47586 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

available on VA’s Web site at http://

www1.va.gov/orpm/, by following the 

link for ‘‘VA Regulations Published.’’ 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. This final rule will have no 

such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers and Titles 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance program numbers and titles 

for this rule are 64.106, Specially 

Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans 

and 64.109, Veterans Compensation for 

Service-Connected Disability. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Robert A. McDonald, Secretary, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 

approved this document on August 6, 

2014, for publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Health care, Pensions, Radioactive 

materials, Veterans, Vietnam. 

Dated: August 11, 2014. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director, Regulation Policy and Management, 

Office of the General Counsel, Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

■ Accordingly, the interim final rule 

revising 38 CFR part 3, which was 

published at 78 FR 72573 on December 

3, 2013, is adopted as a final rule 

without change. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19240 Filed 8–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1990–0011; FRL–9915– 

24–Region 6] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Direct 

Deletion of the Monroe Auto 

Equipment (Paragould Pit) Superfund 

Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 6 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Monroe Auto (Paragould Pit) Superfund 

Site located in Paragould, Greene 

County, Arkansas, from the National 

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

Arkansas, through the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ), because EPA has determined 

that all appropriate response actions 

under CERCLA have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective October 14, 2014 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 15, 2014. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1990–0011, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

internet on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• Email: Brian W. Mueller, 

mueller.brian@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 214–665–6660. 

• Mail: Brian W. Mueller; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF–RL); 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, 

Texas 75202–7167. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 6; 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733; Contact: Brian W. Mueller (214) 

665–7167. 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–1990– 

0011. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

700; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733; hours 

of operation: Monday through Friday, 

9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. 

to 4:00 p.m. Contact: Brian W. 

Mueller (214) 665–7167. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47587 

Arkansas Department of Environmental 

Quality, 5301 Northshore Drive, North 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72118; Hours of 

Operation: Monday through Friday 

8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. 

Northeast Arkansas Regional Library, 

located at 120 North 12th Street, 

Paragould, Arkansas 72450; Hours of 

operation: Monday through Thursday 

day 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Friday 

8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., and 

Saturday 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project 

Manager; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division 

(6SF–RL); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

1200; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, (214) 

665–7167; email: mueller.brian@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion of the Monroe 

Auto Pit. Superfund Site (Site), from the 

National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL 

constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 

300 which is the 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 § 300.425(e)(3) 

of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL 

remains eligible for Fund-financed 

remedial action if future conditions 

warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective October 14, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by September 15, 2014. Along with this 

direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is 

co-publishing a Notice of Intent for 

Deletion in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of this Federal Register. If 

adverse comments are received within 

the 30-day public comment period on 

this deletion action, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

Notice of Deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion and the deletion 

will not take effect. EPA will, as 

appropriate, prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

Notice of Intent for Deletion and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the Monroe Auto Pit 

Superfund Site and demonstrates how it 

meets the deletion criteria. Section V 

discusses EPA’s action to delete the Site 

from the NPL unless adverse comments 

are received during the public comment 

period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

iii. The remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to the 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) EPA has consulted with the state 

of Arkansas prior to developing this 

direct final Notice of Deletion and the 

Notice of Intent for Deletion copublished in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of this Federal Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the state 30 

working days for review of this notice 

and the parallel Notice of Intent to 

Delete prior to their publication today, 

and the state, through the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

has concurred on this deletion of the 

Site from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a 

notice of the availability of the parallel 

Notice of Intent for Deletion is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

the Paragould Daily Press. The 

newspaper notice announces the 30-day 

public comment period concerning the 

Notice of Intent for Deletion of the Site 

from the NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the deletion in 

the deletion docket and made these 

items available for public inspection 

and copying at the Site information 

repositories identified above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this deletion action, EPA will 

publish a timely notice of withdrawal of 

this direct final Notice of Deletion 

before its effective date and will prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the Notice of Intent for Deletion and the 

comments already received. 

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 further 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 Monroe Auto Equipment 

(Paragould Pit) Superfund Site 

(CERCLIS ID ARD980864110) is located 

in northeastern Arkansas in an 

unincorporated portion of Greene 

County, approximately three miles 

southwest of Paragould, Arkansas. 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 7.5-minute quadrangle. The 

southwestern corner of the site is at 

latitude 36°01′0′′ and longitude 

90°34′30′′. The site occupies seven (7) 

acres of a former sand and gravel borrow 

pit. The area is rural and lightly 

populated with private residences 

located immediately south, north, and 

northeast of the site. 

Monroe Auto Equipment Company 

(now Tenneco Automotive, Inc.) 

purchased the described property for 

disposal of alum and lime electroplating 

sludge that originated from settling 

ponds used for the treatment of 

wastewater from Monroe Auto 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47588 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Equipment’s Paragould manufacturing 

plant. The waste material was placed on 

the site from 1973 to 1978, resulting in 

over 10,000 cubic yards (CY) of sludge 

at the site in the sand and gravel pit. In 

July 1987, the EPA conducted a Site 

Assessment inspection to assess the 

potential for public exposure to 

contaminants being released from the 

site. Principal pollutants in groundwater 

identified by the EPA included solvents 

and degreasing agents such as 1,1- 

Dichloroethane (1,1–DCA), 1,2- 

Dichloroethene (1,2–DCE), Xylenes, and 

metals. As an interim action, Tenneco 

initiated sampling of private residential 

wells located within one-half mile of the 

site beginning in July 1987. The EPA 

proposed that the Site be added to the 

National Priorities List (NPL) on 

October 26, 1989 and was finalized to 

the NPL on August 30, 1990. On-site 

monitoring wells and a private drinking 

water well 300 feet southeast (downgradient) of the pit are contaminated 

with 1,1-dichloroethane and 1,2- 

dichloroethylene, according to tests 

conducted in 1987–88 by the Arkansas 

Department of Health and a Monroe 

consultant. The consultant also found 

arsenic, nickel, and lead in the 

monitoring wells. An estimated 2,100 

people obtain drinking water from 

private wells within 3 miles of the site. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study 

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 the 

site. On March 14, 1991, the EPA issued 

notice of an impending Remedial 

Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/ 

FS) to the PRP. Monroe Auto 

Equipment, now Tenneco, responded to 

the notice with a good faith offer to 

perform the RI/FS. On June 28, 1991, 

Monroe Auto Equipment Company 

entered into an Administrative Order on 

Consent with the EPA to conduct a RI/ 

FS under CERCLA. The RI was 

completed in August 1993, and the FS 

was completed in April 1995. The RI/FS 

identified the types, quantities, and 

locations of contaminants found at the 

Site and developed ways to address the 

contamination. A Human Health Risk 

Assessment and an Ecological Risk 

Assessment were performed to 

determine the current and future effects 

of contaminants on human health and 

the environment. 

Remedy Components 

Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) 

were developed for Site to address the 

contaminated soils and ground water. 

The remedy is comprised of the 

following major components as 

stipulated in the Remedial Action 

Workplan: 

• Excavate, segregate and stage 

sludge, stained soils, and overburden 

(clean soil) and unstained soils; 

• Stockpile overburden and 

unstained soils for use as backfill; 

• Stabilize sludge material with 5 to 

10 percent lime addition; 

• Analyze stained soil and solidified 

sludge; 

• Transport and dispose of stained 

soil that exhibits concentrations of 

constituents of concern (COC) below 

toxicity characteristic leaching 

procedure (TCLP) levels and EPA 

Region VI Medium Specific Health 

Based Screening Levels in a Subtitle D 

landfill; 

• Stockpile stabilized sludge in an 

on-site lined containment cell; 

• Apply for de-listing of stabilized 

sludge; 

• Verify removal of impacted 

materials from the sludge pit through 

analytical testing of the bottom and 

sides of the excavation area; 

• Restore the site by backfilling, 

grading and seeding; 

• Transport and dispose of stabilized 

sludge in accordance with the results of 

the de-listing petition; and 

• Conduct groundwater monitoring to 

ensure the effectiveness of the RA. 

In order to achieve these RAOs, 

numerical risk-based cleanup levels 

were established for each environmental 

medium based on the residential 

scenario. 

Soil/Sludge 

• Prevent exposure to current and 

future human and ecological receptors 

through ingestion, dermal contact, and 

inhalation of contaminated soil/sludge 

containing trichloroethylene, vinyl 

chloride, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

chromium VI, and lead. 

Groundwater 

• Prevent exposure to current and 

future human and ecological receptors 

through ingestion, dermal contact, and 

inhalation of contaminated groundwater 

containing cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene, bis(2- 

Ethylhexyl)phthalate, beryllium, 

chromium, lead, manganese. 

In order to achieve these RAOs, 

numerical risk-based cleanup levels 

were established for each environmental 

medium based on the residential 

scenario. 

Selected Remedy 

A proposed plan for the Site was 

issued on July 17, 1995, presenting the 

preferred alternative of capping the 

sludge disposal area, installing a 

groundwater interception system 

(french drain), and addressing the 

groundwater contamination through 

natural attenuation, degradation and 

monitoring. On September 26, 1996, the 

Record of Decision (ROD) was issued 

and signed for the Site. 

Remedy Modification 

In February 1998, the ADPC&E 

(current ADEQ) signed a Consent 

Administrative Order directing Tenneco 

to conduct the Remedial Design/ 

Remedial Action (RD/RA) under 

ADPC&E oversight presenting the 

preferred alternative of excavation and 

offsite disposal for the waste, 

contaminated soil, and contaminated 

sediment at the Site. 

In 1999, Tenneco submitted a petition 

to modify the ROD to change the 

method of contaminated soil 

remediation from containment of the 

contaminated soil and sludge, to 

excavation and treatment as required by 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act for removal and disposal 

of contaminated soil and sludge in an 

off-site permitted secure Subtitle D 

disposal facility. The amended ROD was 

signed by the ADEQ on September 15, 

2000, and by the EPA on November 9, 

2000. The amendment to the ROD did 

not alter the Remedial Action Objectives 

established by the 1996 ROD, or the 

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate 

Requirements listed in the 1996 ROD. 

The revised soil remedy did not alter 

the previous requirement of monitored 

natural attenuation of constituents in 

the groundwater. The new remedy was 

consistent with the statements and 

expressed wishes regarding remediation 

activities from nearby residents. By 

treatment and removal of the waste from 

the site, the site is available for future 

development. The amended soil or 

source remedy included: Excavation of 

sludge and stained soils; verifying 

removal of impacted materials from the 

sludge disposal area; transporting and 

disposing of stained soil in a Subtitle D 

landfill; solidifying and stabilizing 

sludge material; stockpiling stabilized 

sludge; applying for de-listing of 

stabilized sludge and transporting and 

disposing of stabilized sludge in 

accordance with the results of the 

delisting petition. 

The final remedy is detailed in the 

Remedial Design Submittal Quality 

Assurance Project Plan, Remedial 

Action Workplan, Remedial Design 

Submittal Sampling and Analysis Plan 

(SAP), and Remedial Design Submittal 

Health and Safety Plan. The final 

remedy represents the culmination of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47589 

activities that resulted from the 

preliminary site investigation completed 

in 1988, the RI/FS, the ROD and 

Amended ROD. 

Response Actions 

Tenneco began on-site Remedial 

Action construction in September 1999. 

The soil remedial action consisted of the 

excavation and segregation of 14,633 

cubic yards of soil and started in 

September 1999. Based on field 

calculations, a total of 3,348 cubic yards 

of overburden (clean fill material), 8,553 

cubic yards of stained soil and 2,732 

yards of sludge (prior to stabilization 

and consolidation) were removed 

during the excavation activities. 

The overburden was removed, 

stockpiled, sampled and confirmed to 

meet the RA goals for soil and used as 

backfill. In accordance with the SAP, 

one grab sample was collected for every 

2,000 cubic yards of overburden, 

unstained soil or clean backfill. A total 

of 8,160 cubic yards of additional soil 

was imported for use as backfill, 

yielding a total of 11,508 yards of 

backfill used to replace the stained soil 

and sludge removed from the site. The 

site was recontoured to provide better 

drainage, enabling use of a smaller 

amount of soil required for backfill 

(11,508 cubic yards backfilled as 

compared to 14,633 cubic yards 

removed). A total of seven samples were 

collected from the overburden and 

imported backfill and confirmed the 

backfill material met the soil remedial 

clean-up requirements for the Site. 

The 8,553 cubic yards of stained soil 

was stockpiled, sampled to confirm 

disposal in accordance with ADEQ 

requirements and disposed in two 

Subtitle D Landfills upon confirmation 

of soil constituent levels. In accordance 

with the SAP, at a minimum, one grab 

sample was collected for every 500 

cubic yards of stained soil. A total of 26 

samples were collected from the stained 

soil to confirm this material met the 

disposal requirements for the permitted 

landfill. The weigh tickets from the 

Subtitle D Landfills confirm the 

disposal of the 8,553 cubic yards or 

14,599 tons (1.7 tons/cubic yard) of 

stained soil as part of the Soil RA. A 

total of 11,621 tons of stained soil was 

transported and disposed at the Butler 

County Landfill in Poplar Bluff, 

Missouri and 2,978 tons of stained soil 

were transported and disposed at the 

Waste Management—Two Pines 

Landfill in North Little Rock, Arkansas. 

The 2,732 cubic yards of sludge 

removed was stabilized with 

approximately 241 tons of quicklime 

and stockpiled in an on-site lined 

containment cell. In accordance with 

the SAP, at a minimum, one grab 

sample was collected for every 500 

cubic yards of stabilized sludge. A total 

of seven samples were collected from 

the stabilized sludge to provide the 

basis for preparation of a petition for delisting of this material. The 2,723 cubic 

yards of sludge removed was based on 

field measurements prior to 

stabilization. Surveying of this material 

after stabilization and consolidation 

over several months after placement in 

the containment cell yielded a volume 

of 1,798 cubic yards. A De-listing 

Petition (Petition) was prepared by the 

PRP in August 2000. The Petition was 

approved by EPA and subsequently by 

the ADEQ in an August 27, 2001 letter 

entitled Exclusion of F006 Waste at the 

Tenneco/Monroe Facility from the 

Definition of Hazardous Waste. Upon 

approval of the Petition, the 1,798 cubic 

yards or 3,243 tons (1.8 tons/cubic yard) 

of stabilized sludge was transported and 

disposed of at the Waste Management— 

Two Pines Landfill in North Little Rock, 

Arkansas. The bottom and sidewalls of 

the sludge pit excavation were extended 

until the visually impacted material had 

been removed. Prior to the collection of 

verification samples, an additional 1- 

foot of material was removed and 

disposed as stained soil. In accordance 

with the SAP, a verification soil sample 

was collected for every 500 square feet 

of sidewall or floor. A total of 81 

verification samples were collected 

which confirmed that the excavation 

activities met the RA Goals for Soil at 

the site. In accordance with oral field 

instructions by the EPA Remedial 

Project Manager (RPM), and later 

included in the amendment to the ROD, 

the PRP excavated all of the stained soil 

and sludge until levels were at or below 

the RA Goals for Soil at the site. The 

stained soil that had concentrations of 

the COCs below the TCLP levels and the 

EPA Region 6’s Medium Specific Health 

Based Screening Levels was excavated 

and disposed in a Subtitle D Landfill. 

The final shipment of stained soil was 

on December 16, 1999. The contractor 

also stabilized all of the contaminated 

soil and sludge which exhibited 

contaminant levels above the TCLP 

levels. The final shipment of the 

stabilized material was on September 

13, 2001. The final inspection was 

conducted on September 14, 2001, and 

the Preliminary Close Out Report was 

signed on September 19, 2001. 

Groundwater Remedial Implementation 

History 

Natural attenuation and monitoring 

was the remedy selected in the ROD to 

address the groundwater contamination 

on and offsite. The ROD amendment did 

not change the groundwater remedy. 

The ROD required the PRP to develop 

and implement a Groundwater 

Monitoring Plan (GMP) and beginning 

in September 2001, semiannual 

monitoring of eighteen (18) wells began. 

The PRP conducted groundwater 

monitoring events through March 2009. 

The PRP has discontinued monitoring 

groundwater at the Site. 

The Groundwater Remedy portion of 

the September 26, 1996 ROD and the 

2000 ROD Amendment included 

conducting long-term groundwater 

monitoring of wells at the Site and local 

private wells located in the vicinity of 

the Site. As part of the Groundwater 

Remedy, a Groundwater Monitoring 

Plan (GMP) was prepared for the Site. 

The GMP specified procedures to be 

followed for long-term groundwater 

monitoring to ensure compliance with 

the requirements of the ROD and the 

ROD Amendment. Tenneco initiated 

GMP activities in September 2001. The 

GMP also specified quality assurance 

and quality control (QA/QC) protocols 

for ground water sampling. The EPA 

Remedial Project Manager and State 

regulators visited the site during ground 

water monitoring activities to observe 

ground water sampling. ADEQ also took 

independent samples to that confirmed 

the results of the samples taken by the 

PRP. No deviations or non-adherence to 

QA/QC protocols, or specifications were 

identified. 

Based on analysis of semi-annual 

groundwater sampling results since 

March 2001, a request was made and 

approved to reduce the number of 

groundwater monitoring wells and 

COCs included in the Site GMP. The 

requested revised GMP focused only on 

volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) at six 

select groundwater monitoring well 

locations. A request to remove the 

requirements for sampling of the private 

wells was submitted to EPA and ADEQ 

on March 31, 2002. The request was 

approved following submittal of the 

Private Well Report in 2004. The Private 

Well Report provided a summary of 

available information for each of the 

twenty-nine (29) wells and presented a 

comparative analysis of the analytical 

results from over ten (10) years of 

sampling the private wells relative to 

the maximum contaminant levels 

(MCLs). Based on the findings presented 

in the report, no VOCs were detected in 

any of the private wells above the MCLs 

over the past ten (10) years. Select 

inorganics, primarily lead, were 

detected at varying concentrations, 

periodically exceeding the respective 

MCL in select samples collected prior to 

1996. These detections of lead however 

were within background concentration 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47590 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

levels for the surrounding area and not 

believed to have resulted from 

contamination at the site. Based on the 

data review presented in the Private 

Well Report, none of the private wells 

located within one-half mile of the site 

have been impacted by contamination 

from the site. 

The results of the semi-annual/annual 

sampling events are presented in 

respective Semi-Annual/Annual 

Sampling Reports. Based on the most 

recent groundwater sampling results 

from the site groundwater monitoring 

wells, presented in the March 2009 

Comprehensive Summary Report 

Annual Groundwater Sampling Event 

for the Monroe Superfund Site, the 

concentrations of VOCs continue to 

remain below the remedial goals for the 

Site in all of the groundwater 

monitoring wells sampled with the 

approved groundwater monitoring 

program. The concentrations in all of 

the Site groundwater monitoring wells 

have continued to exhibit 

concentrations of VOCs below the 

remedial goals established in the ROD 

over the past eight semi-annual and two 

annual sampling events. The results of 

the groundwater monitoring since July 

2003 confirm the effectiveness of the 

completed soil remedy and 

demonstrates site RA goals for 

groundwater are maintained through 

natural degradation and attenuation. 

Demonstration That Remedial Activities 

Met Cleanup Criteria for Soils/Sludges 

The soil/sludge remedial action at the 

Site consisted of the sampling, 

excavation, solidification, and proper 

disposal of contaminated soils/sludges. 

The EPA and ADEQ reviewed the 

remedial action report and the 

construction work for compliance with 

quality assurance and quality control 

(QA/QC) protocols. Construction 

activities at the Site were determined to 

be consistent with the ROD and ROD 

Amendment and adhered to the 

approved quality assurance plan which 

incorporated all EPA and State 

requirements. Confirmatory inspections, 

independent testing, audits, and 

evaluations of materials and 

workmanship were performed in 

accordance with the technical 

specifications and plans. The EPA 

Remedial Project Manager and State 

regulators visited the site during 

construction activities to review 

construction progress and evaluate and 

review the results of QA/QC activities. 

No deviations or non-adherence to QA/ 

QC protocols, or specifications were 

identified. 

The Remedial Design contained 

provisions for performing sampling 

during all remedial activities in order to 

verify that remedial objectives were met, 

to ensure quality control and assurance 

for all excavation and construction 

activity, and to ensure protection and 

safety of the public, the environment, 

and the onsite worker. Sampling was 

conducted in accordance with the Site 

Field Sampling Plan and all analytical 

results are below the established 

cleanup levels for a residential reuse 

scenario. In addition, all backfill 

confirmation sample results met the 

established cleanup levels for a 

residential reuse scenario. All analytical 

data was independently validated, and 

the EPA and the State determined that 

analytical results were accurate to the 

degree needed to assure satisfactory 

execution of the RA. 

Operation and Maintenance 

The ROD specified monitored natural 

attenuation as the remedy for ground 

water remediation based on 

implementation of a containment onsite 

of contaminated soils. The soil remedy 

was modified in the ROD Amendment 

to include removal of stained soil and 

sludge from the site to below the Site 

RA Goals for Soil. The results of 

groundwater monitoring since removal 

of the stained soil and sludge 

demonstrate that the natural attenuation 

remedy was effective and that the 

remedial goals for the groundwater as 

stated in the ROD have been achieved. 

Groundwater monitoring at the Site was 

discontinued after the Second Five Year 

Review in 2009. The monitoring wells 

were properly plugged and abandoned 

in 2010. There are no operation and 

maintenance activities required at the 

Site. 

Institutional Controls 

The ROD required that restrictions on 

the use of ground water be placed on the 

Site. A deed notice/covenant identifying 

restrictions on the Site was filed by the 

PRP with the Greene County Clerk in 

November 2003. The covenant 

prohibited the installation of any 

private, commercial, industrial or other 

water well or other device for the 

removal or extraction of subsurface 

water. The only ground water allowed 

to be extracted from beneath the 

property is for the purpose or purposes 

associated with environmental sampling 

and testing of the property. The RA 

goals for the groundwater have been met 

and the monitor wells have been 

removed. No restrictions on the use or 

sale of the property are necessary and 

the existing restrictions may be removed 

by the PRP. 

Five-Year Review 

Five-Year Reviews were statutorily 

required because hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants remained at 

the Site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. There have been two five-year 

reviews conducted at the Site, with the 

last one in 2009. The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Region 6 and the ADEQ conducted the 

second five-year review for the response 

action implemented at the Monroe Auto 

Pit Superfund Site. Also participating in 

the five-year inspection were 

representatives of Tenneco. 

The 2009 Five Year Review found that 

all hazardous substances in the 

groundwater had naturally attenuated at 

the Site below clean up levels. The 

remedial action of natural attenuation 

for the groundwater is completed and 

no hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants remain above levels that 

could prevent unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. Per the 2009 Five 

Year Review, unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure has been 

achieved: therefore, additional Five 

Year Reviews will not be required for 

the Site after its deletion from the NPL. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities have 

been satisfied as required in CERCLA 

Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 

CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. 

Throughout the Site’s history, the 

community has been interested and 

involved with Site activity. The EPA has 

kept the community and other 

interested parties updated on Site 

activities through informational 

meetings, fact sheets, and public 

meetings. Documents in the deletion 

docket which the EPA relied on for 

recommendation for the deletion from 

the NPL are available to the public in 

the information repositories, and a 

notice of availability of the Notice of 

Intent for Deletion has been published 

in the Paragould Daily Press to satisfy 

public participation procedures 

required by 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4). 

Determination That the Criteria for 

Deletion Have Been Met 

The implemented remedy achieves 

the degree of cleanup specified in the 

ROD and ROD Amendment for all 

pathways of exposure. All selected 

remedial action objectives and clean-up 

goals are consistent with agency policy 

and guidance. No further Superfund 

responses are needed to protect human 

health and the environment at the Site. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

300.425(e), sites may be deleted from 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 47591 

the NPL where no further response is 

appropriate. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of Arkansas, through the ADEQ, 

has determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA have 

been completed. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting the Site from the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective October 14, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by September 15, 2014. If adverse 

comments are received within the 30- 

day public comment period, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final notice of deletion before the 

effective date of the deletion and it will 

not take effect. EPA will prepare a 

response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: August 6, 2014. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR Part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended by removing the entry 

‘‘AR’’, ‘‘Monroe Auto Equipment 

(Paragould Pit),’’ ’’Paragould.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2014–19270 Filed 8–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 579 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0068; Notice 7] 

RIN 2127–AK72 

Early Warning Reporting, Foreign 

Defect Reporting, and Motor Vehicle 

and Equipment Recall Regulations; 

Delay of Effective Date; Correction 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective 

date; correction. 

SUMMARY: On August 20, 2013, NHTSA 

published a final rule amending its 

Early Warning Rule (EWR) with an 

effective date of August 20, 2014. On 

July 28, 2014, NHTSA published a rule 

which, in part, attempted to delay the 

effective date of the provisions until 

January 1, 2015. However, the 

information in the DATES section of the 

July 28 rule did not adequately project 

that action. This document corrects that 

error. 

DATES: This correction is effective 

August 20, 2014. The effective date for 

the amendments to 49 CFR 579.21 and 

579.22, published August 20, 2013 (78 

FR 51382), and effective August 20, 

2014, is delayed until January 1, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues concerning early 

warning provisions, contact Leo Yon, 

Safety Defects Engineer, Early Warning 

Reporting Division, NHTSA, telephone 

202–366–7028, email leo.yon@dot.gov. 

For legal issues, contact Andrew 

DiMarsico, Office of Chief Counsel, 

NHTSA, telephone 202–366–1834. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

20, 2013, NHTSA published a final rule 

amending certain provisions of the EWR 

regulations at 49 CFR part 579 Subpart 

C ‘‘Reporting of Early Warning 

Information.’’ 78 FR 51382. In summary, 

the new provisions: 

• Require light vehicle manufacturers 

to specify the vehicle type and the fuel 

and/or propulsion system type in their 

quarterly EWR reports. 

• Add new component categories for 

reporting on light vehicles: Electronic 

stability control, forward collision 

avoidance, lane departure prevention, 

and backover prevention, foundation 

brakes, and automatic brake controls. 

• Add one new component category 

for buses, emergency vehicles, and 

medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers: 

Electronic stability control/roll stability 

control. 

Need for Correction 

The final rule stated that these new 

provisions will be effective August 20, 

2014. On July 28, 2014, at 79 FR 43670, 

NHTSA intended to delay the effective 

date of the amendments to §§ 579.21 

and 579.22 until January 1, 2015, but 

did not correctly state that in the DATES

section. 

In FR Doc. 2014–17497 appearing on 

page 43671 in the Federal Register of 

Monday, July 28, 2014, the following 

corrections are made: 

In the DATES section in the left 

column, revise the second paragraph to 

read as follows: 

‘‘The effective date for the 

amendments to 49 CFR 579.21 in this 

final rule is January 1, 2015. The 

effective date for the amendments to 49 

CFR 579.21 and 579.22, published 

August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51382), and 

effective August 20, 2014, is delayed 

until January 1, 2015.’’ 

Nancy L. Lewis, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19091 Filed 8–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES