National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List, 30027-30034 [2011-12763]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rules, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Parties with objections to this direct
final rule are encouraged to file a
comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this
action published in the Proposed Rules
section of today’s Federal Register,
rather than file an immediate petition
for judicial review of this direct final
rule, so that EPA can withdraw this
direct final rule and address the
comment in the proposed rulemaking.
This action may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: April 25, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(378)(i)(B) and (C)
to read as follows:
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(378) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Placer County Air Pollution
Control District.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
(1) Rule 245, ‘‘Surface Coating of
Metal Parts and Products,’’ amended on
August 20, 2009.
(C) Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District.
(1) Rule 74.12, ‘‘Surface Coating of
Metal Parts and Products,’’ adopted on
April 8, 2008.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–12611 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–0851; FRL–9310–2]
Land Disposal Restrictions: SiteSpecific Treatment Variance for
Hazardous Selenium-Bearing Waste
Treated by U.S. Ecology Nevada in
Beatty, NV and Withdrawal of SiteSpecific Treatment Variance for
Hazardous Selenium-Bearing Waste
Treatment Issued to Chemical Waste
Management in Kettleman Hills, CA
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule.
AGENCY:
Because EPA received
adverse comment, we are withdrawing
the Direct Final rule that granted a sitespecific treatment variance to U.S.
Ecology Nevada in Beatty, Nevada and
withdrew an existing site-specific
treatment variance issued to Chemical
Waste Management, Inc. in Kettleman
Hills, California. The Direct Final rule
pertains to the treatment of a hazardous
waste generated by the OwensBrockway Glass Container Company in
Vernon, California that is unable to meet
the concentration-based treatment
standard for selenium established under
the Land Disposal Restrictions program.
EPA also issued a parallel proposal to be
used as the basis for the final action in
the event that EPA received any adverse
comments on the Direct Final rule.
DATES: Effective May 24, 2011, EPA
withdraws the Direct Final rule
published at 76 FR 18921 on April 6,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
more information, contact Jesse Miller,
Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division, Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery
(MC 5304 P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone (703) 308–1180; fax (703)
308–0522; or miller.jesse@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because
EPA received adverse comment, we are
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30027
withdrawing the Direct Final rule that
amended the Land Disposal Restrictions
treatment standards (40 CFR part
268.44(o)) by granting a site-specific
treatment variance to U.S. Ecology
Nevada in Beatty, Nevada and
withdrawing an existing site-specific
treatment variance issued to Chemical
Waste Management, Inc. in Kettleman
Hills, California, published on April 6,
2011 at 76 FR 18921. We stated in that
Direct Final rule that if we received
adverse comment by May 6, 2011, the
Direct Final rule would not take effect
and we would publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register. We
subsequently received adverse comment
on that Direct Final rule. We will
address those comments in any
subsequent final action, which will be
based on the parallel proposed rule also
published on April 6, 2011 at 76 FR
18921. As stated in the Direct Final rule
and the parallel proposed rule, we will
not institute a second comment period
on this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, and Variances.
Dated: May 17, 2011.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
Accordingly, the amendments to the
rule published on April 6, 2011 (76 FR
18921) are withdrawn as of May 24,
2011.
[FR Doc. 2011–12783 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9310–8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 8 is publishing a
direct final Notice of Partial Deletion of
the remaining portions of Operable Unit
9 (OU9), the Residential Populated
Areas, of the California Gulch
Superfund Site (Site), located in Lake
County, Colorado, from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
30028
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is
an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final partial deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the
State of Colorado, through the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) because EPA has
determined that all appropriate
response actions at these identified
parcels under CERCLA, other than
operation, maintenance, and five-year
reviews, have been completed.
However, this partial deletion does not
preclude future actions under
Superfund.
This partial deletion pertains to the
remaining portions of OU9, the
Residential Populated Areas. Subunits
A and B, residential waste rock piles,
and the parks and playgrounds within
Operable Unit 9 were partially deleted
from the NPL on January 30, 2002. In
addition, OU2, OU8, and OU10 have
been partially deleted from the NPL.
The Yak Tunnel (OU1), D&RGW Slag
Piles and Easement (OU3), Upper
California Gulch (OU4), ASARCO
Smelter/Colorado Zinc-Lead Mill Site
(OU5), Stray Horse Gulch (OU6),
Apache Tailing (OU7), Arkansas River
Floodplain (OU11), and Site-wide
Surface and Groundwater Quality
(OU12) will remain on the NPL and are
not being considered for deletion as part
of this action.
DATES: This direct final partial deletion
is effective July 25, 2011 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 23,
2011. If adverse comments are received,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final partial deletion in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the partial deletion will not take
effect.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Linda Kiefer,
kiefer.linda@epa.gov
• Fax: (303) 312–7151.
• Mail: Linda Kiefer, Remedial
Project Manager, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code
8EPR–SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, CO 80202–1129.
• Hand delivery: Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code
8EPR–SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, CO 80202–1129. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–
0002. 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 without going 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 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 hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region 8, Superfund Records
Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
CO 80202. (303) 312–6473 or toll free
(800) 227–8917; Viewing hours: 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays.
and
Lake County Public Library, 1115
Harrison Avenue, Leadville, CO
80461, (719) 486–0569
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda Kiefer, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, Mailcode EPR–SR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202–
1129, (303) 312–6689 e-mail:
kiefer.linda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Partial Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Partial Deletion
V. Partial Deletion Action
I. Introduction
EPA Region 8 is publishing this direct
final Notice of Partial Deletion for the
remaining portions of Operable Unit 9
(OU9), Residential Populated Areas, of
the California Gulch Superfund Site
(Site), from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B
of 40 CFR part 300, of 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) of 1980, as amended.
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of
sites that appear to present a significant
risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. 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 is consistent with the
Notice of Policy Change: Partial
Deletion of Sites Listed on the National
Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1,
1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of
the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from
the NPL remains eligible for Fundfinanced remedial action if future
conditions warrant such actions.
Because EPA considers this action to
be noncontroversial and routine, this
action will be effective July 25, 2011
unless EPA receives adverse comments
by June 23, 2011. Along with this direct
final Notice of Partial Deletion, EPA is
co-publishing a Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’
section of the Federal Register. If
adverse comments are received within
the 30-day public comment period on
this partial deletion action, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice of Partial Deletion
before the effective date of the partial
deletion and the partial deletion will
not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate,
prepare a response to comments and
continue with the deletion process on
the basis of the Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion and the comments
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
already received. There will be no
additional opportunity to comment.
Section II of this document explains
the criteria for deleting sites from the
NPL. Section III discusses procedures
that EPA is using for this action. Section
IV discusses the remaining portion of
OU9, Residential Populated Areas, of
the California Gulch Superfund Site and
demonstrates how it meets the deletion
criteria. Section V discusses EPA’s
action to partially delete the Site parcels
from the NPL unless adverse comments
are received during the public comment
period.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
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. 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:
i. Responsible parties or other persons
have implemented all appropriate
response actions required;
ii. All appropriate Fund-financed
response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response
action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
iii. The remedial investigation has
shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, the taking
of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c)
and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year
reviews to ensure the continued
protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remain at a site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts
such five-year reviews even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate
further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new
information becomes available that
indicates it is appropriate. Whenever
there is a significant release from a site
deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without
application of the hazard ranking
system.
III. Partial Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to the
deletion of the remaining portions of
OU9 of the Site:
(1) EPA has consulted with the State
of Colorado prior to developing this
direct final Notice of Partial Deletion
and the Notice of Intent for Partial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
Deletion co-published in the ‘‘Proposed
Rules’’ section of the Federal Register.
(2) EPA has provided the state 30
working days for review of this notice
and the parallel Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion prior to their
publication today, and the State,
through the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, has
concurred on the partial deletion of the
Site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrently with the publication
of this direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion, a notice of the availability of
the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion is being published in a major
local newspaper, the Leadville Herald
Democrat. The newspaper notice
announces the 30-day public comment
period concerning the Notice of Intent
for Partial Deletion of the Site from the
NPL.
(4) The EPA placed copies of
documents supporting the partial
deletion in the deletion docket and
made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site
information repositories identified
above.
(5) If adverse comments are received
within the 30-day public comment
period on this partial deletion action,
EPA will publish a timely notice of
withdrawal of this direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion before its effective date
and will prepare a response to
comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and
the comments already received.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the
NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual’s rights or
obligations. Deletion of a portion of a
site from the NPL does not in any way
alter EPA’s right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational
purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of
the NCP states that the deletion of a site
from the NPL does not preclude
eligibility for further response actions,
should future conditions warrant such
actions.
IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion
The following information provides
EPA’s rationale for deleting the
remaining portion of OU9, Residential
Populated Areas of the California Gulch
Superfund Site from the NPL.
Site Background and History
The California Gulch Superfund Site
(Site), EPA ID No. COD980717938, is
located in Lake County, Colorado
approximately 100 miles southwest of
Denver. The Site was proposed for
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30029
inclusion on the National Priorities List,
December 30, 1982, 47 FR 58476, and
listed on September 8, 1983, 48 FR
40,658. The Site is in a highly
mineralized area of the Colorado Rocky
Mountains covering approximately 18
square miles of a watershed that drains
along California Gulch to the Arkansas
River. The Site includes the City of
Leadville, various parts of the Leadville
Historic Mining District, Stringtown,
and a section of the Arkansas River from
the confluence of California Gulch to
the confluence of Two-Bit Gulch. Being
a Rocky Mountain community, the City
of Leadville (population 2,801) has a
high percentage of second homes.
Commercial, residential, and industrial
properties and vacant lots are mixed in
together. Mining, mineral processing,
and smelting activities have occurred at
the Site for more than 130 years. Mining
in the district began in 1860, when
placer gold was discovered in California
Gulch. As the placer deposits were
exhausted, underground workings
became the principal method for
removing gold, silver, lead and zinc ore.
As these mines were developed, waste
rock was excavated along with the ore
and placed near the mine entrances. Ore
was crushed and separated into metallic
concentrates at mills, with mill tailing
generally slurried into tailing
impoundments. The Leadville area was
the site of extensive gold, silver, lead
and zinc mining, milling and smelting
operations. Most of the facilities ceased
operations around 1900, although
several facilities continued operations
into the 1920s (Western Zinc) and the
1960s (AV Smelter).
All of the mines within the Site
boundaries are presently inactive, and
all of the mills and smelters have been
demolished. As a result of these
operations, the Site contains mill tailing
(the fine-grained residue remaining after
milling and separation has removed the
metal concentrates form the ore)
impoundments, fluvial deposits, slag
piles, mine waste rock piles (mine
development rock and low grade ore
removed to gain access to an ore body,
and often deposited near adits and shaft
openings), and mine water drainage
tunnel which have further distributed
heavy metals throughout the area. In
addition, smelters, which previously
operated at the Site, have historically
been a source of heavy metals from dust
and stack emissions.
The Site was placed on the NPL due
to concerns regarding the impact of
acidic and metals laden mine drainage
on surface waters leading to California
Gulch and the impact of heavy metals
loading into the Arkansas River. A Sitewide Phase I Remedial Investigation
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
30030
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(Phase I RI), which primarily addressed
surface and groundwater contamination,
was issued in January 1987. As a result
of the Phase I RI, EPA identified the first
operable unit, the Yak Tunnel, to
address the largest single source of
metallic loading. A number of
additional Site-wide studies followed
the Phase I RI.
EPA agreed, pursuant to a May 2,
1994 Consent Decree (1994 CD), to
divide the Site into 12 operable units
(OUs). With the exception of OU12, the
operable units pertain to distinct
geographical areas corresponding to
areas of responsibility for the identified
responsible parties and/or to distinct
sources of contamination. The OUs are
as follows:
1. Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment Plant
2. Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments
and Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial
Tailing
3. D&RGW Slag Piles and Easement
4. Upper California Gulch
5. ASARCO Smelter Sites/Slag/Mill
Sites
6. Starr Ditch/Stray Horse Gulch/Lower
Evans Gulch/Penrose Mine Waste
Pile
7. Apache Tailing Impoundments
8. Lower California Gulch
9. Residential Populated Areas
10. Oregon Gulch
11. Arkansas River Valley Floodplain
12. Site-wide Surface and Groundwater
To date, OU2; OU8; OU10; and parts
of OU9—Subunits A and B, residential
mine waste rock piles, and the parks
and playgrounds—have been partially
deleted from the NPL.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
OU9 Background and History
The soils in OU9 have been highly
disturbed by human activities. The
yards of most residences have grass
cover over either native soil or imported
fill. The sources of fill materials have
included areas outside the Site and
waste rock and tailing from California
and Stray Horse Gulch. Even though
mining operations are no longer active
at the Site, waste products and other
residues from past mining and smelting
activities are present in OU9—some as
visible features. Additionally, smelter
emissions and slag may have
contaminated some residential soils.
OU9 includes residential area soils in
those portions of the Site where the land
use is residential or that were zoned as
residential/populated areas and as lowdensity residential areas on or before
September 2, 1999. A map of OU9,
named OU9 Partial Deletion—
Residential Areas, can be found in the
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
under California Gulch. Residential area
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
soils are defined as soils in the
residential area of the Site (see
Attachment A of the 1994 CD) which
may have been impacted by past
smelting and mining activities. This
encompasses the City of Leadville,
Stringtown, and outlying areas zoned
for residential use. Included are
residential properties, yards, parks,
vacant lots, schools yards, playgrounds,
and community use areas, including
unpaved streets and alleys. Additionally
OU9 includes 38 mine waste piles
located within the populated areas of
eastern Leadville. For ease in
determining compliance with blood
monitoring performance standards, OU9
was geographically divided into
statistical subunits A through G.
Subunits A and B (the shaded area of
OU9 on the map in the docket), 38
residential waste rock piles, and the
parks and playgrounds within OU 9
were partially deleted from the NPL on
January 30, 2002.
The remaining portion of OU9 (shown
in yellow on the map in the docket) are
the subject of this deletion. EPA is the
lead agency for OU9; Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) is the support
agency. Under the 1994 CD, ASARCO
assumed responsibility for OU9.
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS)
Remedial Investigations
The State of Colorado, EPA and
certain Potentially Responsible Parties
have conducted various studies and
investigations to evaluate the nature and
extent of contamination within the Site.
In 1991, Remedial Investigations (RIs)
began for several areas within the Site,
including mine waste rock piles, tailing
disposal areas, surface water and
aquatics, groundwater, smelter sites,
residential/populated area soils, slag
piles, and terrestrial studies. These
studies have determined lead in soils to
be the primary contaminant of concern
in OU9.
Interim Response—The Kids First
Program
ASARCO and many community
members argued that there are
numerous environmental sources of
lead in the residential areas of Leadville.
One primary source was mining-related
primary sources such tailing and mine
waste piles. Other primary sources
include lead-containing paint on
interior and exterior surfaces of homes
and lead found in food, water, and
residential soils. As recommended by
ASARCO and the community, the
interim response was designed to
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reduce overall lead-related risk to
children in Leadville, including
responses that address sources that
would not normally be remediated
under CERCLA authorities. As part of
the 1994 CD with EPA and the State,
ASARCO agreed to undertake actions to
address all sources of lead in lieu of soil
removal only at each residence. To
determine the effectiveness of the
actions, the level of lead in children’s
blood was voluntarily monitored and
performance standards in relation to
concentrations of lead in the blood of
children were established.
In 1995, ASARCO began
implementing the Lead Risk Reduction
Program (LRRP), more commonly
known as the Kids First Program (KF).
ASARCO agreed to operate KF as an
interim response action until EPA
selected a remedy for OU9.
The purpose of KF, a risk reduction
response program based on voluntary
participation, was to: (1) Provide
information to the community, and (2)
reduce children’s exposure to secondary
sources of lead. KF consisted of a
variety of services and remedial
response activities designed to: (1)
Gather information from the
community, (2) identify residences for
which response actions are needed, (3)
plan and prioritize the risk reduction
responses for these residences, (4)
perform the risk reduction responses,
and (5) provide additional information
and services to the community.
Initially KF targeted residences where
sample soil lead levels were found
above 3,500 mg/kg because EPA
established an interim response level of
3,500 mg/kg lead for Leadville
residential soils. The basis for this value
is presented in the 1994 CD, along with
a discussion of trigger criteria for other
significant environmental media (dust,
paint and water). These trigger criteria
were used by the KF work group to
identify and prioritize locations for
response actions.
Residences with children that had
blood-lead levels greater than 10 μg/dl,
measured during the 1991 Blood-Lead
Study or any subsequent blood-lead
monitoring, were targeted for priority
response in the program.
Information used in the evaluation of
residences and the selection of
appropriate response actions (if needed)
came from a variety of sources.
Response programs included within KF
were:
• The blood-lead monitoring program
by Lake County Health Department;
• A lead information hotline and a
door-to-door survey within priority
exposure areas; and
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
• Additional environmental sampling
and property assessment.
The Lake County Health Department
managed the voluntary blood-lead
monitoring program, which was funded
by ASARCO. The blood-lead monitoring
program was a key component of the
interim response program. Ongoing
blood-lead monitoring was provided
upon request for children below the age
of 72 months (6 years) and for pregnant/
nursing women. The data were used as
one means of identifying individuals
who had blood-lead levels greater than
10 μg/dl. The data were also used in the
finalization of the Baseline Risk
Assessment.
All homeowners or residents who
responded via the hotline/office or doorto-door surveys received information
about the program. The Information
Hotline and the door-to-door surveys
resulted in the need for additional
environmental sampling of soils, paint,
dust, water, and blood-lead levels.
Environmental sampling was conducted
if the residence: (1) Was located in the
3,500 mg/kg lead soils priority area, (2)
had a child with a blood-lead level
greater than 10 μg/dl, (3) had a pregnant
or nursing woman in the home, (4) was
known to have paint in poor condition
or known to have another possible lead
source (lead pipes, certain hobbies, etc.),
or (5) was requested by a resident who
is not within the designated priority risk
area.
The first year remediations were
performed at 37 properties in
accordance with Action Memoranda
prepared for each property. The KF
work group developed and approved all
action and no-action determinations.
The property owners consented on all
investigations and remediations.
KF integrated a variety of lead toxicity
intervention and abatement methods.
Additionally, KF addressed reducing
children’s exposure to lead in soils,
dust-containing lead in residences, and
additional lead sources such as paint
and tap water. For these reasons, KF
was presented as an alternative in the
feasibility study when it was revised
and renamed the Lake County
Community Health Program (LCCHP).
Risk Assessments
Concurrent with the interim response,
numerous risk assessments were
conducted as part of the investigation.
They included Baseline Human Health
Risk Assessments (BRAs): Part A
(Weston 1996), Part B (Weston 1996),
and Part C (Weston 1995); Ecological
Risk Assessment for Terrestrial
Ecosystems (Weston 1997); Surface
Water Human Health Risk Assessment
(Golder 1996); Groundwater Baseline
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
Human Health Rick Assessment
(Golder, June 1996) and Baseline
Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment
(Weston 1995).
The Baseline Human Health Risk
Assessments (BRAs) concluded that
lead was the only contaminant of
concern (COC) for OU9. There are no
locations on-Site where antimony,
barium, cadmium, beryllium,
chromium, copper, mercury, nickel,
silver, thallium, or zinc are of
significant concern in residential soil.
The risk assessment also concluded that
non-lead metals (including arsenic and
manganese) in residential soils do not
pose a significant health risk to
residents.
The risk assessment for lead was
supported by a large body of Sitespecific data. Included were: (1)
Extensive measurements of lead in soil
and dust in residential locations, (2) an
extensive demographics survey, data on
lead levels in water and paint (both
interior and exterior), (3) data on the
physical and chemical forms of lead at
various locations around the
community, and (4) an informative
community-wide blood-lead study
involving 314 children (about 65% of
the total population of children at the
Site). This data was used to support two
parallel lines of investigation and
assessment. The first of these employed
EPA’s Integrated Exposure Uptake and
Biokinetic (IEUBK) model to calculate
the expected impact of lead levels in
soil and dust on blood-lead levels in
area children. The second approach
compared the measured blood-lead
values in area children with relevant
national blood-lead statistics in order to
help evaluate the current effects of
actual Site exposure to lead.
Several ecological risk assessments
were performed on a site-wide basis for
the California Gulch Site. These are
available in the docket or on the EPA
Web site, https://www.epa.gov/region8/
superfund/co/calgulch/. These
assessments showed a potential
unacceptable risk to small mammals
and breeding birds. However, given the
data available, there was little evidence
of population-level effects on small
mammals or breeding birds. In addition,
calculated ecological risk due to
potential exposure to tailing or waste
rock media found in other operable
units was higher than risks resulting
from potential exposure to surrounding
soils found in OU9.
Feasibility Study (FS)
The Final Residential Soil Feasibility
Study, completed by Golder Associates
in November of 1998, evaluated seven
remedial alternatives to address the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30031
residential soils of properties, yards and
open space areas within OU9 where
lead levels exceeded the trigger level of
3,500 mg/kg.
One alternative in the FS was the
LCCHP, a revised version of the KF used
during the interim response. The
LCCHP combined blood-lead
monitoring, education, community
awareness, and residence specific
response actions reduced the potential
for children to be exposed to lead in
Leadville and surrounding areas. This
program addressed lead in soil and dust,
interior and exterior paint, plumbing
fixtures, and dietary and household
sources. It also included institutional
controls to ensure effectiveness of the
LCCHP. Operation and maintenance
activities included LCCHP
administration and the blood-lead
monitoring program.
Selected Remedy
Signed on September 2, 1999, the
OU9 Record of Decision (1999 ROD)
selected a remedy for addressing lead in
soils in residential population areas.
The selected remedy was the LCCHP
with institutional controls (ICs) to
ensure the effectiveness of the LCCHP.
In September 2009, an Explanation of
Significant Differences required ICs for
the 17 mine waste piles remaining in
OU9.
The Remedial Action Objectives
(RAO) from the 1999 ROD are:
• RAO–1: No more than 5% of
children age 0–72 months residing
within OU9, either now or in the future,
should have blood-lead values
exceeding 10 μg/dl.
• RAO–2: No more than 1% of
children age 0–72 months residing
within OU9, either now or in the future,
should have blood-lead values
exceeding 15 μg/dl.
• RAO–3: Reduce direct exposure of
lead incurred by children which result
in optimal risk reduction through
effective use of resources.
LCCHP
The LCCHP combined (1) Community
awareness and education, (2) residencespecific response actions to reduce the
risk of lead exposure to children in
Leadville and (3) blood-lead monitoring.
Funding for the LCCHP was from a trust
fund established by ASARCO under the
1994 CD.
LCCHP Community Awareness and
Education
The LCCHP involved an extensive
education and intervention program to
manage lead exposure at the Site. The
educational program focused on raising
public awareness about risks from lead
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
30032
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
and encouraged participation in the
LCCHP. Outreach included the hotline,
door-to-door contacts, public notices,
mailings, publications, meetings and
incentives. Education included
individual face-to-face consultations
with residents and customized
recommendations for specific actions
that reduced the residents’ risk to lead
exposure. The recommendations made
to each resident were based on the
results of environmental lead sampling
at their homes and specific information
collected by the program about their
daily habits and activities. Follow-up
education, consultation, and
intervention continued with families
that had young children by the Lake
County Health Department through their
blood-lead monitoring program;
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);
and Head Start.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
LCCHP Residence-Specific Actions
Through this program, Leadville
residents were able to request an
investigation of lead levels in soil, dust,
paint, and water on their property.
Properties owners could also request a
re-investigation if conditions changed.
The LCCHP investigated and remediated
lead concentrations in soil, paint, dust,
and water on a property-by-property
basis. Sampling plans were designed for
each individual investigated property.
Action was taken when trigger levels
were exceeded. All investigations and
remediations were performed with the
consent of the property owners. Owner
contact and consent, sampling plans,
analytical data, remediation activities
and final closeout procedures were
extensively documented. Property
Documentation Reports (completion
reports) were sent to property owners
and are kept on file at EPA.
LCCHP Blood-Lead Monitoring
The LCCHP also included voluntary
blood-lead monitoring (with financial
incentives, as appropriate) for all
children six years old and under, and
pregnant or nursing women. As part of
the program, appropriate actions were
taken when the concentration of lead in
blood of a child or a pregnant or nursing
woman exceeded the blood-lead
criterion, or when the concentration of
lead exceeded a specified set of trigger
criteria for one or more of the
environmental media at a residence.
LCCHP Trigger Levels
These trigger criteria are summarized
below:
• Blood-lead greater than or equal to 10
μg/dL;
• Soil with lead concentrations greater
than or equal to 3,500 mg/Kg;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
• Dust in houses with lead
concentrations greater than or equal
to 2,000 ppm;
• Tap water with lead concentrations
greater than or equal to 15 μg/l; and
• Interior or exterior paint, in poor
condition, with the following lead
levels:
• Greater than or equal to 1 mg/cm2
triggers educational action, and
• Greater than or equal to 6 mg/cm2
triggers active remediation
When one or more of the trigger
criteria were exceeded, a work group
evaluated a range of different response
actions. The most appropriate response
action was determined by evaluating the
nature and extent of the exceedance,
overall protectiveness of the action,
compliance with applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements, long-term
effectiveness and permanence, shortterm effectiveness, implementability,
cost effectiveness, and community
impacts. The work group also
considered the views of the property
owner, and only implemented response
actions when property owners provided
permission. Extensive education and
intervention programs to manage lead
exposure at the Site were an integral
component of each action considered.
Scientific Review of LCCHP
Since the LCCHP was considered a
‘‘pilot project’’ that involved a number of
innovative approaches, the program was
(1) evaluated by a group of outside
scientists and (2) included ongoing
review to ensure that the program was
operating as intended and that human
health was being adequately protected.
The ongoing review included the
establishment of performance standards
which when met would indicate the
successful completion of the LCCHP
and the beginning of operation and
maintenance.
Performance Standards
The 1999 ROD provided that
performance standards would be
established during the remedial design
phase. These performance standards
were necessary to determine if the
blood-lead monitoring program met the
RAOs. The performance standards were
set out in a July 2002 addendum to the
OU9 remedial design and are
summarized in the Final Methods and
Standards for Evaluating the
Performance of the LCCHP.
As documented in annual reports
beginning in 2002, the data collected
was analyzed, and the results were
compared to the performance standards,
expressed as goals for blood-lead levels
in children, to determine the
effectiveness of the program.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
During the calendar year 2005, the
performance standards established by
EPA for the selected remedy were met.
This conclusion is supported and
documented in the 2005 LCCHP annual
report.
The LCCHP was implemented as
required by the ROD and under the
Methods and Standards for Evaluating
the Performance of the Program.
ASARCO continued to execute the
LCCHP until July 2005 when ASARCO
declared bankruptcy, after which EPA
managed the LCCHP soil investigations
and cleanups. The work group
continued the blood-lead monitoring
and education/outreach programs.
Response Actions
KF conducted several time critical
removal actions from October 1995 to
April 2000. Under the LCCHP from
April 2000 to the summer of 2009, time
critical removal actions were completed
on multiple residences, commercial
properties and vacant lots.
From October 1995 to the summer of
2009, 1040 properties were investigated.
270 of those properties required a soil
removal action. Forty properties, which
may or may not have had soil removals,
have had dust removed or paint
repaired/replaced. The EPA conducted
the last property assessment and
response actions in the summer of 2009.
‘‘Last Call’’
In an effort to include any property
that had not participated in the LCCHP,
a ‘‘last call’’ for property owners to have
their property investigated was given in
2006 by the EPA and ASARCO. EPA
sent a letter notifying property owners
of the ‘‘last call’’ and published several
notices in the Leadville Herald
Democrat. EPA completed
investigations and remediation of ‘‘last
call’’ properties in the summer of 2009.
Due to ASARCO’s bankruptcy in
2005, EPA proceeded to finish the
assessment and cleanup of properties
that were already scheduled for work.
Additionally, EPA also investigated and
cleaned up properties from the ‘‘last
call.’’ Due to the short construction
season in Lake County, the last Site
assessment and on the ground
construction work was not completed
until the summer of 2009.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
On March 15, 2010, Lake County
passed a resolution approving the
LCCHP Phase 2 Work Plan and adopting
the LCCHP Phase 2 as an IC for OU9.
With the County’s passing of the
resolution to adopt the LCCHP Phase 2
Work Plan as an IC for OU9, remedial
action was completed.
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Moreover on December 23, 2009, the
County also passed a resolution, which
serves as an IC. The resolution amends
the Lake County Land Development
Code Chapter 3.2. The Lake County
Building and Land Use Department
(LCBLUD) is required to provide
building permit applicants within the
boundaries of the remaining 38 mine
waste piles in OU9 with a handout
regarding Best Management Practices for
managing potentially contaminated soils
in Lake County. Each applicant is
obligated to sign a document attesting to
the fact that he/she received, read and
understood the Lake County Best
Management handout. No building
permit will be issued without the
applicant’s written acknowledgement
provided to the LCBLUD. Additionally,
written proof of approval from the
CDPHE is a condition precedent to
issuance of a building permit by the
LCBLUD.
Operation and Maintenance
The LCCHP Phase 2 Work Plan also
serves as the operations and
maintenance (O & M) plan for OU9. The
goal of the LCCHP Phase 2 is to
maintain the progress made in reducing
overall lead-related risk to children and
pregnant and nursing women who live
in Leadville through education, bloodlead monitoring of children,
investigation when elevated blood lead
is detected, and a cleanup response, if
appropriate.
In addition to blood-lead monitoring,
the LCCHP Phase 2 includes community
education and outreach. Under the
modified program, Lake County
provides information to residents and
families with children to promote
ongoing community awareness of health
risks from lead exposures. The Lake
County Public Health Agency provides
this information several ways, including
periodic public notices in the
newspaper, brochures in physicians’
offices, and handouts during
immunization visits. Additionally, Lake
County provides counseling, education
and small incentives to families who
participate in the modified program’s
blood-lead monitoring program.
The most significant change from the
LCCHP (remedial action) is that
residential environmental sampling and
cleanup for soil, dust and paint are only
offered:
(1) When children or pregnant/
nursing mothers living at a property
have blood-lead levels at or above the
Center for Disease Control’s level of
concern, currently 10 μg/dl; or
(2) At the specific recommendation of
either the work group or the Lake
County Public Health Agency.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
The original program allowed
residents to request environmental
sampling with no preconditions. This
service is no longer available. In
addition, the work group may not offer
environmental sampling if preliminary
investigation indicates the source of
lead exposure is solely from household
items such as consumer goods, toys,
candy, etc. Environmental sampling and
cleanup will occur as directed by the
work group and only with the consent
of the resident and/or property owner.
The County and State administer the
LCCHP Phase 2 with EPA oversight. The
Lake County Public Health Agency
monitors blood-lead concentrations in
individual children who live within the
County, and provides workshops and
educational material to families about
preventing exposure to lead. CDPHE
performs data management,
environmental sampling and cleanup
upon recommendation of the work
group.
Five-Year Review
The remedies at the entire Site,
including OU9, require ongoing fiveyear reviews in accordance with
CERCLA Section 121(c) and Section
300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP. The next
five-year review for the California Gulch
Site is scheduled for 2012.
In the 2007 five-year review for the
Site, the OU9 remedy that was
determined was protective of human
health and the environment. However,
concerns were noted about continued
protectiveness because ICs were not in
place and an O & M Plan did not exist.
Those concerns were resolved when the
work group approved the LCCHP Phase
2 as an IC and O & M Plan for properties
in OU9, and Lake County adopted ICs
by resolution.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities have
been satisfied as required in CERCLA
Section 113(k), 42 U. S. C. 9613(k) and
CERCLA Section 117, 42 U. S. C. 9617.
Documents in the partial deletion
docket which the EPA relied on for
recommendation for the partial deletion
from the NPL are available to the public
in the information repositories and a
notice of availability of the Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion has been
published in the Leadville Herald
Democrat to satisfy public participation
procedures required by 40 CFR
300.425(e)(4).
A fact sheet outlining the new LCCHP
Phase 2 was presented to the public in
June 2009. The public commented and
EPA responded. The State, the Lake
County Commissioners and the Mayor
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30033
of Leadville are supportive of the
deletion of OU9.
Determination That the Criteria for
Deletion Have Been Met
More specifically for OU9, EPA and
the State have determined that the
responsible parties completed all
appropriate response actions. EPA has
consulted with the State, Lake County
Commissioners, and the City of
Leadville, Colorado, on the proposed
partial deletion of OU9 from the NPL
prior to developing this Notice of Partial
Deletion. Through the five-year reviews,
EPA has also determined that the
response actions taken are protective of
public health or the environment and,
therefore, taking of additional remedial
measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c)
and the NCP, EPA will finalize the next
five-year review in 2012 to ensure the
continued protectiveness of remedial
actions where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at
the Site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the
State of Colorado through the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment on February 16, 2011, has
determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance,
monitoring and five-year reviews, have
been completed. Therefore, EPA is
deleting the remaining portions of OU9,
the Residential Populated Areas, from
the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to
be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is
taking it without prior publication. This
action will be effective July 25, 2011
unless EPA receives adverse comments
by June 23, 2011. If adverse comments
are received within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal of this direct final
notice of partial deletion before the
effective date of the partial deletion and
it will not take effect. EPA will prepare
a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of
the notice of intent to partially delete
and the comments already received.
There will be no additional opportunity
to comment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
30034
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
PART 300—[AMENDED]
Appendix B—[Amended]
Dated: May 10, 2011.
James Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
■
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,
3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Appendix B to Part 300—National
Priorities List
For the reasons set out in this
document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300
is amended by revising the entry under
‘‘California Gulch’’, Colorado to read as
follows:
TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State
Site name
*
*
CO ..............................................................
*
*
California Gulch .........................................
*
*
*
Notes (a)
City/county
*
*
*
*
Leadville ..................................................... P
*
*
*
(a) *
* *
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 930792–3265]
RIN 0648–XA431
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp
Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic
States; Reopening of Commercial
Penaeid Shrimp Trawling Off South
Carolina
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; reopening.
AGENCY:
NMFS reopens commercial
penaeid shrimp trawling, i.e., for brown,
pink, and white shrimp, in the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) off South Carolina
in the South Atlantic. NMFS previously
closed commercial penaeid shrimp
trawling in the EEZ off South Carolina
on March 22, 2011. The reopening is
intended to maximize harvest benefits
while protecting the penaeid shrimp
resource.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
SUMMARY:
The reopening is effective 12:01
a.m., local time, June 7, 2011, until the
effective date of a notification of a
closure which will be published in the
Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Steve Branstetter, 727–824–5305;
e-mail: Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:04 May 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
Penaeid
shrimp in the South Atlantic are
managed under the Fishery
Management Plan for the Shrimp
Fishery of the South Atlantic Region
(FMP). The FMP was prepared by the
South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (Council) and is implemented
under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Under 50 CFR 622.35(d)(1), NMFS
may close the EEZ adjacent to South
Atlantic states that have closed their
waters to the harvest of brown, pink,
and white shrimp to protect the white
shrimp spawning stock that has been
severely depleted by cold weather.
Consistent with those procedures and
criteria, after determining that
unusually cold temperatures resulted in
at least an 80-percent reduction of the
white shrimp populations in its state
waters, the state of South Carolina
closed its waters on January 10, 2011, to
the harvest of brown, pink, and white
shrimp. South Carolina subsequently
requested that the Council and NMFS
implement a concurrent closure of the
EEZ off South Carolina.
The Council approved South
Carolina’s request and requested that
NMFS concurrently close the EEZ off
South Carolina to the harvest of brown,
pink, and white shrimp. NMFS
determined that the recommended
closure conformed with the procedures
and criteria specified in the FMP and
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and,
therefore, implemented the closure
effective as of March 22, 2011 (76 FR
16698, March 25, 2011).
During the closure, as specified in
50 CFR 622.35(d)(2), no person could:
(1) Trawl for brown, pink, or white
shrimp in the EEZ off South Carolina;
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2011–12763 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(2) possess on board a fishing vessel
brown, pink, or white shrimp in or from
the EEZ off South Carolina unless the
vessel is in transit through the area and
all nets with a mesh size of less than 4
inches (10.2 cm) are stowed below deck;
or (3) for a vessel trawling within 25
nautical miles of the baseline from
which the territorial sea is measured,
use or have on board a trawl net with
a mesh size less than 4 inches (10.2 cm),
as measured between the centers of
opposite knots when pulled taut.
The FMP and implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 622.35(d) state
that: (1) The closure will be effective
until the state’s requested ending date of
the closure in the respective state’s
waters, but may be ended earlier based
on the state’s request; and (2) if the state
closure is ended earlier, NMFS will
terminate the closure of the EEZ by
filing a notification to that effect with
the Office of the Federal Register. Based
on biological sampling and the initial
request from the state of South Carolina,
the reopening of the EEZ waters off
South Carolina would occur no later
than June 7, 2011. Therefore, NMFS
publishes this notification to reopen the
EEZ off South Carolina to the harvest of
brown, pink, and white shrimp effective
12:01 a.m., local time, June 7, 2011.
Classification
This action responds to the best
available information recently obtained
from the fishery. The Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA,
(AA), finds good cause to waive the
requirement to provide prior notice and
opportunity for public comment
pursuant to the authority set forth at
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Allowing prior
notice and opportunity for public
comment on the reopening is
unnecessary because the rule
E:\FR\FM\24MYR1.SGM
24MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30027-30034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12763]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9310-8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion of the remaining
portions of Operable Unit 9 (OU9), the Residential Populated Areas, of
the California Gulch Superfund Site (Site), located in Lake County,
Colorado, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
[[Page 30028]]
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final partial deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence
of the State of Colorado, through the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (CDPHE) because EPA has determined that all
appropriate response actions at these identified parcels under CERCLA,
other than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
This partial deletion pertains to the remaining portions of OU9,
the Residential Populated Areas. Subunits A and B, residential waste
rock piles, and the parks and playgrounds within Operable Unit 9 were
partially deleted from the NPL on January 30, 2002. In addition, OU2,
OU8, and OU10 have been partially deleted from the NPL. The Yak Tunnel
(OU1), D&RGW Slag Piles and Easement (OU3), Upper California Gulch
(OU4), ASARCO Smelter/Colorado Zinc-Lead Mill Site (OU5), Stray Horse
Gulch (OU6), Apache Tailing (OU7), Arkansas River Floodplain (OU11),
and Site-wide Surface and Groundwater Quality (OU12) will remain on the
NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of this action.
DATES: This direct final partial deletion is effective July 25, 2011
unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 23, 2011. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final partial deletion in the Federal Register informing the
public that the partial deletion will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: Linda Kiefer, kiefer.linda@epa.gov
Fax: (303) 312-7151.
Mail: Linda Kiefer, Remedial Project Manager,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.
Hand delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8,
Mail Code 8EPR-SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002. 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 without
going 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 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 hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region 8, Superfund Records Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, CO 80202. (303) 312-6473 or toll free (800) 227-8917; Viewing
hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
and
Lake County Public Library, 1115 Harrison Avenue, Leadville, CO 80461,
(719) 486-0569
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Kiefer, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode EPR-
SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129, (303) 312-6689 e-mail:
kiefer.linda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Partial Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Partial Deletion
V. Partial Deletion Action
I. Introduction
EPA Region 8 is publishing this direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion for the remaining portions of Operable Unit 9 (OU9),
Residential Populated Areas, of the California Gulch Superfund Site
(Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, of 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) of 1980, as amended. EPA
maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. 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 is consistent with
the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the
National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL
remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions
warrant such actions.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective July 25, 2011 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 23, 2011. Along with this direct
final Notice of Partial Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the
Federal Register. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish
a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion
before the effective date of the partial deletion and the partial
deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a
response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the
basis of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments
[[Page 30029]]
already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the remaining portion of OU9,
Residential Populated Areas, of the California Gulch Superfund Site and
demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses
EPA's action to partially delete the Site parcels from the NPL unless
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.
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. 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:
i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
III. Partial Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to the deletion of the remaining
portions of OU9 of the Site:
(1) EPA has consulted with the State of Colorado prior to
developing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notice
of Intent for Partial Deletion co-published in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of the Federal Register.
(2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion prior to
their publication today, and the State, through the Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment, has concurred on the partial deletion
of the Site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Partial Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published in a major
local newspaper, the Leadville Herald Democrat. The newspaper notice
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the partial
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a
timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already
received.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter
EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion
of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for further
response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
remaining portion of OU9, Residential Populated Areas of the California
Gulch Superfund Site from the NPL.
Site Background and History
The California Gulch Superfund Site (Site), EPA ID No.
COD980717938, is located in Lake County, Colorado approximately 100
miles southwest of Denver. The Site was proposed for inclusion on the
National Priorities List, December 30, 1982, 47 FR 58476, and listed on
September 8, 1983, 48 FR 40,658. The Site is in a highly mineralized
area of the Colorado Rocky Mountains covering approximately 18 square
miles of a watershed that drains along California Gulch to the Arkansas
River. The Site includes the City of Leadville, various parts of the
Leadville Historic Mining District, Stringtown, and a section of the
Arkansas River from the confluence of California Gulch to the
confluence of Two-Bit Gulch. Being a Rocky Mountain community, the City
of Leadville (population 2,801) has a high percentage of second homes.
Commercial, residential, and industrial properties and vacant lots are
mixed in together. Mining, mineral processing, and smelting activities
have occurred at the Site for more than 130 years. Mining in the
district began in 1860, when placer gold was discovered in California
Gulch. As the placer deposits were exhausted, underground workings
became the principal method for removing gold, silver, lead and zinc
ore. As these mines were developed, waste rock was excavated along with
the ore and placed near the mine entrances. Ore was crushed and
separated into metallic concentrates at mills, with mill tailing
generally slurried into tailing impoundments. The Leadville area was
the site of extensive gold, silver, lead and zinc mining, milling and
smelting operations. Most of the facilities ceased operations around
1900, although several facilities continued operations into the 1920s
(Western Zinc) and the 1960s (AV Smelter).
All of the mines within the Site boundaries are presently inactive,
and all of the mills and smelters have been demolished. As a result of
these operations, the Site contains mill tailing (the fine-grained
residue remaining after milling and separation has removed the metal
concentrates form the ore) impoundments, fluvial deposits, slag piles,
mine waste rock piles (mine development rock and low grade ore removed
to gain access to an ore body, and often deposited near adits and shaft
openings), and mine water drainage tunnel which have further
distributed heavy metals throughout the area. In addition, smelters,
which previously operated at the Site, have historically been a source
of heavy metals from dust and stack emissions.
The Site was placed on the NPL due to concerns regarding the impact
of acidic and metals laden mine drainage on surface waters leading to
California Gulch and the impact of heavy metals loading into the
Arkansas River. A Site-wide Phase I Remedial Investigation
[[Page 30030]]
(Phase I RI), which primarily addressed surface and groundwater
contamination, was issued in January 1987. As a result of the Phase I
RI, EPA identified the first operable unit, the Yak Tunnel, to address
the largest single source of metallic loading. A number of additional
Site-wide studies followed the Phase I RI.
EPA agreed, pursuant to a May 2, 1994 Consent Decree (1994 CD), to
divide the Site into 12 operable units (OUs). With the exception of
OU12, the operable units pertain to distinct geographical areas
corresponding to areas of responsibility for the identified responsible
parties and/or to distinct sources of contamination. The OUs are as
follows:
1. Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment Plant
2. Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments and Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial
Tailing
3. D&RGW Slag Piles and Easement
4. Upper California Gulch
5. ASARCO Smelter Sites/Slag/Mill Sites
6. Starr Ditch/Stray Horse Gulch/Lower Evans Gulch/Penrose Mine Waste
Pile
7. Apache Tailing Impoundments
8. Lower California Gulch
9. Residential Populated Areas
10. Oregon Gulch
11. Arkansas River Valley Floodplain
12. Site-wide Surface and Groundwater
To date, OU2; OU8; OU10; and parts of OU9--Subunits A and B,
residential mine waste rock piles, and the parks and playgrounds--have
been partially deleted from the NPL.
OU9 Background and History
The soils in OU9 have been highly disturbed by human activities.
The yards of most residences have grass cover over either native soil
or imported fill. The sources of fill materials have included areas
outside the Site and waste rock and tailing from California and Stray
Horse Gulch. Even though mining operations are no longer active at the
Site, waste products and other residues from past mining and smelting
activities are present in OU9--some as visible features. Additionally,
smelter emissions and slag may have contaminated some residential
soils.
OU9 includes residential area soils in those portions of the Site
where the land use is residential or that were zoned as residential/
populated areas and as low-density residential areas on or before
September 2, 1999. A map of OU9, named OU9 Partial Deletion--
Residential Areas, can be found in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov under California Gulch. Residential area soils are
defined as soils in the residential area of the Site (see Attachment A
of the 1994 CD) which may have been impacted by past smelting and
mining activities. This encompasses the City of Leadville, Stringtown,
and outlying areas zoned for residential use. Included are residential
properties, yards, parks, vacant lots, schools yards, playgrounds, and
community use areas, including unpaved streets and alleys. Additionally
OU9 includes 38 mine waste piles located within the populated areas of
eastern Leadville. For ease in determining compliance with blood
monitoring performance standards, OU9 was geographically divided into
statistical subunits A through G.
Subunits A and B (the shaded area of OU9 on the map in the docket),
38 residential waste rock piles, and the parks and playgrounds within
OU 9 were partially deleted from the NPL on January 30, 2002.
The remaining portion of OU9 (shown in yellow on the map in the
docket) are the subject of this deletion. EPA is the lead agency for
OU9; Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is
the support agency. Under the 1994 CD, ASARCO assumed responsibility
for OU9.
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
Remedial Investigations
The State of Colorado, EPA and certain Potentially Responsible
Parties have conducted various studies and investigations to evaluate
the nature and extent of contamination within the Site. In 1991,
Remedial Investigations (RIs) began for several areas within the Site,
including mine waste rock piles, tailing disposal areas, surface water
and aquatics, groundwater, smelter sites, residential/populated area
soils, slag piles, and terrestrial studies. These studies have
determined lead in soils to be the primary contaminant of concern in
OU9.
Interim Response--The Kids First Program
ASARCO and many community members argued that there are numerous
environmental sources of lead in the residential areas of Leadville.
One primary source was mining-related primary sources such tailing and
mine waste piles. Other primary sources include lead-containing paint
on interior and exterior surfaces of homes and lead found in food,
water, and residential soils. As recommended by ASARCO and the
community, the interim response was designed to reduce overall lead-
related risk to children in Leadville, including responses that address
sources that would not normally be remediated under CERCLA authorities.
As part of the 1994 CD with EPA and the State, ASARCO agreed to
undertake actions to address all sources of lead in lieu of soil
removal only at each residence. To determine the effectiveness of the
actions, the level of lead in children's blood was voluntarily
monitored and performance standards in relation to concentrations of
lead in the blood of children were established.
In 1995, ASARCO began implementing the Lead Risk Reduction Program
(LRRP), more commonly known as the Kids First Program (KF). ASARCO
agreed to operate KF as an interim response action until EPA selected a
remedy for OU9.
The purpose of KF, a risk reduction response program based on
voluntary participation, was to: (1) Provide information to the
community, and (2) reduce children's exposure to secondary sources of
lead. KF consisted of a variety of services and remedial response
activities designed to: (1) Gather information from the community, (2)
identify residences for which response actions are needed, (3) plan and
prioritize the risk reduction responses for these residences, (4)
perform the risk reduction responses, and (5) provide additional
information and services to the community.
Initially KF targeted residences where sample soil lead levels were
found above 3,500 mg/kg because EPA established an interim response
level of 3,500 mg/kg lead for Leadville residential soils. The basis
for this value is presented in the 1994 CD, along with a discussion of
trigger criteria for other significant environmental media (dust, paint
and water). These trigger criteria were used by the KF work group to
identify and prioritize locations for response actions.
Residences with children that had blood-lead levels greater than 10
[mu]g/dl, measured during the 1991 Blood-Lead Study or any subsequent
blood-lead monitoring, were targeted for priority response in the
program.
Information used in the evaluation of residences and the selection
of appropriate response actions (if needed) came from a variety of
sources. Response programs included within KF were:
The blood-lead monitoring program by Lake County Health
Department;
A lead information hotline and a door-to-door survey
within priority exposure areas; and
[[Page 30031]]
Additional environmental sampling and property assessment.
The Lake County Health Department managed the voluntary blood-lead
monitoring program, which was funded by ASARCO. The blood-lead
monitoring program was a key component of the interim response program.
Ongoing blood-lead monitoring was provided upon request for children
below the age of 72 months (6 years) and for pregnant/nursing women.
The data were used as one means of identifying individuals who had
blood-lead levels greater than 10 [mu]g/dl. The data were also used in
the finalization of the Baseline Risk Assessment.
All homeowners or residents who responded via the hotline/office or
door-to-door surveys received information about the program. The
Information Hotline and the door-to-door surveys resulted in the need
for additional environmental sampling of soils, paint, dust, water, and
blood-lead levels. Environmental sampling was conducted if the
residence: (1) Was located in the 3,500 mg/kg lead soils priority area,
(2) had a child with a blood-lead level greater than 10 [mu]g/dl, (3)
had a pregnant or nursing woman in the home, (4) was known to have
paint in poor condition or known to have another possible lead source
(lead pipes, certain hobbies, etc.), or (5) was requested by a resident
who is not within the designated priority risk area.
The first year remediations were performed at 37 properties in
accordance with Action Memoranda prepared for each property. The KF
work group developed and approved all action and no-action
determinations. The property owners consented on all investigations and
remediations.
KF integrated a variety of lead toxicity intervention and abatement
methods. Additionally, KF addressed reducing children's exposure to
lead in soils, dust-containing lead in residences, and additional lead
sources such as paint and tap water. For these reasons, KF was
presented as an alternative in the feasibility study when it was
revised and renamed the Lake County Community Health Program (LCCHP).
Risk Assessments
Concurrent with the interim response, numerous risk assessments
were conducted as part of the investigation. They included Baseline
Human Health Risk Assessments (BRAs): Part A (Weston 1996), Part B
(Weston 1996), and Part C (Weston 1995); Ecological Risk Assessment for
Terrestrial Ecosystems (Weston 1997); Surface Water Human Health Risk
Assessment (Golder 1996); Groundwater Baseline Human Health Rick
Assessment (Golder, June 1996) and Baseline Aquatic Ecological Risk
Assessment (Weston 1995).
The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessments (BRAs) concluded that
lead was the only contaminant of concern (COC) for OU9. There are no
locations on-Site where antimony, barium, cadmium, beryllium, chromium,
copper, mercury, nickel, silver, thallium, or zinc are of significant
concern in residential soil. The risk assessment also concluded that
non-lead metals (including arsenic and manganese) in residential soils
do not pose a significant health risk to residents.
The risk assessment for lead was supported by a large body of Site-
specific data. Included were: (1) Extensive measurements of lead in
soil and dust in residential locations, (2) an extensive demographics
survey, data on lead levels in water and paint (both interior and
exterior), (3) data on the physical and chemical forms of lead at
various locations around the community, and (4) an informative
community-wide blood-lead study involving 314 children (about 65% of
the total population of children at the Site). This data was used to
support two parallel lines of investigation and assessment. The first
of these employed EPA's Integrated Exposure Uptake and Biokinetic
(IEUBK) model to calculate the expected impact of lead levels in soil
and dust on blood-lead levels in area children. The second approach
compared the measured blood-lead values in area children with relevant
national blood-lead statistics in order to help evaluate the current
effects of actual Site exposure to lead.
Several ecological risk assessments were performed on a site-wide
basis for the California Gulch Site. These are available in the docket
or on the EPA Web site, https://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/co/calgulch/. These assessments showed a potential unacceptable risk to
small mammals and breeding birds. However, given the data available,
there was little evidence of population-level effects on small mammals
or breeding birds. In addition, calculated ecological risk due to
potential exposure to tailing or waste rock media found in other
operable units was higher than risks resulting from potential exposure
to surrounding soils found in OU9.
Feasibility Study (FS)
The Final Residential Soil Feasibility Study, completed by Golder
Associates in November of 1998, evaluated seven remedial alternatives
to address the residential soils of properties, yards and open space
areas within OU9 where lead levels exceeded the trigger level of 3,500
mg/kg.
One alternative in the FS was the LCCHP, a revised version of the
KF used during the interim response. The LCCHP combined blood-lead
monitoring, education, community awareness, and residence specific
response actions reduced the potential for children to be exposed to
lead in Leadville and surrounding areas. This program addressed lead in
soil and dust, interior and exterior paint, plumbing fixtures, and
dietary and household sources. It also included institutional controls
to ensure effectiveness of the LCCHP. Operation and maintenance
activities included LCCHP administration and the blood-lead monitoring
program.
Selected Remedy
Signed on September 2, 1999, the OU9 Record of Decision (1999 ROD)
selected a remedy for addressing lead in soils in residential
population areas. The selected remedy was the LCCHP with institutional
controls (ICs) to ensure the effectiveness of the LCCHP. In September
2009, an Explanation of Significant Differences required ICs for the 17
mine waste piles remaining in OU9.
The Remedial Action Objectives (RAO) from the 1999 ROD are:
RAO-1: No more than 5% of children age 0-72 months
residing within OU9, either now or in the future, should have blood-
lead values exceeding 10 [mu]g/dl.
RAO-2: No more than 1% of children age 0-72 months
residing within OU9, either now or in the future, should have blood-
lead values exceeding 15 [mu]g/dl.
RAO-3: Reduce direct exposure of lead incurred by children
which result in optimal risk reduction through effective use of
resources.
LCCHP
The LCCHP combined (1) Community awareness and education, (2)
residence-specific response actions to reduce the risk of lead exposure
to children in Leadville and (3) blood-lead monitoring. Funding for the
LCCHP was from a trust fund established by ASARCO under the 1994 CD.
LCCHP Community Awareness and Education
The LCCHP involved an extensive education and intervention program
to manage lead exposure at the Site. The educational program focused on
raising public awareness about risks from lead
[[Page 30032]]
and encouraged participation in the LCCHP. Outreach included the
hotline, door-to-door contacts, public notices, mailings, publications,
meetings and incentives. Education included individual face-to-face
consultations with residents and customized recommendations for
specific actions that reduced the residents' risk to lead exposure. The
recommendations made to each resident were based on the results of
environmental lead sampling at their homes and specific information
collected by the program about their daily habits and activities.
Follow-up education, consultation, and intervention continued with
families that had young children by the Lake County Health Department
through their blood-lead monitoring program; Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC); and Head Start.
LCCHP Residence-Specific Actions
Through this program, Leadville residents were able to request an
investigation of lead levels in soil, dust, paint, and water on their
property. Properties owners could also request a re-investigation if
conditions changed. The LCCHP investigated and remediated lead
concentrations in soil, paint, dust, and water on a property-by-
property basis. Sampling plans were designed for each individual
investigated property. Action was taken when trigger levels were
exceeded. All investigations and remediations were performed with the
consent of the property owners. Owner contact and consent, sampling
plans, analytical data, remediation activities and final closeout
procedures were extensively documented. Property Documentation Reports
(completion reports) were sent to property owners and are kept on file
at EPA.
LCCHP Blood-Lead Monitoring
The LCCHP also included voluntary blood-lead monitoring (with
financial incentives, as appropriate) for all children six years old
and under, and pregnant or nursing women. As part of the program,
appropriate actions were taken when the concentration of lead in blood
of a child or a pregnant or nursing woman exceeded the blood-lead
criterion, or when the concentration of lead exceeded a specified set
of trigger criteria for one or more of the environmental media at a
residence.
LCCHP Trigger Levels
These trigger criteria are summarized below:
Blood-lead greater than or equal to 10 [mu]g/dL;
Soil with lead concentrations greater than or equal to 3,500
mg/Kg;
Dust in houses with lead concentrations greater than or equal
to 2,000 ppm;
Tap water with lead concentrations greater than or equal to 15
[mu]g/l; and
Interior or exterior paint, in poor condition, with the
following lead levels:
Greater than or equal to 1 mg/cm\2\ triggers educational
action, and
Greater than or equal to 6 mg/cm\2\ triggers active
remediation
When one or more of the trigger criteria were exceeded, a work
group evaluated a range of different response actions. The most
appropriate response action was determined by evaluating the nature and
extent of the exceedance, overall protectiveness of the action,
compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements,
long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term effectiveness,
implementability, cost effectiveness, and community impacts. The work
group also considered the views of the property owner, and only
implemented response actions when property owners provided permission.
