
m
R
m m
m
m
NY Y
T
I.1
CDM
environmental engineers, scientists,
planners, & management consultants
October 28, 1985
Mr. Ian K. Whitlock
Arnold & Porter
1700 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80203
Document No: 149-WP1-IN-BVXA-1
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Riverpoint
230015th Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
30.3 45 8-1 311
Q
N O V 4 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ASPEN/PIITKIN
Subject: Transmittal of Fred C. Hart mapping of Smuggler Mountain Site,
reconciled to scale with Geostat Systems overlays of 66% and 99%
confidence lead contamination in lines of 1000 ppm
Dear Mr. Whitlock:
Enclosed please find one set of the maps noted above. These were prepared
at the direction of Tom Staible, EPA, with the assistance of Tom Dunlop in
Aspen. We trust that they may assist EPA and the PRPs in reconciling the
two approaches for mapping of lead concentrations at the Smuggler site.
I understand from Gary Shaughnessy of CDM that you may have other requests
of us regarding mapping of this type. I will contact Mr. Staible about our
ability to handle your requests, and you may wish to expedite this
arrangement by your direct contact to him.
By copy of this letter and attachments, we are transmitting this material
to interested agency and PRP representatives. Please call me or Mr.
Shaughnessy if we may answer any questions or be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Scott Mernitz
Site Manager
SM/bjp
cc: (w/attachments)
T. Staible, EPA
P. Phillips, Holland & Hart
T. Morahan, F.C. Hart
T. Dunlop, Aspen/Pitkin Env. Health
M. Gearhart, CDH
R. Bryan, Geostat
File IN -PR
0
c
j
G r
C m
0
� a
o% min
* z 0
If
.e
iv m
mx
� N
0
ro m 0 Cel 0
3'm 3 Lu CL
-
m e
\ Nm ro C K 0 �
m�: -�i n}
ro � e+ � N xi
0 3 m OU
V co 0 �a r LLI O 6
^4
�
�eee amu 4 Ci
c,, U >
e� O Lt F
N F.
r "
9995 ga a 1 m
4
1
99�
B&9E
h get
ftol
1 l
C7J
�mr X s°m� 1
�daF a 1)
D 1
1
CDM
environmental engineers, scientists,
planners, & management consultants
November 14, 1985
Mr, Ian K. Whitlock
Arnold & Porter
1700 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Riverpoint
230015th Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
303 458-1311
Subject: Transmittal of Map Showing lead Kriged Contour Lines, Property
Boundaries, Data Sampling Points, and Soil/Tailings Lead Values,
Smuggler Mountain Site, Colorado
Document Control No.: 149-WPI-IN-BXKZ-1
Dear Mr. Whitlock:
Enclosed please find one copy of the described map. Copies of this map
have been transmitted to those individuals noted below.
This material was prepared by Geostat Systems using data already in their
computer files, which were then recompiled for purposes of your request.
These data are present in Appendix 1 of the Geostat report. We plotted
only the 1,000, 3,000, 5,000 and 10,000 ppm Pb lines from the 66%
confidence map (see letter of October 28, 1985).
As a guide to the use of the enclosed map, the following example is
suggested. The 1,000 ppm contour at the north central boundary of the
Centennial property (see arrow on map) encloses a semi -circle. We can make
the following statements about areas in this vicinity.
1. The 1,000 ppm line here is plotted with a 20-50% level of error
(see arrow on attached small Figure 6.3 from the Geostat report).
2. Therefore, Pb values on this line could range from 500-1,500 ppm
(at 50%) or 800-1,200 ppm (at 20% error).
3. Based upon the way this map was compiled, we can male statement
No. 2 above two times out of three (with a 66%, or - one standard
deviation level of confidence).
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Mr. Ian K. Whitlock
11/13/85
Page 2
4. The 99% confidence line (see October 28 letter) could be used if
an even more conservative estimate of areas of contamination is
desired. The shift in the line between the 66% and 99% displays
indicates also our confidence in the data (minor shift (-50') _
greater confidence in the line).
5. Using this guidance, one can address this and various other areas
on the site for remediation purposes.
Please call me if you have additional questions or requests.
Sincerely,
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC.
4
Scott Merni tz 7
Site Manager
Enc. J
SM/cs
cc: T. Staible, EPA
P. Phillips, Holland & Hart
T. Morahan, F.C. Hart
T. Dunlop, Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health
C. Russell, CDH
R. Bryan, Geostat, (without attachments)
File/1N-PR Smuggler Site
i
i
9
i
I
0
0
U
m
6Z! g` 691
9e U
o
C
� o
9S; m
R
i
a
�mm4? 7�
aD
14
0
�1
s
s
w Lr
W
i
LO cr
I
:O =
I
;r w
c ca
a
b
z c
s
Z V`
Y S
O 2 +
K
ULU
3
' 1
Q
J Li
1
a
Figure 6.3, S8 Contours of Composite Errors
41
0
ui
uj
4�
MRS
ci
7;
z
4
cp O
cc
E 'a
E
v
E
a
C6
LU
�O0
m
0
0
uj
a7n;P
F
fn
4
.j
z
0.
z
0
olllll
0
ui
uj
ci
7;
z
4
cp O
cc
E 'a
E
v
E
a
C6
LU
�O0
m
0
0
uj
z
4
cc
E
tu
a
C6
0
uj
a7n;P
F
fn
4
.j
z
0.
z
0
Z
N
r
v1
z
0
LU
Ul
_j
z
0
LL
CC
3
0
0
LU
o
0
0
.j
w
cc
CL
<
AFRNOLI) 8c P013TE13
CABLE:"ARFOPO" ONE UNITED BANK CENTER
7ELECOPSER:(303) 832-0428 1700 LINCOLN STREET
TELEX: 89-2733 DENVER, COLORADO 80203
IAN K. WHITLOCK (303) 963.1000
DIRECT LINE:(303) 863-2306
November 13, 1985
Paul Phillips, Esquire
Holland & Hart
Suite 2900
555 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colordo 80202
1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
(202) 872-6700
Io
= =)
NOV 1985
L.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ASPEWPITKIN
Re: Smuggler Mountain Site: Camp Dresser-
& Mcuee Geostatistical Maps
Dear Paul:
In response to your request, I enclose copies of
maps which accompanied the Camp Dresser & McKee geosta-
tistical report. I also enclose an extract from that
report, entitled "On -Site Geostatistics: A Sampling
Program for Smuggler Mountain." If you would like a copy
of the report itself (approximately 100 pages), I would
be happy to have it duplicated, or send over my file copy
for your review.
Please call me with any questions you may have.
Best personal regards.
Sincerely,
Ian K. Whitlock
Enclosures
cc w/enclosures;
Mr. Sam W. Brown, Jr.
Paul Johnson, Esquire
Steven Smathers, Esquire
Thomas F. Smith, E quire
Mr. Thomas Dunlop
�--
e[
m
S Q
2
~
X: Ln
a
4*
G
per..
Ir
5
Cer sf
°
ems ' sr \J 1
so it
e70
0
30 40
wff�l
S Q
~
Ln U m
4*
G
per..
o r
n
W
O
CC L W
rvw wCL
A
+
W i,
I-•
W
A
O
u ¢
o =�
r
W Un
R
J
W�_
-, r _ g H
LD Lm
= w
an w
n x
_ a- m m 3
im
3 Ln
f� cr
W P SJ U m
X085 L� '
4t.
e
i
l
i
"t-.4 4 N
ry
AA
CO
its
51
LJ
Ie
se
So ol
is
as
ear as �
C) ec e
c 4P
Be
ON 40
vs
er
I
_I
3
pww"W"'W
m
io
m
m
m
m
v
i
o
W p
V1 4ml1 m v
is �ia
inA /nA
iai
!gip
■i
■S
14F
Kitt
143
T.ip=
IIl-
�■�
l'�^
1:R
■dA
CdA
�wN
■�R
�^F
���I��C
��2
��
��S
�qe
Il.M
_{■��■�w
IY; /
i■�^■�':
"5ER
1:R
o
�a
�nA
��F
�s
i1111RR�
■:'_'
■-'_"
,�a
Q U7
Ou
o
z
C3 M
�■
r
':i.S
P. �S
'�A
MI a
■'�
a�7
■_a
X -^n
1RR
-,�A
R p
O�N
R
R F
Iii=
'!:=
Tj�F' y�«
�F�A
i1sR i=CR
7ln I Ni -
��= kt�C
Sg}I
tl1�R
��q
ra�l�
,tl�j:
�8F
Rax
Rix
's �d R
_C E7g�
eRSI
SHR
�$R
d R
ara
°'IRR
/
— t
!■`-R les
:�1tFR ■6R 11 =�>a RRRR�� Itw!
_ .
R
N
A YIR �MtRS �RMtR A$S ��S 7aW ■�= R■F 38� �!
,MSC
ia�R a�q ?_: 9_ N ear pN
aaN ja^ aRc ;R A ia4s
R
■ N;
i R=
� R F
/�-
R S R
RRA
■�-
=� IA
F� R,
SFR
3� 3
! i N N y S F B F J� a R_ R n a
��=
I■�=
■�=
«�R
A�'+
�RR^N
!�:
ld-
-�f1
NIR
:xa
r�=
xr7 i
(ir
S�R
71�G
A�>e
1A -!lit
t:1
■ S
A�Ra
Reg
■eS
/ 3
■5-
R�:
= ■
R7R
dp'-"R
■;/
fleR'
det
R�'
R¢:
RF�9
�R?
� �i�
=
��c
ads
R��
� a
■p�
■�=
!a-
t
?
s�?
:.^�R
IR�9
!=
■�A
i■�t
/��
x�x
ery�
?�q
■R
!�=
!a,
^®-o
�'�
RSw
R
!�S
R�
i.e:
1�=
�l
� ._
F�A
d&:
A&6
9�■T�!
'-
■ '-
■.:
ne7
■
RSR
■�!
!3_
/=_
!�-
■��
R53
ARS
I«R�
1�9
■^
a�«
aIG9
��t
183
!�R
!X%
16 �B 1E
/ =
■_
S !
A 8 IN
± d R
^„ 0 x
G C
Z MI
■ S
I !Ili 7.
! i:
Y X C
: e«
■ ry
!$ -.
R 8 x
e R
it
■a.
pd
R��
axR
lAC
x�■
F1�?
Ai
i«
AYR/
Cha
��z
�qa
fY7
diI1R
RF7
■FI=
■fes=
^�0
RSIx
aFR
AIiF
�AS
It Mt f7
Ra
ARa
x�pt
IIxF
?�i
IYEi
Fi:
C.M1C
7!ijF
='?
■s=
� «
Arg
RAMI
aMla
lIRF
RFS
li
'd&a
Ryes
d�ja
a^!
IA S'i
p a
,'. 11
76 1
NQ,�
!A=
■p=
t=IR
ASG
RRa
aAR
lfii
■A
ed
MIaR
5�F
Ned
i
�tgA
aR
RRe9
ReS
■��
��c
■��
���
Ria
r��
q��
t.�F
s�erlr�r.'R�a
��+:
��='i+q
R��
plc
a�q
r
m
0
w
CE U
a
e
ri
t
I
o
a
Q U7
Ou
o
z
C3 M
m
i
1
m
0
9
T
! m
20 m
�n
a
N
�m
s0 6" 09
F-
F_ r
Ul !,J
i ¢_
50
J SB 9N'�i^
e
ele,
�� 80
m �
Bf �0
� S
O
s n d 199 g0
as h� j_'�\' 'm�' 4a Ile
a6
�~
e
m
m
N
m m
9 0 m �
,� a a m
--
-
-- - �
. ,s
,�
A
R1
Y y
W
� Y
9 ? 1
USE OF A PORTABLE X-RAY ANALYZER AND GEOSTATISTICAL
EVALUATION TO DETECT AND EVALUATE HAZARDOUS METALS
IN MINE/MILL TAILINGS r1
Scott Mernitz, Ph.D.
Roger Olsen, Ph.D.
Camp Dresser i McKee Inc.
2300 15th Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado
ABSTRACT
Tow Staible
EPA, Region VI
One Denver Plac
999 18th Street fj dV 4 1985
Denver, Col orad
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ASPEWPITKIN
The authors discuss the use of a portable x-ray fluorescence analyzer
and geostatistical programs to (1) define hazardous waste site
boundaries, and (2) assess health risks to affected populations from
heavy metals in soil/tailings. Applicability of the techniques to
pining waste sites throughout the Rocky Mountain states is addressed in
relation to the number of such sites on the active or proposed
Superfund National Priorities List. Advantages of such techniques
versus traditional "wet' laboratory analysis methods and limited
sampling are evaluated.
As an initial implementation step, the development and use of a grid to
sample the soil/tailings area of concern is described. Employment of a
geostati sti cal program on-site to constantly revise the sampling plan
is then used to maximize the amount of information from each analysis.
The practical constraints of such a combination of techniques are
discussed. Definition of the site boundary using a specified
concentration of selected heavy metals of concern is described. By
using geostatistical methods, a given level of confidence for the
boundary can be calculated or, alternately, the number of additional
samples necessary to have a predetermined confidence level can be
specified. Such definition is an important step in defining Potential
-1-
Responsible Parties (PRP's) for site cleanup. Migration pathways and
potential receptors can then be evaluated as part of the health risk
assessment. A case study 1n the Rocky Mountain area will be used as an
example.
This is a first-time presentation of the data.
INTRODUCTION
The mine waste/hazardous waste issue is gaining increased attention as
Superfund nears reauthorization. Various issues arise and are debated
as the unique characteristics and magnitude of mining wastes in the
hazardous wastes context are studied and understood by regulatory
authorities.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) clearly excluded
primary mining wastes in its original version when it stated, in
regulations at 40 GFR 26I.4,0)(7), that the following wastes are not
hazardous wastes:
Solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation and
processing of ores and minerals (including coal),
including phosphate rock and overburden from mining of
uranium ore.
However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken the
approach that regulation of mining wastes as "polluted contaminants"
under the Clean Water Act and as 'hazardous wastes' under CERCtA is a
valid exercise of their authority. This is supported by a recent
decision in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Eagle-Picher Industries
-2-
Inc., et M. vs. EPA, No. 83-2259 (D.C. Cir., April 16, 1985), 1n which
the Court ruled in EPA's favor on all of the generic challenges to
CERCLA's National Priorities List, and specifically, supported the EPA
position regarding shining and utility wastes as "hazardous substances"
under Section 101 (14) of CERCLA, notwithstanding the fact that
regulation. of mining and utility wastes in presently suspended under
Subtitle C of RCRAM . This is the third in a series of lawsuits
favorable to EPA regarding this issue; the previous cases concerned
Metate Asbestos in Globe, Arizona, and )inion Gas in Pennsylvania.
These findings assert that, even though RCRA temporarily exempted mine
wastes from regulation and cross-referenced CERCLA, other passages in
CERCLA override the RCRA exemptions. Therefore, the regulatory
authority for EPA to address eine wastes sites seems fairly
straightforward and is supported by recent case law.
The importance of mine wastes to EPA and its regulatory authority under
CERCLA is further emphasized by the recent establ i shNment of the Mine
Waste Group in EPA Region VIII, in Denver. Region VIII is one of the
primary regions where mining waste/hazardous waste sites do exist.
This Mine Waste Group is composed of interdisciplinary specialists from
EPA's staff who are familiar with the unique properties of wining
wastes and the magnitude of some of the sites (which can be many acres
and sometimes many square miles in extent). This regional Mine waste
Group has received attention from EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C.,
and a parallel effort may be established there.
-3-
Robert Wallin of EPA described EPA's efforts in a recent address to an
EPA/contractor group on mine wastes(2}. He noted that EPA is now
formulating an RCRA mining waste report to Congress, which will be
provided in early 1985. He also stated that of the 786 sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL), 38 involve mining wastes (or about 5t).
CERCLA mine waste sites currently exist in about 20 states, and about
16 of those sites (or 42% of the overall total) are in Region VIII.
Wallin re-emphasized the magnitude of such mine waste piles, some of
which may be in excess of one billion tons of materials. Also, since
mine wastes may be transported downstream by surface waters from many
centers of mining acitvity, the sites can be many miles in areal
extent.
The hazardous materials of concern in mine waste sites are generally
heavy metals. Major heavy metals include arsenic (actually a
metalloid) , cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, manganese and iron. Because
of their health effects and their -ability to be directly ingested by
adults and children living and working near such mine sites. arsenic,
cadmium, and lead will be addressed in most detail in this paper. The
following brief descriptions of the human and environmental toxicity of
these three heavy metals are as summarized by Schulz(3).
Arsenic has the human toxic effects, in a chronic or long-term sense,
of skin disease, skin cancer from oral ingestion, respiratory cancer
from Inhalation, and other toxic and reproductive effects. in an acute
(or short-term, heavy dose) sense. central nervous sytem.
gastrointestinal, and hemolytic (blood) effects will occur. In nature,
-4-
arsenic has the additional environmental hazard of being highly toxic
to fresh water species, especially in its organic forms.
Cadmium. can cause, in the chronic sense, kidney toxicity, and cancer,
respiratory, and kidney disease from inhalation. From acute doses,
respiratory irritation can occur from inhalation, as well as
gastrointestinal, renal (kidney) and hepatic (liver) effects from oral
ingestion. Environmentally, cadmium is highly toxic to plants and
fish, and has the property of bi oaccuaul ati on in tissues.
Lead in a chronic sense can cause neurotoxicity (affecting the nervous
system), blood disorders, and kidney disease. in an acute sense,
neurotoxicity and reproductive effects may occur. The environmental
hazards of lead are that it is highy toxic to fresh water plants and
animals, and bioaccumulates as does cadmium.
THE PROBLEM
Mining/milling waste sites often contain the three elements of interest
described above. These elements can occur in various concentrations in
waste rock that is extracted from a shaft or tunnel in the process of
excavation (but not processed), tailings (processed and usually in
fine-grained sand or slurry for■), and smelter wastes (fine particles
from further processing and heating of the ore for concentration).
These materials are often intermixed with the native Roil, and may have
been used as road and building foundations for mining facilities or
other residential or commercial areas in the vicinity. Some sites may
also include deposits or piles of flue dust from smelting operations or
_S_
acid leach residues from cyanide heap leach processes, for example.
One is therefore often aware that such a site exists. but definition of
such a site in a horizontal extent on the surface and vertically below
ground -is di ffucul t. This definition is compounded by the 'how clean
is clean?" controversy. and policy decisions which must be made
(usually by the regulatory authority such as EPA) to guide site
cleanup. Therefore, site definition is usually the initial problem
facing a mine waste/hazardous waste site remediation effort.
The Smuggler Mountain Site near Aspen. Colorado (Smuggler) is proposed
for the National Priorities List (Figure 1). It is currently
undergoing study and review by EPA and its contractors, and has
undergone numerous past studies. This site was originally called to
the attention of the EPA by Aspen officials and university researchers
who noted excess concentrations of heavy metals in garden soils in
Aspen, particularly near the site. Concern was expressed about health
effects due to uptake of heavy metals from vegetables grown in these
tailings soils.
As Figure 1 shows, the site as it is roughly defined is on the
northeast border but outside the city limits of Aspen. At one time,
three active amines existed on
the site. Figure
2 shows some
of the
present site features as well
as the remains of
past mining
activities
such as the Cowenhoven mine access tunnel, the Smuggler Consolidated
Mine Adit, and the Mollie Gibson Mine Adit and drainage. Also shown in
Figure 2 are the Centennial condominiums which are being constructed on
the site, co-sponsored by Pitkin Counter and Centennial/Aspen
-6-
0
0
a
0
V
c
0
CL
0
t
0
c
0
c
0
i
L
0
a
a
E
0
it
0
c
0
a
0
0
J
0
0
E
x
0
CL
a
t
0
s
A
IL
u1.iunow
V.
LL
Partnership. Existing homes are included within or near to the
approximate 75 acre site, as are a trailer court with many residents,
and tennis courts. Construction service roads and equipment storage
areas have been constructed and are now present on the site.
Figure 3 shows the methodology for preliminary definition of site
boundaries. As shown, the boundaries will be determined by criteria
levels of 1,000 ug/9 (ppm) of lead and 10 ug/g cadmium in the
soil/tailings. These criteria levels were based upon a preliminary
risk assessment 0). The problem is first to define the horizontal
extent of the site and, perhaps later, the vertical extent for
computation of waste volumes above the criteria values. This will
allow further definition of affected parties and lend precision to the
calculations regarding remediation alternatives.
It is apparent that a number of residences may or may not be affected
by being within the site boundaries. In the past, warnings concerning
(1) drinking water from wells on or near to the site and (Z) use of the
soil and tailings in gardens and consumption of vegetables grown in
those gardens, have been issued by the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental
Health Department. Other health concerns are airborne dust, surface
water overflow transporting contaminated soils and tailings overland to
nearby drainages such as the Roaring Fork River and Hunter Creek, and
ground water contam+i nati on due to percolation and leaching. Direct
contact and ingestion is also recognized as a probl ea, especially in
workers on site and children playing on or near the site.
-7-
m
m
uietunoyi
.E cn o
E
--� —Z Qu
'feek
G,)
W
CL
a
M,
m
LL
As noted above, construction of the Centennial Condominiums is
currently underway on this site. These are co-sponsored by Pitkin
County and Centennial -Aspen to provide low-cost housing to long-term
A county -residents. The political and health and safety implications of
this site investigation and remediation are therefore apparent. EPA
has made some decisions not to halt or modify construction activities
on site in past months, since the agency determined that the immediate
hazards to the public health and welfare did not warrant such an
action. However, a recent agency order limits earthmoving activities
pending EPA approval.
EPA has recently signed a consent order with the PRP's to have them
conduct remedial site investigations of the soil/tailings
characteristics and to prepare a focused feasibility study regarding
site remediation. EPA's contractor, Camp Dresser ii McKee Inc. (CDM)
will oversee PRP activities.
THE SOLUTION
At the Smuggler site, the PRP's have proposed site investigations
concerning the soil/tailings to address potential surface clean-up
remediations(4'S). This site investigation would undertake soil
sampling activities at regular grid locations in order to define the
horizontal extent of contamination of the site. The samples would then
be analyzed by contract labotatory procedures for selected metals.
Such traditional approaches to defining the extent of contamination
have two basic problems:
c After chemical results from an initial grid are obtained and
plotted on a map, areas of additional concern are typically
Identified. This may necessitate remobilization to the field
to collect more samples. Additional time (30-60 days) would
also be required to select samples. obtain chemical analyses
and evaluate results. Evaluation of the second set of samples
does not assure that certain areas will yet need more
resolution by additional sampling. The alternative to such a
phased sampling/analysis approach is to collect many samples at
small grid intervals. These samples would then be analyzed in
a phased approach, or all at once. Either approach results in
additional monies being spent, or additional time.
o Evaluation of chemical data does not result in a quantified
level of error. That is, even from a phased sampling problem
with many chemical results, the accuracy of the final estimated
values between sampling points is not known. The area or
volume of material above a certain criteria value can be
estimated, but the validity of that estimate cannot be
quantified. if the accuracy of the estimates are not known,
the data are difficult to define technically and legally.
These two major problems in traditional sampling and analyses programs
were eliminated at the Smuggler site by a unique combination of on-site
analyses and geostatistical evaluation. Because both chemical and
geostatistical analyses were performed on-site, the process of defining
the extent of contamination to a known degree of certainty could be
performed in the interactive manner outlined below:
o Samples were collected at grid locations and analyzed on-site.
o The analytical results were immediately given to the
geostatisticians for evaluation.
o 6eostatistical evaluation then indicated optimum areas to be
sampled to reduce the error of estimation.
o Once the new samples were collected/analyzed, tMe process of
geostatistical evaluation occurred again.
The approach minimizes the number of samples col 1 ected and analyses
performed and maximizes the amounts of information obtained.
-9-
Furthermore. the level of confidence in the final estimates of the
extent of contamination can be quantified. The results of such an
approach are summarized below.
R
s
THE RESULTS
The PRP's collected samples at grid spacings of approximately 400 feet
across the site. This initial grid pattern is shown in Figure 3.
Samples were collected to a depth of six inches and therefore would
result in a two-dimensional identification of the problem area. The
collection of samples by the PRP's resulted In 34 samples at the
predetermined grid locations. In addition to these samples, the PRP's
collected samples at an additional eight locations based on soil types.
CDM also collected five samples at locations offset approximately 20
feet from grid locations, to define the variability with distance. The
initial sampling program, therefore, resulted in 47 surface samples.
The 47 samples were analyzed on-site using a portable x-ray
fluorescence analyzer. In particular, Columbia Scientific X -MET 840
was used to analyze for cadmium and lead. As previously discussed.
these elements were selected to be the major elements of concern based
on a risk assessment. The criteria were set at 10 and 1,000 ug/g
respectively for cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb).
Pb was quantified by measuring the L beta line intensity. The
excitation source used was Cm -244. Cd was quantified by measuring the
K alpha line intensity and an W241 source. The calibration curves
for each element were developed from analyses of five on-site materials
-10-
through conventional analytical methods (Atomic Adsorption) consistent
with EPA's Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). A two -model calibration
curve (one model for Pb less than 1,000 ug/9 and one model for Pb
greater than 1,000 ug/g) was used.
In each case, r (correlation coefficient) was always greater than
0.996. Similar curves could be developed for zinc, copper, barium, and
iron. However, a calibration curve for cadmium could not be developed
because: 1) three of the on-site materials used for standards
contained less than 1.0 ug/g Cd, 2) silver appeared to interfere, and
3) the method detection limit appears to be 20-30 ug/g for Cd. These
problems could be resolved by better standards, analytical results for
silver to correct for interference, and longer counting times.
However, current indications are that the 1,000 ug/g Pb criteria is
more restrictive than the 10 ug/9 Cd criteria, and therefore analyses
of Cd may not be necessary.
Sample preparation consisted of drying for approximately one hour and
grinding to less than 200 mesh. With sample preparation time included,
six to seven samples could be analyzed per hour. (Actual analytical
time for analyses of lead was four minutes.) The method of calibration
assured that analytical results were consistent with CLP produced
values. However, a formal analytical QA/QC was also performed. This
program included analyses of replicates and standards at prescribed
intervals. A review of the data is currently being performed, but
preliminary analyses indicate the instrument precision Is approximately
3 percent relative deviation at the 1,000 ug/g level for Pb.
-11-
As soon as the values for Pb were generated, the concentration and
location (x, y coordinates) were input to the geostatistical programs.
A summary of the major geostatistical analyses performed and
i
preliminary results based on the initial 47 samples follow:
o Distribution Plots: The frequency of various concentration
ranges were p o ed. This evaluation indicated that two or
more distinct populations existed (one population represented
"native soil" concentrations and the second population
represented tailings concentrations).
o Variograms: Samples taken closely together have values that
are more similar than do samples that are taken farther apart.
The variogram is a way of quantifying and illustrating this
relationship. The variograms showed that lead values are
correlated with each other for a distance of approximately 200
feet parallel to the slope but had little relationship
downslope.
o Kriging: Kriging is an estimation procedure developed using
the reTationships defined by the variogram to gain optimal
estimations. In stats si ti cal terms, optimal means that the
estimation is produced with the smallest possible error and
without systematic errors. Kriging was used to determine the
level and extent of contamination and to determine the accuracy
of the estimates. Analyses of the initial data set indicated
that the error in terms of coefficient of variance (standard
deviation divided by concentration) increased greatly (100 to
160 percent) at relatively small distances (50 feet) from the
actual sampling locations.
Based on the above analyses, an additional 20 sampling points were
selected in the areas of largest error. Kriging with these additional
samples produced a contour map (similar to Figure 4) which identified
the areas with Pb concentrations above 1,000 ug/g. However, the error
(although greatly improved over the initial data set) was still large.
For example, coefficients of variances were typically 70 percent within
30 to 300 feet of the sampling locations.
-12-
f
Based on the geostatistical analyses and the objective of the study to
define accurately the areas with Pb concentrations greater than 1,000
ug/g, several measures were implemented:
o A binary model was used. This approach essentially recognized
that two populations existed: materials representing native
(or background) concentrations and materials representing
tailings concentrations. All other material on-site resulted
from the mixing of these two populations. The binary model
used two variograms (one for native areas and one for tailings
areas) and the determination by aerial photographs and site
inspection of tailings, native and mixed areas. This approach
resulted in variograms showing more continuity (correlation)
with distance than the previous approach.
o Estimates were made by blocks rather than points. The block
sizes selected were 100 feet square. Therefore, instead of
estimates at points (or a finite line), estimates of
concentration were made for each 100 x 100 foot block. This
reduced the error•significantly.
o A sampling campaign was commenced in the area surrounding the
1,000 ug/g Pb line. This sampling will reduce the error in
estimating the areas over the criteria value. This will result
in approximately 100 more samples being collected.
overall, in the binary modeling, Kriging was perforated twice (on each
variogram/population). In areas of mixing (native materials and
tailings), the geostatistical process combined the two populations and
estimated a percent of tailings and overall concentration. Therefore,
the ultimate product will be a map of 100 x 100 foot blocks containing
the fol 1 owi ng information in each block:
o Average estimated Pb concentrations.
o Average percent of tailings.
o Coefficient of variance of estimated Pb concentrations.
-13-
The sampling campaign described above is in the process of being
completed. Figure 4 Illustrates the average concentrations of Pb
across the site after analyses of approximately 100 samples. Figure 5
illustrates the associated coefficient of variance map. Current
estimates are that
the 1,000 ug/g
Pb
criteria values will
be
defined
with a coefficient
of variance of
10
to 50 percent after
all
samples
are collected/analyzed.
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of on-site analyses using x-ray fluorescence and
geostatistical techniques proved to be very cost-effective and
efficient for defining areas having concentrations above a criteria
value. Because of the disturbed and mixed nature of the site, a binary
statistical model was used to optimize sampling locations and minimize
error. Based on preliminary results, approximately 200 analyses will
be used to define blocks with concentrations of Pb greater than 1,000
ug/g with a variance of 10 to 50 percent. Currently the approach
defined only areas of contamination (two-dimensional analyses);
however, with additional samples at selected depths, the approach can
also define volumes of contamination (three-dimensional analyses? -
ENA
-14-
M
i�
0
001
V
oz
0
r
o
q
00 O
o� o
�A
fir✓
Or
_
c
_
oci
w D
8
N
m
8
us
I
qr
8
8
S
2
l�
YY
References
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Memorandum from Gerald H.
Yamada, Acting General Counsel, to Lee M. Thomas, Administrator, re:
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.. et al. vs. EPA No. 83-2259 (D.C. Cir.,
April 16. 1985).
2. Mallin, Robert. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Presentation
before the Remediation of Mining and Smelting Waste Sites Technical
Information Transfer workshop. Denver. Colorado. June 4, 1985.
3, Schulz, Carl 0.. Clement Associates. Presentation before the
Remediation of Mining and Smelting waste Sites Technical Information
Transfer Workshop. Denver, Colorado. June 4, 1985.
4. F.C. Hart Associates. Site Operations Plan, Smuggler Site, Aspen,
Colorado. July 5. 1985.
5. F.D. Hart Associates. Focused Feasibility Study for Groundwater
Remediation, Smuggler Site, Aspen, Colorado. July 5. 1985.
\IIT\ m U^Nm
o747\
OOF�
/
N::900c:
N
;meq a
\. u
I` I
F N
�a
:i
'
U
cu
n,b"m
F I Q rPi � u ..
RZ8
II fi
I1
„.P
yo
0
poor
ci
v
M
N
N
\. u
I` I
F N
�a
:i
'
U
cu
n,b"m
o` oLn
II fi
I1
N
I` I
J li
�a
II fi
I1
U
W
2
2
O
Q
Aw
O
O 2
� U
Q
O V
O
W
2
W c
W
>4>0W
h'~
V p
n Z WO
soli
1y�
so-,
V O A
U 4 W
y
VO H
W¢ U
W 2 U
W¢ O
� �'3U4i
��\
3�2
3Qti
yO�W
W3�U
yOti
2
y0
�2ti
Q03
Q�3
OK + oto 6�9
3
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
July 30, 1993
URS Consultants
Joe Hansen
1099 18th Street Suite 700
Denver, Colorado
80202
Re: Geostat map of Chen Northern Molly Gibson Park Samples
Dear Joe:
I have received your request to have Chen Northern plot the sample
points of their April 1993 Molly Gibson Park sampling campaign on
the geostat map you sent me. If you recall, I forwarded to you a
map of sample point locations when I sent you the sample results
on June 23, 1993.
Unfortunately, that is as exact as we can be. Neither Chen
Northern nor this department has a more precise method of locating
the points.
Call me should you have further questions.
Sincerely:
Thomas S. Dunlop, Dir ctor
Environmental Health Department
cc: Brian Pinkowski, EPA
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070
recycled paper
URS CONSULTANTS, INC.
1099 18TH STREET
SUITE 700
DENVER, COLORADO 60202.1907
TEL: (303) 296.9700
July 21, 1993
Mr. Tom Dunlop
Director
Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Subject: ARCS VI, VII and VIII, Contract No. 68-W9-0053, WA# 1408941
Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site Operable Unit 1 (OUi)
Remedial Action Planning, Aspen, Colorado
Location of Chen Northern Molly Gibson Park Samples
Dear Tom:
URS
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
SAN FRANCISCO
NEW YORK
SEATTLE
CLEVELAND
DENVER
COLUMBUS
COLORADO SPHINGS
PARAMUS
SACRAMENTO
AKRON
PORTLAND
BUFFALO
ANCHORAGE
NEW ORLEANS
SAN BERNARDINO
ATLANTA
LONG BEACH
BOSTON
LAS VEGAS
VIRGINIA BEACH
PITTSBURGH
P I r -1
JUL 2 6 1993
, L
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ASPEN/PITKIN
URS received the data package which you forwarded on June 23, 1993, from the April 1993 Chen
Northern sampling of Molly Gibson Park. As the sample location map included in Chen Northern
package is not to scale it is difficult for us to accurately locate the sample points.
Attached please find a map generated by Geostat which includes the Molly Gibson Park area sampled
by Chen Northern in April 1993. Please forward this map to Chen Northern and request that the sample
points be indicated on this map. We will then incorporate the data points with the previous data.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 296-9700.
Very truly yours,
URS CONSULTANTS, INC.
��A
Ch1
Joe Hansen John LCoats
((f% Site Manager Program Manager
cc: Brian Pinkowski/EPA/Region VIII
John I. COatsAW/Denver
68-41841.10.00000
\Smuggler\Letters\Chen-Map.Ltr:srd
0
t5 �
K
'.�C.,, �� ASS • �� •�� w `wt �
t
x
ou
rr
sr .s
' v 41
F
r' -
s
k�611
� ��•Y� Biu '� � �,.1 -
IK
F'� '.fir" ��.�515h � , � ja• N , $ -1•
r��}c•`a iy ?k'y� 2 '13.+ r t �'✓ y,db�. yP}.,1 "r �E r �.,¢« A':T n !" :. � ��
•�
o i T
�rtd1��� s r P '��, fif'• �, '�,gp"�. � ti �; y � � ^s)'�r ��^ . CCC"i��' kµt �� �' 4 t
^'�; `4'P'y!� •�'f�P't T i � .F '��•� r �;q��'R i �'�` �+.c; �v �A •6
��,� F yrs �,+� 5• Y. �s� � 1Li'�t4.r.�,, ..,�1� �r� f ��
r .fir rck r �' � : • :u � ., �r p � ;, ,� •
TRI
e •`2'•X• ys Y` .1 4,+2.7� ;. �e� 9��he��^ �� -.'4i
PF
�Y;.���ibt �.nr��• .+ „[��
'LII/L�t�, firy <�: n..^r-+�ti ,'� ��•'r�° :�9I ta*IF:. a I'rai,.Jz�`*a�c"t
%.c
b
S f
s1
i
•
L/�"
,.-li - `- -ate
4t ♦
'.".ems
o �d
C� 0 CLCL
a �
LA
O Jm
Ljj
IX
/./l� •'.-rte ji // .r.� f '/1� ;l i• �C A :imAz
♦– e
X LL
LLJ
a �'r
t 14
01.
uj
TA
i - o. it !; r� � � � i""¢�` _ � fir. f•�,\j'1 + �-. •J � ~�^ \\,`.'�' ,` —
'I ��'-' �t ?�'l - f' 1.��"ice ` J` li' �:•;• � .- 1
�. ��• ��", y��pp�yyrr 't '-�{ fry` }Y%j.� 1. � � .�ti �r
j /�fb� / r. � 4,;, � •� `_,� � ��_.• �,..,,; Hyl 1 �.��y •� � .1
// lf' 1r ,(.• .V Ljr. .r t � 'I lam• �f l - i .�•
r
-%�• / � +• •� - Lys '+� ��" .� - � : �J� � �'�i
I `!
$�-i�- S'_ � =t: r_ �� i• ��\�``\ '`\ I � • ice,'; �Z � �� ��' f � + � 5 �Y, +f
- ' � lel � .� r' -/A_, � '� ,t - �\\`�♦\� 1l •� \ �! ... `��•'.I � !i, \
' MAR 13 1992
i ENTAL HEALTH
ASPEN/PITIQN
c
Superfund- Smuggler Mtn.
Slides in file
{
i N6 2R,
A
oil
�
2
S �- SW
Ab
r
"'
SU
o n
c
ri
t"d.m
P 11
nil
p
I
a
-:'
r
k
a-do,t
4
lk
yT
�
PA
wpm
_
V
' If
4
{
2 >
.�"aww
\
2 >
.�"aww
eft
I
m
Evia
-
f
V' 3
-s, .
�}
Y.
ki
M
O
Y.
ki
M
O
-�,
i'
s,
,. w
i
.� � ,.
f.
t
....
�
...
i^�
I
y 1
�.
k
i
„
r
k'
.>
4;
� ..
a
a
.v
.......
3
a;
1
��. _�. _I
0 L �r z
\` wi
V
Superfund Smuggler
Superfund Smuggler Maps