National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan: Partial Deletion of the California Gulch Superfund Site; National Priorities List, 6768-6775 [2016-02601]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6768
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Dated: January 21, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as
follows:
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution or use of energy.
This action makes minor changes to
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to remove references to
U.S. Customs forms and other small
edits.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
EPA believes the human health or
environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income, or indigenous
populations because it does not affect
the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment. This
action makes minor changes to
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to remove references to
U.S. Customs forms and other small
edits.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
EPA will submit a rule report to each
House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Imports, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Feb 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
PART 82—PROTECTION OF
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671–
7671q.
2. In § 82.3, revise the definition for
‘‘Importer’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 82.3 Definitions for class I and class II
controlled substances.
*
*
*
*
*
Importer means any person who
imports a controlled substance or a
controlled product into the United
States. ‘‘Importer’’ includes the person
primarily liable for the payment of any
duties on the merchandise or an
authorized agent acting on his or her
behalf. The term also includes, as
appropriate:
(1) The consignee;
(2) The importer of record;
(3) The actual owner; or
(4) The transferee, if the right to draw
merchandise in a bonded warehouse has
been transferred.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 82.13, revise paragraphs
(g)(1)(xii), (g)(3)(v), and (g)(3)(viii)(D) to
read as follows:
§ 82.13 Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for class I controlled
substances.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(xii) The U.S. Customs entry number;
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(v) To pass the approved used class I
controlled substances through U.S.
Customs, the non-objection notice
issued by EPA must accompany the
shipment through U.S. Customs.
*
*
*
*
*
(viii) * * *
(D) The U.S. Customs entry number.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 82.24, revise paragraphs
(c)(2)(xiii), (c)(4)(v), (c)(4)(viii)(D),
(d)(2)(i), and (d)(3)(i) to read as follows:
§ 82.24 Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for class II controlled
substances.
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00024
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
(xiii) The U.S. Customs entry number;
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(v) To pass the approved used class II
controlled substances through U.S.
Customs, the non-objection notice
issued by EPA must accompany the
shipment through U.S. Customs.
*
*
*
*
*
(viii) * * *
(D) The U.S. Customs entry number.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The Employer Identification
Number of the shipper or their agent;
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(i) The Employer Identification
Number of the shipper or their agent;
and
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 82.104, revise paragraph (m)(2)
to read as follows:
*
§ 82.104
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) * * *
(2) The importer of record;
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–02321 Filed 2–8–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9936–
89–Region 8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan: Partial
Deletion of the California Gulch
Superfund Site; National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is
publishing a direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion of Operable Unit 1
(OU1) Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment
Plant; and Operable Unit 3 (OU3),
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad
Company (D&RGW) Slag Piles/Railroad
Easement/Railroad Yard, 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 Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final partial deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the
State of Colorado (State), through the
Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE) because EPA
has determined that all appropriate
response actions at OU1 and OU3 under
CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews,
have been completed. However, this
partial deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
DATES: This direct final partial deletion
is effective April 11, 2016 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by March
10, 2016. 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.
• Email: 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 by
calling EPA Region 8 at (303) 312–7279.
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 email. 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Feb 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
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 electronically in
https://www.regulations.gov; by calling
EPA Region 8 at (303) 312–7279 and
leaving a message; and at the Lake
County Public Library, 1115 Harrison
Avenue, Leadville, CO 80461, (719)
486–0569, Monday and Wednesday
from 10:00 a.m.–8:00 p.m., Tuesday and
Thursday from 10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.,
and Friday and Saturday 1:00 p.m.–5:00
p.m.
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, email:
kiefer.linda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Partial Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion
V. Partial Deletion Action
I. Introduction
EPA Region 8 is publishing this direct
final Notice of Partial Deletion for all of
Operable Unit 1 (OU1), Yak Tunnel/
Water Treatment Plant; and Operable
Unit 3 (OU3), Denver & Rio Grande
Western Railroad Company (D&RGW)
Slag Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad
Yard, from the NPL. The NPL
constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40
CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated
pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA of
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6769
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 NPL. 60
FR 55466 (November 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.
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 OU1, Yak Tunnel/Water
Treatment Plant; and OU3, D&RGW Slag
Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad Yard,
and demonstrates how they meet 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.
This partial deletion pertains to all of
OU1 and OU3. Operable Unit 2 (OU2),
Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments and
Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial Tailing;
Operable Unit 4 (OU4) Upper California
Gulch; Operable Unit 5 (OU5), ASARCO
Smelters/Slag/Mill Sites; Operable Unit
7 (OU7), Apache Tailing Impoundment;
Operable Unit 8 (OU8), Lower California
Gulch; Operable Unit 9 (OU9),
Residential Populated Areas; and
Operable Unit 10 (OU10), Oregon
Gulch, were deleted from the NPL in
previous partial deletion actions.
Operable Unit 6 (OU6), Starr Ditch/
Stray Horse Gulch/Lower Evans Gulch/
Penrose Mine Waste Pile; Operable Unit
11 (OU11), Arkansas River Floodplain;
and Operable Unit 12 (OU12), Site-wide
Surface and Groundwater Quality, are
not being considered for deletion as part
of this action and will remain on the
NPL.
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;
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
6770
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 OU1 and OU3:
(1) EPA has consulted with the State
prior to developing this direct final
Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notice
of Intent for Partial Deletion copublished 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 CDPHE, has concurred on
the partial deletion of OU1 and OU3 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 OU1 and OU3 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Feb 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 OU1 and
OU3 of the Site from the NPL.
Site Background and History
The California Gulch Superfund Site,
EPA ID No. COD980717938, CERCLIS
Site ID 0801478, is located in Lake
County, Colorado approximately 100
miles southwest of Denver. The Site was
proposed for inclusion on the NPL on
December 30, 1982, (47 FR 58476), and
listed on September 8, 1983, (48 FR
40658). 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.
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 mine 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 released into surrounding
streams and after about 1930 slurried
into tailing impoundments. Many of the
mining operations ceased operations
around 1900, although several smelters
continued operations into the 1920s
(Western Zinc) and the 1960s (AV
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Smelter) and the last active mine, the
Black Cloud, shut down in 1999.
All of the mines within the Site
boundaries are presently inactive, and
all of the mills and smelters have been
demolished. Mining remains that
contributed to environmental
contamination are (1) mill tailing (the
fine-grained residue remaining after
milling has removed the metal
concentrates form the ore) in
impoundments and fluvial deposits; (2)
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); (3) mine water drainage
tunnels; (4) draining adits; and (5)
various smelter wastes including slag
piles, flue dust and fallout from 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
(Phase I RI), which primarily addressed
surface water 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). The OUs are as follows: OU1,
Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment Plant;
OU2, Malta Gulch Tailing
Impoundments and Lower Malta Gulch
Fluvial Tailing; OU3, D&RGW Slag
Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad Yard;
OU4, Upper California Gulch; OU5,
ASARCO Smelter Sites/Slag/Mill Sites;
OU6, Starr Ditch/Stray Horse Gulch/
Lower Evans Gulch/Penrose Mine Waste
Pile; OU7, Apache Tailing
Impoundments; OU8, Lower California
Gulch; OU9, Residential Populated
Areas; OU10, Oregon Gulch; OU11,
Arkansas River Valley Floodplain; and
OU12, Site-wide Surface and
Groundwater. With the exception of
OU12, the OUs pertain to distinct
geographical areas corresponding to
areas of responsibility for the identified
responsible parties and/or to distinct
sources of contamination. To date, OU2,
OU4, OU5, OU7, OU8, OU9, and OU10
have been partially deleted from the
NPL.
The background and history, the
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies (RI/FS), Removal and Response
Actions, Selected Remedies, Cleanup
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Standards, and Operation and
Maintenance activities for OU1 and
OU3 are discussed below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
OU1 Background and History
Operable Unit 1 (OU1) consists of the
Yak Tunnel and Water Treatment Plant.
The Yak Tunnel and Yak Tunnel Water
Treatment Plant are located to the
southeast of the City of Leadville. A
map of OU1 can be found in the docket
at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002. The
Yak Tunnel was constructed to dewater
mines and to facilitate mineral
exploration and development. The
tunnel was driven in 1895, as an
extension of the Silver Cord Tunnel, to
drain the Iron Hill mines. The Yak
Tunnel was extended several times,
with the last extension occurring in
1923. The Yak Tunnel extends
underground approximately 31⁄2 to 4
miles into Iron Hill and Breece Hill. The
tunnel has several major laterals and
drifts that extend from the tunnel into
various mine workings, such as the
Horseshoe, the Rubie, the North Mike,
the South Mike, the Ibex No. 4, the
Little Winnie, the Resurrection No. 1,
the Fortune, the Resurrection No. 2, and
the Dolly B. The EPA estimated that
60,000 feet of tunnels and major laterals
and 55 to 74 million cubic feet of void
space are associated with the tunnel
mining activities. At the time of the
ROD in March 1988, studies indicated
that a combined total of 210 tons per
year of cadmium, lead, copper,
manganese, iron, and zinc were
discharged from the Yak Tunnel into
California Gulch, which drains into the
Arkansas River. Surface water
contamination is the major impact of the
Yak Tunnel discharge. Shallow alluvial
ground water and stream sediment may
have been impacted by historic releases
from the Yak Tunnel.
OU1 Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The State, the EPA and certain
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
conducted various studies and
investigations to evaluate the nature and
extent of contamination generally at the
Site. Remedial Investigations (RIs) began
in 1986 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. The Yak Tunnel/
California Gulch Remedial Investigation
(1986 RI) evaluated the human health
and environmental impacts due to
historic mining activities.
In May 1987, the Phase I Remedial
Investigation (1987 Phase I RI)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Feb 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
confirmed that the Yak Tunnel is a
significant source of metals
contamination. Results of this study
indicated that 75 to 80 percent of the
cadmium, manganese, and zinc detected
at the confluence of California Gulch
with the Arkansas River originates from
the Yak Tunnel. Historical information
along with data collected during the
1987 Phase I RI indicated that the Yak
Tunnel discharge had a significant
detrimental impact on the aquatic
environment at the site. In addition, the
Yak Tunnel discharge presented a
potential public health risk based on
exposure to affected surface and
groundwater at the California Gulch
Site.
The EPA released the Yak Tunnel
Feasibility Study (FS) in June 1987 and
a proposed plan for the Yak Tunnel in
August 1987.
OU1 Selected Remedy
The EPA issued the Record of
Decision (ROD) for OU1 (1988 OU1
ROD) on March 29, 1988. The remedy
chosen in the 1988 OU1 ROD was
modified in an Amended ROD (AROD)
signed on March 23, 1989 (1989 OU1
AROD) and, further, modified in an ESD
signed on October 22, 1991 (1991 OU1
ESD) and an ESD signed on July 29,
2013 (2013 OU1 ESD).
The selected remedy in the 1988 OU1
ROD was narrowly focused on the
discharges from the Yak Tunnel as a
major source of contamination to
California Gulch and the Arkansas
River. Broader issues of water quality
generally in California Gulch and the
Arkansas River were addressed as part
of remedial actions taken at other
operable units. Thus, the 1988 OU1
ROD identified a single remedial action
objective (RAO) of decreasing the
release and threatened release of
hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants from the Yak Tunnel into
California Gulch.
The original remedy selected in the
1988 OU1 ROD consisted of the
following remedial components: (1)
Construction of surge ponds to capture
drainage from the tunnel and to
minimize the impact of surges on
California Gulch and the Arkansas
River; (2) Installation of an interim
water treatment system to treat water
from the Yak Tunnel before discharge in
California Gulch; (3) Sealing of shafts,
drill holes and fractured rock and
diversion of surface water from tunnel
recharge areas to reduce the amount of
water entering the Yak Tunnel system;
(4) Grouting of fractured rock, caved-in
areas and drill holes to prevent seepage
of contaminated water to the land
surface; (5) Installation of a pumping
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6771
system to control water levels behind
the portal plug. The pumped water
would be routed to the interim
treatment system; (6) Construction of a
minimum of three concrete plugs in the
Yak Tunnel to seal off the major flow
route for groundwater movement; (7)
Establishment of a surface and
groundwater monitoring system to
detect leakage, seeps or migration of
contaminated groundwater, which may
result from installation of the tunnel
plugs; (8) Development and
implementation, as necessary, of a
contingency plan to address any adverse
effects on surface or groundwater from
tunnel plugging; and (9) Operations and
maintenance of the remedy.
The 1989 OU1 AROD made the
following changes in the remedy: (1)
Installation of a permanent water
treatment system to treat contaminated
groundwater from the Yak Tunnel
before discharge in California Gulch, as
opposed to the interim treatment facility
originally proposed; (2) Construction of
a surge pond or ponds to capture
drainage from the tunnel and to
minimize surges on California Gulch.
The original remedy called for multiple
surge ponds and did not consider the
use of a single pond; (3) Reduction of
seepage and recharge was made
optional. Grouting of fractured rock,
cave-ins and drill holes was removed as
part of the remedy; and (4) The portal
plug was modified to be a flow-through
plug as opposed to a solid plug.
The 1991 OU1 ESD made the
following changes in the remedy: (1)
Construction of a single surge pond as
a permanent part of the remedy; (2)
Construction of a flow-control bulkhead
within the tunnel to prevent surges.
Two of three originally planned plugs
were removed from the remedy; (3)
Identification of groundwater flow
direction and potential gradient reversal
as additional element of the monitoring
plan. The monitoring system was
proposed to include a minimum of
seven groundwater monitoring wells as
opposed to a minimum of 23 wells
proposed in the 1989 AROD; (4)
Placement of six or more weirs, or other
flow measuring devices, at key locations
in the Yak Tunnel. The weir locations
were selected during an initial
inspection of the tunnel; (5) Periodic
inspection of the Yak Tunnel. Qualified
mining crews will enter the tunnel
annually to inspect and maintain weirs
and other structures in the tunnel.
Crews will also enter the tunnel to
determine the cause of unexpected
increases or decreased in flow within
the Yak Tunnel; and (5) Development
and implementation, as necessary, of a
contingency plan to address any adverse
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
6772
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
effects on surface or groundwater
resulting from tunnel blockage. The
implementation would be based upon
decrease in flow from Yak Tunnel, rise
in water levels in monitoring wells
located near mine workings, indication
of gradient reversal, or degradation of
water quality.
Because the selected remedy in the
1988 OU1 ROD left wastes in place but
did not include institutional controls
(ICs), a second ESD was signed on July
29, 2013 to include ICs. The objectives
of ICs for OU1 are as follows: (1) Reduce
or control human exposure to
contaminants of concern; and (2)
Maintain the integrity of and prevent
disturbances to engineered features or
structures established as part of the
current remedy or future remedies. The
properties that comprise most of OU1
are owned by Resurrection/Newmont.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
OU1 Cleanup Standards
The OU1 remedy was the first source
control remedy at the Site that
addressed the Yak Tunnel discharge as
the largest single source of
contamination to surface water and
groundwater but did not contain
numeric cleanup standards for those
media. Numeric cleanup standards for
site-wide surface water and
groundwater contamination were
established in the OU12 Record of
Decision.
OU1 Response Actions
The EPA issued a Unilateral
Administrative Order (UAO) to
ASARCO Incorporated, Newmont
Mining Corporation, Res-ASARCO Joint
Venture and Resurrection Mining
Company on March 29, 1989 ordering
these parties to perform the remedial
design and remedial action for the Yak
Tunnel. Two amendments were made to
the UAO on April 30, 1993 and June 16,
1993. The UAO was replaced and
terminated in a 2008 Consent Decree
settlement (2008 CD) by and among the
United States, State of Colorado,
Newmont USA Limited and
Resurrection Mining Company. Under
the 2008 CD, Newmont USA Limited
and Resurrection Mining Company
assumed responsibility for the OU1
remedy. Construction of a surge pond
and permanent water treatment plant
began in September 1988 and was
completed in June 1991. The
construction efforts included four main
elements: (1) A surface water
conveyance system, (2) the surge pond
itself, (3) a barge transfer system and (4)
installation of gravity filters. The water
treatment facility to treat waters
emanating from the Yak Tunnel was
constructed over a two-year period and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Feb 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
the Yak Tunnel Water Treatment Plant
has been in operation since construction
was completed in February 1992. The
Yak Tunnel Bulkhead was constructed
in 1994 to control surges of water
coming from the Yak Tunnel,
particularly during spring melt. The
bulkhead is located approximately 1,680
feet into the tunnel from the portal.
Additional efforts were made in 1995
and 1996 to reduce metals loading into
the Arkansas River from ephemeral
tributaries. As part of a Consent Decree
settlement with Resurrection/Newmont,
Resurrection/Newmont placed
environmental covenants on its
properties in OU1 on July 31, 2012 and
October 1, 2012 that meets the IC
objectives above. All remedial
components described in the 1988 OU1
ROD and subsequent 1989 OU1 AROD,
1991 OU1 ESD, and the 2013 OU1 ESD
have been implemented.
OU1 Operation and Maintenance
The potentially responsible parties’
(PRPs) operations and maintenance
(O&M) responsibilities were first
defined under the UAO and then
updated in the 2008 CD. In accordance
with the terms of the 2008 CD, the
Routine Monitoring Plan (RMP),
Contingency Plan (CP) and the OU1
Work Plan (Work Plan) govern the longterm implementation of the selected
remedy for the OU1. The OU1 Work
Plan, CP and the RMP are appendices to
the 2008 CD.
Routine O&M includes repairing
grouted areas of structures due to
corrosion, settlement or other factors;
occasional repair or replacement of
monitor well pumps and surface water
monitoring equipment; repair of access
roads; routine repair or replacement of
pumps, motors, mixers, piping and
tankage; and inspections. The treatment
plant operates under requirements
established in the OU1 Work Plan, and
submits monthly and annual reports to
EPA. Resurrection/Newmont
summarizes monitoring data and data
evaluation required by the OU1 Routine
Monitoring Plan in the Annual
Monitoring Reports, Yak Tunnel System
for the Yak Tunnel Operable Unit,
Leadville, CO. Current reports and
associated data are available by
contacting EPA Region 8.
In regards to ICs, environmental
covenants for Resurrection/Newmont’s
properties within OU1 were recorded
with the Lake County Clerk and
Recorder on July 31, 2012 and October
10, 2012. The environmental covenants
provide the following Use Restrictions:
(1) No Residential Use, Day Care Centers
or Schools, Parks or Open Space that are
designed or intended to provide play or
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
recreation areas for children, (2)
Restrictions on using untreated
groundwater from wells, and (3)
Restrictions on uses or activities that
would disturb/interfere or have the
potential to disturb/interfere with the
protectiveness of the remedy and
remedial components. All of OU1 is
zoned Industrial Mining by Lake
County, which serves to limit future
changes of land use without County
approval and Lake County has
established a protocol to notify the EPA
and the CDPHE of any proposed
changes.
OU3 Background and History
D&RGW Slag Piles/Railroad
Easement/Railroad Yard (OU3) included
three slag piles (Arkansas Valley (AV),
La Plata, and Harrison Street),
approximately 12 acres at Harrison
Avenue and Monroe Street which
contained the Harrison Street slag pile,
an easement that runs diagonally
through the City of Leadville, and a
portion of the rail yard known as
Poverty Flats. The Denver & Rio Grande
Western Railroad Company (D&RGW)
owned theses slag piles, property,
easement and rail yard when OU3 was
designated in 1994. A map of OU3 can
be found in the docket at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002.
In 1961, D&RGW purchased the AV
Slag Pile from ASARCO Incorporated
for use as railroad ballast. D&RGW
purchased the La Plata Slag Pile from
the Leadville Sanitation District in 1970.
Additionally, D&RGW purchased the
Harrison Street Slag Pile and Harrison
Avenue property from NL Industries in
1983.
The AV Slag Pile covers
approximately 40 acres just west of
Stringtown. The pile generally consists
of slag produced by the AV smelter that
operated from 1882 to 1960. Based on
aerial photography, the pile volume in
the late 1950s was approximately 1.2
million cubic yards, whereas in 1998
approximately 422,000 cubic yards of
slag remained, of which, approximately
190,000 cubic yards is stockpiled fine
slag.
The La Plata Slag Pile, located west of
the City limits of Leadville on Elm
Street, has a volume estimated at
105,000 cubic yards. Bimetallic
Smelting Company leased the La Plata
Smelter Works in OU3 from 1892 to
1900 for pyritic smelting of low-grade
ores.
The Harrison Reduction Works was
located near the northeast corner of
Harrison Avenue and Elm Street, in a
residential area. The Harrison Street
Slag Pile ranged from 20 to 50 feet in
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
height and covered an area of
approximately 3 acres. The Harrison
Street Slag Pile was removed to original
grade and relocated to the AV Slag Pile
in March 1998.
Once a hotbed of transportation
activities mostly related to mining, the
Poverty Flats rail yard, located between
12th Street, Highway 24, 17th Street and
County Road 8, is now vacant. The
portion of the Poverty Flats rail yard
formerly owned by D&RGW is located
near the north end of the City of
Leadville, encompasses an area of
roughly 43 acres, and is crossed by
abandoned rail lines and access roads.
Slag, which was used in the rail yard as
ballast and as a road base to provide
support for heavy vehicle traffic, was
also deposited around the loading dock
due to spillage during transportation
activities.
The rail easement includes the
portion of railroad track that runs
diagonally through Leadville and
consists of approximately 25 feet on
either side of the track centerline. Slag
was used as a road base to provide
support for heavy vehicle traffic. Slag
was also deposited as spillage from
passing rail cars.
D&RGW identified a small volume of
fine slag in the Poverty Flats rail yard.
D&RGW prepared a plan, which
addressed removal of the fine slag from
this area to the AV Smelter Slag Pile. As
a result of the Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UPRR) purchase of the
Southern Pacific Transportation
Company (surviving corporation from
an earlier merger of D&RGW and
Southern Pacific Railroad), UPRR took
ownership of all D&RGW property at the
Site in 1996 and assumed D&RGW’s
responsibilities under the 1993 D&RGW
CD.
During the summer and fall of 1997,
UPRR removed 1,264 cubic yards of
slag, including fine slag, from the rail
yard and placed it onto the AV Slag
Pile. As a result, soils were exposed
containing elevated concentrations of
lead. Soils samples, taken before and
after removal of the slag, showed levels
of lead in soil that exceed the Site-wide
residential action level of 3500 mg/kg
lead, thus lead in the soils on this
property may create the potential for
unacceptable human health risks should
the property be developed for
residential use. This vacant property is
zoned Business by Lake County.
However, institutional controls are in
place to protect human health in the
event of future residential development.
As part of their ballast operations,
UPRR relocated approximately 104,000
cubic yards of slag to the AV Slag Pile
in March 1998, which brought the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Feb 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
Harrison Street Slag Pile to grade. Soils
samples taken after removal of the slag
showed levels of lead in soils, both
under where the slag pile was located
and otherwise on the Harrison Avenue
property, that exceed the residential
action level for lead in soils of 3500 mg/
kg. Thus, the lead in the soils on the
Harrison Avenue property may create
the potential for unacceptable human
health risks should the property be
developed for residential use. To date,
the land remains vacant. Sections along
the highway are zoned Commercial, and
the remaining sections are zoned
Transitional Commercial by the City of
Leadville. However, institutional
controls are in place to protect human
health in the event of future residential
development.
In July 1998, UPRR submitted a Work
Plan for the Consolidation of Fine Slag
at the Railroad Easement Near McWethy
Drive to 12th Street, Leadville,
Colorado. The work plan provided for
the easement to be converted into a
segment of the Mineral Belt Trail.
Consistent with the plan, fine slag from
the rail easement was used as base
material on the Mineral Belt Trail. More
specifically, the fine slag was
consolidated and covered with a
compacted gravel sub-base of six inches
and then two one-inch layers of asphalt
to encapsulate it. This resource
utilization was consistent with the
contingency under the 1998 OU3 ROD.
The completion of the consolidation
work was approved in September 1998.
The conversion of the railroad easement
to the Mineral Belt Trail was completed
with the installation of a sub-base,
culverts, asphalt, signs, centerline
striping, and re-vegetation. In
accordance with a 1998 Memorandum
of Understanding between EPA, UPRR,
and Lake County, Lake County
completed these projects, and UPRR
provided funding for the sub-base,
culverts, and asphalt in 2000.
Ownership of the easement has been
transferred to Lake County via quitclaim
deed.
OU3 Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The State, the EPA and certain
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
have conducted various studies and
investigations to evaluate the nature and
extent of contamination generally at the
Site, and specifically within OU3.
Remedial Investigations (RIs) began in
1986 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6773
Concurrent with the various
investigations and studies, risk
assessments were conducted at the
California Gulch Superfund Site. Some
included the Preliminary Baseline Risk
Assessment (Preliminary BRA), and the
Final Baseline Human Health Risk
Assessments (Final BRA): Part A, Part B,
and Part C. For human health risk issues
at OU3, the Preliminary BRA and the
Final BRA Part C, Evaluation of Worker
Scenario and Evaluation of Recreational
Scenarios, were most pertinent. The
Preliminary BRA indicated that lead
and arsenic are responsible for the
majority of human health risks at the
Site. Therefore, arsenic and lead were
used as indicator contaminants for risk
in the Final BRA.
EPA and D&RGW entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent (1991
D&RGW AOC) on December 3, 1991.
The 1991 D&RGW AOC required
D&RGW to perform remedial
investigations of major lead slag piles
and one zinc slag pile within the Site.
In 1992, D&RGW completed a remedial
investigation (1992 OU3 Slag RI) of the
major lead slag piles and the zinc slag
pile within the Site. Slag was found to
have elevated levels of zinc, lead,
arsenic and cadmium along with a low
acid-generating potential, and a neutral
to basic pH. Fine slag, which is less than
3⁄8 of an inch, was found to have
elevated lead levels. The fine fraction of
slag was the only part of the slag that
may present an unacceptable risk
because fine slag poses an inhalation
hazard.
EPA and D&RGW entered into a
Consent Decree on September 15, 1993
(1993 D&RGW CD) for the completion of
investigation, feasibility studies, and
remediation activities to be performed
for OU3. The 1993 D&RGW CD stated
EPA’s concerns regarding the fine
fraction of the stockpiled slag at the AV
Smelter site and the potential for
particulate release during ballast
operations as a potential human health
exposure pathway. The 1993 D&RGW
CD required D&RGW to perform a
feasibility study for stockpiled fine slag
and to submit an operations plan before
initiating any ballast operations.
In 1993, the EPA conducted a
Screening Feasibility Study (1993 SFS)
to initiate the overall CERCLA FS
process at the California Gulch Site. The
purpose of the SFS was to develop
general response actions and identify an
appropriate range of alternatives
applicable to the various contaminant
sources to be considered during
feasibility studies for the California
Gulch Site. The 1993 SFS for Remedial
Alternatives examined several
remediation alternatives for slag located
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
6774
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
at the Site based on specific criteria,
such as relative cost, implementability,
and effectiveness. The three remedial
alternatives for slag retained for further
evaluation were: No action, institutional
controls, and resource utilization. The
La Plata and Harrison Street Slag piles
did not contain fine slag. Therefore, no
further action was necessary. Because
the AV Smelter pile contained fine slag,
more investigation was required.
In July of 1995, D&RGW submitted a
ballast operations plan to EPA.
Following EPA’s approval of the plan,
ballast operations commenced in
August 1995 but ceased soon thereafter
for lack of a profitable market for the
slag. Ballast operations involve the
sorting of larger slag so that the size
fraction of greater than 3⁄8 inch and less
than 21⁄2 inches is produced for road
ballast. The undersized fraction (i.e.,
less than 3⁄8 inch), or sorted fine slag,
that is produced by the sorting process
is stockpiled along with the previously
sorted fine slag at the Arkansas Valley
pile.
D&RGW’s 1996 Final Stockpiled Fine
Slag Feasibility Study (1996 OU3 FS)
focused on the AV Smelter Slag Pile’s
existing fine slag subpile and fine slag
potentially generated from future ballast
production. Based upon the 1993 SFS
and 1993 D&RGW CD, the remedial
action objective for the stockpiled fine
slag was to: prevent leaching of metals
of concern in concentrations that would
have an adverse impact on soils, surface
or ground water near the slag piles. The
1996 OU3 FS provided a detailed
analysis of the three retained
remediation alternatives (no action,
institutional controls, and resource
utilization) from the 1993 SFS as
applied to the stockpiled fine slag. The
result of the 1996 OU3 FS for the
stockpiled fine slag was a Proposed Plan
with a No Action Alternative for the
stockpiled fine slag subpile of the AV
Smelter Slag Pile. In September 1996,
the Proposed Plan was issued with a
preferred alternative of ‘‘No Action,’’
with a contingency for future utilization
of the slag.
OU3 Selected Remedy
The EPA issued the Stockpiled Fine
Slag—Arkansas Valley Smelter Slag Pile
ROD for OU3 on May 6, 1998 (1998 OU3
ROD). Based on consideration of
CERCLA requirements, detailed
analyses of alternatives, and public
comments, the EPA determined that a
No Action alternative was the
appropriate remedy. The No Action
alternative leaves the stockpiled fine
slag in its existing condition with no
control or cleanup planned. The No
Action alternative includes a provision,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Feb 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
denoted as a contingency, for future
utilization of the slag, if it is
encapsulated prior to its use or reuse.
The 1998 OU3 ROD also provides a
provision to use the slag in the future if
regional market demand exists for the
material as a component in construction
materials.
The 1998 OU3 ROD did not require
maintenance of the fine slag piles. Any
future use of the slag would require
encapsulation prior to reuse.
Encapsulation can include the use of
fine slag in concrete or asphalt
aggregate, as a road base, or as backfill
(so long as the slag is chemically bound
or physically separated from an
exposure by a barrier consisting of a
different material).
Sampling in the Poverty Flats rail
yard property and the Harrison Avenue
property shows levels of lead in soils
above levels that would allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, i.e., above the residential
action level established for OU9,
Residential Populated Areas of the Site.
In addition, the Mineral Belt Trail,
which was constructed on the former
railroad easement, acts as a cap for fine
slag and residual slag remains in other
parts of OU3. Thus, the August 6, 2014
ESD (2014 OU3 ESD) addresses the need
for ICs, and documents the decision to
require ICs for OU3. In addition, the use
of the term ‘‘contingency’’ for fine slag
utilization in the 1998 OU3 ROD is
clarified in the 2014 OU3 ESD. Fine slag
can be used for future commercial
purposes by following the requirements
set out in the 1998 OU3 ROD.
OU3 Cleanup Standards
As the final determination in the 1998
OU3 ROD was No Action ROD, no
cleanup standards were identified for
fine slag in the record of decision. The
OU12 remedy addresses site-wide
surface water and groundwater
contamination.
OU3 Response Actions
No response actions were taken
pursuant to the No Action ROD. The ICs
established by the City and County
ordinances were response actions that
were incorporated into the OU3 remedy
by the ESD. Lake County, on March 3,
2009, and the City of Leadville, on May
7, 2013, implemented ICs in the form of
local ordinances, amending the Land
Development Codes and adopting
regulations that protect both engineered
and non-engineered remedies at OU3. A
best management practice handout is
provided to all applicants applying for
a building permit within OU3. In
addition, any disruptions of engineered
or non-engineered remedies, and/or
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
excavation of more than 10 cubic yards
of soil off-site within OU3 require
written approval from the CDPHE.
OU3 Operation and Maintenance
Because the 1998 OU3 ROD was a No
Action ROD, no maintenance was
required.
Five-Year Review
The remedies at the entire Site,
including OU1 and OU3 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 planned for 2017.
In the 2012 five-year review dated
September 27, 2012 for the Site, the
OU1 remedy was determined to be
protective in the short-term. There were
concerns regarding continued long-term
protectiveness because the requirement
of ICs was not documented in a decision
document even though ICs had already
been implemented by the PRP and Lake
County. Environmental covenants for
Resurrection/Newmont’s properties
within OU1 were recorded with the
Lake County Clerk and Recorder on July
31, 2012 and October 10, 2012. An ESD
dated July 29, 2013 (2013 OU1 ESD)
resolved this concern.
In the 2012 five-year review for the
Site, the OU3 remedies were determined
to be protective in the short-term. The
five-year review, recommended a review
to determine whether additional
response actions were needed at OU3 to
insure long-term protectiveness. The
review determined that ICs were needed
to insure long-term protectiveness. The
2013 OU3 ESD addresses the need for
ICs because some soils and residual slag
remained above the residential action
level, and documents the decision to
require ICs. Ordinances adopted by the
City and County met the IC objectives
set out in the ESD
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c)
and the NCP, EPA will conduct the next
five-year review by September 27, 2017
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.
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.
During the development and
implementation of the remedies for
these operable units, comment periods
were offered for proposed plans, fiveyear reviews, and other public meetings.
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
The documents that the EPA relied on
for the partial deletion of OU1 and OU3
from the California Gulch Superfund
Site are in the docket and are available
to the public in the information
repositories. 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).
The State, the Lake County
Commissioners, the City of Leadville are
supportive of the partial deletion of
OU1 and OU3. The State signed a letter
of concurrence on October 7, 2015.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Determination That the Criteria for
Deletion Have Been Met
EPA has consulted with the State,
Lake County Commissioners, and the
City of Leadville on the proposed partial
deletion of OU1 and OU3 of the
California Gulch Site 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.
The implemented remedies achieve
the degree of cleanup or protection
specified in: for OU1, the 1988 OU1
ROD, 1989 OU1 AROD, the 1991 OU1
ESD and 2013 OU1 ESD; and for OU3,
the 1998 OU3 ROD and the 2014 OU3
ESD.
All selected removal and remedial
action objectives and associated cleanup
goals for OU1 and OU3 are consistent
with agency policy and guidance. This
partial deletion meets the completion
requirements as specified in OSWER
Directive 9320.2–22, Close Out
Procedures for National Priority List
Sites. All response activities at OU1 and
OU3 of the Site are complete and the
two operable units pose no
unacceptable risk to human health or
the environment. Therefore, EPA and
CDPHE have determined that no further
response is necessary at OU1 and OU3
of the Site.
V. Partial Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the
State through the CDPHE 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 all of OU1, Yak Tunnel/Water
Treatment Plant; and OU3, D&RGW Slag
Easement/Railroad Yard, of the Site.
Because EPA considers this action to
be non-controversial and routine, EPA is
taking it without prior publication. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:23 Feb 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
action will be effective April 11, 2016
unless EPA receives adverse comments
by March 10, 2016. 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
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: January 15, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016–02601 Filed 2–8–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. FRA–2012–0103, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130–AC43
Safety Glazing Standards
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this final rule, FRA is
revising and clarifying existing
regulations related to the use of glazing
materials in the windows of
locomotives, passenger cars, and
cabooses. This final rule reduces
paperwork and other economic burdens
on the rail industry by removing a
stenciling requirement for locomotives,
passenger cars, and cabooses that are
required to be equipped with glazing.
This final rule also clarifies the
application of the regulations to older
equipment and to the end locations of
all equipment to provide more certainty
to the rail industry and more narrowly
address FRA’s safety concerns. In
addition, this final rule clarifies the
definition of passenger car, updates the
rule by removing certain compliance
dates that are no longer necessary, and,
in response to comments on the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6775
proposed rule, modifies the application
of the regulations to passenger cars and
cabooses in a railroad’s fleet that are
used only for private transportation
purposes and to older locomotives used
in incidental freight service.
DATES: This final rule is effective April
11, 2016. Petitions for reconsideration
must be received on or before April 11,
2016. Comments in response to
petitions for reconsideration must be
received on or before May 24, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration
and comments on petitions for
reconsideration: Petitions for
reconsideration or comments on
petitions for reconsideration related to
Docket No. FRA–2012–0103, Notice No.
2, may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Web site: The Federal eRulemaking
Portal, https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the Web site’s online
instructions for submitting comments,
to include petitions for reconsideration.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Room W12–140 on the
Ground level of the West Building,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking
(2130–AC43). Note that all petitions and
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted
comments, petitions, or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents, any
petition for reconsideration submitted,
or comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140
on the Ground level of the West
Building, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Zuiderveen, Railroad Safety
Specialist, Motive Power & Equipment
Division, Office of Safety Assurance and
Compliance, Mail Stop 25, Federal
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6768-6775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02601]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9936-89-Region 8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan:
Partial Deletion of the California Gulch Superfund Site; National
Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion of Operable Unit 1
(OU1) Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment Plant; and Operable Unit 3 (OU3),
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company (D&RGW) Slag Piles/
Railroad Easement/Railroad Yard, 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 Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
[[Page 6769]]
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final partial deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence
of the State of Colorado (State), through the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) because EPA has determined that
all appropriate response actions at OU1 and OU3 under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
DATES: This direct final partial deletion is effective April 11, 2016
unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 10, 2016. 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.
Email: 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 by calling EPA Region 8 at (303) 312-7279.
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 email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email 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 electronically in
https://www.regulations.gov; by calling EPA Region 8 at (303) 312-7279
and leaving a message; and at the Lake County Public Library, 1115
Harrison Avenue, Leadville, CO 80461, (719) 486-0569, Monday and
Wednesday from 10:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m., Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00
a.m.-5:00 p.m., and Friday and Saturday 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
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, email:
kiefer.linda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Partial Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion
V. Partial Deletion Action
I. Introduction
EPA Region 8 is publishing this direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion for all of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment
Plant; and Operable Unit 3 (OU3), Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad
Company (D&RGW) Slag Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad Yard, from the
NPL. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR part 300, which
EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of 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
NPL. 60 FR 55466 (November 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.
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 OU1, Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment
Plant; and OU3, D&RGW Slag Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad Yard, and
demonstrates how they meet 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.
This partial deletion pertains to all of OU1 and OU3. Operable Unit
2 (OU2), Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments and Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial
Tailing; Operable Unit 4 (OU4) Upper California Gulch; Operable Unit 5
(OU5), ASARCO Smelters/Slag/Mill Sites; Operable Unit 7 (OU7), Apache
Tailing Impoundment; Operable Unit 8 (OU8), Lower California Gulch;
Operable Unit 9 (OU9), Residential Populated Areas; and Operable Unit
10 (OU10), Oregon Gulch, were deleted from the NPL in previous partial
deletion actions. Operable Unit 6 (OU6), Starr Ditch/Stray Horse Gulch/
Lower Evans Gulch/Penrose Mine Waste Pile; Operable Unit 11 (OU11),
Arkansas River Floodplain; and Operable Unit 12 (OU12), Site-wide
Surface and Groundwater Quality, are not being considered for deletion
as part of this action and will remain on the NPL.
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;
[[Page 6770]]
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 OU1 and OU3:
(1) EPA has consulted with the State 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 CDPHE, has
concurred on the partial deletion of OU1 and OU3 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 OU1 and OU3 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 OU1
and OU3 of the Site from the NPL.
Site Background and History
The California Gulch Superfund Site, EPA ID No. COD980717938,
CERCLIS Site ID 0801478, is located in Lake County, Colorado
approximately 100 miles southwest of Denver. The Site was proposed for
inclusion on the NPL on December 30, 1982, (47 FR 58476), and listed on
September 8, 1983, (48 FR 40658). 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. 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
mine 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 released into surrounding streams and after
about 1930 slurried into tailing impoundments. Many of the mining
operations ceased operations around 1900, although several smelters
continued operations into the 1920s (Western Zinc) and the 1960s (AV
Smelter) and the last active mine, the Black Cloud, shut down in 1999.
All of the mines within the Site boundaries are presently inactive,
and all of the mills and smelters have been demolished. Mining remains
that contributed to environmental contamination are (1) mill tailing
(the fine-grained residue remaining after milling has removed the metal
concentrates form the ore) in impoundments and fluvial deposits; (2)
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); (3) mine water drainage tunnels; (4) draining adits; and (5)
various smelter wastes including slag piles, flue dust and fallout from
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 (Phase I
RI), which primarily addressed surface water 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). The OUs are as follows:
OU1, Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment Plant; OU2, Malta Gulch Tailing
Impoundments and Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial Tailing; OU3, D&RGW Slag
Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad Yard; OU4, Upper California Gulch;
OU5, ASARCO Smelter Sites/Slag/Mill Sites; OU6, Starr Ditch/Stray Horse
Gulch/Lower Evans Gulch/Penrose Mine Waste Pile; OU7, Apache Tailing
Impoundments; OU8, Lower California Gulch; OU9, Residential Populated
Areas; OU10, Oregon Gulch; OU11, Arkansas River Valley Floodplain; and
OU12, Site-wide Surface and Groundwater. With the exception of OU12,
the OUs pertain to distinct geographical areas corresponding to areas
of responsibility for the identified responsible parties and/or to
distinct sources of contamination. To date, OU2, OU4, OU5, OU7, OU8,
OU9, and OU10 have been partially deleted from the NPL.
The background and history, the Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies (RI/FS), Removal and Response Actions, Selected
Remedies, Cleanup
[[Page 6771]]
Standards, and Operation and Maintenance activities for OU1 and OU3 are
discussed below.
OU1 Background and History
Operable Unit 1 (OU1) consists of the Yak Tunnel and Water
Treatment Plant. The Yak Tunnel and Yak Tunnel Water Treatment Plant
are located to the southeast of the City of Leadville. A map of OU1 can
be found in the docket at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID no. EPA-
HQ-SFUND-1983-0002. The Yak Tunnel was constructed to dewater mines and
to facilitate mineral exploration and development. The tunnel was
driven in 1895, as an extension of the Silver Cord Tunnel, to drain the
Iron Hill mines. The Yak Tunnel was extended several times, with the
last extension occurring in 1923. The Yak Tunnel extends underground
approximately 3\1/2\ to 4 miles into Iron Hill and Breece Hill. The
tunnel has several major laterals and drifts that extend from the
tunnel into various mine workings, such as the Horseshoe, the Rubie,
the North Mike, the South Mike, the Ibex No. 4, the Little Winnie, the
Resurrection No. 1, the Fortune, the Resurrection No. 2, and the Dolly
B. The EPA estimated that 60,000 feet of tunnels and major laterals and
55 to 74 million cubic feet of void space are associated with the
tunnel mining activities. At the time of the ROD in March 1988, studies
indicated that a combined total of 210 tons per year of cadmium, lead,
copper, manganese, iron, and zinc were discharged from the Yak Tunnel
into California Gulch, which drains into the Arkansas River. Surface
water contamination is the major impact of the Yak Tunnel discharge.
Shallow alluvial ground water and stream sediment may have been
impacted by historic releases from the Yak Tunnel.
OU1 Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The State, the EPA and certain Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) conducted various studies and investigations to evaluate the
nature and extent of contamination generally at the Site. Remedial
Investigations (RIs) began in 1986 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. The Yak Tunnel/California Gulch
Remedial Investigation (1986 RI) evaluated the human health and
environmental impacts due to historic mining activities.
In May 1987, the Phase I Remedial Investigation (1987 Phase I RI)
confirmed that the Yak Tunnel is a significant source of metals
contamination. Results of this study indicated that 75 to 80 percent of
the cadmium, manganese, and zinc detected at the confluence of
California Gulch with the Arkansas River originates from the Yak
Tunnel. Historical information along with data collected during the
1987 Phase I RI indicated that the Yak Tunnel discharge had a
significant detrimental impact on the aquatic environment at the site.
In addition, the Yak Tunnel discharge presented a potential public
health risk based on exposure to affected surface and groundwater at
the California Gulch Site.
The EPA released the Yak Tunnel Feasibility Study (FS) in June 1987
and a proposed plan for the Yak Tunnel in August 1987.
OU1 Selected Remedy
The EPA issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 (1988 OU1 ROD)
on March 29, 1988. The remedy chosen in the 1988 OU1 ROD was modified
in an Amended ROD (AROD) signed on March 23, 1989 (1989 OU1 AROD) and,
further, modified in an ESD signed on October 22, 1991 (1991 OU1 ESD)
and an ESD signed on July 29, 2013 (2013 OU1 ESD).
The selected remedy in the 1988 OU1 ROD was narrowly focused on the
discharges from the Yak Tunnel as a major source of contamination to
California Gulch and the Arkansas River. Broader issues of water
quality generally in California Gulch and the Arkansas River were
addressed as part of remedial actions taken at other operable units.
Thus, the 1988 OU1 ROD identified a single remedial action objective
(RAO) of decreasing the release and threatened release of hazardous
substances, pollutants and contaminants from the Yak Tunnel into
California Gulch.
The original remedy selected in the 1988 OU1 ROD consisted of the
following remedial components: (1) Construction of surge ponds to
capture drainage from the tunnel and to minimize the impact of surges
on California Gulch and the Arkansas River; (2) Installation of an
interim water treatment system to treat water from the Yak Tunnel
before discharge in California Gulch; (3) Sealing of shafts, drill
holes and fractured rock and diversion of surface water from tunnel
recharge areas to reduce the amount of water entering the Yak Tunnel
system; (4) Grouting of fractured rock, caved-in areas and drill holes
to prevent seepage of contaminated water to the land surface; (5)
Installation of a pumping system to control water levels behind the
portal plug. The pumped water would be routed to the interim treatment
system; (6) Construction of a minimum of three concrete plugs in the
Yak Tunnel to seal off the major flow route for groundwater movement;
(7) Establishment of a surface and groundwater monitoring system to
detect leakage, seeps or migration of contaminated groundwater, which
may result from installation of the tunnel plugs; (8) Development and
implementation, as necessary, of a contingency plan to address any
adverse effects on surface or groundwater from tunnel plugging; and (9)
Operations and maintenance of the remedy.
The 1989 OU1 AROD made the following changes in the remedy: (1)
Installation of a permanent water treatment system to treat
contaminated groundwater from the Yak Tunnel before discharge in
California Gulch, as opposed to the interim treatment facility
originally proposed; (2) Construction of a surge pond or ponds to
capture drainage from the tunnel and to minimize surges on California
Gulch. The original remedy called for multiple surge ponds and did not
consider the use of a single pond; (3) Reduction of seepage and
recharge was made optional. Grouting of fractured rock, cave-ins and
drill holes was removed as part of the remedy; and (4) The portal plug
was modified to be a flow-through plug as opposed to a solid plug.
The 1991 OU1 ESD made the following changes in the remedy: (1)
Construction of a single surge pond as a permanent part of the remedy;
(2) Construction of a flow-control bulkhead within the tunnel to
prevent surges. Two of three originally planned plugs were removed from
the remedy; (3) Identification of groundwater flow direction and
potential gradient reversal as additional element of the monitoring
plan. The monitoring system was proposed to include a minimum of seven
groundwater monitoring wells as opposed to a minimum of 23 wells
proposed in the 1989 AROD; (4) Placement of six or more weirs, or other
flow measuring devices, at key locations in the Yak Tunnel. The weir
locations were selected during an initial inspection of the tunnel; (5)
Periodic inspection of the Yak Tunnel. Qualified mining crews will
enter the tunnel annually to inspect and maintain weirs and other
structures in the tunnel. Crews will also enter the tunnel to determine
the cause of unexpected increases or decreased in flow within the Yak
Tunnel; and (5) Development and implementation, as necessary, of a
contingency plan to address any adverse
[[Page 6772]]
effects on surface or groundwater resulting from tunnel blockage. The
implementation would be based upon decrease in flow from Yak Tunnel,
rise in water levels in monitoring wells located near mine workings,
indication of gradient reversal, or degradation of water quality.
Because the selected remedy in the 1988 OU1 ROD left wastes in
place but did not include institutional controls (ICs), a second ESD
was signed on July 29, 2013 to include ICs. The objectives of ICs for
OU1 are as follows: (1) Reduce or control human exposure to
contaminants of concern; and (2) Maintain the integrity of and prevent
disturbances to engineered features or structures established as part
of the current remedy or future remedies. The properties that comprise
most of OU1 are owned by Resurrection/Newmont.
OU1 Cleanup Standards
The OU1 remedy was the first source control remedy at the Site that
addressed the Yak Tunnel discharge as the largest single source of
contamination to surface water and groundwater but did not contain
numeric cleanup standards for those media. Numeric cleanup standards
for site-wide surface water and groundwater contamination were
established in the OU12 Record of Decision.
OU1 Response Actions
The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to ASARCO
Incorporated, Newmont Mining Corporation, Res-ASARCO Joint Venture and
Resurrection Mining Company on March 29, 1989 ordering these parties to
perform the remedial design and remedial action for the Yak Tunnel. Two
amendments were made to the UAO on April 30, 1993 and June 16, 1993.
The UAO was replaced and terminated in a 2008 Consent Decree settlement
(2008 CD) by and among the United States, State of Colorado, Newmont
USA Limited and Resurrection Mining Company. Under the 2008 CD, Newmont
USA Limited and Resurrection Mining Company assumed responsibility for
the OU1 remedy. Construction of a surge pond and permanent water
treatment plant began in September 1988 and was completed in June 1991.
The construction efforts included four main elements: (1) A surface
water conveyance system, (2) the surge pond itself, (3) a barge
transfer system and (4) installation of gravity filters. The water
treatment facility to treat waters emanating from the Yak Tunnel was
constructed over a two-year period and the Yak Tunnel Water Treatment
Plant has been in operation since construction was completed in
February 1992. The Yak Tunnel Bulkhead was constructed in 1994 to
control surges of water coming from the Yak Tunnel, particularly during
spring melt. The bulkhead is located approximately 1,680 feet into the
tunnel from the portal. Additional efforts were made in 1995 and 1996
to reduce metals loading into the Arkansas River from ephemeral
tributaries. As part of a Consent Decree settlement with Resurrection/
Newmont, Resurrection/Newmont placed environmental covenants on its
properties in OU1 on July 31, 2012 and October 1, 2012 that meets the
IC objectives above. All remedial components described in the 1988 OU1
ROD and subsequent 1989 OU1 AROD, 1991 OU1 ESD, and the 2013 OU1 ESD
have been implemented.
OU1 Operation and Maintenance
The potentially responsible parties' (PRPs) operations and
maintenance (O&M) responsibilities were first defined under the UAO and
then updated in the 2008 CD. In accordance with the terms of the 2008
CD, the Routine Monitoring Plan (RMP), Contingency Plan (CP) and the
OU1 Work Plan (Work Plan) govern the long-term implementation of the
selected remedy for the OU1. The OU1 Work Plan, CP and the RMP are
appendices to the 2008 CD.
Routine O&M includes repairing grouted areas of structures due to
corrosion, settlement or other factors; occasional repair or
replacement of monitor well pumps and surface water monitoring
equipment; repair of access roads; routine repair or replacement of
pumps, motors, mixers, piping and tankage; and inspections. The
treatment plant operates under requirements established in the OU1 Work
Plan, and submits monthly and annual reports to EPA. Resurrection/
Newmont summarizes monitoring data and data evaluation required by the
OU1 Routine Monitoring Plan in the Annual Monitoring Reports, Yak
Tunnel System for the Yak Tunnel Operable Unit, Leadville, CO. Current
reports and associated data are available by contacting EPA Region 8.
In regards to ICs, environmental covenants for Resurrection/
Newmont's properties within OU1 were recorded with the Lake County
Clerk and Recorder on July 31, 2012 and October 10, 2012. The
environmental covenants provide the following Use Restrictions: (1) No
Residential Use, Day Care Centers or Schools, Parks or Open Space that
are designed or intended to provide play or recreation areas for
children, (2) Restrictions on using untreated groundwater from wells,
and (3) Restrictions on uses or activities that would disturb/interfere
or have the potential to disturb/interfere with the protectiveness of
the remedy and remedial components. All of OU1 is zoned Industrial
Mining by Lake County, which serves to limit future changes of land use
without County approval and Lake County has established a protocol to
notify the EPA and the CDPHE of any proposed changes.
OU3 Background and History
D&RGW Slag Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad Yard (OU3) included
three slag piles (Arkansas Valley (AV), La Plata, and Harrison Street),
approximately 12 acres at Harrison Avenue and Monroe Street which
contained the Harrison Street slag pile, an easement that runs
diagonally through the City of Leadville, and a portion of the rail
yard known as Poverty Flats. The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad
Company (D&RGW) owned theses slag piles, property, easement and rail
yard when OU3 was designated in 1994. A map of OU3 can be found in the
docket at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-
0002.
In 1961, D&RGW purchased the AV Slag Pile from ASARCO Incorporated
for use as railroad ballast. D&RGW purchased the La Plata Slag Pile
from the Leadville Sanitation District in 1970. Additionally, D&RGW
purchased the Harrison Street Slag Pile and Harrison Avenue property
from NL Industries in 1983.
The AV Slag Pile covers approximately 40 acres just west of
Stringtown. The pile generally consists of slag produced by the AV
smelter that operated from 1882 to 1960. Based on aerial photography,
the pile volume in the late 1950s was approximately 1.2 million cubic
yards, whereas in 1998 approximately 422,000 cubic yards of slag
remained, of which, approximately 190,000 cubic yards is stockpiled
fine slag.
The La Plata Slag Pile, located west of the City limits of
Leadville on Elm Street, has a volume estimated at 105,000 cubic yards.
Bimetallic Smelting Company leased the La Plata Smelter Works in OU3
from 1892 to 1900 for pyritic smelting of low-grade ores.
The Harrison Reduction Works was located near the northeast corner
of Harrison Avenue and Elm Street, in a residential area. The Harrison
Street Slag Pile ranged from 20 to 50 feet in
[[Page 6773]]
height and covered an area of approximately 3 acres. The Harrison
Street Slag Pile was removed to original grade and relocated to the AV
Slag Pile in March 1998.
Once a hotbed of transportation activities mostly related to
mining, the Poverty Flats rail yard, located between 12th Street,
Highway 24, 17th Street and County Road 8, is now vacant. The portion
of the Poverty Flats rail yard formerly owned by D&RGW is located near
the north end of the City of Leadville, encompasses an area of roughly
43 acres, and is crossed by abandoned rail lines and access roads.
Slag, which was used in the rail yard as ballast and as a road base to
provide support for heavy vehicle traffic, was also deposited around
the loading dock due to spillage during transportation activities.
The rail easement includes the portion of railroad track that runs
diagonally through Leadville and consists of approximately 25 feet on
either side of the track centerline. Slag was used as a road base to
provide support for heavy vehicle traffic. Slag was also deposited as
spillage from passing rail cars.
D&RGW identified a small volume of fine slag in the Poverty Flats
rail yard. D&RGW prepared a plan, which addressed removal of the fine
slag from this area to the AV Smelter Slag Pile. As a result of the
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) purchase of the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company (surviving corporation from an earlier merger of
D&RGW and Southern Pacific Railroad), UPRR took ownership of all D&RGW
property at the Site in 1996 and assumed D&RGW's responsibilities under
the 1993 D&RGW CD.
During the summer and fall of 1997, UPRR removed 1,264 cubic yards
of slag, including fine slag, from the rail yard and placed it onto the
AV Slag Pile. As a result, soils were exposed containing elevated
concentrations of lead. Soils samples, taken before and after removal
of the slag, showed levels of lead in soil that exceed the Site-wide
residential action level of 3500 mg/kg lead, thus lead in the soils on
this property may create the potential for unacceptable human health
risks should the property be developed for residential use. This vacant
property is zoned Business by Lake County. However, institutional
controls are in place to protect human health in the event of future
residential development.
As part of their ballast operations, UPRR relocated approximately
104,000 cubic yards of slag to the AV Slag Pile in March 1998, which
brought the Harrison Street Slag Pile to grade. Soils samples taken
after removal of the slag showed levels of lead in soils, both under
where the slag pile was located and otherwise on the Harrison Avenue
property, that exceed the residential action level for lead in soils of
3500 mg/kg. Thus, the lead in the soils on the Harrison Avenue property
may create the potential for unacceptable human health risks should the
property be developed for residential use. To date, the land remains
vacant. Sections along the highway are zoned Commercial, and the
remaining sections are zoned Transitional Commercial by the City of
Leadville. However, institutional controls are in place to protect
human health in the event of future residential development.
In July 1998, UPRR submitted a Work Plan for the Consolidation of
Fine Slag at the Railroad Easement Near McWethy Drive to 12th Street,
Leadville, Colorado. The work plan provided for the easement to be
converted into a segment of the Mineral Belt Trail. Consistent with the
plan, fine slag from the rail easement was used as base material on the
Mineral Belt Trail. More specifically, the fine slag was consolidated
and covered with a compacted gravel sub-base of six inches and then two
one-inch layers of asphalt to encapsulate it. This resource utilization
was consistent with the contingency under the 1998 OU3 ROD. The
completion of the consolidation work was approved in September 1998.
The conversion of the railroad easement to the Mineral Belt Trail was
completed with the installation of a sub-base, culverts, asphalt,
signs, centerline striping, and re-vegetation. In accordance with a
1998 Memorandum of Understanding between EPA, UPRR, and Lake County,
Lake County completed these projects, and UPRR provided funding for the
sub-base, culverts, and asphalt in 2000. Ownership of the easement has
been transferred to Lake County via quitclaim deed.
OU3 Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The State, the EPA and certain Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) have conducted various studies and investigations to evaluate
the nature and extent of contamination generally at the Site, and
specifically within OU3. Remedial Investigations (RIs) began in 1986
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.
Concurrent with the various investigations and studies, risk
assessments were conducted at the California Gulch Superfund Site. Some
included the Preliminary Baseline Risk Assessment (Preliminary BRA),
and the Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessments (Final BRA): Part
A, Part B, and Part C. For human health risk issues at OU3, the
Preliminary BRA and the Final BRA Part C, Evaluation of Worker Scenario
and Evaluation of Recreational Scenarios, were most pertinent. The
Preliminary BRA indicated that lead and arsenic are responsible for the
majority of human health risks at the Site. Therefore, arsenic and lead
were used as indicator contaminants for risk in the Final BRA.
EPA and D&RGW entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (1991
D&RGW AOC) on December 3, 1991. The 1991 D&RGW AOC required D&RGW to
perform remedial investigations of major lead slag piles and one zinc
slag pile within the Site. In 1992, D&RGW completed a remedial
investigation (1992 OU3 Slag RI) of the major lead slag piles and the
zinc slag pile within the Site. Slag was found to have elevated levels
of zinc, lead, arsenic and cadmium along with a low acid-generating
potential, and a neutral to basic pH. Fine slag, which is less than \3/
8\ of an inch, was found to have elevated lead levels. The fine
fraction of slag was the only part of the slag that may present an
unacceptable risk because fine slag poses an inhalation hazard.
EPA and D&RGW entered into a Consent Decree on September 15, 1993
(1993 D&RGW CD) for the completion of investigation, feasibility
studies, and remediation activities to be performed for OU3. The 1993
D&RGW CD stated EPA's concerns regarding the fine fraction of the
stockpiled slag at the AV Smelter site and the potential for
particulate release during ballast operations as a potential human
health exposure pathway. The 1993 D&RGW CD required D&RGW to perform a
feasibility study for stockpiled fine slag and to submit an operations
plan before initiating any ballast operations.
In 1993, the EPA conducted a Screening Feasibility Study (1993 SFS)
to initiate the overall CERCLA FS process at the California Gulch Site.
The purpose of the SFS was to develop general response actions and
identify an appropriate range of alternatives applicable to the various
contaminant sources to be considered during feasibility studies for the
California Gulch Site. The 1993 SFS for Remedial Alternatives examined
several remediation alternatives for slag located
[[Page 6774]]
at the Site based on specific criteria, such as relative cost,
implementability, and effectiveness. The three remedial alternatives
for slag retained for further evaluation were: No action, institutional
controls, and resource utilization. The La Plata and Harrison Street
Slag piles did not contain fine slag. Therefore, no further action was
necessary. Because the AV Smelter pile contained fine slag, more
investigation was required.
In July of 1995, D&RGW submitted a ballast operations plan to EPA.
Following EPA's approval of the plan, ballast operations commenced in
August 1995 but ceased soon thereafter for lack of a profitable market
for the slag. Ballast operations involve the sorting of larger slag so
that the size fraction of greater than \3/8\ inch and less than 2\1/2\
inches is produced for road ballast. The undersized fraction (i.e.,
less than \3/8\ inch), or sorted fine slag, that is produced by the
sorting process is stockpiled along with the previously sorted fine
slag at the Arkansas Valley pile.
D&RGW's 1996 Final Stockpiled Fine Slag Feasibility Study (1996 OU3
FS) focused on the AV Smelter Slag Pile's existing fine slag subpile
and fine slag potentially generated from future ballast production.
Based upon the 1993 SFS and 1993 D&RGW CD, the remedial action
objective for the stockpiled fine slag was to: prevent leaching of
metals of concern in concentrations that would have an adverse impact
on soils, surface or ground water near the slag piles. The 1996 OU3 FS
provided a detailed analysis of the three retained remediation
alternatives (no action, institutional controls, and resource
utilization) from the 1993 SFS as applied to the stockpiled fine slag.
The result of the 1996 OU3 FS for the stockpiled fine slag was a
Proposed Plan with a No Action Alternative for the stockpiled fine slag
subpile of the AV Smelter Slag Pile. In September 1996, the Proposed
Plan was issued with a preferred alternative of ``No Action,'' with a
contingency for future utilization of the slag.
OU3 Selected Remedy
The EPA issued the Stockpiled Fine Slag--Arkansas Valley Smelter
Slag Pile ROD for OU3 on May 6, 1998 (1998 OU3 ROD). Based on
consideration of CERCLA requirements, detailed analyses of
alternatives, and public comments, the EPA determined that a No Action
alternative was the appropriate remedy. The No Action alternative
leaves the stockpiled fine slag in its existing condition with no
control or cleanup planned. The No Action alternative includes a
provision, denoted as a contingency, for future utilization of the
slag, if it is encapsulated prior to its use or reuse. The 1998 OU3 ROD
also provides a provision to use the slag in the future if regional
market demand exists for the material as a component in construction
materials.
The 1998 OU3 ROD did not require maintenance of the fine slag
piles. Any future use of the slag would require encapsulation prior to
reuse. Encapsulation can include the use of fine slag in concrete or
asphalt aggregate, as a road base, or as backfill (so long as the slag
is chemically bound or physically separated from an exposure by a
barrier consisting of a different material).
Sampling in the Poverty Flats rail yard property and the Harrison
Avenue property shows levels of lead in soils above levels that would
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, i.e., above the
residential action level established for OU9, Residential Populated
Areas of the Site. In addition, the Mineral Belt Trail, which was
constructed on the former railroad easement, acts as a cap for fine
slag and residual slag remains in other parts of OU3. Thus, the August
6, 2014 ESD (2014 OU3 ESD) addresses the need for ICs, and documents
the decision to require ICs for OU3. In addition, the use of the term
``contingency'' for fine slag utilization in the 1998 OU3 ROD is
clarified in the 2014 OU3 ESD. Fine slag can be used for future
commercial purposes by following the requirements set out in the 1998
OU3 ROD.
OU3 Cleanup Standards
As the final determination in the 1998 OU3 ROD was No Action ROD,
no cleanup standards were identified for fine slag in the record of
decision. The OU12 remedy addresses site-wide surface water and
groundwater contamination.
OU3 Response Actions
No response actions were taken pursuant to the No Action ROD. The
ICs established by the City and County ordinances were response actions
that were incorporated into the OU3 remedy by the ESD. Lake County, on
March 3, 2009, and the City of Leadville, on May 7, 2013, implemented
ICs in the form of local ordinances, amending the Land Development
Codes and adopting regulations that protect both engineered and non-
engineered remedies at OU3. A best management practice handout is
provided to all applicants applying for a building permit within OU3.
In addition, any disruptions of engineered or non-engineered remedies,
and/or excavation of more than 10 cubic yards of soil off-site within
OU3 require written approval from the CDPHE.
OU3 Operation and Maintenance
Because the 1998 OU3 ROD was a No Action ROD, no maintenance was
required.
Five-Year Review
The remedies at the entire Site, including OU1 and OU3 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 planned for 2017.
In the 2012 five-year review dated September 27, 2012 for the Site,
the OU1 remedy was determined to be protective in the short-term. There
were concerns regarding continued long-term protectiveness because the
requirement of ICs was not documented in a decision document even
though ICs had already been implemented by the PRP and Lake County.
Environmental covenants for Resurrection/Newmont's properties within
OU1 were recorded with the Lake County Clerk and Recorder on July 31,
2012 and October 10, 2012. An ESD dated July 29, 2013 (2013 OU1 ESD)
resolved this concern.
In the 2012 five-year review for the Site, the OU3 remedies were
determined to be protective in the short-term. The five-year review,
recommended a review to determine whether additional response actions
were needed at OU3 to insure long-term protectiveness. The review
determined that ICs were needed to insure long-term protectiveness. The
2013 OU3 ESD addresses the need for ICs because some soils and residual
slag remained above the residential action level, and documents the
decision to require ICs. Ordinances adopted by the City and County met
the IC objectives set out in the ESD
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA will conduct the
next five-year review by September 27, 2017 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.
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. During the development and implementation of the remedies
for these operable units, comment periods were offered for proposed
plans, five-year reviews, and other public meetings.
[[Page 6775]]
The documents that the EPA relied on for the partial deletion of OU1
and OU3 from the California Gulch Superfund Site are in the docket and
are available to the public in the information repositories. 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).
The State, the Lake County Commissioners, the City of Leadville are
supportive of the partial deletion of OU1 and OU3. The State signed a
letter of concurrence on October 7, 2015.
Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met
EPA has consulted with the State, Lake County Commissioners, and
the City of Leadville on the proposed partial deletion of OU1 and OU3
of the California Gulch Site 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.
The implemented remedies achieve the degree of cleanup or
protection specified in: for OU1, the 1988 OU1 ROD, 1989 OU1 AROD, the
1991 OU1 ESD and 2013 OU1 ESD; and for OU3, the 1998 OU3 ROD and the
2014 OU3 ESD.
All selected removal and remedial action objectives and associated
cleanup goals for OU1 and OU3 are consistent with agency policy and
guidance. This partial deletion meets the completion requirements as
specified in OSWER Directive 9320.2-22, Close Out Procedures for
National Priority List Sites. All response activities at OU1 and OU3 of
the Site are complete and the two operable units pose no unacceptable
risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, EPA and CDPHE have
determined that no further response is necessary at OU1 and OU3 of the
Site.
V. Partial Deletion Action
The EPA, with concurrence of the State through the CDPHE 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 all of OU1, Yak Tunnel/Water
Treatment Plant; and OU3, D&RGW Slag Easement/Railroad Yard, of the
Site.
Because EPA considers this action to be non-controversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective April 11, 2016 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
March 10, 2016. 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 requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: January 15, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-02601 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
