STATE OF ARKANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

8001 NATIONAL DRIVE, P.O. BOX 8913

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72219-8913
DECLARATION

FOR THE MONROE AUTO PIT SUPERFUND SITE

(FINCH ROAD LANDFILL)

PARAGOULD, ARKANSAS

RECORD OF DECISION

AMENDMENT NO. 1

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Monroe Auto Superfimd Site, Paragould, Greene County, Arkansas

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents an amendment to the previously selected remedial action for the

Monroe Auto Superfimd Site (Site). The new remedy was chosen in accordance with the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as

amended by me Superfimd Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (42 U.S. Code,

Section 9601, et seq.), and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR

Part 300). This decision is based on the Administrative Record for mis Site.

The U. S. Environmental Agency (EPA) Region 6 concurs with the selected remedy.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by

implementing the response action selected in this amendment, may present an imminent and

substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare of the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY

This Amendment changes the method of contaminated soil/sludge remediation described in the

Record of Decision (ROD) executed by the Director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental

Quality and me EPA Regional Administrator on September 26,1996.

•••»

The method of remediation of soil/sludge is changed from containment to excavation and treatment

required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), removal from the Site, and

disposal in a permitted, secure waste disposal facility. The new remedy does not change the

previously selected ground water remedy. This amended remedy does not alter the Applicable or

Relevant and Appropriate Requirements listed in the 1996 ROD.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selectedremedy for soil/sludge is protective of human health and the environment, complies with

Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable orrelevant and appropriate to the remedial action

andis cost-effective. The selectedremedy uses excavation, treatment, andremoval of contaminated

soiVsludge to an appropriate off-site landfill facility. This remedy continues to require ground water

monitoring of the attenuation through natural processes of dilution and adsorption to insure effectiveness

of the remedial action. Because the contaminants will beremoved to below risk-based levels, five-year

reviews of the soil remedy would not be required for this remedial action.

DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST

The following information is included in the Amendment:

• new remedial action goals for soil/sludge;

• land use that will be available at the Site as a result of the selected remedy;

• duration of the implementation of the remedy; and,

• decisive factors that lead to selecting the remedy.

The following information is included in the previous Record of Decision and other documents in me

Administrative Record file:

• chemicals of concern and their respective concentrations;

• baseline risk represented by the chemical of concern;

• basis for the cleanup levels; and,

• current and future ground water uses.

Director

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

|gA. Cooke

sgional Administrator

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

.^. ^.^

Date
CONCURRENCE LIST

FOR THE MONROE AUTO PIT SUPERFUND SITE

(FINCH ROAD LANDFILL)

PARAGOULD, ARKANSAS

RECORD OF DECISION

AMENDMENT N0.1

' Earl Hendrick

Remedial Project Manager

Gus Chavama

AR/OK/TX Project Management Section

f&ay McGee

Staff" Attorney

Mark Peycke,<fchief

Super fund Branch

Office of Regional Counsel

. --^^^ Qr K^-^^

/ Myron 0. Knud^on, P.E.

Director

Superfund Division

/illiam. Honker,

AR/OK/TX Superfund Branch
CONCURRENCE LIST

FOR THE MONROE AUTO PIT SUPERFUND SITE

(FINCH ROAD LANDFILL)

PARAGOULD, ARKANSAS

RECORD OF DECISION

AMENDMENT N0.1

BruceD^ones

Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel

6RC-M

Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel

6RC

f^

/., /^£^ /^ ^

i ' David W. Gray

Office' Director, Office of External Affairs

6XA
MONROE AUTO PIT SUPERFUND SITE

(FINCH ROAD LANDFILL)

PARAGOULD, ARKANSAS

RECORD OF DECISION

AMENDMENT NO. 1

Summary.................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 2

Site Description and Background............................................................................................ 2

Map of the Site Location......................................................................................................... 4

Site Topographic Map............................................................................................................. 5

Basis for This Document....::...........;....................................................................................... 6

The 1996 Remedy.................................................................................................................. 6

Description of the New Remedy..............................—.............................—......—................... 7

Classification of Contaminated Soil..—.............—— —.......——......——......................—.. 7

Remediation Action Goals for Soil..................———..............——..————.——.—.—...... 8

Evaluation of the Original and the New Remedies.———....................—.........—...............„ 8

Statutory Determinations........................................................................................................11

Public Participation Compliance.............—.—..—...—..——................................................. 11

Documentation of No Significant Changes—— ———....——...—.—.....——..—...............12

APPENDIX A - Locations of Repositories-..-.....——...............................................— ....13
MONROE AUTO PIT SUPERFUND SITE

PARAGOULD, ARKANSAS

AMENDMENT TO THE RECORD OF DECISION

October 2000

Summary

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has prepared an Amendment

(Amendment) to the 1996 Record of Decision (ROD) for the remedial action to be taken at the

Monroe Auto Pit Superfund Site (Site) in Paragould, Arkansas. This Amendment changes the

remedial action for soil from on-^ite containment of the contaminated soil/sludge and prohibition

of the future use of the Site as specified in the 1996 ROD to excavation and off-site disposal in a

secure, licensed landfill facility. This remedy is Alternative 7 described in the 1996 ROD. This

Amendment does not alter the remedy that was selected by the 1996 ROD for the monitoring of

the ground water attenuation through natural processes of dilution and adsorption. Following the

successful implementation of this revised remedy, access controls should not be required but deed

restrictions will be necessary to prevent the use of the contaminated ground water at the Site and to

allow for ground water monitoring until completion of the ground water remedy. Thus, the Site

could have unrestricted use in the future after the ground water remedy is complete.

This amendment specifies the following:

• modification of the remedial action goals for soil as presented in Table 8 of the 1996 ROD

to reduce some constituent levels to promote the natural attenuation of the ground water and

increase some levels to accommodate existing native soil values;

• excavated uncontaminated soil and imported clean fill may be used as backfill;

• disposal of slightly contaminated soil in a secure landfill licensed to accept such material;

• sludge and highly contaminated soil will be stabilized and stored in a lined containment cell

on the Site while the owner applies for delisting of the material;

• after the delisting issue is resolved, the stabilized material will be transported for disposal

in a Subtitle D Landfill if delisting is approved, or in a Subtitle C Landfill if delisting is not

approved;

• verification of the removal of the contaminated material as defined by the Remedial Soil

Actions for Soil presented in mis Amended Proposed Action Plan by the analytical testing

of the sides and bottom of the excavated area; and,

• monitoring of the ground water to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial action.

-*

This Amendment does notalter the Applicableor Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

listed in the 1996 ROD. The new remedy is consistent with the statements and expressed wishes

of the nearby residents, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the potentially

responsible party. The new remedial action should be completed within six months.
Introduction

This Amendment presents the change to the remedy for the Monroe Auto Pit Superiund Site located

in Paragould, Arkansas.

The ADEQ is the lead agency for implementing the remedial action at this Site.

The 1996 ROD was signed by the Director of the ADEQ and also by the Deputy Regional

Administrator of EPA Region 6 on September 26, 1996. The 1996 ROD called for on-site

containment of the contaminated soil/sludge and the prohibition of me future use of the Site. This

Amendment changes the remedy to excavation of the sludge and contaminated soil, treatment as

required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for removal from the Site and

disposal in an off-site licensed landfill facility. This new remedy should allow for the eventual

unrestricted use of the Site. After successful implementation of the new remedy access controls

should not be necessary. Deed restrictions should not be necessary following the successful

completion of both this action and the monitored natural attenuation of the ground water. This new

soil remedy does not alter the previously selected ground water remedy.

The ADEQ is issuing this Amendment as part of its public participation responsibilities as required

by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),

Section 117 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR,

Section 300.435(c)(2)(ii). The purposes of the Amendment are as follow:

• to identify the preferred alternative and explain the rationale for change;

• to describe other remedial options considered; and,

• to serve as a companion to the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Report and

Administrative Record File.

This Amendment uses information that can be found in greater detail in documents contained in the

RI/FS and the Administrative Record for the Site. The development and evaluation of the remedial

alternative are based on data presented in the original RI/FS and in the 1996 ROD. Since this

Amendment alters only the method of remediation and does not decrease the quality of the

remediation, no additional institutional controls are required. The new remedy provides the

opportunity for the Site to be reused. This Amendment will become part of the Administrative

Record file as required by the NCP 300.825(a)(2). The Administrative Record is available at the

information repositories listed in Appendix A.

Site Description and Background

The Monroe Auto Pit Superfund Site, also known as the Finch Road Landfill, is located in

northeastern Arkansas in an unincorporated portion ofGreene County, approximately three miles

southwest of Paragould. The Site lies immediately west of Arkansas Highway 358, approximately

three miles west of its intersection with U.S. Highway 49. The Site lies in the Northwest Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 16 North, Range 5 East, in the Paragould West

JV-i-mmate quadrangle. The southwestern comer of the Site is at latitude 36° 01" 0' and longitude

90' 34" 30'. The maps on pages 4 and 5 show the location and the topography of the Site

respectively.

The Site is owned by Tenneco Automotive, Inc., successor to Monroe Auto Equipment Company,

One International Drive, Monroe, Michigan. The property is identified as parcel no. 4071-1 in the

Greene County Tax Assessor's office. The legal description provided in the property deed is "all

that part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of me Northeast Quarter of Section 17,

Township 16 North, Range 5 East lying West of the Highway No. 358" (Warranty Deed 1973).

In 1973, Monroe purchased the seven-acre tract of land in Greene County, Arkansas. The Site

included an inactive sand and gravel borrow pit. Approximately 15,400 cubic yards of alum and

lime electroplating sludge/slurry from the waste water treatment lagoons at Monroe's Paragould

manufacturing plant were deposited in the borrow pit between 1973 and 1978.

Based on 21 boring samples taken in the sludge disposal area of the Site, me sludge extends to a

maximum depth of 30 feet. The greatest contaminant concentrations and the majority of the sludge

occur in an approximate interval of five to 25 feet below the surface.

Approximately four acres of the Monroe property, including the sludge disposal area that covers less

than one acre of me Site, are surrounded by a six-foot tall chain-link fence topped with barbed

wire. The sludge is covered with approximately three to five feet of soil. The Site has remained

inactive since 1978. Access is controlled by the fence and a locked gate. The remaining three acres

within the fence are, for the most part, cleared of trees and covered with native vegetation.

Under ADEQ review, Monroe conducted a series of investigations at the Site between 1979 and

1990. These included the installation of ground water monitoring wells, sampling and analysis of

ground water, soil, surface water, and sediment, and the conducting of geological surveys. Analysis

of the samples collected from monitoring wells at the landfill indicated the presence of 1,1-

Dichloroethane [100/^g/L (1989)] and 1,2-Dichloroethylene [750/^g/L (1988)]. Furthermore, a

residential well (Gann well) located near the Site also showed 1,1-Dichloroethane [10/^g/L (1987)]

and 1,2-Dichloroethylene [145/^g/L (1987)].

The EPA proposed that the Site be added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1989. In August

1990, the Site was added to the NPL. A Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) search conducted in

1990 under CERCLA Section 104(e) 42 U.S.C. §9604(e), indicated that Monroe Auto Equipment

was the only PRP for this Site. On March 14, 1991, the EPA issued«notice of an impending

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to the PRP. Monroe Auto Equipment responded to

the notice with a good faith offer to perform the RI/FS for this Site. On June 28,1991, EPA and

Monroe Auto Equipment entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for Monroe to perform

the RI/FS.


The EPA and the ADEQ signed the Record of Decision in September 1996, requiring a cap, a 30-

foot deep french dram with gravel fill installed up to the ground surface, and access and deed

restrictions. The containment and the restrictions would have eliminated the risk of long-term

contact with contaminated media left in place. The deed restrictions would prohibit future

development of the Site. A survey plat indicating the location of the waste disposal area with

respect to permanently surveyed benchmarks was to be prepared and filed with the local zoning

authority.

The remedial objective mat is addressed in this Amendment is the reduction or elimination of the

actual and/or potential risk associated with the sludge pit and the contaminants in the ground water.

Basis for This Document

Season for Issuing the Amendment to the Record of Decision

The primary reason for issuing this Amendment is to identify and describe the rationale for the

modification to the remedy at this Site. Included in this Amendment is a comparison of the

proposed remedy to the remedy selected in the 1996 ROD. With strong community opinion in

favor of removal of sludge and contaminated soil from the Site to an off-site landfill, ADEQ and

the Potential Responsible Party (PRP), Tenneco Automotive, Inc., gave preference to the off-site

remedy. The PRP has volunteered to finance me revised remedy even though the revised remedy

may be more cosdy man the original remedy.

Performance Standards

The Performance Standards specified in the 1996 ROD remain unchanged. These standards include

Remedial Action objectives, standards of control, and other substantive requirements (e.g.,

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate-Requirements - ARARS), criteria, and limitations set forth

in the 1996 ROD. However, some of the Remediation Action Goals for Soil would be altered by

this Amendment. Because the remedy in the 1996 ROD did not require excavation of contaminated

soil, the various metal concentrations mat are in the local soil were not considered nor were the

reductions in the contaminants to promote ground water through monitored natural attenuation

considered. These items are now included in Table 1 - Remediation Action Goals for Soil on page

8 of this Amendment

1996 ROD Remedy

The following are major components of me soil/sludge remedy selected in thel996 ROD:

1. installing a french drain around the area of sludge deposits to intercept perched ground water

before it enters the contaminated area. The captured ground water would be transported via

buried piping to a discharge point located in the intermittent stream southwest of the Site;

2. capping the sludge disposal area in accordance with RCRA Subtitle C requirements;

3. prohibiting future development of the Site; and,

4. conducting environmental monitoring to ensure effectiveness of me remedial action.
Description of the New Remedy

The remedy selected in the 1996 ROD did not require treatment of contaminated soil/sludge, but

did require containment to address the threat or potential threat to human health and the

environment. The new remedy requires treatment of the contaminated soil/sludge that poses a threat

or potential threat to human health and the environment. The treated material will be transported

off the Site to a licensed landfill facility. Soil removed from the excavation area mat is not

contaminated above the remedial action goals and other clean soil may be used as backfill. Soil

removed from the excavation area that is contaminated above the remedial action goals for soil, but

not requiring treatment under RCRA, will be transported to and disposed of in a secure landfill

licensed to accept such material.

In addition, other features of the Amendment are as follows:

1. implementation of this remedy should take less than six months;

2. this alternative remedial action may cost more than the original remedy but the potentially

responsible party has volunteered to finance the total cost of the new remedy; and,

3. since contaminants will be removed to below risk-based levels, five-year reviews of me soil

remedy will not be required.

Classification of Contaminated Soil

•.••%• :"-.•

Table 8 of the 1996 ROD lists the Remedial Action Target Goals for SoU/Sludge and Ground Water.

This Amendment to the ROD revises and updates the clean-up goals for the soil/sludge. The

updated Table 1 below adds permissible values for cyanides, copper, mercury, nickel, and silver.

It increases the permissible value for beryllium to recognize the concentrations of beryllium already

existing in the native soil near but outside the area of the disposal pit contamination, increases the

permissible value of arsenic with the application of the Duution/Attenuation Factor (DAF), DAF

=10 (values explained below), and reduces permissible values of antimony, chromium, lead,

trichloroethylene, and vinyl chlorine in order to promote quicker natural attenuation of the

contaminated ground water. The permissible value for cadmium remains unchanged.

The ADEQ uses the DAF that has been developed for the purpose of promoting the natural

attenuation of the ground water. The DAF is defined as the ratio of contaminant concentration in

soil leachate to the concentration in ground water at the receptor point. The DAF is used to back

calculate the target soil leachate concentration from an acceptable ground'water concentration. As

an example, if the acceptable ground water concentration is 0.05 mg/L (milligrams/Liter) and the

DAF is 10 (as is the case for this project), the target leachate concentration would be 0.5 mg/L.

Presented below are the former clean up goals presented in the 1996 ROD, the DAF = 10 values,

the native soil values, and the resultant new remedial action goals for soil/sludge. The 1996 ROD

values for ground water are not altered by this Amendment to ROD.
CDIATION ACTION GOALS FOR SOIL

Constituent

1996 ROD

Table 8 Goals

Antimony 6 ppm

Arsenic 0.02-2 ppm

Beryllium 0.07-7 ppm

Cadmium 4 ppm

Chromium 3-300 ppm

Cyanides —

Copper —

Lead 500 ppm

Mercury —

Nickel -

Silver

Trichloroethylene 0.1-10 ppm

Vinyl chloride 20-2000 ppm

DAF=10

Values

3 ppm

10 ppm

30 ppm

4 ppm

20 ppm

20 ppm

1.5 ppm

0.02 ppm

70 ppm

20 ppm

0.03 ppm

0.007 ppm

Native Soil

Values

14 ppm

0.47 ppm

1.1 ppm

66 ppm

23 ppm

14 ppm

0.76 ppm

8.1 ppm

New Remedial

Action Goals for

Soil/Sludge

3 ppm

14 ppm

30 ppm

4 ppm

66 ppm

20 ppm

23 ppm

14 ppm

0.76ppm

70 ppm

20 ppm

0.03 ppm

0.007 ppm

Evaluation of the Original and New Remedies

The ADEQ uses nine criteria, or standards, to evaluate alternatives for a hazardous waste Site. The

following is a comparison of the new remedy and the remedy selected in the 1996 ROD with respect

to the nine criteria.

Based on the information currently available, the ADEQ believes the new remedy provides the best

balance of tradeoffs among the other alternatives with respect to these evaluation criteria,

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

This criterion addresses the way in which a potential remedy would reduce, eliminate, or control the

risks posed by the Site to human health and the environment. The method used to achieve an

adequate level of protection may be through engineering controls, treatment techniques, or other

controls such as restrictions on the future use of the Site. The total elimination of the risk is often

impossible to achieve; however, any remedy must minimize risk to assure that human health and

the environment will be protected.

Both the original and me new remedies provide adequate protection of human health and the

environment by eliminating and preventing risk of exposure: the former through containment of the

contaminants at me Site, the latter through treatment and removal of the contaminants from me Site

to an off-site licensed landfill facility. However, the new remedy provides greater overall protection

of the community because it utilizes treatment of the contaminated sludge and removal of the treated

material from the community for disposal to a permitted, secure waste disposal facility.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Compliance with the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) assures that

a selected remedy will meet all the related Federal, State, and local requirements per Section 121 (d)

of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA). The requirements may specify maximum concentrations of contaminants that can

remain at the Site; design or performance requirements for treatment technologies; and, restrictions

mat may limit potential remedial activities at a Site because of its location.

All ARARs contained in the 1996 ROD remain unchanged. Both remedies satisfy the ARARs

requirements.

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

This criterion refers to expected residual risk and the ability of a potential remedy to reliably protect

human health and the environment over time, after the cleanup levels have been met.

Both remedies achieve long-term effectiveness and permanence. The initial remedy used

containment to keep the contaminants from migrating. The new remedy would accomplish me same

results by removing the contaminated soil/sludge to an off-site landfill facility, thus providing better

long-term effectiveness and permanence than the original remedy.

Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

This criterion refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies for the remedy.

Factors considered include the nature of the treatment process; the amount of hazardous material

destroyed by the treatment process; how effectively the process reduces the toxicity, mobility, or

volume of waste through treatment; and, the type and quantity of contamination that will remain

after treatment.

The original remedy required no treatment of the contaminated soil and sludge. The new remedy

requires the contaminated soil and sludge be treated to RCRA requirements for disposal in a secure,

licensed landfill facility. Hence, the original remedy would specifically reduce mobility of

contaminants at the Site but leave them on the Site. The new remedy would reduce the toxicity, and

mobility of waste through treatment at the Site, and would remove the wastes from the Site and

deposit the treated wastes into an off-site licensed landfill facility.

Short-term Effectiveness

This criterion addresses the time factor during implementation of the remedy. A potential remedy

is evaluated for the time needed to implement and complete the remedy and any adverse impact on

human health and the environment during the construction and implementation of the remedy until

cleanup levels are achieved.

Both remedies satisfy this criterion. Both remedies require only a short time to implement and the

implementation of either remedy would not have any adverse impact on the community.

» 9
Implementability

Implementability addresses the ease with which a potential remedy can be put in place. Factors such

as availability of material and services are considered.

The original remedy and the new remedy are readily implementable. Numerous vendors can

conduct either remedy. There are facilities that can receive me treated material.

Cost

Costs include capital costs required for design and construction, operation and maintenance costs

as present worth costs. Present worth cost is the total cost of an alternative over time in terms of

today's dollar value. Costs are considered and compared to the benefit that will result from

implementing the remedy.

The potentially responsible party has volunteered to finance the new remedy even though the new

remedy may be more costly than the original remedy.

EPA Acceptance

EPA acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of documents in the Administrative Record

and the Amended Proposed Plan, the EPA concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the

preferred alternative.

ADEQ provided the EPA Region 6 an opportunity to review this Amended Proposed Plan. EPA had

no comments on the Amended Proposed Plan and concurs with the new remedy.

Community Acceptance

The ADEQ recognizes that the community in which a Superfund Site is located is the principal

beneficiary of all remedial actions taken. The ADEQ also recognizes that it is responsible for

informing interested citizens of the nature of Superfund environmental problems and solutions, and

to leam from the community what it desires regarding these sites.

No written comments were received during the thirty-day public comment period (April 19,2000

through May 22,2000) for the Amended Proposed Plan. The residents attending the Public Meeting

in Paragould on May 11,2000, expressed their satisfaction with the new remedy. Additionally, the

new remedy is consistent with comments and letters received during the public comment period for

the July 1995 Proposed Plan and with the opinions expressed by several residents attending a public

meeting in Paragould on October 4,1999.

Based on the information currently available, the ADEQ believes the new remedy meets me

threshold criteria and provides the better balance of tradeoffs between the two remedies with respect

to the balancing and modifying criteria. The ADEQ expects the new remedy to satisfy the following

statutory requirements ofCERCLA §121(b): 1) be protective of human health and the environment;

2) comply with ARARs; 3) be cost-effective; 4) utilize permanent solutions; and, 5) satisfy the

preference for treatment as a principal element.

10
Statutory Determinations

The primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to select remedial actions that are protective of

human health and the environment. Section 121 of CERCLA also requires that the selected

remedial action comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards

established under Federal and State environmental laws, unless a waiver is granted. The selected

remedy must be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative technologies or

resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The Statute also contains a

preference for remedies which employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the

volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as a principal element.

The new remedy is protective of human health and the environment and meets all of the soil and

sludge remedial action objectives-through treatment and removal of the contaminants from the Site

to an off-site licenced landfill facility. It will eliminate the potential of direct contact or ingestion

of contaminated soil and will also reduce/eliminate the source of contaminants entering me ground

water. The new remedy continues to require ground water monitoring of the attenuation through

natural processes of dilution and adsorption to insure effectiveness of the remedial action.

The new remedy satisfies all of the ARARs contained in the 1996 ROD.

The ADEQ believes the new remedy is cost effective for mitigating the direct contact, ingestion, and

continued ground water contamination from the Site contaminants. The potentially responsible

party has volunteered to finance the new remedy even though it may be more costly than the original

remedy.

The new remedy would reduce the toxicity, and mobility of waste through treatment at the Site, and

would remove the waste from the Site and deposit the treated waste into an off-site licenced la-ndfill

facility. It provides the opportunity for the Site to be reused.

Short term risks associated with me selected remedy can be controlled by proper design and

implementation. No adverse cross media impacts are expected from implementation of the selected

remedy. The ADEQ believes the new remedy is the remedy most acceptable one to the community.

Public Participation Compliance

On April 19,2000, the ADEQ issued a notice of the Amended Proposed Plan and established the

Public Comment Period to be from April 19 to May 22, 2000. The ADEQ conducted a Public

Meeting on May 11, 2000. No written comments were received during the thirty-day public

comment period. At this public meeting, all comments were verbal and supported the proposed

plan.

11
Documentation of No Significant Change

Based on the opinion expressed by the residents attending the public meeting in Paragould on

May 11,2000, the ADEQ determined mat no changes to the remedy selection, as it was originally

identified in the Amendment to the Proposed Plan, were necessary.

12
APPENDIX A

MONROE AUTO SUPERFUND SITE

LOCATIONS OF

REPOSITORIES

Northeast Arkansas Regional Library

120 North 12th Street

Paragould, Arkansas 72450

(870)236-8711

Hours of Operation: Monday through Thursday 9:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.

Friday and Saturday 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

Records Section, Management Services Division

8001 National Drive

Little Rock, Arkansas

(501) 682-0744

Hours of Operation: Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

U.S. EPA, Region 6

7th Floor Reception Area

Contact Mr Steve Wyman, (214) 665-2792

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Hours of Operation: Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

» 13