National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List, 11313-11319 [E7-4449]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules
notice announcing the 30 day
notification period clearly states that if
no request for a public hearing is
received the hearing will be cancelled,
then the public hearing may be
cancelled. These requirements apply for
adoption and submission to EPA of:
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The State must submit with the
plan, revision, or schedule, a
certification that the requirements in
paragraph (a) and (d) of this section
were met. Such certification will
include the date and place of any public
hearing(s) held or that no public hearing
was requested during the 30 day
notification period.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 51.103 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 51.103 Submission of plans, preliminary
review of plans.
(a) The State makes an official plan
submission to EPA only when the
submission conforms to the
requirements of appendix V to this part,
and the State delivers five hard copies
or at least two hard copies with an
electronic version of the hard copy
(unless otherwise agreed to by the State
and Regional Office) of the plan to the
appropriate Regional Office, with a
letter giving notice of such action. If the
State submits an electronic copy, it must
be an exact duplicate of the hard copy.
(b) Upon request of a State, the
Administrator will provide preliminary
review of a plan or portion thereof
submitted in advance of the date such
plan is due. Such requests must be
made in writing to the appropriate
Regional Office, must indicate changes
(such as, redline/strikethrough) to the
existing approved plan, where
applicable and must be accompanied by
five hard copies or at least two hard
copies with an electronic version of the
hard copy (unless otherwise agreed to
by the State and Regional Office).
Requests for preliminary review do not
relieve a State of the responsibility of
adopting and submitting plans in
accordance with prescribed due dates.
4. Appendix V to Part 51 is amended
by revising paragraphs (d) and (g) under
Section 2.1 to read as follows:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Appendix V of Part 51—Criteria for
Determining the Completeness of Plan
Submissions
*
*
*
*
*
2.1. * * *
(d) A copy of the actual regulation, or
document submitted for approval and
incorporation by reference into the plan,
including indication of the changes made
(such as, redline/strikethrough) to the
existing approved plan, where applicable.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Mar 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
The submittal shall be a copy of the official
State regulation/document signed, stamped
and dated by the appropriate State official
indicating that it is fully enforceable by the
State. The effective date of the regulation/
document shall, whenever possible, be
indicated in the document itself. If the State
submits an electronic copy, it must be an
exact duplicate of the hard copy with
changes indicated, signed documents need to
be in portable document format, rules need
to be in text format and files need to be
submitted in manageable amounts (e.g., a file
for each section or chapter, depending on
size, and separate files for each distinct
document) unless otherwise agreed to by the
State and Regional Office.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Certification that public hearing(s) were
held in accordance with the information
provided in the public notice and the State’s
laws and constitution, if applicable and
consistent with the public hearing
requirements in 40 CFR 51.102.
*
*
*
*
*
5. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
6. Section 52.02 is amended by
revising paragraphs ‘‘(d)(2)(iii)’’,
‘‘(d)(2)(iv)’’, ‘‘(d)(2)(vii)’’, and
‘‘(d)(2)(viii)’’ to read as follows:
Introduction.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Delaware, District of Columbia,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and
West Virginia. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029.
(iv) Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
*
*
*
*
*
(vii) Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and
Nebraska. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, KS 66101.
(viii) Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, CO 80202–1129.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Section 52.16 is amended by
revising paragraphs ‘‘(b)(3)’’, ‘‘(b)(4)’’,
‘‘(b)(7)’’ and ‘‘(b)(8)’’ to read as follows:
§ 52.16
Submission to administrator.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Delaware, District of Columbia,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
West Virginia. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029.
(4) Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee. EPA
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and
Nebraska. EPA Region 7, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.
(8) Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, CO 80202–1129.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E7–4563 Filed 3–12–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
PART 52—[AMENDED]
§ 52.02
11313
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0011; FRL–8286–7]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent for partial
deletion of the Rocky Flats Plant from
the National Priorities List; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces its
intent to delete the Peripheral Operable
Unit (OU) and Operable Unit 3 (OU 3),
also referred to as the Offsite Areas,
encompassing approximately 25,413
acres, of the Department of Energy
(DOE) Rocky Flats Plant from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300, which
is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), which EPA promulgated
pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). Rocky Flats Plant means
the property owned by the United States
Government, also known as Rocky Flats,
Rocky Flats Site, or Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site
(RFETS), as identified in Figure 1. The
Rocky Flats Plant is divided into the
Central and Peripheral Operable Units
(Figure 2) which contain 1,308 and
4,933 acres, respectively, and OU 3
(Figure 3) which contains
approximately 20,480 acres. The 3
referenced figures are available as
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
11314
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules
described below in the section entitled
Docket.
EPA bases its proposal to delete the
Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky
Flats Plant on the determination by EPA
and the State of Colorado, through the
Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE), that all
appropriate actions under CERCLA have
been implemented to protect human
health, welfare and the environment
and that no further response action by
responsible parties is appropriate.
This partial deletion pertains to the
surface media (soil, surface water,
sediment) and subsurface media,
including groundwater, within the
Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky
Flats Plant. The Central OU will remain
on the NPL and is not being considered
for deletion as part of this action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 12, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1989–0011, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: henneke.rob@epa.gov.
• Fax: 303–312–6961.
• Mail: Rob Henneke, Community
Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129.
• Hand delivery: Rob Henneke, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal business hours
from 8 a.m.—4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–
0011. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, not through https://
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Mar 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents and referenced
figures in the docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in the hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials may be
accessed at the following locations
during specified hours of operation. The
U.S. EPA Region 8 Docket Facility, EPA
Technical Library, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, is
open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. by
appointment, Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The EPA
Docket telephone number is 303–312–
6734. The DOE Rocky Flats Plant Docket
Facility is located at Front Range
Community College, 3705 112 Avenue,
Westminster, Colorado, 80030. The
Rocky Flats Plant Docket Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Thursday and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob
Henneke, Community Involvement
Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202–
1129; telephone number: 1–800–227–
8917 or (303) 312–6734; fax number:
303–312–7150; e-mail address:
henneke.rob@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA Region 8 announces its intent to
delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of
the Rocky Flats Plant, Jefferson and
Boulder Counties, Colorado, from the
NPL and requests comment on this
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR Part
300, which EPA promulgated pursuant
to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9605. EPA identifies sites that appear to
present a significant risk to public
health or the environment and
maintains the NPL as the list of those
sites. Sites on the NPL may be the
subject of remedial actions financed by
the Hazardous Substance Superfund
(Fund). This partial deletion of the Site
is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR
300.425(e) and Notice of Policy Change:
Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the
NPL (60 FR 55466 (November 1, 1995)).
As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3),
portions of a site deleted from the NPL
remain eligible for further remedial
actions if warranted by future
conditions.
EPA will accept comments
concerning its intent for partial deletion
of the Rocky Flats Plant for 30 days after
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register (FR).
Section II of this document explains
the criteria for deleting sites from the
NPL. Section III discusses the
procedures that EPA is using for this
proposed partial deletion. Section IV
discusses the Peripheral OU and OU 3
of the Rocky Flats Plant and explains
how it meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL.
In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e),
sites may be deleted from the NPL
where no further response is
appropriate to protect public health or
the environment. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR
300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any
of the following criteria have been met:
Section 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible
parties or other persons have
implemented all appropriate response
actions required;
Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All
appropriate Fund-financed response
under CERCLA has been implemented,
and no further response action by
responsible parties is appropriate; or
Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The
remedial investigation has shown that
the release poses no significant threat to
public health or the environment and,
therefore, taking of remedial measures is
not appropriate.
A partial deletion of a site from the
NPL does not affect or impede EPA’s
ability to conduct CERCLA response
activities for portions not deleted from
the NPL. In addition, deletion of a
portion of a site from the NPL does not
affect the liability of responsible parties
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
or impede agency efforts to recover costs
associated with response efforts. DOE
will be responsible for all future
remedial actions required at the area
deleted if future site conditions warrant
such actions.
III. Deletion Procedures
Upon determination that at least one
of the criteria described in Section
300.425(e) of the NCP has been met,
EPA may formally begin deletion
procedures. The following procedures
were used for this proposed deletion of
the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the
Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL:
(1) DOE has requested the partial
deletion and has prepared the relevant
documents.
(2) The State of Colorado, through
CDPHE, has concurred with publication
of this notice of intent for partial
deletion.
(3) Concurrent with this national
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion, a
local notice has been published in a
newspaper of record and has been
distributed to appropriate federal, State,
and local officials, and other interested
parties. These notices announce a 30
day public comment period on the
deletion package, which ends on April
12, 2007, based upon publication of this
notice in the Federal Register and a
local newspaper of record.
(4) EPA has made all relevant
documents available at the information
repositories listed previously for public
inspection and copying.
Upon completion of the 30 calendar
day public comment period, EPA
Region 8 will evaluate each significant
comment and any significant new data
received before issuing a final decision
concerning the proposed partial
deletion. EPA will prepare a
responsiveness summary for each
significant comment and any significant
new data received during the public
comment period and will address
concerns presented in such comments
and data. The responsiveness summary
will be made available to the public at
the EPA Region 8 office and the
information repositories listed above
and will be included in the final
deletion package. Members of the public
are encouraged to contact EPA Region 8
to obtain a copy of the responsiveness
summary. If, after review of all such
comments and data, EPA determines
that the partial deletion from the NPL is
appropriate, EPA will publish a final
notice of partial deletion in the Federal
Register. Deletion of the Peripheral OU
and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant does
not actually occur until a final notice of
partial deletion is published in the
Federal Register. A copy of the final
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Mar 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
partial deletion package will be placed
at the EPA Region 8 office and the
information repositories listed above
after a final document has been
published in the Federal Register.
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Deletion
The following provides EPA’s
rationale for deletion from the NPL of
the Rocky Flats Plant Peripheral OU and
OU 3 and EPA’s finding that the criteria
in 40 CFR 300.425(e) are satisfied.
Site Background and History
The Rocky Flats Plant is a DOE
facility owned by the United States.
Rocky Flats is located in the Denver
metropolitan area, approximately
sixteen miles northwest of Denver,
Colorado, and ten miles south of
Boulder, Colorado. Nearby communities
include the Cities of Arvada,
Broomfield, and Westminster, Colorado.
The majority of the Site is located in
Jefferson County, with a small portion
located in Boulder County, Colorado.
Rocky Flats Plant was proposed by
EPA for inclusion on the CERCLA NPL
in 1984, and was added to the CERCLA
NPL on September 21, 1989 (54 FR
41015, October 4, 1989). The EPA
Superfund Identification Number for
Rocky Flats Plant is CO7890010526. The
Site was proposed for listing because
activities at Rocky Flats resulted in the
release of materials defined by CERCLA
as hazardous substances, contaminants,
and pollutants, as well as hazardous
wastes and hazardous waste
constituents as defined by the Resource
Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and
Colorado Hazardous Waste Act
(CHWA). Contaminants released to the
environment from the activities at
Rocky Flats have included, but were not
limited to: Radionuclides (such as
plutonium, americium, and various
uranium isotopes), organic solvents
(such as trichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, and carbon
tetrachloride), metals (such as
chromium), and nitrates. Apart from the
activities of DOE and its contractors at
the Site, there are no other known,
significant, human-caused sources of
contamination at Rocky Flats.
Two Operable Units (OUs) are present
within the boundaries of the Site: the
Peripheral OU and the Central OU. The
Central OU consolidated all areas of the
Site that required remedial actions,
while also considering practicalities of
future land management. The Central
OU is not included within this proposed
partial deletion action. The Peripheral
OU includes the majority of the Buffer
Zone and was left undisturbed. This
land provided a security and safety
buffer area around the former
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11315
manufacturing areas of the Site. Portions
of the Buffer Zone have been comanaged by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for ecological resources since
1999. Based upon the RCRA Facility
Investigation—Remedial Investigation/
Corrective Measures Study—Feasibility
Study Report for the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site (RI/FS)
Report, which included both a Human
Health and Ecological Risk Assessment,
DOE (as the Lead Agency under
CERCLA) determined that no action was
necessary to protect public health,
welfare or the environment for the
Peripheral OU. That decision was
supported and documented in the
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site Corrective Action Decision/Record
of Decision (CAD/ROD) signed by DOE,
CDPHE and EPA, Region 8 on
September 29, 2006.
OU 3 encompasses an area north,
south, and primarily east of the
Peripheral and Central OUs. OU 3 was
addressed under a separate CAD/ROD,
Corrective Action Decision/Record of
Decision Operable Unit 3, The Offsite
Areas Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site dated April 1997. The
OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed by DOE,
CDPHE and EPA, Region 8 on June 3,
1997 and determined that no action was
necessary to protect public health,
welfare or the environment.
A. Peripheral Operable Unit
The RI/FS Report was prepared in
accordance with the Interim Final
Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies
under CERCLA. Because remedial
activities at RFETS were conducted
under RCRA and CHWA, this RI/FS
Report also met RCRA/CHWA
requirements for an RCRA Facility
Investigation/Corrective Measures Study
(RFI/CMS) Report. References to
CERCLA requirements were also
intended to encompass RCRA/CHWA
requirements. For simplicity, the report
is hereinafter referred to as the RI/FS
Report. The RI/FS Report, approved by
EPA and CDPHE on July 5, 2006, was
the basis for development of the Rocky
Flats Environmental Technology Site
Proposed Plan that described the
preferred remedy. The Proposed Plan
was the basis for the Final CAD/ROD.
A.1 Description of the Peripheral OU
Remedial Investigation
DOE began more than 20 years ago to
develop an extensive body of
documentation about the use of
hazardous substances and the known or
suspected release of hazardous
substances at Rocky Flats. Information
was gathered from an extensive review
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
11316
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules
of Rocky Flats operating records and
contemporaneous documents. In
addition, interviews were conducted of
persons with knowledge of Rocky Flats
operations and of events that did release
or were suspected of releasing
hazardous substances. The information
collected is organized in the Rocky Flats
Historical Release Report (HRR),
originally published in 1992, which has
been periodically updated as
investigation and cleanup of the Site
progressed. The final version of the HRR
is provided as Appendix B of the RI/FS
report entitled FY2005 FINAL Historical
Release Report dated October 2005.
Sampling and analysis of surface and
subsurface soil, groundwater, and
surface water were extensively used to
locate and measure hazardous substance
contamination at historical release
locations and guide the conduct and
completion of remediation activities.
Environmental monitoring was
performed under the auspices of a sitewide integrated monitoring plan.
Additional monitoring was conducted
pursuant to environmental permits,
including the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit
and the State of Colorado Air Quality
Operating Permit, issued to DOE and its
contractors.
Environmental data for Rocky Flats
were collected in accordance with
agency-approved Sampling and
Analysis Plans (SAPs) and standardized
contract-required analytical procedures.
Approved Work Plans and SAPs
specified the use of EPA-approved
sampling procedures and analytical
methods, data quality requirements, and
data management processes, and
specified the appropriate data quality
objectives. Documented releases of
hazardous substances at Rocky Flats
include radionuclides, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), inorganic
compounds, and metals.
Known or suspected release locations
(primarily soil) were delineated by 183
Individual Hazardous Substance Sites
(IHSSs), 146 Potential Areas of Concern
(PACs), 31 Under Building
Contamination (UBC) Sites, and 61
Potential Incidents of Concern (PICs)
(totaling 421 areas). The IHSSs, PACs,
UBC Sites, and PICs were thoroughly
investigated and characterized, as
appropriate, and accelerated actions,
including non-time critical removals,
triggered by contamination levels have
been confirmed as completed and met
response goals.
The nature and extent of
contamination evaluations considered
the following environmental media:
soil, groundwater, surface water,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Mar 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
sediment, and air. These evaluations
were conducted to show the types of
analytes of interest (AOIs) remaining in
the environmental media and their
extent at Rocky Flats following the
completion of accelerated actions. The
purpose of identifying AOIs was to
focus the nature and extent evaluation
on constituents that were detected at
concentrations that may contribute to
the risk to future receptors and to show
the overall spatial and temporal trends
of those constituents on a sitewide
basis. These evaluations identified 14
AOIs for surface soil, 14 AOIs for
subsurface soil, 19 AOIs for
groundwater, 18 AOIs for surface water,
5 AOIs for sediment, and 5 AOIs for air.
The contaminant fate and transport
evaluation used information about the
Site physical characteristics,
contaminant source characteristics, and
contaminant distribution across the Site
to develop a conceptual understanding
of the dominant transport processes that
affect the migration of different
contaminants in various Rocky Flats
environmental media. The primary
focus was evaluating the potential for
contaminants from any medium to
impact surface water quality. Evaluation
of a contaminant’s fate and transport
was based upon two criteria: (1) Does a
complete migration pathway to a
potential receptor exist based on an
evaluation of contaminant transport in
each environmental medium; and (2) is
there a potential impact to surface water
quality based on an evaluation of data
at representative groundwater and
surface water monitoring locations in
the creek drainages.
The RI included a Comprehensive
Risk Assessment (CRA). The CRA
consisted of two parts: Human Health
Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Ecological
Risk Assessment (ERA). The CRA was
designed to provide information to
decision makers to help determine the
effectiveness of the accelerated actions
and select a final remedy that is
protective of human health and the
environment. The CRA evaluated the
risks posed by conditions at the Site to
the anticipated future users (wildlife
workers and visitors) and anticipated
future land use. The CRA did not
evaluate an unrestricted use scenario,
but did consider an indoor air pathway,
if occupied structures were to be present
at the Site in the future.
The Peripheral OU was determined to
be unimpacted by hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants
with the exceptions subsequently
discussed. A small portion of the
Peripheral OU was impacted by Site
activities from a radiological
perspective. For example, plutonium
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
exists above background in surface soil
in small areas within the Peripheral OU.
A few sampling locations for plutonium
within the Peripheral OU exceed a level
of 9.8 picocuries per gram (pCi/g),
which corresponds to a 1 × 10¥6 risk
level for a wildlife refuge worker. Of
these few sampling locations, the
highest result is approximately 20 pCi/
g. If that highest concentration of 20
pCi/g was considered the average
concentration over an appropriate
exposure unit, it would correspond to a
risk of approximately 1 × 10¥5 for a
resident, which would be in the middle
of the CERCLA risk range (10¥6 to
10¥4). These levels of radioactivity are
also far below the 231 pCi/g activity
level for an adult rural resident, which
equates to the 25-millirem per year dose
criterion specified in the Colorado
Standards for Protection Against
Radiation.
A.2 Declaration Statement for the
Peripheral OU CAD/ROD
Based upon the RI/FS Report, which
included both a Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment, DOE (as the
Lead Agency under CERCLA)
determined that no action was necessary
to protect public health or welfare or the
environment for the Peripheral OU.
The RI/FS Report concluded that the
Peripheral OU was in a state protective
of human health and the environment.
The NCP provides for the selection of a
no action remedy when an OU is in
such a protective state and therefore, no
remedial action for the Peripheral OU
was warranted. The selected remedy for
the Peripheral OU was no action.
A.3 Peripheral OU Conclusions
The selected remedy for the
Peripheral OU meets the requirements
of CERCLA Section 121, and to the
extent practicable, the NCP. The
selected remedy for the Peripheral OU
is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal
and State requirements, and is costeffective. The selected remedy complies
with applicable requirements of the
CHWA. No accelerated actions were
taken in the Peripheral OU, and no
remedial action alternatives other than
the no action alternative were required
to be evaluated for the Peripheral OU.
Because no hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants occur in the
Peripheral OU above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, no five-year review is
required for this remedy.
B. Operable Unit 3 (Offsite Areas)
The OU 3 CAD/ROD was prepared by
DOE, Rocky Flats Field Office, Golden,
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Colorado, in April 1997, and was signed
by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA Region 8 on
June 3, 1997. The following is the basis
for deleting OU3 and is a part of the
deletion docket.
OU 3 was investigated and a remedy
was selected in compliance with the
Federal Facility Agreement and Consent
Order—Interagency Agreement (IAG),
signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA on
January 22, 1991. The selected remedy
is also consistent with the Federal
Facility Agreement and Consent
Order—Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement
(RFCA), signed by DOE, CDPHE, and
EPA on July 19, 1996.
OU 3 is one of sixteen OUs at Rocky
Flats identified in the 1991 IAG, and is
the only one not located within the
RFETS boundaries. The 1996 RFCA
consolidated the original sixteen OUs
into three OUs, but OU 3 remained
separate, owing both to its unique
geographic location and to the fact that
investigations and administrative
activity for OU 3 were nearly completed
when the 1996 RFCA was signed. OU 3
is comprised of four Individual
Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs):
Contamination of the Land’s Surface
(IHSS 199), Great Western Reservoir
(IHSS 200), Standley Lake (IHSS 201)
and Mower Reservoir (IHSS 202). IHSSs
are specific locations where hazardous
substances, solid wastes, pollutants,
contaminants, hazardous wastes or
hazardous constituents may have been
disposed of or released to the
environment from Rocky Flats at any
time in the past.
B.1 Description of the OU 3 Remedial
Investigation
The selected remedy for OU 3 was no
action. A Baseline Risk Assessment
(BRA), including an HHRA and an ERA,
was conducted as part of the OU 3
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation. The
RCRA Facility Investigation/CERCLA
Remedial Investigation (RFI/RI) Report
was completed in accordance with
requirements presented in the
Interagency Agreement and specifically
identified in the OU3 RFI/RI Work Plan
and addenda. The RFI/RI Report
evaluated human health risks based
upon exposure to identified
Contaminants of Concern (COCs) and
was reported as the probability of an
individual developing cancer as a result
of exposure to OU 3 contamination
under recreational and residential
exposure scenarios. Assumptions
regarding future land use provided the
basis to calculate human health risks for
both IHSS 199 and for IHSS 200. No
COCs were identified in surface water
samples collected from Standley Lake,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Mar 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
Great Western Reservoir, and Mower
Reservoir.
For IHSS 199, risks from both
plutonium and americium were
calculated and were assumed to be
additive. For IHSS 200, only the risks
associated with plutonium were
calculated, as plutonium was the only
COC there. In both IHSSs, the highest
contaminant concentration was used in
risk calculations. The RFI/RI Report also
calculated radiation doses that would be
expected as a result of the recreational
and residential scenarios described in
the OU 3 CAD/ROD.
Excess lifetime cancer risk (that is, the
incremental additional cancer risk that
is incurred through exposure to COCs at
OU 3 or any other contaminated site) is
calculated by multiplying the average
daily chemical intake over a lifetime of
exposure by the contaminant’s
individual slope factor. For
radionuclides, slope factors are the
average risk per unit intake or exposure
for an individual in a stationary
population with mortality rates typical
of those in the United States in 1970.
EPA guidelines indicate that excess
lifetime cancer risks which are within or
below the one in ten thousand (1 ×
10¥4) to one in one million (1 × 10¥6)
range are considered protective of
human health.
For IHSS 199, the highest calculated
excess cancer risk, assuming reasonable
maximum exposures (RME) under a
residential exposure was three in one
million (3 × 10¥6). Using central
tendency, the risk under a residential
scenario was two in ten million (2 ×
10¥7). For the recreational exposure, the
excess cancer risk was five in one
hundred million (5 x 10¥8) using the
RME, and three in one billion (3 × 10¥9)
using central tendency.
For IHSS 200, the highest calculated
excess cancer risk employing RME and
the residential exposure was nine in ten
million (9 × 10¥7); the corresponding
risk using central tendency was six in
one hundred million (6 × 10¥8). Using
the recreational scenario, the highest
risk using RME was one in one hundred
million (1 × 10¥8), and the risk using
central tendency was eight in ten billion
(8 × 10¥10).
The highest calculated radiation dose
for IHSSs 199 and 200 occurred using
the RME, assuming a residential
exposure scenario. The highest Total
Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE, which
incorporates both internal and external
radiation dose) for IHSS 199 for an adult
was 0.12 millirem per year (mrem/yr);
the corresponding TEDE for IHSS 200 is
0.0065 mrem/yr. The average radiation
dose in the U.S. is estimated to be about
300 mrem/year, while the average dose
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11317
in Colorado may be as much as 700
mrem/year, owing to the state’s higher
altitude and relative abundance of
naturally occurring radionuclides.
These levels of radioactivity are also
far below the 231 pCi/g activity level for
an adult rural resident that equates to
the 25 mrem/year dose criterion
specified in the Colorado Standards for
Protection Against Radiation. Based on
these results, the Peripheral OU is
determined to be acceptable for all uses
from a radiological perspective.
The RFI/RI Report evaluated health
risks and radiation dose from surface
water. Surface water was sampled for
plutonium and americium. The
maximum and mean concentrations of
plutonium and americium detected in
surface water from the reservoirs were
well below the CDPHE standards, the
National Drinking Water Standards, and
the Rocky Flats Site specific standards
for plutonium and americium.
DOE submitted the RFI/RI Report to
the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), a part of the
federal Center for Disease Control, for
the purpose of obtaining a Health
Consultation. The purpose of the Health
Consultation was to obtain an
independent evaluation as to whether
COCs had been adequately identified in
OU 3, the risks to human health posed
by releases of hazardous substances in
OU 3 adequately analyzed, and whether
the proposal for no remedial action in
OU 3 was appropriate considering these
risks. The ATSDR concluded that the
COC selection process was based on
reasonable assumptions, and that none
of the constituents present in OU 3
posed public health concerns. Further,
the ATSDR Health Consultation stated
that no additional activities were
needed in OU 3 in order to ensure the
public’s health.
Based upon the BRA and the ERA
contained in the RFI/RI Report, DOE,
the lead agency under CERCLA for OU
3, concluded that no action was
appropriate for OU 3. The RFI/RI Report
concluded that all IHSSs within OU 3
are already protective of human health
and the environment. Field and
laboratory work showed no indications
of adverse effects from plutonium or
americium on the ecology of OU 3. The
NCP provides for the selection of a no
action remedy when an OU is in such
a protective state. Therefore, no
remedial action regarding OU 3 or any
of its constituent IHSSs was warranted.
B.2 Declaration Statement for Offsite
Areas OU CAD/ROD
DOE in consultation with CDPHE and
EPA, determined that no remedial
action was necessary for OU 3 to be
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
11318
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules
protective of human health, welfare and
the environment. No hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants
remain within the boundaries of OU3
above levels that allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure, as these
levels have been calculated in the OU 3
RFI/RI Report.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
B.3 Evaluation of OU3 CAD/ROD Data
in First Five-Year Review
A five-year review of the OU 3 CAD/
ROD was conducted to assess the
continued protectiveness of the remedy.
The OU 3 CAD/ROD concluded that
transport by wind and water was the
primary means by which plutonium and
americium were carried to OU 3.
Therefore, available air and water
monitoring data collected after the OU
3 CAD/ROD was signed were reviewed
to determine if environmental
conditions at OU 3 have changed since
the BRA was completed. The air
monitoring data from the RFETS
perimeter air monitoring network were
analyzed and the conclusion was that
the amounts of plutonium and
americium that have been measured at
the RFETS perimeter since 1997 have
been environmentally insignificant.
These amounts of plutonium and
americium would not have caused
contaminant levels in OU 3 to change
significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD
was signed. Water monitoring data from
the RFCA Points of Compliance on
Woman Creek and Walnut Creek at
Indiana Street, and data collected by the
City of Broomfield for Great Western
Reservoir, were analyzed. Samples of
water leaving RFETS showed consistent
compliance with RFCA surface water
standards, and water samples from
Great Western Reservoir were
consistently at or below detection limits
for plutonium and americium. The
report also included a Protectiveness
Statement as required by EPA guidance.
Pursuant to the Protectiveness
Statement, DOE’s ongoing custody and
control of RFETS, ongoing monitoring
programs, and restriction of public
access serve to adequately control risks
posed by contamination at RFETS. The
no action decision for OU 3 was
determined to be adequately protective.
Review of air monitoring data and
water quality data at the Points of
Compliance since the first five-year
review also indicate there have not been
significant amounts of plutonium or
americium that have entered OU 3
through the air or water pathways.
Therefore, environmental conditions at
OU 3 have not changed significantly
since the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Mar 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
B.4
OU 3 Conclusions
Conditions in OU 3 pose no
unacceptable or significant risks to
human health or the environment;
future unacceptable or significant
exposures will not occur there as a
result of past contamination. DOE
concluded that no action was necessary
in OU 3 for the protection of human
health or the environment. Reviews
following the OU 3 CAD/ROD have
concluded that environmental
conditions at OU 3 have not changed
significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD
was signed.
Community Involvement
Public Participation activities for the
cleanup of the Peripheral OU and OU 3
were conducted as required under
CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C.
9613(k) and Section 117, 42 U.S.C.
9617. Public review included the
following activities:
A. Community Involvement for the
Peripheral OU
The Draft RI/FS Report for the RFETS
was released for public review and
information in October 2005, and was
available at that time in the Rocky Flats
public reading rooms and online.
Several informational public meetings
on the draft RI/FS were held, at which
representatives from DOE and its
contractor, EPA and CDPHE were
present to answer questions. These
meetings included a discussion at the
Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board
meeting on November 3, 2005. The final
RI/FS report was approved by EPA and
CDPHE on July 5, 2006. Copies of the
final RI/FS report were placed at seven
information centers in the Denver
metropolitan area on July 14, 2005. In
addition, the RI/FS report was available
on line at https://www.rfets.gov, and
copies on compact disc were available
at the public information meetings
during the comment period for the
Proposed Plan. DOE, EPA and CDPHE
held a pre-release informational meeting
for the Proposed Plan on May 30, 2006,
to explain changes that were made to
the draft RI/FS report, and to describe
the major components of the Proposed
Plan. The Proposed Plan was released
for formal public comment on July 14,
2006. Notice of the public comment
period appeared in The Rocky Mountain
News and The Denver Post from May 22
through May 28, 2006, and was also
provided at the informational public
meeting. DOE sent out community and
media advisories prior to the release of
the Proposed Plan, and prior to each
informational meeting and the public
hearing. The Proposed Plan was placed
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in seven information centers in the
Denver metropolitan area, was available
at the informational meetings held
during the comment period, and was
available on line at https://www.rfets.gov.
The Proposed Plan included discussions
on future land use and use of
groundwater at Rocky Flats. The Rocky
Flats administrative record file was
available for public review at the Front
Range Community College reading room
in Westminster, Colorado, as well as on
line at https://www.rfets.gov.
DOE held two informational meetings
during the public comment period, at
which agency representatives presented
the scope and purpose of the Proposed
Plan, discussed opportunities to provide
input on the Proposed Plan, and
responded to questions from the public.
The first informational meeting was
held on July 19, 2006 in Golden,
Colorado, and the second informational
meeting took place in Westminster,
Colorado on August 8, 2006. Prior
notice of each meeting was provided
through advertisements in the
aforementioned newspapers, running
from July 13 through July 19, 2006, and
again from August 2 through August 8,
2006. A public hearing for the Proposed
Plan took place on August 31, 2006 in
Arvada, Colorado; separate sessions
were held in the afternoon and in the
evening on that date to accommodate as
many members of the public as possible.
Prior notice of the public hearing was
accomplished through advertisements
in the aforementioned newspapers that
ran from August 25 through August 31,
2006, with a display ad posted in both
papers on August 29, 2006. Both written
and oral public comments were
accepted at the public hearing. A
transcript of the public hearing has been
made available to the public and placed
in the Rocky Flats administrative record
file.
The public comment period for the
Proposed Plan extended from July 14
through September 13, 2006. No
requests for extension of the public
comment period were received. DOE’s
responses to public comments received
during the comment period are included
in the Responsiveness Summary section
of the RFETS CAD/ROD.
B. Community Involvement for OU 3
DOE submitted the final RFI/RI
Report for OU 3 to EPA on July 11, 1996
following resolution of final comments
by EPA, CDPHE, the City of Broomfield,
and the City of Westminster. Regulatory
approval to release the OU 3 Proposed
Plan for public comment was granted on
August 7, 1996.
The Proposed Plan was released for
public comment on August 7, 1996. A
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules
public hearing on the OU 3 Proposed
Plan was held on September 18, 1996 at
the Arvada Center for the Performing
Arts and Humanities in Arvada,
Colorado. Citizen comments received at
the public hearing were recorded and
responses to those comments were
included in a Responsiveness Summary.
The public comment period for the OU
3 Proposed Plan ended on October 11,
1996. Written comments on the
Proposed Plan were received from the
Cities of Westminster and Broomfield.
Responses to those written comments
were also included in the
Responsiveness Summary.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Current Status
The RFETS RI/FS Report concluded
that the Peripheral OU was already in a
state protective of human health and the
environment, therefore the selected
remedy in the RFETS CAD/ROD for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Mar 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
Peripheral OU was no action. No
accelerated actions were taken in the
Peripheral OU, and no remedial action
alternatives were evaluated for the
Peripheral OU. Because no hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants
occur in the Peripheral OU above levels
that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, a five-year
review was not required for this remedy.
This documentation provides the
technical justification for deletion of the
Peripheral Operable Unit, Rocky Flats
Plant from the NPL.
For the OU 3 (Offsite Areas)
conditions were determined to be
protective of human health and the
environment at the time the OU 3 CAD/
ROD was signed in 1997, and again
during the first five-year review
finalized in September 2002. Since then,
summary data for OU 3 has been
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11319
reviewed and indicate that conditions
have not changed to alter conclusions of
earlier OU 3 assessments. This
documentation provides the technical
justification for deletion of OU 3 (Offsite
Areas), Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL.
EPA, with concurrence from CDPHE,
has determined that all appropriate
CERCLA response actions have been
completed within the Peripheral OU
and OU 3 to protect public health and
the environment and that no further
response action by responsible parties is
required. Therefore, EPA proposes to
delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of
the Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL.
Dated: March 1, 2007.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. E7–4449 Filed 3–12–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11313-11319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4449]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-8286-7]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent for partial deletion of the Rocky Flats Plant
from the National Priorities List; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces
its intent to delete the Peripheral Operable Unit (OU) and Operable
Unit 3 (OU 3), also referred to as the Offsite Areas, encompassing
approximately 25,413 acres, of the Department of Energy (DOE) Rocky
Flats Plant from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40
CFR Part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). Rocky Flats Plant means the property owned
by the United States Government, also known as Rocky Flats, Rocky Flats
Site, or Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS), as
identified in Figure 1. The Rocky Flats Plant is divided into the
Central and Peripheral Operable Units (Figure 2) which contain 1,308
and 4,933 acres, respectively, and OU 3 (Figure 3) which contains
approximately 20,480 acres. The 3 referenced figures are available as
[[Page 11314]]
described below in the section entitled Docket.
EPA bases its proposal to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the
Rocky Flats Plant on the determination by EPA and the State of
Colorado, through the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE), that all appropriate actions under CERCLA have
been implemented to protect human health, welfare and the environment
and that no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate.
This partial deletion pertains to the surface media (soil, surface
water, sediment) and subsurface media, including groundwater, within
the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant. The Central OU
will remain on the NPL and is not being considered for deletion as part
of this action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: henneke.rob@epa.gov.
Fax: 303-312-6961.
Mail: Rob Henneke, Community Involvement Coordinator
(8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand delivery: Rob Henneke, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal
business hours from 8 a.m.--4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, not
through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents and referenced figures in the docket are
listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials may be accessed
at the following locations during specified hours of operation. The
U.S. EPA Region 8 Docket Facility, EPA Technical Library, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. by
appointment, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA
Docket telephone number is 303-312-6734. The DOE Rocky Flats Plant
Docket Facility is located at Front Range Community College, 3705 112
Avenue, Westminster, Colorado, 80030. The Rocky Flats Plant Docket
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Thursday and 10
a.m. to 5 p.m., Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Henneke, Community Involvement
Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129; telephone number: 1-800-227-8917
or (303) 312-6734; fax number: 303-312-7150; e-mail address:
henneke.rob@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA Region 8 announces its intent to delete the Peripheral OU and
OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant, Jefferson and Boulder Counties,
Colorado, from the NPL and requests comment on this proposed action.
The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, which EPA
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9605. EPA
identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public
health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those
sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed
by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of
the Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and Notice of
Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the NPL (60 FR 55466
(November 1, 1995)). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3), portions of
a site deleted from the NPL remain eligible for further remedial
actions if warranted by future conditions.
EPA will accept comments concerning its intent for partial deletion
of the Rocky Flats Plant for 30 days after publication of this notice
in the Federal Register (FR).
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is
using for this proposed partial deletion. Section IV discusses the
Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant and explains how it
meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate to protect public
health or the environment. In making such a determination pursuant to
40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State,
whether any of the following criteria have been met:
Section 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible parties or other persons have
implemented all appropriate response actions required;
Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All appropriate Fund-financed response
under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by
responsible parties is appropriate; or
Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The remedial investigation has shown
that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not
appropriate.
A partial deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect or impede
EPA's ability to conduct CERCLA response activities for portions not
deleted from the NPL. In addition, deletion of a portion of a site from
the NPL does not affect the liability of responsible parties
[[Page 11315]]
or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response
efforts. DOE will be responsible for all future remedial actions
required at the area deleted if future site conditions warrant such
actions.
III. Deletion Procedures
Upon determination that at least one of the criteria described in
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP has been met, EPA may formally begin
deletion procedures. The following procedures were used for this
proposed deletion of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats
Plant from the NPL:
(1) DOE has requested the partial deletion and has prepared the
relevant documents.
(2) The State of Colorado, through CDPHE, has concurred with
publication of this notice of intent for partial deletion.
(3) Concurrent with this national Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion, a local notice has been published in a newspaper of record
and has been distributed to appropriate federal, State, and local
officials, and other interested parties. These notices announce a 30
day public comment period on the deletion package, which ends on April
12, 2007, based upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register
and a local newspaper of record.
(4) EPA has made all relevant documents available at the
information repositories listed previously for public inspection and
copying.
Upon completion of the 30 calendar day public comment period, EPA
Region 8 will evaluate each significant comment and any significant new
data received before issuing a final decision concerning the proposed
partial deletion. EPA will prepare a responsiveness summary for each
significant comment and any significant new data received during the
public comment period and will address concerns presented in such
comments and data. The responsiveness summary will be made available to
the public at the EPA Region 8 office and the information repositories
listed above and will be included in the final deletion package.
Members of the public are encouraged to contact EPA Region 8 to obtain
a copy of the responsiveness summary. If, after review of all such
comments and data, EPA determines that the partial deletion from the
NPL is appropriate, EPA will publish a final notice of partial deletion
in the Federal Register. Deletion of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the
Rocky Flats Plant does not actually occur until a final notice of
partial deletion is published in the Federal Register. A copy of the
final partial deletion package will be placed at the EPA Region 8
office and the information repositories listed above after a final
document has been published in the Federal Register.
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Deletion
The following provides EPA's rationale for deletion from the NPL of
the Rocky Flats Plant Peripheral OU and OU 3 and EPA's finding that the
criteria in 40 CFR 300.425(e) are satisfied.
Site Background and History
The Rocky Flats Plant is a DOE facility owned by the United States.
Rocky Flats is located in the Denver metropolitan area, approximately
sixteen miles northwest of Denver, Colorado, and ten miles south of
Boulder, Colorado. Nearby communities include the Cities of Arvada,
Broomfield, and Westminster, Colorado. The majority of the Site is
located in Jefferson County, with a small portion located in Boulder
County, Colorado.
Rocky Flats Plant was proposed by EPA for inclusion on the CERCLA
NPL in 1984, and was added to the CERCLA NPL on September 21, 1989 (54
FR 41015, October 4, 1989). The EPA Superfund Identification Number for
Rocky Flats Plant is CO7890010526. The Site was proposed for listing
because activities at Rocky Flats resulted in the release of materials
defined by CERCLA as hazardous substances, contaminants, and
pollutants, as well as hazardous wastes and hazardous waste
constituents as defined by the Resource Conservation Recovery Act
(RCRA) and Colorado Hazardous Waste Act (CHWA). Contaminants released
to the environment from the activities at Rocky Flats have included,
but were not limited to: Radionuclides (such as plutonium, americium,
and various uranium isotopes), organic solvents (such as
trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and carbon tetrachloride), metals
(such as chromium), and nitrates. Apart from the activities of DOE and
its contractors at the Site, there are no other known, significant,
human-caused sources of contamination at Rocky Flats.
Two Operable Units (OUs) are present within the boundaries of the
Site: the Peripheral OU and the Central OU. The Central OU consolidated
all areas of the Site that required remedial actions, while also
considering practicalities of future land management. The Central OU is
not included within this proposed partial deletion action. The
Peripheral OU includes the majority of the Buffer Zone and was left
undisturbed. This land provided a security and safety buffer area
around the former manufacturing areas of the Site. Portions of the
Buffer Zone have been co-managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for ecological resources since 1999. Based upon the RCRA Facility
Investigation--Remedial Investigation/Corrective Measures Study--
Feasibility Study Report for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site (RI/FS) Report, which included both a Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessment, DOE (as the Lead Agency under CERCLA) determined that
no action was necessary to protect public health, welfare or the
environment for the Peripheral OU. That decision was supported and
documented in the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Corrective
Action Decision/Record of Decision (CAD/ROD) signed by DOE, CDPHE and
EPA, Region 8 on September 29, 2006.
OU 3 encompasses an area north, south, and primarily east of the
Peripheral and Central OUs. OU 3 was addressed under a separate CAD/
ROD, Corrective Action Decision/Record of Decision Operable Unit 3, The
Offsite Areas Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site dated April
1997. The OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed by DOE, CDPHE and EPA, Region 8 on
June 3, 1997 and determined that no action was necessary to protect
public health, welfare or the environment.
A. Peripheral Operable Unit
The RI/FS Report was prepared in accordance with the Interim Final
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
under CERCLA. Because remedial activities at RFETS were conducted under
RCRA and CHWA, this RI/FS Report also met RCRA/CHWA requirements for an
RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study (RFI/CMS) Report.
References to CERCLA requirements were also intended to encompass RCRA/
CHWA requirements. For simplicity, the report is hereinafter referred
to as the RI/FS Report. The RI/FS Report, approved by EPA and CDPHE on
July 5, 2006, was the basis for development of the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site Proposed Plan that described the
preferred remedy. The Proposed Plan was the basis for the Final CAD/
ROD.
A.1 Description of the Peripheral OU Remedial Investigation
DOE began more than 20 years ago to develop an extensive body of
documentation about the use of hazardous substances and the known or
suspected release of hazardous substances at Rocky Flats. Information
was gathered from an extensive review
[[Page 11316]]
of Rocky Flats operating records and contemporaneous documents. In
addition, interviews were conducted of persons with knowledge of Rocky
Flats operations and of events that did release or were suspected of
releasing hazardous substances. The information collected is organized
in the Rocky Flats Historical Release Report (HRR), originally
published in 1992, which has been periodically updated as investigation
and cleanup of the Site progressed. The final version of the HRR is
provided as Appendix B of the RI/FS report entitled FY2005 FINAL
Historical Release Report dated October 2005.
Sampling and analysis of surface and subsurface soil, groundwater,
and surface water were extensively used to locate and measure hazardous
substance contamination at historical release locations and guide the
conduct and completion of remediation activities. Environmental
monitoring was performed under the auspices of a site-wide integrated
monitoring plan. Additional monitoring was conducted pursuant to
environmental permits, including the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit and the State of Colorado Air Quality
Operating Permit, issued to DOE and its contractors.
Environmental data for Rocky Flats were collected in accordance
with agency-approved Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) and
standardized contract-required analytical procedures. Approved Work
Plans and SAPs specified the use of EPA-approved sampling procedures
and analytical methods, data quality requirements, and data management
processes, and specified the appropriate data quality objectives.
Documented releases of hazardous substances at Rocky Flats include
radionuclides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), inorganic compounds, and metals.
Known or suspected release locations (primarily soil) were
delineated by 183 Individual Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs), 146
Potential Areas of Concern (PACs), 31 Under Building Contamination
(UBC) Sites, and 61 Potential Incidents of Concern (PICs) (totaling 421
areas). The IHSSs, PACs, UBC Sites, and PICs were thoroughly
investigated and characterized, as appropriate, and accelerated
actions, including non-time critical removals, triggered by
contamination levels have been confirmed as completed and met response
goals.
The nature and extent of contamination evaluations considered the
following environmental media: soil, groundwater, surface water,
sediment, and air. These evaluations were conducted to show the types
of analytes of interest (AOIs) remaining in the environmental media and
their extent at Rocky Flats following the completion of accelerated
actions. The purpose of identifying AOIs was to focus the nature and
extent evaluation on constituents that were detected at concentrations
that may contribute to the risk to future receptors and to show the
overall spatial and temporal trends of those constituents on a sitewide
basis. These evaluations identified 14 AOIs for surface soil, 14 AOIs
for subsurface soil, 19 AOIs for groundwater, 18 AOIs for surface
water, 5 AOIs for sediment, and 5 AOIs for air. The contaminant fate
and transport evaluation used information about the Site physical
characteristics, contaminant source characteristics, and contaminant
distribution across the Site to develop a conceptual understanding of
the dominant transport processes that affect the migration of different
contaminants in various Rocky Flats environmental media. The primary
focus was evaluating the potential for contaminants from any medium to
impact surface water quality. Evaluation of a contaminant's fate and
transport was based upon two criteria: (1) Does a complete migration
pathway to a potential receptor exist based on an evaluation of
contaminant transport in each environmental medium; and (2) is there a
potential impact to surface water quality based on an evaluation of
data at representative groundwater and surface water monitoring
locations in the creek drainages.
The RI included a Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA). The CRA
consisted of two parts: Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). The CRA was designed to provide
information to decision makers to help determine the effectiveness of
the accelerated actions and select a final remedy that is protective of
human health and the environment. The CRA evaluated the risks posed by
conditions at the Site to the anticipated future users (wildlife
workers and visitors) and anticipated future land use. The CRA did not
evaluate an unrestricted use scenario, but did consider an indoor air
pathway, if occupied structures were to be present at the Site in the
future.
The Peripheral OU was determined to be unimpacted by hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants with the exceptions subsequently
discussed. A small portion of the Peripheral OU was impacted by Site
activities from a radiological perspective. For example, plutonium
exists above background in surface soil in small areas within the
Peripheral OU. A few sampling locations for plutonium within the
Peripheral OU exceed a level of 9.8 picocuries per gram (pCi/g), which
corresponds to a 1 x 10-6 risk level for a wildlife refuge
worker. Of these few sampling locations, the highest result is
approximately 20 pCi/g. If that highest concentration of 20 pCi/g was
considered the average concentration over an appropriate exposure unit,
it would correspond to a risk of approximately 1 x 10-5 for
a resident, which would be in the middle of the CERCLA risk range
(10-6 to 10-4). These levels of radioactivity are
also far below the 231 pCi/g activity level for an adult rural
resident, which equates to the 25-millirem per year dose criterion
specified in the Colorado Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
A.2 Declaration Statement for the Peripheral OU CAD/ROD
Based upon the RI/FS Report, which included both a Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment, DOE (as the Lead Agency under CERCLA)
determined that no action was necessary to protect public health or
welfare or the environment for the Peripheral OU.
The RI/FS Report concluded that the Peripheral OU was in a state
protective of human health and the environment. The NCP provides for
the selection of a no action remedy when an OU is in such a protective
state and therefore, no remedial action for the Peripheral OU was
warranted. The selected remedy for the Peripheral OU was no action.
A.3 Peripheral OU Conclusions
The selected remedy for the Peripheral OU meets the requirements of
CERCLA Section 121, and to the extent practicable, the NCP. The
selected remedy for the Peripheral OU is protective of human health and
the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements, and is
cost-effective. The selected remedy complies with applicable
requirements of the CHWA. No accelerated actions were taken in the
Peripheral OU, and no remedial action alternatives other than the no
action alternative were required to be evaluated for the Peripheral OU.
Because no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants occur in
the Peripheral OU above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, no five-year review is required for this remedy.
B. Operable Unit 3 (Offsite Areas)
The OU 3 CAD/ROD was prepared by DOE, Rocky Flats Field Office,
Golden,
[[Page 11317]]
Colorado, in April 1997, and was signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA Region 8
on June 3, 1997. The following is the basis for deleting OU3 and is a
part of the deletion docket.
OU 3 was investigated and a remedy was selected in compliance with
the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order--Interagency Agreement
(IAG), signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA on January 22, 1991. The selected
remedy is also consistent with the Federal Facility Agreement and
Consent Order--Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA), signed by DOE,
CDPHE, and EPA on July 19, 1996.
OU 3 is one of sixteen OUs at Rocky Flats identified in the 1991
IAG, and is the only one not located within the RFETS boundaries. The
1996 RFCA consolidated the original sixteen OUs into three OUs, but OU
3 remained separate, owing both to its unique geographic location and
to the fact that investigations and administrative activity for OU 3
were nearly completed when the 1996 RFCA was signed. OU 3 is comprised
of four Individual Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs): Contamination of
the Land's Surface (IHSS 199), Great Western Reservoir (IHSS 200),
Standley Lake (IHSS 201) and Mower Reservoir (IHSS 202). IHSSs are
specific locations where hazardous substances, solid wastes,
pollutants, contaminants, hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents
may have been disposed of or released to the environment from Rocky
Flats at any time in the past.
B.1 Description of the OU 3 Remedial Investigation
The selected remedy for OU 3 was no action. A Baseline Risk
Assessment (BRA), including an HHRA and an ERA, was conducted as part
of the OU 3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility
Investigation. The RCRA Facility Investigation/CERCLA Remedial
Investigation (RFI/RI) Report was completed in accordance with
requirements presented in the Interagency Agreement and specifically
identified in the OU3 RFI/RI Work Plan and addenda. The RFI/RI Report
evaluated human health risks based upon exposure to identified
Contaminants of Concern (COCs) and was reported as the probability of
an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to OU 3
contamination under recreational and residential exposure scenarios.
Assumptions regarding future land use provided the basis to calculate
human health risks for both IHSS 199 and for IHSS 200. No COCs were
identified in surface water samples collected from Standley Lake, Great
Western Reservoir, and Mower Reservoir.
For IHSS 199, risks from both plutonium and americium were
calculated and were assumed to be additive. For IHSS 200, only the
risks associated with plutonium were calculated, as plutonium was the
only COC there. In both IHSSs, the highest contaminant concentration
was used in risk calculations. The RFI/RI Report also calculated
radiation doses that would be expected as a result of the recreational
and residential scenarios described in the OU 3 CAD/ROD.
Excess lifetime cancer risk (that is, the incremental additional
cancer risk that is incurred through exposure to COCs at OU 3 or any
other contaminated site) is calculated by multiplying the average daily
chemical intake over a lifetime of exposure by the contaminant's
individual slope factor. For radionuclides, slope factors are the
average risk per unit intake or exposure for an individual in a
stationary population with mortality rates typical of those in the
United States in 1970. EPA guidelines indicate that excess lifetime
cancer risks which are within or below the one in ten thousand (1 x
10-4) to one in one million (1 x 10-6) range are
considered protective of human health.
For IHSS 199, the highest calculated excess cancer risk, assuming
reasonable maximum exposures (RME) under a residential exposure was
three in one million (3 x 10-6). Using central tendency, the
risk under a residential scenario was two in ten million (2 x
10-7). For the recreational exposure, the excess cancer risk
was five in one hundred million (5 x 10-8) using the RME,
and three in one billion (3 x 10-9) using central tendency.
For IHSS 200, the highest calculated excess cancer risk employing
RME and the residential exposure was nine in ten million (9 x
10-7); the corresponding risk using central tendency was six
in one hundred million (6 x 10-8). Using the recreational
scenario, the highest risk using RME was one in one hundred million (1
x 10-8), and the risk using central tendency was eight in
ten billion (8 x 10-10).
The highest calculated radiation dose for IHSSs 199 and 200
occurred using the RME, assuming a residential exposure scenario. The
highest Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE, which incorporates both
internal and external radiation dose) for IHSS 199 for an adult was
0.12 millirem per year (mrem/yr); the corresponding TEDE for IHSS 200
is 0.0065 mrem/yr. The average radiation dose in the U.S. is estimated
to be about 300 mrem/year, while the average dose in Colorado may be as
much as 700 mrem/year, owing to the state's higher altitude and
relative abundance of naturally occurring radionuclides.
These levels of radioactivity are also far below the 231 pCi/g
activity level for an adult rural resident that equates to the 25 mrem/
year dose criterion specified in the Colorado Standards for Protection
Against Radiation. Based on these results, the Peripheral OU is
determined to be acceptable for all uses from a radiological
perspective.
The RFI/RI Report evaluated health risks and radiation dose from
surface water. Surface water was sampled for plutonium and americium.
The maximum and mean concentrations of plutonium and americium detected
in surface water from the reservoirs were well below the CDPHE
standards, the National Drinking Water Standards, and the Rocky Flats
Site specific standards for plutonium and americium.
DOE submitted the RFI/RI Report to the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a part of the federal Center for Disease
Control, for the purpose of obtaining a Health Consultation. The
purpose of the Health Consultation was to obtain an independent
evaluation as to whether COCs had been adequately identified in OU 3,
the risks to human health posed by releases of hazardous substances in
OU 3 adequately analyzed, and whether the proposal for no remedial
action in OU 3 was appropriate considering these risks. The ATSDR
concluded that the COC selection process was based on reasonable
assumptions, and that none of the constituents present in OU 3 posed
public health concerns. Further, the ATSDR Health Consultation stated
that no additional activities were needed in OU 3 in order to ensure
the public's health.
Based upon the BRA and the ERA contained in the RFI/RI Report, DOE,
the lead agency under CERCLA for OU 3, concluded that no action was
appropriate for OU 3. The RFI/RI Report concluded that all IHSSs within
OU 3 are already protective of human health and the environment. Field
and laboratory work showed no indications of adverse effects from
plutonium or americium on the ecology of OU 3. The NCP provides for the
selection of a no action remedy when an OU is in such a protective
state. Therefore, no remedial action regarding OU 3 or any of its
constituent IHSSs was warranted.
B.2 Declaration Statement for Offsite Areas OU CAD/ROD
DOE in consultation with CDPHE and EPA, determined that no remedial
action was necessary for OU 3 to be
[[Page 11318]]
protective of human health, welfare and the environment. No hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants remain within the boundaries of
OU3 above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, as these levels have been calculated in the OU 3 RFI/RI
Report.
B.3 Evaluation of OU3 CAD/ROD Data in First Five-Year Review
A five-year review of the OU 3 CAD/ROD was conducted to assess the
continued protectiveness of the remedy. The OU 3 CAD/ROD concluded that
transport by wind and water was the primary means by which plutonium
and americium were carried to OU 3. Therefore, available air and water
monitoring data collected after the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed were
reviewed to determine if environmental conditions at OU 3 have changed
since the BRA was completed. The air monitoring data from the RFETS
perimeter air monitoring network were analyzed and the conclusion was
that the amounts of plutonium and americium that have been measured at
the RFETS perimeter since 1997 have been environmentally insignificant.
These amounts of plutonium and americium would not have caused
contaminant levels in OU 3 to change significantly since the OU 3 CAD/
ROD was signed. Water monitoring data from the RFCA Points of
Compliance on Woman Creek and Walnut Creek at Indiana Street, and data
collected by the City of Broomfield for Great Western Reservoir, were
analyzed. Samples of water leaving RFETS showed consistent compliance
with RFCA surface water standards, and water samples from Great Western
Reservoir were consistently at or below detection limits for plutonium
and americium. The report also included a Protectiveness Statement as
required by EPA guidance. Pursuant to the Protectiveness Statement,
DOE's ongoing custody and control of RFETS, ongoing monitoring
programs, and restriction of public access serve to adequately control
risks posed by contamination at RFETS. The no action decision for OU 3
was determined to be adequately protective.
Review of air monitoring data and water quality data at the Points
of Compliance since the first five-year review also indicate there have
not been significant amounts of plutonium or americium that have
entered OU 3 through the air or water pathways. Therefore,
environmental conditions at OU 3 have not changed significantly since
the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed.
B.4 OU 3 Conclusions
Conditions in OU 3 pose no unacceptable or significant risks to
human health or the environment; future unacceptable or significant
exposures will not occur there as a result of past contamination. DOE
concluded that no action was necessary in OU 3 for the protection of
human health or the environment. Reviews following the OU 3 CAD/ROD
have concluded that environmental conditions at OU 3 have not changed
significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed.
Community Involvement
Public Participation activities for the cleanup of the Peripheral
OU and OU 3 were conducted as required under CERCLA Section 113(k), 42
U.S.C. 9613(k) and Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Public review included
the following activities:
A. Community Involvement for the Peripheral OU
The Draft RI/FS Report for the RFETS was released for public review
and information in October 2005, and was available at that time in the
Rocky Flats public reading rooms and online. Several informational
public meetings on the draft RI/FS were held, at which representatives
from DOE and its contractor, EPA and CDPHE were present to answer
questions. These meetings included a discussion at the Rocky Flats
Citizens Advisory Board meeting on November 3, 2005. The final RI/FS
report was approved by EPA and CDPHE on July 5, 2006. Copies of the
final RI/FS report were placed at seven information centers in the
Denver metropolitan area on July 14, 2005. In addition, the RI/FS
report was available on line at https://www.rfets.gov, and copies on
compact disc were available at the public information meetings during
the comment period for the Proposed Plan. DOE, EPA and CDPHE held a
pre-release informational meeting for the Proposed Plan on May 30,
2006, to explain changes that were made to the draft RI/FS report, and
to describe the major components of the Proposed Plan. The Proposed
Plan was released for formal public comment on July 14, 2006. Notice of
the public comment period appeared in The Rocky Mountain News and The
Denver Post from May 22 through May 28, 2006, and was also provided at
the informational public meeting. DOE sent out community and media
advisories prior to the release of the Proposed Plan, and prior to each
informational meeting and the public hearing. The Proposed Plan was
placed in seven information centers in the Denver metropolitan area,
was available at the informational meetings held during the comment
period, and was available on line at https://www.rfets.gov. The Proposed
Plan included discussions on future land use and use of groundwater at
Rocky Flats. The Rocky Flats administrative record file was available
for public review at the Front Range Community College reading room in
Westminster, Colorado, as well as on line at https://www.rfets.gov.
DOE held two informational meetings during the public comment
period, at which agency representatives presented the scope and purpose
of the Proposed Plan, discussed opportunities to provide input on the
Proposed Plan, and responded to questions from the public. The first
informational meeting was held on July 19, 2006 in Golden, Colorado,
and the second informational meeting took place in Westminster,
Colorado on August 8, 2006. Prior notice of each meeting was provided
through advertisements in the aforementioned newspapers, running from
July 13 through July 19, 2006, and again from August 2 through August
8, 2006. A public hearing for the Proposed Plan took place on August
31, 2006 in Arvada, Colorado; separate sessions were held in the
afternoon and in the evening on that date to accommodate as many
members of the public as possible. Prior notice of the public hearing
was accomplished through advertisements in the aforementioned
newspapers that ran from August 25 through August 31, 2006, with a
display ad posted in both papers on August 29, 2006. Both written and
oral public comments were accepted at the public hearing. A transcript
of the public hearing has been made available to the public and placed
in the Rocky Flats administrative record file.
The public comment period for the Proposed Plan extended from July
14 through September 13, 2006. No requests for extension of the public
comment period were received. DOE's responses to public comments
received during the comment period are included in the Responsiveness
Summary section of the RFETS CAD/ROD.
B. Community Involvement for OU 3
DOE submitted the final RFI/RI Report for OU 3 to EPA on July 11,
1996 following resolution of final comments by EPA, CDPHE, the City of
Broomfield, and the City of Westminster. Regulatory approval to release
the OU 3 Proposed Plan for public comment was granted on August 7,
1996.
The Proposed Plan was released for public comment on August 7,
1996. A
[[Page 11319]]
public hearing on the OU 3 Proposed Plan was held on September 18, 1996
at the Arvada Center for the Performing Arts and Humanities in Arvada,
Colorado. Citizen comments received at the public hearing were recorded
and responses to those comments were included in a Responsiveness
Summary. The public comment period for the OU 3 Proposed Plan ended on
October 11, 1996. Written comments on the Proposed Plan were received
from the Cities of Westminster and Broomfield. Responses to those
written comments were also included in the Responsiveness Summary.
Current Status
The RFETS RI/FS Report concluded that the Peripheral OU was already
in a state protective of human health and the environment, therefore
the selected remedy in the RFETS CAD/ROD for the Peripheral OU was no
action. No accelerated actions were taken in the Peripheral OU, and no
remedial action alternatives were evaluated for the Peripheral OU.
Because no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants occur in
the Peripheral OU above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, a five-year review was not required for this
remedy. This documentation provides the technical justification for
deletion of the Peripheral Operable Unit, Rocky Flats Plant from the
NPL.
For the OU 3 (Offsite Areas) conditions were determined to be
protective of human health and the environment at the time the OU 3
CAD/ROD was signed in 1997, and again during the first five-year review
finalized in September 2002. Since then, summary data for OU 3 has been
reviewed and indicate that conditions have not changed to alter
conclusions of earlier OU 3 assessments. This documentation provides
the technical justification for deletion of OU 3 (Offsite Areas), Rocky
Flats Plant from the NPL.
EPA, with concurrence from CDPHE, has determined that all
appropriate CERCLA response actions have been completed within the
Peripheral OU and OU 3 to protect public health and the environment and
that no further response action by responsible parties is required.
Therefore, EPA proposes to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the
Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL.
Dated: March 1, 2007.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. E7-4449 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P