Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 11313 

notice announcing the 30 day 

notification period clearly states that if 

no request for a public hearing is 

received the hearing will be cancelled, 

then the public hearing may be 

cancelled. These requirements apply for 

adoption and submission to EPA of: 

* * * * * 

(f) The State must submit with the 

plan, revision, or schedule, a 

certification that the requirements in 

paragraph (a) and (d) of this section 

were met. Such certification will 

include the date and place of any public 

hearing(s) held or that no public hearing 

was requested during the 30 day 

notification period. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 51.103 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.103 Submission of plans, preliminary 

review of plans. 

(a) The State makes an official plan 

submission to EPA only when the 

submission conforms to the 

requirements of appendix V to this part, 

and the State delivers five hard copies 

or at least two hard copies with an 

electronic version of the hard copy 

(unless otherwise agreed to by the State 

and Regional Office) of the plan to the 

appropriate Regional Office, with a 

letter giving notice of such action. If the 

State submits an electronic copy, it must 

be an exact duplicate of the hard copy. 

(b) Upon request of a State, the 

Administrator will provide preliminary 

review of a plan or portion thereof 

submitted in advance of the date such 

plan is due. Such requests must be 

made in writing to the appropriate 

Regional Office, must indicate changes 

(such as, redline/strikethrough) to the 

existing approved plan, where 

applicable and must be accompanied by 

five hard copies or at least two hard 

copies with an electronic version of the 

hard copy (unless otherwise agreed to 

by the State and Regional Office). 

Requests for preliminary review do not 

relieve a State of the responsibility of 

adopting and submitting plans in 

accordance with prescribed due dates. 

4. Appendix V to Part 51 is amended 

by revising paragraphs (d) and (g) under 

Section 2.1 to read as follows: 

Appendix V of Part 51—Criteria for 

Determining the Completeness of Plan 

Submissions 

* * * * * 

2.1. * * * 

(d) A copy of the actual regulation, or 

document submitted for approval and 

incorporation by reference into the plan, 

including indication of the changes made 

(such as, redline/strikethrough) to the 

existing approved plan, where applicable. 

The submittal shall be a copy of the official 

State regulation/document signed, stamped 

and dated by the appropriate State official 

indicating that it is fully enforceable by the 

State. The effective date of the regulation/ 

document shall, whenever possible, be 

indicated in the document itself. If the State 

submits an electronic copy, it must be an 

exact duplicate of the hard copy with 

changes indicated, signed documents need to 

be in portable document format, rules need 

to be in text format and files need to be 

submitted in manageable amounts (e.g., a file 

for each section or chapter, depending on 

size, and separate files for each distinct 

document) unless otherwise agreed to by the 

State and Regional Office. 

* * * * * 

(g) Certification that public hearing(s) were 

held in accordance with the information 

provided in the public notice and the State’s 

laws and constitution, if applicable and 

consistent with the public hearing 

requirements in 40 CFR 51.102. 

* * * * * 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

5. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

6. Section 52.02 is amended by 

revising paragraphs ‘‘(d)(2)(iii)’’, 

‘‘(d)(2)(iv)’’, ‘‘(d)(2)(vii)’’, and 

‘‘(d)(2)(viii)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.02 Introduction. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Delaware, District of Columbia, 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. 

(iv) Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303. 

* * * * * 

(vii) Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and 

Nebraska. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, 

Kansas City, KS 66101. 

(viii) Colorado, Montana, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 

Wyoming. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, CO 80202–1129. 

* * * * * 

7. Section 52.16 is amended by 

revising paragraphs ‘‘(b)(3)’’, ‘‘(b)(4)’’, 

‘‘(b)(7)’’ and ‘‘(b)(8)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.16 Submission to administrator. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Delaware, District of Columbia, 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch 

Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. 

(4) Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee. EPA 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303. 

* * * * * 

(7) Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and 

Nebraska. EPA Region 7, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, KS 66101. 

(8) Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. 

EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–4563 Filed 3–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0011; FRL–8286–7] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of intent for partial 

deletion of the Rocky Flats Plant from 

the National Priorities List; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces its 

intent to delete the Peripheral Operable 

Unit (OU) and Operable Unit 3 (OU 3), 

also referred to as the Offsite Areas, 

encompassing approximately 25,413 

acres, of the Department of Energy 

(DOE) Rocky Flats Plant from the 

National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comment on this 

proposed action. 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). Rocky Flats Plant means 

the property owned by the United States 

Government, also known as Rocky Flats, 

Rocky Flats Site, or Rocky Flats 

Environmental Technology Site 

(RFETS), as identified in Figure 1. The 

Rocky Flats Plant is divided into the 

Central and Peripheral Operable Units 

(Figure 2) which contain 1,308 and 

4,933 acres, respectively, and OU 3 

(Figure 3) which contains 

approximately 20,480 acres. The 3 

referenced figures are available as 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
11314 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

described below in the section entitled 

Docket. 

EPA bases its proposal to delete the 

Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky 

Flats Plant on the determination by EPA 

and the State of Colorado, through the 

Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment (CDPHE), that all 

appropriate actions under CERCLA have 

been implemented to protect human 

health, welfare and the environment 

and that no further response action by 

responsible parties is appropriate. 

This partial deletion pertains to the 

surface media (soil, surface water, 

sediment) and subsurface media, 

including groundwater, within the 

Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky 

Flats Plant. The Central OU will remain 

on the NPL and is not being considered 

for deletion as part of this action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–

SFUND–1989–0011, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: henneke.rob@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 303–312–6961. 

• Mail: Rob Henneke, Community 

Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand delivery: Rob Henneke, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during normal business hours 

from 8 a.m.—4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–

0011. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, not through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents and referenced 

figures 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 the hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials may be 

accessed at the following locations 

during specified hours of operation. The 

U.S. EPA Region 8 Docket Facility, EPA 

Technical Library, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, is 

open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. by 

appointment, Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The EPA 

Docket telephone number is 303–312–

6734. The DOE Rocky Flats Plant Docket 

Facility is located at Front Range 

Community College, 3705 112 Avenue, 

Westminster, Colorado, 80030. The 

Rocky Flats Plant Docket Facility is 

open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday 

through Thursday and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob 

Henneke, Community Involvement 

Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202–

1129; telephone number: 1–800–227–

8917 or (303) 312–6734; fax number: 

303–312–7150; e-mail address: 

henneke.rob@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 Region 8 announces its intent to 

delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of 

the Rocky Flats Plant, Jefferson and 

Boulder Counties, Colorado, from the 

NPL and requests comment on this 

proposed action. The NPL constitutes 

Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR Part 

300, which EPA promulgated pursuant 

to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 

9605. EPA identifies sites that appear to 

present a significant risk to public 

health or the environment and 

maintains the NPL as the list of those 

sites. Sites on the NPL may be the 

subject of remedial actions financed by 

the Hazardous Substance Superfund 

(Fund). This partial deletion of the Site 

is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 

300.425(e) and Notice of Policy Change: 

Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the 

NPL (60 FR 55466 (November 1, 1995)). 

As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3), 

portions of a site deleted from the NPL 

remain eligible for further remedial 

actions if warranted by future 

conditions. 

EPA will accept comments 

concerning its intent for partial deletion 

of the Rocky Flats Plant for 30 days after 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register (FR). 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses the 

procedures that EPA is using for this 

proposed partial deletion. Section IV 

discusses the Peripheral OU and OU 3 

of the Rocky Flats Plant and explains 

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 to protect public health or 

the environment. 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: 

Section 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible 

parties or other persons have 

implemented all appropriate response 

actions required; 

Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All 

appropriate Fund-financed response 

under CERCLA has been implemented, 

and no further response action by 

responsible parties is appropriate; or 

Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The 

remedial investigation has shown that 

the release poses no significant threat to 

public health or the environment and, 

therefore, taking of remedial measures is 

not appropriate. 

A partial deletion of a site from the 

NPL does not affect or impede EPA’s 

ability to conduct CERCLA response 

activities for portions not deleted from 

the NPL. In addition, deletion of a 

portion of a site from the NPL does not 

affect the liability of responsible parties 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 11315 

or impede agency efforts to recover costs 

associated with response efforts. DOE 

will be responsible for all future 

remedial actions required at the area 

deleted if future site conditions warrant 

such actions. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

Upon determination that at least one 

of the criteria described in Section 

300.425(e) of the NCP has been met, 

EPA may formally begin deletion 

procedures. The following procedures 

were used for this proposed deletion of 

the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the 

Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL: 

(1) DOE has requested the partial 

deletion and has prepared the relevant 

documents. 

(2) The State of Colorado, through 

CDPHE, has concurred with publication 

of this notice of intent for partial 

deletion. 

(3) Concurrent with this national 

Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion, a 

local notice has been published in a 

newspaper of record and has been 

distributed to appropriate federal, State, 

and local officials, and other interested 

parties. These notices announce a 30 

day public comment period on the 

deletion package, which ends on April 

12, 2007, based upon publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register and a 

local newspaper of record. 

(4) EPA has made all relevant 

documents available at the information 

repositories listed previously for public 

inspection and copying. 

Upon completion of the 30 calendar 

day public comment period, EPA 

Region 8 will evaluate each significant 

comment and any significant new data 

received before issuing a final decision 

concerning the proposed partial 

deletion. EPA will prepare a 

responsiveness summary for each 

significant comment and any significant 

new data received during the public 

comment period and will address 

concerns presented in such comments 

and data. The responsiveness summary 

will be made available to the public at 

the EPA Region 8 office and the 

information repositories listed above 

and will be included in the final 

deletion package. Members of the public 

are encouraged to contact EPA Region 8 

to obtain a copy of the responsiveness 

summary. If, after review of all such 

comments and data, EPA determines 

that the partial deletion from the NPL is 

appropriate, EPA will publish a final 

notice of partial deletion in the Federal 

Register. Deletion of the Peripheral OU 

and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant does 

not actually occur until a final notice of 

partial deletion is published in the 

Federal Register. A copy of the final 

partial deletion package will be placed 

at the EPA Region 8 office and the 

information repositories listed above 

after a final document has been 

published in the Federal Register. 

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Deletion 

The following provides EPA’s 

rationale for deletion from the NPL of 

the Rocky Flats Plant Peripheral OU and 

OU 3 and EPA’s finding that the criteria 

in 40 CFR 300.425(e) are satisfied. 

Site Background and History 

The Rocky Flats Plant is a DOE 

facility owned by the United States. 

Rocky Flats is located in the Denver 

metropolitan area, approximately 

sixteen miles northwest of Denver, 

Colorado, and ten miles south of 

Boulder, Colorado. Nearby communities 

include the Cities of Arvada, 

Broomfield, and Westminster, Colorado. 

The majority of the Site is located in 

Jefferson County, with a small portion 

located in Boulder County, Colorado. 

Rocky Flats Plant was proposed by 

EPA for inclusion on the CERCLA NPL 

in 1984, and was added to the CERCLA 

NPL on September 21, 1989 (54 FR 

41015, October 4, 1989). The EPA 

Superfund Identification Number for 

Rocky Flats Plant is CO7890010526. The 

Site was proposed for listing because 

activities at Rocky Flats resulted in the 

release of materials defined by CERCLA 

as hazardous substances, contaminants, 

and pollutants, as well as hazardous 

wastes and hazardous waste 

constituents as defined by the Resource 

Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and 

Colorado Hazardous Waste Act 

(CHWA). Contaminants released to the 

environment from the activities at 

Rocky Flats have included, but were not 

limited to: Radionuclides (such as 

plutonium, americium, and various 

uranium isotopes), organic solvents 

(such as trichloroethene, 

tetrachloroethene, and carbon 

tetrachloride), metals (such as 

chromium), and nitrates. Apart from the 

activities of DOE and its contractors at 

the Site, there are no other known, 

significant, human-caused sources of 

contamination at Rocky Flats. 

Two Operable Units (OUs) are present 

within the boundaries of the Site: the 

Peripheral OU and the Central OU. The 

Central OU consolidated all areas of the 

Site that required remedial actions, 

while also considering practicalities of 

future land management. The Central 

OU is not included within this proposed 

partial deletion action. The Peripheral 

OU includes the majority of the Buffer 

Zone and was left undisturbed. This 

land provided a security and safety 

buffer area around the former 

manufacturing areas of the Site. Portions 

of the Buffer Zone have been comanaged by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for ecological resources since 

1999. Based upon the RCRA Facility 

Investigation—Remedial Investigation/ 

Corrective Measures Study—Feasibility 

Study Report for the Rocky Flats 

Environmental Technology Site (RI/FS) 

Report, which included both a Human 

Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, 

DOE (as the Lead Agency under 

CERCLA) determined that no action was 

necessary to protect public health, 

welfare or the environment for the 

Peripheral OU. That decision was 

supported and documented in the 

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

Site Corrective Action Decision/Record 

of Decision (CAD/ROD) signed by DOE, 

CDPHE and EPA, Region 8 on 

September 29, 2006. 

OU 3 encompasses an area north, 

south, and primarily east of the 

Peripheral and Central OUs. OU 3 was 

addressed under a separate CAD/ROD, 

Corrective Action Decision/Record of 

Decision Operable Unit 3, The Offsite 

Areas Rocky Flats Environmental 

Technology Site dated April 1997. The 

OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed by DOE, 

CDPHE and EPA, Region 8 on June 3, 

1997 and determined that no action was 

necessary to protect public health, 

welfare or the environment. 

A. Peripheral Operable Unit 

The RI/FS Report was prepared in 

accordance with the Interim Final 

Guidance for Conducting Remedial 

Investigations and Feasibility Studies 

under CERCLA. Because remedial 

activities at RFETS were conducted 

under RCRA and CHWA, this RI/FS 

Report also met RCRA/CHWA 

requirements for an RCRA Facility 

Investigation/Corrective Measures Study 

(RFI/CMS) Report. References to 

CERCLA requirements were also 

intended to encompass RCRA/CHWA 

requirements. For simplicity, the report 

is hereinafter referred to as the RI/FS 

Report. The RI/FS Report, approved by 

EPA and CDPHE on July 5, 2006, was 

the basis for development of the Rocky 

Flats Environmental Technology Site 

Proposed Plan that described the 

preferred remedy. The Proposed Plan 

was the basis for the Final CAD/ROD. 

A.1 Description of the Peripheral OU 

Remedial Investigation 

DOE began more than 20 years ago to 

develop an extensive body of 

documentation about the use of 

hazardous substances and the known or 

suspected release of hazardous 

substances at Rocky Flats. Information 

was gathered from an extensive review 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
11316 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

of Rocky Flats operating records and 

contemporaneous documents. In 

addition, interviews were conducted of 

persons with knowledge of Rocky Flats 

operations and of events that did release 

or were suspected of releasing 

hazardous substances. The information 

collected is organized in the Rocky Flats 

Historical Release Report (HRR), 

originally published in 1992, which has 

been periodically updated as 

investigation and cleanup of the Site 

progressed. The final version of the HRR 

is provided as Appendix B of the RI/FS 

report entitled FY2005 FINAL Historical 

Release Report dated October 2005. 

Sampling and analysis of surface and 

subsurface soil, groundwater, and 

surface water were extensively used to 

locate and measure hazardous substance 

contamination at historical release 

locations and guide the conduct and 

completion of remediation activities. 

Environmental monitoring was 

performed under the auspices of a sitewide integrated monitoring plan. 

Additional monitoring was conducted 

pursuant to environmental permits, 

including the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System permit 

and the State of Colorado Air Quality 

Operating Permit, issued to DOE and its 

contractors. 

Environmental data for Rocky Flats 

were collected in accordance with 

agency-approved Sampling and 

Analysis Plans (SAPs) and standardized 

contract-required analytical procedures. 

Approved Work Plans and SAPs 

specified the use of EPA-approved 

sampling procedures and analytical 

methods, data quality requirements, and 

data management processes, and 

specified the appropriate data quality 

objectives. Documented releases of 

hazardous substances at Rocky Flats 

include radionuclides, volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and semivolatile 

organic compounds (SVOCs), inorganic 

compounds, and metals. 

Known or suspected release locations 

(primarily soil) were delineated by 183 

Individual Hazardous Substance Sites 

(IHSSs), 146 Potential Areas of Concern 

(PACs), 31 Under Building 

Contamination (UBC) Sites, and 61 

Potential Incidents of Concern (PICs) 

(totaling 421 areas). The IHSSs, PACs, 

UBC Sites, and PICs were thoroughly 

investigated and characterized, as 

appropriate, and accelerated actions, 

including non-time critical removals, 

triggered by contamination levels have 

been confirmed as completed and met 

response goals. 

The nature and extent of 

contamination evaluations considered 

the following environmental media: 

soil, groundwater, surface water, 

sediment, and air. These evaluations 

were conducted to show the types of 

analytes of interest (AOIs) remaining in 

the environmental media and their 

extent at Rocky Flats following the 

completion of accelerated actions. The 

purpose of identifying AOIs was to 

focus the nature and extent evaluation 

on constituents that were detected at 

concentrations that may contribute to 

the risk to future receptors and to show 

the overall spatial and temporal trends 

of those constituents on a sitewide 

basis. These evaluations identified 14 

AOIs for surface soil, 14 AOIs for 

subsurface soil, 19 AOIs for 

groundwater, 18 AOIs for surface water, 

5 AOIs for sediment, and 5 AOIs for air. 

The contaminant fate and transport 

evaluation used information about the 

Site physical characteristics, 

contaminant source characteristics, and 

contaminant distribution across the Site 

to develop a conceptual understanding 

of the dominant transport processes that 

affect the migration of different 

contaminants in various Rocky Flats 

environmental media. The primary 

focus was evaluating the potential for 

contaminants from any medium to 

impact surface water quality. Evaluation 

of a contaminant’s fate and transport 

was based upon two criteria: (1) Does a 

complete migration pathway to a 

potential receptor exist based on an 

evaluation of contaminant transport in 

each environmental medium; and (2) is 

there a potential impact to surface water 

quality based on an evaluation of data 

at representative groundwater and 

surface water monitoring locations in 

the creek drainages. 

The RI included a Comprehensive 

Risk Assessment (CRA). The CRA 

consisted of two parts: Human Health 

Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Ecological 

Risk Assessment (ERA). The CRA was 

designed to provide information to 

decision makers to help determine the 

effectiveness of the accelerated actions 

and select a final remedy that is 

protective of human health and the 

environment. The CRA evaluated the 

risks posed by conditions at the Site to 

the anticipated future users (wildlife 

workers and visitors) and anticipated 

future land use. The CRA did not 

evaluate an unrestricted use scenario, 

but did consider an indoor air pathway, 

if occupied structures were to be present 

at the Site in the future. 

The Peripheral OU was determined to 

be unimpacted by hazardous 

substances, pollutants or contaminants 

with the exceptions subsequently 

discussed. A small portion of the 

Peripheral OU was impacted by Site 

activities from a radiological 

perspective. For example, plutonium 

exists above background in surface soil 

in small areas within the Peripheral OU. 

A few sampling locations for plutonium 

within the Peripheral OU exceed a level 

of 9.8 picocuries per gram (pCi/g), 

which corresponds to a 1 × 10¥6 risk 

level for a wildlife refuge worker. Of 

these few sampling locations, the 

highest result is approximately 20 pCi/ 

g. If that highest concentration of 20 

pCi/g was considered the average 

concentration over an appropriate 

exposure unit, it would correspond to a 

risk of approximately 1 × 10¥5 for a 

resident, which would be in the middle 

of the CERCLA risk range (10¥6 to 

10¥4). These levels of radioactivity are 

also far below the 231 pCi/g activity 

level for an adult rural resident, which 

equates to the 25-millirem per year dose 

criterion specified in the Colorado 

Standards for Protection Against 

Radiation. 

A.2 Declaration Statement for the 

Peripheral OU CAD/ROD 

Based upon the RI/FS Report, which 

included both a Human Health and 

Ecological Risk Assessment, DOE (as the 

Lead Agency under CERCLA) 

determined that no action was necessary 

to protect public health or welfare or the 

environment for the Peripheral OU. 

The RI/FS Report concluded that the 

Peripheral OU was in a state protective 

of human health and the environment. 

The NCP provides for the selection of a 

no action remedy when an OU is in 

such a protective state and therefore, no 

remedial action for the Peripheral OU 

was warranted. The selected remedy for 

the Peripheral OU was no action. 

A.3 Peripheral OU Conclusions 

The selected remedy for the 

Peripheral OU meets the requirements 

of CERCLA Section 121, and to the 

extent practicable, the NCP. The 

selected remedy for the Peripheral OU 

is protective of human health and the 

environment, complies with Federal 

and State requirements, and is costeffective. The selected remedy complies 

with applicable requirements of the 

CHWA. No accelerated actions were 

taken in the Peripheral OU, and no 

remedial action alternatives other than 

the no action alternative were required 

to be evaluated for the Peripheral OU. 

Because no hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants occur in the 

Peripheral OU above levels that allow 

for unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure, no five-year review is 

required for this remedy. 

B. Operable Unit 3 (Offsite Areas) 

The OU 3 CAD/ROD was prepared by 

DOE, Rocky Flats Field Office, Golden, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 11317 

Colorado, in April 1997, and was signed 

by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA Region 8 on 

June 3, 1997. The following is the basis 

for deleting OU3 and is a part of the 

deletion docket. 

OU 3 was investigated and a remedy 

was selected in compliance with the 

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent 

Order—Interagency Agreement (IAG), 

signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA on 

January 22, 1991. The selected remedy 

is also consistent with the Federal 

Facility Agreement and Consent 

Order—Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement 

(RFCA), signed by DOE, CDPHE, and 

EPA on July 19, 1996. 

OU 3 is one of sixteen OUs at Rocky 

Flats identified in the 1991 IAG, and is 

the only one not located within the 

RFETS boundaries. The 1996 RFCA 

consolidated the original sixteen OUs 

into three OUs, but OU 3 remained 

separate, owing both to its unique 

geographic location and to the fact that 

investigations and administrative 

activity for OU 3 were nearly completed 

when the 1996 RFCA was signed. OU 3 

is comprised of four Individual 

Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs): 

Contamination of the Land’s Surface 

(IHSS 199), Great Western Reservoir 

(IHSS 200), Standley Lake (IHSS 201) 

and Mower Reservoir (IHSS 202). IHSSs 

are specific locations where hazardous 

substances, solid wastes, pollutants, 

contaminants, hazardous wastes or 

hazardous constituents may have been 

disposed of or released to the 

environment from Rocky Flats at any 

time in the past. 

B.1 Description of the OU 3 Remedial 

Investigation 

The selected remedy for OU 3 was no 

action. A Baseline Risk Assessment 

(BRA), including an HHRA and an ERA, 

was conducted as part of the OU 3 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation. The 

RCRA Facility Investigation/CERCLA 

Remedial Investigation (RFI/RI) Report 

was completed in accordance with 

requirements presented in the 

Interagency Agreement and specifically 

identified in the OU3 RFI/RI Work Plan 

and addenda. The RFI/RI Report 

evaluated human health risks based 

upon exposure to identified 

Contaminants of Concern (COCs) and 

was reported as the probability of an 

individual developing cancer as a result 

of exposure to OU 3 contamination 

under recreational and residential 

exposure scenarios. Assumptions 

regarding future land use provided the 

basis to calculate human health risks for 

both IHSS 199 and for IHSS 200. No 

COCs were identified in surface water 

samples collected from Standley Lake, 

Great Western Reservoir, and Mower 

Reservoir. 

For IHSS 199, risks from both 

plutonium and americium were 

calculated and were assumed to be 

additive. For IHSS 200, only the risks 

associated with plutonium were 

calculated, as plutonium was the only 

COC there. In both IHSSs, the highest 

contaminant concentration was used in 

risk calculations. The RFI/RI Report also 

calculated radiation doses that would be 

expected as a result of the recreational 

and residential scenarios described in 

the OU 3 CAD/ROD. 

Excess lifetime cancer risk (that is, the 

incremental additional cancer risk that 

is incurred through exposure to COCs at 

OU 3 or any other contaminated site) is 

calculated by multiplying the average 

daily chemical intake over a lifetime of 

exposure by the contaminant’s 

individual slope factor. For 

radionuclides, slope factors are the 

average risk per unit intake or exposure 

for an individual in a stationary 

population with mortality rates typical 

of those in the United States in 1970. 

EPA guidelines indicate that excess 

lifetime cancer risks which are within or 

below the one in ten thousand (1 × 

10¥4) to one in one million (1 × 10¥6) 

range are considered protective of 

human health. 

For IHSS 199, the highest calculated 

excess cancer risk, assuming reasonable 

maximum exposures (RME) under a 

residential exposure was three in one 

million (3 × 10¥6). Using central 

tendency, the risk under a residential 

scenario was two in ten million (2 × 

10¥7). For the recreational exposure, the 

excess cancer risk was five in one 

hundred million (5 x 10¥8) using the 

RME, and three in one billion (3 × 10¥9) 

using central tendency. 

For IHSS 200, the highest calculated 

excess cancer risk employing RME and 

the residential exposure was nine in ten 

million (9 × 10¥7); the corresponding 

risk using central tendency was six in 

one hundred million (6 × 10¥8). Using 

the recreational scenario, the highest 

risk using RME was one in one hundred 

million (1 × 10¥8), and the risk using 

central tendency was eight in ten billion 

(8 × 10¥10). 

The highest calculated radiation dose 

for IHSSs 199 and 200 occurred using 

the RME, assuming a residential 

exposure scenario. The highest Total 

Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE, which 

incorporates both internal and external 

radiation dose) for IHSS 199 for an adult 

was 0.12 millirem per year (mrem/yr); 

the corresponding TEDE for IHSS 200 is 

0.0065 mrem/yr. The average radiation 

dose in the U.S. is estimated to be about 

300 mrem/year, while the average dose 

in Colorado may be as much as 700 

mrem/year, owing to the state’s higher 

altitude and relative abundance of 

naturally occurring radionuclides. 

These levels of radioactivity are also 

far below the 231 pCi/g activity level for 

an adult rural resident that equates to 

the 25 mrem/year dose criterion 

specified in the Colorado Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation. Based on 

these results, the Peripheral OU is 

determined to be acceptable for all uses 

from a radiological perspective. 

The RFI/RI Report evaluated health 

risks and radiation dose from surface 

water. Surface water was sampled for 

plutonium and americium. The 

maximum and mean concentrations of 

plutonium and americium detected in 

surface water from the reservoirs were 

well below the CDPHE standards, the 

National Drinking Water Standards, and 

the Rocky Flats Site specific standards 

for plutonium and americium. 

DOE submitted the RFI/RI Report to 

the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR), a part of the 

federal Center for Disease Control, for 

the purpose of obtaining a Health 

Consultation. The purpose of the Health 

Consultation was to obtain an 

independent evaluation as to whether 

COCs had been adequately identified in 

OU 3, the risks to human health posed 

by releases of hazardous substances in 

OU 3 adequately analyzed, and whether 

the proposal for no remedial action in 

OU 3 was appropriate considering these 

risks. The ATSDR concluded that the 

COC selection process was based on 

reasonable assumptions, and that none 

of the constituents present in OU 3 

posed public health concerns. Further, 

the ATSDR Health Consultation stated 

that no additional activities were 

needed in OU 3 in order to ensure the 

public’s health. 

Based upon the BRA and the ERA 

contained in the RFI/RI Report, DOE, 

the lead agency under CERCLA for OU 

3, concluded that no action was 

appropriate for OU 3. The RFI/RI Report 

concluded that all IHSSs within OU 3 

are already protective of human health 

and the environment. Field and 

laboratory work showed no indications 

of adverse effects from plutonium or 

americium on the ecology of OU 3. The 

NCP provides for the selection of a no 

action remedy when an OU is in such 

a protective state. Therefore, no 

remedial action regarding OU 3 or any 

of its constituent IHSSs was warranted. 

B.2 Declaration Statement for Offsite 

Areas OU CAD/ROD 

DOE in consultation with CDPHE and 

EPA, determined that no remedial 

action was necessary for OU 3 to be 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
11318 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

protective of human health, welfare and 

the environment. No hazardous 

substances, pollutants or contaminants 

remain within the boundaries of OU3 

above levels that allow for unlimited 

use and unrestricted exposure, as these 

levels have been calculated in the OU 3 

RFI/RI Report. 

B.3 Evaluation of OU3 CAD/ROD Data 

in First Five-Year Review 

A five-year review of the OU 3 CAD/ 

ROD was conducted to assess the 

continued protectiveness of the remedy. 

The OU 3 CAD/ROD concluded that 

transport by wind and water was the 

primary means by which plutonium and 

americium were carried to OU 3. 

Therefore, available air and water 

monitoring data collected after the OU 

3 CAD/ROD was signed were reviewed 

to determine if environmental 

conditions at OU 3 have changed since 

the BRA was completed. The air 

monitoring data from the RFETS 

perimeter air monitoring network were 

analyzed and the conclusion was that 

the amounts of plutonium and 

americium that have been measured at 

the RFETS perimeter since 1997 have 

been environmentally insignificant. 

These amounts of plutonium and 

americium would not have caused 

contaminant levels in OU 3 to change 

significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD 

was signed. Water monitoring data from 

the RFCA Points of Compliance on 

Woman Creek and Walnut Creek at 

Indiana Street, and data collected by the 

City of Broomfield for Great Western 

Reservoir, were analyzed. Samples of 

water leaving RFETS showed consistent 

compliance with RFCA surface water 

standards, and water samples from 

Great Western Reservoir were 

consistently at or below detection limits 

for plutonium and americium. The 

report also included a Protectiveness 

Statement as required by EPA guidance. 

Pursuant to the Protectiveness 

Statement, DOE’s ongoing custody and 

control of RFETS, ongoing monitoring 

programs, and restriction of public 

access serve to adequately control risks 

posed by contamination at RFETS. The 

no action decision for OU 3 was 

determined to be adequately protective. 

Review of air monitoring data and 

water quality data at the Points of 

Compliance since the first five-year 

review also indicate there have not been 

significant amounts of plutonium or 

americium that have entered OU 3 

through the air or water pathways. 

Therefore, environmental conditions at 

OU 3 have not changed significantly 

since the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed. 

B.4 OU 3 Conclusions 

Conditions in OU 3 pose no 

unacceptable or significant risks to 

human health or the environment; 

future unacceptable or significant 

exposures will not occur there as a 

result of past contamination. DOE 

concluded that no action was necessary 

in OU 3 for the protection of human 

health or the environment. Reviews 

following the OU 3 CAD/ROD have 

concluded that environmental 

conditions at OU 3 have not changed 

significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD 

was signed. 

Community Involvement 

Public Participation activities for the 

cleanup of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 

were conducted as required under 

CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 

9613(k) and Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 

9617. Public review included the 

following activities: 

A. Community Involvement for the 

Peripheral OU 

The Draft RI/FS Report for the RFETS 

was released for public review and 

information in October 2005, and was 

available at that time in the Rocky Flats 

public reading rooms and online. 

Several informational public meetings 

on the draft RI/FS were held, at which 

representatives from DOE and its 

contractor, EPA and CDPHE were 

present to answer questions. These 

meetings included a discussion at the 

Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board 

meeting on November 3, 2005. The final 

RI/FS report was approved by EPA and 

CDPHE on July 5, 2006. Copies of the 

final RI/FS report were placed at seven 

information centers in the Denver 

metropolitan area on July 14, 2005. In 

addition, the RI/FS report was available 

on line at http://www.rfets.gov, and 

copies on compact disc were available 

at the public information meetings 

during the comment period for the 

Proposed Plan. DOE, EPA and CDPHE 

held a pre-release informational meeting 

for the Proposed Plan on May 30, 2006, 

to explain changes that were made to 

the draft RI/FS report, and to describe 

the major components of the Proposed 

Plan. The Proposed Plan was released 

for formal public comment on July 14, 

2006. Notice of the public comment 

period appeared in The Rocky Mountain 

News and The Denver Post from May 22 

through May 28, 2006, and was also 

provided at the informational public 

meeting. DOE sent out community and 

media advisories prior to the release of 

the Proposed Plan, and prior to each 

informational meeting and the public 

hearing. The Proposed Plan was placed 

in seven information centers in the 

Denver metropolitan area, was available 

at the informational meetings held 

during the comment period, and was 

available on line at http://www.rfets.gov. 

The Proposed Plan included discussions 

on future land use and use of 

groundwater at Rocky Flats. The Rocky 

Flats administrative record file was 

available for public review at the Front 

Range Community College reading room 

in Westminster, Colorado, as well as on 

line at http://www.rfets.gov. 

DOE held two informational meetings 

during the public comment period, at 

which agency representatives presented 

the scope and purpose of the Proposed 

Plan, discussed opportunities to provide 

input on the Proposed Plan, and 

responded to questions from the public. 

The first informational meeting was 

held on July 19, 2006 in Golden, 

Colorado, and the second informational 

meeting took place in Westminster, 

Colorado on August 8, 2006. Prior 

notice of each meeting was provided 

through advertisements in the 

aforementioned newspapers, running 

from July 13 through July 19, 2006, and 

again from August 2 through August 8, 

2006. A public hearing for the Proposed 

Plan took place on August 31, 2006 in 

Arvada, Colorado; separate sessions 

were held in the afternoon and in the 

evening on that date to accommodate as 

many members of the public as possible. 

Prior notice of the public hearing was 

accomplished through advertisements 

in the aforementioned newspapers that 

ran from August 25 through August 31, 

2006, with a display ad posted in both 

papers on August 29, 2006. Both written 

and oral public comments were 

accepted at the public hearing. A 

transcript of the public hearing has been 

made available to the public and placed 

in the Rocky Flats administrative record 

file. 

The public comment period for the 

Proposed Plan extended from July 14 

through September 13, 2006. No 

requests for extension of the public 

comment period were received. DOE’s 

responses to public comments received 

during the comment period are included 

in the Responsiveness Summary section 

of the RFETS CAD/ROD. 

B. Community Involvement for OU 3 

DOE submitted the final RFI/RI 

Report for OU 3 to EPA on July 11, 1996 

following resolution of final comments 

by EPA, CDPHE, the City of Broomfield, 

and the City of Westminster. Regulatory 

approval to release the OU 3 Proposed 

Plan for public comment was granted on 

August 7, 1996. 

The Proposed Plan was released for 

public comment on August 7, 1996. A 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 11319 

public hearing on the OU 3 Proposed 

Plan was held on September 18, 1996 at 

the Arvada Center for the Performing 

Arts and Humanities in Arvada, 

Colorado. Citizen comments received at 

the public hearing were recorded and 

responses to those comments were 

included in a Responsiveness Summary. 

The public comment period for the OU 

3 Proposed Plan ended on October 11, 

1996. Written comments on the 

Proposed Plan were received from the 

Cities of Westminster and Broomfield. 

Responses to those written comments 

were also included in the 

Responsiveness Summary. 

Current Status 

The RFETS RI/FS Report concluded 

that the Peripheral OU was already in a 

state protective of human health and the 

environment, therefore the selected 

remedy in the RFETS CAD/ROD for the 

Peripheral OU was no action. No 

accelerated actions were taken in the 

Peripheral OU, and no remedial action 

alternatives were evaluated for the 

Peripheral OU. Because no hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants 

occur in the Peripheral OU above levels 

that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure, a five-year 

review was not required for this remedy. 

This documentation provides the 

technical justification for deletion of the 

Peripheral Operable Unit, Rocky Flats 

Plant from the NPL. 

For the OU 3 (Offsite Areas) 

conditions were determined to be 

protective of human health and the 

environment at the time the OU 3 CAD/ 

ROD was signed in 1997, and again 

during the first five-year review 

finalized in September 2002. Since then, 

summary data for OU 3 has been 

reviewed and indicate that conditions 

have not changed to alter conclusions of 

earlier OU 3 assessments. This 

documentation provides the technical 

justification for deletion of OU 3 (Offsite 

Areas), Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL. 

EPA, with concurrence from CDPHE, 

has determined that all appropriate 

CERCLA response actions have been 

completed within the Peripheral OU 

and OU 3 to protect public health and 

the environment and that no further 

response action by responsible parties is 

required. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of 

the Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

Robert E. Roberts, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. E7–4449 Filed 3–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS