Deletion of the Midvale Slag Superfund Site Responsiveness Summary

March 23 , 2015

Introduction

A Notice of Intent to Delete for the Midvale Slag Superfund Site was published in the Federal Register on February 5 , 201 5 ( 80 FR 6946 ). The publication of this notice inform ed the

pu blic that EPA planned to delete the Site from the Nati o nal Priorities List and provide d a 30

- day public comment period on the prop o sed deletion. The closing date for comments on the

Notice of Intent to Del e te was March 9, 2015

. One written comment w as received (th is

comment is available in the Information Repositories); therefore EPA has prepared this Responsiveness Summary. In addition, all public comments were considered in EPA’s final

decision to delete the Site from the NPL.

Responsiveness Summary

The Responsiveness Su mmary has been prepared to provide response to the comment submitted to EPA during the 30

- day public comment period regarding the Notice of Intent to

Delete (79 FR) the Midvale Slag Superfund Site. The original comment is provided below and is

available a t http://www.regulations.gov , Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 1991

- 0006 , with the support materials under document type “Public Submissions”, and at the information repositories at the following addresses:

The Ruth T yler Branch Library, Midvale, UT 84047; Phone: 801

- 944

- 7641 Or the EPA Web Page, www2.epa.gov/region8/ Midvale slag Or by calling EPA Region 8 at 303.312.7279 and leaving a message.

Comment and Response (comment is italicized )

C omment s from Bryan M. Bliek, Freshman at Dartmouth College I cannot support deletion. According to agency literature, the EPA may delete a final NPL site if it determines that no further response is required to protect human health or the environment.

Has the EPA made enormous progress? Absolutely. But to say no further response is required is patently false and egregiously flouts the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, which emphasizes the importance of permanent remedies.

A main EPA objective was Protect Jordan Rive r Water Quality. The cleanup of the Midvale Slag Superfund Site has greatly improved the local aquatic environment in the adjacent stretches of the Jordan River. However, a permanent remedy is impaired by external influences. In 2002, the EPA identified up stream Superfund sites that continue to contaminate the water in the Midvale Slag Superfund Site, including Kennecott. At Kennecott North, there is surface and ground water contaminated with heavy metals, the migration of which is pointedly described as no t under control; at Kennecott South there is heavy metal in the surface and ground water, with especially high lead and arsenic levels. Combined, this specifically threatens the portion of the JordanRiver under Midvale Slag Superfund Site jurisdiction. Th us, at this time, further response is

absolutely required in order to protect human health, the environment, and the water quality of the Jordan River, as well as to create a permanent solution.

There is recourse. As long as the Midvale Slag Superfund Sit e remains on the NPL, it could characterize this threat as [a release of] hazardous substances that [is] serious, but not immediately life threatening explicit grounds upon which long

- term remedial action can be implemented. Ideally, the EPA would deem it appropriate to realize this action by absorbing the Kennecott operational units (which are not NPL

- designated) into the Midvale Slag Superfund Site, the justification being the overlapping area of impact (the Jordan River). Then, under Midvale Slags NPL po wers, it could a ffect long

- term remedial action at the source, a permanent solution to heavy metals contamination in the Jordan River.

Even if this scenario is technically and legally impossible, then the fact remains that there is no permanent solution f

or the Midvale Slag Superfund Site and that, indeed, there will have to be further action to protect human health and the environment, which should dissuade the EPA from pursuing deletion. Upstream contamination would continue ad infinitum, necessitating

l ong

- term remedial reactions and cleanup beyond the scope of mere operations, management, and five

- year reviews. In turn, this necessitates the preservation of NPL status since, according to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil ity Act, long

- term remedial response actions are applicable only to NPL sites.

In summary, to pursue deletion now would declare Mission Accomplished prematurely, when there is clearly still a need to permanently protect human health, the environment, and the water quality of the Jordan River.”

Response:

Results from on

- going monitoring of groundwater and surface water show that the Jordan River water quality is not being impacted by the Site. This information is available in support documentation in the local repository and at http://www.regulations.gov , Docket ID No. EPA

HQ

- SFUND

- 1991

- 0006.

The Kennecott North and Kennecott South Sites which are loca ted upstream, are not part of this

Site. EPA is addressing Kennecott North and South like an NPL site pursuant to a Consent

Decree settlement with Kennecott. The Consent Decree settlement includes appropriate response

activities to address contamination in the Jordan River.

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

. Therefore, e ven with deleting Midvale Slag from the NPL, this does not mean that EPA is

finished. The EPA and the state will continue to implement and enforce the ICs, to perform operation and maintenance, monitor groundwater and surface water, a nd perform five

- year reviews.