6458 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Section .1000 Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Standard 

******

Sect .1002 ........ Applicability ..................................................................................... 1/1/2014 2/5/2015 ....................

[Insert Federal Register citation ].

Sect .1003 ........ Definitions ....................................................................................... 2/1/2014 2/5/2015 ....................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

Sect .1004 ........ Tailpipe Emission Standards for CO and HC ................................ 7/11/2007 2/5/2015 ....................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

Repealed. 

Sect .1005 ........ On-Board Diagnostic Standards .................................................... 1/1/2014 2/5/2015 ....................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

******

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date 

Federal Register 

citation Explanation 

******

Non-Interference Demonstration for the North Carolina Inspection 

and Maintenance Program.

10/11/2013 ....... 2/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation].

[FR Doc. 2015–02071 Filed 2–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1991–0006; FRL–9922– 

55–Region 8] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Midvale Slag Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Deletion of the Midvale Slag Superfund 

Site (Site), located in Salt Lake County, 

Utah, 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 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

Utah, through the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (UDEQ), because 

EPA has determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation, maintenance and fiveyear reviews of the Site, have been 

completed. However, this deletion does 

not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective April 6, 2015 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 9, 

2015. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1991–0006, by one of the 

following methods: (1) http://

www.regulations.gov: Follow on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) Email: waterman.erna@epa.gov (3) 

Fax: 303–312–7151 (4) Mail: Erna 

Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, 

U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR– 

SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 

80202–1129 (5) Hand delivery: US EPA, 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, EPR– 

SR, Denver, CO 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

EPA’s normal hours of operation (9 a.m. 

to 5 p.m.), and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1991– 

0006. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

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 http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://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 http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 6459 

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 http://

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 at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at Ruth Tyler Branch Library, 8041 

South Wood, Midvale, UT 84047; 

Phone: (801–944–7641); Hours: M–Th: 9 

a.m.–9 p.m.; Fri-Sat: 9:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erna 

Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, 

U.S. EPA Region 8, Mail code: 8EPR– 

SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 

80202–1129; Phone: (303) 312–6762; 

Email: waterman.erna@epa.gov. You 

may contact Erna to request a hard copy 

of publicly available docket materials. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 8 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion of the Midvale 

Slag Superfund Site from the National 

Priorities List. The NPL constitutes 

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which 

is the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP), which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to Section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) 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). As described in 40 CFR 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted 

from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced 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 the Midvale Slag 

Superfund Site and demonstrates how it 

meets the deletion criteria. Section V 

discusses EPA’s action to delete the Site 

from the NPL unless adverse comments 

are received during the public comment 

period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

ii. all appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

iii. the remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) 

and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year 

reviews to ensure the continued 

protectiveness of remedial actions 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at a site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 

such five-year reviews even if a site is 

deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate 

further action to ensure continued 

protectiveness at a deleted site if new 

information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to the 

deletion of the Site. 

(1) EPA consulted with the State of 

Utah prior to developing this direct final 

Notice of Deletion and the Notice of 

Intent to Delete the Site co-published 

today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section 

of the Federal Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the State 30 

working days for review of this direct 

final Notice of Deletion and the parallel 

Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their 

publication today, and the State, 

through UDEQ, has concurred on the 

deletion of the Site from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a 

notice of the availability of the parallel 

Notice of Intent to Delete is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

the Salt Lake Tribune. The newspaper 

notice announces the 30-day public 

comment period concerning the Notice 

of Intent to Delete the Site from the 

NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the proposed 

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 deletion action, EPA will 

publish a timely notice of withdrawal of 

this direct final Notice of 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 to Delete and the 

comments already received. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does 

not itself create, alter, or revoke any 

individual’s rights or obligations. 

Deletion 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 Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL. 

Site Background and History 

The 446-acre Midvale Slag Superfund 

Site (UTD08134277) is located 12 miles 

south of Salt Lake City in the city of 

Midvale, with a small portion extending 

into the adjacent city of Murray. The 

Site is a former smelting facility on the 

Jordan River. Five separate smelters 

were located on or near the Site from 

1871 to 1958. An adjacent mill 

continued operating until 1971. The 

smelters treated ores from Bingham 

Canyon and other mines. Investigations 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6460 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

at the Site showed that groundwater and 

soils were contaminated with heavy 

metals. Lead smelting was the dominant 

industrial activity at the Site; lead and 

arsenic were the primary products 

associated with ore processing. At times 

copper, gold, silver, and other metals 

were also produced at the Site. Ore 

processing and disposal of waste 

products on the site have resulted in 

contamination of soils and groundwater 

at the Site. 

The EPA proposed the Midvale Slag 

Superfund Site on the National 

Priorities List (NPL) on June 10, 1986 

and finalized listing of the site on 

February 11, 1991 (51 FR 21099 and 56 

FR 5598). The Site was divided into two 

operable units (OUs). OU1 is the 

northern 266 acres of the site. OU2 is 

the remaining 180 acres to the south. 

The dividing boundary that runs 

through the Site between OU1 and OU2 

is 7200 South Parkway and Jordan River 

Boulevard. 

OU1 includes a mobile home park, an 

abandoned waste water treatment plant 

with lagoons, and jurisdictional 

wetlands. Wastes have been present on 

the Site for many years and, in some 

locations, groundwater is in direct 

contact with visible slag without 

appreciable effects on groundwater. 

Concentrations of contaminants of 

concern (COCs) in OU1 groundwater are 

generally below federal maximum 

contaminant levels (MCLs). 

OU2 is subdivided into areas based on 

the distribution of unique smelter and 

mill wastes. Included within OU2 are 

the silver refinery area and the 

Butterfield Lumber property. In 

addition, numerous piles of smelter slag 

and other smelter wastes were 

distributed broadly across this area. 

The EPA proposed the Site to the NPL 

based on studies conducted between 

1982 and 1985 that found groundwater, 

soil and sediments contaminated with 

heavy metals. Potential human health 

threats included drinking contaminated 

groundwater or ingesting, inhaling, or 

handling contaminated soils, wastes or 

sediments. The EPA fenced portions of 

the Site in December 1990 to restrict 

access to the contaminated wastes. 

The EPA conducted eight removal 

actions at this Site. The first removal 

action after the NPL listing occurred on 

June 20, 1991, with the disposal of 

explosives and lab chemicals at a former 

on-Site lab. Additional removal actions 

conducted between 1995 and 2001 

included: Construction of additional 

fencing, contaminated soil removal, 

plugging contaminated water supply 

wells, removal of approximately 90 

deteriorated drums, and preservation 

work for the small Midvale Pioneer 

Cemetery located near the southeastern 

corner of the Site. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

Remedial Investigation for OU1: The 

suspected waste areas within OU1 were 

a small landfill and an abandoned waste 

water treatment plant with its associated 

lagoons. Analysis of sample data 

determined that neither area contributed 

to the contaminants of concern detected 

in Site soils. Soil contamination was 

caused by smelter waste from OU2 

transported by environmental factors as 

well as deliberate use of waste as fill. 

The Baseline Risk Assessment 

determined arsenic, cadmium, and lead 

as the contaminants of concern in soils 

at OU1. The OU1 Feasibility Studies 

(FS) were completed in 1995 for the 

trailer park located on the northern end 

of the Site, and in 1998 for the 

remaining portions of OU1. 

Remedial Investigation for OU2: The 

Site investigations for OU2 focused on 

mixed smelter waste, slag, and 

groundwater. These were evaluated 

during Site investigations conducted for 

the Engineering Evaluation/Cost 

Analysis (EE/CA) prepared in 1993, the 

Supplemental Remedial Investigation in 

1997 and 1998, and additional 

characterizations performed in 2001 and 

2002. Surface and subsurface soil 

samples were analyzed in five mixed 

smelter waste areas, calcine waste, 

silver refinery waste, and contaminated 

soils. 

Metals analysis of samples in the 

former baghouse dust pond area 

contained high levels of arsenic trioxide 

which was determined to be principalthreat waste (later classified as Category 

I waste). Four areas of slag-covered 

surfaces were also sampled: Air-cooled 

slag, water-quenched slag, copper slag, 

and iron slag for the EE/CA. Analysis of 

the slag in these areas found that this 

slag is not leachable in concentrations 

that impact groundwater. The smelter 

waste and soil maximum contaminant 

concentrations were 20,400 mg/kg for 

arsenic and 26,300 mg/kg for lead. The 

sediment maximum contaminant 

concentrations were 96 mg/kg for 

arsenic and 721 mg/kg for lead. 

Groundwater evaluations were 

conducted in the EE/CA. Additional 

groundwater studies and RI work was 

conducted between 1997 and 2002. The 

RI activities found significant arsenic in 

groundwater under the old smelter 

works area. The area around the former 

arsenic plant and baghouse exhibited 

the highest levels of arsenic 

contamination in ground water at an 

elevated concentration of 1,300,000 

parts per billion (ppb). The Upper Sand 

and Gravel (US&G) Aquifer, which 

underlies the entire Site from about 15 

to 150 feet below ground surface (bgs), 

was found to contain a plume that is 

contaminated with arsenic up to 4,000 

ppb. The Deep Principal Aquifer, which 

is below the US&G Aquifer which is 

used for drinking water is clean. During 

the Site investigations in 2001 and 2002, 

a tetrachloroethylene (PCE) plume 

crossing the Site was identified and 

referred to UDEQ for further 

investigation. Since the source of the 

PCE plume is not on the Site, CERCLA 

action is not appropriate. In 2001, 

surface and subsurface soil samples 

were collected from former river 

meander locations, upland areas of the 

corridor, and both banks of the Jordan 

River. Elevated levels of metals were 

detected in surface and subsurface soil 

samples, but not the surface water. 

Consequently, portions of the Jordan 

River riparian corridor adjacent to the 

former smelter were added to the Site in 

the 2006 Explanation of Significant 

Differences for OU2. 

The April 2002 OU2 FS is for the 

groundwater and the May 2002 OU2 FS 

is for mixed smelter waste. Many 

remedial technologies were considered, 

including no action, institutional 

controls, treatment, and disposal. 

Summary of Risk Assessment Activities 

Results of the baseline risk assessment 

indicate that contaminants identified in 

the RI in Site surface and subsurface soil 

pose a risk of excess cancer and adverse 

health effects to current and future 

populations at the Site. Risks to future 

residents, future workers, and current 

and future trespasser scenarios exceed 

acceptable threshold levels. Estimated 

risk and hazard were greatest for 

potential future residents at the Site. 

Contaminants in shallow ground water 

also pose a risk to future residents and 

workers. However, shallow ground 

water is not currently used as a source 

of drinking water. 

Redevelopment plans for the Site 

preclude the presence of ecological 

receptors throughout most of the Site. 

Exceptions consist of the Jordan River 

and the recreational park planned for 

the riparian area on the east bank of the 

Jordan River. Results of the ecological 

risk assessment indicate that 

contaminants in sediment and surface 

water pose little risk to aquatic 

receptors. In addition, Site data indicate 

that the Site is contributing very little to 

contaminants concentrations detected in 

sediment and surface water. Upstream 

sources are the likely contributors to 

detected concentrations. However, 

contaminants are present in the riparian 

area at concentrations that could pose a 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 6461 

potential threat to aquatic receptors if 

allowed to enter the river; therefore, 

bank stabilization was completed to 

minimize migration of contaminants 

into the river. 

The recreational park is unlikely to 

provide significant habitat for terrestrial 

receptors. It is more likely that wildlife 

will have sporadic exposure in the area. 

It is anticipated that remedial action 

performed to protect child recreational 

visitors at the park will also be 

protective of terrestrial receptors. 

OU1 Selected Remedy 

On April 28, 1995, EPA issued a 

Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 

selecting the following remedy: (1) 

Excavation of a minimum of 18 inches 

of soil in 14 residential yards in the 

Winchester Estates development, 

placement of clean fill and off-site 

disposal of soils. (2) The placement of 

a 2-foot thick monolayer soil cover over 

an undeveloped portion of the 

Winchester Estates. (3) Institutional 

controls for the area receiving the soil 

cover. (4) Institutional controls for four 

other parcels prohibiting future 

residential land use without additional 

remediation. (5) Ground water 

monitoring at the hydraulically 

downgradient Site boundary for a 

minimum of 5 years. 

In May 1998 and also in February 

2006, EPA and UDEQ issued 

Explanation of Significant Differences 

(ESDs) changing the remedy called for 

in the 1995 OU1 ROD. The 1998 ESD 

required the excavation of contaminated 

soils on one parcel of land, rather than 

capping, and thus eliminated the need 

for ICs on that parcel. The 2006 ESD 

changed land use restrictions to 

accommodate multiple land uses, 

created a consistent approach for both 

operable units, included riparian 

management (both sides of the river) 

and contained a comprehensive 

groundwater monitoring plan in 

coordination with the OU2 remedy. The 

2006 ESD identified the lack of remedial 

action objectives for groundwater in the 

OU1 ROD and adopted the remedial 

action objectives selected for 

groundwater in the OU2 ROD. A final 

ESD was issued in October, 2013, 

clarifying the groundwater Remedial 

Action Objectives (RAOs) for OU1 and 

OU2. 

The amended RAOs for OU1 are as 

follows: (1) Soil RAO—Prevent 

unacceptable exposure risks to current 

and future human populations 

presented by contact, ingestion, or 

inhalation of smelter materials, 

associated contaminated materials, or 

contaminants of concern (COCs) derived 

from the smelter wastes. (2) Ground 

Water RAOs—Prevent unacceptable 

exposure risk to current and future 

human populations presented by direct 

contact, inhalation, or ingestion of 

contaminated ground water. Provide 

that future migration of COCs into 

previously uncontaminated portions of 

the US&G Aquifer and into the Deep 

Principal Aquifer is protective of these 

aquifers as sources of drinking water. 

Provide that future discharge of 

contaminated ground water from the 

Site to the Jordan River is protective of 

the aquatic environment and designated 

use. 

OU2 Selected Remedy 

On October 29, 2002, EPA signed the 

Record of Decision for OU2. The OU2 

ROD defined four categories of smelter 

wastes found throughout OU2. Principal 

threat wastes such as crude arsenic 

trioxide were designated as Category I 

waste. Category II wastes included nonslag soils and smelter waste failing 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP) and containing COCs 

above commercial land use-based 

remediation goals. Category III wastes 

included non-slag soils and smelter 

wastes passing TCLP and containing 

COCs below residential land use-based 

remediation goals. EPA classified slag as 

Category IV waste. The major 

components of the selected remedy 

include: (1) Ground Water: The Deep 

Principal Aquifer which is a primary 

source of drinking water in the Salt Lake 

Valley, is not impacted by the Site, 

although the shallower US&G is 

impacted by the Site. The limited action 

remedy for ground water does not 

actively attempt to restore the US&G, 

but provides compliance points for 

monitoring and assessing as well as 

institutional controls. The limited 

action approach relies on ground water 

and surface water monitoring to assess 

whether ground water and surface water 

criteria are being met for selected COCs. 

These selected COCs were established 

as a result of using alternate 

concentration limit (ACL) calculations 

and site-specific analyses to be 

protective of surface water quality 

criteria for the Jordan River. An IC to 

restrict well installation was also 

selected as a part of the remedy. The 

ACLs for the four groundwater COCs 

were set at the following: Arsenic 7,000 

mg/L; Cadmium 1,560 mg/L; Selenium 

900 mg/L; and Antimony 380 mg/L. (2) 

Mixed Smelter Waste: The selected 

remedy for mixed smelter waste 

required the excavation and off-Site 

disposal of Category I Material, if found, 

and the installation of appropriate 

covers over the remainder of the 

Category II and III Materials. (3) Slag: 

The selected remedy for the slag 

(Category IV Material) required regrading of the slag piles and the 

installation of appropriate covers. (4) 

Land use controls (ICs) were also 

selected for OU2 to restrict future 

excavations and guide future use of the 

property. 

The 2006 ESD added the riparian area 

along the Jordan River corridor to the 

Site to prevent river migration erosion 

which could impact the remedy. In 

addition, the ESD eliminated the need 

for ICs on portions of OU1 which were 

clean and called for a site wide 

groundwater monitoring plan. The 2013 

ESD clarified the RAOs for groundwater 

for both OU1 and OU2. This 

clarification removed the groundwater 

restoration RAO for both OUs. 

The amended RAOs for OU2 are as 

follows: (1) Ground Water RAOs— 

Prevent unacceptable exposure risk to 

current and future human populations 

presented by direct contact, inhalation, 

or ingestion of contaminated ground 

water. Provide that future migration of 

COCs into previously uncontaminated 

portions of the US&G Aquifer and into 

the Deep Principal Aquifer is protective 

of these aquifers as sources of drinking 

water. Provide that future discharge of 

contaminated ground water from the 

Site to the Jordan River is protective of 

the aquatic environment and designated 

use. (2) Mixed Smelter Waste RAOs— 

Prevent unacceptable exposure risks to 

current and future human populations 

presented by contact, ingestion, or 

inhalation of smelter materials, 

associated contaminated materials, or 

COCs derived from the smelter areas. 

Prevent unacceptable exposure risks to 

current and future ecological receptors 

presented by contact, ingestion, 

inhalation, or uptake from smelter 

materials, associated contaminated 

materials, or COCs derived from the 

smelter areas. Provide that the future 

migration of contaminants from the 

smelter materials is within limits 

considered protective of ground water. 

Prevent smelter materials from entering 

the Jordan River via surface water flow. 

(3) Slag RAOs Prevent unacceptable 

exposure risks to current and future 

human populations presented by 

contact, ingestion, or inhalation of slag 

or associated contaminated materials. 

Prevent unacceptable exposure risks to 

current and future ecological receptors 

presented by uptake from slag, 

associated contaminated materials 

within slag, or COCs derived from the 

slag areas. Provide that the future 

migration of contaminants from the slag 

or contaminated materials within slag is 

within limits considered protective of 

ground water. Prevent slag or 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6462 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

contaminated materials within slag from 

entering the Jordan River via surface 

water flow. 

Response Actions 

UDEQ was the lead agency for the 

OU1 remediation as defined in a 

cooperative agreement between EPA 

and UDEQ. Remediation work was 

conducted in two phases, with work on 

the residential portion of Winchester 

Estates portion beginning in September 

1995 and ending in April 1996. 

Remediation of the undeveloped 

southeast portion of Winchester Estates 

was completed by November 1998. The 

final inspection of the OU1 remedial 

action occurred in January 1999 and the 

RA report for OU1 signed in March 

1999. EPA and UDEQ installed the 

groundwater monitoring system and 

performed the riparian remediation 

selected in the 2006 ESD during the 

implementation of the OU2 remedy. 

A consent decree governed work 

conducted by the main property owner, 

Littleson, Inc. In the consent decree 

signed with EPA, Midvale City, and the 

Union Pacific Railroad, the property 

owner, Littleson, Inc., agreed to perform 

the remedial design/remedial action 

(RD/RA) for the smelter wastes, slags 

and impacted soils components of the 

OU2 ROD remedy. In the consent 

decree, Midvale City agreed to enact and 

enforce ICs in the form of an ordinance. 

This consent decree was entered on 

November 16, 2004. 

UDEQ was the lead for the ground 

water portion of the OU2 ROD remedy 

as well as the 2006 ESD for OU1. This 

work was performed under a 

cooperative agreement with EPA. EPA 

was the primary lead for the riparian 

portion of the OU2 ROD remedy. 

Smelter Wastes, Slags, and Impacted 

Soils 

Littleson, Inc., completed all remedial 

activities as planned, and no additional 

areas of contamination were identified. 

EPA, UDEQ and Midvale City 

conducted a final inspection of the work 

upon completion of the physical 

construction on June 26, 2006. A oneyear warranty period began on July 6, 

2006, to ensure that the remedy 

continued to operate as designed. On 

May 15, 2007, EPA, UDEQ and Midvale 

City representatives conducted a second 

final inspection to verify that the 

remedy remained effective. This remedy 

was declared operational and functional 

on August 13, 2007 when EPA approved 

the Remedial Action Report. On the 

same day, EPA certified the completion 

of the construction work required under 

the consent decree. 

Riparian Zone OU1 and OU2 

EPA and UDEQ conducted the RD/RA 

work along 6,800 feet of the Jordan 

River riparian corridor adjacent to the 

western boundary of the Site. The 

objective for this work included the 

reduction and elimination of river bank 

erosion that could release smelter waste 

from the Site into the river. This work 

was conducted in four phases, with the 

final phase being completed in August 

2011. Salt Lake County conducted the 

Phase 3 portion of this work under EPA 

and UDEQ oversight. Phase 3 involved 

completing the riparian work from 

Winchester Estates south along the 

eastern bank of the Jordan River and 

was funded through a grant from EPA 

using special account funding. 

EPA, UDEQ and Salt Lake County 

completed all remedial activities as 

planned. EPA and UDEQ conducted a 

pre-final inspection on August 10, 2011, 

which included a description and 

schedule for correcting minor 

construction contract items by the 

contractor. The remaining ‘‘punch’’ list 

item was replacement of some damaged 

vegetation. EPA and the State 

determined that all Riparian Zone work 

was constructed and/or completed 

according to the ROD and design 

specifications in 2013. 

Groundwater OU1 and OU2 

UDEQ completed the installation of 

the groundwater monitoring system in 

December 2008. Construction of the 

system was completed under a 

cooperative agreement established 

between the EPA and UDEQ. Under this 

cooperative agreement, the UDEQ 

implemented the groundwater 

monitoring system design developed by 

the EPA and conducts quarterly 

monitoring. In September 2009, EPA 

approved the groundwater Remedial 

Action Report in which EPA determined 

that construction of the monitoring 

system was complete in accordance 

with the OU2 ROD and design 

specifications. 

UDEQ conducts semi-annual 

groundwater and surface water 

monitoring at the Site using a plan 

developed during the remedial design. 

The monitoring system at the Site 

currently consists of co-located wells at 

15 locations (a total of 30 wells) and two 

surface water sampling locations. Each 

well pair consists of one shallow 

monitoring well, screened in the upper 

interval of the US&G Aquifer, and one 

intermediate monitoring well, screened 

at a lower interval within the US&G 

Aquifer. The monitoring system is 

divided into four groups and consists of 

up-gradient, down-gradient, plume core 

and ACL monitoring wells. The process 

for developing ACLs is discussed in the 

OU2 ROD with supporting 

documentation provided in the 

Administrative Record. 

Although the selected remedy did not 

attempt to actively restore the US&G 

Aquifer, it provided for the monitoring 

of groundwater and surface water to 

assess whether applicable groundwater 

and surface water quality criteria are 

being met for the selected COCs. It also 

provided for the creation of ICs to 

prevent exposure to the contaminated 

US&G Aquifer. 

Point of assessment locations for 

monitoring the US&G Aquifer were 

selected based on the location and 

movement of arsenic contamination on 

the Site. Arsenic was selected as the 

indicator chemical since it is the most 

mobile and widespread of the COCs in 

this aquifer. Monitoring wells for points 

of assessment were installed in the 

shallow and deep portions of the US&G 

Aquifer in accordance with plans and 

specifications developed during the 

remedial design. The specific 

monitoring objectives are as follows: (1) 

Conduct groundwater and surface water 

monitoring to assess if applicable 

groundwater and surface water quality 

criteria are being met for COCs 

(antimony, arsenic, cadmium and 

selenium). (2) Assess monitoring data 

and determine if contamination is 

moving laterally or vertically within the 

boundaries of the Site. 

The UDEQ’s Semi-Annual 

Groundwater and Surface Water 

Monitoring Report—Midvale Slag 

Superfund Site dated May 24, 2013 

states that ‘‘COC concentrations in the 

ACL monitoring wells have not 

exceeded their respective ACL values 

and that COC concentrations in surface 

water have not exceeded established 

surface water quality criteria values for 

the Jordan River in monitoring results 

from 2008 to present.’’ 

Operation and Maintenance 

Maintaining an appropriate soil cover 

with adequate drainage is an operation 

and maintenance activity required as an 

IC. Midvale City is responsible for this 

IC and conducting the following 

activities: Inspection/observation during 

redevelopment construction; review of 

development construction plans and 

specification for conformance with 

cover requirements; storm water 

management and irrigation restrictions; 

and temporary stockpile and covering of 

soil and slag. UDEQ conducts semiannual groundwater and surface water 

monitoring at this Site. COC 

concentrations in the ACL monitoring 

wells have not exceeded their respective 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 6463 

ACL values and COC concentrations in 

surface water have not exceeded 

established surface water quality criteria 

values for the Jordan River in 

monitoring results from 2008 to present. 

ICs adopted by the Midvale City 

support limited commercial and 

residential re-use of this Site. The OU2 

ROD required the establishment of ICs 

including land use controls, to prevent 

exposure to contaminated materials and 

review of proposals to change the type 

of land use at the Site. In addition, ICs 

for groundwater and surface water were 

established to prevent access to 

contaminated ground and surface water 

and to limit the infiltration in the plume 

area. Additionally, groundwater beneath 

the Site is not used for drinking water 

under the State of Utah ICs. 

An Institutional Control Process Plan 

for OU1 was developed in 2004 as a 

mechanism to assure that consistent and 

effective inspection, maintenance and 

enforcement activities occurred 

throughout the Site. The objective of the 

ICs are (i) to limit or prohibit exposure 

of people and the environment to 

subsurface contaminants remaining at 

the Site by ensuring the protection and 

maintenance of the cap; (ii) to prevent 

or limit certain activities in certain areas 

of the Site that may increase the risk of 

damage to the cap; and (iii) to manage 

stormwater and irrigation water to 

prevent unacceptable impact to the cap 

and underlying groundwater. 

In 2007, an ordinance for Bingham 

Junction, Jordan Bluffs and designated 

rights-of-way was implemented by 

Midvale City which set forth the 

requirements and procedures for the 

public ICs for the redevelopment and 

reuse of the Bingham Junction and 

Jordan Bluffs properties. The purpose of 

the ICs was to prevent unacceptable 

human exposure to contaminants that 

remain on Site by ensuring the 

protection, maintenance, and 

improvement of physical barriers that 

had been on the various properties. 

Midvale City is responsible for 

enforcement of the land use ICs. 

Midvale City utilizes a grant from EPA 

to hire a Development Site Coordinator 

who is responsible for enforcing the ICs 

and provides IC on-Site training for the 

developer’s Special Inspectors when 

needed. The Special Inspectors, as well 

as the Development Site Coordinator, 

know which areas of the Site have 

buried contamination and the exact 

location of the protective cap or inert 

slag demarcation layer located above the 

contamination. Midvale City issued 

permits identify planned development 

above the demarcation layer. The 

Development Site Coordinator conducts 

inspections several times a day during 

construction as well as visits temporary 

soil stockpiling, road construction, 

storm drain, and landscaping phases of 

the work to ensure that the ICs are being 

followed and the remedy remains 

protective. In addition, the Development 

Site Coordinator monitors the riparian 

restoration area and maintains ongoing 

weekly communication with UDEQ, 

EPA and Salt Lake County. 

Five-Year Review 

Three statutory five-year reviews have 

been conducted at the Site: in October 

2003, December 2008, and April 2014. 

The remedy at the Site was determined 

to be protective and no issues were 

identified in the latest five-year review. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and 

the NCP, EPA will conduct the next 

five-year review 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. The next 

five-year review is scheduled for 

completion by April 2019. 

Community Involvement 

Major community involvement 

activities at the Site initially included 

establishing a local information 

repository and forming a Technical 

Advisory Group (TAG) and working 

with the Jordan River Stakeholders 

Group. EPA, with representatives from 

the UDEQ, conducted community 

interviews with a broad array of 

interested residents, agency 

representatives, local elected officials 

and others. These interviews were the 

foundation of the Site Community 

Involvement Plan and information from 

these interviews was considered in the 

remedy selection process for the Site. 

Outreach efforts included community 

interviews, fact sheets, letters, flyers, 

door-to-door visits, public meetings, 

neighborhood meetings, public 

comment periods and Web site updates. 

The most recent interviews were 

conducted in the Spring 2013 for the 

upcoming five-year review. 

Because the community requested 

future development be considered in the 

remedy selection, slag piles were graded 

to better support redevelopment and 

appropriate soil covers were designed as 

an interim measure to facilitate future 

redevelopment. The Site is located right 

off the I–15 and I–215 freeways, barely 

20 minutes from most Salt Lake County 

locations. On August 29, 2006, Midvale 

Mayor Joanne Seghini said, ‘‘The land 

constitutes 20 percent of Midvale and is 

one of the last pieces of undeveloped 

property in the City and was a 

discouraging blight.’’ Redevelopment 

began once the institutional controls 

were established. A Ready for Reuse 

Determination was issued by EPA in 

2008. 

Today, approximately 70 percent of 

the Site has been fully developed for 

mixed-use that incorporates major retail 

and office space, along with needed 

housing for Midvale City. The Utah 

Transit Authority mass transit train 

system opened a station at the Site 

which serves the ‘‘green sustainable 

community.’’ The successful 

revitalization of the Midvale community 

is sustainable, provides mixed use, and 

elevates the quality of life with 

revitalization for years to come. 

Improvement of the riparian corridor 

and bike trail along the Jordan River has 

also helped this area thrive. These 

successful efforts have resulted in the 

influx of new residents now inhabiting 

the Site. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion 

The implemented Site-wide remedy 

achieves the RAOs specified in the 1995 

ROD, 2002 ROD, and 1998, 2006 and 

2013 ESDs for all pathways of exposure. 

No further Superfund responses are 

needed to protect human health and the 

environment at the Site. 

The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states 

that a Site may be deleted from the NPL 

when no further response action is 

appropriate. EPA, in consultation with 

UDEQ, has determined that all required 

response actions have been 

implemented and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of Utah through the Utah 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(UDEQ), has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, monitoring and five-year 

reviews have been completed. 

Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from 

the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective April 6, 2015 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by March 9, 2015. If adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

notice of deletion before the effective 

date of the 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 delete and the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6464 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: January 23, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 

2013 Comp., p.306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 

3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 

2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193. 

Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing the entry for 

‘‘UT’’, ‘‘Midvale Slag’’, ‘‘Midvale’’. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02326 Filed 2–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 001005281–0369–02] 

RIN 0648–XD709 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 

Commercial Accountability Measure 

and Closure for Coastal Migratory 

Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS implements an 

accountability measure (AM) to close 

the hook-and-line component of the 

commercial sector for king mackerel in 

the Florida west coast southern 

subzone. This closure is necessary to 

protect the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) king 

mackerel resource. 

DATES: This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., 

local time, February 5, 2015, through 

June 30, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727–824– 

5305, email: susan.gerhart@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish 

(king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and 

cobia) is managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf 

of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). 

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils (Councils) and is 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 

at 50 CFR part 622. 

The Gulf migratory group king 

mackerel is divided into western and 

eastern zones. The Gulf’s eastern zone 

for king mackerel is further divided into 

the Florida west coast northern and 

southern subzones that have separate 

commercial quotas. On January 30, 

2012, NMFS implemented the final rule 

(76 FR 82058, December 29, 2011) that 

established annual catch limits (ACLs). 

The 2014 to 2015 fishing year quota for 

the hook-and-line component of the 

commercial sector in the Florida west 

coast southern subzone is 551,448 lb 

(250,133 kg) (50 CFR 

622.384(b)(1)(i)(B)(1)). 

From November 1 through March 31, 

the southern subzone encompasses an 

area of the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ) south of a line extending due west 

of the Lee and Collier County, FL, 

boundary on the Florida west coast, and 

south of a line extending due east of the 

Monroe and Miami-Dade County, FL, 

boundary on the Florida east coast, 

which includes the EEZ off Collier and 

Monroe Counties, FL. From April 1 

through October 31, the southern 

subzone is reduced to the EEZ off 

Collier County, and the EEZ off Monroe 

County becomes part of the Atlantic 

migratory group area. 

On January 24, 2015, NMFS 

implemented a 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit 

for vessels in the hook-and-line 

component of the commercial king 

mackerel sector in this subzone, because 

75 percent of quota had been reached 

(622.385(a)(2)(ii)(B)). 

Under 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 

622.388(a)(1), NMFS is required to close 

any component of the king mackerel 

commercial sector when its quota has 

been reached, or is projected to be 

reached, by filing a notification at the 

Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has 

determined the quota for the hook-andline component of the commercial 

sector for Gulf migratory group king 

mackerel in the southern Florida west 

coast subzone has been reached. 

Accordingly, the hook-and-line 

component of the commercial sector for 

Gulf migratory group king mackerel in 

the southern Florida west coast subzone 

is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, 

February 5, 2015, through June 30, 2015, 

the end of the fishing year. 

As specified in 50 CFR 622.384(e), 

during the closure period no person 

aboard a vessel for which a commercial 

permit for king mackerel has been 

issued may harvest or possess Gulf 

migratory group king mackerel in or 

from Federal waters of the closed 

subzone. However, there is one 

exception that a person aboard a vessel 

that has a valid charter/headboat permit 

and also has a commercial king 

mackerel permit for coastal migratory 

pelagic fish may continue to retain king 

mackerel in or from the closed subzone 

under the 2-fish daily bag limit, 

provided the vessel is operating as a 

charter vessel or headboat. Charter 

vessels or headboats that hold a 

commercial king mackerel permit are 

considered to be operating as a charter 

vessel or headboat when they carry a 

passenger who pays a fee or when more 

than three persons are aboard, including 

operator and crew. 

Classification 

The Regional Administrator, 

Southeast Region, NMFS, has 

determined this temporary rule is 

necessary for the conservation and 

management of Gulf migratory group 

king mackerel and is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. 

This action is taken under 50 CFR 

622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1) and is 

exempt from review under Executive 

Order 12866. 

These measures are exempt from the 

procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act because the temporary rule is issued 

without opportunity for prior notice and 

comment. 

This action responds to the best 

scientific information available. The 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

NOAA (AA), finds that the need to 

immediately implement this action to 

close the hook-and-line component of 

the commercial sector constitutes good 

cause to waive the requirements to 

provide prior notice and opportunity for 

public comment pursuant to the 

authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 

as such prior notice and opportunity for 

public comment are unnecessary and 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES