28106 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp.; p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp. p. 193.

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300

is amended under Salem Acres

Superfund Site by removing the ‘‘Salem

Acres Superfund Site, Salem,

Massachusetts’’.

[FR Doc. 01–12709 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6947–1]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Partial direct final deletion of

the California Gulch Superfund Site

from the National Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces its

deletion of Operable Unit 2 (OU2) of the

California Gulch Superfund Site (Site)

from the National Priorities List (NPL)

and requests public comment on this

action. The NPL constitutes appendix B

of 40 CFR part 300, the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.

This partial deletion of the California

Gulch Site is in accordance with 40 CFR

300.425(e) and the Notice of Policy

Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed

on the National Priorities List, 60 FR

55466 (Nov. 1, 1995).

This partial deletion pertains to the

area addressed by OU 2, and includes

the Malta Gulch Fluvial Tailing,

Leadville Corporation Mill, Malta Gulch

Tailing Impoundment, and the Malta

Tailing Impoundment. EPA has issued a

Record of Decision (ROD) for OU 2. EPA

bases its partial deletion of this area on

the determination by EPA and the State

of Colorado, through the Colorado

Department of Public Health and

Environment (CDPHE), that all

appropriate actions under CERCLA have

been implemented at these sites.

The California Gulch Site has been

divided into 12 operable units. This

partial deletion pertains only to OU 2 of

the Site. Response activities will

continue at the remaining OUs.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ action will be

effective July 23, 2001 unless EPA

receives significant adverse or critical

comments by June 21, 2001. If adverse

comments are received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Rebecca Thomas, Remedial Project

Manager, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR,

999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO

80202. Telephone: (303) 312–6552.

Information Repositories:

Comprehensive information on the

California Gulch Site is available

through EPA, Region 8 public docket,

which is located at EPA, Region 8,

Superfund Records Center and is

available for viewing from 8:00 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding holidays. Requests for

documents should be directed to the

EPA, Region 8, Superfund Records

Center. The address for the Region 8

Superfund Records Center is: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Superfund Record Center 999 18th

Street, 5th Floor, Denver, CO 80202,

Telephone (303) 312–6473.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Thomas, Remedial Project

Manager, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR,

999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO

80202. Telephone: (303) 312–6552.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8 announces its deletion

of a portion of the California Gulch

Superfund Site (Site), located in Lake

County, Colorado from the National

Priorities List (NPL), which constitutes

appendix B of the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part

300, and requests comments on this

proposal. This partial deletion pertains

to Operable Unit 2 (OU 2), which

consists of the Lower Malta Gulch

Fluvial Tailing, Leadville Corporation

Mill, Malta Gulch Tailing

Impoundment, and the Malta Tailing

Impoundment.

The Site is divided into 12 Operable

Units (OUs) pursuant to agreement

reached in a 1994 Consent Decree

settlement. The 12 OUs comprising the

California Gulch Site are as follows:

1. Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment Plant.

2. Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments

and Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial Tailing.

3. D&RG Slag piles and Railroad Yard/

Easement.

4. Upper California Gulch.

5. Asarco Smelter sites/Slag/Mill

sites.

6. Starr Ditch/Stray Horse Gulch/

Lower Evans Gulch/Penrose Mine Waste

Pile.

7. Apache Tailing Impoundments.

8. Lower California Gulch.

9. Residential and Commercial

Populated Areas.

10. Oregon Gulch.

11. Arkansas River Valley Floodplain.

12. Site-wide Water Quality.

OUs 2 through 11 were designated in

order to facilitate source remediation of

specific geographic areas. OUs 2

through 11 pertain to distinct

geographical areas corresponding to

areas of responsibility for the identified

responsible parties with EPA taking

responsibility for areas where no

responsible party could be identified,

the United States was a responsible

party, or cash-out settlements had been

reached with the responsible parties.

OU 12, which covers the entire Site was

designated to address Site-wide surface

and groundwater after completion of

source remediation pursuant to OUs 2

through 11. EPA is deleting the areas

addressed by OU 2 because all

appropriate CERCLA response actions

have been completed in these areas as

described in Section IV. However,

response activities are not complete for

the other areas. Therefore, those areas

will remain on the NPL and are not the

subject of this partial deletion.

The NPL is a list maintained by EPA

of sites that EPA has determined 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). Pursuant

to 40 CFR 300.4–25(e) of the NCP, any

site or portion of a site deleted from the

NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed

remedial actions if conditions at the site

warrant such action.

EPA will accept any dissenting

comments on this partial deletion for

thirty days following publication of this

document in the Federal Register.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP establishes the criteria that

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL.

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e),

sites may be deleted from the NPL

where no further response is

appropriate to protect public health or

the environment. In making such a

determination pursuant to § 300.425(e),

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 28107

EPA will consider, in consultation with

the State, whether any of the following

criteria have been met:

• Section 300.425(e)(1)(i).

Responsible parties or other persons

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required; or

• Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All

appropriate Fund-financed response

under CERCLA has been implemented,

and no further response action by

responsible parties is appropriate; or

• Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The

remedial investigation has shown that

the release poses no significant threat to

public health or the environment and,

therefore, taking of remedial measures is

not appropriate.

Deletion of an operable unit at a site

from the NPL does not preclude

eligibility for subsequent Fund-financed

actions at the operable unit deleted, it

future site conditions warrant such

actions. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the

NCP provides that Fund-financed

actions may be taken at sites that have

been deleted from the NPL. A partial

deletion of a site from the NPL does no

affect or impede EPA’s ability to

conduct CERCLA response activities at

operable units not deleted and

remaining on the NPL. In addition,

deletion of a portion of a site from the

NPL does not affect the liability of

responsible parties or impede agency

efforts to recover costs associated with

response efforts.

III. Deletion Procedures

Deletion or partial deletion of sites

from the NPL does not itself create,

alter, or revoke any individual’s rights

or obligations. The NPL is designed

primarily for informational purposes

and to assist EPA management. The

following procedures were used for the

partial deletion of this site:

(1) EPA, Region VIII has

recommended the partial deletion of the

California Gulch Site and has prepared

the relevant documents.

(2) The State of Colorado, through the

Colorado Department of Public Health

and Environment (CDPHE) has

concurred with EPA’s recommendation

for a partial deletion.

(3) Concurrent with this partial

deletion, a public notice has been

published in a local newspaper and has

been distributed to appropriate Federal,

State and local officials, and other

interested parties. These notices

announce a thirty (30) day public

comment period on the deletion

package, which commences on the date

of publication of this document in the

Federal Register and a newspaper of

record.

(4) EPA, Region VIII has made all

relevant documents available in the

Regional Office, Superfund Record

Center.

EPA is requesting only dissenting

comments on the Direct Final Action to

Delete. For deletion of the release from

the Site, EPA’s Regional Office will

accept and evaluate public comments

on EPA’s action before making a final

decision to delete. If necessary, the

Agency will prepare a Responsiveness

Summary, responding to each

significant comment submitted during

the public comment period. Deletion of

the Site from the NPL does not itself

create, alter, or revoke any individual’s

rights or obligations. The NPL is

designed primarily for informational

purposes and to assist Agency

management. As mentioned in section II

of this document, § 300.425 (e)(3) of the

NCP states that the deletion of a release

from a site from the NPL does not

preclude eligibility for future response

actions.

IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion

The following provides EPA’s

rationale for deletion of OU 2 from the

NPL and EPA’s findings that the criteria

in 40 CFR 300.425(e) are satisfied.

Background

The California Gulch Superfund Site

is located in Lake County, Colorado

approximately 100 miles southwest of

Denver. The California Gulch Superfund

Site was listed on the National Priorities

List on September 8, 1983. The Site is

in a highly mineralized area of the

Colorado Rocky Mountains covering

16 1⁄2 square miles of a watershed that

drains along California Gulch to the

Arkansas River. Mining, mineral

processing, and smelting activities have

occurred at the Site for more than 130

years. The Site includes the City of

Leadville, various parts of the Leadville

Historic Mining District, and a section

of the Arkansas River from the

confluence of California Gulch to the

confluence of Lake Fork Creek.

A site-wide Phase I Remedial

Investigation (Phase I RI), which

primarily addressed surface and

groundwater contamination, was issued

in January 1987. As a result of the Phase

I RI, EPA developed the first operable

unit at the Site, the Yak Tunnel. This

first operable unit was designed to

address the largest single source of

metallic loading.

The Phase I RI was followed by a

number of additional site-wide studies,

including the Tailing Disposal Area

Remedial Investigation Report, Baseline

Human Health Risk Assessment Part A,

Part B, and Part C, Ecological Risk

Assessment for Terrestrial Ecosystems,

Baseline Aquatic Ecological Risk

Assessment, Groundwater RI, Surface

Water RI, Waste Rock RI, and Site-wide

Screening Feasibility Study. In addition,

OU 2 specific studies were conducted,

including the Malta Gulch Tailing

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis

and studies conducted by the Hecla

Mining Company (Hecla).

In order to expedite the clean-up of

the Site, EPA agreed, pursuant to a 1994

Consent Decree settlement, to divide the

Site into eleven additional Operable

Units. With the exception of OU 12, the

operable units pertain to distinct

geographical areas corresponding to

areas of responsibility for the identified

responsible parties and/or to distinct

sources of contamination. EPA has

taken responsibility for operable units

where no responsible party could be

identified, the United States was a

responsible party, or cash-out

settlements had been reached with the

responsible parties. Under the

settlement agreement reached in 1994,

OUs 2 through 11 were designated to

deal with areas where the appropriate

responsible party or the United States

would conduct source remediation. The

settlement agreement recognized that

additional source remediation or other

appropriate response actions related to

surface or ground water could occur as

part of OU 12 anywhere within the 16.5

square mile of the Site. The OUs are as

follows:

1. Yak Tunnel/Water Treatment Plant.

2. Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments

and Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial Tailing.

3. D&RG Slag piles and Railroad Yard/

Easement.

4. Upper California Gulch.

5. Asarco Smelter sites/Slag/Mill

sites.

6. Starr Ditch/Stray Horse Gulch/

Lower Evans Gulch/Penrose Mine Waste

Pile.

7. Apache Tailing Impoundments.

8. Lower California Gulch.

9. Residential and Commercial

Populated Areas.

10. Oregon Gulch.

11. Arkansas River Valley Floodplain.

12. Site-wide Surface and Ground

Water.

The source areas to be addressed by

OU 2 included the Malta Gulch Tailing

Impoundments, including the Leadville

Corporation Mill; the Malta Tailing

Impoundment, including the Leadville

Silver & Gold Mill facility; and the

fluvial tailing in the area known as the

Lower Malta Gulch. Pursuant to

settlements reached with the

responsible parties at each of these

properties, EPA is responsible for

28108 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

conducting the appropriate response

actions at these properties.

EPA performed four (4) removal/

response actions at these sites. In

chronological order, the fluvial tailing

in Lower Malta Gulch were excavated

from the Gulch and placed in a portion

of the Malta Gulch Tailing

Impoundment. These materials were

graded, capped and revegetated. The

remainder of the Malta Gulch Tailing

Impoundment was capped in 1992 by

Leadville Corporation to control fugitive

dust emissions. The material in the

Malta Tailing Impoundment (Leadville

Silver & Gold) was graded, capped and

revegetated. And, forty-two drums were

removed from the Leadville Corporation

Mill and appropriately disposed.

On September 30, 1999, after

completion of the removal actions, EPA

issued a Record of Decision for OU 2

presenting EPA’s decision that no

further CERCLA action, as regards

source remediation, is necessary to

protect human health and the

environment. The OU 2 ROD also

provided for long-term monitoring of

the Impoundments, including

monitoring of the present use

restrictions to prevent uses

incompatible with the response actions

would be necessary at the Malta Gulch

Tailing Impoundment and the Malta

Tailing Impoundment. Monitoring may

include minor maintenance. Monitoring

and any minor maintenance will be

implemented by the Colorado Mountain

College and through funds received by

the United States in a settlement with a

potentially responsible party. In the

event that significant maintenance

issues are identified by the Colorado

Mountain College, EPA will take

appropriate action to ensure

protectiveness of the remedy. In

addition, five-year reviews are also

necessary for these sites.

OU 2 Response Actions

Lower Malta Gulch

The fluvial tailings in Lower Malta

Gulch, also identified as Fluvial Tailing

#7 in the Tailing Disposal Area

Remedial Investigation Report, lie

directly downstream of the Malta Gulch

Tailing Impoundments. Malta Gulch

runs in a southwesterly direction for

about three miles where it joins

California Gulch.

The fluvial tailing in Lower Malta

Gulch originated from the milling

operations conducted by the Ore &

Chemical Company (OCC) from the fall

of 1943 through August 1946. OCC had

constructed a large tonnage sink-float

mill near the site of the present day

Leadville Corporation Mill. OCC

deposited approximately 800,000 tons

of tailing behind low profile berms.

These berms appear to have been

unsuccessful in completely containing

the tailing and there appears to have

been periodic releases of OCC tailing

into the Lower Malta Gulch.

Fluvial Tailing Site #7 covered an

area of approximately 26 acres.

Sampling at this site found lead levels

ranging from 5.5 to 47,800 parts per

million (ppm). The Time Critical

Removal Action for Lower Malta Gulch

Fluvial Tailing was performed in the

1995 and 1996 construction seasons.

The materials excavated from Lower

Malta Gulch Fluvial Tailing were

disposed at the Malta Gulch Tailing

Impoundment prior to the Non-Time

Critical Removal Action which was

planned for Malta Gulch Tailing

Impoundment in 1996.

During the 1995 construction season,

approximately 34,000 cubic yards of

contaminated material was removed

from Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial Tailing

and deposited in the Malta Gulch

Tailing Impoundment. Four check

dams, and a diversion berm between the

upper and lower portions of Malta

Gulch were constructed to manage

surface runoff. Revegetation work in

Malta Gulch was performed in 1996.

The clean-up standard for this

removal was the industrial/commercial

clean-up level for California Gulch of

6,700 ppm total lead. Confirmation

sampling demonstrated that the

excavation and removal had

successfully lowered lead levels to

below the Site residential clean-up level

of 3,500 ppm total lead, thus no

institutional controls are necessary at

this portion of OU 2. Subsequent

monitoring in 1997 and 1998 have

verified that the revegetation was

successful and no long term monitoring

is required.

Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments

The Malta Gulch Tailing

Impoundment (MGTI) is located at the

upper end of Malta Gulch about two

miles west of the City of Leadville. The

Stringtown portion of the Leadville

Mining Area District, which includes

the Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments

(MGTI), was developed between 1879

and 1882 as a large group of placer

claims.

As explained above, it appears that

the earliest use of this area for tailing

disposal was from the fall of 1943

through August 1946 by the OCC. The

OCC tailing berms became the precursors to the current basins known as

Impoundments #1 and #2. From the

period of 1945 to 1973, there was no

activity at this portion of the Site

although ownership of the property

changed hands numerous times. The

property was purchased by its current

owner, Leadville Corporation, in 1968.

In 1974, the Hecla Mining Company

(Hecla), in conjunction with Day Mines,

leased the property as a site for disposal

of tailing generated from its milling of

ores from the Sherman Mine which was

a silver mine in a dolomite formation.

The MGTI, in its present configuration,

was constructed in 1974 by Hecla/Day.

Hecla/Day also constructed 3 tailing

impoundments (#1, 2, 3), two water

retention impoundments (#4 and 6) and

a clarification basin (#5). The entire

facility occupies approximately 23

acres. These milling operations were

permitted and bonded by the State of

Colorado’s Division of Minerals &

Geology, and the permit remains in

effect. Hecla leased the MGTI from

Leadville Corporation until 1987.

During its leasehold, Hecla/Day

operated an on-site flotation mill that

generated approximately 680,000 tons of

tailing. No cyanide was used in the

processing during this time. The

Leadville Corp. refitted the mill to use

a cyanide leaching process and

approximately 50,000 tons of dolomitic

tailing were added to the

impoundments in 1988.

Hecla completed an engineering

evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) for the

MGTI in July, 1993. Sampling at the

MGTI showed lead in the range of 800

to 57,600 parts per million (ppm). Based

on the findings of the EE/CA, EPA

conducted a non-time critical removal

to consolidate, grade, cap, and

revegetate the MGTI.

Capping work at the MGTI included

the completion of the dust control

dolomite gravel caps at Ponds 1, 2, and

3 that was initiated by Leadville

Corporation in 1991. EPA work at the

MGTI was performed in two field

construction seasons. Clean-up

activities commenced on October 5,

1995 and were completed on October

15, 1996. Borrow material was obtained

from the Leadville Corporation borrow

pit immediate north of the

impoundments across County Road 3.

Borrow material is comprised of nonmineralized glacial moraine deposits.

This helped assure that cap materials

had lead levels below the 6,700 mg/kg

total lead (the commercial/industrial

soil lead action level for this property).

Borrow was placed at a depth of 6–12

inches. Prior to capping, 30,000 cubic

yards of metals-contaminated fluvial

tailings from Lower Malta Gulch were

also transported and placed in the MGTI

Pond 3. These materials were capped,

graded, and revegetated. Other elements

of the MGTI clean-up included: The

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 28109

construction of a rip-rap geotextile

spillway to control runoff, the

stabilization of a section of retainment

berm, the reestablishment of the local

drainage and fencing, and soil hot spot

removals and revegetation of areas

around the mill building.

In order to ensure continued

protectiveness of the remedy, long-term

monitoring will be conducted in

accordance with the Monitoring Plan to

assure that the cover material and

vegetation remain effective. In addition,

present zoning of the MGTI is Industrial

Mining which will not allow uses

inconsistent with the remedy. Periodic

monitoring and review is necessary to

verify that zoning of the MGTI has not

been changed to allow uses inconsistent

with the remedy, and that groundwater

is not being used as a source of drinking

water. Monitoring is also necessary to

periodically review the status of this

DMG permit. Site closure and

reclamation will be completed in

accordance with the DMG permit

requirements. The long-term monitoring

program for the MGTI will be

implemented by the Colorado Mountain

College. This program will commence

upon finalization of the work plan

submitted in August 2000.

Malta Tailing Impoundment

The Malta Tailing Impoundment

(MTI), owned by Leadville Silver &

Gold, Inc., is located 1.5 miles west of

Leadville, 0.8 miles north of Stringtown

and 0.6 miles north of California Gulch.

Leadville Silver & Gold, Inc. constructed

a mill to recover pyritic materials from

various tailing and waste materials from

nearby properties which had been

obtained under leasehold arrangements.

This pyritic materials recovery process

operated from 1983 through 1988.

Approximately 2,000 tons of pyrite

were shipped to various off-site smelters

for use as a flux. As a result of this

operation, approximately 10,000 cubic

yards of tailing were disposed of at the

Malta Tailing Impoundment.

The Malta Tailing Impoundment

consists of three small impoundments

surrounded by berms, and occupies 4.6

acres of nearly flat land at the top of a

ridge. The total volume of tailing is

estimated to be slightly in excess of

10,000 cubic yards.

Areas within the immediate vicinity

of the tailing impoundments were

littered with scrap metal, concrete slabs,

and other mining/processing material.

There was also a stockpile of mine

waste, including drums of product,

nearby.

Sampling of the tailing showed lead

concentrations ranging from 3,850 mg/

Kg to 7,250 mg/Kg. The tailing and

pyritic material presented a risk to

human health and the environment,

since they are a source of acid mine

drainage.

In the fall of 1996, EPA conducted a

removal action to consolidate the acidgenerating materials, neutralize the

acidic leachate, and grade, cap, and

revegetate the MTI. In addition, the

piles of pyrite concentrate, and drums

were removed during the 1996

construction season, for use as a

product.

Confirmation samples showed the

revegetated soil surface of the

impoundment to be below the 6,700

ppm total lead commercial/industrial

Site standard.

In order to ensure continued

protectiveness of the remedy, long-term

monitoring will be required to assure

that the cover material and vegetation

remain effective. In addition, present

zoning of the MTI is Industrial Mining

which will not allow uses inconsistent

with the remedy. Periodic monitoring

and review is necessary to verify that

zoning of the MTI has not been changed

to allow uses inconsistent with the

remedy, and that groundwater is not

used as a source for drinking water.

Monitoring may include minor

maintenance. Monitoring and any minor

maintenance will be implemented by

the Colorado Mountain College. In the

event that significant maintenance

issues are identified by the Colorado

Mountain College, EPA will take

appropriate action to ensure

protectiveness of the remedy. This

program commenced in July 2000.

Leadville Corporation Mill, Drum

Removal

The Leadville Corporation mill is

located at the southern boundary of the

MGTI. In 1997, officials of the State’s

Division of Minerals & Geology

conducted a mine permit inspection and

discovered that 42 drums, in one of the

buildings at the Leadville Corporation

mill, were corroding and beginning to

leak. Since Leadville Corporation did

not have the resources to dispose of the

drums, the State requested EPA’s

Emergency Response Team to dispose of

them. Thirty-six 55 gallon drums and

six 5 gallon drums were involved. The

drums contained hazardous substances

which represented a threat to human

health and the environment. The drums

contained acids, bases and flammable

liquids.

EPA conducted an emergency

removal action in 1998 to address the

threats posed by these drums. The

drums were over packed and sent offsite for appropriate disposal. This was a

complete removal so no monitoring or

institutional controls are necessary for

this portion of OU 2.

Community Involvement

At Leadville, Colorado, the public

interest in the clean up of this

Superfund Site has been intensive;

many public meetings have been held.

Numerous Fact Sheets have been

released to the public. On August 2,

1993, the public was notified in the

local newspaper that the Final

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis

(EE/CA), Malta Gulch Tailing, Leadville,

Colorado, dated July 29, 1993 was

available for review and comment. EPA

held a public meeting in Leadville on

August 12, 1993. The comment period

continued through September 1, 1993.

EPA responded to all comments on the

EE/CA in a Responsiveness Summary

which was prepared in September 1993

prior to the issuance of the Action

Memorandum on September 10, 1993.

The notice of availability of the

Proposed Plan and supporting

documents was published in the

Leadville Herald Democrat on March 13,

1997. The public comment period was

held from March 19, 1997 to April 18,

1997. A Public meeting was held on

March 19, 1997. Responses to all

comments received during the public

comment period are included in the

Responsiveness Summary attached to

the ROD for OU 2. On September 30,

1999, EPA issued a final ROD for OU 2.

As described above, the ROD called

only for ongoing monitoring of active

response actions and use restrictions.

EPA’s decision is based on information

contained in the final Administrative

Record for OU 2. The final

Administrative Record is available at

the California Gulch Site information

repository and the EPA Region 8,

Superfund Records Center.

Current Status

Based on the successful completion of

the above described removal actions and

implementation of the long-term

monitoring program for the MGTI and

MTI, there are no further response

actions planned or scheduled for OU 2.

Because this decision results in

hazardous substances remaining on site,

above health-based levels, monitoring of

the previous response actions will be

required. This monitoring will be

conducted in addition to site-wide fiveyear reviews. The next five-year review

at the California Gulch Site is scheduled

to be initiated in October 2000 for

completion in 2001.

While EPA does not believe that any

future response action in the Malta

Gulch area will be needed, if future

conditions warrant such action, the

28110 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

deletion areas of the California Gulch

Superfund Site remain eligible for

future Fund-financed response actions.

Furthermore, this partial deletion does

not alter the status of the other OUs of

the Site which are not being deleted and

remain on the NPL. EPA, with

concurrence from the State of Colorado,

has determined that all appropriate

CERCLA response actions have been

completed at OU 2 and protection of

human health and the environment has

been achieved in this area. Therefore,

EPA is deleting the Malta Gulch area of

the California Gulch Superfund Site

from the NPL. This action will be

effective July 23, 2001. However, if EPA

receives dissenting comments by June

21, 2001, EPA will publish a document

that withdraws this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: February 12, 2001.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

Part 300, Title 40 of Chapter 1 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; 33 U.S.C.

1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp.; p. 351, E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193.

[Amended]

2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300

is amended by revising the entry for

‘‘California Gulch’’ so that it reads as

follows:

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND

SECTION

State Site name City/County Notes

****

CO California

Gulch.

Leadville ..... P

****

P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

[FR Doc. 01–12710 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Parts 441 and 483

[HCFA–2065–IFC2]

RIN 0938–AJ96

Medicaid Program; Use of Restraint

and Seclusion in Psychiatric

Residential Treatment Facilities

Providing Inpatient Psychiatric

Services to Individuals Under Age 21

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Interim final rule; amendment

and clarification with request for

comment.

SUMMARY: On January 22, 2001, we

published an interim final rule with

comment period (66 FR 7148) that

established a definition of a ‘‘psychiatric

residential treatment facility’’ that is not

a hospital and that may furnish covered

Medicaid inpatient psychiatric services

for individuals under age 21. The

interim final rule established standards

for the use of restraints or seclusion that

psychiatric residential treatment

facilities must have in place to protect

the health and safety of residents.

In response to some of the concerns

submitted in comments on that interim

rule, this document clarifies what

facilities are subject to the requirements

of the interim final rule, modifies

reporting requirements to facilitate

HCFA monitoring, and amends staffing

requirements applicable to restraints

and seclusion.

Due to the operational significance of

these issues, amendment to the interim

final rule is required by the May 22,

2001 effective date of the interim final

rule. Without such amendments, we are

concerned that substantial numbers of

facilities would not be able to comply

with certain requirements of our interim

final rule, and that beneficiaries will

suffer needless displacement from those

facilities. We are also concerned that

HCFA will not be able to timely obtain

data necessary to monitor for situations

involving jeopardy to program

beneficiaries. We will accept comments

on these amendments, and will address

all comments on the interim final rule

and these amendments at a later date.

DATES: Effective date: May 22, 2001.

Comment date: Comments concerning

these amendments to the interim final

rule will be considered if we receive

them at the appropriate address, as

provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on

July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (one

original and three copies) to the

following address ONLY: Health Care

Financing Administration, Department

of Health and Human Services,

Attention: HCFA–2065–IFC2, P.O. Box

8010, Baltimore, MD 21244–8010.

If you prefer, you may deliver your

written comments (one original and

three copies) by courier to one of the

following addresses: Room 443–G,

Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20201, or C5–15–03,

Central Building, 7500 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.

Comments mailed to those addresses

may be delayed and could be

considered late.

Because of staffing and resource

limitations, we cannot accept comments

by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In

commenting, please refer to file code

HCFA–2065–IFC2.

Comments received timely will be

available for public inspection as they

are received, generally beginning

approximately 3 weeks after publication

of a document, in Room 443–G of the

Department’s offices at 200

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC, on Monday through

Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to

5 p.m. (Phone (202) 690–7890).

For comments that relate to

information collection requirements,

mail a copy of comments to: Health Care

Financing Administration, Office of

Information Services, Security and

Standards Group, Division of HCFA

Enterprise Standards, Room N2–14–26,

7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD

21244–1850, Attn: Julie Brown, HCFA–

2065–IFC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Kay Mullen, (410) 786–5480.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On January 22, 2001, we published an

interim final rule with comment period

(66 FR 7148) that defined a ‘‘psychiatric

residential treatment facility’’ that is not

a hospital and that may furnish covered

Medicaid inpatient psychiatric services

for individuals under age 21. The

interim final rule established standards

for the use of restraints or seclusion in

psychiatric residential treatment

facilities to protect the health and safety

of residents.

Section 3207 of the Children’s Health

Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–310) requires

that health care facilities receiving

support in any form from any program

supported in whole or part with funds

appropriated to any Federal department

or agency shall protect and promote the