Extensive education and intervention programs to manage lead exposure
at the Site were an integral component of each action considered.
Scientific Review of LCCHP
Since the LCCHP was considered a ``pilot project'' that involved a
number of innovative approaches, the program was (1) evaluated by a
group of outside scientists and (2) included ongoing review to ensure
that the program was operating as intended and that human health was
being adequately protected. The ongoing review included the
establishment of performance standards which when met would indicate
the successful completion of the LCCHP and the beginning of operation
and maintenance.
Performance Standards
The 1999 ROD provided that performance standards would be
established during the remedial design phase. These performance
standards were necessary to determine if the blood-lead monitoring
program met the RAOs. The performance standards were set out in a July
2002 addendum to the OU9 remedial design and are summarized in the
Final Methods and Standards for Evaluating the Performance of the
LCCHP.
As documented in annual reports beginning in 2002, the data
collected was analyzed, and the results were compared to the
performance standards, expressed as goals for blood-lead levels in
children, to determine the effectiveness of the program.
During the calendar year 2005, the performance standards
established by EPA for the selected remedy were met. This conclusion is
supported and documented in the 2005 LCCHP annual report.
The LCCHP was implemented as required by the ROD and under the
Methods and Standards for Evaluating the Performance of the Program.
ASARCO continued to execute the LCCHP until July 2005 when ASARCO
declared bankruptcy, after which EPA managed the LCCHP soil
investigations and cleanups. The work group continued the blood-lead
monitoring and education/outreach programs.
Response Actions
KF conducted several time critical removal actions from October
1995 to April 2000. Under the LCCHP from April 2000 to the summer of
2009, time critical removal actions were completed on multiple
residences, commercial properties and vacant lots.
From October 1995 to the summer of 2009, 1040 properties were
investigated. 270 of those properties required a soil removal action.
Forty properties, which may or may not have had soil removals, have had
dust removed or paint repaired/replaced. The EPA conducted the last
property assessment and response actions in the summer of 2009.
``Last Call''
In an effort to include any property that had not participated in
the LCCHP, a ``last call'' for property owners to have their property
investigated was given in 2006 by the EPA and ASARCO. EPA sent a letter
notifying property owners of the ``last call'' and published several
notices in the Leadville Herald Democrat. EPA completed investigations
and remediation of ``last call'' properties in the summer of 2009.
Due to ASARCO's bankruptcy in 2005, EPA proceeded to finish the
assessment and cleanup of properties that were already scheduled for
work. Additionally, EPA also investigated and cleaned up properties
from the ``last call.'' Due to the short construction season in Lake
County, the last Site assessment and on the ground construction work
was not completed until the summer of 2009.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
On March 15, 2010, Lake County passed a resolution approving the
LCCHP Phase 2 Work Plan and adopting the LCCHP Phase 2 as an IC for
OU9. With the County's passing of the resolution to adopt the LCCHP
Phase 2 Work Plan as an IC for OU9, remedial action was completed.
[[Page 30033]]
Moreover on December 23, 2009, the County also passed a resolution,
which serves as an IC. The resolution amends the Lake County Land
Development Code Chapter 3.2. The Lake County Building and Land Use
Department (LCBLUD) is required to provide building permit applicants
within the boundaries of the remaining 38 mine waste piles in OU9 with
a handout regarding Best Management Practices for managing potentially
contaminated soils in Lake County. Each applicant is obligated to sign
a document attesting to the fact that he/she received, read and
understood the Lake County Best Management handout. No building permit
will be issued without the applicant's written acknowledgement provided
to the LCBLUD. Additionally, written proof of approval from the CDPHE
is a condition precedent to issuance of a building permit by the
LCBLUD.
Operation and Maintenance
The LCCHP Phase 2 Work Plan also serves as the operations and
maintenance (O & M) plan for OU9. The goal of the LCCHP Phase 2 is to
maintain the progress made in reducing overall lead-related risk to
children and pregnant and nursing women who live in Leadville through
education, blood-lead monitoring of children, investigation when
elevated blood lead is detected, and a cleanup response, if
appropriate.
In addition to blood-lead monitoring, the LCCHP Phase 2 includes
community education and outreach. Under the modified program, Lake
County provides information to residents and families with children to
promote ongoing community awareness of health risks from lead
exposures. The Lake County Public Health Agency provides this
information several ways, including periodic public notices in the
newspaper, brochures in physicians' offices, and handouts during
immunization visits. Additionally, Lake County provides counseling,
education and small incentives to families who participate in the
modified program's blood-lead monitoring program.
The most significant change from the LCCHP (remedial action) is
that residential environmental sampling and cleanup for soil, dust and
paint are only offered:
(1) When children or pregnant/nursing mothers living at a property
have blood-lead levels at or above the Center for Disease Control's
level of concern, currently 10 [mu]g/dl; or
(2) At the specific recommendation of either the work group or the
Lake County Public Health Agency.
The original program allowed residents to request environmental
sampling with no preconditions. This service is no longer available. In
addition, the work group may not offer environmental sampling if
preliminary investigation indicates the source of lead exposure is
solely from household items such as consumer goods, toys, candy, etc.
Environmental sampling and cleanup will occur as directed by the work
group and only with the consent of the resident and/or property owner.
The County and State administer the LCCHP Phase 2 with EPA
oversight. The Lake County Public Health Agency monitors blood-lead
concentrations in individual children who live within the County, and
provides workshops and educational material to families about
preventing exposure to lead. CDPHE performs data management,
environmental sampling and cleanup upon recommendation of the work
group.
Five-Year Review
The remedies at the entire Site, including OU9, require ongoing
five-year reviews in accordance with CERCLA Section 121(c) and Section
300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP. The next five-year review for the
California Gulch Site is scheduled for 2012.
In the 2007 five-year review for the Site, the OU9 remedy that was
determined was protective of human health and the environment. However,
concerns were noted about continued protectiveness because ICs were not
in place and an O & M Plan did not exist. Those concerns were resolved
when the work group approved the LCCHP Phase 2 as an IC and O & M Plan
for properties in OU9, and Lake County adopted ICs by resolution.
Community Involvement
Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U. S. C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42
U. S. C. 9617. Documents in the partial deletion docket which the EPA
relied on for recommendation for the partial deletion from the NPL are
available to the public in the information repositories and a notice of
availability of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion has been
published in the Leadville Herald Democrat to satisfy public
participation procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4).
A fact sheet outlining the new LCCHP Phase 2 was presented to the
public in June 2009. The public commented and EPA responded. The State,
the Lake County Commissioners and the Mayor of Leadville are supportive
of the deletion of OU9.
Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met
More specifically for OU9, EPA and the State have determined that
the responsible parties completed all appropriate response actions. EPA
has consulted with the State, Lake County Commissioners, and the City
of Leadville, Colorado, on the proposed partial deletion of OU9 from
the NPL prior to developing this Notice of Partial Deletion. Through
the five-year reviews, EPA has also determined that the response
actions taken are protective of public health or the environment and,
therefore, taking of additional remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA will finalize
the next five-year review in 2012 to ensure the continued
protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
V. Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Colorado through the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment on February 16,
2011, has determined that all appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, monitoring and five-year
reviews, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the remaining
portions of OU9, the Residential Populated Areas, from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective July 25, 2011 unless EPA receives adverse comments by June
23, 2011. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct
final notice of partial deletion before the effective date of the
partial deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a
response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the
basis of the notice of intent to partially delete and the comments
already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
[[Page 30034]]
requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: May 10, 2011.
James Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is
amended as follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Appendix B--[Amended]
0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the entry
under ``California Gulch'', Colorado to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List
Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes \(a)\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CO................................... California Gulch........ Leadville............... P
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(a)\ * * *
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
[FR Doc. 2011-12763 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P