6768 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

This action makes minor changes to 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to remove references to 

U.S. Customs forms and other small 

edits. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. This 

action makes minor changes to 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to remove references to 

U.S. Customs forms and other small 

edits. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

EPA will submit a rule report to each 

House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Chemicals, 

Imports, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: January 21, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– 

7671q. 

■ 2. In § 82.3, revise the definition for 

‘‘Importer’’ to read as follows: 

§ 82.3 Definitions for class I and class II 

controlled substances. 

* * * * * 

Importer means any person who 

imports a controlled substance or a 

controlled product into the United 

States. ‘‘Importer’’ includes the person 

primarily liable for the payment of any 

duties on the merchandise or an 

authorized agent acting on his or her 

behalf. The term also includes, as 

appropriate: 

(1) The consignee; 

(2) The importer of record; 

(3) The actual owner; or 

(4) The transferee, if the right to draw 

merchandise in a bonded warehouse has 

been transferred. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 82.13, revise paragraphs 

(g)(1)(xii), (g)(3)(v), and (g)(3)(viii)(D) to 

read as follows: 

§ 82.13 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for class I controlled 

substances. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(xii) The U.S. Customs entry number; 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(v) To pass the approved used class I 

controlled substances through U.S. 

Customs, the non-objection notice 

issued by EPA must accompany the 

shipment through U.S. Customs. 

* * * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(D) The U.S. Customs entry number. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 82.24, revise paragraphs 

(c)(2)(xiii), (c)(4)(v), (c)(4)(viii)(D), 

(d)(2)(i), and (d)(3)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 82.24 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for class II controlled 

substances. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(xiii) The U.S. Customs entry number; 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(v) To pass the approved used class II 

controlled substances through U.S. 

Customs, the non-objection notice 

issued by EPA must accompany the 

shipment through U.S. Customs. 

* * * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(D) The U.S. Customs entry number. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) The Employer Identification 

Number of the shipper or their agent; 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) The Employer Identification 

Number of the shipper or their agent; 

and 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 82.104, revise paragraph (m)(2) 

to read as follows: 

§ 82.104 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(2) The importer of record; 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–02321 Filed 2–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9936– 

89–Region 8] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan: Partial 

Deletion of the California Gulch 

Superfund Site; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Partial Deletion of Operable Unit 1 

(OU1) Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment 

Plant; and Operable Unit 3 (OU3), 

Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad 

Company (D&RGW) Slag Piles/Railroad 

Easement/Railroad Yard, of the 

California Gulch Superfund Site (Site), 

located in Lake County, Colorado, from 

the National Priorities List (NPL). The 

NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 

105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 6769 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final partial deletion is being published 

by EPA with the concurrence of the 

State of Colorado (State), through the 

Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment (CDPHE) because EPA 

has determined that all appropriate 

response actions at OU1 and OU3 under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

partial deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final partial deletion 

is effective April 11, 2016 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 

10, 2016. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final partial 

deletion in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the partial 

deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Linda Kiefer, kiefer.linda@

epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–7151. 

• Mail: Linda Kiefer, Remedial 

Project Manager, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 

8EPR–SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129. 

• Hand delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 

8EPR–SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information by 

calling EPA Region 8 at (303) 312–7279. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 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 

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 in 

http://www.regulations.gov; by calling 

EPA Region 8 at (303) 312–7279 and 

leaving a message; and at the Lake 

County Public Library, 1115 Harrison 

Avenue, Leadville, CO 80461, (719) 

486–0569, Monday and Wednesday 

from 10:00 a.m.–8:00 p.m., Tuesday and 

Thursday from 10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., 

and Friday and Saturday 1:00 p.m.–5:00 

p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Kiefer, Remedial Project Manager, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode EPR–SR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6689, email: 

kiefer.linda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Partial Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion 

V. Partial Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 8 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Partial Deletion for all of 

Operable Unit 1 (OU1), Yak Tunnel/

Water Treatment Plant; and Operable 

Unit 3 (OU3), Denver & Rio Grande 

Western Railroad Company (D&RGW) 

Slag Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad 

Yard, from the NPL. The NPL 

constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 

CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA of 

1980, as amended. EPA maintains the 

NPL as the list of sites that appear to 

present a significant risk to public 

health, welfare, or the environment. 

Sites on the NPL may be the subject of 

remedial actions financed by the 

Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). 

This partial deletion of the Site is 

proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 

300.425(e) and is consistent with the 

Notice of Policy Change: Partial 

Deletion of Sites Listed on the NPL. 60 

FR 55466 (November 1, 1995). As 

described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a 

portion of a site deleted from the NPL 

remains eligible for Fund-financed 

remedial action if future conditions 

warrant such actions. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses OU1, Yak Tunnel/Water 

Treatment Plant; and OU3, D&RGW Slag 

Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad Yard, 

and demonstrates how they meet the 

deletion criteria. Section V discusses 

EPA’s action to partially delete the Site 

parcels from the NPL unless adverse 

comments are received during the 

public comment period. 

This partial deletion pertains to all of 

OU1 and OU3. Operable Unit 2 (OU2), 

Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments and 

Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial Tailing; 

Operable Unit 4 (OU4) Upper California 

Gulch; Operable Unit 5 (OU5), ASARCO 

Smelters/Slag/Mill Sites; Operable Unit 

7 (OU7), Apache Tailing Impoundment; 

Operable Unit 8 (OU8), Lower California 

Gulch; Operable Unit 9 (OU9), 

Residential Populated Areas; and 

Operable Unit 10 (OU10), Oregon 

Gulch, were deleted from the NPL in 

previous partial deletion actions. 

Operable Unit 6 (OU6), Starr Ditch/

Stray Horse Gulch/Lower Evans Gulch/ 

Penrose Mine Waste Pile; Operable Unit 

11 (OU11), Arkansas River Floodplain; 

and Operable Unit 12 (OU12), Site-wide 

Surface and Groundwater Quality, are 

not being considered for deletion as part 

of this action and will remain on the 

NPL. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

6770 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

ii. all appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

iii. the remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) 

and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year 

reviews to ensure the continued 

protectiveness of remedial actions 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at a site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 

such five-year reviews even if a site is 

deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate 

further action to ensure continued 

protectiveness at a deleted site if new 

information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

III. Partial Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to the 

deletion of OU1 and OU3: 

(1) EPA has consulted with the State 

prior to developing this direct final 

Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notice 

of Intent for Partial Deletion copublished in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of the Federal Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the State 30 

working days for review of this notice 

and the parallel Notice of Intent for 

Partial Deletion prior to their 

publication today, and the State, 

through the CDPHE, has concurred on 

the partial deletion of OU1 and OU3 of 

the Site from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this direct final Notice of Partial 

Deletion, a notice of the availability of 

the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion is being published in a major 

local newspaper, the Leadville Herald 

Democrat. The newspaper notice 

announces the 30-day public comment 

period concerning the Notice of Intent 

for Partial Deletion of OU1 and OU3 of 

the Site from the NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the partial 

deletion in the deletion docket and 

made these items available for public 

inspection and copying at the Site 

information repositories identified 

above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this partial deletion action, 

EPA will publish a timely notice of 

withdrawal of this direct final Notice of 

Partial Deletion before its effective date 

and will prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and 

the comments already received. 

Deletion of a portion of a site from the 

NPL does not itself create, alter, or 

revoke any individual’s rights or 

obligations. Deletion of a portion of a 

site from the NPL does not in any way 

alter EPA’s right to take enforcement 

actions, as appropriate. The NPL is 

designed primarily for informational 

purposes and to assist EPA 

management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of 

the NCP states that the deletion of a site 

from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for further response actions, 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting OU1 and 

OU3 of the Site from the NPL. 

Site Background and History 

The California Gulch Superfund Site, 

EPA ID No. COD980717938, CERCLIS 

Site ID 0801478, is located in Lake 

County, Colorado approximately 100 

miles southwest of Denver. The Site was 

proposed for inclusion on the NPL on 

December 30, 1982, (47 FR 58476), and 

listed on September 8, 1983, (48 FR 

40658). The Site is in a highly 

mineralized area of the Colorado Rocky 

Mountains covering approximately 18 

square miles of a watershed that drains 

along California Gulch to the Arkansas 

River. The Site includes the City of 

Leadville, various parts of the Leadville 

Historic Mining District, Stringtown, 

and a section of the Arkansas River from 

the confluence of California Gulch to 

the confluence of Two-Bit Gulch. 

Mining, mineral processing, and 

smelting activities have occurred at the 

Site for more than 130 years. Mining in 

the district began in 1860, when placer 

gold was discovered in California 

Gulch. As the placer deposits were 

exhausted, underground mine workings 

became the principal method for 

removing gold, silver, lead and zinc ore. 

As these mines were developed, waste 

rock was excavated along with the ore 

and placed near the mine entrances. Ore 

was crushed and separated into metallic 

concentrates at mills, with mill tailing 

generally released into surrounding 

streams and after about 1930 slurried 

into tailing impoundments. Many of the 

mining operations ceased operations 

around 1900, although several smelters 

continued operations into the 1920s 

(Western Zinc) and the 1960s (AV 

Smelter) and the last active mine, the 

Black Cloud, shut down in 1999. 

All of the mines within the Site 

boundaries are presently inactive, and 

all of the mills and smelters have been 

demolished. Mining remains that 

contributed to environmental 

contamination are (1) mill tailing (the 

fine-grained residue remaining after 

milling has removed the metal 

concentrates form the ore) in 

impoundments and fluvial deposits; (2) 

mine waste rock piles (mine 

development rock and low grade ore 

removed to gain access to an ore body, 

and often deposited near adits and shaft 

openings); (3) mine water drainage 

tunnels; (4) draining adits; and (5) 

various smelter wastes including slag 

piles, flue dust and fallout from stack 

emissions. 

The Site was placed on the NPL due 

to concerns regarding the impact of 

acidic and metals laden mine drainage 

on surface waters leading to California 

Gulch and the impact of heavy metals 

loading into the Arkansas River. A Sitewide Phase I Remedial Investigation 

(Phase I RI), which primarily addressed 

surface water and groundwater 

contamination, was issued in January 

1987. As a result of the Phase I RI, EPA 

identified the first operable unit, the 

Yak Tunnel, to address the largest single 

source of metallic loading. A number of 

additional Site-wide studies followed 

the Phase I RI. 

EPA agreed, pursuant to a May 2, 

1994 Consent Decree (1994 CD), to 

divide the Site into 12 operable units 

(OUs). The OUs are as follows: OU1, 

Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment Plant; 

OU2, Malta Gulch Tailing 

Impoundments and Lower Malta Gulch 

Fluvial Tailing; OU3, D&RGW Slag 

Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad Yard; 

OU4, Upper California Gulch; OU5, 

ASARCO Smelter Sites/Slag/Mill Sites; 

OU6, Starr Ditch/Stray Horse Gulch/

Lower Evans Gulch/Penrose Mine Waste 

Pile; OU7, Apache Tailing 

Impoundments; OU8, Lower California 

Gulch; OU9, Residential Populated 

Areas; OU10, Oregon Gulch; OU11, 

Arkansas River Valley Floodplain; and 

OU12, Site-wide Surface and 

Groundwater. With the exception of 

OU12, the OUs pertain to distinct 

geographical areas corresponding to 

areas of responsibility for the identified 

responsible parties and/or to distinct 

sources of contamination. To date, OU2, 

OU4, OU5, OU7, OU8, OU9, and OU10 

have been partially deleted from the 

NPL. 

The background and history, the 

Remedial Investigations and Feasibility 

Studies (RI/FS), Removal and Response 

Actions, Selected Remedies, Cleanup 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 6771 

Standards, and Operation and 

Maintenance activities for OU1 and 

OU3 are discussed below. 

OU1 Background and History 

Operable Unit 1 (OU1) consists of the 

Yak Tunnel and Water Treatment Plant. 

The Yak Tunnel and Yak Tunnel Water 

Treatment Plant are located to the 

southeast of the City of Leadville. A 

map of OU1 can be found in the docket 

at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 

no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002. The 

Yak Tunnel was constructed to dewater 

mines and to facilitate mineral 

exploration and development. The 

tunnel was driven in 1895, as an 

extension of the Silver Cord Tunnel, to 

drain the Iron Hill mines. The Yak 

Tunnel was extended several times, 

with the last extension occurring in 

1923. The Yak Tunnel extends 

underground approximately 31⁄2 to 4 

miles into Iron Hill and Breece Hill. The 

tunnel has several major laterals and 

drifts that extend from the tunnel into 

various mine workings, such as the 

Horseshoe, the Rubie, the North Mike, 

the South Mike, the Ibex No. 4, the 

Little Winnie, the Resurrection No. 1, 

the Fortune, the Resurrection No. 2, and 

the Dolly B. The EPA estimated that 

60,000 feet of tunnels and major laterals 

and 55 to 74 million cubic feet of void 

space are associated with the tunnel 

mining activities. At the time of the 

ROD in March 1988, studies indicated 

that a combined total of 210 tons per 

year of cadmium, lead, copper, 

manganese, iron, and zinc were 

discharged from the Yak Tunnel into 

California Gulch, which drains into the 

Arkansas River. Surface water 

contamination is the major impact of the 

Yak Tunnel discharge. Shallow alluvial 

ground water and stream sediment may 

have been impacted by historic releases 

from the Yak Tunnel. 

OU1 Remedial Investigations and 

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 

The State, the EPA and certain 

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) 

conducted various studies and 

investigations to evaluate the nature and 

extent of contamination generally at the 

Site. Remedial Investigations (RIs) began 

in 1986 within the Site, including mine 

waste rock piles, tailing disposal areas, 

surface water and aquatics, 

groundwater, smelter sites, residential/

populated area soils, slag piles, and 

terrestrial studies. The Yak Tunnel/

California Gulch Remedial Investigation 

(1986 RI) evaluated the human health 

and environmental impacts due to 

historic mining activities. 

In May 1987, the Phase I Remedial 

Investigation (1987 Phase I RI) 

confirmed that the Yak Tunnel is a 

significant source of metals 

contamination. Results of this study 

indicated that 75 to 80 percent of the 

cadmium, manganese, and zinc detected 

at the confluence of California Gulch 

with the Arkansas River originates from 

the Yak Tunnel. Historical information 

along with data collected during the 

1987 Phase I RI indicated that the Yak 

Tunnel discharge had a significant 

detrimental impact on the aquatic 

environment at the site. In addition, the 

Yak Tunnel discharge presented a 

potential public health risk based on 

exposure to affected surface and 

groundwater at the California Gulch 

Site. 

The EPA released the Yak Tunnel 

Feasibility Study (FS) in June 1987 and 

a proposed plan for the Yak Tunnel in 

August 1987. 

OU1 Selected Remedy 

The EPA issued the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for OU1 (1988 OU1 

ROD) on March 29, 1988. The remedy 

chosen in the 1988 OU1 ROD was 

modified in an Amended ROD (AROD) 

signed on March 23, 1989 (1989 OU1 

AROD) and, further, modified in an ESD 

signed on October 22, 1991 (1991 OU1 

ESD) and an ESD signed on July 29, 

2013 (2013 OU1 ESD). 

The selected remedy in the 1988 OU1 

ROD was narrowly focused on the 

discharges from the Yak Tunnel as a 

major source of contamination to 

California Gulch and the Arkansas 

River. Broader issues of water quality 

generally in California Gulch and the 

Arkansas River were addressed as part 

of remedial actions taken at other 

operable units. Thus, the 1988 OU1 

ROD identified a single remedial action 

objective (RAO) of decreasing the 

release and threatened release of 

hazardous substances, pollutants and 

contaminants from the Yak Tunnel into 

California Gulch. 

The original remedy selected in the 

1988 OU1 ROD consisted of the 

following remedial components: (1) 

Construction of surge ponds to capture 

drainage from the tunnel and to 

minimize the impact of surges on 

California Gulch and the Arkansas 

River; (2) Installation of an interim 

water treatment system to treat water 

from the Yak Tunnel before discharge in 

California Gulch; (3) Sealing of shafts, 

drill holes and fractured rock and 

diversion of surface water from tunnel 

recharge areas to reduce the amount of 

water entering the Yak Tunnel system; 

(4) Grouting of fractured rock, caved-in 

areas and drill holes to prevent seepage 

of contaminated water to the land 

surface; (5) Installation of a pumping 

system to control water levels behind 

the portal plug. The pumped water 

would be routed to the interim 

treatment system; (6) Construction of a 

minimum of three concrete plugs in the 

Yak Tunnel to seal off the major flow 

route for groundwater movement; (7) 

Establishment of a surface and 

groundwater monitoring system to 

detect leakage, seeps or migration of 

contaminated groundwater, which may 

result from installation of the tunnel 

plugs; (8) Development and 

implementation, as necessary, of a 

contingency plan to address any adverse 

effects on surface or groundwater from 

tunnel plugging; and (9) Operations and 

maintenance of the remedy. 

The 1989 OU1 AROD made the 

following changes in the remedy: (1) 

Installation of a permanent water 

treatment system to treat contaminated 

groundwater from the Yak Tunnel 

before discharge in California Gulch, as 

opposed to the interim treatment facility 

originally proposed; (2) Construction of 

a surge pond or ponds to capture 

drainage from the tunnel and to 

minimize surges on California Gulch. 

The original remedy called for multiple 

surge ponds and did not consider the 

use of a single pond; (3) Reduction of 

seepage and recharge was made 

optional. Grouting of fractured rock, 

cave-ins and drill holes was removed as 

part of the remedy; and (4) The portal 

plug was modified to be a flow-through 

plug as opposed to a solid plug. 

The 1991 OU1 ESD made the 

following changes in the remedy: (1) 

Construction of a single surge pond as 

a permanent part of the remedy; (2) 

Construction of a flow-control bulkhead 

within the tunnel to prevent surges. 

Two of three originally planned plugs 

were removed from the remedy; (3) 

Identification of groundwater flow 

direction and potential gradient reversal 

as additional element of the monitoring 

plan. The monitoring system was 

proposed to include a minimum of 

seven groundwater monitoring wells as 

opposed to a minimum of 23 wells 

proposed in the 1989 AROD; (4) 

Placement of six or more weirs, or other 

flow measuring devices, at key locations 

in the Yak Tunnel. The weir locations 

were selected during an initial 

inspection of the tunnel; (5) Periodic 

inspection of the Yak Tunnel. Qualified 

mining crews will enter the tunnel 

annually to inspect and maintain weirs 

and other structures in the tunnel. 

Crews will also enter the tunnel to 

determine the cause of unexpected 

increases or decreased in flow within 

the Yak Tunnel; and (5) Development 

and implementation, as necessary, of a 

contingency plan to address any adverse 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

6772 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

effects on surface or groundwater 

resulting from tunnel blockage. The 

implementation would be based upon 

decrease in flow from Yak Tunnel, rise 

in water levels in monitoring wells 

located near mine workings, indication 

of gradient reversal, or degradation of 

water quality. 

Because the selected remedy in the 

1988 OU1 ROD left wastes in place but 

did not include institutional controls 

(ICs), a second ESD was signed on July 

29, 2013 to include ICs. The objectives 

of ICs for OU1 are as follows: (1) Reduce 

or control human exposure to 

contaminants of concern; and (2) 

Maintain the integrity of and prevent 

disturbances to engineered features or 

structures established as part of the 

current remedy or future remedies. The 

properties that comprise most of OU1 

are owned by Resurrection/Newmont. 

OU1 Cleanup Standards 

The OU1 remedy was the first source 

control remedy at the Site that 

addressed the Yak Tunnel discharge as 

the largest single source of 

contamination to surface water and 

groundwater but did not contain 

numeric cleanup standards for those 

media. Numeric cleanup standards for 

site-wide surface water and 

groundwater contamination were 

established in the OU12 Record of 

Decision. 

OU1 Response Actions 

The EPA issued a Unilateral 

Administrative Order (UAO) to 

ASARCO Incorporated, Newmont 

Mining Corporation, Res-ASARCO Joint 

Venture and Resurrection Mining 

Company on March 29, 1989 ordering 

these parties to perform the remedial 

design and remedial action for the Yak 

Tunnel. Two amendments were made to 

the UAO on April 30, 1993 and June 16, 

1993. The UAO was replaced and 

terminated in a 2008 Consent Decree 

settlement (2008 CD) by and among the 

United States, State of Colorado, 

Newmont USA Limited and 

Resurrection Mining Company. Under 

the 2008 CD, Newmont USA Limited 

and Resurrection Mining Company 

assumed responsibility for the OU1 

remedy. Construction of a surge pond 

and permanent water treatment plant 

began in September 1988 and was 

completed in June 1991. The 

construction efforts included four main 

elements: (1) A surface water 

conveyance system, (2) the surge pond 

itself, (3) a barge transfer system and (4) 

installation of gravity filters. The water 

treatment facility to treat waters 

emanating from the Yak Tunnel was 

constructed over a two-year period and 

the Yak Tunnel Water Treatment Plant 

has been in operation since construction 

was completed in February 1992. The 

Yak Tunnel Bulkhead was constructed 

in 1994 to control surges of water 

coming from the Yak Tunnel, 

particularly during spring melt. The 

bulkhead is located approximately 1,680 

feet into the tunnel from the portal. 

Additional efforts were made in 1995 

and 1996 to reduce metals loading into 

the Arkansas River from ephemeral 

tributaries. As part of a Consent Decree 

settlement with Resurrection/Newmont, 

Resurrection/Newmont placed 

environmental covenants on its 

properties in OU1 on July 31, 2012 and 

October 1, 2012 that meets the IC 

objectives above. All remedial 

components described in the 1988 OU1 

ROD and subsequent 1989 OU1 AROD, 

1991 OU1 ESD, and the 2013 OU1 ESD 

have been implemented. 

OU1 Operation and Maintenance 

The potentially responsible parties’ 

(PRPs) operations and maintenance 

(O&M) responsibilities were first 

defined under the UAO and then 

updated in the 2008 CD. In accordance 

with the terms of the 2008 CD, the 

Routine Monitoring Plan (RMP), 

Contingency Plan (CP) and the OU1 

Work Plan (Work Plan) govern the longterm implementation of the selected 

remedy for the OU1. The OU1 Work 

Plan, CP and the RMP are appendices to 

the 2008 CD. 

Routine O&M includes repairing 

grouted areas of structures due to 

corrosion, settlement or other factors; 

occasional repair or replacement of 

monitor well pumps and surface water 

monitoring equipment; repair of access 

roads; routine repair or replacement of 

pumps, motors, mixers, piping and 

tankage; and inspections. The treatment 

plant operates under requirements 

established in the OU1 Work Plan, and 

submits monthly and annual reports to 

EPA. Resurrection/Newmont 

summarizes monitoring data and data 

evaluation required by the OU1 Routine 

Monitoring Plan in the Annual 

Monitoring Reports, Yak Tunnel System 

for the Yak Tunnel Operable Unit, 

Leadville, CO. Current reports and 

associated data are available by 

contacting EPA Region 8. 

In regards to ICs, environmental 

covenants for Resurrection/Newmont’s 

properties within OU1 were recorded 

with the Lake County Clerk and 

Recorder on July 31, 2012 and October 

10, 2012. The environmental covenants 

provide the following Use Restrictions: 

(1) No Residential Use, Day Care Centers 

or Schools, Parks or Open Space that are 

designed or intended to provide play or 

recreation areas for children, (2) 

Restrictions on using untreated 

groundwater from wells, and (3) 

Restrictions on uses or activities that 

would disturb/interfere or have the 

potential to disturb/interfere with the 

protectiveness of the remedy and 

remedial components. All of OU1 is 

zoned Industrial Mining by Lake 

County, which serves to limit future 

changes of land use without County 

approval and Lake County has 

established a protocol to notify the EPA 

and the CDPHE of any proposed 

changes. 

OU3 Background and History 

D&RGW Slag Piles/Railroad 

Easement/Railroad Yard (OU3) included 

three slag piles (Arkansas Valley (AV), 

La Plata, and Harrison Street), 

approximately 12 acres at Harrison 

Avenue and Monroe Street which 

contained the Harrison Street slag pile, 

an easement that runs diagonally 

through the City of Leadville, and a 

portion of the rail yard known as 

Poverty Flats. The Denver & Rio Grande 

Western Railroad Company (D&RGW) 

owned theses slag piles, property, 

easement and rail yard when OU3 was 

designated in 1994. A map of OU3 can 

be found in the docket at 

www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 

no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002. 

In 1961, D&RGW purchased the AV 

Slag Pile from ASARCO Incorporated 

for use as railroad ballast. D&RGW 

purchased the La Plata Slag Pile from 

the Leadville Sanitation District in 1970. 

Additionally, D&RGW purchased the 

Harrison Street Slag Pile and Harrison 

Avenue property from NL Industries in 

1983. 

The AV Slag Pile covers 

approximately 40 acres just west of 

Stringtown. The pile generally consists 

of slag produced by the AV smelter that 

operated from 1882 to 1960. Based on 

aerial photography, the pile volume in 

the late 1950s was approximately 1.2 

million cubic yards, whereas in 1998 

approximately 422,000 cubic yards of 

slag remained, of which, approximately 

190,000 cubic yards is stockpiled fine 

slag. 

The La Plata Slag Pile, located west of 

the City limits of Leadville on Elm 

Street, has a volume estimated at 

105,000 cubic yards. Bimetallic 

Smelting Company leased the La Plata 

Smelter Works in OU3 from 1892 to 

1900 for pyritic smelting of low-grade 

ores. 

The Harrison Reduction Works was 

located near the northeast corner of 

Harrison Avenue and Elm Street, in a 

residential area. The Harrison Street 

Slag Pile ranged from 20 to 50 feet in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 6773 

height and covered an area of 

approximately 3 acres. The Harrison 

Street Slag Pile was removed to original 

grade and relocated to the AV Slag Pile 

in March 1998. 

Once a hotbed of transportation 

activities mostly related to mining, the 

Poverty Flats rail yard, located between 

12th Street, Highway 24, 17th Street and 

County Road 8, is now vacant. The 

portion of the Poverty Flats rail yard 

formerly owned by D&RGW is located 

near the north end of the City of 

Leadville, encompasses an area of 

roughly 43 acres, and is crossed by 

abandoned rail lines and access roads. 

Slag, which was used in the rail yard as 

ballast and as a road base to provide 

support for heavy vehicle traffic, was 

also deposited around the loading dock 

due to spillage during transportation 

activities. 

The rail easement includes the 

portion of railroad track that runs 

diagonally through Leadville and 

consists of approximately 25 feet on 

either side of the track centerline. Slag 

was used as a road base to provide 

support for heavy vehicle traffic. Slag 

was also deposited as spillage from 

passing rail cars. 

D&RGW identified a small volume of 

fine slag in the Poverty Flats rail yard. 

D&RGW prepared a plan, which 

addressed removal of the fine slag from 

this area to the AV Smelter Slag Pile. As 

a result of the Union Pacific Railroad 

Company (UPRR) purchase of the 

Southern Pacific Transportation 

Company (surviving corporation from 

an earlier merger of D&RGW and 

Southern Pacific Railroad), UPRR took 

ownership of all D&RGW property at the 

Site in 1996 and assumed D&RGW’s 

responsibilities under the 1993 D&RGW 

CD. 

During the summer and fall of 1997, 

UPRR removed 1,264 cubic yards of 

slag, including fine slag, from the rail 

yard and placed it onto the AV Slag 

Pile. As a result, soils were exposed 

containing elevated concentrations of 

lead. Soils samples, taken before and 

after removal of the slag, showed levels 

of lead in soil that exceed the Site-wide 

residential action level of 3500 mg/kg 

lead, thus lead in the soils on this 

property may create the potential for 

unacceptable human health risks should 

the property be developed for 

residential use. This vacant property is 

zoned Business by Lake County. 

However, institutional controls are in 

place to protect human health in the 

event of future residential development. 

As part of their ballast operations, 

UPRR relocated approximately 104,000 

cubic yards of slag to the AV Slag Pile 

in March 1998, which brought the 

Harrison Street Slag Pile to grade. Soils 

samples taken after removal of the slag 

showed levels of lead in soils, both 

under where the slag pile was located 

and otherwise on the Harrison Avenue 

property, that exceed the residential 

action level for lead in soils of 3500 mg/ 

kg. Thus, the lead in the soils on the 

Harrison Avenue property may create 

the potential for unacceptable human 

health risks should the property be 

developed for residential use. To date, 

the land remains vacant. Sections along 

the highway are zoned Commercial, and 

the remaining sections are zoned 

Transitional Commercial by the City of 

Leadville. However, institutional 

controls are in place to protect human 

health in the event of future residential 

development. 

In July 1998, UPRR submitted a Work 

Plan for the Consolidation of Fine Slag 

at the Railroad Easement Near McWethy 

Drive to 12th Street, Leadville, 

Colorado. The work plan provided for 

the easement to be converted into a 

segment of the Mineral Belt Trail. 

Consistent with the plan, fine slag from 

the rail easement was used as base 

material on the Mineral Belt Trail. More 

specifically, the fine slag was 

consolidated and covered with a 

compacted gravel sub-base of six inches 

and then two one-inch layers of asphalt 

to encapsulate it. This resource 

utilization was consistent with the 

contingency under the 1998 OU3 ROD. 

The completion of the consolidation 

work was approved in September 1998. 

The conversion of the railroad easement 

to the Mineral Belt Trail was completed 

with the installation of a sub-base, 

culverts, asphalt, signs, centerline 

striping, and re-vegetation. In 

accordance with a 1998 Memorandum 

of Understanding between EPA, UPRR, 

and Lake County, Lake County 

completed these projects, and UPRR 

provided funding for the sub-base, 

culverts, and asphalt in 2000. 

Ownership of the easement has been 

transferred to Lake County via quitclaim 

deed. 

OU3 Remedial Investigations and 

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 

The State, the EPA and certain 

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) 

have conducted various studies and 

investigations to evaluate the nature and 

extent of contamination generally at the 

Site, and specifically within OU3. 

Remedial Investigations (RIs) began in 

1986 within the Site, including mine 

waste rock piles, tailing disposal areas, 

surface water and aquatics, 

groundwater, smelter sites, residential/ 

populated area soils, slag piles, and 

terrestrial studies. 

Concurrent with the various 

investigations and studies, risk 

assessments were conducted at the 

California Gulch Superfund Site. Some 

included the Preliminary Baseline Risk 

Assessment (Preliminary BRA), and the 

Final Baseline Human Health Risk 

Assessments (Final BRA): Part A, Part B, 

and Part C. For human health risk issues 

at OU3, the Preliminary BRA and the 

Final BRA Part C, Evaluation of Worker 

Scenario and Evaluation of Recreational 

Scenarios, were most pertinent. The 

Preliminary BRA indicated that lead 

and arsenic are responsible for the 

majority of human health risks at the 

Site. Therefore, arsenic and lead were 

used as indicator contaminants for risk 

in the Final BRA. 

EPA and D&RGW entered into an 

Administrative Order on Consent (1991 

D&RGW AOC) on December 3, 1991. 

The 1991 D&RGW AOC required 

D&RGW to perform remedial 

investigations of major lead slag piles 

and one zinc slag pile within the Site. 

In 1992, D&RGW completed a remedial 

investigation (1992 OU3 Slag RI) of the 

major lead slag piles and the zinc slag 

pile within the Site. Slag was found to 

have elevated levels of zinc, lead, 

arsenic and cadmium along with a low 

acid-generating potential, and a neutral 

to basic pH. Fine slag, which is less than 

3⁄8 of an inch, was found to have 

elevated lead levels. The fine fraction of 

slag was the only part of the slag that 

may present an unacceptable risk 

because fine slag poses an inhalation 

hazard. 

EPA and D&RGW entered into a 

Consent Decree on September 15, 1993 

(1993 D&RGW CD) for the completion of 

investigation, feasibility studies, and 

remediation activities to be performed 

for OU3. The 1993 D&RGW CD stated 

EPA’s concerns regarding the fine 

fraction of the stockpiled slag at the AV 

Smelter site and the potential for 

particulate release during ballast 

operations as a potential human health 

exposure pathway. The 1993 D&RGW 

CD required D&RGW to perform a 

feasibility study for stockpiled fine slag 

and to submit an operations plan before 

initiating any ballast operations. 

In 1993, the EPA conducted a 

Screening Feasibility Study (1993 SFS) 

to initiate the overall CERCLA FS 

process at the California Gulch Site. The 

purpose of the SFS was to develop 

general response actions and identify an 

appropriate range of alternatives 

applicable to the various contaminant 

sources to be considered during 

feasibility studies for the California 

Gulch Site. The 1993 SFS for Remedial 

Alternatives examined several 

remediation alternatives for slag located 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

6774 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

at the Site based on specific criteria, 

such as relative cost, implementability, 

and effectiveness. The three remedial 

alternatives for slag retained for further 

evaluation were: No action, institutional 

controls, and resource utilization. The 

La Plata and Harrison Street Slag piles 

did not contain fine slag. Therefore, no 

further action was necessary. Because 

the AV Smelter pile contained fine slag, 

more investigation was required. 

In July of 1995, D&RGW submitted a 

ballast operations plan to EPA. 

Following EPA’s approval of the plan, 

ballast operations commenced in 

August 1995 but ceased soon thereafter 

for lack of a profitable market for the 

slag. Ballast operations involve the 

sorting of larger slag so that the size 

fraction of greater than 3⁄8 inch and less 

than 21⁄2 inches is produced for road 

ballast. The undersized fraction (i.e., 

less than 3⁄8 inch), or sorted fine slag, 

that is produced by the sorting process 

is stockpiled along with the previously 

sorted fine slag at the Arkansas Valley 

pile. 

D&RGW’s 1996 Final Stockpiled Fine 

Slag Feasibility Study (1996 OU3 FS) 

focused on the AV Smelter Slag Pile’s 

existing fine slag subpile and fine slag 

potentially generated from future ballast 

production. Based upon the 1993 SFS 

and 1993 D&RGW CD, the remedial 

action objective for the stockpiled fine 

slag was to: prevent leaching of metals 

of concern in concentrations that would 

have an adverse impact on soils, surface 

or ground water near the slag piles. The 

1996 OU3 FS provided a detailed 

analysis of the three retained 

remediation alternatives (no action, 

institutional controls, and resource 

utilization) from the 1993 SFS as 

applied to the stockpiled fine slag. The 

result of the 1996 OU3 FS for the 

stockpiled fine slag was a Proposed Plan 

with a No Action Alternative for the 

stockpiled fine slag subpile of the AV 

Smelter Slag Pile. In September 1996, 

the Proposed Plan was issued with a 

preferred alternative of ‘‘No Action,’’ 

with a contingency for future utilization 

of the slag. 

OU3 Selected Remedy 

The EPA issued the Stockpiled Fine 

Slag—Arkansas Valley Smelter Slag Pile 

ROD for OU3 on May 6, 1998 (1998 OU3 

ROD). Based on consideration of 

CERCLA requirements, detailed 

analyses of alternatives, and public 

comments, the EPA determined that a 

No Action alternative was the 

appropriate remedy. The No Action 

alternative leaves the stockpiled fine 

slag in its existing condition with no 

control or cleanup planned. The No 

Action alternative includes a provision, 

denoted as a contingency, for future 

utilization of the slag, if it is 

encapsulated prior to its use or reuse. 

The 1998 OU3 ROD also provides a 

provision to use the slag in the future if 

regional market demand exists for the 

material as a component in construction 

materials. 

The 1998 OU3 ROD did not require 

maintenance of the fine slag piles. Any 

future use of the slag would require 

encapsulation prior to reuse. 

Encapsulation can include the use of 

fine slag in concrete or asphalt 

aggregate, as a road base, or as backfill 

(so long as the slag is chemically bound 

or physically separated from an 

exposure by a barrier consisting of a 

different material). 

Sampling in the Poverty Flats rail 

yard property and the Harrison Avenue 

property shows levels of lead in soils 

above levels that would allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure, i.e., above the residential 

action level established for OU9, 

Residential Populated Areas of the Site. 

In addition, the Mineral Belt Trail, 

which was constructed on the former 

railroad easement, acts as a cap for fine 

slag and residual slag remains in other 

parts of OU3. Thus, the August 6, 2014 

ESD (2014 OU3 ESD) addresses the need 

for ICs, and documents the decision to 

require ICs for OU3. In addition, the use 

of the term ‘‘contingency’’ for fine slag 

utilization in the 1998 OU3 ROD is 

clarified in the 2014 OU3 ESD. Fine slag 

can be used for future commercial 

purposes by following the requirements 

set out in the 1998 OU3 ROD. 

OU3 Cleanup Standards 

As the final determination in the 1998 

OU3 ROD was No Action ROD, no 

cleanup standards were identified for 

fine slag in the record of decision. The 

OU12 remedy addresses site-wide 

surface water and groundwater 

contamination. 

OU3 Response Actions 

No response actions were taken 

pursuant to the No Action ROD. The ICs 

established by the City and County 

ordinances were response actions that 

were incorporated into the OU3 remedy 

by the ESD. Lake County, on March 3, 

2009, and the City of Leadville, on May 

7, 2013, implemented ICs in the form of 

local ordinances, amending the Land 

Development Codes and adopting 

regulations that protect both engineered 

and non-engineered remedies at OU3. A 

best management practice handout is 

provided to all applicants applying for 

a building permit within OU3. In 

addition, any disruptions of engineered 

or non-engineered remedies, and/or 

excavation of more than 10 cubic yards 

of soil off-site within OU3 require 

written approval from the CDPHE. 

OU3 Operation and Maintenance 

Because the 1998 OU3 ROD was a No 

Action ROD, no maintenance was 

required. 

Five-Year Review 

The remedies at the entire Site, 

including OU1 and OU3 require 

ongoing five-year reviews in accordance 

with CERCLA Section 121(c) and 

Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP. The 

next five-year review for the California 

Gulch Site is planned for 2017. 

In the 2012 five-year review dated 

September 27, 2012 for the Site, the 

OU1 remedy was determined to be 

protective in the short-term. There were 

concerns regarding continued long-term 

protectiveness because the requirement 

of ICs was not documented in a decision 

document even though ICs had already 

been implemented by the PRP and Lake 

County. Environmental covenants for 

Resurrection/Newmont’s properties 

within OU1 were recorded with the 

Lake County Clerk and Recorder on July 

31, 2012 and October 10, 2012. An ESD 

dated July 29, 2013 (2013 OU1 ESD) 

resolved this concern. 

In the 2012 five-year review for the 

Site, the OU3 remedies were determined 

to be protective in the short-term. The 

five-year review, recommended a review 

to determine whether additional 

response actions were needed at OU3 to 

insure long-term protectiveness. The 

review determined that ICs were needed 

to insure long-term protectiveness. The 

2013 OU3 ESD addresses the need for 

ICs because some soils and residual slag 

remained above the residential action 

level, and documents the decision to 

require ICs. Ordinances adopted by the 

City and County met the IC objectives 

set out in the ESD 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) 

and the NCP, EPA will conduct the next 

five-year review by September 27, 2017 

to ensure the continued protectiveness 

of remedial actions where hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants 

remain at the Site above levels that 

allow for unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities have 

been satisfied as required in CERCLA 

Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 

CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. 

During the development and 

implementation of the remedies for 

these operable units, comment periods 

were offered for proposed plans, fiveyear reviews, and other public meetings. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 6775 

The documents that the EPA relied on 

for the partial deletion of OU1 and OU3 

from the California Gulch Superfund 

Site are in the docket and are available 

to the public in the information 

repositories. A notice of availability of 

the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion 

has been published in the Leadville 

Herald Democrat to satisfy public 

participation procedures required by 40 

CFR 300.425 (e) (4). 

The State, the Lake County 

Commissioners, the City of Leadville are 

supportive of the partial deletion of 

OU1 and OU3. The State signed a letter 

of concurrence on October 7, 2015. 

Determination That the Criteria for 

Deletion Have Been Met 

EPA has consulted with the State, 

Lake County Commissioners, and the 

City of Leadville on the proposed partial 

deletion of OU1 and OU3 of the 

California Gulch Site from the NPL prior 

to developing this Notice of Partial 

Deletion. Through the five-year reviews, 

EPA has also determined that the 

response actions taken are protective of 

public health or the environment and, 

therefore, taking of additional remedial 

measures is not appropriate. 

The implemented remedies achieve 

the degree of cleanup or protection 

specified in: for OU1, the 1988 OU1 

ROD, 1989 OU1 AROD, the 1991 OU1 

ESD and 2013 OU1 ESD; and for OU3, 

the 1998 OU3 ROD and the 2014 OU3 

ESD. 

All selected removal and remedial 

action objectives and associated cleanup 

goals for OU1 and OU3 are consistent 

with agency policy and guidance. This 

partial deletion meets the completion 

requirements as specified in OSWER 

Directive 9320.2–22, Close Out 

Procedures for National Priority List 

Sites. All response activities at OU1 and 

OU3 of the Site are complete and the 

two operable units pose no 

unacceptable risk to human health or 

the environment. Therefore, EPA and 

CDPHE have determined that no further 

response is necessary at OU1 and OU3 

of the Site. 

V. Partial Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State through the CDPHE has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation, maintenance, 

monitoring and five-year reviews, have 

been completed. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting all of OU1, Yak Tunnel/Water 

Treatment Plant; and OU3, D&RGW Slag 

Easement/Railroad Yard, of the Site. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be non-controversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective April 11, 2016 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by March 10, 2016. If adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

notice of partial deletion before the 

effective date of the partial deletion and 

it will not take effect. EPA will prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the notice of intent to partially delete 

and the comments already received. 

There will be no additional opportunity 

to comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: January 15, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02601 Filed 2–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. FRA–2012–0103, Notice No. 2] 

RIN 2130–AC43 

Safety Glazing Standards 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, FRA is 

revising and clarifying existing 

regulations related to the use of glazing 

materials in the windows of 

locomotives, passenger cars, and 

cabooses. This final rule reduces 

paperwork and other economic burdens 

on the rail industry by removing a 

stenciling requirement for locomotives, 

passenger cars, and cabooses that are 

required to be equipped with glazing. 

This final rule also clarifies the 

application of the regulations to older 

equipment and to the end locations of 

all equipment to provide more certainty 

to the rail industry and more narrowly 

address FRA’s safety concerns. In 

addition, this final rule clarifies the 

definition of passenger car, updates the 

rule by removing certain compliance 

dates that are no longer necessary, and, 

in response to comments on the 

proposed rule, modifies the application 

of the regulations to passenger cars and 

cabooses in a railroad’s fleet that are 

used only for private transportation 

purposes and to older locomotives used 

in incidental freight service. 

DATES: This final rule is effective April 

11, 2016. Petitions for reconsideration 

must be received on or before April 11, 

2016. Comments in response to 

petitions for reconsideration must be 

received on or before May 24, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

and comments on petitions for 

reconsideration: Petitions for 

reconsideration or comments on 

petitions for reconsideration related to 

Docket No. FRA–2012–0103, Notice No. 

2, may be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Web site: The Federal eRulemaking 

Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the Web site’s online 

instructions for submitting comments, 

to include petitions for reconsideration. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12– 

140, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140 on the 

Ground level of the West Building, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking 

(2130–AC43). Note that all petitions and 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments, petitions, or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, any 

petition for reconsideration submitted, 

or comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov at any time or visit 

the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140 

on the Ground level of the West 

Building, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Zuiderveen, Railroad Safety 

Specialist, Motive Power & Equipment 

Division, Office of Safety Assurance and 

Compliance, Mail Stop 25, Federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES