4
Remedial Investigation Assessment

INTRODUCTION

Superfund activities began in the Coeur d’Alene River basin in 1983 with the listing of the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex on the National Priorities List (NPL). This site, commonly referred to as the Bunker Hill “box,” encompasses a 21-square-mile area including the historic smelter and ore-processing operations in the heart of the Coeur d’Alene River basin. The site was divided into two operable units (OUs) for which records of decision (RODs) were issued in 1991 and 1992.1

In 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extended Superfund activities and undertook a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) of mining-related contamination in the Coeur d’Alene River basin outside the box. This is the third operable unit of the site (OU-3, commonly termed the “basin”). The geographic area includes the Coeur d’Alene River, associated tributaries, Lake Coeur d’Alene, and the Spokane River that drains from Lake Coeur d’Alene and crosses from Idaho into Washington. Within this geographic scope are residential communities; recreational areas; active and inactive mining facilities; parts of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation; the Spokane Indian Reservation; parts of Kootenai, Benewah, and Shoshone counties of northern Idaho; and parts of Stevens, Lincoln,

1  

Operable unit 1 (OU-1), the “populated areas” of the box, includes the communities of Kellogg, Smelterville, and Pinehurst. Operable unit 2 (OU-2), the “non-populated areas,” includes the site of the Bunker Hill smelter, ore-processing complex, and mine.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 108
4 Remedial Investigation Assessment INTRODUCTION Superfund activities began in the Coeur d’Alene River basin in 1983 with the listing of the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex on the National Priorities List (NPL). This site, commonly referred to as the Bunker Hill “box,” encompasses a 21-square-mile area including the his- toric smelter and ore-processing operations in the heart of the Coeur d’Alene River basin. The site was divided into two operable units (OUs) for which records of decision (RODs) were issued in 1991 and 1992.1 In 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extended Superfund activities and undertook a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) of mining-related contamination in the Coeur d’Alene River basin outside the box. This is the third operable unit of the site (OU-3, commonly termed the “basin”). The geographic area includes the Coeur d’Alene River, associated tributaries, Lake Coeur d’Alene, and the Spokane River that drains from Lake Coeur d’Alene and crosses from Idaho into Washington. Within this geographic scope are residential communities; recreational ar- eas; active and inactive mining facilities; parts of the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation; the Spokane Indian Reservation; parts of Kootenai, Benewah, and Shoshone counties of northern Idaho; and parts of Stevens, Lincoln, 1Operable unit 1 (OU-1), the “populated areas” of the box, includes the communities of Kellogg, Smelterville, and Pinehurst. Operable unit 2 (OU-2), the “non-populated areas,” includes the site of the Bunker Hill smelter, ore-processing complex, and mine. 108

OCR for page 108
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT 109 and Spokane counties in eastern Washington (see Figure 3-1 in Chapter 3 of this report). The RI report (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001a) was prepared by contractors for EPA Region 10 based on EPA’s guidance document for conducting RI/FS studies (EPA 1988) through the RI process set forth in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP, 40 CFR Part 300) (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001b, p. 1-2). The information in the RI report is used to evaluate risks to human health and the environment and potential remedial alternatives. In this chapter, the RI of the Coeur d’Alene River basin (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001a) is assessed with respect to the following: • Adequacy and application of EPA’s own Superfund guidance for RIs • Consistency with best scientific practices • Validity of conclusions Additionally, this chapter evaluates the scientific and technical aspects of the following: • EPA’s determination of the geographic extent of areas contaminated by waste-site sources • Types of data and analyses used to assess the extent of contamination • Approaches used to collect and analyze the data that resulted in conclusions • Considerations of contaminant chemical speciation and transport Human health aspects of the RI are primarily evaluated in Chapter 5, “Human Health Risk Assessment in the Coeur d’Alene Basin.” The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), undertaken concurrent with the RI, charac- terizes heavy-metal contamination in relation to potential human health risks. EPA’S RECOGNITION OF THE BASIN SYSTEMS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS The Coeur d’Alene River basin is a large-scale, complex system with extensive anthropogenic overprints that have increased the multiple com- plexities and interacting processes at work throughout the basin. This vast, mountainous river system has a long history of mining, logging, fishing, trading, and tourism (see Chapters 2 and 3). The high precipitation and high-flow events, which are characteristic of the Coeur d’Alene basin, have distributed mining wastes over many miles. The size and complexity of the basin combined with the highly variable nature of the mine wastes render site characterization a formidable task.

OCR for page 108
110 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES Systems Approach and the Conceptual Site Model One way of characterizing the Coeur d’Alene basin for the purpose of remedial planning is to use a “systems approach” (see Box 4-1). This “sys- tem” is logically defined by watershed2 boundaries. Within the Coeur d’Alene system, relevant aspects are considered, including the geology, hy- drology, ecologic communities, climate, human factors, and mining-related wastes. Under the systems approach, subwatershed boundaries are used for looking at smaller, more-manageable units while maintaining an awareness of interconnectedness between those units and the entire system. EPA’s process for investigating a Superfund site calls for the creation of a “conceptual site model” (CSM) at the beginning of the RI. This model is intended to guide the way the RI is conducted and establishes a conceptual framework for the rest of the Superfund cleanup process. The CSM devel- oped for the basin is largely based on geographic characteristics of the stream valleys and hydrologic characteristics of water bodies and is tanta- mount to looking at the overall Coeur d’Alene system in terms of more manageable subwatersheds. The basin was subdivided into five CSM units that correspond with Chapter 3’s description of the basin’s topography.3 The description of each CSM unit in the RI is accompanied by a complex “process model” diagram, characterizing the multifarious interactions that may take place in each unit. Figure 4-1 shows the process model for the Canyon Creek watershed. One aspect of a systems approach only nominally considered in the development of these models is the amount of variability that exists in the basin—particularly with respect to the climatic and hydrologic systems. As evidenced by the large floods experienced in the basin and their tremendous impact on contaminant transport, these events are a critical element in the basin’s hydrologic system. The conceptual models, and therefore the defini- tion of possible remedies, seemingly are based primarily on average condi- tions, and the committee believes that variations in the basin’s systems, particularly flood events, may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the proposed remedies. In addition, in carrying out assessments of the individual geographical components of the basin, the RI appears to have lost sight of the broader interactions within this complex system. Based on a systems approach, the RI should look at the watershed boundaries defining the basin system and then develop a flux-reservoir model of where each metal of importance 2The watershed is also referred to as a catchment or drainage basin. 3These units include: CSM Unit 1, upper watersheds; CSM Unit 2, midgradient watersheds; CSM Unit 3, Lower Coeur d’Alene River; CSM Unit 4, Coeur d’Alene Lake; CSM Unit 5, Spokane River.

OCR for page 108
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT 111 BOX 4-1 Systems Approach “In the context of water resources the essential function of a systems ap- proach is to provide an organized framework that supports a balanced evalua- tion of all relevant issues (e.g., hydrologic, geomorphic, ecologic, social, eco- nomic) at appropriate scales of space and time. Within a systems framework, multiple stressors can be identified and quantified, multiple goals can be inves- tigated, trade-offs among competing objectives can be evaluated, potential unin- tended consequences can be identified, and the true costs and benefits of a project can be examined in a context that incorporates the interest of all those with any substantial stake. . . . The merits of a systems approach are broadly endorsed . . . throughout the water resources community, and in several NRC reports (NRC 1999a,b, 2000, 2001). . . . A systems framework supports a bal- anced consideration of all relevant aspects of water resources problems at all relevant time and space scales.” Source: NRC 2004. FIGURE 4-1 Process model for Canyon Creek Watershed (CSM Unit 1). ...... low importance, medium importance, high importance. SOURCE: URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001b, p. 2-22.

OCR for page 108
112 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES resides and where that metal is transported at the established flux. The RI should consider the roles that geology, hydrology, geomorphology, geo- chemistry, forest management practices, infrastructure, etc. all play as com- ponents of the system. In fact, a similar approach was recommended in an EPA report (Hornig et al. 1988) that looked at the water quality monitoring in the Coeur d’Alene River basin: A whole basin environmental management approach to the Coeur d’Alene system should also address the relative importance of habitat degradation and other factors (for example, nonpoint impacts from agricultural or forestry practices) in the prevention of full potential of aquatic resources. The dynamics of cadmium and lead in the ecosystem also needs to be further addressed, including the relative importance of the contribution of present South Fork loadings of these metals to the downstream sediments and biota. EPA made preliminary steps toward looking at the Canyon Creek wa- tershed using a systems approach. However, this approach appeared to be less in evidence in other parts of the basin, particularly regarding the box which is excised from consideration in the basin’s RI and subsequent docu- ments. A systems approach would consider the contaminant sources and pathways within the box along with those stemming from upstream por- tions of the South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River and also consider their potential to serve as contaminants in downstream areas. Operable Unit Designation Operable Units 1 and 2 As mentioned, OUs 1 and 2 are the populated and nonpopulated areas, respectively, of the 21-square-mile box. OU-3, the subject of this review, includes all the rest of the basin from the headwaters west into eastern Washington. In some cases, defining separate OUs may facilitate an earlier start on cleanup of a more-contaminated area. This was the situation for OU-1 and OU-2 because cleanup of these units began well before the RI for OU-3 was initiated. While this segmentation may have been appropriate at the time based on the severity of contamination in the box, it currently creates technical issues regarding implementation of remedies for protect- ing ecologic health downstream of the box. These technical difficulties arise, for instance, in efforts to protect fish downstream of the box. In this stretch of the river, the major source of dissolved zinc comes from groundwater discharges to the river that occur within the box but apparently cannot be addressed in remedies considered

OCR for page 108
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT 113 for OU-3.4 It is not clear whether there are cost-effective remedies for controlling these sources, but it makes no technical sense to ignore this possibility entirely. The manner in which the Superfund site was seg- mented has also created public perception problems. For example, pri- vately-owned properties on different sides of the dividing line could have similar levels of contamination, but properties outside the box had to wait a decade before becoming part of the Superfund site and be considered for remediation.5 Operable Unit 3 EPA has substantial flexibility under the NCP in establishing what areas or actions will constitute an OU at a site.6 However, the guidance does state that “sites should generally be remediated in operable units when … phased analysis and response is necessary or appropriate given the size or complexity of the site, or to expedite the completion of total site cleanup.” Certainly, the Coeur d’Alene River basin is such a site though the entire basin (minus the box) was considered a single OU. The committee’s evaluation suggests that a different segmentation approach to OU-3 might have been preferable. There is a remarkable independence between protect- ing human health and protecting the environment. None of the remedies undertaken for human health protection will have any discernable impact on the protection of fish and wildlife (see Chapter 8). Similarly, EPA iden- tifies only limited human health benefits that would result from the rem- edies being considered for protecting environmental resources (EPA 2002, 4EPA states that they intend to integrate actions selected in the ROD with those imple- mented in the box (EPA 2002, p. 4-6). However, exactly what EPA intends to do is not yet clear. The agency has postponed implementing any efforts to cleanup groundwater seeping through the CIA until it sees how successful the cap on this facility will be in reducing groundwater contamination. The following is provided in the 5-year review for OU-2: “For groundwater, the cleanup levels specified in the ROD for site-wide groundwater were maxi- mum contaminant levels (MCLs) and MCL goals for arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls], selenium, silver, zinc, and nitrate as identified under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The ROD further defined contingency measures to be implemented if these cleanup goals were not capable of being met” (EPA 2000, p. 5-2). 5Public perception problems also stem from the fact that the agency seems to have reversed its original position, which was to deal with the environmental problems outside of the box using programs other than Superfund (see Chapters 1 and 2 for further discussion). 6The NCP states that “Operable units may address geographical portions of a site, specific site problems, or initial phases of an action, or may consist of any set of actions performed over time or any actions that are concurrent but located in different parts of a site” (40 CFR § 300.5[2004]).

OCR for page 108
114 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES Table 12.2-1). These remedies include limiting exposures associated with recreational activities at mine-waste sites or riverbanks.7 A more rational segmentation might have been to make one OU the protection of human health (or even several OUs based on subwatersheds of the basin, or addressing, for example, residential properties, public use areas, and other human health risks), and the second OU the protection of environmental resources (or perhaps several OUs based on the subwater- sheds of the basin).8 This approach would have had some clear technical advantages in allowing the agency to analyze risks more systematically and in considering remedial alternatives more effectively, because of the more manageable size and differing characteristics of the smaller OUs. In addition, such an approach probably would reduce the pall that so many residents believe will shadow the basin for decades to come, for the human health protection remedies in the basin will be completed relatively quickly. When this occurs, the basin could be declared to be cleaned up with respect to human health, although further work would be required to protect the environmental resources. To the extent that the designation of the basin as a Superfund site affects its economic prospects, such a distinc- tion might well have reduced these negative effects. It is probably too late to make such a change, but the agency might consider such an approach at other large sites where some of the cleanup activities will take long periods to complete. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS Samples Collected Some 7,000 samples had been collected in the Coeur d’Alene River basin between 1991 and 1999 by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), mining companies, and EPA under other regulatory programs (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001b, 7In addition, the environmental remedies, because they should reduce the transfer of con- taminants to Lake Coeur d’Alene and the Spokane River, could have some health benefits for tribal members pursuing traditional lifestyles and to recreational users along the Spokane River. 8It appears that this was considered by EPA. As provided by Villa (2003): “At one time, consistent with the operable unit concept, Region 10 considered dividing the Basin cleanup plan into two phases, with the human health component to be released before the ecologic component. However, the proposal provoked a public outcry, led by the State of Idaho, and EPA responded by agreeing to keep the human health and ecologic cleanup for the Basin together in one plan.” Villa (2003) indicated that the “[c]oncerns by the State of Idaho included presenting the public with one plan to comment upon and allowing consideration of tradeoffs between human health and environmental protection.”

OCR for page 108
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT 115 p. 4-8). These historical samples, obtained from sediments, surface waters, groundwater, and soils, had been collected to support investigations with different objectives than those set forth for the RI. Nevertheless, a decision was made by the EPA to rely on data from these 7,000 historical samples already collected, although the quality assurance and quality control (QA/ QC) procedures varied among the various studies, and the results from the several data sets were generated from multiple methods of analysis. Because the levels of metal contamination from these studies were large in compari- son to the levels considered problematic, the EPA was less concerned with the uncertainties associated with the QA/QC and analytical methodologies used. Based on review of the data from the 7,000 historical samples, EPA made the decision to collect additional samples and developed a Draft Technical Work Plan (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 1998a), which considered the EPA’s Data Quality Objective (DQO) process (EPA 1994). The Draft Technical Work Plan was used to develop field sampling plan addenda (FSPAs) (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001b, pp. 4-10 to 4-29), each with a specific purpose and scope, for collection of an addi- tional 10,000 samples to characterize source areas. These samples were collected from sediments, sediment cores, adits, seeps, creek surface waters, soils, drinking water (wells, residential, and school/daycare), indoor dust, vacuum cleaner bags, lead-based paint, and groundwater. Two types of sampling were conducted: judgmental and probabilistic. Judgmental sam- pling (that is, nonprobabilistic) entailed sampling specific areas to confirm the existence of contamination. The committee did not assess EPA’s DQO process, Draft Technical Work Plan, FSPAs, or the methodology used by EPA to review and incorporate data from the 7,000 historical samples. The 17,000 samples, collected over the large basin area, perhaps repre- sent less than a dozen samples per square mile (although a much higher density of samples exists in the contaminated floodplain). The Bureau of Land Management identified approximately 1,080 mining-related source areas in the basin. Source areas were identified as either primary or second- ary. Primary sources, mostly present in the upper basin (that is, the area characterized by high-gradient tributaries to the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River), include mine workings, waste rock, tailings, concentrates and other process wastes, and artificial fill. Secondary sources, principally located in the lower segments of upper basin tributaries, the middle basin (Wallace to Cataldo), and the lower basin (Cataldo to Harrison), include affected me- dia (for example, groundwater, floodplain deposits, and bottom sediments) that may act as sources of metals to other media or receptors. EPA points out that of the approximately 1,080 sources, samples were collected from about 160 (15%) with fewer than five samples collected from most of these source areas (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001b, p. 4-36). These areas range in size from less than an acre to hundreds of

OCR for page 108
116 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES acres and are listed in Appendix I of the RI. Major tailings, waste rock, and floodplain sources of metal contaminants were identified by EPA as to location and area. Sample locations and data collected were documented. Sources with an area greater than 5 acres were surface sampled; few samples were collected at a depth of greater than 1 foot. Not all sources were systematically characterized in terms of thickness. Greater effort was ex- pended to document contamination in the floodplains of the Coeur d’Alene River. The USGS mapped, measured thickness and surface extent, and analyzed floodplain sediments in upper basin tributaries, the South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River, and the lower basin (Box et al. 1999, 2001; Bookstrom et al. 2001, 2004; Box and Wallis 2002; Box et al. in press). It will be important to incorporate data from these analyses that was not considered in the RI in remedial planning within the basin. In addition to collecting samples from only 15% of the sources iden- tified by the Bureau of Land Management, the agency made no effort to characterize groundwater “source terms.”9 The committee learned from EPA’s written response to submitted questions that leachability data per se, which would characterize the source term, were not available and therefore were not used in the analyses and estimates of loading (see the section “Analyzing Sample Data” for a discussion of metal loading). Very simply, localized areas of high (or low) leachability were inferred from what are considered to be sources (such as nearby floodplain tailings) and measured increases in dissolved metal loadings in streams (EPA 2004 [June 23, 2004]). Nonetheless, the committee believes that the large number of samples collected and analyzed provides information on contaminant locations and trends related to contaminant transport and fate in the basin, espe- cially for surface water. Much new information has become available since the ROD was issued (EPA 2002), and EPA is commended by the committee for its cooperative, scientific relationships with sister agencies and others. The agency is urged to proceed with more-thorough identifi- cation of specific sources contributing dissolved or particulate metals to surface waters before proceeding with cleanup to ensure the location, magnitude, and disposition of contaminant sources and their contribution to the system. 9The phrase “source term” is defined as the amount and chemical form of a contaminant released to the environment from a specific source over a certain period of time. “Source” identifies the nature and origin of the release and “term” refers to how much of a substance, or metal in the case of the Coeur d’Alene basin, is released to the environment over a specified time period. Source terms are used in risk-assessment studies.

OCR for page 108
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT 117 TABLE 4-1 COPCs and Affected Media for the ERA Ecologic COPC Chemical Soil Sediment Surface Water Antimony Arsenic * * Cadmium * * * Copper * * * Iron Lead * * * Manganese Mercury * Silver * Zinc * * * SOURCE: URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001b, Table 5.1-1. Nature of Contamination Chemicals of Potential Concern Based on preliminary results of the ecologic risk assessment (ERA), ten chemicals of potential concern (COPCs)10 were identified by EPA for inclu- sion and evaluation in the RI. These initial COPCs were evaluated, and those that met the data evaluation requirements and screening against applicable risk-based screening criteria were incorporated. Applicable risk- based screening levels were compiled from available federal numeric crite- ria (for example, national ambient water-quality criteria), regional prelimi- nary remediation goals, regional background studies, and other guidance documents. Table 4-1 lists these initial ten COPCs and affected media considered for the ERA. COPCs not carried forward in the ERA were antimony, iron, and manganese, because they did not meet the applicable risk-based screening criteria (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001b, p. 5-1). Groundwater data were screened against surface-water screening lev- els to evaluate the potential for impacts to surface water from groundwater discharge (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001b, p. 5-2). The two chemicals of ecologic concern (COECs) receiving the most attention from EPA for the Coeur d’Alene River basin system are lead and 10EPA uses the term “chemical of potential concern” (COPC) when considering all the substances (metals in the case of the Coeur d’Alene River basin) that may be of possible concern to human health and the environment. The term “chemical of potential ecologic concern” (COPEC) is used for those metals that may possibly affect ecologic receptors. “Chemical of ecologic concern” (COEC) is the term used for those metals that meet the applicable risk-based screening levels.

OCR for page 108
118 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES zinc. The environmental chemistry of these two metals is appreciably different. Lead is primarily present and transported in the basin as a particulate and is a major concern because waterfowl ingest lead- contaminated sediment (see Chapter 7) and children are exposed to lead through lead-contaminated soil or dust (see Chapters 5 and 6). Dissolved lead concentrations are low because lead is quite insoluble under the chemical conditions of the basin. Zinc is transported primarily in dis- solved form (Beckwith et al. 1997, p. 6) and is a toxicant for fish and aquatic invertebrates (see Chapter 7), but zinc is also significantly trans- ported in particulate form especially during floods (Beckwith 1996; Box et al. in press). Other COECs have been compared with total lead and dissolved zinc in the RI. EPA uses dissolved zinc concentrations as an indicator of the behavior of each dissolved chemical of concern and total lead concentrations as an indicator of the behavior of each total chemical of concern to avoid having to consider each chemical of concern sepa- rately (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001c, p. 4-11). Of the dissolved COECs, zinc is the principal dissolved metal of con- cern, and EPA reports using zinc as an indicator metal for the following reasons (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001c, Section 4.2.1; URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001d, p. 1-8): • Zinc is the most ubiquitous of the metals. • Zinc occurs at the highest measured concentrations and has the highest ratios of average measured concentration to ambient water-quality criteria or, equivalently, average measured load to total maximum daily- load loading capacities. • Zinc is relatively mobile compared with other metals. • Dissolved metals generally correlate with dissolved zinc. In the South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River, zinc accounts for about 96% of the dissolved heavy-metal load, and zinc is the main dissolved metal as the Coeur d’Alene River flows into Lake Coeur d’Alene at Harrison (Woods 2001). EPA discussed the correlation of zinc with other metals (URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2M Hill 2001c), and although cadmium appears to correlate well with dissolved zinc throughout the basin, other COEC metals (copper, mercury, silver, and arsenic) exhibit various degrees of correlation with dissolved zinc. The committee clarifies that arsenic and antimony behave similarly but these two elements should not be expected to correlate with either zinc or lead, because their chemistries are substan- tially different. Arsenic and antimony occur in water as oxyanions (with negative charges), whereas zinc and lead are positively charged cations. Furthermore, the aqueous mobilities of arsenic and antimony are affected by redox changes and depend on the redox conditions of the water, whereas

OCR for page 108
150 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES gating the basin, and this compartmentalization has created some serious technical difficulties and public perception problems for EPA. The current OU structure may have made sense in the beginning of the Superfund investigations, but it is inconsistent with the natural hydrologic and chemically linked systems operating within the basin. A systems ap- proach based on watershed boundaries is a more appropriate means of properly characterizing contaminant sources and paths of contaminant transport. Although the committee recognizes that the OU approach was adopted by EPA to prioritize human health risks, the artificial constraints have created problems for EPA in protecting fish downstream of the box, because a large portion of the dissolved zinc (modeled at 41%) comes from sources that apparently cannot be addressed by OU-3 actions. Public per- ception problems arise from the fact that the agency seems to have reversed its original position, which was to deal with the environmental problems outside of the box using programs other than Superfund. This reversal undermined the public’s trust and confidence. Conclusion 3 The total number of samples collected from the entire basin area was small in relation to the large area extent of the basin and the complexity of the site, and source terms25 were not well defined; nevertheless, trends related to contaminant transport and fate, especially for surface water, were definable from the samples that were collected. 17,000 samples were collected throughout the basin, and 1,080 mining- related source areas were identified. Approximately, 160 (15%) of these source areas were sampled with about five surface and near-surface samples collected from most tailings and sediment sources of 5 acres or more. Because the basin is such a large and chemically and hydrologically com- plex site—and contaminant distribution can be very heterogeneous with hot spots being less than an acre in size—this number of samples, although large, is insufficient to quantify the source terms. Leachability data were not obtained to support OU-3 decision making. Measured increases in dissolved metal loadings in streams were used to infer sources, such as nearby floodplain sediments and tailings. 25The phrase “source term” is defined as the amount and chemical form of a contaminant released to the environment from a specific source over a certain period of time. Source identifies the nature and origin of the release and term refers to how much of a substance, or metal in the case of the Coeur d’Alene basin, is released to the environment over a specified time period.

OCR for page 108
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT 151 Conclusion 4 Estimated average mass loading of metals to the Coeur d’Alene River and Lake adequately depict an overall description of contaminants moving through the basin, but such data should not be substituted for comprehen- sive source characterization and remedy design for worst-case conditions. The committee commends the agency for cooperating with other fed- eral and state entities in conducting a variety of new studies that will provide new and improved interpretations of contamination in the basin and can be used in the next steps of the Superfund process. Conclusion 5 Understanding the dynamics of groundwater movement, the incorpora- tion of dissolved metals from the aquifer materials, and the complex rela- tionship between surface water and the shallow groundwater aquifer will require comprehensive study and is necessary because groundwater is the primary source of dissolved metals into the surface water of the basin. The investigations conducted to document concentrations of dissolved metals within the basin focused primarily on monitoring surface-water concentrations. A more limited campaign to sample groundwater was un- dertaken. Yet most of the zinc load in the basin is contributed by ground- water. Understanding the dynamics of groundwater movement and the incorporation of dissolved metals from the aquifer will undeniably require additional characterization. Conclusion 6 Selecting lead and zinc as indicators of COPCs is reasonable, but cau- tion is advised in extrapolating the behavior of these metals to other con- taminants. Zinc accounts for about 96% of the dissolved metal loading to Lake Coeur d’Alene. Lead is primarily transported as a particulate and is also a metal of major concern. Zinc, which is cationic, may have different trans- port characteristics from arsenic, which is anionic and undergoes redox transformations under the environmental conditions of the basin. Conclusion 7 EPA addressed background determinations in a manner consistent with the agency’s established guidelines and is commended for determining site- specific background concentrations of COPCs. The background concentra- tions developed for the ROD were reasonable, but these background con- centrations were not used appreciably, with the exception of the Spokane

OCR for page 108
152 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES River, to select remedial goals or select target cleanup levels when used in conjunction with risk-based values. This decision is appropriate because of the disparity between the cleanup levels and the background levels. EPA followed guidelines, as understood by the committee, for deter- mining background concentrations for soils, sediments, and surface waters in the various basin areas. Background concentrations typically are deter- mined to estimate the extent of contamination and to assist in selecting remedial goals or target cleanup levels. The agency compared contaminant levels with background. However, background was not used appreciably, except for the Spokane River, for the latter purpose, because under the interim cleanup, achieving background is irrelevant. There is a large dispar- ity between the contaminant levels and background concentrations, par- ticularly for soils and sediments. Although coring studies and techniques for background were appropriate, aspects of the sampling and background derivation methodologies were problematic. However, this has little practi- cal effect because proposed remedial actions are not governed by back- ground concentrations. Conclusion 8 Owing to the complexity of metals dynamics in Lake Coeur d’Alene, additional supporting technical information is needed to develop an effec- tive lake management plan. The relationship between eutrophiciation and metals release is not com- pletely understood. Zinc transport through the lake is a complex and dy- namic process with seasonal variations, and the understanding of this pro- cess is continuing to evolve. Conclusion 9 Information on chemical speciation of contaminants is limited and was not considered to any significant extent in decision making in the ROD. Recently available information on the sources, deposition, and transport of metals and sediments will be especially important in the design phase of the Superfund process. Understanding the chemical speciation of metals is important for un- derstanding the dissolution of metals from sources, such as tailings and floodplain sediments, and their bioavailability. Some chemical speciation studies of metals were undertaken in Canyon Creek and Ninemile Creek, and similarly important studies were conducted to estimate dissolution of zinc during dredging in the lower basin. RI sediment-transport studies were limited to water year 1999, but extensive studies by USGS have been ongo-

OCR for page 108
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT 153 ing in the lower basin and will provide much needed information for reme- dial design. Recommendation 1 EPA is encouraged to incorporate in remedial planning new data that have been made available by USGS, Coeur d’Alene tribe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, IDEQ, and others since issuance of the ROD. Further- more, the agency is urged to proceed, as planned, with more-thorough source identification before proceeding with cleanup to ensure the location, magnitude, and disposition of contaminant sources. Recommendation 2 An understanding of dissolved metals, particularly zinc, that accounts for the delivery to and from groundwater and surface waters needs to be developed. The chemical and hydrological components need to be suffi- ciently rigorous to permit use of the information to evaluate the conse- quences of alternative remedial actions to the input of dissolved metals to the basin. REFERENCES Allen, H.E., G. Fu, and B. Deng. 1993. Analysis of acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) and simulta- neously extracted metals (SEM) for the estimation of potential toxicity in aquatic sedi- ments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12(8):1441-1453. Bailey, G.C., and J. Saltes. 1982. Fishery Assessment of the Upper Spokane River. Pub. No. 82-e01. WA-57-1010. Washington Water Research Center, Washington State Univer- sity, Pullman, WA. June [online]. Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/82e01.html [accessed Feb. 7, 2005]. Balistrieri, L.S. 2004. Benthic Fluxes in Lake Coeur d’Alene. Presentation at the Third Meet- ing on Superfund Site Assessment and Remediation in the Coeur d’Alene River Basin, June 17, 2004, Coeur d’Alene, ID. Balistrieri, L.S., A.A. Bookstrom, S.E. Box, and M. Ikramuddin. 1998. Drainage From Adits and Tailings Piles in the Coeur d’Alene Mining District, Idaho: Sampling, Analytical Methods, and Results. USGS Open-File Report 98-127. Menlo Park, CA: U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 19 pp. Balistrieri, L.S., S.E. Box, A.A. Bookstrom, and M. Ikramuddin. 1999. Assessing the influence of reactive pyrite and carbonate minerals on the geochemistry of drainage in the Coeur d’Alene mining district. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33(19):3347-3353. Balistrieri, L.S., S.E. Box, M. Ikramuddin, A.J. Horowitz, and K.A. Elrick. 2000. A Study of Porewater in Water Saturated Sediments of Levee Banks and Marshes in the Lower Coeur d’Alene River Valley, Idaho: Sampling, Analytical Methods and Results. Open- File Report 00-126. Menlo Park, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 62 pp.

OCR for page 108
154 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES Balistrieri, L.S., S.E. Box, A.A. Bookstrom, R.L. Hooper, and J.B. Mahoney. 2002. Impacts of historical mining in the Coeur d’Alene River Basin. Pp. 1-34 in Pathways of Metal Transfer from Mineralized Sources to Bioreceptors: A Synthesis of the Mineral Re- sources Program’s Past Environmental Studies in the Western United States and Future Research Directions, L.S. Balistrieri, L.L. Stillings, R.P. Ashley, and L.P. Gough, eds. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2141. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey [online]. Available: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/bulletin/b2191/ [ac- cessed Dec. 1, 2004]. Barton, G. 2000. Feasibility Study Report, Final. Appendix D (as cited in URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2Hill 2001c). Barton, G.J. 2002. Dissolved Cadmium, Zinc and Lead Loads from Ground-Water Seepage into the South for Coeur d’Alene River System, Northern Idaho, 1999. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4274. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologi- cal Survey. 130 pp [online]. Available: http://purl.access. gpo.gov/GPO/LPS39228 [ac- cessed Dec. 1, 2004]. Beckwith, M.A. 1996. Water-Quality Data Collected During Floods in the Coeur d’Alene River, Northern Idaho, February 1996. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-96-219. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 4 pp. Beckwith, M.A., P.F. Woods, and C. Berenbrock. 1997. Trace-Element Concentrations and Transport in the Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho, Water Years 1993-94. Open-File Report 97-398. Boise, ID: U.S. Geological Survey. Bookstrom, A.A., S.E. Box, J.K. Campbell, I. Foster, and B.L. Jackson. 2001. Lead-Rich Sediments, Coeur d’Alene River Valley, Idaho: Area, Volume, Tonnage, and Lead Con- tent. Open-File Report 01-140. Menlo Park, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey [online]. Available: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of01-140/ [ac- cessed Nov. 29, 2004]. Bookstrom, A.A., S.E. Box, R.S. Fousek, J.C. Wallis., H.Z. Kayser, and B.L. Jackson. 2004. Baseline and Historical Depositional Rates and Lead Concentrations, Floodplain Sedi- ments: Lower Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1211. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Spokane, WA [online]. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1211/ [accessed June 23, 2005]. Box, S.E., and J.C. Wallis. 2002. Surficial Geology along the Spokane River, Washington and Its Relationship to the Metal Content of Sediments (Idaho-Washington Stateline to La- tah Creek Confluence). Open File Report 02-126. Spokane, WA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey [online]. Available: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open- file/of02-126/ [accessed March 21, 2005]. Box, S.E., A.A. Bookstrom, and W.N. Kelley. 1999. Surficial Geology of the Valley of the South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho, Draft Version, U.S. Geological Survey, Spokane, WA. October 4, 1999. (Document ID 1110378 in Bunker Hill Basin-Wide Remedial Administrative Record, Data CD8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, September 2002.) Box, S.E., A.A. Bookstrom, M. Ikramuddin, and J. Lindsay. 2001. Geochemical Analyses of Soils and Sediments, Coeur d’Alene Drainage Basin, Idaho: Sampling, Analytical Meth- ods, and Results. Open-File Report 01-139. Spokane, WA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey [online]. Available: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open- file/of01-139/ [accessed Feb. 7, 2005]. Box, S.E., A.A. Bookstrom, and M. Ikramuddin. In press. Stream-Sediment Geochemistry in Mining-Impacted Streams: Sediment Mobilized by Floods in the Coeur d’Alene-Spokane River Drainage, Idaho and Washington. USGS Scientific Investigation Report SIR 2005- 5011. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

OCR for page 108
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT 155 Brennan, T.S., A.M. Campbell, A.K. Lehmann, and I. O’Dell. 2000. Water Resources Data, Idaho, Water Year 1999, Vol. 2. Upper Columbia River Basin and Snake River Basin Below King Hill. Water-Data Report ID-99-2. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 462 pp. CH2M Hill. 2004a. Dissolved Metal Loading from Groundwater to the South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River, Bunker Hill Superfund Site, Idaho, Draft Final Report, June, 2004. Work Assignment No. 015-TA-TA-10X9. CH2M Hill Project No. 152210.ET.23. Pre- pared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by CH2M Hill, Spokane, WA. CH2M Hill. 2004b. High-Flow Surface Water Sampling Event, March 2003, Bunker Hill Superfund Site. Final Technical Memorandum for Cami Grandinetti, EPA, from Steve Hicks and Craig Sauer, CH2M Hill. June 7, 2004. Clark, G. 2003. Occurrence and Transport of Cadmium, Lead, and Zinc in the Spokane River Basin, Idaho and Washington, Water Years 1999-2001. Water-Resources Investi- gations Report 02-4183. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey [Online]. Available: http://id.water.usgs.gov/PDF/wri024183/index.html [accessed Dec. 1, 2004]. Clark, G.M., and P.F. Woods. 2001. Transport of Suspended and Bedload Sediment at Eight Stations in the Coeur d’Alene River Basin, Idaho. Open-File Report 00-472. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey [online]. Available: http:// purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS46003 [accessed Dec. 1, 2004]. Dames and Moore. 1991. Bunker Hill RI/FS Report, Task 3, Revised Final Hydrogeologic Assessment, Vol. 1. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, by Dames and Moore, Denver, CO. June 11, 1991. DiToro, D.M. 2001. Sediment Flux Modeling. New York: Wiley. Dzombak, D.A. 1986. Toward a Uniform Model for the Sorption of Inorganic Ions on Hy- drous Oxides. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial In- vestigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, Interim Final. EPA 540/G-89/004. OSWER 9355.3-01. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ resources/remedy/pdf/540g-89004.pdf [accessed Jan. 11, 2005]. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Guidance for the Data Quality Objec- tives Process, EPA QA/G-9. EPA/600/R-96/055. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September [online]. Available:http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/ resource/guidance/qa/epaqag4.pdf [accessed July 25, 2005]. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. First Five-Year Review of the Non- Populated Area Operable Unit, Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex, Sho- shone County, Idaho [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/offices/oec/First% 205-Year%20Review%20Non-Pop.pdf [accessed Nov. 29, 2004]. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. The Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgi- cal Complex: Operable Unit 3, Record of Decision. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. September 2002 [online]. Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/.../ cbc45a44fa1ede3988256ce9005623b1/$FILE/ATTBRN4D/Part%201%20 Declaration. pdf [accessed Dec. 1, 2004]. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. EPA Responses to NAS Questions (dif- ferent dates). Gott, G.B., and J.B. Cathrall. 1980. Geochemical-Exploration Studies in the Coeur d’Alene, Idaho and Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1116. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

OCR for page 108
156 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES Harrington, J.M., M.J. LaForce, W.C. Rember, S.E. Fendorf, and R.F. Rosenzweig. 1998. Phase associations and mobilization of iron and trace elements in the Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(5):650-656. Harrington, J.M., S.E. Fendorf, B.W. Wielinga, and R.F. Rosenzweig. 1999. Response to comment on “Phase associations and mobilization of iron and trace elements in Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 33(1):203-204. Hooper, R.L., and J.B. Mahoney. 2000. Constraining Contaminant Transport: Lead and Zinc Speciation in Fluvial Subenvironments, Lower Coeur d’Alene River Valley, Idaho. Geo- logical Society of America Abstracts with Programs (Annual Meeting, Nov. 12-16, 2000, Reno, NV). 32(7):A125. Hooper, R.L., and J.B. Mahoney. 2001. Metal transport, heavy metal speciation and micro- bial fixation through fluvial sub-environments, Lower Coeur d’Alene River Valley, Idaho. EOS Trans. AGU 82(47):F199-F200. Hornig, C.E., D.A. Terpening, and M.W. Bogue. 1988. Coeur d’Alene Basin EPA Water Quality Monitoring (1972-1986). EPA 910/9-88-216. PB89-217962. U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA. September. Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and R.B. Cook. 1993. Effect of mining and related activities on the sediment trace element geochemisty of Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, USA. Part I: Surface Sediments. Hydrol. Process. 7:403-423. Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, J.A. Robbins, and R.B. Cook. 1995. Effect of mining and related activities on the sediment trace element geochemistry of Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, USA. Part II: Subsurface sediments. Hydrol. Process. 9(1):35-54. Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and R.B. Cook. 1999. Comment on “Phase associations and mobilization of iron and trace elements in Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 33(1):201-202. Houck, J.C., and L.L. Mink. 1994. Characterization of a Shallow Canyon Aquifer Contami- nated by Mine Tailings and Suggestions for Constructed Wetlands Treatment. Prepared for the Trustees for the Idaho Natural Resources Damage Trust Fund. March 1994. 20 pp. IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality). 2004. Coeur d’Alene Lake Manage- ment Plan Update. Coeur d’Alene Regional Office, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Coeur d’Alene, ID. June 2004. Johnson, A., D. Norton, B. Yake, and S. Twiss. 1990. Transboundary metal pollution of the Columbia River (Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 45(5): 703-710. Kadlec, M. 2000. Ecological Risk Analysis of Elevated Metal Concentrations in the Spokane River, Washington. Contract C0000233. Prepared for the State of Washington Depart- ment of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program, Olympia, WA. November 2000. Kimball, B.A. 1997. Use of Tracer Injections and Synoptic Sampling to Measure Metal Load- ing from Acid Mine Drainage. Fact Sheet FS-245-96. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Utah Water Science Center [online]. Available: http://ut.water. usgs.gov/usgsabout/fs245/FS_245_96.pdf [accessed May 12, 2005]. Kimball, B.A., R.L. Runkel, K. Walton-Day, and K.E. Bencala. 2002. Assessment of metal loads in watersheds affected by acid mine drainage by using tracer injection and synoptic sampling: Cement Creek, Colorado, USA. Appl. Geochem. 17(9):1183-1207. Kuwabara, J.S., W.M. Berelson, L.S. Balistrieri, P.F. Woods, B.R. Topping, D.J. Steding, and D.P. Krabbenhoft. 2000. Benthic Flux of Metals and Nutrients into the Water Column of Lake Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Report of an August, 1999, Pilot Study. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 2000-4132. Denver, CO: U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey [online]. Available: http://purl.access.gpo. gov/GPO/LPS7104 [accessed Feb. 9, 2005].

OCR for page 108
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT 157 MFG (McCulley, Frick & Gilman, Inc.). 1995. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Canyon Creek Site. Prepared by MFG, Boulder, CO, for Trustees for the Natural Resource Damage Trust Fund. July 21, 1995 (as cited in URS Greiner and CH2Hill 2001c). MFG (McCulley, Frick & Gilman, Inc.). 1998. 1997 Annual Groundwater Data Report, Woodland Park. Prepared by MFG, Osburn, ID, for Silver Valley Natural Resource Trustees. January 1998 (as cited in URS Greiner and CH2Hill 2001c). Morrison, J.M., R.L. Hooper, J.B. Mahoney, and C.E. Rowe. 1999. Heavy metal partitioning in heavily contaminated lead/zinc mine tailings: What really happens during sequential extractions? Abstract No. 52066. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Pro- grams (Annual Meeting, Oct. 24-29, Denver, CO). 31(7):A409. NRC (National Research Council). 1999a. New Strategies for America’s Watersheds. Wash- ington, DC: National Academy Press. 328 pp. NRC (National Research Council). 1999b. New Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 120 pp. NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reduc- ing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 428 pp. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 348 pp. NRC (National Research Council). 2004. River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Pelletier, G.J. 1994. Cadmium, Copper, Mercury, Lead, and Zinc in the Spokane River: Comparisons with Water Quality Standards and Recommendations for Total Maximum Daily Loads. Pub. No. 94-99. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program. Plathe, K.L., R.L. Hooper, J.B. Mahoney, and L.A. Strumness. 2004. Arsenic metal speciation in mine contaminated lacustrine sediment using TEM/HR-ICPMS and calibrated se- quential extraction. EOS Trans. AGU 85(17): Jt Assem. Suppl. Abstract H41E-05. Ridolfi (Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc.). 1998. Draft Restoration Plan Part A’s for the Coeur d’Alene Basin NRDA. Prepared for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, by Ridolfi Engineers and Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. November 9, 1998 (as cited in URS Greiner, Inc. and CH2Hill 2001h). Rowe, C.E., J.B. Mahoney, R.L. Hooper, and J.M. Morrison. 1999. Heavy metal partitioning and transport in the Coeur d’Alene River valley, northern Idaho. Abstract No. 52096. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs (Annual Meeting, Oct. 24-29, Denver, CO) 31(7):A410. San Juan, C. 1994. Natural Background Soil Metals Concentrations in Washington State. Publication No. 94-115. Olympia, WA: Toxic Cleanup Program, Department of Ecol- ogy, Washington State. October 1994. Spruill, T.B. 1993. Preliminary Evaluation of Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Quality in Valley Sediments in the Vicinity of Killarney Lake, Kootenai County Idaho. Water- Resources Investigations Report 93-4091. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 41 pp. Stratus Consulting. 2000. Report of Injury Assessment and Injury Determination: Coeur d’Alene Basin Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Coeur d’Alene Tribe, by Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder, CO. September 2000. Strumness, L.A., R.L. Hooper, and J.B. Mahoney. 2004. Contaminant pathways and metal sequestration patterns in the lower Coeur d’Alene River Valley, Idaho: Mechanics of trace metal mobility. EOS Trans. AGU 85(17), Jt. Assem. Suppl. Abstract No. H41E-04.

OCR for page 108
158 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES Tessier, A., P.G.C. Campbell, and M. Bisson. 1979. Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace metals. Anal. Chem. 51(7):844-851. Thornburg, K.L., and R.L. Hooper. 2001. Transmission Electron Microscopy of Grain and Biocoatings from Lead and Zinc Contaminated Sediments in the Lower Coeur d’Alene River Valley. Abstract for Rocky Mountain and South-Central Sections, Geological So- ciety of American Jooint Annual Meeting, April 29-May 2, 2001, Albuquerque, NM. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 1998a. Draft Technical Work Plan for the Bunker Hill Basin-Wade RI/FS, Panhandle Region of Idaho Including Benewah, Kootenai, and Shoshone Countries. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seatlle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. June 12, 1998. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 1998b. Sediment Contamination in the Lower Coeur d’Alene River Basin (LCDARB): Geophysical and Sediment Coring Investigations in the River Channel, Lateral Lakes, and Floodplains. Bunker Hill Facility Basin-Wide RI/FS Data Report. Contract No. 68-W-98-228. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. October 1998. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001a. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study. URSG DCN 4162500.6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. September 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001b. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Vol. 1. Part 1. Setting and Methodology. URSG DCN 4162500. 6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. September 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001c. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Vol. 2. Part 2. CSM Unit 1, Canyon Creek Watershed. URSG DCN 4162500.6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. Septem- ber 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001d. Probabilistic Analysis of Post-Remediation Metal Loading Technical Memorandum (Revision 1). URSG DCN 4162500.06778.05.a. Pre- pared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. September 20, 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001e. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Vol. 1. Part 7. Summary. URSG DCN 4162500.6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. September 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001f. Final Technical Memorandum (Rev. 3) Estima- tion of Background Concentrations in Soil, Sediment, and Surface Water in the Coeur d’Alene and Spokane River Basins. URSG DCN 4162500.6790.05a. EPA Site File No. 2.7. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. October 2001.

OCR for page 108
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ASSESSMENT 159 URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001g. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Vol. 3. Part 2. CSM Unit 1, Upper Watersheds Ninemile Creek. URSG DCN 4162500.6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. September 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001h. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Vol. 2. Part 2. CSM Unit 1, Big Creek Watershed. URSG DCN 4162500.6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. Septem- ber 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001i. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Vol. 4. Part 4. CSM Unit 3, Lower Coeur d’Alene River. URSG DCN 4162500.6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. Septem- ber 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001j. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Vol. 3. Part 2. CSM Unit 1, Upper South Fork Watershed. URSG DCN 4162500.6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. Septem- ber 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001k. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Vol. 4. Part 3. CSM Unit 2, Midgradient Watersheds, South Fork Coeur d’Alene River. URSG DCN 4162500.6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. September 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001l. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Report, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Vol. 4. Part 5. CSM Unit 4, Coeur d’Alene Lake. URSG DCN 4162500. 6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. September 2001. URS Greiner, Inc., and CH2M Hill. 2001m. Final (Revision 2) Remedial Investigation Re- port, Remedial Investigation Report for the Coeur d’Alene Basin Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Vol. 4. Part 6. CSM Unit 5, Spokane River. URSG DCN 4162500. 6659.05a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA, by URS Greiner, Inc., Seattle, WA, and CH2M Hill, Bellevue, WA. September 2001. Villa, C.J. 2003. Superfund vs. Megasites: The Coeur d’Alene river basin story. Columbia J. Environ. Law 28(2):255-324. Woods, P.F. 2001. Concentrations and Loads of Cadmium, Lead, Zinc, and Nutrients Mea- sured During the 1999 Water Year Within the Spokane River Basin, Idaho and Wash- ington. Open-File Report 00-441. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geo- logical Survey [online]. Available: http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS45894 [accessed Feb. 10, 2005].

OCR for page 108
160 SUPERFUND AND MINING MEGASITES Woods, P.F. 2004. Sediment and Lead Transport in the Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho. Presenta- tion at the Third Meeting on Superfund Site Assessment and Remediation in the Coeur d’Alene River Basin, June 17, 2004, Coeur d’Alene, ID. Woods, P.F., and M.A. Beckwith. 1997. Nutrient and Trace-Element Enrichment of Coeur d’Alene Lake, Idaho. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2485. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 93 pp.