National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Tennessee Products Superfund Site, 20073-20077 [2019-09476]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 26, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019–09474 Filed 5–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1995–0005; FRL–9993–
38–Region 4]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion
of the Tennessee Products Superfund
Site
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency Region 4 is issuing a Notice of
Intent to Delete the Tennessee Products
Superfund Site (Site) located in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is
an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the State of Tennessee (State), through
the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation (TDEC),
have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other
than Five-Year Reviews, have been
completed. However, this deletion does
not preclude future actions under
Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by
June 7, 2019.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20073
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1995–0005, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
• Email: Zeller.Craig@epa.gov.
• Mail: Craig Zeller, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303,
• Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Region 4,
61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303. Such deliveries are accepted
only during the Docket’s normal hours
of operation (Monday through Friday,
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.), and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1995–
0005. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov website is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
20074
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in the
hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region 4, Superfund Division,
61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303. Hours: Monday
through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation Division of
Remediation, 1301 Riverfront
Parkway, Suite 206, Chattanooga,
Tennessee 37402. Hours: Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Phone: 423–634–5745
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Zeller, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303; phone: 404–562–8827;
email: zeller.craig@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA Region 4 announces its intent to
delete the Tennessee Products
Superfund Site from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comment on this proposed action. The
NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR
part 300, which is the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
sites that appear to present a significant
risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be
the subject of remedial actions financed
by the Hazardous Substance Superfund
(Fund). As described in 40 CFR
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted
from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future
conditions warrant such actions.
EPA will accept comments on the
proposal to delete this site for thirty (30)
days after publication of this document
in the Federal Register.
Section II of this document explains
the criteria for deleting sites from the
NPL. Section III discusses procedures
that EPA is using for this action. Section
IV discusses the Tennessee Products
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it
meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL.
In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e),
sites may be deleted from the NPL
where no further response is
appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR
300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any
of the following criteria have been met:
• Responsible parties or other persons
have implemented all appropriate
response actions required;
• All appropriate Fund-financed
response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response
action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
• 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 (see Operation
and Maintenance and Five-Year Review
section below). 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to
deletion of the Site:
A. EPA consulted with the State
before developing this Notice of Intent
to Delete;
B. EPA has provided to the State 30
working days for review of this notice
prior to publication of it today;
C. In accordance with the criteria
discussed above, EPA has determined
that no further response is appropriate;
D. The State, through its Department
of Environment and Conservation, has
concurred with deletion of the Site from
the NPL (letter to EPA dated May 21,
2018);
E. Concurrently with the publication
of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the
Federal Register, a notice is being
published in a major local newspaper,
The Chattanooga Times Free Press. The
newspaper notice announces the 30-day
public comment period concerning the
Notice of Intent to Delete the site from
the NPL; and
F. The EPA placed copies of
documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and
made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site
information repositories identified
above.
If comments are received within the
30-day public comment period on this
document, EPA will evaluate and
respond appropriately to the comments
before making a final decision to delete.
If necessary, EPA will prepare a
Responsiveness Summary to address
any significant public comments
received. After the public comment
period, if EPA determines it is still
appropriate to delete the Site, the
Regional Administrator will publish a
final Notice of Deletion in the Federal
Register. Public notices, public
submissions and copies of the
Responsiveness Summary, if prepared,
will be made available to interested
parties and in the site information
repositories listed above.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does
not itself create, alter, or revoke any
individual’s rights or obligations.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
in any way alter EPA’s right to take
enforcement actions, as appropriate.
The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist
EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3)
of the NCP states that the deletion of a
site from the NPL does not preclude
eligibility for future response actions,
should future conditions warrant such
actions.
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
coke plant. The total material excavated
was 25,350 cubic yards, of which 22,934
cubic yards came from the excavation of
Chattanooga Creek. The removal action
was completed in December, 1998.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The following information provides
EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site
from the NPL.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Site Background and History
The Tennessee Products Superfund
Site (TPS) is located in south
Chattanooga, Hamilton County,
Tennessee and is defined as 2.5-mile
section of Chattanooga Creek that
contained sediments contaminated
primarily with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). During the early
decades of the 20th Century, a coal
carbonization (Coke) plant complex
(named Tennesee Products) was
responsible for waste disposal practices
that led to the contamination of
Chattanooga Creek sediments.
Numerous discharges of contaminated
water to Chattanooga Creek via
tributaries, were documented. Results of
previous investigations and subsequent
evaluations indicated that existing
conditions posed a potential
unacceptable risk to human health, if
exposure to the contaminated sediments
were to occur.
The TPS Site was proposed for
inclusion on the NPL in January 1994
(59 FR 2568) after completion of a
multi-media investigation of
Chattanooga Creek by the EPA and the
issuance of a Health Advisory by the
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 1993. The
Health Advisory concluded that ‘‘the
presence of the coal tar in-and-around
the creek poses a health and safety
hazard.’’ The TPS Site was placed on
the NPL on September 29, 1995 (60 FR
50435). The EPA CERCLIS ID Number
for this Site is TND071516959.
Based on the ATSDR Health
Advisory, the EPA initiated a non-timecritical removal of the most accessible
coal tar deposits along the upper reach
of the Creek and behind the former
Southern Coke and Chemical plant site
(the Coke Plant area). On September 26,
1996, the EPA issued an Action
Memorandum approving a non-timecritical removal action (Phase I removal
action) as described in the 1996
Engineering Evalaution/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA). The Action Memorandum was
amended on September 24, 1997, and
on December 5, 1998, authorizing the
expenditure of additional funding to
address a larger volume of contaminated
sediments in the Creek than previously
estimated. Over the course of the
eighteen months of the Phase I removal
action, a total of 4,235 linear feet of
Chattanooga Creek was excavated, along
with three isolated tar pits located in the
flood plain and adjacent to the former
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
B. Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The purpose of a remedial
investigation is to determine the nature
and extent of contamination at a site
and the threat to public health and the
environment from a release, or potential
release of hazardous substances from a
site. The remedial investigation for the
TPS Site included reviewing historical
information and collecting samples from
the air, water, soil, sediment and waste.
The remedial investigation focused on
the plant site, although a number of
samples were also collected from areas
surrounding the creek. EPA decided not
to collect many creek sediment samples
for this investigation because the EPA
had conducted a comprehensive study
of the creek in 1992 (Chattanooga Creek
Sediment Profile Study).
The purpose of the Feasibility Study
was to determine the best cleanup
remedy. The EPA conducted a
Feasibility Study focused on cleanup
alternatives for the portion of the
contaminated creek not addressed
during the Phase I Removal. Other much
smaller areas in the flood plain that
were contaminated with coal-tar and its
related chemicals were also addressed
with the creek sediments.
The former plant property was not
considered in the cleanup strategy for
the Site, because the property was
removed from the Tennessee Products
NPL listing by Federal Courts. See the
November 12, 1996, decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
Mead Corporation v. Browner (No. 5–
1610). Therefore, no remedy was
proposed for the plant property. The
plant property was addressed through
the State Superfund program (TCA 68–
212–201). After the court ruling, the
NPL listing for the Site included only
2.5 miles of the creek.
Based on the remedial investigation
and the risk assessment, the remedy
objectives were:
• Prevent human exposure to
contaminated soil along the Northeast
Tributary and contaminated sediment in
Chattanooga Creek; and,
• Eliminate risks to aquatic life in
Chattanooga Creek from exposure to
contaminated sediment.
Six remedial action alternatives were
considered for evaluation in the
Focused Feasibility Study Report. They
were: (1) Taking no action; (2) Rerouting the creek and encapsulating
(solidifying) the contaminated sediment;
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20075
(3) Excavating contaminated sediment
and disposing of it in an on-site landfill;
(4) Excavating contaminated sediment
and treatment with on-site thermal
desorption; (5) Excavating with on-site
incineration; and (6) Excavating with
off-site disposal and recycling.
C. The Selected Remedy
In September 2002, EPA Region 4
issued the Final Record of Decision
(ROD) for the TPS Site. The ROD
selected the remedial action for the
Middle Reach of Chattanooga Creek and
a portion of the Northeast Tributary.
The Middle Reach includes the bed and
banks of Chattanooga Creek beginning
1,354 feet north of the 38th Street Bridge
and extending to the confluence of
Chattanooga Creek and Dobbs Branch,
an approximate 1.9-mile section (the
previous Non-Time Critical Removal
Action addressed the upstream portion
of the creek). Remediation of a dredged
spoil pile located along the Northeast
Tributary was also included in the ROD.
The six remedial alternatives, including
the no action alternative, were evaluated
using nine criteria for remedy selection.
Based on this evaluation, the EPA
determined that excavating with off-site
disposal and recycling (Alternative 6)
was its preferred alternative for the Site.
It provided the best balance of tradeoffs
among the nine evaluation criteria and
met the remedial goals by preventing
future human contact with the coal-tar
constituents and contaminated sediment
in Chattanooga Creek. This remedy was
used during the first phase of the
cleanup (Non-Time Critical Removal)
and was proven to be effective and
efficient. Also, this was the only
alternative considered to completely
remove the waste material from the site.
The remedy selected involved
excavating coal-tar constituent waste
and contaminated sediment beginning
where the Phase 1 Cleanup ended (at
38th Street), to the confluence with
Dobbs Branch. All of the contaminated
sediment and waste in this segment of
the creek was removed from the creek
sides and bottom. Since the coal-tar
contamination was easily identified by
visual inspection, it was unnecessary to
establish numerical cleanup standards.
The cleanup was confirmed after a
visual inspection of the work areas of
the creek was performed. The scope of
the remedy did not include
groundwater, soil (other than specific
areas containing tar waste), or surface
water. The RI did not find
contamination in those media requiring
a remedial action.
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
20076
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
D. Explanation of Significant Difference
In August of 2004, the EPA issued an
Explanation of Significant Difference
(ESD) to explain a change to a portion
of the selected remedy. The remedy
selected in the ROD was excavating
with off-site disposal and recycling. The
ESD changed the remedy to off-site
disposal at the Bradley County Landfill.
The recycling component of the remedy
was eliminated due to the remedy
encountering a larger volume of waste
and the accompanying increase in costs.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
E. The Remedial Action
The remedial action was implemented
by dividing the creek into five segments,
or creek channel reaches. In general,
excavation of contaminated sediment
and restoration activities occurred
starting at the upstream segment and
working downstream. The strategy for
removal of sediments in the work area
involved excavation in the dry. The
creek dewatering process included
installation of temporary coffer dams
and pumping systems (large pumps and
pipes) to route the creek water around
the active reaches of excavation. The
dams were constructed of clay and/or
clean fill. The pumping systems were
maintained twenty-four hours per day,
seven days per week to keep the work
areas dewatered. Contact between creek
water and contaminated sediments in an
active reach of excavation was
minimized. However, water within the
active stream reach that came in contact
with excavated sediment was treated
using an oil/water separator prior to
discharge back into the creek.
Contaminated sediment from the
creek channel was excavated until the
remaining sediments were visually
clean. Excavation activities began in
October 2005 in Reach 1. Contaminated
sediment was excavated from bank-tobank, which was defined as the
vegetative line at the edge of the creek;
and, since limestone bedrock was not
always present to define the vertical
extent, all visual signs of sediment
contamination were removed, and test
pits were excavated to confirm that no
other visual contamination existed.
Where visible contamination extended
beyond the creek bank, a maximum of
three feet was removed horizontally
from the original bank. The bank was
then backfilled with clean fill and
stabilized. When these efforts were
completed, the EPA, or the designated
representative, inspected the work area
and verified that the performance
standard was achieved. The excavated
reach was then approved by the EPA
before restoration activities were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
completed and water was pumped back
into that portion of the creek.
Excavation of the contaminated creek
sediments was conducted in a manner
to minimize handling and to contain the
contaminated sediment within the creek
before direct transfer to trucks for
transport to a drying bed for
stabilization. Typically, two excavators
were in the creek reach working to
transport sediment to a common area for
load-out. Lime kiln dust (LKD) was
added to the sediment in the creek to
stabilize sediment that contained
significant free liquids prior to loading
into the truck. The mixture was allowed
to cure for a period of time that was
sufficient to promote drying before the
sediment was loaded in trucks. These
activities were performed as necessary
to reduce spillage during loading of the
trucks. The excavated sediments were
then transported to drying beds located
on the former Southern Wood Piedmont
facility. Additional LKD was mixed into
the sediment prior to transport to the
Bradley County, Tennessee, landfill for
final disposal. Approval by the TDEC
Division of Solid Waste Management
was required for disposal of special
waste (contaminated sediment mixed
with lime kiln dust) at the Bradley
County Landfill. Disposal of the special
waste from the Site was approved on
October 10, 2005. Recertifications for
the 2006 and 2007 construction seasons
were submitted and approved as well.
During excavation of a portion of the
creek oxbow in January 2006, a black
liquid was observed infiltrating the
bottom of the excavation. Twelve inches
of clay was placed in the first 250-foot
section of the oxbow in an attempt to
seal off the liquid. The seal did not
work. This section of the creek is on
property owned by Southern Wood
Piedmont Company, which treated
railroad cross-ties with creosote from
1924 to 1988. The black liquid
resembled creosote and differed in
physical characteristics from the coal-tar
impacted sediments that were
encountered in the upper reaches of the
creek channel remediation. While the
project was temporarily shut down
because of high water conditions, the
EPA performed a field investigation in
March 2006 within and adjacent to
Chattanooga Creek to evaluate this Non
Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL). The
general objectives of the investigation
were to:
• Determine the horizontal and
vertical extent of the NAPL in the
oxbow section;
• Evaluate whether the presence of
NAPL in the oxbow creates a potential
for re-contamination;
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Assess NAPL transport pathways
and potential sources of NAPL; and
• Evaluate the potential risks to
human health and the environment
posed by the NAPL.
The results of the EPA investigation
were presented in a June 2006
document titled Chattanooga Creek
NAPL Assessment, Chattanooga,
Tennessee. Based on results of the
investigation, the EPA determined that
the Statement of Work and related work
plans should be modified to address the
changed site conditions encountered.
The EPA determined that these
modifications were necessary to achieve
the Performance Standards and to
maintain the effectiveness of the
remedy. In June 2006, the Statement of
Work was modified to include design
and installation of a protective isolation
barrier in those sections of Chattanooga
Creek where NAPL was encountered.
This modification is consistent with the
scope of the selected remedy, which
included ‘‘stabilizing creek banks where
necessary to minimize erosion or
prevent contamination buried in the
creek bank from re-entering the creek,’’
as described in the Statement of Work.
The objective of the protective isolation
barrier was to minimize the potential for
NAPL to recontaminate the restored
creek channel.
The design for the isolation barrier
included the use of AquaBlok®, which
is a patented solid aggregate that is
coated with a clay polymer that expands
when hydrated. For the isolation barrier,
a minimum 12-inch prepared subgrade
soil layer was placed over the creek bed
and banks to a level that was a
minimum of three feet above the highest
point of observed NAPL intrusion. The
creek banks were graded or maintained
at a maximum 3:1 slope. The protective
isolation barrier was placed from where
the creek crosses the Southern Wood
Piedmont property to the confluence of
Dobbs Branch, or approximately 5,750
linear feet of restored creek channel. A
total of 308,878.3 square feet of isolation
barrier, or approximately 7.1 acres, was
installed. A combination of placing
riprap and seeding was performed for
creek bank stabilization. Restoration
was consistent with the previous
removal action at the upper reach of
Chattanooga Creek. Areas of the creek
bank where excavation of the bank had
occurred or potential eroding locations
(specifically on outer radius of curves)
were stabilized by one of two methods.
The first method included placement of
a 6-oz non-woven geotextile covered by
6-inch riprap. The riprap was obtained
from the temporary coffer dams or
imported as required. Other locations
requiring stabilization were seeded for a
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
more natural restoration method, as
feasible.
A final total of 107,292 tons of
contaminated sediment and debris were
transported to the landfill for disposal
over the course of the project in a total
of 4,338 truck loads. The last load of
stabilized sediment was transported
from the Site to the landfill on
September 4, 2007. Discarded tires
found in the creek were removed and
pressure washed. A total of 15.01 tons
of tires were sent to a recycler in
Nashville, Tennessee.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Operation and Maintenance and FiveYear Reviews (FYRs)
No long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring activities
under CERCLA are required by the ROD
or the RD/RA Consent Decree.
Discretionary Five-Year Reviews will be
conducted by the EPA to assess whether
the protective isolation barrier
continues to function as an effective
engineering control to isolate the creek
from the nearby NAPL source in the
oxbow area. Operation and Maintenance
and monitoring are the responsibility of
the Southern Wood Piedmont facility
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) through the Final
RCRA Post-Closure Permit for the
Southern Wood Piedmont facility,
which is delegated to the TDEC. The
triggering date for the discretionary
Five-Year Review is five years from the
formal authorization to proceed on
October 12, 2005. There have been two
FYRs in 2011 and 2016. EPA is
conducting Discretionary Five-Year
Reviews because a protective isolation
barrier was installed to isolate the
CERCLA remedy from adjacent areas
where hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants could remain above
levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure as defined by
CERCLA. The most recent Five-Year
Review was completed on September
26, 2016, and reported no issues or
recommendations. The 2016 Five-Year
Review concluded that the remedy at
the Tennessee Products Site remains
protective of human health and the
environment, both in the short term and
long term. The site inspections and
sampling events concluded that the
AquaBlok® cap is functioning as
intended. These reviews will continue
until the NAPL under the creek is
addressed through the September 2005
RCRA Post-Closure Permit for the
Southern Wood Piedmont facility. No
institutional controls were required by
the ROD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 May 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Community Involvement
Community involvement activities
were conducted throughout the NonTime Critical Removal and Remedial
Action. Public notices and meetings
were routinely held. An administrative
record and information repository was
placed in the community to provide
accessible information about the
activities at the Site. An advertisement
will be placed in the Chattanooga Times
Free Press announcing the deletion of
the Site during the comment period.
The community proposed a public park
(greenway) along the bank of the creek
during the remedial action, but no
future plans for the development of the
Site have been determined.
Determination That the Site Meets the
Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
Region 4 has followed the procedures
required by 40 CFR 300.425(e), and the
implemented remedy achieves the
degree of cleanup specified in the ROD
for all pathways of exposure. The EPA
confirmed that the sediment remedial
action objectives and performance
criteria were achieved. All cleanup
actions specified in the ROD have been
implemented. All selected remedial and
removal action objectives and associated
cleanup levels are consistent with
agency policy and guidance, and are
summarized in the Final Close-Out
Report. This Site meets all the site
completion requirements as specified in
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.22,
Close-Out Procedures for National
Priorities List Sites. A Final Close-Out
Report was issued by the EPA on
September 26, 2008. A supplemental
Final Close-Out Report was also issued
by the EPA on March 4, 2019,
confirming that the remedy was
complete and met the remedial action
goals of the ROD. No further Superfund
response is needed to protect human
health and the environment. The EPA,
with concurrence of the State of
Tennessee, has determined that all
appropriate response actions under
CERCLA have been completed.
Therefore, the EPA intends to delete the
Site from the NPL.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous
waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR,
2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52
FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20077
Dated: April 22, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–09476 Filed 5–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 30
[AU Docket No. 19–59; FCC 19–35]
Incentive Auction of Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service Licenses in the
Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz
Bands for Next-Generation Wireless
Services; Comment Sought on
Competitive Bidding Procedures for
Auction 103
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed auction
procedures.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission announces auctions of
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
licenses in the Upper 37 GHz (37.6–38.6
GHz), 39 GHz (38.6–40 GHz), and 47
GHz (47.2–48.2 GHz) bands, designated
as Auction 103. This document
proposes and seeks comment on
competitive bidding procedures to be
used for Auction 103.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
May 15, 2019, and reply comments are
due on or before May 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed
using the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by
filing paper copies. Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998). All filings
in response to the Auction 103
Comment Public Notice must refer to
AU Docket No. 19–59. The Commission
strongly encourages interested parties to
file comments electronically and
requests that an additional copy of all
comments and reply comments be
submitted electronically to the
following email address: auction103@
fcc.gov.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow
the instructions provided on the website
for submitting comments. In completing
the transmittal screen, filers should
include their full name, U.S. Postal
Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket number, AU Docket
No. 19–59.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08MYP1.SGM
08MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20073-20077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09476]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1995-0005; FRL-9993-38-Region 4]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Tennessee Products Superfund
Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete the Tennessee Products Superfund Site (Site)
located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, from the National Priorities List
(NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Tennessee (State),
through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC), have determined that all appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than Five-Year Reviews, have been completed. However,
this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 7, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1995-0005, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Email: [email protected].
Mail: Craig Zeller, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303,
Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Such deliveries are accepted only during the
Docket's normal hours of operation (Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m.), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1995-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured
[[Page 20074]]
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 https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
U.S. EPA Region 4, Superfund Division, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303. Hours: Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of
Remediation, 1301 Riverfront Parkway, Suite 206, Chattanooga, Tennessee
37402. Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Phone: 423-
634-5745
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Zeller, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; phone: 404-562-8827; email:
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA Region 4 announces its intent to delete the Tennessee Products
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests
public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B
of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL
as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to
public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the
subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance
Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP,
sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial
actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Tennessee Products Superfund
Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has
been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties
is appropriate; or
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 (see Operation and Maintenance and Five-Year Review section
below). 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:
A. EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent to Delete;
B. EPA has provided to the State 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today;
C. In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate;
D. The State, through its Department of Environment and
Conservation, has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL
(letter to EPA dated May 21, 2018);
E. Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, The Chattanooga Times Free Press. The newspaper notice
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of
Intent to Delete the site from the NPL; and
F. The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
site information repositories listed above.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.
[[Page 20075]]
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL.
A. Site Background and History
The Tennessee Products Superfund Site (TPS) is located in south
Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee and is defined as 2.5-mile
section of Chattanooga Creek that contained sediments contaminated
primarily with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). During the
early decades of the 20th Century, a coal carbonization (Coke) plant
complex (named Tennesee Products) was responsible for waste disposal
practices that led to the contamination of Chattanooga Creek sediments.
Numerous discharges of contaminated water to Chattanooga Creek via
tributaries, were documented. Results of previous investigations and
subsequent evaluations indicated that existing conditions posed a
potential unacceptable risk to human health, if exposure to the
contaminated sediments were to occur.
The TPS Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL in January 1994
(59 FR 2568) after completion of a multi-media investigation of
Chattanooga Creek by the EPA and the issuance of a Health Advisory by
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 1993.
The Health Advisory concluded that ``the presence of the coal tar in-
and-around the creek poses a health and safety hazard.'' The TPS Site
was placed on the NPL on September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50435). The EPA
CERCLIS ID Number for this Site is TND071516959.
Based on the ATSDR Health Advisory, the EPA initiated a non-time-
critical removal of the most accessible coal tar deposits along the
upper reach of the Creek and behind the former Southern Coke and
Chemical plant site (the Coke Plant area). On September 26, 1996, the
EPA issued an Action Memorandum approving a non-time-critical removal
action (Phase I removal action) as described in the 1996 Engineering
Evalaution/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). The Action Memorandum was amended on
September 24, 1997, and on December 5, 1998, authorizing the
expenditure of additional funding to address a larger volume of
contaminated sediments in the Creek than previously estimated. Over the
course of the eighteen months of the Phase I removal action, a total of
4,235 linear feet of Chattanooga Creek was excavated, along with three
isolated tar pits located in the flood plain and adjacent to the former
coke plant. The total material excavated was 25,350 cubic yards, of
which 22,934 cubic yards came from the excavation of Chattanooga Creek.
The removal action was completed in December, 1998.
B. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
The purpose of a remedial investigation is to determine the nature
and extent of contamination at a site and the threat to public health
and the environment from a release, or potential release of hazardous
substances from a site. The remedial investigation for the TPS Site
included reviewing historical information and collecting samples from
the air, water, soil, sediment and waste. The remedial investigation
focused on the plant site, although a number of samples were also
collected from areas surrounding the creek. EPA decided not to collect
many creek sediment samples for this investigation because the EPA had
conducted a comprehensive study of the creek in 1992 (Chattanooga Creek
Sediment Profile Study).
The purpose of the Feasibility Study was to determine the best
cleanup remedy. The EPA conducted a Feasibility Study focused on
cleanup alternatives for the portion of the contaminated creek not
addressed during the Phase I Removal. Other much smaller areas in the
flood plain that were contaminated with coal-tar and its related
chemicals were also addressed with the creek sediments.
The former plant property was not considered in the cleanup
strategy for the Site, because the property was removed from the
Tennessee Products NPL listing by Federal Courts. See the November 12,
1996, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
Mead Corporation v. Browner (No. 5-1610). Therefore, no remedy was
proposed for the plant property. The plant property was addressed
through the State Superfund program (TCA 68-212-201). After the court
ruling, the NPL listing for the Site included only 2.5 miles of the
creek.
Based on the remedial investigation and the risk assessment, the
remedy objectives were:
Prevent human exposure to contaminated soil along the
Northeast Tributary and contaminated sediment in Chattanooga Creek;
and,
Eliminate risks to aquatic life in Chattanooga Creek from
exposure to contaminated sediment.
Six remedial action alternatives were considered for evaluation in
the Focused Feasibility Study Report. They were: (1) Taking no action;
(2) Re-routing the creek and encapsulating (solidifying) the
contaminated sediment; (3) Excavating contaminated sediment and
disposing of it in an on-site landfill; (4) Excavating contaminated
sediment and treatment with on-site thermal desorption; (5) Excavating
with on-site incineration; and (6) Excavating with off-site disposal
and recycling.
C. The Selected Remedy
In September 2002, EPA Region 4 issued the Final Record of Decision
(ROD) for the TPS Site. The ROD selected the remedial action for the
Middle Reach of Chattanooga Creek and a portion of the Northeast
Tributary. The Middle Reach includes the bed and banks of Chattanooga
Creek beginning 1,354 feet north of the 38th Street Bridge and
extending to the confluence of Chattanooga Creek and Dobbs Branch, an
approximate 1.9-mile section (the previous Non-Time Critical Removal
Action addressed the upstream portion of the creek). Remediation of a
dredged spoil pile located along the Northeast Tributary was also
included in the ROD. The six remedial alternatives, including the no
action alternative, were evaluated using nine criteria for remedy
selection. Based on this evaluation, the EPA determined that excavating
with off-site disposal and recycling (Alternative 6) was its preferred
alternative for the Site. It provided the best balance of tradeoffs
among the nine evaluation criteria and met the remedial goals by
preventing future human contact with the coal-tar constituents and
contaminated sediment in Chattanooga Creek. This remedy was used during
the first phase of the cleanup (Non-Time Critical Removal) and was
proven to be effective and efficient. Also, this was the only
alternative considered to completely remove the waste material from the
site. The remedy selected involved excavating coal-tar constituent
waste and contaminated sediment beginning where the Phase 1 Cleanup
ended (at 38th Street), to the confluence with Dobbs Branch. All of the
contaminated sediment and waste in this segment of the creek was
removed from the creek sides and bottom. Since the coal-tar
contamination was easily identified by visual inspection, it was
unnecessary to establish numerical cleanup standards. The cleanup was
confirmed after a visual inspection of the work areas of the creek was
performed. The scope of the remedy did not include groundwater, soil
(other than specific areas containing tar waste), or surface water. The
RI did not find contamination in those media requiring a remedial
action.
[[Page 20076]]
D. Explanation of Significant Difference
In August of 2004, the EPA issued an Explanation of Significant
Difference (ESD) to explain a change to a portion of the selected
remedy. The remedy selected in the ROD was excavating with off-site
disposal and recycling. The ESD changed the remedy to off-site disposal
at the Bradley County Landfill. The recycling component of the remedy
was eliminated due to the remedy encountering a larger volume of waste
and the accompanying increase in costs.
E. The Remedial Action
The remedial action was implemented by dividing the creek into five
segments, or creek channel reaches. In general, excavation of
contaminated sediment and restoration activities occurred starting at
the upstream segment and working downstream. The strategy for removal
of sediments in the work area involved excavation in the dry. The creek
dewatering process included installation of temporary coffer dams and
pumping systems (large pumps and pipes) to route the creek water around
the active reaches of excavation. The dams were constructed of clay
and/or clean fill. The pumping systems were maintained twenty-four
hours per day, seven days per week to keep the work areas dewatered.
Contact between creek water and contaminated sediments in an active
reach of excavation was minimized. However, water within the active
stream reach that came in contact with excavated sediment was treated
using an oil/water separator prior to discharge back into the creek.
Contaminated sediment from the creek channel was excavated until
the remaining sediments were visually clean. Excavation activities
began in October 2005 in Reach 1. Contaminated sediment was excavated
from bank-to-bank, which was defined as the vegetative line at the edge
of the creek; and, since limestone bedrock was not always present to
define the vertical extent, all visual signs of sediment contamination
were removed, and test pits were excavated to confirm that no other
visual contamination existed. Where visible contamination extended
beyond the creek bank, a maximum of three feet was removed horizontally
from the original bank. The bank was then backfilled with clean fill
and stabilized. When these efforts were completed, the EPA, or the
designated representative, inspected the work area and verified that
the performance standard was achieved. The excavated reach was then
approved by the EPA before restoration activities were completed and
water was pumped back into that portion of the creek.
Excavation of the contaminated creek sediments was conducted in a
manner to minimize handling and to contain the contaminated sediment
within the creek before direct transfer to trucks for transport to a
drying bed for stabilization. Typically, two excavators were in the
creek reach working to transport sediment to a common area for load-
out. Lime kiln dust (LKD) was added to the sediment in the creek to
stabilize sediment that contained significant free liquids prior to
loading into the truck. The mixture was allowed to cure for a period of
time that was sufficient to promote drying before the sediment was
loaded in trucks. These activities were performed as necessary to
reduce spillage during loading of the trucks. The excavated sediments
were then transported to drying beds located on the former Southern
Wood Piedmont facility. Additional LKD was mixed into the sediment
prior to transport to the Bradley County, Tennessee, landfill for final
disposal. Approval by the TDEC Division of Solid Waste Management was
required for disposal of special waste (contaminated sediment mixed
with lime kiln dust) at the Bradley County Landfill. Disposal of the
special waste from the Site was approved on October 10, 2005.
Recertifications for the 2006 and 2007 construction seasons were
submitted and approved as well.
During excavation of a portion of the creek oxbow in January 2006,
a black liquid was observed infiltrating the bottom of the excavation.
Twelve inches of clay was placed in the first 250-foot section of the
oxbow in an attempt to seal off the liquid. The seal did not work. This
section of the creek is on property owned by Southern Wood Piedmont
Company, which treated railroad cross-ties with creosote from 1924 to
1988. The black liquid resembled creosote and differed in physical
characteristics from the coal-tar impacted sediments that were
encountered in the upper reaches of the creek channel remediation.
While the project was temporarily shut down because of high water
conditions, the EPA performed a field investigation in March 2006
within and adjacent to Chattanooga Creek to evaluate this Non Aqueous
Phase Liquid (NAPL). The general objectives of the investigation were
to:
Determine the horizontal and vertical extent of the NAPL
in the oxbow section;
Evaluate whether the presence of NAPL in the oxbow creates
a potential for re-contamination;
Assess NAPL transport pathways and potential sources of
NAPL; and
Evaluate the potential risks to human health and the
environment posed by the NAPL.
The results of the EPA investigation were presented in a June 2006
document titled Chattanooga Creek NAPL Assessment, Chattanooga,
Tennessee. Based on results of the investigation, the EPA determined
that the Statement of Work and related work plans should be modified to
address the changed site conditions encountered. The EPA determined
that these modifications were necessary to achieve the Performance
Standards and to maintain the effectiveness of the remedy. In June
2006, the Statement of Work was modified to include design and
installation of a protective isolation barrier in those sections of
Chattanooga Creek where NAPL was encountered. This modification is
consistent with the scope of the selected remedy, which included
``stabilizing creek banks where necessary to minimize erosion or
prevent contamination buried in the creek bank from re-entering the
creek,'' as described in the Statement of Work. The objective of the
protective isolation barrier was to minimize the potential for NAPL to
recontaminate the restored creek channel.
The design for the isolation barrier included the use of
AquaBlok[supreg], which is a patented solid aggregate that is coated
with a clay polymer that expands when hydrated. For the isolation
barrier, a minimum 12-inch prepared subgrade soil layer was placed over
the creek bed and banks to a level that was a minimum of three feet
above the highest point of observed NAPL intrusion. The creek banks
were graded or maintained at a maximum 3:1 slope. The protective
isolation barrier was placed from where the creek crosses the Southern
Wood Piedmont property to the confluence of Dobbs Branch, or
approximately 5,750 linear feet of restored creek channel. A total of
308,878.3 square feet of isolation barrier, or approximately 7.1 acres,
was installed. A combination of placing riprap and seeding was
performed for creek bank stabilization. Restoration was consistent with
the previous removal action at the upper reach of Chattanooga Creek.
Areas of the creek bank where excavation of the bank had occurred or
potential eroding locations (specifically on outer radius of curves)
were stabilized by one of two methods. The first method included
placement of a 6-oz non-woven geotextile covered by 6-inch riprap. The
riprap was obtained from the temporary coffer dams or imported as
required. Other locations requiring stabilization were seeded for a
[[Page 20077]]
more natural restoration method, as feasible.
A final total of 107,292 tons of contaminated sediment and debris
were transported to the landfill for disposal over the course of the
project in a total of 4,338 truck loads. The last load of stabilized
sediment was transported from the Site to the landfill on September 4,
2007. Discarded tires found in the creek were removed and pressure
washed. A total of 15.01 tons of tires were sent to a recycler in
Nashville, Tennessee.
Operation and Maintenance and Five-Year Reviews (FYRs)
No long-term operation and maintenance or monitoring activities
under CERCLA are required by the ROD or the RD/RA Consent Decree.
Discretionary Five-Year Reviews will be conducted by the EPA to assess
whether the protective isolation barrier continues to function as an
effective engineering control to isolate the creek from the nearby NAPL
source in the oxbow area. Operation and Maintenance and monitoring are
the responsibility of the Southern Wood Piedmont facility under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) through the Final RCRA
Post-Closure Permit for the Southern Wood Piedmont facility, which is
delegated to the TDEC. The triggering date for the discretionary Five-
Year Review is five years from the formal authorization to proceed on
October 12, 2005. There have been two FYRs in 2011 and 2016. EPA is
conducting Discretionary Five-Year Reviews because a protective
isolation barrier was installed to isolate the CERCLA remedy from
adjacent areas where hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
could remain above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure as defined by CERCLA. The most recent Five-Year Review was
completed on September 26, 2016, and reported no issues or
recommendations. The 2016 Five-Year Review concluded that the remedy at
the Tennessee Products Site remains protective of human health and the
environment, both in the short term and long term. The site inspections
and sampling events concluded that the AquaBlok[supreg] cap is
functioning as intended. These reviews will continue until the NAPL
under the creek is addressed through the September 2005 RCRA Post-
Closure Permit for the Southern Wood Piedmont facility. No
institutional controls were required by the ROD.
Community Involvement
Community involvement activities were conducted throughout the Non-
Time Critical Removal and Remedial Action. Public notices and meetings
were routinely held. An administrative record and information
repository was placed in the community to provide accessible
information about the activities at the Site. An advertisement will be
placed in the Chattanooga Times Free Press announcing the deletion of
the Site during the comment period. The community proposed a public
park (greenway) along the bank of the creek during the remedial action,
but no future plans for the development of the Site have been
determined.
Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
Region 4 has followed the procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e),
and the implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in
the ROD for all pathways of exposure. The EPA confirmed that the
sediment remedial action objectives and performance criteria were
achieved. All cleanup actions specified in the ROD have been
implemented. All selected remedial and removal action objectives and
associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and
guidance, and are summarized in the Final Close-Out Report. This Site
meets all the site completion requirements as specified in Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.22, Close-Out
Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. A Final Close-Out Report
was issued by the EPA on September 26, 2008. A supplemental Final
Close-Out Report was also issued by the EPA on March 4, 2019,
confirming that the remedy was complete and met the remedial action
goals of the ROD. No further Superfund response is needed to protect
human health and the environment. The EPA, with concurrence of the
State of Tennessee, has determined that all appropriate response
actions under CERCLA have been completed. Therefore, the EPA intends to
delete the Site from the NPL.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.
Dated: April 22, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-09476 Filed 5-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
