[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:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received 
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: 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 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is 
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured

[[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 http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard 
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

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