83 FR 25635 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 107 (June 4, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 107 (June 4, 2018)
| Page Range | 25635-25638 | |
| FR Document | 2018-11758 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 25635-25638] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-11758] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9977-80--Region 8] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site (Site) located in Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. 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). The EPA and the State of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance and five-year reviews (FYR), have been completed. However, [[Page 25636]] this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. DATES: Comments must be received by July 5, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ- SFUND-2003-0010 by one of the following methods:http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Email: [email protected]. Mail: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129 Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street (EPR-SR), 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- 2003-0010. The http://www.regulations.gov website 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 the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116; Phone: (801-944-7641); Hours: M-Th: 9 a.m.-9 p.m.; Fri- Sat: 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPR-SR, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312-6762, email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion I. Introduction EPA Region 8 announces its intent to delete the remaining portions of Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions. EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. II. NPL Deletion Criteria The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. 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 in not appropriate. Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five- year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. III. Deletion Procedures The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site: (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete. (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today. (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate; [[Page 25637]] (4) The State of Utah, through the UDEQ, has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL. (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, Deseret News. The newspaper notice announces the 30- day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL. (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above. If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the Site information repositories listed above. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions. IV. Basis for Site Deletion The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL. Site Background and History The 106-acre Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site (UTD988075719) is located 15 miles southeast of Salt Lake City at the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon. Constructed in the 1870s, the Davenport and the Flagstaff smelters treated ores from mines near Alta, Utah. Lead smelting was the dominant industrial activity at the Site. Lead and arsenic were the primary products associated with ore processing. At times copper, gold, silver, and other metals were also produced at the Site. Ore processing and disposal of waste products have resulted in contamination at the Site. The EPA proposed the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 2000 and finalized listing of the Site on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23077). The EPA proposed the Site to the NPL based on studies conducted between 1992 and 2003 due to soil and sediments contaminated with lead and arsenic. Lead levels greater than 200,000 mg/kg were detected in an investigation conducted in 2000. The Site is divided into three operable units. Operable Unit 1 (OU1) is the southern 28 acres of the Site. It is the location of the former Davenport Smelter and current location of residential properties. Operable Unit 2 (OU2) is the middle and western part of the Site, and is comprised of 29 acres of commercial and undeveloped land. Operable Unit 3 (OU3) is the northern 49 acres of the Site. The location of the former Flagstaff Smelter, which was once agricultural land, is now mostly residential. Wastes were present on the Site for many years and, in some locations, groundwater was in direct contact with visible slag without appreciable impact on groundwater. Concentrations of contaminants of concern (COCs) in groundwater are generally below federal maximum contamination limits (MCLs). Because portions of OU1 was deleted from the NPL on August 20, 2004 under a Partial Deletion (69 FR 51583), the remaining portions of OU1, OU2 and OU3 are the focus of this deletion. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) The former smelters were the suspected source of waste within OU1, OU2 and OU3. Analysis of sample data confirmed that soil contamination was caused by deliberate use of waste as fill and environmental factors transporting smelter waste. The 1999 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment identified arsenic and lead as contaminants of concern. This Risk Assessment established the action levels of 600 mg/kg for lead and 126 mg/kg for arsenic for surface soils. EPA completed a Focused Feasibility Study (FS) in December 2001. Selected Remedy Prior to the signing of the Record on Decision (ROD) in 2009, a removal action in OU1 was conducted. While the majority of OU2 land was undeveloped, there were three residences and a restaurant within OU2. EPA issued a ROD for OU2 dated September 16, 2009, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) dated July, 2012 and an ESD for OU1/OU3, dated November 11, 2015. These decision documents defined the remedy as follows: Soils on properties with principal threat wastes (wastes that fail TCLP and/or is a characteristic hazardous waste) required stabilization and disposal in a RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill. Excavation of a minimum of 18 inches of soil of all properties was recommended for remediation of all residential properties that had soil lead levels which exceeded the established action levels of 600 mg/kg for lead and 126 mg/kg for arsenic. Hand excavation would be conducted around affected areas of native vegetation. Institutional Controls (ICs) to make sure the remedy is protective. Off-Site disposal of contaminated soils and backfill with clean soil. Due to physical restrictions presented by topography and existing utility structures, and to preserve mature vegetation to enhance the overall remedy performance, contamination at concentrations greater than action levels could be left in place. If removal of contaminated soils was not feasible due to steep slopes and existing structures, these soils remained after construction activities were completed if they did not pose a threat to human health. The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs), as amended, were to prevent unacceptable exposure risks to current and future human populations presented by contact, ingestion, or inhalation of smelter materials, associated contaminated materials, or COCs derived from the smelter wastes. Response Actions In 2004, an OU1 removal action addressed 26 residential properties. Remediation work for OU2 and OU3 was conducted in two removal actions. The contractor mobilized in August 2011. The pre-final inspection of the removal action was on November 16, 2011 and the final inspection on May 29, 2012. The OU2 Construction Completion Report was signed on September 24, 2012. Little Cottonwood Canyon Partners conducted a non- time critical removal action at OU3 under an agreement with the EPA and under oversight of the UDEQ. This action allowed for redevelopment of the agricultural land for residential use. Remediation work for OU3 began on April 26, 2006; the final inspection was [[Page 25638]] conducted on September 6, 2006. The Final Close Out Report for OU3 is dated September 7, 2006. Site-wide, approximately a total of 137,000 tons were excavated and placed beneath an engineered soil and clay cap on-site. UDEQ was the lead agency for the remediation as defined in a cooperative agreement between EPA and UDEQ. Operation and Maintenance The Operations and Maintenance Plan consists of the following activities: inspection/observation during redevelopment construction; review of development construction plans and specification for conformance with cover requirements; storm water management and irrigation restrictions; and temporary stockpile and covering of soil and slag. Maintaining appropriate soil cover and drainage is a required operation and maintenance IC. The State is responsible for enforcing the cap and soil ICs. The 2009 OU2 ROD required the establishment of ICs to prevent exposure to contaminated materials and to require State review of future changes to land use. ICs that support limited commercial and residential re-use were adopted by the City of Sandy. In addition, ICs for groundwater and surface water were established by the State to prohibit use as drinking water. Five-Year Review Statutory Five-Year Reviews (FYR) of the Site are required because hazardous substances remain on-Site above levels which allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Two FYRs were conducted, in 2012 and 2017. Both FYRs found the remedy at the Site to be protective. The 2017 FYR identified an issue of needing to clarify roles of local authorities with respect to ICs. The issue was resolved by ensuring Salt Lake County would monitor and enforce ICs. The next five-year review is scheduled to be completed by September 2022. Community Involvement Major community involvement activities included establishing a local presence by meeting with local property owners and concerned citizens. Outreach efforts included community interviews, fact sheets, letters, flyers, door-to-door visits, public meetings, neighborhood meetings, public comment periods and website updates. The most recent interviews were conducted in the spring 2017 for the FYR. The EPA's Community Involvement criteria associated with 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4) require EPA to conduct interviews and/or gather community input. Today, approximately seventy percent of the Site has been fully developed for residential and commercial land-use. The successful revitalization of this Site is sustainable, provides valuable reuse, and elevates the quality of life with revitalization for years to come. Determination that the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion The implemented Site-wide remedy achieves the RAOs specified in the September 2009 OU2 ROD and the April 25, 2005 OU1/OU3 ESD for all pathways of exposure. No further Superfund responses are needed to protect human health and the environment at the Site. The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in consultation with the State of Utah, has determined that all required response actions have been implemented and no further response action is appropriate. 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. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. Dated: May 21, 2018. Douglas H. Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2018-11758 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 25635
CFR 60.2515(a)(6) requires each state subparts B and DDDD, EPA is proposing Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
plan include certification that the to approve Florida’s state plan for February 16, 1994). And it does not
hearing was held, a list of witnesses and regulation of CISWI units as submitted have Tribal implications as specified by
their organizational affiliations, if any, on May 31, 2017, and supplemented on Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
appearing at the hearing, and a brief December 19, 2017, and February 2, November 9, 2000), because EPA is not
written summary of each presentation or 2018. In addition, EPA is proposing to proposing to approve the submitted
written submission. However, under 40 amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart K to plan to apply in Indian country located
CFR 60.23(g), the Administrator may reflect this action. in the state, and because the submitted
also approve alternative public plan will not impose substantial direct
participation procedures, so long as the IV. Statutory and Executive Order
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
procedures ‘‘in fact provide for adequate Reviews
Tribal law.
notice to and participation of the Under the CAA, the Administrator is
public.’’ required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
In its state plan submittal, as submission that complies with the Administrative practice and
supplemented by its December 19, 2017 provisions of the CAA and applicable procedure, Air pollution control,
letter, Florida has requested approval of Federal regulations. In reviewing Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride,
alternative public participation 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA’s role Intergovernmental relations,
requirements for this and future state is to approve state choices, provided Manufacturing, Phosphate, Reporting
plan submittals. If approved, Florida they meet the criteria and objectives of and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
intends to apply these modified public the CAA and EPA’s implementing oxides, Waste treatment and disposal.
participation procedures to future state regulations. Accordingly, this action Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411.
plans and state plan revisions. As merely proposes to approve state law as
Florida notes, the State published notice meeting Federal requirements and does Dated: May 15, 2018.
of the proposed revisions to the state not impose additional requirements Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III,
plan in the Florida Administrative beyond those imposed by state law. For Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Register. In the notice, the State that reason, this proposed action: [FR Doc. 2018–11929 Filed 6–1–18; 8:45 am]
provided the public with an opportunity • Is not a significant regulatory action BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
to submit comments and to request a subject to review by the Office of
public hearing, which would be held on Management and Budget under
February 21, 2017. Because Florida did Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
not receive any comments or requests October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, AGENCY
for hearing, however, the hearing was January 21, 2011);
not held. • Does not impose an information 40 CFR Part 300
In these circumstances, we believe collection burden under the provisions
that Florida’s procedures, although of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–HQ–SFUND–2003–0010; FRL–9977–
different from the procedures required U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 80—Region 8]
under 40 CFR 60.23(c) and (d), provide • Is certified as not having a
for adequate notice to and participation significant economic impact on a National Oil and Hazardous
of the public. We also note that the substantial number of small entities Substances Pollution Contingency
State’s alternative procedures comply under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
with the notice requirements for State U.S.C. 601 et seq.); of the Davenport and Flagstaff
Implementation Plan submittals under • Does not contain any unfunded Smelters Superfund Site
CAA section 110 and 40 CFR part 51. mandate or significantly or uniquely
Thus, EPA is proposing in this action to affect small governments, as described AGENCY: Environmental Protection
approve Florida’s alternative public in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Agency (EPA).
participation procedures for this and of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
future CAA section 111(d)/129 state • Does not have Federalism
plan submissions. implications as specified in Executive SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing a
I. Annual State Progress Reports to EPA 1999); Notice of Intent to Delete Davenport and
Under 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 • Is not an economically significant Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site (Site)
CFR 60.2515(a)(7), the State must regulatory action based on health or located in Sandy City, Salt Lake County,
provide in its state plan for annual safety risks subject to Executive Order Utah, from the National Priorities List
reports to EPA on progress in 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); (NPL) and requests public comments on
enforcement of the plan. Accordingly, • Is not a significant regulatory action this proposed action. The NPL,
Florida provides in its plan that it will subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
submit reports on progress in plan 28355, May 22, 2001). the Comprehensive Environmental
enforcement to EPA on an annual In addition, this rule is not subject to Response, Compensation, and Liability
(calendar year) basis, commencing with requirements of Section 12(d) of the Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is
the first full reporting period after plan National Technology Transfer and an appendix of the National Oil and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Hazardous Substances Pollution
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
revision approval. EPA has
preliminarily concluded that Florida’s 272 note) because application of those Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of requirements would be inconsistent the State of Utah, through the Utah
40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR with the CAA. It also does not provide Department of Environmental Quality
60.2515(a)(7). EPA with the discretionary authority to (UDEQ), have determined that all
address, as appropriate, appropriate response actions under
III. Proposed Action disproportionate human health or CERCLA, other than operation and
Pursuant to CAA section 111(d), CAA environmental effects, using practicable maintenance and five-year reviews
section 129, and 40 CFR part 60, and legally permissible methods, under (FYR), have been completed. However,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Jun 01, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_25742/page/1.svg)
![25638 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules
conducted on September 6, 2006. The conduct interviews and/or gather the requirements of this clause
Final Close Out Report for OU3 is dated community input. duplicate the requirements in Federal
September 7, 2006. Site-wide, Today, approximately seventy percent Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause
approximately a total of 137,000 tons of the Site has been fully developed for 52.219–9, Small Business
were excavated and placed beneath an residential and commercial land-use. Subcontracting Plan. As such, HSAR
engineered soil and clay cap on-site. The successful revitalization of this Site clause 3052.219–70 is no longer needed
UDEQ was the lead agency for the is sustainable, provides valuable reuse, to provide guidance to contractors and
remediation as defined in a cooperative and elevates the quality of life with DHS proposes to remove the clause from
agreement between EPA and UDEQ. revitalization for years to come. the HSAR.
Operation and Maintenance Determination that the Site Meets the DATES: Interested parties should submit
Criteria for Deletion written comments to one of the
The Operations and Maintenance Plan addresses shown below on or before
consists of the following activities: The implemented Site-wide remedy July 5, 2018, to be considered in the
inspection/observation during achieves the RAOs specified in the formation of the final rule.
redevelopment construction; review of September 2009 OU2 ROD and the April
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
development construction plans and 25, 2005 OU1/OU3 ESD for all pathways
identified by HSAR Case 2017–001,
specification for conformance with of exposure. No further Superfund
Rescinding HSAR clause 3052.219–70,
cover requirements; storm water responses are needed to protect human
Small Business Subcontracting Plan
management and irrigation restrictions; health and the environment at the Site.
Reporting, using any of the following
and temporary stockpile and covering of The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states
methods:
soil and slag. Maintaining appropriate that a site may be deleted from the NPL • Regulations.gov: http://
soil cover and drainage is a required when no further response action is www.regulations.gov.
operation and maintenance IC. The appropriate. EPA, in consultation with Submit comments via the Federal
State is responsible for enforcing the cap the State of Utah, has determined that eRulemaking portal by entering ‘‘HSAR
and soil ICs. all required response actions have been Case 2017–001’’ under the heading
The 2009 OU2 ROD required the implemented and no further response ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and selecting
establishment of ICs to prevent exposure action is appropriate. ‘‘Search.’’ Select the link ‘‘Submit a
to contaminated materials and to require List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Comment’’ that corresponds with
State review of future changes to land ‘‘HSAR Case 2017–001.’’ Follow the
Environmental protection, Air
use. ICs that support limited instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
commercial and residential re-use were Comment’’ screen. Please include your
waste, Hazardous substances,
adopted by the City of Sandy. In name, company name (if any), and
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
addition, ICs for groundwater and ‘‘HSAR Case 2017–001’’ on your
Reporting and recordkeeping
surface water were established by the attached document.
requirements, Superfund, Water • Fax: (202) 447–0520.
State to prohibit use as drinking water.
pollution control, Water supply. • Mail: Department of Homeland
Five-Year Review Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. Security, Office of the Chief
Statutory Five-Year Reviews (FYR) of 9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy
2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, and Legislation, ATTN: Ms. Candace
the Site are required because hazardous 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52
substances remain on-Site above levels Lightfoot, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop
FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
which allow for unlimited use and 0080, Washington, DC 20528.
unrestricted exposure. Two FYRs were Dated: May 21, 2018. Comments received generally will be
conducted, in 2012 and 2017. Both Douglas H. Benevento, posted without change to http://
FYRs found the remedy at the Site to be Regional Administrator, Region 8. www.regulations.gov, including any
protective. The 2017 FYR identified an [FR Doc. 2018–11758 Filed 6–1–18; 8:45 am] personal information provided. To
issue of needing to clarify roles of local BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
confirm receipt of your comment(s),
authorities with respect to ICs. The please check http://
issue was resolved by ensuring Salt www.regulations.gov, approximately
Lake County would monitor and enforce DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND two to three days after submission to
ICs. The next five-year review is SECURITY verify posting (except allow 30 days for
scheduled to be completed by posting of comments submitted by
September 2022. 48 CFR Parts 3019 and 3052 mail).
[Docket No. DHS–2018–0024] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Community Involvement
Candace Lightfoot, Procurement
Major community involvement RIN 1601–AA83 Analyst, DHS, Office of the Chief
activities included establishing a local Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy
presence by meeting with local property Rescinding Department of Homeland and Legislation at (202) 447–0882 or
owners and concerned citizens. Security Acquisition Regulation email HSAR@hq.dhs.gov. When using
Outreach efforts included community (HSAR) Clause 3052.219–70, Small email, include HSAR Case 2017–001 in
interviews, fact sheets, letters, flyers, Business Subcontracting Plan the ‘‘Subject’’ line.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
door-to-door visits, public meetings, Reporting (HSAR Case 2017–001)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
neighborhood meetings, public AGENCY: Office of the Chief Procurement
comment periods and website updates. I. Background
Officer, Department of Homeland
The most recent interviews were Security (DHS). On December 4, 2003, DHS published
conducted in the spring 2017 for the ACTION: Proposed rule. an interim final rule to establish the
FYR. The EPA’s Community Department of Homeland Security
Involvement criteria associated with 40 SUMMARY: DHS is proposing to Acquisition Regulation (HSAR). 68 FR
CFR 300.425(e)(4) require EPA to deregulate HSAR clause 3052.219–70 as 67867. On May 2, 2006, DHS published
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Jun 01, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_25742/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-06-02 00:47:10
Document Modified: 2018-06-02 00:47:10
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule; notice of intent. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received by July 5, 2018. | |
| Contact | Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPR-SR, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312-6762, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 25635 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Chemicals; Hazardous Waste; Hazardous Substances; Intergovernmental Relations; Penalties; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Superfund; Water Pollution Control and Water Supply |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR