Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

BASIN MINING AREA
BASIN, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA


PURPOSE AND HEALTH ISSUES

Basin Mining Area was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) on July 22, 1999 andlisted on October 22, 1999. In this public health assessment, the Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluates the public health significance of the site as mandatedby Congress. ATSDR has reviewed available environmental data and community health concernsto determine whether adverse health effects are possible. In addition, this public healthassessment recommends actions to prevent, reduce, or further identify the possibility for site-related adverse health effects.

Although people in the watershed area above Basin could potentially be exposed tocontaminants, these exposure pathways will be not be specifically considered in this document;instead, the pathways for the watershed are assumed to be the same as for the town of Basin. Thepublic health implications of this assumption are expected to be small for two reasons. First,almost all of the population is centered around the town of Basin, and the vast majority of theavailable environmental data is also from Basin. Secondly, we assume that people living in thewatershed area above Basin are exposed to contaminants to a similar extent as people in Basin,since both areas contain waste piles and tailings. We anticipate that the conclusions reached inthis document will apply equally to people living in the watershed area and Basin.


BACKGROUND

Site Description

This site description comes in part from the Final Sampling and Analysis Plan (April 2000) andthe Remedial Investigation Report (October 2000) [1,2]. The Basin Mining Area NPL site islocated in and around the town of Basin, Jefferson County, Montana (Figure 1). It is located inSections 17 and 18, Township 6 North, Range 5 West, in the Basin quadrangle. The coordinatesof the site are approximately 46º16'10" north latitude and 112º16'46" west longitude [3].

The Basin Mining Area site includes the town of Basin (Town of Basin Operable Unit 1 [OU1])and the surrounding watersheds of Basin Creek, Cataract Creek, and part of the upper BoulderRiver (Watershed OU2). The site extends approximately from Interstate 15 on the south to thedrainage divide, where it adjoins the Upper Tenmile Creek NPL site. At the drainage divide, thenon-operating Basin Creek Mine is shared between the Basin and Upper Tenmile NPL sites andserves as a waste repository for both sites. Basin and Cataract Creeks flow southward throughoutthe site, where they join the Boulder River, which runs west to east along the southern edge of the site.

History

Extensive mining activity in the Basin and Cataract watersheds took place in the Basin Mining District from the late 1800s to the 1940s. Area mines harvested and processed gold, zinc, copper, silver, and lead. Multiple locations in the town of Basin and in the surrounding watershed processed the ore, depositing tailings and waste rock. Basin Mining Area contains dozens of abandoned or inactive hard rock mines.

Basin Mining Area NPL Site
Figure 1. Basin Mining Area NPL Site

Historical mining in the watershed has resulted in widespread metals contamination. Exposedwaste rock and tailings piles, some containing very high concentrations of heavy metals, can befound in and around the town of Basin. Dispersion of tailings and wastes has resulted in soilsthroughout the town becoming contaminated with heavy metals. Through surface water runoff,the wastes have contributed heavy metals to stream waters and sediments. Another contributor tostream deterioration is acid mine drainage (AMD), heavy metal-laden acidic water discharges that emanate from underground mine workings or from mine waste piles.

Demographics

Figure 2 shows demographic information for the population of the Basin Mining Area, whichconsists of about 217 people. Most people live in and around the town of Basin; the rest of the area is sparsely populated. The population is mostly white.

Land and Natural Resource Use

The town of Basin is mainly residential and commercial today. Historical ore extraction andprocessing sites in Basin left several tailings pile areas throughout the town.

There are dozens of old mine claims dispersed throughout the Basin Mining Area. Many of theseclaims have associated waste rock piles, tailings, or physical hazards. The mine claims constitutethe only private land surrounded by US Forest Service land. Some of this private land is being developed for full- and part-year residences.

The watershed area is also attractive for recreational use, including fishing, hiking, and camping.


DISCUSSION

Data Used

A number of environmental investigations have been conducted by various state and federal agencies and their contractors in the town of Basin. These investigations are described in the Remedial Investigation Report [2] and include:

  • 1980 sampling of mill tailings disbursement in the Boulder River,
  • 1988 preliminary investigation by the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Services (MDHES),
  • a 1989 screening site inspection by Ecology & Environment, Inc. (E&E),
  • 1990 sampling of the Basin School yard by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contractor and MDHES,
  • a 1991 expanded site inspection by E&E,
  • a 1993 preliminary assessment for the Basin Mill site located east of town, performed by the Montana Department of State Lands (MDSL) Abandoned Mine Reclamation Bureau,
  • 1998 soil sampling during a time-critical removal action on the south end of town,
  • 1999 soil sampling to characterize the extent of contamination in Basin for performing risk assessment, and
  • 2000 soil sampling to fill data gaps and to confirm questionable historical data.

Demographic Information
Figure 2. Demographic Information

CDM Federal provided ATSDR with an electronic file of the Town of Basin database, whichcontains data from all of the above investigations, screened for usability and quality. Datacontained in this file were used to produce this public health assessment. We used essentially thesame data set that is described in the Remedial Investigation [2]. It should be noted that the dataset used in the Human Health Risk Assessment for Basin (HHRA) is a subset of this data, due tostricter requirements on data quality and usability for the quantitative risk assessment [4]. Inaddition, the HHRA did not consider field sampling data collected in 2000.

ATSDR visited the Basin Mining Area to better understand the physical setting of the site and itsrelationship to the people living and working nearby.(1) We also met with community membersand local, state, and federal officials to learn more about the site and the health concerns of thecommunity.

Evaluation Process

The process by which ATSDR evaluates the possible health impact of contaminants issummarized here and described in more detail in Appendix A. ATSDR uses comparison values(CVs) to determine which chemicals to examine more closely. CVs are health-based thresholdsbelow which no known or anticipated adverse human health effects occur. Exceeding a CV doesnot mean that health effects will occur, just that more evaluation is needed. Further information about CVs is presented in Appendix B.

Further evaluation focuses on identifying which chemicals and exposure situations could be ahealth hazard. The first step is the calculation of child and adult exposure doses, as described inAppendix C. These are then compared to an appropriate health guideline for a chemical. Anyexposure situation resulting in an exposure dose lower than the appropriate health guideline iseliminated from further evaluation.

The next step is the revision of the exposure dose to better match probable rather than worst-caseexposure scenarios. Lastly, these revised exposure doses are compared to known toxicologichealth effects levels identified in ATSDR toxicological profiles. If the chemical of concern is acarcinogen, the cancer risk is recalculated using the revised exposure dose. These comparisonsare the basis for stating whether the exposure is a health hazard.

Basin Mining Area Exposure Pathways and Contaminants of Concern

The available data and information indicate that the most likely ways people are exposed to sitecontaminants are through incidental ingestion of contaminated soils, incidental inhalation of soilsduring recreational activities along the Boulder River, drinking private well water, and beingexposed to surface water and sediments through recreational activities. These four completed exposure pathways are discussed below.

Soil Exposure Pathway

Residents will ingest soils as an incidental consequence of typical outdoor activities. This is anespecially important pathway for children, who exhibit hand-to-mouth behavior and haveconsequently higher soil ingestion rates. Soils in the town of Basin have been extensivelysampled; for the purposes of our screening all soil samples and tailings samples were included inthe analysis.

For initial screening, the sampling results were compared to appropriate comparison values(CVs), which are health-based thresholds below which no known or anticipated adverse healtheffects occur. Exceeding a CV does not mean that health effects will occur, just that moreevaluation is needed. As shown in Table 1, 12 contaminants in Basin soils were detected at leastonce above the corresponding CV.

Table 1.

Soil Contaminants Above Comparison Values
  Range in Soil in ppm1 Samples > DL2 Samples > CV3 CV in ppm CV Source4
Antimony ND - 350 99 / 335 45 20 RMEG7
Arsenic ND - 2840 403 / 403 403 / 2595 .5 /206 CREG8 / EMEG9
Barium 0.1 - 559609 273 / 273 1 4,000 RMEG7
Beryllium ND - 1.2 25 / 38 37 / 0 0.2 / 300 CREG8 / RMEG7
Cadmium ND - 136 250 / 331 29 10 EMEG9
Copper 5 - 6500 338 / 338 2 3,100 R3 RBC10
Iron 3370 - 200000 321 / 321 31 23,000 R3 RBC10
Lead ND - 27600 396 / 399 67 400 SSL11
Manganese ND - 8125 327 / 336 6 3,000 RMEG7
Mercury ND - 2370 90 / 120 10 23 SSL11
Thallium ND - 25 221 / 310 11 6 R3 RBC10
Zinc 16 - 111000 339 / 339 4 20,000 EMEG8
1 ppm = parts per million of chemical in soil. ppm = mg (milligram) per kg (kilogram) of soil.
2 DL = detection limit.
3 CV = comparison value.
4 These comparison values are described in Appendix B.
5 The first number is the number of samples above the CREG and the second is the number above the EMEG.
6 The first number is the CREG and the second is the EMEG.
7 RMEG = remedial media evaluation guide.
8 CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide.
9 EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide.
10 R3 RBC = EPA Region 3 risk-based concentration.
12 SSL = EPA soil screening level.

The next step in the evaluation is to estimate doses, or amounts of the chemicals that adults andchildren would be exposed to, and to compare these doses with health guidelines. This procedureis described in detail in Appendix C. The health guidelines are doses below which no adversehealth effects are likely to occur. Exposure situations which result in doses lower than the healthguideline are dropped from further consideration.

In determining exposure doses for comparison with health guidelines, ATSDR usually uses themaximum concentration for a first-level screen; however, because this data set contained wastetailings data, there were several very high concentrations. Therefore, because there is little or noexposure to these points, we chose to use the 95th percentile as a reasonable maximum exposureconcentration. This approach is similar to the procedure used in the Basin HHRA [4].

Table 2 presents the estimated exposure doses for the soil contaminants of concern identified inTable 1. These exposure doses are based on an assumption of year-round exposure to soils and100% bioavailability, except that the EPA default of 80% bioavailability was assumed forarsenic. As indicated in the table, exposure to the 95th percentile concentration of sevencontaminants of concern (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead, manganese, and mercury)could present a health risk to children. Adult exposure to arsenic and lead could also present ahealth risk, but exposure to the remaining contaminants is below health guidelines and should pose no health risk.

Table 2.

Estimated Exposure Doses and Cancer Risk for Soil Compared to Health Guidelines for Ingestion1
Contaminant 95th Percentile in ppm2 Estimated Exposure Dose in mg/kg/day3 Health Guideline in mg/kg/day3 Source of Guideline Cancer Risk4
Adult Child
Antimony 30 0.00002 0.001 0.0004 Oral RfD5 N/A6
Arsenic 405 0.0002 0.01 0.0003 Chronic Oral MRL7 3 in 10,000
Cadmium 11 0.00001 0.0002 0.0002 Chronic Oral MRL7 No CSF8
Iron 30187 0.02 0.6 0.3 RfDo R39 N/A6
Lead 1345 0.001 0.03 None10 - No CSF8
Manganese 1668 0.001 0.03 0.02 RfDo R39 N/A6
Mercury 29 0.00002 0.001 0.0003 Chronic Oral MRL7 N/A6
1 An explanation of how these exposure doses and cancer risk were calculated can be found in Appendix C. No health guidelines are available for lead. No oral cancer slope factors are available for antimony, cadmium, iron, manganese, or mercury.
2 ppm = parts per million of chemical in soil. ppm = mg (milligram) per kg (kilogram) of soil.
3 mg/kg/day = milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight per day.
4 Maximum additional lifetime risk of cancer per 10,000 individuals.
5 RfD = EPA reference dose.
6 Not applicable; substance is not classified as a carcinogen.
7 MRL = ATSDR's minimal risk level.
8 No cancer slope factor available.
9 RfDo R3 = EPA Region 3's reference dose.
10 No health guideline; EPA soil screening level equals 400 ppm.

Toxicological Evaluation

Because of the site's location, the actual contaminants people might be exposed to will be lessthan the worst-case scenario assumed in Table 2. Exposure to soil decreases during the wintermonths due to freezing of the ground or to snow cover. Assuming that the soil is inaccessible for3 months out of the year, the exposure doses in Table 2 will be reduced by one fourth.

Arsenic

Exposure to arsenic in Basin soils could increase a resident's chance of cancer if exposureoccurred over many years. There appears to be little chance of other health effects due to arsenicexposure.

The adult exposure dose to arsenic is lower than the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)of 0.0008 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) for humans [5], and thus no adversehealth effects are expected. Exposure of children to arsenic is higher than the NOAEL butslightly lower than the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 0.014 mg/kg/day [5]. Atthe LOAEL, symptoms such as skin changes have been observed.

However, the possibility of health effects actually occurring with this exposure is small. TheLOAEL is based on long term exposure to arsenic in water, not soil. Arsenic is much lessavailable for uptake when it is in soil. In calculating the exposure doses, we used the EPA defaultof 80% relative bioavailability, defined in Appendix D. Regional studies have shown that as littleas 10% to 50% relative bioavailability may be more likely for this type of contamination [6]. Theuse of a lower value for relative bioavailability would decrease the effective exposure dose.

Based on human epidemiological studies, arsenic is a known carcinogen [5]. Exposure to the 95thpercentile arsenic concentration currently present in the town of Basin would present a low tomoderate increased lifetime risk of cancer if exposures occurred daily for 70 years.

Lead

Exposure to lead in Basin soils is unlikely to result in health effects in children or adult residents.

Exposure to lead causes a wide range of effects [7]. However, the lack of a clear threshold forhealth effects and the need to consider multi-media routes of exposure has made determiningNOAELs and LOAELs for lead difficult. The lead level in blood is a good measure of recentexposure to lead and also correlates well with health effects. Children are especially sensitive tolead, and many of its effects are observed at lower concentrations in children than in adults.Levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL), and perhaps even lower, in children's blood havebeen associated with small decreases in IQ and slightly impaired hearing and growth.Epidemiological studies have produced predictive soil slope factors, which predict blood leadlevels to increase from between 0.0007 and 0.0068 µg/dL per ppm increase in soil lead level [7].This wide range resulted from the presence of different sources of lead, exposure conditions, andexposed populations. The health effects associated with such an increase would depend partly onthe existing body burden of lead. Using the highest slope factor of 0.0068 µg/dL/ppm, the 95thpercentile soil concentration of 1,345 ppm could be expected to increase blood lead levels by 9.1 µg/dL.

However, the possibility of such an increase actually occurring with this exposure is small.Tailings materials such as those contaminating Basin soils are typically less bioavailable thanother sources of lead in soil, such as fine flue dust [7]. Therefore, the soil slope factor will mostlikely be much lower than the maximum reported above. Also, children will have lowerexposures since they will have minimal contact with site soils in the winter.

Animal data indicate that lead is a probable human carcinogen [7]. However, there is no cancerslope factor for lead, so we were unable to evaluate carcinogenic risk. The conclusion that leadcauses cancer in animals is based on experiments with a form of lead different from the leadfound in the mining wastes contaminating Basin soils.

Other Contaminants

Using the assumption that site soils will be inaccessible 3 months out of the year, both adult andchild exposure doses to manganese are lower than the health guideline of 0.02 mg/kg/day.Therefore, no adverse health effects are expected.

Adult and child exposures to antimony, cadmium, and mercury are lower than the correspondingNOAELs [8,9,10]. Therefore, no health effects are expected from exposure to thesecontaminants. Animal data indicate that cadmium is a probable human carcinogen [9]. However,there is no oral cancer slope factor for cadmium, so were unable to evaluate carcinogenic risk forthis contaminant.

While iron levels are higher than the health guideline, the exposure dose calculated is equal to orless than the recommended daily allowance [11]. No health effects are expected from exposure toiron in site soils.

Soil Inhalation Pathway

Residents and site visitors may be exposed to contaminants through inhaling dust duringrecreational activities along the Boulder River. To evaluate this pathway, we used the same dataset as for the soil ingestion pathway discussed above. Following the HHRA, we assumed a dustloading factor of 810-6 kg/m3 to estimate the chemical concentration in air from that in soil [4].For initial screening, the sampling results were compared to CVs for air. As shown in Table 3,the following five contaminants in Basin soils were detected at least once above thecorresponding CV for inhalation exposure: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, manganese, and nickel.

Table 3.

Soil Contaminants Above Inhalation Comparison Values
Contaminant Range in Soil in ppm1 Maximum Air Concentration in (µg/m3)2 CV in (µg/m3)3 CV Source4
Arsenic ND - 2840 23 0.0043 CREG5
Beryllium ND - 1.2 0.01 0.0004 CREG5
Cadmium ND - 136 1 0.0006 CREG5
Manganese ND - 8125 65 0.04 CREG5
Nickel ND - 78 0.6 0.2 CREG5
1 ppm = parts per million of chemical in soil. ppm = mg (milligram) per kg (kilogram) of soil.
2 µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter.
3 CV = comparison value.
4 These comparison values are described in Appendix B.
5 CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide.

To determine average exposure to soil particles through the inhalation route, we assumed thatpeople are exposed for 5 hours per day, 26 days per year [4]. Thus, the concentrations weremultiplied by exposure factors to account for this lower exposure. For beryllium, cadmium, andnickel, the corrected air concentrations resulting from this calculation were below thecorresponding health guideline and/or the cancer risk was within EPA's acceptable range (lessthan 110-4). Inhalation exposure to arsenic and manganese could present a health risk; Table 4summarizes air concentrations compared to health guidelines and cancer risk for these two contaminants.

Table 4.

Estimated Exposure Doses and Cancer Risk for Soil Compared to Health Guidelines for Inhalation1
Contaminant 95th Percentile Soil Concentration, ppm2 Air Concentration in (µg/m3)3 Corrected Air Concentration in (µg/m3)4 Health Guideline in (µg/m3) Cancer Risk5
Arsenic 405 3 0.05 None6 2 in 10,000
Manganese 1668 13 0.2 0.047 N/A8
1 An explanation of how these exposure doses and cancer risk were calculated can be found in Appendix C.
2 ppm = parts per million of chemical in soil. ppm = mg (milligram) per kg (kilogram) of soil.
3 µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
4 Calculated by multiplying air concentration by (5/24) to account for 5 hours of exposure per day and by (26/365) to account for 26 days of exposure per year.
5 Maximum additional lifetime risk of cancer per 10,000 individuals.
6 No inhalation health guideline is available for arsenic.
7 Source: chronic inhalation MRL/EMEG.
8 Not applicable; no inhalation cancer slope factor is available for manganese.

Toxicological Evaluation

Arsenic

Based on human epidemiological studies, arsenic is a known carcinogen [5]. Assuming peopleare exposed to the 95th percentile concentration of arsenic through breathing soil duringrecreational activities, a low to moderate increase in lifetime risk of cancer is predicted.

There is no health guideline for noncarcinogenic effects from breathing arsenic. Therefore, wewere unable to evaluate possible health effects due to this pathway.

Manganese

The manganese concentration people breathe in during recreational activities is higher than thehealth guideline, but lower than the LOAEL for humans of 140 µg/m3 [12]. At the LOAELconcentration, subtle neurological effects such as reduced reaction times were observed.

Groundwater Pathway

Residents and site visitors may be exposed to contaminants through drinking groundwater fromprivate or municipal wells. Eighteen wells in the town of Basin have been sampled and tested formetals. The sampling included private wells, municipal drinking water wells, and monitoringwells in waste pile areas. With one exception, no samples of drinking water wells had anycontaminants above the detection limit of 3 parts per billion (ppb). All samples were lower thanEPA's maximum contaminant level of 10 ppb [13]. No health effects are expected from drinking water exposure in Basin.

Surface Water Pathway

Surface waters in the area are attractive for recreational use, and campers and hikers may visit thearea. Table 5 shows the contaminants of concern screened from surface water samplingperformed from 1991 to 1999. Arsenic and cadmium were detected at least once at levels abovethe CV. Exposure doses were calculated for adult and child recreationists, assuming a reasonablemaximum of 40 days per year exposure to the maximum concentration. Both arsenic andcadmium had predicted exposure doses much lower than the corresponding health guideline, andthe estimated cancer risk for arsenic for this exposure scenario was within EPA guidelines. No health effects are expected from this pathway.

Table 5.

Surface Water Contaminants Above Comparison Values
Contaminant Range in Water in ppb1 Samples > DL2 Samples > CV3 CV4 in ppb CV Source4
Arsenic 3.1 - 10 8 / 8 8 / 05 2 /3006 CREG7 / EMEG8
Cadmium ND - 237 2 / 8 1 200 EMEG8
1 ppb = parts per billion of chemical in water. ppb = µg (microgram) per liter of water.
2 DL = detection limit.
3 CV = comparison value.
4 These comparison values are described in Appendix B. The CV for drinking water is multiplied by 100 because it is assumed that daily incidental ingestion of surface water is 1/100th of ingestion of drinking tap water.
5 The first number is the number of samples above the CREG and the second is the number above the EMEG.
6 The first number is the CREG and the second is the EMEG.
7 CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide.
8 EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide.

Sediment Pathway

Recreational users of the streams will also be exposed to stream sediments. Data showed thatarsenic and lead were present at levels above CVs. However, calculated exposure doses for thisscenario were all well below the health guidelines. The low likelihood of exposure to streamsediments makes the contribution to overall exposure from this pathway insignificant.

Potential Exposure Pathways

Exposure to site contaminants through road dust or eating contaminated fish were determined tobe incomplete pathways and therefore not a cause for concern. Road dust is currently mitigatedby magnesium chloride and water spraying. Based on fish sampling data from the Upper TenmileCreek Mining Area, fish are not expected to have contaminant levels high enough to cause health effects [15,16].

Health Hazard

Soil arsenic concentrations in the town of Basin are high enough to cause an increased risk of cancer for residents with long term exposures. ATSDR considers Basin soils a public health hazard because potential exposures to arsenic could result in adverse health effects if exposure is not reduced or prevented.

Child Health Initiative

ATSDR recognizes that infants and children may be more vulnerable to exposures than adults incommunities faced with contamination of their air, water, soil, or food. This vulnerability is a result of the following factors:

  • Children are more likely to play outdoors and bring food into contaminated areas.
  • Children are shorter, resulting in a greater likelihood to breathe dust, soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground.
  • Children are smaller, resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight.
  • The developing body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if toxicexposures occur during critical growth stages.

Because children depend completely on adults for risk identification and management decisions,ATSDR is committed to evaluating their special interests at the Basin Mining Area site as part of the ATSDR Child Health Initiative.

The major exposure route for children living in the town of Basin is ingestion of surface soil.Please refer to the appropriate section for discussion of the health effects that are possible for children in Basin.

Community Health Concerns

On August 23, 2000, ATSDR attended a Basin Town meeting organized by EPA. The meetingwas attended by approximately 10 residents of Basin, as well as several officials from state andfederal organizations. The community voiced no concerns regarding human health in the area.

EPA has established a community involvement program to inform the public on issues related tothe Superfund process for the Basin Mining Area. EPA also has released documents for publicreview and comment. No community health concerns have been brought to ATSDR's attention by community members through the public health assessment process.


CONCLUSION

Soil arsenic concentrations in the town of Basin are high enough to cause an increased risk ofcancer for residents with long term exposures. ATSDR considers Basin soils a public healthhazard because potential exposures to arsenic could result in adverse health effects if exposure is not reduced or prevented.


RECOMMENDATION

ATSDR supports the need for cleanup of the town of Basin, as planned by EPA.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The Public Health Action Plan for the Basin Mining Area NPL Site contains a description ofactions to be taken by ATSDR at the site after the completion of this public health assessment.The purpose of the Public Health Action Plan is to ensure that this public health assessment notonly identifies public health hazards, but provides a plan of action designed to mitigate andprevent adverse human health effects resulting from exposure to hazardous substances in theenvironment. Included is a commitment on the part of ATSDR to follow up on this plan toensure that it is implemented. The public health action to be implemented is as follows:

A fact sheet on the site and the findings of this public health assessment will be developed anddistributed to citizens living on the site.

ATSDR will reevaluate and expand the Public Health Action Plan when needed. Newenvironmental, toxicological, or health outcome data, or the results of implementing the aboveproposed action may determine the need for additional actions at this site.

Public Comments

The Basin Mining Area Public Health Assessment was available for public review and commentfrom February 2 to March 5, 2001 in the Boulder Community Library in Boulder, MT and at theEPA Region 8 offices in Helena, MT. The public comment period was announced in localnewspapers. The PHA was posted on the Basin Mining Area's Internet web site and was alsosent to several federal, state, and local officials. At the request of the Montana Department ofPublic Health and Human Services, the public comment period was extended to May 18, 2001. No comments were received.


SITE TEAM

Authors of Report

Jill J. Dyken, Ph.D., P.E.
Environmental Health Scientist
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

John R. Crellin, Ph.D.
Senior Environmental Epidemiologist
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Regional Representatives

Dan Strausbaugh
Regional Representative
ATSDR Region 8 Montana Office
Regional Operations

Glenn Tucker, Ph.D.
Senior Regional Representative
ATSDR Region 8
Regional Operations

Community Involvement

Dan Holcomb
Health Communications Specialist
Community Involvement Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation


REFERENCES

  1. CDM Federal Programs Corporation. Final sampling and analysis plan for Basin MiningArea Superfund site, Town of Basin Operable Unit 1 (OU1). Prepared for the USEnvironmental Protection Agency. Helena, MT: April 2000.

  2. CDM Federal Programs Corporation. Final remedial investigation report for BasinMining Area Superfund site, Town of Basin Operable Unit 1 (OU1). Prepared for the USEnvironmental Protection Agency. Helena, MT: October 2000.

  3. Ecology & Environment, Inc. Field activities report, expanded site inspection, Basin schoolyard. Basin, MT: October 1991.

  4. CDM Federal Programs Corporation. Final human health risk assessment report for Basin Mining Area Superfund site, Town of Basin Operable Unit 1 (OU1). Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency. Helena, MT: October 2000.

  5. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for arsenic (update). Draft for public comment. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.

  6. Casteel et al. Relative bioavailability of arsenic in mining wastes. Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Montana Office. Helena, MT: 1997 December.

  7. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for lead(update). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999.

  8. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for antimony (update). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1992.

  9. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for cadmium (update). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999.

  10. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for mercury (update). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999.

  11. National Research Council. Recommended dietary allowances: 10th Edition. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. 1989.

  12. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for manganese (update). Draft for public comment. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1997.

  13. EPA. Current drinking water standards- Updated July 24, 2000. Washington, DC: USEnvironmental Protection Agency. 2000. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html

  14. EPA. EPA Region III Risk-based concentration table- March 2000 update. Philadelphia: US Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. 2000. Available at:http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/riskmenu.htm .

  15. Montana State University (MSU). Memorandum to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parksfrom Lazlo Torma concerning results of fish tissue sampling. Bozeman, MT: MSU.February 4, 1999.

  16. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Letter to R Wieland of URL OperatingServices from Don Skaar concerning locations of fish sampling. Helena, MT: MFWP.February 17, 1999.

1. ATSDR Staff (John Crellin and Jill Dyken) visited the site on May 24-25 and on August 23, 2000. Information obtained during these visits is described in the pertinent sections of this document.




Next Section     Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #