[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35356-35360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15662]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0007; FRL-9997-04-Region 8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Intermountain Waste Oil
Refinery 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 Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery Superfund
Site (Site) located in Bountiful City, Davis County,
[[Page 35357]]
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, have been completed. However, this deletion does not
preclude future actions under Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2000-0007 by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line 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 8SEM-RB, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-
1129.
Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Mailcode: SEM-RB, 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-
2000-0007. 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, Mailcode: SEM-
RB, 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 Intermountain Waste
Oil Refinery 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 Intermountain Waste Oil
Refinery 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
[[Page 35358]]
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.
(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, the Davis Clipper. 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 Intended Site Deletion
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL.
Site Background and History
The two-acre Superfund Site Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery is
located in the City of Bountiful, in Davis County, Utah. The site was
originally part of a brick manufacturing facility that encompassed
about 20 acres. In the 1950s, an asphalt business was operated at the
site. In 1957, a trucking business that hauled various petroleum
products to customers opened and continued operating for approximately
35 years before closing in May 1993. During the 1970s, an oil blending
business operated on the property. The operation involved blending
green bottoms, purportedly a fraction of crude oil with diesel fuel,
which was sold for dust control at coal mines. Over the subsequent
years, used oil was treated onsite and was sent to cement facilities
for use as fuel in cement kilns. Aboveground storage tanks used in the
operations had an unlined secondary surface impoundment. Waste sludge
produced in the operations was reportedly disposed of in an offsite
landfill, and wastewater that may have remained after the treatment
process was boiled off at the site.
The site owners began dismantling the facility in 1993. Some of the
waste was consolidated into a waste pile of approximately 100 cubic
yards, located on the east portion of the site. The remainder of the
site was covered with approximately 2 inches of gravel[hyphen]type
backfill. Due to unknown operations at the site, the groundwater became
contaminated with several solvents, mainly trichloroethylene (TCE) and
hydrocarbons. The source of the TCE was processes which occurred in the
storage tank area or the laboratory equipment.
The Site consists of two Operable Units (OUs). OU1 addressed soils,
subsurface soils, and potential onsite contaminant sources including
tanks, drums, and containers. OU2 addressed contaminants found in the
ground water, mainly TCE, that were above drinking water standards and
the risk-based levels of concern. Investigations at the Site showed
that groundwater and soils were contaminated with processing and
disposal of waste products have resulted in contamination of soils and
groundwater at the Site. The EPA proposed the site to the National
Priorities List (NPL) as The Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery on 10/22/
1999 (64 FR 56992) and listed the Site as final on in the NPL on 5/11/
2000 (65 FR 30482). The EPA assigned the site CERCLIS ID UT0001277359.
The first removal action of the property occurred in August 2001.
Potential sources of soil and/or groundwater contamination such as
laboratory chemicals, tanks, drums, and sump contents, were removed.
Additionally, an underground storage tank was removed during field work
for the installation of OU2 groundwater monitoring wells.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
A Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BHHRA), which also
included a screening level ecological risk assessment, was completed
for OU1. The BHHRA evaluated risks to potential workers and
hypothetical future residents and determined that volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in soils could potentially accumulate inside a
building and create an unacceptable risk. This risk was primarily due
to 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, with smaller
contributions from naphthalene, hexane, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene in
soil at some locations. There were no ecological concerns.
The OU2 BHHRA evaluated exposure pathways for contaminated
groundwater at the Site for future or current onsite workers and future
residents. The assessment looked at risks from the inhalation and
ingestion of contaminated groundwater beneath the IWOR site.
Trichloroethylene was the only contaminate of concern identified in
groundwater by the risk assessment. Risks from exposure to contaminated
groundwater were determined to be above a level of concern for non-
cancer and cancer risks.
Selected Remedy
EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1, dated November 26,
2002, to address soils, subsurface soils, and potential onsite
contaminant sources including tanks, drums, and containers. Remedial
action objectives (RAOs) identified in the ROD include:
Prevent exposure of workers and future residents from
inhalation of contaminated vapors intruding from soil to indoor air.
Non-cancer risks should be reduced to within or below a level of
concern (HQ<1); and
Remove potential sources of soil and/or groundwater
contamination.
The remedy selected in the OU1 ROD consisted of two components.
Establishment of land use controls that require buildings
built, in whole or in part, on the property to have a vapor
[[Page 35359]]
mitigation system and require that soils excavated during the building
or other construction activities will be managed appropriately; and
Removal of an underground storage tank (UST).
EPA issued a ROD for OU2, on August 4, 2004, to address groundwater
and proper disposal of containers in the garage. The RAOs identified in
the ROD consisted of the following:
Restore the aquifer to beneficial use (drinking water
standards) within a reasonable time frame;
Prevent exposure to contaminated ground water through
ingestion of contaminated ground water, or inhalation of vapors during
use; and
Prevent the future contamination of ground water that is
currently uncontaminated.
The drinking water standard of 5 [mu]g/L for TCE was established in
the OU2 ROD as the cleanup level for restoring the aquifer to
beneficial use.
The components of the OU2 selected remedy consisted of multiple
components.
Dual phase extraction (DPE) and treatment: Where effective
in removing contaminated vapors as well as contaminated ground water,
DPE will be used. DPE involves pumping ground water and soil vapors
from the same well. Where, or when, there are no significant
contaminated soil vapors recovered through DPE, groundwater pump and
treatment will be used.
Land Use Control, or Institutional Control: The land use
control will prevent the installation of a drinking water well on the
property until drinking water standards are met in the ground water.
Monitoring: A monitoring plan to evaluate the
effectiveness of the remedy will be developed and implemented. The plan
will likely include sampling at least four wells monthly for the first
six months, and quarterly thereafter.
Treatment and Discharge: The ground water that is
extracted will be treated by a treatment system that uses granular
activated carbon to remove the contaminants. The treated water will be
discharged to a storm water drain or other approved discharge point.
Disposal of containers: There are about 25 one to five-
gallon containers currently stored in the garage. A number of the
containers contain lead-based paint, and most would be classified as a
hazardous waste for disposal purposes. Proper disposal now will prevent
any potential future risks from mismanagement of these containers.
Response Actions
UDEQ and EPA have both led different aspects of the remediation
work, as defined in a cooperative agreement between EPA and UDEQ.
Remediation work was conducted in three removal actions: 1. Removal
action for property redevelopment in 2001, 2. DPE groundwater
remediation from 2004-2006, and 3. the solar powered
MicroBlowerTM at monitoring well MW-07 to remove TCE from
the vadose zone from 2013-2017.
In June 2004, a Dual Phase Extraction (DPE) system was installed on
wells as part of a treatability study that was completed during the RI
for OU2. The DPE system was shut down in February 2006 after
groundwater goals were reached. Groundwater data showed TCE
concentrations were below drinking water standards for a period of
approximately 18 months. The system was dismantled and removed from the
Site in October 2006 and semiannual rebound monitoring and sampling
began. From October 2007 to May 2013, TCE concentrations in groundwater
periodically exceeded the cleanup goal and drinking water standard of 5
[mu]g/L in four monitoring wells. Based on these exceedances and the
findings of a streamlined remediation system evaluation, EPA
reinitiated vapor extraction in March 2013 by installing a solar
powered MicroBlowerTM at monitoring well MW-07 to remove TCE
from the vadose zone. The goal of the solar powered extraction system
was to remove the residual source of groundwater contamination. Sample
results show TCE concentrations in groundwater declined during the
operation of the solar panel extraction system.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls (ICs) were required for both OU1 and OU2
remedies. For OU1, an Environmental Notice and Institutional Control
(IC) to require buildings on the IWOR property to have vapor mitigation
systems was filed with the Davis County Clerk and Recorder's Office on
September 23, 2003. The State of Utah Department of Environmental
Quality has the authority to enforce this IC. In 2007, the site was
sold to Bountiful Irrigation for redevelopment. The garage, lab, and
house were demolished, and the site was graded and all remaining debris
from the previous owners was removed. A new office building and garage
were constructed, and the site continues to be used as a commercial
property for this irrigation business. The office building and garage
constructed on the site have active sub-slab vapor mitigation systems.
The IC for OU2 to prevent the installation of a drinking water well
on the property until drinking water standards are met in the ground
water was filed on July 8, 2005 by the Davis County Clerk and
Recorder's Office. The State of Utah Department of Environmental
Quality has the authority to enforce this IC.
Operation and Maintenance
As noted, the OU1 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 commercial use were
adopted by the property owner and the City of Bountiful. The 2013
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan consists of the groundwater
monitoring and sampling.
The O&M Plan states that once TCE concentrations have been below 5
[mu]g/L for two consecutive monitoring and sampling events, the project
team may elect to turn off the solar powered vapor extraction system
and perform quarterly rebound monitoring. If over a period of two
years, no exceedances of 5 [mu]g/L are observed, then site closure can
proceed. As a result of abnormally dry and drought conditions, rebound
sampling was not completed on a quarterly schedule. However,
groundwater samples were collected in December 2015, April 2016, and
February 2018, and showed TCE concentrations were below the cleanup
goal and drinking water standard of 5 [mu]g/L for TCE. The solar
powered vapor extraction system, installed at monitoring well MW-07,
was shut down and removed from the Site in January 2017. The Final
Close Out Report for the IWOR Site was signed on July 1, 2019.
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. Three FYRs were conducted in
2008, 2013 and 2018. The 2018 FYR found the remedy at the Site to be
protective of human health and the environment, with no issues or
recommendations. The next five-year review is scheduled to be completed
by September 2023.
Community Involvement
Community involvement activities at the Site initially included
establishing a local presence by meeting with local property owners and
concerned citizens. Outreach efforts included community interviews,
fact sheets,
[[Page 35360]]
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 and 2018 for the 2018 FYR.
The EPA's Community Involvement criteria associated with 40 CFR
300.425(e)(4) requires EPA to conduct interviews and/or gather
community input.
The Site is fully developed for 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
OU1 and OU2 RODs for all pathways of exposure. The selected remedy is
consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and EPA policy and guidance. 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
by responsible parties is appropriate.
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.
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: July 15, 2019.
Gregory E. Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-15662 Filed 7-22-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P