Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47007 

Dated: July 29, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

§ 52.2420 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by removing the three 

entries entitled ‘‘Potomac Electric Power 

Company (PEPCO)-Potomac River 

Generating Station [Permit to Operate]’’, 

‘‘Potomac Electric Power Company 

(PEPCO)—Potomac River Generating 

Station [Consent Agreement]’’, and 

‘‘Potomac Electric Power Company 

(PEPCO)—Potomac River Generating 

Station’’. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18930 Filed 8–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL 9914– 

92–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. 

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 4, 

(OU4) Upper California Gulch; Operable 

Unit 5 (OU5), ASARCO Smelters/Slag/

Mill Sites; and Operable Unit 7 (OU7), 

Apache Tailing Impoundment, 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 

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 OU4, OU5 and OU7 

under CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

partial deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

This partial deletion pertains to all of 

OU4, OU5 and OU7. Operable Unit 2 

(OU2), Malta Gulch Tailing 

Impoundments and Lower Malta Gulch 

Fluvial Tailing; Operable Unit 8 (OU8), 

Lower California Gulch; Operable Unit 

9 (OU9), Residential Populated Areas; 

and Operable Unit 10 (OU10), Oregon 

Gulch, were previously partially deleted 

from the NPL. Operable Unit 1 (OU1), 

the Yak Tunnel; Operable Unit 3 (OU3), 

D&RGW Slag Piles and Easement; 

Operable Unit 6 (OU6), Stray Horse 

Gulch; 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. 

DATES: This direct final partial deletion 

is effective October 14, 2014 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 11, 2014. 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. 

• E-Mail: 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. 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
47008 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Partial Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Partial Deletion 

V. Partial Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 8 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Partial Deletion for all of 

Operable Unit 4 (OU4), Upper California 

Gulch; Operable Unit 5 (OU5), ASARCO 

Smelters/Slag/Mill Sites; and Operable 

Unit 7 (OU7), Apache Tailing 

Impoundment, of the Site, from the 

NPL. The NPL constitutes Appendix B 

of 40 CFR part 300, of the NCP, 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 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described 

in 40 CR 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. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective October 14, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by September 11, 2014. Along with this 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, 

EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent 

for Partial Deletion in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of the Federal Register. 

If adverse comments are received within 

the 30-day public comment period on 

this partial deletion action, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion 

before the effective date of the partial 

deletion and the partial deletion will 

not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, 

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. There will be no 

additional opportunity to comment. 

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 OU4, Upper California 

Gulch; OU5, ASARCO Smelters/Slag/

Mill Sites; and OU7, Apache Tailing 

Impoundment, 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. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons have 

implemented all appropriate response 

actions required; 

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response 

under CERCLA has been implemented, and 

no further response action by responsible 

parties is appropriate; or 

iii. The remedial investigation has shown 

that the release poses no significant threat to 

public health or the environment and, 

therefore, the taking of remedial measures is 

not appropriate. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) 

and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year 

reviews to ensure the continued 

protectiveness of remedial actions 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at a site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 

such five-year reviews even if a site is 

deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate 

further action to ensure continued 

protectiveness at a deleted site if new 

information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

III. Partial Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to the 

deletion of OU4, OU5 and OU7: 

(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 OU4, OU5 and 

OU7 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 OU4, OU5 and 

OU7 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 Site Partial Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting OU4, OU5 

and OU7 of the Site from the NPL: 

Site Background and History 

The California Gulch Superfund Site, 

EPA ID No. COD980717938, 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47009 

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). 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. 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 and Easement; 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. To date, 

OU2, 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 

Standards, and Operation and 

Maintenance activities for OU4, OU5 

and OU7 are discussed below. 

OU4 Background and History 

Upper California Gulch (OU4) is 

located to the southeast of the City of 

Leadville. A map of OU4 can be found 

in the docket at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 

no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002. OU4 

covers an area of approximately 2.4 

square miles, contains waste rock piles 

and fluvial tailing and is divided into 

six sub-basins, Garibaldi, Whites Gulch, 

Nugget Gulch, AY Minnie, Iron Hill and 

South Area, which also includes the 

Fluvial Tailing Site 4 known as Oro 

City. Although 131 waste piles were 

initially identified in OU4, the number 

of waste rock piles of concern in the OU 

has been reduced to 20 through 

remedial investigation and analytical 

screening. The twenty waste rock piles 

in these sub-basins contain a total 

estimated volume of 431,000 cubic 

yards, impacting 28.3 acres. The waste 

rock piles are primarily weathered 

porphyry with limited to no vegetation 

and with highly oxidized surfaces. 

Fluvial tailing deposition within OU4 

is discontinuous and appears to have 

been subdivided into several distinct 

pockets. In OU4, the Fluvial Tailing Site 

4 extends for a distance of 

approximately 1.5 miles along Upper 

California Gulch, from slightly upstream 

of the Yak Tunnel portal to the 

upstream end of the Printer Boy Mine 

area. Fluvial tailing and fluvial tailing 

mixed with alluvial sediments are 

located in the South Area and Fluvial 

Tailing Site 4 (Oro City), and are 

estimated at 102,000 cubic yards in 

volume. The fluvial tailing piles are 

largely un-vegetated, with grasses and 

lodgepole pine growing on 

approximately a quarter of the tailing 

surface. A wetland area exists along the 

Upper California Gulch channel within 

the OU4 boundaries. Oro City is 

considered a cultural and historic 

resource for the Leadville Historic 

Mining District. The land in OU4 is 

zoned by Lake County for recreational, 

industrial and mining land uses. EPA is 

the lead agency for OU4 and the CDPHE 

is the support agency. Under the 1994 

CD, Resurrection/Newmont Mining 

(Resurrection/Newmont) assumed 

responsibility for OU4. 

Concurrent with the various 

investigations and studies, risk 

assessments were conducted. They 

included the Preliminary Baseline Risk 

Assessment (Preliminary BRA), the 

Final Baseline Human Health Risk 

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

and Part C; the Ecological Risk 

Assessment for Terrestrial Ecosystems 

(ERA); the Surface Water Human Health 

Risk Assessment; the Groundwater 

Baseline Human Health Risk 

Assessment and the Baseline Aquatic 

Ecological Risk Assessment (BARA). 

For human health risk issues at OU4, 

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. Residential, 

commercial, and industrial uses do not 

occur in OU4, nor are these uses 

anticipated to occur in the future at 

OU4. Therefore, commercial workers, 

industrial workers, and residents are not 

exposed to contaminated media in OU4. 

Recreation is the most likely land use 

scenario for OU4. Therefore, 

recreational visitors were selected as the 

receptors of concern for OU4. The Final 

BRA identified soil ingestion as the 

exposure pathway of concern for 

recreational visitors. Exposure to other 

media and exposure to soil/dust through 

other pathways (e.g., dermal) are 

considered an insignificant concern for 

recreational users. The OU4 

investigations showed that average 

concentrations of arsenic and lead in 

exposure areas in OU4 where 

recreational use is considered likely 

were less than the risk-based action 

levels for the recreational land use 

scenario (lead 16,000 mg/kg and arsenic 

1,400 mg/kg) identified in the Final 

BRA, indicating that an unacceptable 

health risk is unlikely to result from 

recreational exposure to lead or arsenic 

in surface soils in OU4. 

For ecological risks at OU4, the BARA 

and the ERA were the most pertinent. 

The BARA characterized the impacts of 

mine waste contamination on the 

aquatic ecosystem of the Site. Results of 

the BARA indicate that mine waste 

poses potential unacceptable risk to all 

aquatic species. The BARA states that 

the Girabaldi Mine, the North Mike, and 

the fluvial tailing, as well as other 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
47010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

sources, such as high metal waste rock 

piles, contribute to the metals entering 

California Gulch and, ultimately, the 

Arkansas River. Potential risks to the 

terrestrial ecosystem from mine waste 

contamination were characterized in the 

ERA. Risks to the blue grouse, mountain 

bluebird, and least chipmunk exceeded 

EPA acceptable levels for exposure to 

contaminants in mine waste 

contamination in OU4. Potential risks to 

plants and soil fauna from exposure to 

mine waste contamination were also 

indicated. Surface water ingestion may 

also result in a potential risk of some 

effect to terrestrial receptors. Action 

levels were not developed for terrestrial 

receptors. Thus, these releases of 

contaminants from OU4 presented an 

unacceptable risk to aquatic and 

terrestrial ecological receptors and 

response actions were necessary at OU4 

to control the release of contaminants 

and acidic water into the environment. 

OU4 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 OU4. 

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. Waste rock 

piles were selected for sampling based 

upon their potential to impact surface 

water systems. Waste rock and fluvial 

tailing material samples (from 0 to 6 

inches) were collected at 14 sites in 

OU4. Waste rock and/or tailing samples 

were collected in the Iron Hill drainage, 

at the Garibaldi, Agwalt, Printer Girl, 

and AY-Minnie mine sites, and along 

Fluvial Tailing Site 4. 

In 1986 and 1987, EPA conducted 

additional RI investigations. The Draft 

Phase II Remedial Investigation 

Technical Memorandum 1986–1987 

(Phase II RI) evaluated mine-related 

wastes, surface water and groundwater 

quality, associated with the Printer Girl 

and the AY-Minnie mine sites. The 

California Gulch Hydrologic 

Investigation, included surface water, 

groundwater, and sediment sampling; 

laboratory analysis of samples; and an 

inventory of mine and mineral waste. 

The primary objectives were to 

characterize the surface and 

groundwater quality and flow patterns, 

and to identify sources of contaminant 

loading in California Gulch. Conducted 

in 1991 and 1992, the Final-Surface 

Water Remedial Investigation Report 

(Surface Water Rl), prepared by 

ASARCO, involved surface water and 

sediment sampling in the Arkansas 

River and its tributaries, including 

California Gulch. 

The Final-Hydrogeologic Remedial 

Investigation Report (Hydrogeologic RI), 

prepared for ASARCO, from the fall of 

1991 through the winter of 1992, 

included well monitoring, and 

groundwater analysis. The objectives 

were to investigate groundwater quality 

and flow directions, evaluate potential 

impacts to water users and surface water 

receptors, and to characterize 

background groundwater quality. 

Issued in 1994, the Final-Tailing 

Disposal Area Remedial Investigation 

Report (Tailing RI) discusses the 

investigation of the five major tailing 

impoundments and seven fluvial tailing 

deposits, and their potential impacts on 

surface and groundwater at the 

California Gulch Site for ASARCO in 

the fall of 1991. 

The 1994 Draft Final-Field 

Reconnaissance Survey of Mine Waste 

Piles Located Within the Upper 

California Gulch Drainage identified 131 

individual waste rock piles and ranked 

these waste rock piles for two criteria: 

(1) Potential physical instability that 

may expose or spread materials, and (2) 

minerals contained on the surface of the 

pile. 

In addition to the Site investigations, 

cultural resource surveys were 

conducted at the Garibaldi, the North 

Moyer, Agwalt, and the Printer Girl 

mine sites in 1990, 1994, and 1995. 

Resurrection/Newmont conducted 

additional field investigation activities 

in 1994 and 1995 to evaluate the 

potential for waste rock piles to generate 

acid rock drainage (ARD) and leach 

metals; to further define conditions 

within OU4; to supplement existing RI 

information with additional physical, 

chemical, and geotechnical data; and to 

provide supplemental information for 

use in an Engineering Evaluation/Cost 

Analysis (EE/CA) and a Focused 

Feasibility Study (FFS). 

Resurrection/Newmont completed an 

EE/CA in 1995 (1995 OU4 EE/CA). The 

1995 OU4 EE/CA was prepared to 

evaluate and identify a preferred nontime critical removal action for the 

Garibaldi Mine site area within OU4. 

Resurrection/Newmont completed the 

FFS for OU4 of the California Gulch Site 

in January 1998 (1998 OU4 FFS). The 

purpose of the 1998 OU4 FFS was to 

identify and evaluate remedial 

alternatives to address potential sources 

of contaminant loading within the OU4 

site area. The 1998 OU4 FFS provided 

a detailed analysis for the following 

waste rock piles and fluvial tailing 

material: Waste rock near the Garibaldi 

Mine; waste rock in Upper Whites 

Gulch; waste rock and fluvial tailing 

near the AY-Minnie and Printer Boy 

mining areas; waste rock piles at North 

Moyer/North Mike; and mine waste rock 

piles located near the Minnie pump 

shaft. 

Based on the results of the numerous 

remedial investigations and the 1998 

OU4 FFS for OU4, the EPA determined, 

at the time, that actual or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances from 

waste rock and fluvial tailing piles in 

OU4 may present an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health, welfare or the environment if not 

addressed through remedial action. 

Metals from former mining activities, 

present in waste rock and fluvial tailing 

piles, may leach to surface water or 

groundwater via ARD. Response actions 

were necessary at OU4 to control the 

release of contaminants and acidic 

water into the environment. These 

releases presented a risk to aquatic and 

terrestrial ecological receptors. 

OU4 Removal Actions 

In the 1994 CD, Resurrection/

Newmont agreed to perform certain 

remediation work in three operable 

units (OU4, OU8, and OU10). The Work 

Area Management Plan (WAMP), 

included as Appendix D to the 1994 CD, 

defines the scope of work to be 

performed by Resurrection/Newmont. 

The 1995 OU4 EE/CA included site 

characterization, (utilizing existing 

remedial investigation data and 

collected field data) to be used to 

identify removal action objectives and 

alternatives. The 1995 OU4 EE/CA 

provided information to enable the EPA 

to select several removal actions. 

Pursuant to the August 4, 1995 and 

July 19, 1996 Action Memorandums and 

the November 18,1996 Amended Action 

Memorandum, Resurrection/Newmont 

conducted Non-Time Critical Removal 

Actions at the Garibaldi sub-basin, the 

Agwalt Mine in Whites Gulch, and the 

Upper California Gulch surface water 

diversion. These removal actions 

successfully addressed contamination at 

the Garibaldi and the Agwalt mine sites. 

The removal actions included 

construction of portal collection systems 

and concrete-lined channels to intercept 

and divert surface water run-on and 

portal flow away from two waste rock 

piles. The Garibaldi removal action also 

included two groundwater interception 

trenches to divert groundwater flow. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47011 

OU4 Selected Remedy 

The EPA issued the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for OU4 (1998 OU4 

ROD) on March 31, 1998. The Remedial 

Action Objectives (RAOs) established in 

the 1998 OU4 ROD include: (1) Control 

erosion of contaminated materials into 

local water courses, (2) Control leaching 

and migration of metals from 

contaminated materials into the surface 

water, and (3) Control leaching and 

migration of metals from contaminated 

materials into the groundwater. 

The selected remedy for OU4 

consisted of the following remedial 

components: (1) Within the Garabaldi 

sub-basin, creation of a diversion of 

surface water and selected removal of 

waste; (2) within the Whites Gulch subbasin, the excavation, consolidation and 

removal of waste rock at the Printer Girl 

Waste Rock Pile, and the regrading of 

excavated areas of the Printer Girl Waste 

Rock Pile and construction of diversion 

ditches to control surface water run-on 

to the regraded areas; (3) within the 

Nugget Gulch sub-basin: Excavation and 

consolidation of the Rubie, Adirondack, 

Colorado No. 2 east and North Mike 

Waste Rock Piles onto the Colorado No. 

2 Waste Rock Piles; regrading and 

placement of a simple rock or vegetated 

cover over the Colorado No. 2 Waste 

Rock Pile, terracing, soil amendment 

and revegetation of excavated areas, and 

construction of diversion ditches to 

control surface water run-on to the 

terraced and regraded areas; (4) within 

the AY Minnie sub-basin: Construction 

of diversion ditches to reduce surface 

water run-on onto the AY Minnie Waste 

Rock Pile, and relocation of Lake 

County Road 2 to allow space for 

construction of a sedimentation pond 

and provide added protection from 

stability failures of timber cribbing 

without destroying the mining heritage 

and cultural resources of this mining 

area; Iron Hill sub-basin: Regrading and 

placement of a simple cover 

(revegetated soil or rock) over the Mab 

Waste Rock Pile as well as revegetation 

of surrounding disturbed areas; and (5) 

within Oro City, reconstruction and 

stabilization of the Upper California 

Gulch stream channel to prepare for a 

500-year flood event, and regrading and 

removal, if necessary, of channel spoil 

material and selected fluvial tailing, and 

construction of eight sediment dams 

within the channel and approximately 

1.5 acres of wetlands along the channel. 

On March 17, 2004, the EPA issued an 

Explanation of Significant Differences 

(ESD) deferring remedial activities at 

Fluvial Tailing Site 4/Oro City because 

of the historical significance of the Oro 

City area as an early mining camp. 

Spring runoff in the Oro City area is 

monitored as part of OU12, Site-wide 

water quality. Because the selected 

remedy in the 1998 OU4 ROD left 

wastes in place but did not include 

institutional controls (ICs), a second 

ESD was signed on July 29, 2013 to 

include ICs as part of the OU4 source 

control remedy for the Site. 

OU4 Cleanup Standards 

The 1998 OU4 ROD addressed 

potential source material contributing to 

surface water and groundwater 

contamination at the Site but did not 

contain numeric cleanup standards. As 

previously mentioned, the OU12 

remedy addresses site-wide surface 

water and groundwater contamination 

and includes numeric cleanup 

standards. 

OU4 Response Actions 

The 1998 OU4 ROD identified the 

need for additional remedial actions in 

Whites Gulch (Printer Girl Waste Pile), 

Nugget Gulch Waste Rock, AY Minnie 

Waste Rock, Iron Hill Waste Rock, and 

Fluvial Tailing Site 4/Oro City. 

Resurrection/Newmont commenced 

these remedial actions in June 1998 and 

completed the work in February 2003. 

The major components of the remedial 

action included controlling erosion of 

contaminated materials into local 

watercourses, controlling leaching and 

migration of metals from contaminated 

materials into the surface water, and 

controlling leaching and migration of 

metals from contaminated materials into 

the groundwater. 

OU4 Operation and Maintenance 

Under the 1994 CD and a 2008 

Consent Decree settlement (2008 CD) 

that replaced the 1994 CD, Resurrection/ 

Newmont agreed to operate and 

maintain the OU4 remedy features. 

Resurrection/Newmont conducts 

inspections in accordance with the 

OU4, OU8, and OU10, Operations and 

Maintenance (O&M) Plan, California 

Gulch Superfund Site which can be 

found in Appendix D to the 2008 CD 

approved on August 29, 2008. 

Resurrection/Newmont findings are 

documented in the Annual California 

Gulch Superfund Site OU4, OU8 and 

OU10 Inspection Reports. These reports 

are available by contacting EPA Region 

8. 

Environmental covenants for 

Resurrection/Newmont’s properties 

within OU4 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. On December 22, 

2010, Lake County implemented ICs 

that covered all property within OU4 in 

the form of a local ordinance, a 

resolution amending the Lake County 

Land Development Code and adopting 

regulations that protect both engineered 

and non-engineered remedies at OU4. A 

best management practice handout is 

provided to all applicants applying for 

a building permit within OU4. In 

addition, any disruption of engineered 

or non-engineered remedies, and/or 

excavation of more than 10 cubic yards 

of soil off-site within OU4 requires 

written approval from the CDPHE. All of 

OU4 is zoned Industrial Mining by Lake 

County, which serves to limit future 

changes of land use without County 

approval and notification to the EPA 

and the CDPHE of such proposed 

changes. 

OU5 Background and History 

OU5 includes five smelter sites (Elgin 

Smelter, Grant/Union Smelter, Western 

Zinc Smelter, Arkansas Valley South 

Hillside Slag Pile (EGWA) and Arkansas 

Valley Smelter (AV), and one mill site 

known as Colorado Zinc-Lead Mill 

(CZL). A map of OU5 can be found in 

the docket at www.regulations.gov 

under Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

1983–0002. One smelter and the mill are 

co-located as the AV/CZL sites, 

approximately 1.5 miles southwest of 

Leadville on the north bank of 

California Gulch. The combined area is 

approximately 70 acres. The entire AV/ 

CZL sites lie above the 500-year 

floodplain of Lower California Gulch. 

The AV/CZL sites are also adjacent to 

portions of OU3 that includes the AV 

Slag Pile. The AV, which is part of the 

Leadville Historic Mining District, 

operated from 1879 until 1961. It was 

the longest-operating smelter in the 

Leadville area, processing a wide variety 

of ores and reprocessing slag to produce 

lead, silver and other metals during this 

time. The CZL operated intermittently 

from 1926 to 1938 using a custom 

flotation process to produce zinc, lead, 

gold, silver and some copper. Tailing, 

the byproduct of the mill operation was 

discharged below the mill presumably 

into the CZL Tailing Impoundment 

which is included as part of OU8. The 

mill closed in 1930 and was reopened 

in 1935. The mill processed ores from 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
47012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

several local mines and waste dumps 

between 1935 and 1938 when the 

operations ceased. 

The Elgin Smelter, which operated 

intermittently from 1879 to 1903, is 

located in north-central Leadville on the 

south bank of Big Evans Gulch near the 

intersection of U.S. Highway 24 and 

State Highway 91. The Elgin Smelter 

works were leased and operated by 

several different companies between 

1893 and 1902. The Grant/Union 

Smelter was actually two smelters: The 

Grant Smelter, which operated from 

1878 to 1882, and the Union Smelter 

which operated from 1892 to 1900. Both 

smelters were located near the 

confluence of Georgia Gulch and 

California Gulch, northeast of the 

Colorado Mountain College campus. 

The Western Zinc Smelter, which 

operated from 1914 until 1926, is 

located in the western part of Leadville, 

approximately seventy five feet west of 

McWethy Drive and approximately one 

hundred feet south of the Lake County 

fairgrounds. The Western Zinc Mining 

and Reducing Company used the facility 

to extract zinc from ores. 

Also referred to as the Tramway Slag 

Pile, the Arkansas Valley South Hillside 

Slag Pile is located south of U.S. 

Highway 24 on the hillside across from 

the AV site. It was perhaps used by the 

AV or the Grant/Union Smelter. The 

Arkansas Valley South Hillside Slag Pile 

site is estimated to consist of 16,000 

cubic yards in two elongated piles of 

slag, extending approximately 2,000 feet 

parallel to California Gulch and U.S. 

Highway 24. There are no smelter 

remains or any other waste materials 

except slag at this site. 

Prior to the remedial action, smelter 

debris, which consisted primarily of 

brick, concrete, metal, tile, wood and 

glass, as well as residual mine waste 

and smelter materials including slag, 

coke/charcoal, limestone, ore, matte, 

tailing and flue dust, covered OU5. 

After remedial action, the majority of 

the smelter and mill structures at the 

AV/CZL sites have been demolished, 

though some buildings and foundations 

remain preserved as cultural heritage 

properties. The EGWA sites are 

currently vacant. 

Potential media of concern in OU5 

include tailing, flue dust, and nonresidential area soils at the AV/CZL 

sites and slag, non-residential soils, and 

residential area soils at the EGWA sites. 

Results of the Preliminary BRA and the 

Final BRA indicate that human 

receptors are expected to have minimal 

exposure to slag. Metals from former 

mining practices including lead, 

arsenic, cadmium, copper and zinc, 

presented a potential risk to human and 

ecological receptors. The majority of 

human health risks at the Site, 

generally, have been attributed to lead 

and arsenic. Therefore, these two 

contaminants were selected as indicator 

chemicals for remedial response. 

Residential use of OU5 is currently 

limited to one residence, and future 

residential use is not expected. 

Otherwise, the AV/CZL and EGWA sites 

are currently vacant. Commercial, 

industrial, and recreational uses are the 

expected future uses at OU5. Therefore, 

receptors of concern at OU5 are 

commercial and industrial workers and 

recreational visitors. The Final BRA 

identified soil ingestion as the exposure 

pathway of concern for recreational 

visitors; ingestion of soil and dust was 

identified as the exposure pathway of 

concern for commercial/industrial 

workers. Exposure to other media (e.g., 

tailing, waste piles, slag) and exposure 

to soil/dust through other pathways 

(e.g., dermal) are considered of 

insignificant concern for workers and 

recreational users. 

The soils at the AV Smelter were 

determined to contain levels of arsenic 

and lead above risk-based action levels 

for both the commercial/industrial land 

use scenarios (lead 6,100 mg/kg–7,700 

mg/kg and arsenic 610 mg/kg–690 mg/ 

kg) and the recreational land use 

scenario (lead 16,000 mg/kg and arsenic 

1,400 mg/kg–3,200 mg/kg) identified in 

the Final BRA. The highest levels of 

contamination were detected in samples 

taken from the bag-house area. The CZL 

site had lead levels above the risk-based 

action level for commercial/industrial 

uses. The Elgin Smelter and the Grant/ 

Union Smelter sampling had lead and 

arsenic levels above risk-based action 

levels for both commercial/industrial 

uses and recreational uses. Therefore, 

the contaminated media in OU5 posed 

a significant risk to human health. 

As with OU4 above, the BARA and 

the ERA were the most pertinent in 

evaluating the risk to ecological 

receptors in OU5. Releases of 

contaminants from OU5 presented an 

unacceptable risk to aquatic and 

terrestrial ecological receptors and 

response actions were necessary at OU5 

to control the release of contaminants 

and acidic water into the environment. 

OU5 Remedial Investigations and 

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 

In September 1990, the EPA and 

ASARCO signed an Administrative 

Order on Consent for the performance of 

soils sampling and air monitoring at the 

Site. In 1991, the EPA issued a 

Unilateral Administrative Order that 

required ASARCO to conduct studies 

and complete RIs. In August 1994, 

ASARCO entered into a CD with the 

United States, State and other PRPs to 

perform certain remediation work in 

OU5, OU7 and OU9. The WAMP, 

included as Appendix D to the 1994 CD, 

defines the scope of work to be 

performed by ASARCO. 

Several investigations have been 

conducted within the Site that have 

addressed the smelter/slag/mill sites. A 

Smelter Site Reconnaissance began in 

1991 as part of the Smelter Remedial 

Investigation (Smelter RI), which was 

conducted in 1991 and 1992, and 

primarily focused on smelter-impacted 

soils but, also included sampling of 

discrete locations where smelter bag 

houses, dust chambers, or roasting 

furnaces may have been located. This 

study was initiated by ASARCO and 

included the Elgin Smelter, Grant/

Union Smelter, Western Zinc Smelter 

sites, and Arkansas Valley Smelter sites. 

A Surface Water RI (Surface Water RI) 

of the California Gulch Site was 

conducted in 1991 and 1992. The final 

Surface Water RI report was issued in 

1996 describing the results of the 

surface water investigation. The study 

included surface water and sediment 

sampling in the Arkansas River and its 

tributaries, including California Gulch. 

The 1996 Groundwater RI 

(Hydrogeologic RI) included installation 

of monitoring wells and piezometers, 

water level measurements, and 

groundwater sampling and analysis. The 

objectives of the Hydrogeologic RI were 

to investigate groundwater quality and 

flow directions, evaluate potential 

impacts to surface water receptors, and 

characterize background qroundwater 

quality. 

Denver and Rio Grande Western 

Railroad, another PRP at the Site, 

undertook RIs of seven major lead slag 

piles including the Elgin Smelter and 

Grant/Union Smelter sites and one zinc 

slag pile, the Western Zinc slag pile. 

The Zinc Slag RI was performed 

concurrent with the Lead Slag Pile RI. 

Investigation activities during these two 

RIs focused mainly on the slag material 

that may have the potential to leach 

metals. 

In 1993, the EPA conducted a 

Screening Feasibility Study (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. Remedial alternatives 

retained in the SFS for tailing, flue dust, 

and non-residential area soils in OU5 

for the AV/CZL sites were further 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47013 

evaluated and screened during an FFS. 

The 2000 OU5 AV/CZL FFS provided a 

detailed analysis of the five retained 

alternatives from the SFS as applied to 

tailing, flue dust, and non-residential 

soils. The 1999 OU5 EGWA FS provided 

a detailed analysis of the two retained 

alternatives from the SFS as applied to 

slag and four alternatives from the SFS 

for non-residential area soils. IC were 

included in the feasibility studies for 

OU5 to provide future protectiveness. 

The Proposed Plan describing the 

EPA’s preferred alternatives was issued 

on July 27, 2000. The preferred 

alternative for the AV/CZL sites was 

Alternative 3, Consolidation/

Containment (Flue Dust Repository and 

Soil Cover). For the EGWA sites, the 

preferred alternative was Alternative 2, 

Institutional Controls. 

OU5 Selected Remedy 

The EPA issued two RODs for OU5. 

The ROD for the AV/CZL sites on OU5 

was issued on September 29, 2000. The 

ROD for the EGWA sites on OU5 was 

issued on October 31, 2000. 

The RAOs established in the two 

RODs for OU5 include: (1) Control 

airborne transport of tailing particles, 

flue dust and soil, (2) Control erosion of 

tailing, flue dust and contaminated 

materials into local water courses, (3) 

Control leaching and migration of 

metals from tailing, flue dust and soil 

into surface water, (4) Control leaching 

and migration of metals from tailing, 

flue dust and soil into groundwater, (5) 

Control contamination exposure to 

humans, animals and aquatic life, and 

(6) Prevent direct exposure of 

population to elevated contaminant 

levels in surficial soil. 

The remedy selected for the AV/CZL 

sites consisted of: (1) Excavation of flue 

dust and relocation to a single-lined, 

fully encapsulated repository, (2) 

Consolidation of tailing and nonresidential soils and placement of an 18- 

inch vegetated soil cover over the 

consolidated pile, (3) Implementation of 

ICs such as deed notices or deed 

restrictions to provide notification that 

a barrier is in place and to restrict land 

uses incompatible with the remedy, and 

(4) Development of an O&M program 

during remedial design to include 

inspection and maintenance of the cover 

and surface water controls, as well as 

inspection for evidence of erosion, 

differential settlement of the cover and 

adequacy of vegetation. 

The remedy selected for the EGWA 

sites consisted of implementation of ICs 

to warn of potential hazards and to 

maintain the effectiveness of the remedy 

by limiting access to or use of the 

property for current or potential future 

land use scenarios. 

OU5 Cleanup Standards 

The 2000 OU5 RODs for the EGWA 

sites and AV/CZL sites did not contain 

numeric cleanup standards, but were 

meant to address potential source 

material contributing to surface water 

and groundwater contamination. The 

OU12 remedy addresses site-wide 

surface water and groundwater 

contamination. 

OU5 Response Actions 

Implementation of the 2000 OU5 ROD 

for the AV/CZL sites began in June 

2002. Some smelter structures were 

demolished, flue dust was excavated 

and the contaminated materials were 

transported to an on-site repository. 

Tailing and contaminated soil were 

consolidated on site and placed under 

eighteen inches of clean soil cover 

which was then vegetated. Diversion 

ditches to prevent run-on and ponding 

on the consolidated waste pile were also 

constructed. Remedial actions were 

initiated by ASARCO, but discontinued 

when ASARCO filed for bankruptcy. 

The EPA assumed lead responsibility 

for implementation of the remedy at 

OU5 through a settlement agreement 

signed between ASARCO and the 

federal government in 2008. The EPA 

completed AV/CZL OU5 remedial 

action in 2010. Both the OU5 RODs for 

the EGWA sites and the AV/CZL sites 

included implementation of ICs as part 

of the remedy. Lake County has adopted 

a local ordinance as an IC for the EGWA 

sites and AV/CZL sites. See the OU5 

and OU7 Operations and Maintenance 

section below for information regarding 

O&M and ICs in OU5. 

OU7 Background and History 

OU7, the Apache Tailing 

Impoundments, consisted of four 

distinct tailing impoundments located 

on the southern edge of the City of 

Leadville adjacent to U.S. Highway 24. 

These impoundments are located in 

California Gulch, approximately 1,500 

feet downstream from the Yak Tunnel 

Water Treatment Plant surge pond. A 

map of OU7 can be found in the docket 

at http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002. Tailing, placed in the Main 

Impoundment and possibly the North 

Impoundment, was generated by a mill 

located on the hillside northeast of the 

Apache Tailing Impoundments known 

alternately as the Venir Mill, the 

California Gulch Mill, and the ASARCO 

Leadville Milling unit. The available 

historical information indicates that this 

mill operated between 1939 and 1956, 

producing approximately 630,000 cubic 

yards of tailing in the 11.3-acre Main 

Impoundment and an estimated 14,500 

cubic yards of tailing in the 1.8-acre 

North Impoundment. 

Apache Energy and Minerals 

Company operated the Apache Mill 

from the late 1970s into the 1980s. The 

Apache Mill reprocessed tailing from 

the Main Impoundment and deposited 

the remaining materials into Tailing 

Ponds No. 2 and No. 3, which were 

located west and downstream of the 

Main Impoundment and were about 1.5 

and 0.5 acres in size, respectively. 

Tailing Ponds No. 2 and No. 3 were 

consolidated into the Main 

Impoundment under a removal action in 

1997. 

For human health risk issues at OU7, 

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. Residential use of 

OU7 does not currently occur, nor is 

future residential use reasonably 

anticipated. Commercial, industrial, and 

recreational uses are expected at OU7. 

Therefore, commercial and industrial 

workers and recreational visitors were 

considered as groups that were 

potentially at risk. The Final BRA 

identified soil ingestion as the exposure 

pathway of concern for recreational 

visitors and ingestion of soil and dust 

was identified as the exposure pathway 

of concern for commercial/industrial 

workers. Exposure to other media (e.g., 

slag piles) and exposure to soil/dust 

through other pathways (e.g., dermal) 

are considered an insignificant concern 

for workers and recreational users. The 

OU7 investigations showed that the 

concentrations of lead and arsenic in the 

surficial tailing were below risk-based 

action levels for both the commercial/

industrial land use scenarios (lead 6,100 

mg/kg–7,700 mg/kg and arsenic 610 mg/ 

kg–690 mg/kg) and the recreational land 

use scenario (lead 16,000 mg/kg and 

arsenic 1,400 mg/kg–3,200 mg/kg) 

identified in the Final BRA. Therefore, 

the exposed tailing did not pose a 

significant risk to human health. 

For ecological risks at OU7, the BARA 

and the ERA were the most pertinent. 

The BARA characterized the impacts of 

mine waste contamination on the 

aquatic ecosystem of the Site. Results of 

the BARA indicate that mine waste 

poses potential unacceptable risk to all 

aquatic species. The BARA states that 

Apache Tailing Impoundments as well 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
47014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

as other sources such as high metal 

waste rock piles, contribute to the 

metals entering California Gulch and, 

ultimately, the Arkansas River. Potential 

risks to the terrestrial ecosystem from 

mine waste contamination were 

characterized in the ERA. Risks to the 

blue grouse, mountain bluebird, and 

least chipmunk exceeded EPA 

acceptable levels for exposure to 

contaminants in tailing. Potential risks 

to plants and soil fauna from exposure 

to tailing were also indicated. Surface 

water ingestion may also result in a 

potential risk of some effect to terrestrial 

receptors. Action levels were not 

developed for terrestrial receptors. 

Thus, these releases of contaminants 

from OU7 presented an unacceptable 

risk to aquatic and terrestrial ecological 

receptors and response actions were 

necessary at OU7 to control the release 

of contaminants and acidic water into 

the environment. 

OU7 Remedial Investigations and 

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 

The State, EPA and certain PRPs 

conducted various studies and 

investigations to evaluate the nature and 

extent of contamination within the Site 

generally and OU7 specifically. RIs that 

specifically addressed OU7 included the 

Tailing RI performed in the fall of 1991, 

a Supplemental RI conducted in 1996 

and 1997 to respond to questions and 

issues that arose in response to the Draft 

Apache Tailing FS, issued in January 

1996 and additional RI work performed 

between 1997 to 1999 that was reported 

in the final FFS (2000 FFS). The 2000 

FFS assessed the general conditions of 

the Apache Tailing Impoundments area, 

evaluated and summarized the nature 

and extent of contamination within 

OU7, and evaluated remedial 

alternatives to address the risks and 

conditions identified at OU7. 

The various RI studies concluded that 

loading from OU7 to groundwater (and 

not surface water) was the dominant 

process by which contaminants moved 

from OU7. This groundwater provides 

some loading to surface water 

downstream from OU7, which drains to 

California Gulch and ultimately to the 

Arkansas River. 

Selected Remedy 

The EPA issued the ROD for OU7 on 

June 6, 2000. The OU7 remedy was 

selected to eliminate or reduce potential 

threats to humans and the environment 

through the construction of a soil cover 

with a geosynthetic barrier and 

revegetation followed by 

implementation of ICs and a long-term 

monitoring plan. 

The RAOs identified in the OU7 ROD 

for the Apache Tailing Impoundments 

were: (1) Control airborne transport of 

tailing particles; (2) Control erosion of 

tailing materials and deposition into 

local water courses; and (3) Control 

leaching and migration of metals from 

tailing into surface water and 

groundwater. 

The selected remedy for OU7 

included: (1) Surface water controls 

including the channelization of 

California Gulch through the southern 

portion of the Main Impoundment and 

diversion ditches to provide surface 

water run-on and runoff control; (2) 

Application of source surface controls to 

the impounded tailing, consisting of 

regrading the impoundment, placement 

of a multi-layer composite cover over 

the combined tailing area, and 

revegetating the covered surface; (3) ICs 

to warn of potential hazards and to 

maintain the effectiveness of the remedy 

by limiting access to or use of the 

property (current and future use 

scenarios) including temporary and 

permanent measures; and (4) A longterm monitoring program to assess the 

quality of surface water and 

groundwater following implementation 

of the remedy. The O&M Plan includes 

inspection and maintenance of the cover 

and surface water controls, including 

evidence of erosion, differential 

settlement of the cover, and vegetation 

monitoring. 

Remedial action included: (1) 

Installation and maintenance of 

temporary sediment, diversion and 

storm water control structures in 

accordance with the Storm Water 

Management Plan and maintenance of 

such controls during construction 

activities; (2) Provision of dust control, 

as necessary, during all excavating, 

hauling, and placing operations; (3) 

Excavation of dispersed tailing and soil 

adjacent to the Main Impoundment to 

allow for the construction of temporary 

sedimentation ponds; (4) Demolition of 

the existing concrete foundations to the 

west of the Main Impoundment; (5) 

Relocation of a section of sanitary sewer 

line around the North Impoundment, 

connection to an existing sewer line at 

the east and west ends including two 

new sewer lateral connections, and 

abandonment of existing manholes and 

sewer line; (6) Regrading of the tailing 

impoundments as indicated on the 

drawings and placement of excavated 

material in fill areas between the Main 

and North Impoundments and on top of 

the Main Impoundment; (7) Removal 

and replacement of the overhead power 

line running east and west between the 

Main and North Impoundments; (8) 

Channelization of California Gulch 

through the southern portion of the 

Main Impoundment; (9) Installation of 

the multi-layer cover system consisting 

of a geosynthetic clay liner, 

geocomposite drainage layer, and an 18- 

inch soil cover over the regraded tailing 

impoundments; (10) Construction of 

permanent diversion ditches, berms and 

swales with appropriate erosion 

protection to provide surface water runon and runoff control; (11) Extension or 

abandonment of monitoring wells or 

piezometers as necessary; (12) 

Revegetation of the tailing 

impoundments and other disturbed 

areas with specified seed mixture; and 

(13) Site cleanup and demobilization. 

ASARCO’s Construction Complete 

Report is dated December 12, 2003. The 

long-term monitoring of water quality in 

OU7 is performed as part of the Sitewide Water, OU12 remedy. 

OU7 Cleanup Standards 

The 2000 OU7 ROD did not contain 

numeric cleanup standards but intended 

to address air transport of tailing 

material, erosion of tailing material in 

local waters, and potential source 

material contributing to surface water 

and groundwater contamination at the 

Site. 

OU7 Response Actions 

Multiple removal actions were 

conducted at OU7 between 1996 and 

2000, including removal of Tailing 

Ponds No. 2 and No. 3, consolidation of 

material removed from Tailing Ponds 

No. 2 and No. 3 on the Main 

Impoundment, and placement of 

erosion protection along the toe of the 

southwest embankment of the Main 

Impoundment below the clay-tile 

culverts and wooden box culvert 

outfalls. The December 1997 Removal 

Action Completion Report describes the 

construction activities in detail. 

OU5 and OU7 Operation and 

Maintenance 

Per the 2008 CD settlement, ASARCO 

was relieved from the responsibility for 

implementing O&M activities at OU5 

and OU7. The State is performing the 

O&M for OU5 and OU7 under an 

agreement with EPA. The State performs 

annual O&M monitoring, and periodic 

inspection and maintenance of the soil 

cover and surface water control features 

of OU5 and OU7. The O&M Plan was 

completed on March 20, 2014. O&M 

monitoring and maintenance occurs 

annually as directed by the O&M plan. 

Lake County, on December 22, 2010 

for OU7 and April 15, 2013 for OU5, 

and the City of Leadville, on May 7, 

2013 for OU7, implemented ICs in the 

form of local ordinances, resolutions 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47015 

amending the Land Development Codes 

and adopting regulations that protect 

both engineered and non-engineered 

remedies at OU5 and OU7. A best 

management practice handout is 

provided to all applicants applying for 

a building permit within OU5 and OU7. 

In addition, any disruptions of 

engineered or non-engineered remedies, 

and/or excavation of more than 10 cubic 

yards of soil off-site within OU5 and 

OU7 require written approval from the 

CDPHE. 

Five-Year Review 

The remedies at the entire Site, 

including OU4, OU5 and OU7 require 

ongoing five-year reviews in accordance 

with CERCLA section 121(c) and 

§ 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 

OU4 remedy was determined to be 

protective in the short-term. However, 

there were concerns regarding 

continued long-term protectiveness 

because the requirement of ICs was not 

documented in a decision document, 

however ICs had already been 

implemented by the PRP and Lake 

County. An ESD dated July 29, 2013 

resolved this concern. Environmental 

covenants for Resurrection/Newmont’s 

properties within OU4 were recorded 

with the Lake County Clerk and 

Recorder on July 31, 2012 and October 

10, 2012. On December 22, 2010, Lake 

County implemented ICs for all the 

property in OU4 in the form of a local 

ordinance, a resolution amending the 

Lake County Land Development Code 

and adopting regulations that protect 

both engineered and non-engineered 

remedies at OU4. 

In the 2012 five-year review for the 

Site, the OU5 and OU7 remedies were 

determined to be protective in the shortterm. However, there were concerns 

regarding continued long-term 

protectiveness because an O&M Plan 

was not in place. The State developed 

an O&M Plan for OU5 and OU7, which 

EPA accepted on March 20, 2014. O&M 

monitoring and maintenance is 

occurring annually under the O&M 

plan. 

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 courses of these operable 

units, comment periods were offered for 

proposed plans, five-year reviews, and 

other public meetings. The documents 

that the EPA relied on for the partial 

deletion of OU4, OU5, and OU7 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 

OU4, OU5 and OU7. 

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 OU4, OU5, and OU7 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 OU4, the 1995 and 

1996 Non-Time Critical Removal 

Actions, the 1998 OU4 ROD, 2004 OU4 

ESD and 2013 OU4 ESD; for OU5, the 

2000 OU5 RODs for the EGWA and AV/ 

CZL sites; and for OU7, the 1996 and 

1997 Non-Time Critical Removal 

Actions and the 2000 OU7 ROD. 

All selected removal and remedial 

action objectives and associated cleanup 

goals for OU4, OU5 and OU7 are 

consistent with agency policy and 

guidance. This partial deletion meets 

the completion requirements as 

specified in OSWER Directive 9320.22, 

Close Out Procedures for National 

Priority List Sites. All response 

activities at OU4, OU5, and OU7 of the 

Site are complete and the three 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 OU4, OU5, and OU7 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 OU4, Upper California 

Gulch; OU5, ASARCO Smelters/Slag/

Mill Sites; and OU7, Apache Tailing 

Impoundment 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 October 14, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by September 11, 2014. 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: July 31, 2014. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18955 Filed 8–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0990] 

RIN 1625–AB56 

Vessel Documentation Renewal Fees 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending 

its regulations to separately list an 

annual fee for renewals of endorsements 

upon the Certificate of Documentation. 

We are required to establish user fees for 

services related to the documentation of 

vessels. This final rule will separately 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES