Five-Year Review Tar Creek Superfund Site Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA APRIL 2000 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 III. PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 9 IV. REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES 16 V. POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING FOR OUl 22 VI. REMEDIAL ACTION STATUS 24 VII. PRESENT ACTIVITIES 25 VIM. SUMMARY 29 IX. PROTECTIVENESS OF REMEDY 33 X. RECOMMENDATIONS 37 XI. STATEMENT OF PROTECTIVENESS 38 XII. NEXT FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 39 FIGURES FIGURE # DESCRIPTION 1 Tar Creek Superfund Site 2 Underground Mine Workings 3 Acid Mine Discharge Process 4 Tar Creek Surface Water Sampling Locations 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. BACKGROUND A. Nature and Extent of Contamination The Tar Creek Superfiind Site (the "Site") is located in the northeastern portion of Ottawa Cotmty, Oklahoma. The Site is a former lead and zinc mining area. The Site includes the Oklahoma portion of the Tri-State mining district of northeastem Oklahoma, southeastem Kansas and southwestern Missouri. Mining began in Ottawa County in the early 1900's and continued imtil the 1970's. The Boone Formation was the source of the metal ore. The Boone Formation is also an aquifer. Due to the presence of the aquifer in the ore-producing Boone Formation, the mining companies were forced to pump large volumes of water from the extensive imderground mine workings. Pumping continued until the mining ceased, at which time the aquifer, and hence the mines, began refilling. As water filled the mines, the native sulfide minerals, which had been oxidized by exposure to air, dissolved, creating acid mine water. By 1979, water levels had increased to the point that the acid mine water began discharging at the surface from several locations, severely impacting Tar Creek. In addition, approximately 50 million tons of waste (i.e., mine tailings) leftover from the mining operations are present at the Site. These mine tailings deposited in hundreds of piles and ponds at the Site contain lead and other heavy metals. Some of the tailings piles approach 200 feet in height. Residential commimities are located among the tailings piles. The tailings have been Mddely used locally as gravel for driveways and roads. Approximately 25 percent of the children living on the Site have elevated blood lead concentration levels, compared to a statewide average of 2 percent. Approximately 1,600 residential yards with unsafe concentration levels of lead have been identified. Five public water supply wells on the Site are impacted by acid mine water. These wells fail to meet secondary drinking water standards. The Site landscape is significantly scarred and disrupted by the past mining activities. In addition to Tar Creek, other Site-area creeks are contaminated with acid mine water that is draining from the undergroimd mines, and with leachate and runoff from the large deposits of tailings. Traffic-generated dust from the tailings also poses problems. B. Records of Decision and Remedial Actions Operable Unit 1 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its first Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site on June 6, 1984. The ROD addressed two concems: 1) the surface water degradation of Tar Creek by the discharge of acid mine water; and 2) the threat of contamination of the Roubidoux Aquifer, the regional water supply, by downward migration of acid mine water from the overlying Boone Aquifer through abandoned wells connecting the two. /// The 1984 ROD called for the elimination or reduction of the discharge of acid mine water by reducing surface recharge of the Boone Aquifer. At the time of the 1984 ROD, it was presumed that reducing the volume of surface water that flowed into the mines would reduce the underground water levels in the mines as surface discharge continued, and that this volume reduction would, eventually, eliminate the discharge. Under the 1984 ROD, surface recharge was to be reduced with dikes and diversion structures designed to stop surface water from entering the two collapsed mine shafts which were identified as the main inflow points, and to stop surface water from entering a third collapsed mine shaft which was considered a potential major inflow point. Additionally, the 1984 remedy called for preventing the downward migration of acid mine water into the Roubidoux Aquifer by plugging 66 abandoned wells. During remediation, an additional 17 wells were identified and plugged, bringing the total to 83 wells. Diversion and diking and the well-plugging activities at the 83 wells were finished by December 22,1986. Later, an additional 15 abandoned Roubidoux wells were identified for plugging. These additional 15 well have not yet been plugged. With the issuance of the 1994 Five-Year Review, additional contaminant threats were identified at the Site; consequently, in order to differentiate the areas of concem, in 1994 EPA began referring to the concems addressed by the 1984 ROD as Operable Unit 1 (OUl). The releases of heavy metal contamination associated with the mining wastes deposited on the surface of the ground (i.e., chat piles and floatation ponds) have been termed Operable Unit 2 (0U2). Under the National Contingency Plan (NCP), operable unit means a discrete action that comprises an incremental step toward comprehensively addressing site problems. This discrete portion of a remedial response manages migration, or eliminates or mitigates a release, threat of a release, or pathway of exposure. The cleanup of a site can be divided into a number of operable units, depending on the complexity of the problems associated with the site. Operable imits may address geographical portions of a site, specific site problems, or initial phases of an action, or may consist of any set of actions performed over time or any actions that are concurrent but located in different parts of a site. Operable Unit 2 0U2 addresses the contamination associated with the mining wastes deposited on the surface of the ground (i.e., chat piles and floatation ponds). The August 27, 1997, ROD addresses the residential areas of 0U2. For remediation of the residential areas of 0U2, the following Remedial Action Objective (RAO) is being utilized: Reduce ingestion by humans, especially children, of surface soil in residential areas contaminated with lead at a concentration greater than or equal to 500 parts per million parts soil (ppm). For metal concentrations in soil, 1 ppm means 1 part of metal in a million parts of soil. The main component of the remedy selected to achieve this RAO is soil excavation with a 500-ppm remediation goal. The EPA is also supplementing the active engineering measures of the remedy by providing flmding to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for an extensive lead education and blood lead screening program at the Site. IV Future Response Actions Future response actions include addressing remaining contamination in the nonresidential areas ofOU2. II. SUMMARY A. OUl Remediation Surface Water 1. Effectiveness of Surface Water Remedial Action The following summary of the review of the effectiveness of the surface water remedial action is based on post-construction monitoring that occurred in 1987 and 1988 after the diversion and diking structures were constructed as called for in the 1984 OUl ROD. The available monitoring data was summarized and presented in the 1994 Five-Year Review. This data is referenced in this report but not repeated. The 1994 Five-Year Review Report recommended no additional monitoring. The diking and diversion stmctures constructed pursuant to the OUl ROD are operating as designed with regard to eliminating the major inflows into the mines. The major inflows that v^^ere eliminated were estimated in the OUl ROD to represent approximately 75 percent of the total inflow into the mines. The diversion and diking constmcted under the OUl ROD did reduce the temporary rise in water levels in the mines that occurs in response to a given rainfall event. Since the outflow from the mines is hydraulically driven by the water level in the mines, reducing the temporary rise in the mine water level did reduce the peak outflows following a given rainfall event. However, the average water level in the mines was not lowered significanfly after the remedy was constmcted according to the goal of thel984 ROD. The same study that concluded that the average water level in the mines had not been lowered, also indicates that the average volume of acid mine water discharging from the mines into Tar Creek is not significantly different from the amount of water that was discharging before the remedy was constructed. Therefore, the remedy did not significantly reduce the surface discharges of acid mine water. Although the average discharge volume was not reduced, some reductions in the metal concentrations of the discharges were measured. These reductions in the metal concentrations of the discharges are possibly due to natural attenuation. In summary, the OU 1 remedy was mostly ineffective in mitigating the environmental degradation of the surface waters of Tar Creek drainage basin. 2. Water Quality Standards Lowered Subsequent to the issuance of the OUl ROD, the State of Oklahoma concluded tiiat the impacts to Tar Creek (i.e., impaired water chemistry and habitat) rendered the stream not adequate to support a "Warm Water Aquatic Community." The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), the agency charged with setting Water Quality Standards for the State of Oklahoma, has also concluded that the impacts to Tar Creek are due to "irreversible man-made damages" resulting from past mining operations at the Site. To reflect this conclusion, the OWRB in 1985 lowered the designated uses of Tar Creek to a habitat-limited fishery and to a secondary recreation water body. The OWRB's reference to "irreversible man-made damages" is a simplified rephrasing of the following language: "human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied." This wording is taken from paragraph 785:45-5-12 (b) (3) of the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards.