35126 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2009. In the event of inclement weather, 

this regulation will be enforced from 10 

p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 11, 2009. 

Section 165.941(a)(9) Safety zone; 

Harbor Beach Fireworks, Harbor Beach, 

MI. This regulation will be effective 

from 10 p.m. July 11, 2009 to 11 p.m. 

on July 12, 2009. This regulation will be 

enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on 

July 11, 2009. In the event of inclement 

weather, this regulation will be enforced 

from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 12, 

2009. 

Section 165.941(a)(10) Safety zone; 

Trenton Rotary Roar on the River 

Fireworks, Trenton, MI. This regulation 

is effective and will be enforced from 10 

p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 25, 2009. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.20, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within these safety zones is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Detroit or his 

designated representative. Vessels that 

wish to transit through the safety zones 

may request permission from the 

Captain of the Port Detroit. Requests 

must be made in advance and approved 

by the Captain of the Port before transits 

will be authorized. Approvals will be 

granted on a case by case basis. The 

Captain of the Port may be contacted via 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on 

channel 16, VHF–FM. The Coast Guard 

will give notice to the public via a 

Broadcast to Mariners that the 

regulation is in effect. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 165.20 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). 

If the District Commander, Captain of 

the Port, or other official authorized to 

do so, determines that the regulated area 

need not be enforced for the full 

duration stated in this notice, he or she 

may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners 

to grant general permission to enter the 

safety zone. 

Dated: July 1, 2009. 

F.M. Midgette, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Detroit. 

[FR Doc. E9–17100 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0466; FRL–8932–5] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of 

the Central Wood Preserving Company 

Superfund Site from the National 

Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) region 6 is publishing a 

direct final notice of deletion of the 

Central Wood Preserving Company 

Superfund Site (Site), located in East 

Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, 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 

Louisiana; through the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

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 will be 

effective September 18, 2009 unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

August 19, 2009. 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–2009–0466, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: stankosky.laura@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (214) 665–6660. 

• Mail: Laura Stankosky, Remedial 

Project Manager (RPM) (6SF–RL), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733, telephone (214) 

665–7525. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

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–2009– 

0466. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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 statue. 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: 

U.S. EPA, Region 6, by appointment 

in the 7th Floor Reception Area, 1445 

Ross Ave. Dallas, TX 75202–2722, (214) 

665–7525, Monday through Friday 9 

a.m. to 4 p.m; Audubon Regional 

Library Clinton Branch, 12220 

Woodville Street, Clinton, LA 70722 

(225) 683–8753 Monday through 

Thursday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m, Friday 9 a.m. 

to 3 p.m, and Saturday 9 a.m. to 1 p.m; 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality, Galvez Building, 602 North 

Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, 

(225) 219–5337 Monday through Friday 

8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Stankosky, Remedial Project 

Manager (RPM) (6SF–RL), 

(stankosky.laura@epa.gov) U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 35127 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733, telephone (214) 

665–7525 or toll-free (800) 533–3508. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents: 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL 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 Central 

Wood Preserving Company 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 remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future 

conditions warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective September 18, 

2009 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by August 19, 2009. Along 

with this direct final Notice of Deletion, 

EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent 

to Delete in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of the 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 to delete 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 Central Wood Preserving 

Company 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. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121 (c) and 

the NCP, EPA conducts five-year 

reviews to ensure the continued 

protectiveness of remedial actions 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at a site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 

such five-year reviews even if a site is 

deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate 

further action to ensure continued 

protectiveness at a deleted site if new 

information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the State of 

Louisiana prior to developing this direct 

final notice of deletion and the notice of 

intent to delete co-published today in 

the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the 

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 [Enter state 

agency], has concurred on the 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 to delete is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

[Enter major local newspaper of general 

circulation]. The newspaper notice 

announces the 30-day public comment 

period concerning the notice of intent to 

delete the Site from the NPL. 

(4) 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. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this document, 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 to delete 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 future response actions, 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL: 

Site Location 

The Central Wood Preserving 

Company Superfund Site, EPA ID 

LAD008187940, is located in an 

unincorporated area in the southern 

portion of East Feliciana Parish, 

Louisiana, approximately 25 miles north 

of Baton Rouge. The site is situated 

north and south of State Highway (SH) 

959, about one mile east of Highway 67. 

The site consists of two distinct 

properties. The property on the north 

side of SH 959 (‘‘North Property’’) was 

used as the main wood treatment 

process area, and the property on the 

south side of SH 959 (‘‘South Property’’) 

was operated as a raw lumber saw mill. 

The combined acreage of the North 

Property (10.03 acres) and South 

Property (7.05 acres) is approximately 

17.08 acres. A creek (historically and 

herein referred to as ‘‘Unnamed Creek’’) 

is located along the east-southeast side 

of both properties. This creek is 

intermittent near the site; when it has 

water, it flows south-southwest to 

intersect with Little Sandy Creek 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
35128 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

approximately 1.5 miles south of SH 

959. 

Site History 

The facility operated from the 1950s 

to January 1, 1973, as Central Creosoting 

Company, Incorporated. During that 

time creosote was used exclusively as 

the wood preservative. 

On January 3, 1973, the facility was 

sold and began operating under the 

name Central Wood Preserving 

Company, Inc., and the use of creosote 

was discontinued. Wood preserving 

from that time onward was 

accomplished with Wolmanac, a 

solution of copper oxide, chromic acid, 

and arsenic acid (chromated copper 

arsenate, known as CCA). Throughout 

the facility’s history, treated wood was 

distributed throughout the property for 

drying. The source of contamination is 

the result of spillage of creosote and 

Wolmanac on the site property over a 

period of 40 years. The site is currently 

owned by the East Feliciana Parish. 

While the parish had originally planned 

to redevelop the property as a public 

park with recreational facilities, funding 

for development did not become 

available. The site is currently being 

used to stage hurricane wood and brush 

debris for Hurricane Katrina. This 

material is removed as disposal space is 

located. 

In November 1983, the Site was 

confirmed as a Resource, Conservation, 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) small 

quantity generator of hazardous waste 

consisting of CCA. Since that time, 

regulatory activities have included 

involvement by the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(LDEQ) and EPA. In 1992, following a 

request by LDEQ, the EPA Technical 

Assistance Team (TAT) conducted a 

Preliminary Site Assessment. This 

assessment and subsequent more 

detailed site assessments and 

inspections conducted through 1995 

indicated elevated levels of arsenic and 

chromium in soil and sediment, and 

asbestos fibers in insulation samples. 

An EPA Action Memorandum was 

issued on April 3, 1995. This 

memorandum provided for a TimeCritical Removal Action to address 

source control at the site. The EPA TAT 

initiated the Time-Critical Removal 

Action on April 12, 1995. During the 

removal action, several site structures, 

tank contents, and an area of 

contaminated surface soil near the main 

facility operations area (about 1,250 

cubic yards [CY]) were removed from 

the site. The containment basin contents 

were also removed and the basin 

sandblasted and backfilled with soil. 

From July to December 1995, the EPA 

TAT conducted an Expanded Site 

Inspection (ESI) to gather data for 

Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 

documentation. 

In May 1999, the site was added to the 

National Priorities List (NPL) (May 10, 

1999 (64 FR 24949)). 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

EPA initiated a Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 

in 1999. The RI and FS were completed 

in September and November 2000, 

respectively. Soil samples were 

collected during the RI and during site 

assessment/site inspections from both 

the North and the South Properties. 

Results of the analyses conducted 

during the course of the various 

investigations, including the RI, 

indicated that the most significant 

contamination was from arsenic, 

chromium, copper, and polynuclear 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil 

and sediment. Analysis of the 

distribution and concentrations of 

chromium and copper indicated that the 

occurrence of these compounds 

corresponded well with the occurrence 

of arsenic. The highest concentration of 

PAH contamination was observed in the 

vicinity of the former process area and 

drainage way leading to the Unnamed 

Creek. On the South Property, creosote 

was limited to the drainage along the 

eastern property border. In the 

Unnamed Creek, both sediment and 

surface water were sampled. Arsenic 

contamination was found in sediment 

up to a depth of 1.5 feet in various 

discrete hot spots. Some creosoterelated constituents were also detected. 

Ground water evaluation performed 

during the RI indicated the shallow 10 

feet bgs ground water zone is not 

laterally continuous beyond the former 

process area and drainage way, and does 

not demonstrate significant volumes of 

water (one of three wells installed in 

this zone did not generate enough water 

to sample). No site contamination was 

found in the ground water encountered 

at 55 to 65 feet bgs, additionally this 

ground water demonstrates capacities 

that are borderline at best for meeting 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality’s (LDEQ’s) 2B classification for 

potentially potable ground water, and 

ground water is not used from within 

this or any other zone in the vicinity of 

the site. 

A baseline risk assessment, including 

an ecological assessment, was 

completed in September 2000, which 

estimated the probability and magnitude 

of potential adverse human health and 

environmental effects from exposure to 

contaminants associated with the site 

assuming no remedial action was taken. 

As outlined in the ROD, Risk 

Characterization results were as follows: 

For the North Property, Cancer risk for 

trespassers, future adult residents and 

future construction workers were above 

acceptable levels and non-cancer risks 

for trespassers, future adult and child 

were above the acceptable levels 

For the South Property, Cancer risk 

for future adult residents and future 

construction workers were above 

acceptable levels and non-cancer risks 

for future construction workers and 

future adult and child were above 

acceptable levels 

For sediment/soil in Segment 1 of the 

Unnamed Creek, Both the cancer risk 

and non-cancer risk for the recreational 

youth was above acceptable levels. The 

downstream segments of the unnamed 

creek did not have risk above acceptable 

levels 

Ecological Risk Assessment. 

Contaminants of Concern (COCs) were 

arsenic, copper, and chromium. The 

results of the baseline ecological risk 

assessment on the North and South 

properties and the Unnamed Creek 

indicated that: (1) There was minimal 

risk to the terrestrial and riparian 

wildlife target receptors, and (2) there 

was risk to the benthic receptors. A 14- 

day Hyallela azteca bioassay, benthic 

surveys and sediment chemistry, 

indicated that the observed mortality in 

the bioassays is not attributable to site 

related contamination, and the low 

diversity of benthic organisms in the 

Unnamed Creek may be a result of 

limited physical habitat. Therefore, the 

final conclusion by the Agency is that 

by addressing the arsenic levels as per 

the human health risk assessment, the 

copper will be also addressed, thereby 

addressing the ecological risk. 

Selected Remedy 

The Record of Decision (ROD), signed 

April 5, 2001, set forth the selected 

remedy for the site soils and sediments 

as removal and Low Temperature 

Thermal Desorption (LTTD) on-site, 

with off-site stabilization and disposal 

of removed soils, institutional controls 

and ground water monitoring. 

The ROD also established Remedial 

Action Objectives (RAOs) for the North 

and South Properties and the Unnamed 

Creek. The RAOs for the North and 

South Properties are to prevent human 

ingestion of, dermal contact with, or 

inhalation of soil and sediments and 

human contact with structure/debris 

containing/contaminated with COCs at 

concentrations which pose an excess 

lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) greater than 

1 × 10¥6 or which have a HI of greater 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 35129 

than 1 (based on a residential use 

scenario). The RAOs for the Unnamed 

Creek are to prevent human ingestion of, 

dermal contact with, or inhalation of 

sediment contaminated with chemicals 

of concern at concentration levels which 

pose an ELCR greater than 1 × 10¥6, or 

which have a HI of 1 or greater (based 

on a recreational use scenario). In 

addition, both the North and South 

properties and Unnamed Creek have 

RAOs for ground water to prevent 

human ingestion of water which 

contains COCs exceeding non-zero 

maximum contaminant level goals 

(MCLGs) or maximum contaminant 

levels (MCLs) where the corresponding 

MCL is zero in ground water at the 60 

foot aquifer. 

Prior to remedy implementation the 

site required activities including: 

Grubbing; staging for contaminated 

soils; asbestos abatement; building 

demolition and disposal of materials; 

and removal and disposal of debris 

piles. 

The four major components of the 

selected remedy for soils/sediments 

included: 

• Excavation of surface and nearsurface soil/sediment that exceeded 

remediation goals 

• Thermal desorption of excavated 

soil/sediment that exceeds Land 

Disposal Restriction 

• Disposal of excavated soil/sediment 

• Backfilling and revegetation 

In addition to these components for 

soils remediation, the site would also 

require: 

• Inspection 

• Ground water Monitoring 

• Institutional Controls/Deed 

Restrictions 

The purpose of the response actions 

conducted at the Site was to protect 

public health and welfare and the 

environment from releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances from 

the site. Potential exposure to affected 

soil, ground water, surface water and 

sediment was determined to be 

associated with human health risks 

higher than the acceptable range. The 

primary threats that the Site posed to 

public health and safety were direct 

contact with on-site waste material and/ 

or the transport of these materials and/ 

or potential hazardous constituents and/ 

or air emissions to nearby populated 

areas by surface runoff, severe flooding, 

or disruption of waste areas. This threat 

was minimized with the Time-Critical 

Removal Action which only addressed 

source control (i.e., removal of on-site 

tanks/vessels containing hazardous 

substances and the removal of the soil 

surrounding these tanks). Contaminated 

soil and sediment outside the main 

process area were not addressed during 

the removal action. 

Response Actions 

A Remedial Design (RD) to define the 

implementation of the remedy for the 

Site was completed by EPA in May 

2002. The RD described in detail the 

components of the selected remedy 

identified in the ROD. 

EPA began the Remedial Action (RA) 

in November 2003 with excavation and 

LTTD completion in September 2004. 

Soil and sediment were excavated from 

arsenic-only and arsenic-PAH areas and 

stockpiled separately. Arsenic-only soil/ 

sediment was excavated, staged in 300 

cubic yard stockpiles, sampled to verify 

compliance with land-disposal 

regulations (LDRs), and transported offsite for disposal. Arsenic-PAH 

contaminated soil/sediment was 

excavated, stockpiled for drying and/or 

mixed with lime, treated in LTTD unit, 

staged in approximately 300 CY 

stockpiles, sampled for PAHs and 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP) arsenic and 

chromium to verify compliance with 

applicable LDRs, and transported offsite for disposal. Arsenic concentrations 

from post excavation sampling ranged 

from 3.2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/ 

kg) to 6.3 mg/kg, all well below the 

remediation goal (RG) of 20 mg/kg. 

Benzo(a)anthracene was selected in 

the Remedial Investigation (RI) to 

illustrate the extent of PAH 

contamination as it was the organic 

constituent most frequently detected 

above the state screening criteria in use 

that time. Benzo(a)anthracene sampling 

results ranged from 0.08 mg/kg to 210 

mg/kg with an average of 29.0 mg/kg. 

While the comparison showed 

exceedances for contaminants of 

potential concern (as identified in the 

RI) at eight of the 19 locations sampled, 

these exceedances were found in a 

limited area along a drainage pathway 

on the north property, north of SH 959. 

A subsequent investigation in 

response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

was performed by EPA in October 2005, 

to determine if the impact of the 

hurricanes affected the integrity of the 

remedy. This resulted in additional 

excavation and removal of 

approximately 980 cubic yards of soils 

that was performed in May 2006. 

As part of the selected remedy 

identified in the ROD, Institutional 

Controls were implemented in areas 

where contaminants were left in place 

in the subsurface at concentrations 

above the Remediation Goals. A 

Conveyance Notification was filed with 

the Clerk of Court on September 30, 

2005, in accordance with CERCLA 

guidelines, which allows for 

unrestricted access in the upper three 

feet of soils, but provides restrictions 

under State law on disturbing or moving 

deeper soils (greater than five feet). 

Another component of the selected 

remedy was the implementation of a 

ground water monitoring system to 

monitor contaminant levels in the 

ground water. This component of the 

selected remedy has ceased. Ground 

water was to be monitored to ensure 

that wastes left in place do not affect the 

ground water because soils with organic 

contamination would be left in place in 

the subsurface (greater than 5 feet below 

ground surface [bgs]). The ROD required 

that ground water samples would be 

collected on an annual basis, but the 

sampling frequency may be modified if 

there are statistically significant changes 

in ground water sample concentrations. 

Nine ground water monitoring wells 

were installed during the RI. The only 

ground water encountered during the RI 

was that observed in shallow soil under 

the drainage pathway (¥10 ft bgs), and 

that observed in the ¥65 ft bgs aquifer. 

Three wells were installed at 10 ft bgs 

along the drainage pathway to check for 

free-phase creosote migration; these 

wells accumulated some water (only 

two accumulated enough for sampling). 

The only exceedances of chemicals of 

potential concern were found in the 

monitoring wells installed in the 

shallow ground water 10 feet bgs 

beneath the drainage pathway where 

most of the surficial creosote-related 

contamination remained. Non-aqueous 

phase liquids were not found in the 

onsite wells during the RI. However, 

approximately 0.2 feet of a dense 

nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) was 

detected in shallow site monitoring 

well, MW–S3E2, and a trace was 

detected in shallow monitoring well, 

MW–S2E2, during RD data collection 

activities in November 2001. 

Ground water evaluation performed 

during both the RI and RA indicated the 

shallow 10 feet bgs ground water zone 

is not laterally continuous beyond the 

drainage pathway, and does not 

demonstrate significant volumes of 

water (one of three wells installed in 

this zone did not generate enough water 

to sample). The ground water 

encountered at 55 to 65 feet bgs 

demonstrates capacities that are 

borderline at best for meeting LDEQ’s 

2B classification for potentially potable 

ground water, and ground water is not 

used from within this or any other zone 

in the vicinity of the site. Monitoring 

well abandonment began in late 

February 2004 and was completed in 

early March 2004, concurrent with the 

RA Site Preparation stage of the work. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
35130 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

The deepest site excavations for LTTD 

treatment took place in the area where 

chemicals of potential concern were 

found in the monitoring wells installed 

in the shallow ground water 10 feet bgs 

beneath the drainage pathway. 

Excavation likely removed the small 

amounts of DNAPL found during RD 

data collection. Existing monitoring 

well MW–S2E5 was left in place as 

originally planned, but the number of 

new monitoring wells was reduced from 

eight to one (MW–1 was installed in 

January 2005) based on the expectation 

that two monitoring wells would be 

sufficient for evaluation of potential 

migration to ground water based on the 

limited area of potential ground water 

contamination observed during site 

cleanup. A total of 8 (eight) of the 

monitoring wells installed during the RI 

were properly plugged and abandoned. 

After one year of ground water 

monitoring showing no screening level 

exceedances, these two remaining 

monitoring wells were removed by EPA 

(properly plugged and abandoned) at 

the request of LDEQ. EPA believes that 

limited ground water contamination is 

not likely to exceed screening levels. A 

Final Close-Out Report for the site was 

signed June 29, 2006. 

Cleanup Goals 

As noted in the ROD, the RGs were 

calculated for surface soil/sediment on 

the North and South Properties based on 

1 × 10¥6 carcinogenic risk using adult 

and child resident and construction 

worker exposure scenarios. To be 

protective of both residents and 

construction workers, the lowest of the 

risk based concentrations was selected 

as the RG. The resulting arsenic RG for 

surface soil/sediment (0 to 3.0 feet bgs) 

was calculated as 0.03 parts per million 

(ppm). Since this concentration was 

lower than the background 

concentration, and could not be met, the 

arsenic RG was set at the background 

concentration of 20 ppm. This 

corresponds to a residential risk level of 

1 × 10¥4. The RGs calculated for the 3– 

5 feet bgs interval for the North Property 

were based on 1 × 10¥5 carcinogenic 

risk using a future utility worker 

scenario. The resulting arsenic RG for 

surface soil/sediment as calculated as 

300 ppm. As noted in the ROD, the 1 × 

10¥5 carcinogenic risk was chosen 

because: (1) The area that requires 

action is a hot spot (hot spot is defined 

as a small area), and; (2) the probability 

that utility lines will be located in this 

exact hot spot is unlikely since the hot 

spot is located near the Unnamed reek. 

The RGs calculated for the Unnamed 

Creek were based on 1 × 10¥5

carcinogenic risk using a recreational 

youth and adult hunter scenario. As 

noted in the ROD, since the creek is 

located on several individual residents’ 

property, recreational youth and adult 

hunter access to the creek are limited. 

Therefore, 1 × 10¥5 was used. The 

resulting arsenic RG was calculated as 

160 ppm. 

Operation and Maintenance 

Because ground water monitoring 

wells are no longer present on-site, 

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of a 

ground water monitoring network is no 

longer required. The O&M operations 

now required are maintaining the site 

such that soils greater than three feet bgs 

are not exposed. The parish ensures that 

site fencing is maintained while the site 

is being used for hurricane debris 

staging. 

Five-Year Review 

The First Five-Year Review of the Site 

was completed in April 21, 2009. Based 

on the information available during this 

first Five-Year Review, the selected 

remedy is performing as intended. The 

selected remedy is currently protective 

of human health and the environment in 

the short term. This determination is 

based on the results from treated waste 

and soil sampling and shallow ground 

water sampling. It is also based on the 

fact that wastes and contaminated soils 

have been removed from the site or 

treated through LTTD, and those wastes 

remaining, greater than five feet in 

depth, have been addressed with the 

implementation of institutional 

controls. For the remedy to remain 

protective in the long-term the site 

should not be used for staging of 

household waste/debris or treated wood 

timbers, the security fencing around the 

site should be maintained to prevent 

illegal disposal, the conveyance notice 

should be maintained, and 

contamination remaining below five feet 

must remain unexposed. The site 

security fencing is being maintained and 

the parish continues work to address 

issues of limited illegal dumping on the 

site. 

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. 

Documents in the deletion docket which 

EPA relied on for recommendation of 

the deletion from the NPL are available 

to the public in the information 

repositories. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

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 Louisiana, has determined 

that all appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of Louisiana, through the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality, has determined that all 

appropriate responses under CERCLA, 

other than maintenance of institutional 

controls and five-year reviews, 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 September 18, 

2009 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by August 19, 2009. 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 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: July 10, 2009. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

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. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 35131 

1World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle 

Regulations (WP.29), Global Technical Regulation 

No. 1 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 

U.N. Doc. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1 (Nov. 18, 2004), 

Continued 

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended under Louisiana by 

removing ‘‘Central Wood Preserving 

Co’’, ‘‘Slaughter, LA’’. 

[FR Doc. E9–17169 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 209 and 211 

[Docket No. FRA–2009–0006; Notice No. 2] 

RIN 2130–AC02 

Miscellaneous Revisions to the 

Procedures for Handling Petitions for 

Emergency Waiver of Safety 

Regulations and the Procedures for 

Disqualifying Individuals From 

Performing Safety-Sensitive Functions 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: On May 19, 2009, FRA 

published a direct final rule in the 

Federal Register which made 

miscellaneous revisions to the 

procedures for obtaining waivers from a 

safety rule, regulation, or standard 

during an emergency situation or an 

emergency event, and the procedures for 

disqualifying individuals from 

performing safety-sensitive functions. 

FRA did not receive any comments or 

requests for an oral hearing on the direct 

final rule. Therefore, FRA is issuing this 

document to confirm that the direct 

final rule will take effect on July 20, 

2009, the date specified in the rule. 

DATES: The direct final rule published at 

74 FR 23329, May 19, 2009, is 

confirmed effective on July 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate 

Administrator for Safety Standards and 

Program Development, FRA, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave., SE., RRS–2, Mail Stop 25, 

Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone 202– 

493–6302), or Zeb Schorr, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 

10, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone 

202–493–6072). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to FRA’s direct final rulemaking 

procedures set forth at 49 CFR 211.33, 

FRA is issuing this document to inform 

the public that it has not received any 

comments or requests for an oral 

hearing on the direct final rule that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23329). The direct 

final rule made miscellaneous revisions 

to the procedures for obtaining waivers 

from a safety rule, regulation, or 

standard during an emergency situation 

or an emergency event, and the 

procedures for disqualifying individuals 

from performing safety-sensitive 

functions. As no comments or requests 

for an oral hearing were received by 

FRA, this document informs the public 

that the effective date of the direct final 

rule is July 20, 2009, the date specified 

in the rule. 

Privacy Act Information 

Interested parties should be aware 

that anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any agency docket by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 15, 

2009. 

Karen J. Rae, 

Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–17187 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0116] 

RIN 2127–AK35 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Door Locks and Door 

Retention Components 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This final rule delays the 

compliance date of the sliding door 

provisions of a February 6, 2007 final 

rule, from September 1, 2009 to 

September 1, 2010. The February 6, 

2007, final rule amended the Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard on door 

locks and door retention components to 

add and update requirements and test 

procedures and to harmonize with the 

world’s first global technical regulation 

for motor vehicles. NHTSA received 

four petitions for reconsideration of that 

final rule, including two that requested 

a delay in the effective date of the 

sliding door provisions of the rule, and 

others which raised concerns about 

some of the new test requirements and 

procedures. To accommodate 

manufacturers’ design and production 

cycles while allowing the agency more 

time to analyze the petitions in regards 

to other issues, the agency is delaying 

the compliance date of the sliding door 

provisions of S4.2.2 until September 1, 

2010. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 1, 2009. Any petitions for 

reconsideration of today’s final rule 

must be received by NHTSA not later 

than September 3, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for 

reconsideration should refer to the 

docket number of this document and be 

submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 

Building, Washington, DC 20590. Note 

that all documents received will be 

posted without change to the docket, 

including any personal information 

provided. Please see the Privacy Act 

discussion under the Rulemaking 

Analyses and Notices section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, contact Ms. Shashi 

Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, by telephone at (202) 366– 

4909, or by fax at (202) 366–2990. For 

legal issues, contact Ms. Sarah Alves, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, by 

telephone at (202) 366–2992, or by fax 

at (202) 366–3820. 

Both persons may be reached by mail 

at the following address: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On November 18, 2004, the Executive 

Committee of the United Nations 

Economic Commission for Europe 

(UNECE) approved the world’s first 

global technical regulation (GTR) for 

motor vehicles, a GTR on door locks and 

door retention components which 

addressed inadvertent door openings in 

crashes.1 With the establishment of a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES