DERR-2024-006855

THIRD FIVE.YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Murray Smelter Superfund Site
Salt Lake County, Murray, Utah
CERCLIS ID: UTD9809 5 | 420
September 2014
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
Denver, Colorado
qlu{p
Martin Hestmark
Assi stant Regional Administrator
OfTice of Ecosystem Protection and Remediation
f,r nv f a",r 4 b"l*/r'Y in rSsl-uJ lyth
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......
Five-year Review Summary Form
Introduction ....-..---...............1.0
2.0 Site Chronology
3.0 Backgro
4.0 Remedial Actions
4.2 Remedial Action Objectives. ......... 8
4.2.1 Overarching RAO......... . 8
4.2.2 On-Facility Soil/Smelter Material RAO .....
4.2.3 On-Facility Groundwater RAO,
4.2.4Little Cottonwood Creek Surface Water RAO .....
4.2.5 Off-facility soils RAOS
Selected Remedy for the On-Facility
acilitv Area
4.4 Selected Remedy for the Off-Facility Area ..... ............. ..... 9
4.5 Remedy Implementation.............. ..................................... l0
4.5.I ICs and Redevelopment of Site. .........10
4.5.2Monitored Natural Attenuation of Arsenic in Groundwater........,.............10
4.6 Operation and Maintenance........... ................10
4.7 On_SiteRepository. .............i....... ll
4.8 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring...........:....... ................... I I
4.8. I Surface Water Monitoring. ....-............12
4.8.2 Shallow Aquifer Performance Monitoring. ........... I 2
4.8.3 Intermediate Aquifer Performance Monitoring. .........,...,......... l2
4.8.4 Groundwater Monitoring for Repository................ ................. 124.9 RecentActivities ....... I 3
Mun.ay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014 i
4.1
4.3
5.0
6.0
4.9.1 Site Conceptual Mode1......... ..............13
4.9.2 Additional Intermediate Performance Monitoring Wel I
4.9.3 Frequency of Monitoring
Progress since the Last Five Year Review
Five-year Review Process....................o...............,........i....14
6.2 CommunityInvolvemenf...........i.....;.i.i...........i...i..........'.r........ l4
Review
Technical Assessment
7.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ... 16
7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used
r3
7.0
at the time of remedy selection still valid?........i.......;...................r.... .,.,.,,..u.17
7.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question
protectiveness of the remedy1........i..,...,...........!....i.......1...........................,...... l7
the
t77.4 TechnicalAssessmentSummary....
8.0I
9.0 RecommendationsandFollow-upActionsoorooor,.ioooororerodo.r
t7
18
l8
Murray Smelter Five-year Review Report, September 2014
Third
LIST OF TABLES
Table l: Chronology of Site Events........
Table2: Follow-up Actions since the Last Five-year Review... ....._..... 14
APPENDICES
AppendixA:ListofDocumentsReviewed....................
Appendix C: Photographs from Site Inspection Visit..... .................... C-l
Appendix D: Five-year Review Interviews..................... ............:.... D-l
Appendix E: Groundwater Potentiometric Maps and statistical plots ..................F I
Appendix F: Site ptual Mode1.................. ....................,............. H-lconceptual ................... ............-. G-l
Appendix G: Site Maps
Mun.ay Smelter Third Five-year Review Repor! September 2014 llt
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACL Alternate concentration limitAOC Administrative Order on Consent.
ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CD Consent Decree
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COC Contaminant of concern
EE/CA Engineering evaluation/cost analysis
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FS Feasibility study
IAPM lntermediate aquifer performance monitoring Institutional
control
IHC lntermountain Healthcare Services
IMC lntermountain Medical Center
MCL Maximum contaminant level
NAM Natural attenuation monitoring
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
PS Performance standardPURR Primary under roadway repository Remedial
action
RAO Remedial action objective
RCM Repository compliance monitoring
RDM Repository detection monitoring
RI Remedial investigation
RDR Remedial design report
ROD Record of decision
SAP Sampling and analysis plan
SAPM Shallow aquifer performance monitoring
Site Murray Smelter Superfund Site
SSOD Smelter Site Overlay District
S WPM Surface water performance monitoring
S WRE Southwest repository extension
Trust ASARCO Multi-State Environmental Custodial Trust
UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental eualityUTA Utah Transit Authority
UTAFRE UTA facility repository extension
Munay Smelter Five-year Review Report, September 2014 !V
NPL National Priorities List
Operations and maintenance
OU Operable unit
Thifxi
VMun.ay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
EXECUTIVE SUNMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 conducted a third five-year review of
the remedial actions implemented at the Murray Smelter Superfund Site (Site). The Site was
proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1994 but not listed at the request of the city of
Munay with concurrence from EPA and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEe).
The triggering action for this review was the date of cornpletion for the second five year review,
March 18,2009.
The Murray Site covers 278 acres along a commercial corridor about eight miles north of Salt Lake
City, in Murray, Utah. From 1872 until 1949, smelting and refining activities for silver and lead
caused contamination at the smelter property and adjacent lands.
The 1998 Record of Decision (ROD) selected a remedy to address contaminated groundwater,
surface soils, and surface water. Cleanup activities included removing or capping contaminated
soils, ongoing groundwater monitoring to assess contaminant levels, implementing environmental
covenants, and a land use ordinance to limit future human contact with contaminated media. All
required response actions were completed by the end of September 2001 .
Site-wide protectiveness statement:
The remedy at the Murray Smelter Superfund Site currently protects human health and the
environment. Source control measures (repository system and baniers) are in place, are being
maintained as designed, and are monitored regularly. Institutional controls foittre Site are in-
place with the establishment and enforcement of the Smelter Site Overlay District. The
institutional controls effectively restrict land use and groundwater use. In addition,
residents and businesses in the area are connected to the municipal water system. There is no
current exposure to on-Site groundwater.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SI.INMARY FORM
iite Name: Murray Smelter
PA ID:uTDg80951420
legion:8 State: UT lCity/County: Murray/Salt Lake County
Site Status
NPL Status: Proposed
Vlultiple oUs? No Has the site achieved construction completion? yes
Review
Status
Lead agency: EPA
Author name, Federal Project Manager: Erna Waterman
Author rffilirtion
Review period: March - June 2013
Date of site inspection: March 11-1.5,2013 and June 11,2013
typ" of r"rie*,
Review number: 3
Iriggering action date: March 18, 2009
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
lssues/Recom mendations
lssues and Recommendations ldentified in the Five-year Review:
lssues: The updated MCL and State aquatic life criteria for arsenic have changed since the ROD.
Recommendations: Determine if the updated MCL and updated State aquatic life criteria for
arsenic should be the new performance standards for groundwater and surface water,
respectively.
Protectiveness
sment
Addendum Due Date: N/AProtectiveness Determination: Protective
The remedy at the Murray Smelter Superfund Site currently protects human health and the environment.
Source control measures (repository system and barriers) are in place, are being maintained as designed,
and are monitored regularly. lnstitutional controls for the Site are in place with the establishment and
enforcement of the Smelter Site Overlay District. The institutional controls effectively restrict land use and
groundwater use. ln additions residents and businesses in the area are connected to the municipal water
system. There is no current exposure to on-Site groundwater.
vt
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
I.O NTRODUCTION
The purpose of the five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of
human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are
documented in five-year review reports. In addition, the reports identifu issues found during the
review, if any, and identify recommendations to address them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this third five-year review
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) 5121 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
CNCP). CERCLA 5 l2l states:
Ifthe President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such
remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation ofsuch remedial
action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the
remedial action being implemented. In addition, ifupon such review it is the judgment
of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [10a]
or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to
the Congress a list offacilities for which such review is required, the results ofall such
reviews, and any actions taken as a result ofsuch reviews.
e-p4 ilfryreted this requirement further in the NCP, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
$300.430(D(4Xii), which states:
Ifa remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such actions no less
often than everyfive years after the initiation ofthe selected remedial action.
EPA Region 8 conducted the five-year review and prepared this report regarding the remedy
implemented at the Murray Smelter Superfund Site (Site) in Murray, Salt Lake -ounty, Ut;h. This
review was conducted from March to September 2013. EPA is the lead agency for developing and
implementing the remedy for the Site. The Utah Department of Environmlntil euality (UDEQ), as
the support agency representing the State of Utah, has reviewed all supporting documlntation and
provided input to EPA during the review process.
This is the third five-year review for the Site. The triggering action for this statutory review is the
completion date of the second five-year review report, March 18, 2009. The review is required
because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levelJthat
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table I the i and relevant dates iurnrnarlzes rne lmporrant events ano relevant dates ln the srte's chronol
Table l: Chronology ofSite Events
D",n Event
1872 - 1902 Germania Smelter processed lead and silver ores on northwest comer of the Site just south of Little
Cottonwood Creek
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
1902 - 1949 {SARCO operated the Murray Smelter on property to the south of the Germania Smelter to
rrocess lead and silver ores
1907 Baghouse installed to filter arsenic emissions from smelting and roasting
r992-r993 Ihe Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) conducted a site investigation
Jan 1994 EPA proposed the Site for the National Priorities List (NPL)
sep 1995 EPA and ASARCO enter into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for an Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysi s (EE/CA)
sep 1995 EPA and ASARCO enter into an AOC for performance of a time critical removal action for the
Grandview Trailer Park playground area.
Nov 1995 EPA issues Action Memorandum for the time critical removal action for the Grandview Trailer
Park playground area.
Nov 1995 ASARCO completes the time critical removal action for the Grandview Trailer Park playground
area
April 1996 EPA and Murray City enter into a Memorandum of Understanding recognizing Murray City's who
were consulted in the development of remedial alternatives and implementing institutional
controls.
Aug 1996 ASARCO submits the Site Characterization Report to EPA and the (UDEe
Oct 1996 - Feb 1997 EPA and Murray Smelter Working Group convened to examine Site development options and
remedial alternatives
May 1997 EPA issues the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for the Site
Aug1997 ASARCO submits the Feasibility Study Reporr
sep 1997 EPA issues the Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment for the Site
sep 1997 EPA issues the Proposed Plan for public comment
April 1998 EPA signs the ROD selecting the remedy for the Murray Site
Aug 1998 CERCLA Remedial Action Consent Decree entered in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah. Settling Defendants agree to perform remedial actions selected by EPA and to
reimburse past and fufure response costs
sep 1999 EPA issues an Action Memorandum for Smoke Stack rime critical Removal Action
Aug 2000 ASARCO conducts removal action and demolish smoke stacks
sep 2001 EPA reported construction complete for on-site construction
June 2001 EPA approves ASARCO's Interim Operations and Maintenance plan
Nov 2000 - Aug 2001 ASARCO performs baseline post-closure groundwater monitoring in vicinity of on-site repository
Jan 2001- June 2003 ASARCO conducts performance monitoring of groundwater and surface water
2003 Costco opens on Site
sep 2003 EPA issues First Five Year Review
Aug 2005 ASARCO files Chapter I I Bankruptcy
2005 ASARCO installs three remaining groundwater monitoring wells
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
2007 Intermountain Healthcare Hospital opens on Site
Table l: Chronologv ofsite Events
Date Event
March 18,2009 EPA issues Second Five Year Review
Dec 2009 United States Bankruptcy Court approved a Settlement Agreement establishing the ASARCO
Multi-State Environmental Custodial Trust (Trust) for l7 of the former ASARCO owned sites,
including the Murray Smelter Site; the Trust assumed all of ASARCO's obligations at the Site.
March 2010 - Dec 2013 Trust conducts quarterly groundwater and surface water sampling
March - sep 2013 Site inspection including sampling of groundwater, surface water, inspection of repository
settlement and Site photographs for the Five Year Review. Interviews were also conducted for the
Five Year Review
3.0 BACKGROTIND
3. I Physical Characteristics
The Murray Smelter Site is located in Murray, Salt Lake County, Utah. The Site includes the former
operational areas ofthe Murray Smelter and adjacent Germania Smelter, which are referred to as the
on-facility area, as we-ll 11 surrounding residential and commercial areas. These surrounding areas are
referred to as the off-facility area, where air dispersion and deposition modeling indicated airborne
emissions from the smelters impacted the environment. Both areas are defined in the Site Location
Map, see Figure I-I in Appendix G.
The on-facility area is approximately 142 acres. Its boundaries are 5300 South Street to the south,
State Street to the east, Little Cottonwood Creek to the north, and the west set of the Denver & Rio
Grande Western railroad tracks to the west. The off-facility area is approximately 30 acres to the west
of the on-facility are4 approximately 106 acres south and southeast bithe on-facitlty area, and a
small area between 5200 South Street and Little Cottonwood Creek to the east of the onfacility area.
The west portion of the oflfacility area is bounded by Little Cottonwood Creek to the north, 500
West Street to the west, 5300 South Street to the south, and the on-facility boundary to the east. The
south/southwest portion is bounded by 5300 South Street to the north and Wilson Avenue to the
south. Figure 2 in Appendix G shows site boundaries.
The boundaries of the off-facility area were determined by EPA based on the results of air
dispersion modeling performed in November of 1994. The purpose of the modeling was to identifu
the area that potentially would have received the greatest amount of deposition r.rilting from leaj
and arsenic emissions from the Murray Smelter during its operating p"iiod. The small off-A"itity
area between 5200 South Street and Little Cottonwood Creek to thi Last of the onfacility area was
added in 1998 to encompass the inferred shallow groundwater flow path from the former baghouse
area to its discharge into the creek.
3.2Lmd and Resource Use
The historic land use of the on-facility area was industrial. The Germania Smelter was built in 1872
on the northwest corner of what is now the on-facility area.It began operations in l872and operateduntil 1902. The Germania Smelter processed lead at the rate of t 80 tons a day from four blast
furnaces and one reverberatory furnace. The American Smelting and Refining Co-pury(ASARCO) purchased the Germania Smelter in 1899 and operated it while ui-ro "onrt r.ting the
YrTlV Smelter on property to the south .ln 1902, operations at the Germania Smelter stoppid and
the Murray Smelter began operations. In the years following the close of the Germania Smilter, theland on which it operated was re-graded using slag from the operations.
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
From its opening in 1902 through its closing in 1949; the smelter processed 1,500 tons of lead and
silver ores per day, with eight blast furnaces. In addition to lead, several by-product metals were also
produced, such as gold, silver, copper, antimony, bismuth, arsenic and cadmium. The primary
smelting by-products by volume were slag, arsenic and cadmium. Much of the slag was used as
ballast for the railroad tracks and as material for construction of freeway systems in the area. Arsenic
compounds were sold for use as insecticides or to the government for war time purposes. Cadmium
was sold for use primarily as paint pigment.
The smelter operations facilities on the Site included an extensive network of railroad tracks, two
smoke stacks (300 feet and 455 feet in height), several blast furnaces, roasters, arsenic kitchens, sinter
plants, mill* power houses, ore storage bins and other support facilities. A baghouse was constructed
in 1907 to control air emissions..
The Murray Smelter stopped operating in 1949. The majority of the smelter structures were
demolished in an organized manner. Salvageable materials were taken off-site and building
structures were demolished with the brick and concrete debris typically spread in the immediate
area. Slag was brought in from the slag pile area to cover the debris and to provide a suitable surface
for subsequent development of commercial/manufacturing operations.
ln 1994, when EPA proposed listing the Site on the National Priorities List, most smelter facilities
had been demolished except the 330-foot and 455-foot stacks, some building foundations, and the
original office/engine room. The land use in 1994 was a combination of light and heavy industrial.
The majority of the on-facility area was leased by a concrete manufacturing company engaged in
making precast and pre-stressed concrete building products as well as architectural concrete products.
Other uses of the on-facility area included warehousing, telecommunication, a police training facility,
an abandoned asphalt plant and two residential trailer parks. Land use in the off-facility area was
mixed residentiaUcommercial.
3.3 Current Land Use
Currently the on-facility land use is restricted to those uses allowed in the Murray City's commercial
Smelter Site Overlay District (SSOD). Only commercial and light industrial land use is allowed,
Residential use, heavy industrial use and certain recreational uses are not allowed. The installation of
groundwater wells is restricted to those used for monitoring as part of the remedial action at the Site,
The off-facility land use is a mix ofcommercial and residential use. The remedial action selected by
EPA for the Murray Smelter Site was based on the assumption that the reasonably anticipated futu;e
land use would be commercial/light indusfrial. The onfacility areaof the Site has been redeveloped
and addresses the surrounding community's need for access to health care, public transit and
diversified economic development. The facilities currentl.y in operation on the Site are as follows:
o Intermountain Medical Center
o The Utah Transit Authority (UTA),park-and-ride
o Costco retail membership warehouse club o The Ash Grove Cement distribution facility
o Utah State Workforce Services office
'Murray City Police Training facility r Jack B.
Parsons Companies office building o Utah Bank
Note Company.
3.4 Groundwater
Groundwater underneath the dite is comprised of three distinct aquifers.
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
The shallow aquifer is unconfined with a saturated thickness ranging from 2.5 feet to 25 feet. The
average depth to water is approximately ten feet. Shallow groundwater flows generally north-
northeast toward Little Cottonwood Creek.
The intermediate aquifer is separated from the shallow aquifer by the Bonneville blue clay that is
continuous across the Site. Beneath the Bonneville blue clay, the intermediate and deep aquifers are
separated by more than 200 feet of inter-bedded fine- and coarse-grained silty clay and alluvial
deposits. Groundwater in the intermediate aquifer flows north-northwest across the Site and the
intermediate aquifer is not hydraulically connected to surface water bodies in the vicinity of the
Site.
The deep aquifer located several hundred feet below the intermediate aquifer is the main source of
drinking water for most residents in the Salt Lake Valley.
3.5 Surface Water
Little Cottonwood Creek is a perennial stream that flows along the north/northeast boundary of the
Site and discharges into the Jordan River approximately one mile downstream of the Site.
3.6 Initial Response
Based on site investigations and information on historic smelter operations, EPA identified elevated
levels of metals in the surface soils, subsurface soils and shallow groundwater on the Site. The
intermediate aquifer was not impacted. The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List in
January of 1994 but the listing was never finalized, at the request of the city of Murray with
concurrence from EPA and UDEQ.
ASARCO agreed to perform an engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) pursuant to the terms
of an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) (EPA, 1995). ASARCO initiated the EE/CA with
investigations performed between April 1995 and February 1996. Results of these investigations
were reported and discussed in the site characterization report (Hydrometrics, 1996a). EPA retained
responsibility for performing baseline human health and ecological risk assessments for the Site.
The EE/CA was intended to support a non-time-critical removal action at the Site. EPA issued the
baseline risk assessment in May 1997 (Weston,1997) and the baseline ecological risk assessment in
September 1997.
In September 1995, EPA and ASARCO entered into a separate AOC for a time-critical removal at
the playground in the Grandview Trailer Park located on the on-facility area. Soils.contaminated by
lead and arsenic were excavated within and adjacent to the playground. The playground was
backfilled with clean fill. This removal action was completed in November 1995. In 1997,EPA
redirected what had been a non-time-critical removal action into the remedial action framework.
ASARCO's obligation under the AOC to perform an EE/CA was changed to a feasibility study
which was completed by ASARCO in August of 1997 (MFG, 1997). In order to support the
feasibility study and ROD, additional investigations of surface water and soils in the off-facility area
were performed subsequent to the site characterization report O/IFG, 1996; Hydrometrics, 1996b,
1997a, 1997b, 1997c).
Concurrently, EPA and Murray City discussed partnership alternatives to provide the city a
significant role in the remedial process and allow for rapid design and implementation of the selected
remedy. In April 1996, EPA and Murray City signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
creating a formal role for Murray in the assessment of potential land uses at the Site, the development
of cleanup options, and the implementation/enforcement of institutional controls.
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
To facilitate development of an acceptable remedy for the on-facility area, EPA and UDEQ initiated
the formation of the Murray Smelter Working Group (Working Group) in October 1996. The
Working Group included the EPA, UDEQ, Murray City, and ASARCO, along with land and
business owners of the on-facility area. The purpose of the Working Group was to inform EPA and
UDEQ about pending redevelopment plans and to provide a forum for discussing alternative
cleanup strategies for the on-facility area. A commitment was made by the Working Group to
integrate future remedial actions with redevelopment activities. Agreements among the members of
the Working Group were incorporated in an Agreement in Principle signed in May of 1997.
3.7 Site Investigations
Site investigations found that metal concentrations were elevated in soils primarily due to the
presence of residual smelter materials (on-facility area) and deposition of smelter air emissions
during the period of operation (off-facility area). Lead and arsenic were identified as the primary
contaminants of concern in the on-faci'lity area so'ils and lead in the off-facility area soils.
Shallow groundwater within the on-facility area was also found to be contaminated with arsenic
and selenium. The data suggested a low permeability for the shallow aquifer and high attenuation
characteristics for arsenic which, in turn, suggested a correlation between elevated arsenic
concentrations in groundwater and areas of residual source materials. For example, in the area near
the former smelter roasting plant where most of the source material was present for at least 50
years, arsenic concentrations in groundwater immediately underlying the area were measured as
high as 50 mgil, but only measured 0.1 mg/l just 200 yards down-gadient of the area
(Hydrometrics, I 996a).
Elevated arsenic concentrations were also measured in Little Cottonwood Creek. The investigations
found that, while some of the arsenic loading could be attributed to contaminated groundwater from
the Site, the majority of arsenic loading of the creek (on the order of 90 percent) originated from a
storm sewer that ran south to north along the west side of State Street. The storm sewer, within a
trench packed in coarse fill, was found to provide a preferential pathway for contarninated
groundwater from source areas associated with the former smelter baghouse located near the comer
of State Street and 5300 South Street. However, since no surface water quality standards were
exceeded, no response actions were required.
Site investigations identified four types of smelter material within the on-facility area'.
' Category I material, Residual smelter material associated with the arsenic trioxide production
process consisting of relatively undiluted flue dust was designated Category I. This material
contained the highest arsenic concentrations (average of approximately 1405000 mg/Kg), was
present in relatively small volumes (approximately 580 tons) and was associated with
distinctly elevated arsenic concentrations in underlying shallow groundwater. Category I
materi'al was identified as posing a potential health risk and was considered by EPA to be
principal threat waste and a major source of arsenic to shallow groundwater.
oee@garyll_[a19[ial Residual smelter material associated with smelter flue dust operations
(blast furnace flues, baghouse, roasting plant flues and Cottrell electrostatic precipitator) and
consisting of diluted flue dust mixed with soil, new fill, or debris from former smelter
Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
flues. This material contained lower arsenic concentrations than Category I material
(average of approximately 9,000 mg/I(g), but was present in larger quantities
(approximately 90,000 cubic yards). Category Il material was identified as posing a
potential direct contact health risk and as being a source ofarsenic to groundwater.
o Category Ill Material. Residual smelter material and contaminated soils that contained arsenic or
lead at levels predicted to pose an unacceptable health risk to site workers within the on-facility
area (arsenic greater than 1,200 mg/kg or lead greater than 5,600 m/kg), but were not sources of
arsenic to groundwater.
' Category [V Material. Smelter slag that was present primarily in the northern portion of the on-
facility area and contained relatively high levels of lead (typically in the range of 8,000 to 16,000
mdkg), in a physical form (vitrified iron silicate) that limits the release of metals. Slag was found
not to be a source of metals to groundwater or surface water. Human health risks associated with
exposure to slag under a commerciaVlight industrial scenario were predicted to be within EPA
acceptable risk range. The slag may have potential to release metals over the long term if the
vitrified material breaks down due to weathering.
3.8 Basis for Taking Action
Hazardous substances that have been released at the Site in each environmental media are summarized
ln the table.
Hazardous substance Environmental media
Lead and arsenic Surliice soil, subsurface soil and dust
Lead, arsenic, and selenium Groundwater within on-facilit area
Aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc Surface water in Little Cottonwood Creek
Aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and
zinc
Sediment in Little Cottonwood Creek
Of these hazardous substances, EPA identified lead and arsenic as the chemicals of concern for
humans. EPA identified aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,
thallium, and zinc as the chemicals of concern for ecological receptors.
The baseline risk assessment provided the basis for EPA's decision that remedial action was necessary at
the Site. Elevated and unacceptable risks were identified for both humans and ecological receptors:
o Risks to humans: unacceptable risks to current and future non-contact intensive workers, current
contact intensive workers, and current and future residents via ingestion of arsenic and lead in
dust and soil and ingestion of arsenic in groundwater.
o Risks to ecological receptors: exposure to lead in soils and sediment, selenium in plants.
Murray Smelter Five-year Review Report, September 2014
ftird
4.0 RENTEDTAL ACTIONS
4.1 Decision Documents
The 1998 ROD selected a remedy to address the unacceptable risks posed to current and future human
populations and ecological receptors identified in the baseline risk assessment.
4.2 Remedial Action Objectives
4.2.1 Overarching RAO
Based on consideration of brownfields goals, the key overarching RAO is to develop a
comprehensive remedy that protects human health and the environment, is consistent with the
current and reasonably anticipated future land use, and removes obstacles to Site development
associated with the real or perceived environmental contamination.
4.2.2 On-FacilitySoil/Smelter Material RAO
Prevent unacceptable risks to current and future workers or to ecological receptors due to the ingestion
of on-facility soil/smelter materials containing arsenic or lead. The remediation levels for soiVsmelter
material in the on-facility area are I ,200 milligrams per kilogam (mdkg) arsenic and 5,600 mglkg lead
within any given exposure unit.
4.2.3 On-Facility Groundwater RAO
Minimize future transport of arsenic from source materials to the shallow aquifer, prevent exposure
of human and ecological receptors to groundwater with arsenic concentrati0lis that pose an
unacceptable risk, and prevent unacceptable increases in the arsenic concentrations within the .
intermediate aquifer resulting from arsenic migation from the shallow aquifer. The remediation levels
for groundwater are:
' Meet the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.05milligrams per liter (mg/l) for dissolved
arsenic in shallow groundwater at the east and west Site boundaries.
o Meet the 0.05 mg/l MCL for dissolved arsenic in the intermediate aquifer
' Meet the alternate concentration limit (ACL) of 5.0 mgil for dissolved arsenic within the
unconfined shallow aquifer within the Site boundaries.
4.2.4 LittleCottonwood Creek Surface Water RAO .
Prevent unacceptable increases of arsenic concentrations in surface water resulting from groundwater
discharges or surface water run-off from the Site. The remediation levels for Little Cottonwood Creek
surface water are:
o Meet Utah standards of quality for waters of the state for trivalent arsenic of 190 micrograms per
liter (pgll) as a 4-day average and 360 ggll as a I-hour.
o Meet Utah standard of quality for waters of the state for dissolved arsenic of 100 ggl1.
4.2.5 Off-facility soils RAO
Prevent unacceptable risks to current and future residents due to the ingestion of soil containing
lead and prevent unacceptable risks to current and future non-contact intensive workers due to the
ingestion of soil containing lead. The remediation levels for off-facility soils are:
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014 8
o The concentration of lead in surface soils within residential areas shall not exceed 1,200 mg/kg as
the mean within any given yard..
o The concentration of lead in surface soils within commercial areas of the Site shallnot
exceed 5,600 mg/kg as an arithmetic mean within any given commercial property.
4.3 Selected Remedy for the On-Facility Area
The selected remedy for the on-facility area was source control and monitored natural attenuation
to achieve the RAO for on-facility groundwater, barrier placement to achieve the RAO for on-
facility soiVsmelter materials, and institutional controls. The main components of the remedy for
the on-facility area were as follows:
' Category I material. Excavation and off-Site disposal of approximately 580 tons of Category I
material considered principal threat waste. This material was transported to a permitted hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal facility;
o Category Il material. Excavation and on-site consolidation of approximately 90,000 cubic yards
of low level threat waste. The excavated Category Il material was consolidated in a iully-
encapsulated repository system constructed within the Site boundaries. The repository was
designed as the base for a new access road through the Site. The selected remedy includes
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) of the on-Site source control (repository) system with Site
development over the repository.
' Category Ill material. The covering of Category Ill materials in place, with barriers to prevent
direct contact. Such barriers may include pavement, landscaping, soil caps, or sidewalks.
o Category IV material. Although no unacceptable risks associated with exposure to slag. were
identified by EPA, Site development resulted in the construction of barriers over the slag
ensuring no exposure to slag in the future.
t Groundwater. Monitored natural attenuation shall continue until shallow groundwater achieves
the ACL for dissolved arsenic of 5.0 mgll. The intermediate aquifer will be monitored to
determine compliance with the MCL for dissolved arsenic of 0.05 mglL.
o Surface water. Monitoring of surface water in Little Cottonwood Creek to ensure continued
compliance with applicable water quality standards.
o Institutional controls. The remedy also included institutional controls (ICs). ICs were to be in the
form of a Murray City ordinance establishing an SSOD and restrictive easements that run with
the land, which prohibit the construction of new wells or use of existing wells within the on-
facility area and the western and eastern portions of the off- facility area except for EPA-
approved monitoring wells. The SSOD prevents residential and contact intensive industrial land
use and requires maintenance of the barriers and controls.
4.4 Selected Remedy for the Off-Facility Area
For the off-facility area, the selected remedy was removal of soil to 18 inches in depth with lead
levels exceeding 1,200 mg/kg in residential yards or with lead levels exceeding 5,600 mg/kg in
commercial areas and replacement with clean fill. The excavated soil was to be used as sub-gade
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
lrs '14 '-> fr'Y'? Z<) f
i*'**") Pi*' <*lJ-(1ry'fl'.n^o *Y
r\
#T,il^r'y*f,:i',ir'
f, ntt,'*L) l,t) r-Jt A.J4
- 4's,,u ?U!.t.' L r-L /( .
<hr', MU
material during construction of the repository system. The residential cleanup is noted under the
remedy implementation section.
4.5 Remedylmplementation
Remedial action (RA) activities began in August 1998 and were completed in February 2001, in
accordance with the ROD and the Consent Decree. RA activities were performed on an' accelerated
schedule to meet a series of interim deadlines to facilitate redevelopment. Excavation and off-Site
disposal of Category I material was completed in August 1998.
Remedial action at the current UTA park-and-ride facility was conducted between 1998 and May 1999.
The work included removal of Category Il materials, construction of a portion of the lined repository
system, and consolidation of Category Il materials within the repository.
Construction of the repository system beneath Cottonwood and Woodrow Streets, which bisect the
western side of the site, was conducted between September 1998 and November 1999. Concurrent with
this effort, construction of the Southwest Repository Extension began in October 1999 and was
completed ayear later. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in October 2000.
In addition to the remedial action activities, a removal action was conducted in August of 2000, to
demolish the smelter smoke stacks in the on-facility area, A memorial garden was later constructed on
the landscaped grounds of the Intermountain Health Care Hospital, where the largest stack once was
located. It was intended to serve as both a historical marker as well as a dedication to leaders in the
community.
The installation of three shallow groundwater monitoring wells (MW-IO, MW-I I and MW-12) was
delayed until 2005 due to construction of Costco and Intermountain Health Care Hospital. In the off-
facility area, soil from twelve residential yards with average lead concentrations greater than I ,200
m/kg was removed and replaced with clean fill. This action addressed unacceptable human health
risk in the off-facility area. No unacceptable ecological risk was identified in the off-facility area.
4.5.1 ICs and Redevelopment ofSite.
In accordance with the ROD, Murray City created the SSOD with the passage of0rdinance 98-07 on
April 14, 1998 and subsequently hired a development site coordinator to oversee the district. The SSOD
established the necessary public and private ICs to protect human health and the environment from the
remaining contamination at the Site and to protect the integrity of current and future barriers/caps.
Specifically, the SSOD prohibits the construction of new wells or use of existing wells for any purpose
(except for monitoring wells), includes zoning to prevent residential and contact . intensive industrial uses
within the former smelter operational areas and requires maintenance of the barriers/caps and controls on
handling of excavated subsurface material. All current and future redevelopment activities in the on-
facility area must conform to SSOD requirements.
4.5.2 Monitored Natural Attenuation ofArsenic in Groundwater.
Monitored natural attenuation of arsenic in shallow groundwater continues to be conducted,
Natural attenuation will continue until shallow groundwater achieves the ACL for dissolved
arsenic of 5.0 mg/l within the on-facility area.
4.6 Operation and Maintenance
EPA approved the interim O&M plan in June 2001 submitted by ASARCO (MFG, 2007), The interim
O&M plan includes all requirements for O&M ofthe on-facility repository system to be
Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014 l0
Groundwater and surface-water monitoring will continue throughout the interim O&M period
unless it is demonstrated that all performance standards for groundwater and surface water have
been met.
4.8. I Surface Water Monitoring
The monitoring plan requires sampling of Little Cottonwood Creek on a semi-annual basis at three
locations. Samples are taken during low-flow and high-flow conditions at the creek. The three locations
are SW-5 (immediately downstream of the Site boundary), SW-13 (upstream of the Site boundary), and
SW-15 (within the Site boundaries). An aerialphoto of the site marks the well locations, see Figure 2 in
Appendix G,
SW-5 is the point of compliance for performance standards. Arsenic data from this well are compared to
the performance standards for Little Cottonwood Creek, Utah 's Numeric Criteria for Aquatic Wildlife
(0.15 mg/l trivalent arsenic as a 4-day average, 0.34 mgll trivalent arsenic as a I -hour average) and
Agricultural Standard (0.1 mg/l).
4.8.2 Shallow Aquifer Performance Monitoring
Water levels are measured at piezometers just north of Little Cottonwood Creek and at on-Site wells just
south of the creek. The data are used along with water level elevations in the creek to confirm the
direction of groundwater flow in the vicinity of the creek.
Monitoring of wells just south of the creek is performed to compare arsenic concentrations in
groundwater discharging into the creek to the performance standard,5 mg/lACL. EPA established the
ACL to protect the creek at its beneficial use, which is agricultural.
Monitoring of two wells outside and west of the on-facility area will continue to be conducted through
2017 . The data are used to compare arsenic concentrations in shallow groundwater leaving the Site to
the performance standard, 0.05mg/1.
Monitoring of seven wells within the on-Site boundary was performed to track and evaluate the effects
of natural attenuation on groundwater quality. The wells are MW-ID, Mw-2D, Mw-3D, Mw-I o,
MW-I I and MW-12. For the natural attenuation evaluation, the monitoring parameters are limited to
total dissolved solids, sulfate, and total and dissolved arsenic. The data are to be evaluated to identify
significant temporal trends in concentrations. Monitoring to demonstrate natural attenuation
effectiveness will continue until 2017. Atthat point, need for additional monitoring will be evaluated. .
4. 8. 3 Intermediate Aquifer Performance Monitoring
Quarterly monitoring of the four intermediate aquifer wells within the on-facility area has been
conducted for over ten years. The wells are IPM-I, IPM-2, IPM-3 and IPM---4. Data from the
intermediate aquifer wells are used to compare arsenic concentrations to the performance standard,
0.05 mgllMCL,
A new intermediate monitoring well, IPM-5 was installed in the vicinity of IPM-4 in June 2013.
Monitoring is now being conducted, for this is sufficient data to demonstrate that the performance
standard is maintained in the intermediate aquifer
4. 8.4 Groundwater Monitoringfor Repository
Regulatory requirements call for three kinds of monitoring in the shallow aquifer for the repository
system: baseline monitoring, detection monitoring and compliance monitoring. The up-gradient wells are
MW-I U, MW-2U and MW-3U and the down-gradient wells are MW- I D, MW-2D, MW-3D and MW-
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014 l2
4D. The compliance well, MW-5D, is down-gradient ofthe repository system and south of the Little
Cottonwood Creek.
An initial baseline monitoring program sampled the paired wells and compliance well for ten
consecutive months to establish groundwater conditions prior to any potential ef[ects from the
repository system. Once baseline data was collected, the repository wells were to be monitored
quarterly to identiff statistically significant changes in groundwater quality that might be attributed to
releases from the repository. lndicator parameters are arsenic and sulfate. MW-4U was destroyed
during construction of the Intermountain Medical Center. It was subsequently replaced in 2010 in
accordance with an approved scope of work dated October 27,201A @NVIRON, 2010b). A new well,
MW-4UR was installed to replace MW-4U. Arsenic levels in MW-5D increased approximately 0.3
mg/l over the past ten years but the levels are within the range typical of residual smelter contaminants
in the Salt Lake Valley.
Repository compliance monitoring is required only when detection monitoring data indicate a
statistically significant increase in either sulfate or arsenic, or both. The statistical evaluation
completed as part of the 2010 annual report did not reveal a significant increase in either parameter.
As a consequence, compliance monitoring has not been performed to date.
4.9 Recent Activities
4.9.1 Site Conceptual Model
EPA requested that a Site Conceptual Model (SCM) be prepared to better understand potential sources
of contamination, migration pathways, and human and ecological receptors that the RAOs are intended
to address. A copy of the SCM is provided in Appendix F.
4.9.2 Additional Intermediate Performance Monitoring Well
Based on the SCM and previous groundwater data, EPA requested installation of an additional
intermediate groundwater monitoring well, IPM-S, to investigate the detection of arsenic above the
performance standard in IPM-4. The new well was installed in June 2013 and is being monitored.
4.9.3 Frequency ofMonitoring
Based on minimal changes in groundwater concentrations on a year-to-year basis and the need to
maintain the projected Site budget, EPA and UDEQ have decided to reduce the frequency of
groundwater monitoring to annual.
5.0 PROGRESS SNCF, THE LAST FIVE YEAR REVIEW
This is the third five-year review for the Site. EPA and UDEQ completed the second five-
year review in March 2009. The second five-year review concluded with the following
protectiveness statement:
"The remedy at the Murray Smelter Site is protective ofhuman health and the
environment. Source control measures (repositor system and barriers) are in place,
are being maintained as designed, and are monitored regularly. Institutional
controls for the Site are in place with the establishment and enforcement ofthe
Smelter Site Overlay District. The institutional controls effectively restrict land use
and groundwater use. Contaminant levels along Site boundaries are below
performance standards. Contaminant levels in shallow groundwater within Site
boundaries are consistent with expectations at the time ofthe ROD. In addition,
l3Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
residents and businesses in the area are connected to municipal water system.
There is no current or potentialfuture exposure to on-Site groundwater. "
Three issues were identified in the second five-year review report. One was addressed, as summarized
Table2.
able 2: Follow-up Actions since the Last Five-vear Review
Issues from Previous
Review
Recommendations/ Follow-
up Actions
Responsible
Party
Milestone
Date
Date of
Action
Monitoring not
performed as required
Resume monitoring as required by using
ASARCO Environmental Trust or other
agreement.
ASARCO/
EPA
3/2009 2010
Actions Taken and Outcome: The U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved a Settlement Agreement in December 2009,
establishing the ASARCO Environmental Trust for 17 of the former ASARCO owned sites, including the Murray
Smelter Site. At that time, the Trust assumed all of ASARCO's obligations at the Site. Quarterly groundwater
monitoring and reporting resumed in the first quarter of 2010 and has continued to the time this report was prepared.
Annual statistical evaluation ofthe data and reporting has been performed since the Trust took over.
EPA and UDEQ still need to determine if the new MCL and the state Aquatic Life Criteria stanclards
need to be incorporated into the remedy for groundwater and surface water, respectively.
6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
6. I Administrative Components
The third five-year review for the Murray Smelter Site was led by Erna Waterman, Region 8 EPA
Remedial Project Manager. The following team members assisted in the review:
' Richard Sisk, Region 8 EPA Site Attorney
t Peggy Linn, Region 8 EPA Community Involvement Coordinator
t Michael Storck, UDEQ Project Manager.
The five-year review schedule included: community involvement interviews, document review, site
inspection, Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) review, institutional
controls review, data review, and Five-year Review report development and review. The schedule
extended from March through September 2013.
6,2 Community Involvement
The EPA conducted community interviews as part of the five-year review process. A public notice was
placed in the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune newspapers on November 5, 2013, and stated that the
five-year review was in progress and requested public input. No comments were received in response to
thepublic notice. Uponcompletion of the five-year review report, the EPA will make the reporf available
to the public in the administrative record located at the EPA Superfund Records Center in Dinver,
Colorado, and in Murray City Library, the designated site repository.
The purpose of the interviews was to identi$r any issues or concerns which may have developed since the
second five-year review. Interviews were conducted with the primary property owner and sitl occupant,
Intermountain Health Center (IMC); Utah Transit Authority (UTA) which operates a light rail spur and
parking lot; Murray City, who handles the ICs for the Site. Local business Ash Grove Cement una UOEq
also participated in the interviews.
ln
Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014 l4
The following individuals were interviewed:
o Glen Roderick, IMC Maintenance Supervisor
o Randy L. Evans, IMC Facility Development Manager - Urban Central
o Mark Un.y, Murray City Public Services
r Michael Storck, UDEQ Project Manager
o Dave Allison, UDEQ Community Involvement
o E. Daniel Vest, Terminal Manager, Ash Grove Cement
o Doug Hill, City Manager, Murray City Public Services
o Mary Deloretto, UTA Engineering Department
il-on Griffith, UTA Engineering Department
The content of the interviews is provided in Appendix D.
6.3 Document Review
This five-year review included a review of relevant, site-related documents including the ROD,
remedial action reports and recent monitoring data. A complete list of the documents reviewed is
provided in Appendix A.
6.4 Site Inspection
On March 1 I - I 5, 2013 and June I l, 2013, a site inspection of the Site roadways and parking lots covering
the repository was conducted by:
r Mark Urry, Midvale City SSOD Inspector
r Peggy Linn, Region 8 EPA Community Involvement Coordinator o Erna Waterman, Region 8 EPA
Remedial Progam Manager.
The barrier system appeared to be in very good condition; it appeared to be maintained in accordance
with the SSOD and applicable plans. No significant problems were encountered. Site documents are up to
date and available for review at the Murray Public Library, South Branch. Appendix D provides
photographs of the Site inspections.
6,5 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequiremenB Review
CERCLA 5121 (d) and the NCP,40 6ppi300.430(0(lXiiXB)require that onsite remedial
actions must attain those ARARs that were identified at the time of the CERCLA remedy
decision. The remedial action must achieve a level of cleanup that at least attains those
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate.
ln performing the five year review any newly promulgated standards, including revised chemicalspecific
requirements (such as MCLs), revised action and location-specific requirements, and State standaids (if
they were considered ARARs in the ROD) have been reviewed to establish whether new requirementi
indicate the remedy is no longer protective, No ARARs promulgated or modified since the last Five-year
Review call protectiveness into question.
6.6 Institutional Controls Review
As stated in Section 4.3, ICs are required at this Site to prevent exposure to contaminated subsurface
materials and groundwater. The ICs selected for the Site were implemented through an ordinance
adopted by the city of Murray creating the SSOD.
Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014 l5
The ICs were reviewed as a part of this five-year review. They continue to be appropriate for the Site and
have been implemented as intended. No additional ICs are required.
6.7 DataReview
Ongoing surface water and groundwater sampling has revealed little change in groundwater quality. This
five-year review includes a review of groundwater monitoring data from November 2000 through June
2013.Data from the monitoring program includes both surface and groundwater sampling and analysis
has established that the remedy is protective. The monitoring programs include: shallow aquifer
performance monitoring, natural attenuation monitoring, intermediate aquifer performance monitoring,
repository detection monitoring, and surface water performance monitoring.
' Concurrent with this review, ENVIRON (ENVIRON February 21,2013) recommended replacement of
well IPM-4. EPA and UDEQ also determined the need to construct a new well in the vicinity oflpM-4 so
well IPM-5 was installed in June 2013. IPM-4 will remain in use until the results of the new well are
evaluated.
Based upon a review of the data compared to the performance standards, groundwater and surface water
monitoring will be conducted annually. Reports from the repository compliance monitoring program had
neither been distributed nor archived by the city of Munay at the outset of the current five-yiarieview,
although those reports have subsequently been made available. The city plans to initiate additional
reporting enhancements in 2014, including improved distribution of reported monitoring results.
6.3 Interviews
The five-year review process included six interviews with parties impacted by the Site, including the
current landowners and regulatory agencies involved in site activitiei or a*aie of the Site histor!. The
purpose was to document the perceived status of the Site and any perceived problems or successes with
the remedy implemented to date. All of the interviews took place in person. All of the interviewees
reported they were pleased with the Site appearance. Appendix D provides the complete interviews.
7.0 TECTNICAL AS SESSNTNT
7'1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The review of documents, data, ARARs, risk assumptions, and the results of the Site inspection indicates
that the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD. ICs are effectively in place throughout the Site.
The SSOD established in 1998 continues to effectively restrict groundwater and land use; and to
effectively monitor and maintain the barrier system.
Groundwater and surface water monitoring continue. Groundwater contaminant levels throughout the
Site are currently consistent with expectations at the time of the RoD.
O&M and barrier monitoring activities are being conducted in accordance with all appropriate plans,
manuals and ordinances. Inspection and maintenance procedures are consistent with all riquirements.
Maintenance issues that have occurred with repository barriers have been handled properly to date.
Currently, there are no opportunities for optimization. No indicators of potential rernedy failure were
noted during the review.
7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at
the time of remedy selection still valid?
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014 l6
Changes in exposure pathways: There is no exposure due to completion of the remedy and the condition
of the on-site barriers.
eb+nfiq.glgqnugdg{h: No changes in the ARARs, no new standards or to-be-considered standards
affectinithe protectiveness of the remedy were identified. The lower MCL for arsenic and the changes in
the State aquatic life criteria for arsenic were identified in the last Five Year Review and it was
recommended that the performance standard for elements of the selected remedy be modified. These
changed standards do not affect current protectiveness*[*may atrect'fisrm#ffffitfgg5g.{tshould be
&termined whether or not the changed standards need to be formally incorporated into the remedy
through a decision document.
Changes in toxicitv and other contaminant characteristics: Changes in toxicity and other factors for
contaminants of concern, since the time of the ROD, do not call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy. There have been no significant changes in risk assessment methodologies since the time of the
ROD that would call into question the protectiveness of the selected remedy.
7.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness
of the remedy?
No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy as
originally implemented.
7.4 Technical Assessment Summary
The remedy is functioning as intended. All future direct and indirect contact risks presented by potential
exposure to COCs are controlled through remediation efforts and institutional controls. &oundwater
monitoring indicates that the eontaminated plume is not expanding. Institutional controls are in place for
the Site and are effective.
s.O ISSUES
The following issues may affect future protectiveness.ssues ma
Issue
Currently Affects
Protectiveness
Affects Future
Protectiveness
MCL for arsenic changed to 0.01 mg/I, effective January 2006 No Yes
Aquatic Life criteria for arsenic changed to 0.I 50 mg/l (4-day
average) and 0.340 mg/l (l -hour average)
No Yes
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
t'7
Issues
Recommendations/ Follow-
up Actions
Responsible
Party
Mi lestone
Date
Affects Protectivenesr
Current Future
MCL for arsenic
changed to 0.01 mg/I,
effective January 2006
Determine if changed MCL should be
incorporated into remedy. This does not
affect current protectiveness since
groundwater use is prohibited by ICs.
EPA 9t2009 No Yes
Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
Aquatic Life
criteria for arsenic
changed to 0.150
mC/l (4-day
average) and 0.340
mgl (l -hr
average)
Determine if changed aquatic life criteria
should be incorporated into remedy. This
does not affect current protectiveness
since standards originally stated in the
ROD are being met.
EPA 9/2009 No Yes
1 O.O PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
The remedy at the Murray Smelter Superfund Site currently protects human health and the environment.
Source control measures (repository system and barriers) are in place, are being maintained as designed,
and are monitored regularly. Institutional controls for the Site are in place with the establishment and
enforcement of the Smelter Site Overlay District. The institutional controls effectively restrict land use
and groundwater use. In addition, residents and businesses in the area are connected to the municipal
water system. There is no current exposure to on-Site groundwater.
I I.O NEXT REVIEW
The Site is a statutory site that requires ongoing five-year reviews as long as waste is left on site that does
not allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. The next review will be due within five years of
the signature on this report.
12.0 REFERENCES
ENVIRON lnternational Corporation (ENVIRON). 201 Oa. Modified Sampling and Analysis Plan for
Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Programs. March I .
ENVIRON. 2010b. Proposed Monitoring Well M W-4U Replacement Work Plan submitted to USEPA.
October.
ENVIRON. 2013. Summary of January 13, 2Ol3 Meeting, Data and Statistical Evaluation and
Recommended Path Forward. February 21.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency); 1995; Administrative Order on Consent for Removal
Action, Murray Smelter Site, Murray, Utah; August I .
Hydrometrics, Inc.; 1996a; Site Characterization Report for Former Murray Smelter Site, Murray, Utah;
August 16.
Hydrometrics, Inc., 1996b; Data Validation Report, Surface Water and Groundwater inorganics, Fourth
Quarter Sampling Event, Former Murray Smelter Facility, Murray, Utah; Prepared for ASARCO
Incorporated, Salt Lake City, Utah; November.
Hydrometrics, Inc.; 1997a; December 1996 Groundwater and Sur/ace Water Monitoring Results, Former
Murray Smelter Facility, Murray, Utah; Prepared for ASARCO Incorporated, Salt Lake City,
Utah; January.
Hydrometrics, lnc.; 1991b; January 1997 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Results,
Former Murray Smelter Facility, Murray, Utah; Prepared for ASARCO Incorporated, Salt
Lake City, Utah; March 26.
Hydrometrics, Inc.; 1997c; April 1997 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Results, Former
Murray Smelter Facility, Murray, Utah; Prepared for ASARCO Incorporated, Salt Lake City,
Utah. June.
l8Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
Hydrometrics, lnc.; 1997d; Remedial Design Investigation Report for the Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah; October.
Hydrometrics, lnc.; 1998; Monitor Well Abandonment Work Plan, Former Murray Smelter Facility,
Murray, Utah; April.
McCulley, Frick & Gilman, Inc. (MFG); 1996; Site Characterization Report for the Former Murray
Smelter Site, Murray, Utah; August.
MFG; 1997; Feasibility Study Report for the Former Murray Smelter Site, Murray, Utah; August.
MFG; 1998; Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Remedial Design Report, Former Murray
Smelter Site, Murray, Utah; Prepared for ASARCO, Incorporated, Salt Lake City, Utah;
April 13.
b,4FG', 2000; Sampling and Analysis Plan for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring
Programs, Former Murray Smelter Site, Murray, utah; prepared for ASARCo,
Incorporated, Salt Lake City, Utah; November 13.
rvffG', 2001; Interim Operation & Maintenance Plan, Former Murray Smelter Site, Murray, Utah;
Prepared for ASARCO, Incorporated, Salt Lake City, Utah; June.
N'IFG', 2003; Operation and Maintenance Report, Former Murray Smelter Site, Murray, Utah; Prepared
for Asarco, Incorporated, Phoenix, AZ; July.
UTA (Utah Transit Authority); 2001; SSOD Barrier Monitoring and Maintenance plan; prepared for
Murray City Smelter Overlay District by Grantley Martelly; March 16.
Weston; 1997; Baseline Risk Assessment for the Former Murray Smelter Site; Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; May.
Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014 l9
APPENDIX A: LIST OF DOCUME,NTS REVIEWED
ENVIRON 201 Oa. Quarterly Monitoring Report, First Quarter 2070, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. August.
ENVIRON 201 Ob. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Second Quarter 2010, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. August.
ENVIRON 201 Oc. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Third Quarter 2010, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. December.
ENVIRON 201 la. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2010, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. February.
ENVIRON 2011b. Quarterly Monitoring Report, First Quarter 2011, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Utah. June.
Murray,
ENVIRON 2011 c. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Second Quarter 2011, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. August.
ENVIRON 201 Id. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Third Quarter 201 l, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. December.
ENVIRON 2012a. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2011, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. March.
ENVIRON 2012b. Quarterly Monitoring Report, First Quarter 2012, Former Murray Smelter Site, Murray,
Utah. May.
ENVIRON 2012c. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Second Quarter 2012, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. August.
ENVIRON 2012d. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Third Quarter 2072, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. November.
ENVIRON 2013a.2010 Annual Monitoring Report, Former Murray Smelter Site, Murray, Utah. February.
ENVIRON 2013b. Annual Monitoring Report, January 20ll - June 2012, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. February.
ENVIRON 2013c. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2012, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. March.
ENVIRON 2013d. Quarterly Monitoring Report, First Quarter 2013, Former Murray Smelter Site, Murray,
Utah. May.
ENVIRON 2013e. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Second Quarter 2013, Former Murray Smelter Site,
Murray, Utah. September.
EPA Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action with Asarco, Murray Smelter Site, September,
1995 SEMS# 37368s
A
APPENDIX ,Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
Hydrometrics, Inc., Site Characterization Report for Former Murray Smelter Site, August, 1996,
SEMS# 37386s
Hydrometrics, Inc., Data Validation Report, Fonner Murray Smelter Site, November, 1996, SEMS# 373894
MFG, Inc., Site Characterization Report, Murray Smelter, August, 1996, SEMS# 373867
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, Smelter, May,1997, SEMS# 3739s4
PvffG, lnc. Feasibility study Report, Murray smelter August, 1997, SEMS# 373943
Weston, Baseline Risk Assessment, Fonner Murray Smelter Site, May, 1997 SEMS # 3738,54
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment, Former Mun.ay Smelter Site, September,lggT,SEMS# 373940
WG,lnc., Ground Water and Surface Water, Former Murray Smelter Site, April, 1998, SEMS#374030
EPA superfund Record of Decision; Murray Smelter, ur, April, 199g, SEMS# 374026
First Five-year Review Report for Midvale Slag, September 2003, SEMS# 2023649
. Ready for Mixed Reuse Detennination, SEMS# 373934
Second Five-year Review Report for Murray Smerter Site, sEMS# 10964gl
SSDS Institutional Control Process Plan, Operable Site. Attachment to the RD/RA Consent Decree, Civil
No. 2:04 cv-843.
EPA 201l. Preliminary Closeout Report, September 29,2}ll
ENVIRON, Quality Management Plan (Qlvfp) dated2l4fi0, SEMS# t26s64g
MFG lnc., Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QApp) 2000. SEMS#
484406
Murray City Smelter Site Overlay District (SSOD), Chapter 17.25, www.munay.utah.gov
[Government menu/useful government links; City Code; Sterling Codifiers, IncJTitle
I TZONING/Chapter 17 .251
APPENDIX ,Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
APPENDIX ,Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
APPENDIX B: SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
APPENDIX B,Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
site name: International smelting and Refining Date of inspection:611312013
Location and Region: Tooele, Tooele County, Utah,
Region 3 EPA ID: UTD093l2092l
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year weather/temperature: g0s, sunny,
review: EPA, Region 8 windy
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
@ Landfill cover/containment Monitored natural attenuation
Access contols C] Groundwater containment
Institutional controls Vertical barrier walls
[3 Groundwater pump and treatment
[3 Surface water collection and treatment Other
Attiachments: Inspection team roster attached Site map attached
I I. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
l. O&M site manager Mark Unay
Title Date
Interviewed at site at office [J by phone phone no.
Problems,suggestions; Reportattached
2. staff
Name Title Date
Interviewed Cl at site Cl at office [3 by phone phone no.
Problems, suggestions; Cl Report attached
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency
response office, police departnent, office of public health or envhonmental health, zoning office,
recorder ofdeeds, or other city and county offices, etc.). Fill in all that apply.
Agency Tooele County Health Departnent
I JeffCoombs I Deputy Director
Problems; suggestions; Report attached see Appendix C
Agency Tooele County Planning
I Kerry Beutler Senior planner
Problems; suggestions; Report attached see Appendix C
Agency UT DWR
Contact I Mark Farmer Site Manager
Problems; suggestions; Report attached see Appendix C
4. Other interviews (optional) Report attached
Resident Two residents; Brandon Smith, Rocky Mountain Power; Chris Scott, Oquirrh Hills Golf Course
I I l. oN-sITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)l. O&M Documents
manual Readily available Up to date
As-built drawings Readily available Up to date
Maintenance logs C] Readily available Up to date
Remarks:
APPENDIX B,Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
2.Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
[D Contingency plan/emergency response
plan Remarks: O&M and OSHA Training
[3 Readily available
Cl Readily available
Cl Readily available
Cl Up to date N/A
Cl Up to date
Up to date
cl Up to 6ur.ffilN/'AD Up to date [tx;.e,
n Uptodate $va
n uptodate &Nte
rly reports.
Up to date
Cl Up to date
Up to date
Up to date
Cl Up to date
N/A
:akdown attached
:akdown attached
:akdown attached
:akdown attached
:akdown attached
J.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
5.
Records Remarks:
Permits and Service Agreementsn Air discharge permit
n Effluent discharge
n Waste disposal, POTW
m Other permits Building
Remarks: Murray City Submits
review
Gas Generation Records
Remarks: Settlement
Monument Records Remarks:
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks: Leachate
Extraction Records Remarks :
Discharge Compliance Records
Air Cl Readily available Water
Readily available
Remarks:
Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks:
Cl Readily available
Cl Readily available
Cl Readily available
. ^ C] Readily available
Pennrts lotto EpA quarterly and
Readily available
Cl Readily available
Readily available
Readily available
(effluent)
Up to date
[3 Up to date
Cl Readily available
;iix.i$*M cosl
CIV
10.
O&M Organization
Cl State in-house
PRP in-house
Federal Facility in-house
Cost Records
, Readily available [3 12 Fundin6
mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate [3 Breakdow
Total annual cost by year for review period ifavailable
From mm/dd/yyyy To mm/dd/yyyy
Date Date
From mm/dd/yyyy To mm/dd/yyyy
Date Date
From mm/dd/yyyy To mm/dd/yyyy
Date Date
From mm/ddL/yyyy To mm/dd/yyyy
Date Date
From mm/ddl/yyyy To mm/dd/yyyy
Date Date
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M
Describe costs and reasons:
Contractor for State
Contractor for PRP
Contractor for Federal Facility
Up to date
Unavailable attached
t3t-
Total cost
c)
Total cost
Total cost
cl
Total cost
Costs
Total cost
uring Review PeriodJ.
APPENDIX B ,Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS E Applicable O N/A
A. Fencing
I . Fencing damaged
Remarks:
[3 Location shown on site map [3 Gates secured N/A
B. Other Access Restrictions
l Sigrrs and other security measures
Remarks:
[3 Location shown on site map N/A
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
l. Implementation and enforcement - Murray City responsible for IC's
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented yes fit Nu f! N;*
Site conditions imply ICs not being tully enforced cl yes Et Nu elNl/llType of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)
Frequency
Responsible party/agency
Contact
Name Title
Reporting is up-to-date
Reports are verified by the lead agency
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
Violations have been reported
Other problems or suggestions: [3 Report attached2. Adequacy
Remarks:
ICs are adequate Cl ICs are inadequate
D. General
l. Vandalism/trespassing Cl tocation shown on site map
Remarks: Regular fence cutting, ATV use, cattle grazing and minor dumping.
2. Land use changes on site Remarks:
3. Land use changes offsite
Remarks:
mm/dd/yyyy
Date Phone no.
Yes [3 No f]XiA
Cl I_.s [3 No g NraYes No wrclY;; HI:l
No vandalism evident
A. Roads
l. Roads damaged
Remarks:
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
Applicable [3 N/A
Location shown on site map Roads adequate
VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable NiA
A. Landfill Surface
I . Settlement (Low spots)
Arial extent
Remarks:
Cl Location shown on site map Settlement not evident
Depth
APPENDIX B,Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
2. Cracks Location shown on site map ECracking not evident Lengths Wiatns lepttx
Remarks:
t34
APPENDIX B ,Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
J.Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Arial extent Depth
Remarks:
4. Holes Location shown on site map Holes not evident Arial extent Depth
Remarks:
5. Vegetative Cover Grass Cover properly established
No signs'ofstress Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks: Grass established and well-maintained.
6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.)
Remarks: Also, buildings; parking lots and paved roads act as barriers.
7. Bulges Location shown on site map
Arial extent Height Remarks:
8. Wetn Damase tr
E wetarlaslocation EDD
shown on site map Arial extent
on site map Arial extent
Soft subgradelocation shown on site map Arial extent Remarks:
9. Slope Instability Slides Location shown on site map
No evidence of slope instability
Arial extent
Remarks:
B. Benches
Bulges not evident
Areas/Water Wet areas/water damage not evident
Pondinglocation shown on site map
Arial extent Seepslocation shown
I appuule
t.
2.
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to intemtpt the slope in
orderto slow down the velocity of surface runoffand intercept and convey the runoffto a tiniO ctrannit.y
Flows Bypass Bench Location shown on site map N/A or okay Remarks:
Bench Breached Location shown on site map
Remarks
N/A or okay
3. Bench Overtopped Location shown on site map N/A or okay
Remarks:
C. Letdown Channels Cl Applicable @ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover
without creating erosion gullies.)
I ' Settlement (Low spots) Location shown on site map No evidence of settlement
Arial extent
Remarks:
2. Material Degradation Location shown on site map No evidence of degradation .Material type Arial
extent
Remarks:
APPENDIX B,Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Reporl September 2014
APPENDIX B,Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
3. Erosion Location shown on site map No evidence of erosion Arial extent Depth
Remarks:
4. Undercutting C] Location shown on site map No evidence of undercutting Arial extent Depth
Remarks:
5. Obstructions NO Obstructions
Location shown on site map Arial extent
Remarks:
6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Ty p e
No evidence of excessive growth
Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
Location shown on site map Arial extent
Remarks:
D. Cover Penetrations Applicable @ N/A
I . Gas Vents Active passive
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance
Remarks:
2. Gas Monitoring Probes
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at
penetration Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
Properly secured/locked [3 Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at
penetration Needs Maintenance
Remarks:
4. Extaction Wells Leachate
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of
leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance Remarks:
5. Settlement Monuments Located Routinely surveyed Remarks: Settlement monumnets annually
inspected.
E. Gas Collection and Treatment O Applicable N/Al. Gas Treatment FacilitiesFlaring Thermal destruction Collection for reuse
Good condition Needs Maintenance Remarks:2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and piping
Good condition Needs Maintenance Remarks:
3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) Good condition
Needs Maintenance
Remarks:
APPENDIX B,Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
F. Cover Drainage Layer Cl Applicable N/A
l. Outlet Pipes Inspected Functioning Remarks:
2. Outlet Rock lnspected [3 Functioning Remarks:
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Applicable
L Siltation Area extent Depth Siltation not evident
Remarks:
2. Erosion Area extent Depth Erosion not evident Remarks:
3. Outlet Works Functioning Remarks:
4. Dam Functioning
Remarks:
H. Retaining Walls Applicable E N/A1. Deformations C] Location shown on site map [J Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement
Vertical displacement Rotational displacement
Remarks:
2. Degradation Location shown on site map C] Degradation not evident Remarks:
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge Cl Applicable N/A
I . Siltation Location shown on site map Siltation not evident Area extent Depth Remarks:
2. Vegetative Growthlocation shown on site map
Vegetation does not impede flow
Area extentType Remarks:
3. Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Area extent Depth Remarks:
4. Discharge Structure Cl Functioning
Remarks:
VI". VERTICAL BARzuER WALLS [3 Applicable N/A
I . Settlement C] Location shown on site map Settlement not evident Area extent Depth Remarks:
2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring
C] Performance not monitored
Frequency Cl Evidence ofbreaching Head differential
Remarks:
APPENDIX B Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, september 2014
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES Applicable NiA
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [3 Applicable N/Al. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
Good condition [3 All required wells properly operating Needs Maintenance Remarks:
2. Extractio_n System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances C] Good condition
[3 Needs Maintenance
Remarks:
3. Spare Parts and Equipment
[3 Readily available C] Good condition Requires upgrade [3 Needs to be provided Remarks:
B. surface water collection Structures, Pumps, and pipelines [3 Applicable N/A
I . Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical Good
condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks:
2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
Good condition Needs Maintenance Remarks:
3. Spare Parts and Equipment
Readily available Cl Good condition Requires upgrade Cl Needs to be prvided Remarks:
C. Treatment System Applicable NiA
l. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)il Metals removal Oil/water separation Cl Bioremediation Air stripping Cl Carbonil adsorbers
n Fitters
n Additive (e.g., chelation agent,
n flocculent) Others
ilCood condition Needs Maintenance
n Sampling ports properly marked and functional
Cl Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
[3 equipment properly identified
Cl Quantity of groundwater treated annually Cl
Quantity of surface water treated annually
Remarks:
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
[3Va Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks:
3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
N/A Good condition Proper secondary containment C] Needs Maintenance Remarks:
APPENDIX B ,Munay Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks:
5. Treafinent Building(s)
Cl Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repair C] Chemicals and
equipment properly stored
Remarks:
6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
Cl Properly secured/locked Cl Functioning Cl Routinely sampled Good condition
C] All required wells located Needs Maintenance
Remarks:
D. Monitoring Data
l. Monitoring Data
Is routinely submitted on time Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring data suggests:
C] Groundwater plume is effectively contained E Contaminant concentrations are declining
E. Monitored Natural Attenuation
I. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
E Properly secured./locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition All required wells located Needs
Maintenance Remarks:
X. OTHERREMEDIES
Ifthere are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature
and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective andfunctioning as designed.
Begin with a briefstatement ofuhat the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.)
The remedy is functioning as designed. Institutional controls are in place and site conditions are regularly
monitored.
B. Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of 08M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. O&M
activities are adequate.
c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of 08M or a
highfrequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness ofthe remedy may be
compromised in thefuture. None noted.
D. Opponunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunitiesfor optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy.
None noted.
APPENDIX B Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
APPENDIX C: PHOTOGRAPHS FROM SITE NSPECTION usTT
LIST OF IMAGES
Image l: I-ooking southwest, Intermountain Medical Center parking lot, concrete plant, and UTAline c-2
1mage2:Costcoandparkinglot,southeastsideofsite
Image 3: Slag sample from post removals ........C-3
Image 4: Bonneville Blue Clay fiom IPMS well borehole c-3
Image 5: I,.*:*oi ofSouth State Street / Intermountain Drive; facing southwest towards MW-
12 and, Costco lol
Image
6:
Image
7:
Image
8:
Image
9:
Intennountain Medical center, seen from sw-15 on nonheast sideof site .......
IPM-3 well near UTA rail line during sampling ....................--.........c-5
Flush mount on well SPM-I . ......c-5
Surface water sampling location Little Cottonwood Creek, facing west ........................ C
6
lmage 1: Looking southwest, IHC parking lot, concrete plant, and UTA line
lmage 2: Costco and parking lot, southeast side of site
c2
*1 w
APPENDIX C ,Murray Smelter Five-year Review Report, September 2014
lmage 3: Slag sample from post removals
lmage 4: Bonneville Blue Clay from lpM5 well borehole
Third c-3
APPENDIX C,Murray Smelter lhird Five-year Review Report, September 2014
Image 5: lntersection of South State Street / lntermountain Drive, facing southwest towards MW-12
Costco lot
lmage 6: lntermountain Drive Medical Center, seen from SW-15 on northeast side of site
APPENT)lX C, Murra1.' Smcltcr F-ive-year Re vicrv l{cport. Septembcr 2014
lmage 7: IPM-3 well near UTA rail line during sampling
Figure 8: Flush mount on well SpM-l
APPTTNDIx c ,Murra)' Srnelter Ihird Fivc-1'ear I{evierv Report. September 2014
Figure 9: Surface water sampling location Little cottonwood creek, facing west
APPENDIX C,Murray Smelter Five-year Review Report, September 2014
APPENDIX D: FIVE-YEAR REVIEW mTERVIEWS
#t
Site Name: Murray Smelter EPA
ID: UTD980951420
Date: June ll,2013
Type of contact: Visit Contact made by: Peggy Linn and Erna
Waterman, US EPA, Region 8;
Person Contacted
Name: Glen
Randy L Evans
Roderick Organization: IMC Maintenance Supervisor
Facility Development Manager, Urban Central
l.Isyourorganizatiorr/departmentawareoftheMurraySmelterSupeMort<
that was completed to address environmental contamination? Yes, getting the health group
on board was a slow process.
2. What is your overall impression (your general sentiment) of the work that was completed at
the Murray Smelter Superfund Site?
This is one of the highlights of our careers. "This project has been like a miracle, the differences between
the two uses, the before use and after use. Initially the way this site was used compromised people's
health; now the site is saving lives," Randy stated.
3. Does your office conduct routine communications and/or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, participation in meetings, etc.) for the Murray Smelter Superfund Site? Overall IHC
does annual reporting. We submit quarterly reports to the city which pertain more specifically to the
upkeep of the grounds and landscaping. We work with the city on projects outside the facility. One
project involved work below a concrete slab, so-we coordinated with the city since they had some
recommendations. Mark lets us know when the work is not up to the city's standards. . Glen stated, "I
am very appreciative of Mark's help when it comes to work involving people like the building
inspector. I don't know where we'd be without Mark's help. Mark has been very to offer training to
our staff or at least include some of our staff when the city offers training. Our relationship has
grown over the years."
4, Are you aware of any community concems regarding the Site or its operation and administration?
We do not have any complaints except for the neighbors to the south of 5300 S. UDOT never
finished their work, so it started looking messy and weeds were growing, especially the noxious
weeds. IHC went ahead and did some minimal landscaping so it looks decent. We continue to do the
upkeep because it makes our facility look better and we do not want noxious weeds yowing there
and spreading to the rest of our property.
5. Over the past five years, have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents (e.g.,
vandalism, trespassing, or emergency responses) at or related to the Superfund Site requiring
your office to respond? If so, please give details of the events and results of the response?
Occasionally there are some homeless that move in along the creek so we have to move off.
Recently there have been break-ins to a few cars parked here. The public utilities like to use our
easements when doing their work and they do not always get clearance as to whether they can dig in that
APPENDIX D,Murray Smelter Third Five.Year Review Report, September 2014
Interview
exact spot as has happened in the recent past. We have to keep educating the other workers about when
and how they can use the land. This is only sometimes.
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress over the last five years?
Yes.
7. Over the past five years, have there been any changes in your department's policies or
regulations that impact the Murray Smelter Superfund Site and/or your role? If so, please
describe the changes and the impacts,
We have had some changes to the policies and procedures since the beginning when we opened.
Recently, there was a problem with underground plumbing and we discovered a step had been skipped
because it wasn't checked off as its own separate step. We changed our check-off list, so it now includes
this as a separate step.
8. Over the past five years, have there been any changes in land use or are you aware of
potential future changes in land use?
The dialysis center is a new addition providing a good benefit, This site has had its share of challenges,
but things have been worked out.
9. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management or operation (institutional controls)?
We are realizingthat Mark won't always be around with all of the institutional knowledge in his head.
We realize Mark needs to put this down on paper as some sort of guidelines or a policy and procedure
type document, There need to be steps written down on how to handle problems that have already been
dealt with, for example what has been done in the past, what future pl'ans he has for upgrades to ongoing
projects, outlining investigations into future work that is currently in the planning stages. We have told
Mark we would share IHC's policies and procedures to give him an idea of what might be included and
kind of a format to follow. He needs to write-up information about where future monitoring wells will be
needed and where to place them; on-going projects and what the next steps look like; specific procedures
on how to handle certain situations that routinely come up or are likely to come up.
As a result of a recent federal audit that IHC undenvent, it was pointed out that there is not an
alternative water source if a major event, i.e. earthquake, cut off city power and the water. Since the
contaminants are in the shallow aquifer, would it be possible to use groundwater from a deeper aquifer
as a backup or emergency water source. DEQ seemed to think this might be possible. Our diaiogue
with the city and state keeps the doors open for the flow of ideas like this.
10, Do you have any additional comments?
How can we be better partners with Murray City and UDEQ? We have been discussing ideas for
educating school children about the site. Ideas we would like to touch on would include the
contaminants that were found here5 what they are and how they relate to the environment and people's
health; smartgrowth; landscaping and everything that has been used here; how everything is connected.
#2
Site Name: Murray Smelter EPA
ID: UTD980951420
Date: June 11,2013
APPENDIX D,Murray Smelter Third Five-year Review Report, September 2014
Type of contact: Visit Contact made by: Peggy Linn & Ema
Waterman; Organization: US EPA, Region 8;
Person Contacted
Name:
Michael Storck, Project Manager
Dave Allison, Community Involvement
Organization: Utah Department of
Environmental Quality
l, Is your organization/department aware of the Murray Smelter Superfund site and the work
that was completed to address environmental contamination?
We've worked on this site since the very beginning and are very familiar with the cleanup, and
coordination involved in developing this project. We think the coordination was very good and was
important to the success of this project.
2. What is your overall impression (your general sentiment) of the work that was completed at
the Murray Smelter Superfund Site?
We felt the collaborative process was very good even though the State did not sign the Record of
Decision or agree with the remedy. The project moved forward despite this because management at
the time felt the remedy was the right move.
3, Does yow office conduct routine communications and/or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, participation in meetings, etc.) for the Murray Smelter Superfund Site? We only
occasionally visit the site since construction was completed. We receive the annual report from
Murray and have regular discussions about projects or upcoming work. We worked out details for
the removal of suspect materials left in place at the Murray Smelter Site. The details are part of a
Memorandum of Understanding. Murray City, or Mark, was very helpful in coordinating the
details of the removal of materials.
Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the Site or its operation and administration?
We are not aware of any community concerns regarding this site. The city communicates regularly
to stay abreast of any concerns. We are not aware of any new outreach activities.
Over the past five years, have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents (e.g.,
vandalism, trespassing, or emergency responses) at or related to the Superfund Site requiring your
office to respond? If so, please give details of the events and results of the response. There were
complaints against UTA and how their contractors do not follow established protocols for their geo-
tech work. Materials hauled off by UTA were not handled properly. UDEQ was and is there to
provide guidance and enforcement as necessary to the city of Murray.
Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress over the last five years? We think
there is good two-way communication with EPA. Conference calls are often set up between Ema
and UDEQ to flush out ideas.
4.
5.
6.
APPENDIX D,Murray Smelter Third Five.Year Review Report, September 2014