National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the OU2 of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site, 2122-2125 [2019-01319]
Download as PDF
2122
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2002–0008; FRL–9988–
91–Region 8]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Partial
Deletion of the OU2 of the Libby
Asbestos Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete Operable Unit
2 (OU2), Former Screening Plant, of the
Libby Asbestos Superfund Site (Site),
located in Lincoln County, Montana,
from the National Priorities List (NPL)
and requests public comments on this
proposed action. 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
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the State of Montana (State), through the
Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), have determined that all
appropriate response actions at OU2
under CERCLA, other than operation
and maintenance and five-year reviews
(FYR), have been completed. However,
this partial deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.
This partial deletion pertains only to
OU2. Operable Unit 1 (OU1), Former
Export Plant; Operable Unit 3 (OU3),
Former Vermiculite Mine; Operable
Unit 4 and Operable Unit 7 (OU4/OU7),
Residential/Commercial Properties of
Libby and Troy; Operable Unit 5 (OU5),
Former Stimson Lumber Mill; Operable
Unit 6 (OU6), BNSF Rail Corridor; and
Operable Unit 8 (OU8), Highways and
Roadways, are not being considered for
deletion as part of this proposed action
and will remain on the NPL.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2002–0008 by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow on-line instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Feb 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa2.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
• Email: Dania Zinner, zinner.dania@
epa.gov
• Mail: Dania Zinner, Remedial
Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 8,
Mail Code 8EPR–SR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, CO 80202–1129
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2002–
0008. The 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 website 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, the 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://
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in the
hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in
https://www.regulations.gov; by calling
EPA Region 8 at (303) 312–7279 and
leaving a message; and at the EPA Info
Center, 108 E 9th Street, Libby, MT
59923, (406) 293–6194, Monday through
Thursday from 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dania Zinner, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 8, Mailcode EPR–SR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO
80202–1129, (303) 312–7122, email
zinner.dania@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents:
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA announces its intent to delete all
of Operable Unit 2 (OU2), Former
Screening Plant, of the Libby Asbestos
Superfund Site (Site) from the NPL and
requests public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which
is the NCP, which the EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the CERCLA
of 1980, as amended. The EPA
maintains the NPL as those 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 OU2 of
the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site is
proposed in accordance with 40 CFR
300.425(e) and is consistent with the
Notice of Policy Change: Partial
Deletion of Sites Listed on the National
Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1,
1995). As described in section
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.
The EPA will accept comments on the
proposal to partially delete this site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register.
Section II of this document explains
the criteria for deleting sites from the
NPL. Section III discusses procedures
that the EPA is using for this action.
Section IV discusses the OU2 of the
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Libby Asbestos Superfund Site and
demonstrates how it meets the deletion
criteria.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
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), the EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any
of the following criteria have been met:
i. Responsible parties or other persons
have implemented all appropriate
response actions required;
ii. All appropriate Fund-financed
response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response
action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
iii. The remedial investigation has
shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, the taking
of remedial measures in not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c)
and the NCP, the EPA conducts fiveyear 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. The EPA
conducts such five-year reviews even if
a site is deleted from the NPL. The 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. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to
deletion of OU2 of the Libby Asbestos
Superfund Site:
(1) The EPA consulted with the State
before developing this Notice of Intent
for Partial Deletion.
(2) The EPA has provided the State 30
working days for review of this notice
prior to publication of it today.
(3) In accordance with the criteria
discussed above, EPA has determined
that no further response is appropriate;
(4) The State of Montana, through the
DEQ, has concurred with deletion of
OU2 of the Libby Asbestos Superfund
Site, from the NPL.
(5) Concurrently with the publication
of this Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion in the Federal Register, notices
are being published in the Western
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Feb 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
News, the Kootenai Valley Record, and
the Montanian. The newspaper notices
announce the 30-day public comment
period concerning the Notice of Intent
for Partial Deletion of the Site from the
NPL.
(6) The EPA placed copies of
documents supporting the proposed
partial deletion in the deletion docket,
made these items available for public
inspection, and copying at the Site
information repositories identified
above.
If comments are received within the
30-day comment period on this
document, the EPA will evaluate and
respond to the comments before making
a final decision to delete OU2. If
necessary, the EPA will prepare a
Responsiveness Summary to address
any significant public comments
received. After the public comment
period, if the EPA determines it is still
appropriate to delete OU2 of the Libby
Asbestos Superfund Site, the Regional
Administrator will publish a final
Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal
Register. Public notices, public
submissions and copies of the
Responsiveness Summary, if prepared,
will be made available to interested
parties and included in the site
information repositories listed above.
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 the 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 future response actions,
should future conditions warrant such
actions.
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site
Deletion
The following information provides
the EPA’s rationale for deleting the OU2
of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site
from the NPL:
Site Background and History
The Libby Asbestos Superfund Site,
CERCLIS No. MT0009083840, is located
in Lincoln County, Montana in the
northwest corner of Montana
approximately 35 miles east of Idaho
and 65 miles south of Canada. The Site
was proposed for inclusion on the NPL
on February 26, 2002 (67 FR 8836) and
listed on October 24, 2002 (67 FR
65315).
Vermiculite was discovered 7 miles
northeast of Libby, Montana in 1881 by
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2123
gold miners. In the early 1920s, Mr.
Edward Alley began initial mining
operations on the vermiculite ore body.
Full-scale operations began later that
decade under the name of the Universal
Zonolite Insulation Company (Zonolite).
This ore body contained a mixture of
amphibole mineral fibers of varying
elemental composition (e.g., winchite,
richterite, tremolite) that have been
identified in the Rainy Creek complex
near Libby (Libby amphibole asbestos or
LA). Unlike the commercially exploited
chrysotile asbestos, the LA material has
never been used commercially on a
wide scale, and, for the mine’s operating
life, it was considered a byproduct of
little or no value. The commercially
exploited vermiculite was used in a
variety of products including insulation
and construction materials, as a carrier
for fertilizer and other agricultural
chemicals, and as a soil conditioner.
The vermiculite ore was mined using
standard strip mining techniques and
conventional mining equipment. The
ore was then processed in an onsite dry
mill to remove waste rock and
overburden material. Once processed,
the ore was transported down from the
mine to the former Screening Plant
(OU2), which sorted the ore into five
size ranges. After the sorting process,
the material was shipped to various
locations across the United States for
either direct inclusion in products or for
‘‘expansion’’ prior to use in products.
Expansion (also known as ‘‘exfoliation’’
or ‘‘popping’’) was accomplished by
heating the ore, usually in a dry kiln, to
approximately 2000 °F. This process
explosively vaporizes the water
contained within the mica structure,
causing the vermiculite to expand by a
factor of 10 to 15. This produces the
vermiculite material most commonly
seen in stores and sold as soil
conditioner for gardens and
greenhouses. In 1963, Grace purchased
Zonolite and continued vermiculitemining operations in a similar fashion.
In 1975, a wet milling process was
added that operated in tandem with the
dry mill until the dry mill was taken off
line in 1985. The wet milling process
was added to reduce dust generation by
the milling process. Expansion
operations at the former Export Plant
ceased in Libby sometime prior to 1981,
although this area was still used to bag
and export milled ore until mining
operations were stopped in 1990. Before
the mine closed in 1990, Libby
produced about 80 percent of the
world’s supply of vermiculite.
The Site was placed on the NPL in
response to media articles, which
detailed extensive asbestos-related
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
2124
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
health problems in the Libby
population. EPA arrived on-site in 1999
and since then EPA has conducted
sampling and response action activities
to address highly contaminated areas in
the Libby Valley. While at first the
situation was thought to be limited to
those with direct or indirect
occupational exposures, it soon became
clear there were multiple exposure
pathways, and many persons with no
link to mining-related activities were
affected. Typically, the amphibole
asbestos contamination found in the
Libby Valley comes from one or some
combination of source materials (e.g.,
vermiculite insulation, processed
vermiculite ore, mine wastes). Asbestos
from these source materials has been
found in interior building dust samples
and local soils, which in turn act as
secondary sources. Response actions to
clean up the Site have been ongoing
since 1999.
The Site has 8 operable units (OUs).
The OUs are as follows: Operable Unit
1 (OU1), Former Export Plant; Operable
Unit 2 (OU2), Former Screening Plant;
Operable Unit 3 (OU3), Former
Vermiculite Mine; Operable Unit 4 and
Operable Unit 7 (OU4/OU7),
Residential/Commercial Properties of
Libby and Troy; Operable Unit 5 (OU5),
Former Stimson Lumber Mill; Operable
Unit 6 (OU6), BNSF Rail Corridor; and
Operable Unit 8 (OU8), Highways and
Roadways. The OUs pertain to distinct
geographical areas corresponding to
areas of responsibility for the identified
responsible parties and/or to distinct
sources of contamination.
The background and history, the
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies (RI/FS), Removal and Response
Actions, Selected Remedies, Cleanup
Standards, and Operation and
Maintenance activities for OU2 are
discussed below.
OU2 Background and History
Operable Unit 2 (OU2) consists of the
former screening plant and surrounding
properties. OU2 is located
approximately five miles northeast of
the City of Libby on the east side of the
Kootenai River and at the confluence of
Rainy Creek and the Kootenai River. A
map of OU2 can be found in the docket
at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2002–0008. The
OU2 site was historically owned and
used by W.R. Grace for stockpiling,
staging, and distributing vermiculite
and vermiculite concentrate to
vermiculite processing areas and
insulation distributors outside of the
City of Libby. OU2 is known as the
former Screening Plant and Surrounding
Properties. OU2 has been separated into
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Feb 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
distinct impacted areas that include the
former Screening Plant (Subarea 1), the
Flyway (Subarea 2), Privately-Owned
Property (Subarea 3), and the Rainy
Creek Road Frontages (Subarea 4). The
Highway 37 right-of-way (ROW)
adjacent to the OU2 site was included
due to its proximity to OU2 and the
known contamination in the ROW.
OU2 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 1999 within the Site, including the
export and screening plants and highly
contaminated areas with exposure
pathways such as residential/
commercial properties and schools.
Various removal actions were
conducted starting in 2000 through 2006
where source areas were excavated and
were disposed of at the former
vermiculite mine (OU3). The Former
Screening Plant Remedial Investigation
(2009 RI) evaluated the human health
and environmental impacts due to the
former screening plant and surrounding
properties.
In August 2009, the OU2 Remedial
Investigation (2009 RI) confirmed that
OU2 had been mostly cleaned up by
prior removal actions and that only two
more locations needed to be remediated
to meet EPA’s clearance criteria and to
break the exposure pathway to LA.
The EPA released the OU2 Feasibility
Study (FS) in August 2009 and a
proposed plan in September 2009.
OU2 Selected Remedy
The EPA issued the Record of
Decision (ROD) for OU2 (2010 OU2
ROD) on May 10, 2010. The selected
remedy in the 2010 OU2 ROD was
narrowly focused on breaking the
exposure pathway to LA in a few
locations on OU2 as most of the former
screening plant was already remediated
by prior removal actions. Other
surrounding contaminated geographical
areas were addressed as part of remedial
actions taken at other operable units.
Thus, the 2010 OU2 ROD identified
three remedial action objectives (RAOs)
of breaking the exposure pathway for
inhalation of LA fibers, controlling
erosion of contaminated soil to prevent
exposures and spread of contamination,
and implementing controls to prevent
uses of the site that could pose
unacceptable risks to human health.
The original remedy selected in the
2010 OU2 ROD consisted of the
following remedial components: (1)
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Excavation and offsite disposal of top 18
inches of soil in certain areas; (2)
Protective cover of clean soil; (3)
Institutional controls such as a utility
location service and community
awareness programs to prevent exposure
to contamination in the subsurface and
the spread of contamination; and (4)
Operations and maintenance of the
remedy.
Because the selected remedy in the
2010 OU2 ROD left wastes in place, ICs
are critical to the protection of the
remedy. The objectives of ICs for OU2
are as follows: (1) Notify future
landowners of the presence of
subsurface contamination and IC
requirements; (2) Mitigate the potential
for inhalation exposures to LA fibers; (3)
Control dispersion/erosion of
contaminated soil to prevent the spread
of contamination; (4) Implement
controls to prevent uses of the site that
could pose unacceptable risks or
compromise the remedy; and (5)
Implement controls to prevent uses of
the site that could spread contamination
to un-impacted or previously
remediated locations. The properties
that comprise OU2 are owned by
Kootenai Development Company and a
private residential property owner.
OU2 Cleanup Standards
The OU2 remedy was one of the first
source control remedies at the Site that
addressed breaking the exposure
pathway to a highly contaminated area
of the site, but did not contain numeric
cleanup standards because toxicity
values for Libby amphibole asbestos had
not been finalized yet. Numeric cleanup
standards for site-wide soil
contamination were established in the
OUs 4–8 Record of Decision. A postconstruction risk assessment for OU2
was released in October 2015
confirming that the remediation met
cleanup standards.
OU2 Response Actions
The EPA and W.R. Grace & Co.—Conn
(Grace) entered into an Administrative
Order on Consent for Removal Action
(AOC) to cost recover funds for EPA
removal actions on OU2 and for Grace
to assume responsibility of post-removal
site controls. Notice for completion of
work was sent in December 2015 and
this AOC has been closed out following
recording of an environmental covenant
on Grace’s property (Flyway).
Remedial activities began in summer
of 2010 with excavation of the areas
investigated where the exposure
pathway needed to be broken including
along the Highway 37 ROW. Materials
were excavated, disposed offsite at the
former vermiculite mine (OU3), and
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
confirmation sampling was performed at
depth. Clean cover was placed as
backfill at depths of 6 inches to 25
inches depending upon location and
these areas were hydroseeded
(vegetated) to prevent erosion.
Additional confirmation activity-based
sampling was conducted in summer of
2012 to confirm effectiveness of remedy.
The OU2 post-construction risk
assessment (October 2015) and the sitewide risk assessment (November 2015)
both confirmed that the remedy at OU2
is protective. As part of the AOC
agreement with Grace, the Kootenai
Development Company (a subsidiary of
Grace) placed an environmental
covenant on its property in OU2 on July
28, 2014 that meets the IC objectives
above. All remedial components
described in the 2010 OU2 ROD have
been implemented.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
OU2 Operation and Maintenance
The State and PRP operations and
maintenance (O&M) responsibilities are
defined in the OU2 O&M Plan
(September 2018). Grace’s
responsibilities are further defined in
the environmental covenant (July 2014)
for the Flyway property.
Montana DEQ requirements for O&M
includes conducting an annual
inspection, preparing an annual report,
maintaining the cover, and evaluating/
updating institutional controls (ICs).
Current annual inspection reports and
associated data are available by
contacting EPA Region 8 or Montana
DEQ.
In regard to ICs, an environmental
covenant for the Kootenai Development
Company’s property within OU2 was
recorded with the Lincoln County Clerk
and Recorder on July 28, 2014. The
environmental covenant provides the
following Use Restrictions: (1) No
excavation, construction, or disturbing
soil on the property without written
approval from EPA and Montana DEQ,
(2) Prior to disturbance activities, a
written plan must be approved by EPA
and Montana DEQ that describes the
health and safety of workers and
restoring the integrity of the cover
material, 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.
Five-Year Review
The remedies at the entire Site,
including OU2 require ongoing five-year
reviews in accordance with CERCLA
Section 121(c) and Section
300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP.
In the statutory 2015 five-year review
dated June 22, 2015 conducted for OU1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Feb 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
and OU2 for the Site, the OU2 remedy
was determined to be protective since
all required institutional controls were
in place including an environmental
covenant on the Kootenai Development
Company’s property. There were no
issues or recommendations for OU2.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c)
and the NCP, EPA will conduct the next
five-year review by June 22, 2020 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 remedy for this
operable unit, comment periods were
offered for the proposed plan, the fiveyear review, and other public meetings.
The documents that the EPA relied on
for the partial deletion of OU2 from the
Libby Asbestos 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 Western News, the
Kootenai Valley Record, and the
Montanian to satisfy public
participation procedures required by 40
CFR 300.425 (e) (4).
The State, the Lincoln County
Commissioners, and the City of Libby
are supportive of the partial deletion of
OU2. The State signed a letter of
concurrence on September 13, 2018.
Determination That the Site Meets the
Criteria for Deletion
EPA has consulted with the State,
Lincoln County Commissioners, and the
City of Libby on the proposed partial
deletion of OU2 of the Libby Asbestos
Site from the NPL prior to developing
this Notice of Partial Deletion. Through
the five-year review, 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 the 2010 OU2 ROD.
All selected removal and remedial
action objectives and associated cleanup
goals for OU2 are consistent with
agency policy and guidance. This partial
deletion meets the completion
requirements as specified in OSWER
Directive 9320.2–22, Close Out
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2125
Procedures for National Priority List
Sites. All response activities at OU2 of
the Site are complete and the Operable
Unit poses no unacceptable risk to
human health or the environment.
Therefore, EPA and Montana DEQ have
determined that no further response is
necessary at OU2 of the Site.
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.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d), 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12580, E.O. 12777, E.O.
13626, 52 FR 29233, 56 FR 54757, 77 FR
56749, 3 CFR 2013 Comp., p. 306; 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.
193.
Dated: December 20, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019–01319 Filed 2–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Part 515
[Docket No. 18–11]
RIN 3072–AC73
Amendments to Regulations
Governing Licensing, Financial
Responsibility Requirements, and
General Duties for Ocean
Transportation Intermediaries
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In a proposed rule published
in the Federal Register on December 17,
2018, the Federal Maritime Commission
proposed to amend its rules governing
licensing, financial responsibility
requirements, and general duties for
ocean transportation intermediaries
(OTIs). The proposed changes are
mainly administrative and procedural.
This notice reopens the comment period
which concluded on January 18, 2019.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
published December 17, 2018 (83 FR
64502) are due on or before February 22,
2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by the following methods:
• Email: secretary@fmc.gov.
• Mail: Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary,
Federal Maritime Commission, 800
North Capitol Street NW, Washington,
DC 20573–0001.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2122-2125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01319]
[[Page 2122]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0008; FRL-9988-91-Region 8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the OU2 of the Libby
Asbestos Superfund Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete Operable Unit 2 (OU2), Former Screening
Plant, of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site (Site), located in Lincoln
County, Montana, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests
public comments on this proposed action. 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 Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Montana (State),
through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), have determined
that all appropriate response actions at OU2 under CERCLA, other than
operation and maintenance and five-year reviews (FYR), have been
completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
This partial deletion pertains only to OU2. Operable Unit 1 (OU1),
Former Export Plant; Operable Unit 3 (OU3), Former Vermiculite Mine;
Operable Unit 4 and Operable Unit 7 (OU4/OU7), Residential/Commercial
Properties of Libby and Troy; Operable Unit 5 (OU5), Former Stimson
Lumber Mill; Operable Unit 6 (OU6), BNSF Rail Corridor; and Operable
Unit 8 (OU8), Highways and Roadways, are not being considered for
deletion as part of this proposed action and will remain on the NPL.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 8, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2002-0008 by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa2.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Email: Dania Zinner, zinner.dania@epa.gov
Mail: Dania Zinner, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA,
Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2002-0008. The 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 website
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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
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 the 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 EPA Info Center, 108 E 9th
Street, Libby, MT 59923, (406) 293-6194, Monday through Thursday from
8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dania Zinner, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode EPR-
SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129, (303) 312-7122, email
zinner.dania@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents:
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA announces its intent to delete all of Operable Unit 2 (OU2),
Former Screening Plant, of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site (Site)
from the NPL and requests public comment on this proposed action. The
NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the NCP, which
the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the CERCLA of 1980, as
amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as those 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 OU2 of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site is proposed in
accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of
Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National
Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in section
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.
The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete
this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in
the Federal Register.
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is
using for this action. Section IV discusses the OU2 of the
[[Page 2123]]
Libby Asbestos Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the
deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures in not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the 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. The EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. The 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. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to deletion of OU2 of the Libby
Asbestos Superfund Site:
(1) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice
of Intent for Partial Deletion.
(2) The EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of
this notice prior to publication of it today.
(3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate;
(4) The State of Montana, through the DEQ, has concurred with
deletion of OU2 of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site, from the NPL.
(5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, notices are being published
in the Western News, the Kootenai Valley Record, and the Montanian. The
newspaper notices announce the 30-day public comment period concerning
the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
partial deletion in the deletion docket, made these items available for
public inspection, and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this
document, the EPA will evaluate and respond to the comments before
making a final decision to delete OU2. If necessary, the EPA will
prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if the EPA
determines it is still appropriate to delete OU2 of the Libby Asbestos
Superfund Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice
of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public
submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will
be made available to interested parties and included in the site
information repositories listed above.
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
the 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 future
response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion
The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting
the OU2 of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site from the NPL:
Site Background and History
The Libby Asbestos Superfund Site, CERCLIS No. MT0009083840, is
located in Lincoln County, Montana in the northwest corner of Montana
approximately 35 miles east of Idaho and 65 miles south of Canada. The
Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL on February 26, 2002 (67 FR
8836) and listed on October 24, 2002 (67 FR 65315).
Vermiculite was discovered 7 miles northeast of Libby, Montana in
1881 by gold miners. In the early 1920s, Mr. Edward Alley began initial
mining operations on the vermiculite ore body. Full-scale operations
began later that decade under the name of the Universal Zonolite
Insulation Company (Zonolite). This ore body contained a mixture of
amphibole mineral fibers of varying elemental composition (e.g.,
winchite, richterite, tremolite) that have been identified in the Rainy
Creek complex near Libby (Libby amphibole asbestos or LA). Unlike the
commercially exploited chrysotile asbestos, the LA material has never
been used commercially on a wide scale, and, for the mine's operating
life, it was considered a byproduct of little or no value. The
commercially exploited vermiculite was used in a variety of products
including insulation and construction materials, as a carrier for
fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals, and as a soil conditioner.
The vermiculite ore was mined using standard strip mining techniques
and conventional mining equipment. The ore was then processed in an
onsite dry mill to remove waste rock and overburden material. Once
processed, the ore was transported down from the mine to the former
Screening Plant (OU2), which sorted the ore into five size ranges.
After the sorting process, the material was shipped to various
locations across the United States for either direct inclusion in
products or for ``expansion'' prior to use in products. Expansion (also
known as ``exfoliation'' or ``popping'') was accomplished by heating
the ore, usually in a dry kiln, to approximately 2000 [deg]F. This
process explosively vaporizes the water contained within the mica
structure, causing the vermiculite to expand by a factor of 10 to 15.
This produces the vermiculite material most commonly seen in stores and
sold as soil conditioner for gardens and greenhouses. In 1963, Grace
purchased Zonolite and continued vermiculite-mining operations in a
similar fashion. In 1975, a wet milling process was added that operated
in tandem with the dry mill until the dry mill was taken off line in
1985. The wet milling process was added to reduce dust generation by
the milling process. Expansion operations at the former Export Plant
ceased in Libby sometime prior to 1981, although this area was still
used to bag and export milled ore until mining operations were stopped
in 1990. Before the mine closed in 1990, Libby produced about 80
percent of the world's supply of vermiculite.
The Site was placed on the NPL in response to media articles, which
detailed extensive asbestos-related
[[Page 2124]]
health problems in the Libby population. EPA arrived on-site in 1999
and since then EPA has conducted sampling and response action
activities to address highly contaminated areas in the Libby Valley.
While at first the situation was thought to be limited to those with
direct or indirect occupational exposures, it soon became clear there
were multiple exposure pathways, and many persons with no link to
mining-related activities were affected. Typically, the amphibole
asbestos contamination found in the Libby Valley comes from one or some
combination of source materials (e.g., vermiculite insulation,
processed vermiculite ore, mine wastes). Asbestos from these source
materials has been found in interior building dust samples and local
soils, which in turn act as secondary sources. Response actions to
clean up the Site have been ongoing since 1999.
The Site has 8 operable units (OUs). The OUs are as follows:
Operable Unit 1 (OU1), Former Export Plant; Operable Unit 2 (OU2),
Former Screening Plant; Operable Unit 3 (OU3), Former Vermiculite Mine;
Operable Unit 4 and Operable Unit 7 (OU4/OU7), Residential/Commercial
Properties of Libby and Troy; Operable Unit 5 (OU5), Former Stimson
Lumber Mill; Operable Unit 6 (OU6), BNSF Rail Corridor; and Operable
Unit 8 (OU8), Highways and Roadways. The OUs pertain to distinct
geographical areas corresponding to areas of responsibility for the
identified responsible parties and/or to distinct sources of
contamination.
The background and history, the Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies (RI/FS), Removal and Response Actions, Selected
Remedies, Cleanup Standards, and Operation and Maintenance activities
for OU2 are discussed below.
OU2 Background and History
Operable Unit 2 (OU2) consists of the former screening plant and
surrounding properties. OU2 is located approximately five miles
northeast of the City of Libby on the east side of the Kootenai River
and at the confluence of Rainy Creek and the Kootenai River. A map of
OU2 can be found in the docket at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0008. The OU2 site was historically owned and
used by W.R. Grace for stockpiling, staging, and distributing
vermiculite and vermiculite concentrate to vermiculite processing areas
and insulation distributors outside of the City of Libby. OU2 is known
as the former Screening Plant and Surrounding Properties. OU2 has been
separated into distinct impacted areas that include the former
Screening Plant (Subarea 1), the Flyway (Subarea 2), Privately-Owned
Property (Subarea 3), and the Rainy Creek Road Frontages (Subarea 4).
The Highway 37 right-of-way (ROW) adjacent to the OU2 site was included
due to its proximity to OU2 and the known contamination in the ROW.
OU2 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 1999 within the Site, including the
export and screening plants and highly contaminated areas with exposure
pathways such as residential/commercial properties and schools. Various
removal actions were conducted starting in 2000 through 2006 where
source areas were excavated and were disposed of at the former
vermiculite mine (OU3). The Former Screening Plant Remedial
Investigation (2009 RI) evaluated the human health and environmental
impacts due to the former screening plant and surrounding properties.
In August 2009, the OU2 Remedial Investigation (2009 RI) confirmed
that OU2 had been mostly cleaned up by prior removal actions and that
only two more locations needed to be remediated to meet EPA's clearance
criteria and to break the exposure pathway to LA.
The EPA released the OU2 Feasibility Study (FS) in August 2009 and
a proposed plan in September 2009.
OU2 Selected Remedy
The EPA issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU2 (2010 OU2 ROD)
on May 10, 2010. The selected remedy in the 2010 OU2 ROD was narrowly
focused on breaking the exposure pathway to LA in a few locations on
OU2 as most of the former screening plant was already remediated by
prior removal actions. Other surrounding contaminated geographical
areas were addressed as part of remedial actions taken at other
operable units. Thus, the 2010 OU2 ROD identified three remedial action
objectives (RAOs) of breaking the exposure pathway for inhalation of LA
fibers, controlling erosion of contaminated soil to prevent exposures
and spread of contamination, and implementing controls to prevent uses
of the site that could pose unacceptable risks to human health.
The original remedy selected in the 2010 OU2 ROD consisted of the
following remedial components: (1) Excavation and offsite disposal of
top 18 inches of soil in certain areas; (2) Protective cover of clean
soil; (3) Institutional controls such as a utility location service and
community awareness programs to prevent exposure to contamination in
the subsurface and the spread of contamination; and (4) Operations and
maintenance of the remedy.
Because the selected remedy in the 2010 OU2 ROD left wastes in
place, ICs are critical to the protection of the remedy. The objectives
of ICs for OU2 are as follows: (1) Notify future landowners of the
presence of subsurface contamination and IC requirements; (2) Mitigate
the potential for inhalation exposures to LA fibers; (3) Control
dispersion/erosion of contaminated soil to prevent the spread of
contamination; (4) Implement controls to prevent uses of the site that
could pose unacceptable risks or compromise the remedy; and (5)
Implement controls to prevent uses of the site that could spread
contamination to un-impacted or previously remediated locations. The
properties that comprise OU2 are owned by Kootenai Development Company
and a private residential property owner.
OU2 Cleanup Standards
The OU2 remedy was one of the first source control remedies at the
Site that addressed breaking the exposure pathway to a highly
contaminated area of the site, but did not contain numeric cleanup
standards because toxicity values for Libby amphibole asbestos had not
been finalized yet. Numeric cleanup standards for site-wide soil
contamination were established in the OUs 4-8 Record of Decision. A
post-construction risk assessment for OU2 was released in October 2015
confirming that the remediation met cleanup standards.
OU2 Response Actions
The EPA and W.R. Grace & Co.--Conn (Grace) entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (AOC) to cost
recover funds for EPA removal actions on OU2 and for Grace to assume
responsibility of post-removal site controls. Notice for completion of
work was sent in December 2015 and this AOC has been closed out
following recording of an environmental covenant on Grace's property
(Flyway).
Remedial activities began in summer of 2010 with excavation of the
areas investigated where the exposure pathway needed to be broken
including along the Highway 37 ROW. Materials were excavated, disposed
offsite at the former vermiculite mine (OU3), and
[[Page 2125]]
confirmation sampling was performed at depth. Clean cover was placed as
backfill at depths of 6 inches to 25 inches depending upon location and
these areas were hydroseeded (vegetated) to prevent erosion. Additional
confirmation activity-based sampling was conducted in summer of 2012 to
confirm effectiveness of remedy. The OU2 post-construction risk
assessment (October 2015) and the site-wide risk assessment (November
2015) both confirmed that the remedy at OU2 is protective. As part of
the AOC agreement with Grace, the Kootenai Development Company (a
subsidiary of Grace) placed an environmental covenant on its property
in OU2 on July 28, 2014 that meets the IC objectives above. All
remedial components described in the 2010 OU2 ROD have been
implemented.
OU2 Operation and Maintenance
The State and PRP operations and maintenance (O&M) responsibilities
are defined in the OU2 O&M Plan (September 2018). Grace's
responsibilities are further defined in the environmental covenant
(July 2014) for the Flyway property.
Montana DEQ requirements for O&M includes conducting an annual
inspection, preparing an annual report, maintaining the cover, and
evaluating/updating institutional controls (ICs). Current annual
inspection reports and associated data are available by contacting EPA
Region 8 or Montana DEQ.
In regard to ICs, an environmental covenant for the Kootenai
Development Company's property within OU2 was recorded with the Lincoln
County Clerk and Recorder on July 28, 2014. The environmental covenant
provides the following Use Restrictions: (1) No excavation,
construction, or disturbing soil on the property without written
approval from EPA and Montana DEQ, (2) Prior to disturbance activities,
a written plan must be approved by EPA and Montana DEQ that describes
the health and safety of workers and restoring the integrity of the
cover material, 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.
Five-Year Review
The remedies at the entire Site, including OU2 require ongoing
five-year reviews in accordance with CERCLA Section 121(c) and Section
300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP.
In the statutory 2015 five-year review dated June 22, 2015
conducted for OU1 and OU2 for the Site, the OU2 remedy was determined
to be protective since all required institutional controls were in
place including an environmental covenant on the Kootenai Development
Company's property. There were no issues or recommendations for OU2.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA will conduct the
next five-year review by June 22, 2020 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 remedy
for this operable unit, comment periods were offered for the proposed
plan, the five-year review, and other public meetings. The documents
that the EPA relied on for the partial deletion of OU2 from the Libby
Asbestos 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 Western
News, the Kootenai Valley Record, and the Montanian to satisfy public
participation procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425 (e) (4).
The State, the Lincoln County Commissioners, and the City of Libby
are supportive of the partial deletion of OU2. The State signed a
letter of concurrence on September 13, 2018.
Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion
EPA has consulted with the State, Lincoln County Commissioners, and
the City of Libby on the proposed partial deletion of OU2 of the Libby
Asbestos Site from the NPL prior to developing this Notice of Partial
Deletion. Through the five-year review, 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 the 2010 OU2 ROD.
All selected removal and remedial action objectives and associated
cleanup goals for OU2 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 OU2 of the Site are complete and
the Operable Unit poses no unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment. Therefore, EPA and Montana DEQ have determined that no
further response is necessary at OU2 of the Site.
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.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12580,
E.O. 12777, E.O. 13626, 52 FR 29233, 56 FR 54757, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR
2013 Comp., p. 306; 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.
193.
Dated: December 20, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-01319 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P