y-ซs&^v#i4
'; This Fad Sheet will provide >'ซ
'/ ';. > :.', >'-'; i -,'";'">?",;"'. [,'"
.An overall review of the site. ;;
:-,,. The lesults'pf the remedial ^
The possible health risks ' * *'
posed by the site.
'
A summary of the Feasibility
Study. - -. ; 7 r.~
.',-.' -- .v .' " " *"
A summary of treatment , ,->
alternatives. - V:ฃ . ; ;. . , t ;*
Information on U.S. EPA's
recommended alternative.
Information on how the
public can participate in the
final selection of the treat- ' :
merit alternative.
Places to get more informa-
tion.
Upcoming activities in the \ *.
remediation and Superfund
process. ....
Public Meeting
Malloiy
Capacitor
Co.
Superfund
Site
Date: June 27,1991
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: Wayne County
Courthouse,
Waynesboro, TN
United States .. ;'' '*''Noith Superfund Remedial Branch
Environmental Protection . . Region 4
Agency^""7"
Aflanta,GA 30365
"'
U.S. EPA Issues A Proposed Plan For
Ground-Water Cleanup At The Mallory
Capacitor Co. Superfund Site
"''"y '" " ......--.: .,-;"' --,-.". : ' .' June 1991:
.- -;-.' ซป, -.*, '*,, ,
Exhibit 1: She Location Map "'
Introduction
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recently
completed a comprehensive study of
treatment alternatives for ground-water
contamination found at the Mallory Ca-
pacitor Co. Superfund Site (the site) in
Waynesboro,Tennessee. The study was
conducted in two parts and is a part of
the federal Superfund program which
providesforthe investigation and cleanup'
of hazardous substances at sites
throughout the United States.
The first part of the study, the Re-
medial Investigation (Rl), was con-
ducted to determine the nature and ex-
tent of ground-water contamination at the
Mallory Capacitor Co. Superfund Site.
The Rl also evaluated the risks the Site
may present to human health and the
environment. The second part of the
study, the Feasibility Study (FS),
evaluated alternatives for protecting hu-
man health and the environment based
on problems that were identified during
the RL This fact sheet outlines the major
findings of the Rl and summarizes the
remedial alternatives evaluated during
the FS. Words appearing in bold type are
defined in the glossary (See Exhibit 4).
-------
^^L4fifcfet^--
-.- . - . , , ...' ' ''. . - ,-
. .r.;ป>:;ซ
s^U;S: EPA*si>referred method, knbwrasra Proposed: z
Plan for addressing the ground-water contamination
problems located at the Mallory Capacitor Co. Superfund
:e, is presented in,this.document. Also included is
irmation on how interested members of the community
participateln U.S. EPA's remedy selection process
by submitting comments on the Rl,and FS Reports and
the Proposed Plan. Section H7(a) of the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, .Compensation, and
Liability Act (commonly referred to as CERCLA or the
-Superfund Law^-requires that U.S. EPA publish its
Proposed Plan for addressing contamination problems at
Superfund sites and provide the public with an opportunity
to comment on the proposed course of action. ; "
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
-' "" ; i '[
The Mallory Capacitor Co. Superfund Site Is a former
electrical capacitor manufacturing plant located on Belew
Circle Drive In Wayhesborp^Tennessee^The Site, bor-
dered on the east by the Greien River; approxlmatefy 8.6
acres in size, is in a residential / commercial / industrial /
business area in the eastenVsection of the city. The Cold
Water Creek passes the northwest comer of the Site and
meets the GreehlRrVera^
north of the Site. Houses ale located to the north of the
Site along Belew Circle Drive, to the west of the Site along
Hasseil Street, and to the south of the Site along Mariva
Areet.
The Site was originally developed in the late 1940's
as a manufacturing facility for the footwear industry1'.' In
1968, the Site was acquired by P.R. Mallory & Co., Inc.
(Mallory), a subsidiary of Puracell International, Inc.
(Duracell's) corporate predecessors. In 1969, Mallory
(Duracel!) commenced the manufacture of electrical ca-
pacitors at the facility. |n 1979, Emhart industries, Inc.
(Emhart) purchased the Site and its operations. On July
27,1984, Emhart ceased manufacturing operations at the
Site. Ownership of the Site was transferred to Duracell in
1988. During periods within the time frame of 1969 to
1978, poiychtortnated blphenyls (PCBs) were used as
the dielectric fluid in the electrical capacitors manufac-
tured at the Site. Trichtoroethene (TCE) was used in the
manufacturing process as a degreaser.
During the period of 1976 to 1980, remedial actions
were implemented at the Site to remove materials con-
taminated with PCBs from process equipment within the
plant, to remove an underground tank located adjacent to
the plant which was used for storage of waste liquids from
the manufacturing process and to remove soils contami-
nated with PCBs adjacent to the underground storage
. From 1984 to 1988, investigative programs con-
ed at the Site identified significant concentrations of
PCBs iri portions of plant structure, on some of the
process equipment within the plant and in soils in some
-the SftBrSigriificant concentrations;
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and PCBs were
also identified in the ground water. The VOCs identified
were TCE and 1,2-DCE.
Pursuanttothe 1987 proposed indusionoflhe Mallory
Capacitor Co. Superfund Site on the National Priorities
List (NPL), Duracel! signed an Administrative Order on
Consent (Consent Order) to conduct the Rl and FS at the
Site under U.S. EPA's supervision. . , : v
As a result of the findings of theVl 984 to 1988
investigative programs, additional remedial actions were
undertaken in accordance with the terms of the Consent
Order and were implemented at the Site during 1988 and
1989. The remedial actions included the disposition of all
equipment and stock, the removal of the plant (exclusive
of the Warehouse) and all ancillary buildings, and removal
of all soils significantly contaminated with PCBs from the
Site. Sampling of surfaces within the Warehouse con-
finned that the Warehouse had not been significantly
impacted by past operations at the Site.
The 1988/1989 remedial actions resulted in the dis-
posal of approximately 18,700 tons of soil and concrete
contaminated with PCBs, 410 tons of equipment con-
taminated with PCBs, 330 cubic yards of non-hazardous
equipment and 3,540 cubic yards of non-hazardous
building concrete and debris at the Chemical Waste
Management facility in Emelle, Alabama. In addition, the
excavation and removal of contaminated soils resulted in
the removal of most of the sanitary and storm sewer
systems on-Site. Regrading of the Site allowed elimina-
tion of all point source discharges of storm water runoff to
the Green River.
THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
The Rl at the Mallory Capacitor Superfund Site was
conducted from early 1988 to late 1990. Activities per-
formed can be grouped into the following categories:
planning and preparation, field activities (including sam-
pling), laboratory analyses, data validation, evaluation
and analysis, and report preparation. Specific objectives
of the Rl were:
i) To characterize all wastes remaining at the Site after
the 1988/1989 remedial actions;
ii) On the basis of the waste characterization, to define
the set of Site-specific contaminants attributable to
the Site:
iii) To define the area! and vertical extent of soil contami-
nation in the grass areas west of the Plant, in the
grass area south of the security fence south of the
Plant, on private properties in the vicinity of the Site
and in overburden soils beneath the Plant;
-------
b) On properties adjacent to the Site;
iv) To evaluate contamination, attriDutabie to past ac-
tivities at the Site, if any, inthe Green Riversediments;
tv) SurfacewatersampleswerecollectedfromlheGreen
v) To confirm the alignment of the Site and the City of River; and
Waynesboro sanitary sewer systems and to delin-
. eate the .extent^of sediment contamination, if any, v) Air samples were collected from locations situated
attributablelo past activities at the Site in both the about the perimeter of the Site.
'; storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems on-Site and . '
^IliM^W^hesboro sanitary sewer system KEY FINDINGS OF THE REMEDIAL
-''".'(. '-;vXldOTi^flowidfth6's-A'nf\^t "-*'- ' ' '":-'"'..
.'.A'v i^^^^^^'^m^y&l^^':^-^ ;JtNVESTreATEON ^^r.::: -:^?lW;>
^^j!|g^fg^d;liei:.flo^^ "^^^^ฎ:^^!---v-'..^*-> - -^'"^-
1 "; HSSjyifW^latkwship to the Green R ; SfiU . .
'" '"' ^'&i%$'^&WX&3:?';$:f*'f .^&'r\!','iJt-t'-*.''- ' .'' '".* " : ' ."' '' " .'..', '' .- .ป.
'"*'"' "iertofgrour^-wkercontamination The1988/1989soaremedialactfonsreferredtolnthe
" - - -Background" section of this report were found to be
"'successful in removing soil contamination: ;:::!.'
erterrtbfOTnlamin^ --..<' ' '''.- ;^-'
to the Site In the!surface^ water of the Sampling and analysis confirmed the following: ;
i) On-Site background soils (southern and western por-:
v "*ซU>M oTR5Bs;TCE;x>r
'/*ซ
..,, a ^ipsurface^ndsubsurface soils^on^Site; Including ditch
;?aWelev|itlbndiatat6 sftow thetopo^raphybf the Site. ^ -^?arid swale soils and sanitary sewer bedding material
;:;^>f^M^^--^ ^- - v^.-i^. -'. , ;'- ;^s6ils. had been Yemediated to thedeanuD criterion
The folbwing field sampling .activities were under-
taken as part of accomplishing these objectives:
i) Soil samples were collected from:
a) The grass areas east, south and west of
f thePlantf "--'-.
b) Private properties adjacent to the Site;
' ' '' '
c) Beneath ;the on-Site drainage ditches and
''" " ''' ' ' '
d) Beneath the former Plant; and
e) Beneath the sanitary sewer pipe invert on-
Site,
ii) Sediment samples were collected from:
for soils'of 10 mg/kg for PCBs. Residual concentra-
tions of PCBs in soils at the Site were as follows:
a) Average concentration In surfidal soils of 1.60
mg/kg; and
b) Average concentration In subsurface soils of
43 mg/kg.;- -
; i-r f -i * ' T
1,2-DCE and TCE were not identified to be contaminants
of concern in any of the soils at the Site. x-c :?
lii) Of the 21 properties adjacent to the Site boundary,
: the distribution of PCBs was determined to be as
- ' foIIOWS: Vrjjr.*"' - - -*
' > .;ป;, .,
a) 14propertiesdidnotcontaindetectableconcen-
trations;
a) The Green River upstream, downstream, and
adjacent to the Site;
b) The remaining seven properties contained
PCBs in concentrations thatwerewithin EPA's
acceptable risk range for a residential scen-
ario; and
b) The on-Site sanitary and storm sewers; and
1,2-DCE and TCE were not detected in any of the off-
c) The City of Waynesboro sanitary sewer in the Site soil samples.
vicinity of the Site.
Sediments . . :
iii) Two rounds of ground-water samples were collected
from monitoring wells located: Sampling confirmed that sediments within the sewer
systems on-Site and in the vicinity of the Site and of the
a) On-Site; Green River upstream, adjacent to and downstream of
-------
the Site did not contain significant concentration of PCBs. risk assessmerjl_examlned whether existing or future
1,2-DCE, or TCE. therefore; it was concluded that sedi- contact with contaminants poses a public health or envi-;
ments had not been significantly impacted by past Site ronmental risk. The risk assessment determines an upper
operations. bound estimate of risk assuming no further action is taken
to clean up the Site.
Sampling confirmed that surface waters within the
Green River upstream, adjacent to and downstream from
theSite and from the spring on private property located
westoftiieSfte.dkJnotcontalndete^
of PpBs, 1^2-DQE, or TCEf^refore,^ was (concluded
'4-~-_
-.- .?.,'. V--'.:i' / .-.'
EPA has classified PCBs and TCE as probable hu-
man carcinogens based on animal studies. 1,2-DCE has
been shown to cause abnormal blood chemistry of labo-
ratory animals and is therefore considered to be a sys-
temic toxicant.- -.'; ^
. .'.. Samples collected did .not reveal PCBs, 1 ,2-DCE, or
TCE. Therefore, ft was concluded that air was not being
impacted by the Site. .
'Grourd
.
< Samples confirmed that Impact to ground water had
occurred f or PCBs, 1 ,2-DCE;: and TCE in the shallow
bedrock (20 to 40 feet below surface grade)and the deep
;:.: bedrock (60 to 90 feet below surface grade) both on-Site
-* : and,:off-Site.v,Monitoring .wells In .the deeper bedrock
aquifer (95 to 120 feet below surface grade) at locations
. selected to show the most probable areas of contamina-
tion in this aquifer showed no contamination.
imarv
Based on the findings of the Rl, the contaminants' of
concern at the Site were identified to be PCBs, 1,2-DCE,
and TCE. Sampling in all media confirmed that ground
water was the only media Impacted at the Site, besides
soil, .which had been previously remediated to EPA's
acceptable levels. k
. The route of concern for contaminant movement is
ground water. Ground water was found to be moving in
the northeasterly direction. However, all homes adjacent
to and In the area of influence of the Site were found to be
on municipal water.
All other information on the sampling and analysis
program and results can be found in the R! Report on file
in the Mallory Capacitor Co. Superfund Site Information
Repository in the Wayne County Library.
RISK ASSESSMENT
The final phase of the Rl was an assessment of
'tential risks to public health and the environment.
phases of the study determined which contami-
nants are present, the levels at which they are present,
and where they are located. Using this information, the
risk range, the; additional rtsk of 'cancer from these
chemicals to an exposed individual must be no greater
than 1 in 10,000 and preferably no .greater than 1 in
1,000,000. For systemic toxicants, the hazard isdeemed
unacceptable If the estimated exposure level exceeds
that level which has been .determined to not cause any
adverse effects in humans. .The hazard is unacceptable
based on residential use of ground water north of the Site.
Future exposure to PCBs, TCE, and 1,2-DCE was
considered for ground water in the areas norm and east
of the Site. In both areas, the existing concentrations will
exceed EPA's target risk Jeyels if we|ls,were installed for
.residential iise. At.thisllme, rป.priyateDwells exjst within
the area of ground-water contamination, three springs
within the area of influence have been tested. All were
found to be clean of Site-related contaminants.
The surface waters of the Green River were evalu-
ated for potential risk from chemical exposure due to fish
consumption and wading. The risk from these pathways
is within EPA's target range for acceptable risk.
A recreational exposure scenario was evaluated for
on-Site soils. The additional lifetime risk of cancer was
well within EPA's acceptable range. All residential soil
samples were evaluated for additional lifetime risk of
cancerandwere also found tobe within EPA's acceptable
range of risk.
Dermal exposure to PCBs from surfaces in the
warehouse was evaluated and found to be minimal.
Therefore, this potential exposure pathway would not
represent any significant health risk.
In summary, the only risk found to be unacceptable
was that of ground-water consumption, bathing, and
showeringf rom a hypothetical well in areas north and east
of the Site. This scenario is the basis for remedial action
at the Site.
For more details on the human exposure calculations
in the Risk Assessment, please see Appendix I of the Rl
Report on file in the Mallory Capacitor Co. Superfund Site
Information Repository in the Wayne County Library.
-------
THE FEASIBILITY STUDY: DEVELOPING AND EVALUATING
REMEDIAL (CLEANUP) ALTERNATIVES
Basedonthe fesultsof the Rl, a Feasibility Study (FS)
' was conducted to identify, develop and evaluate appropri-
j^; ate remedial;aftematives for minimizing risks to public
. : : /health and tlie.wwironmeiit caused by the contaminated
Wgrourid^ alternatives
^^ft^^BJ^^j^j^j^^^^&iva^m was screened
\r"ซ for effec^ene^ Based on
vthfe; sheening processfaftema^ did not meet
these remedial objectives were eliminated from further
"; analysis arid'cohsideMioh? Alternatives la and to were
v sure td"cปrtamtn^ed h^erialsbrreduce the release of
; contaminants;! Details'on each remedial alternative are
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 2/\
* Install Six Ground-Water Extraction Wells
',.- -Install an On-Site UV Chemical Oxidation Ground-
ป*.ป.
A:*
wv..r -^^Ac^g^^aitf,..v^K> V '''V/'i ' . -' "*
-.-' ,-^4^^i^^^^^^i*i-^ป^---^^-:
fei^The National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires the
a development of a no action alternative as a basis for
>:comparison of alternatives. Therefore, remedial Alterna-
tive la, consists of implementing no remedial action at the
. Site, including no restricttononfuture Installation of ground-
''*water extraction wells and no further rnonitoring of the
contaminated ground water both beneath and hydrauli-
. cally downgradient from the-Site. Because no further
action would be taken and the Site would remain in its
present condition, there are no costs associated with this
remedial alternative. ;<'. ;^'XV'-ซ'V.v^4-- ;-,ar^--
.^'^tV*i|^^V^?^%%^^'fe\iv- f'-..*/:'i*':y(?;i!{- ''
.;.':' 'Treat Ground Water to Remove TCE and 1,2-DCE
-,' . . . v*- ,ซ*--jsVj,.,.,, - ,-,, ;*.>!' ' .ซ-' ,.:-- . . ,
..* * -.. ; :f'.f'Af. -,. ป, j *.-t* i ฃs. .- -.- ';; ,- .; , .
.*-i < Discharge Treated Ground Water to Crty Water
Treatment Plant or Surface Waters Near the Site
?;,; This alternative consists of extraction of the contami-
nated ground water at an estimated rate of six gallons per
--minute from five locations on-Site and one off-Site that
;; exhibn the highest concentrations of Site-related con-
taminantsrWhe extraction wells would prevent further
migration of contaminants. Extracted ground water would
be pumped to the ori-Site 41VChemical Oxidation facility
for treatment. Site-rejated contaminants not within the
zones of influence of the six extraction wells would not
receive treatment, but would not pose additional risks to
public health or the environment in excess of the range
deemed acceptable by EPA.
This alternative is estimated to remove approxi-
mately 98% of the TCE and 1,2-DCE in 20 years. The
estimated cost of this alternative is $2,565,000.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE IB -
""- 't-/--s~i-ifji'ih:i'-'f;- 'yป' - ' rt^'-ie-"*'.'. ' %'>.' -"'.
* Institutional Controls and Monitoring^t-
Alternative Ib consists of placing deed restrictions on
the Site property title to identify the presence of PCBs,
1,2-DCE and TCE in ground water beneath the Site, a ban
on installation of ground-water extraction wells on appro-
priate properties to provide protection of human health
frompotertial future ซ)nsuniptionc)fcปntarninatedground-
water, and sampling and analyses of ground water be-
neath the Site and off-Site to monitor the attenuation/
degradation of PCBs, 1,2-DCE and TCE in the ground-
water system. The estimated cost of this alternative is
$710,000.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 2g
* Install Six Ground-Water Extraction Wells
* . Install an On-Site Air Stripping/Bag Filtration/Carbon
- Adsorption Ground-Water Treatment Facility
* Treat Ground Water to Remove TCE and 1,2-DCE
* Discharge Treated Ground Water to City Water
Treatment Plant or Surface Waters Near the Site
This alternative is identical to Alternative 2a with the
exception of the treatment methodused. Extractedground
water would be pumped to the on-Site air stripping tower
followed by a bag filter followed by a carbon adsorbtion
unit. Quality of treated ground waterwould be the same as
for Alternative 2a, which is removal of approximately 98%
of the TCE and 1,2-DCE in 20 years. The estimated cost
for this alternative is $2.113,000.
-------
ALTERNAT1VF '
.' *?" V??-"1w>Bป!;-^-(..-(! " vrjJKs",
This alternative con
iofexl'raclbnofthecontami-
* -Install Seven Gปbund-Water fedraclion Wells
* Install an On-Site UV Chemical Oxidation Ground-
Water Treatment Facility
Treat Ground Water to Remove TCE and 1,2-DCE
* Discharge Treated Ground Water to City Water
Treatment Plant or Surface Waters near the Site
-....;'. .V ^'.,^.\.^\^-~:&i&*-?3}'^^ฃ " *.-; :':^\':
; :^This alternative consists of extraction of the cbntami-
: nated ground waterat an estimated rate of seven gallons
"per minute from seven locations'on-Site/In addition to
pumping water to the UV Chemical Oxidation facility for
treatment, the pumping would serve to contain the con-
taminated ground-water plumed' -'" t-K'*" -".
.^^.''ซฃ.>& ";-"*ง, .:-, ;,''-?-.. ''
V:- ' This alternative Is estimated to remove approximately
' 100% of the TCE and 1,2-DCE contamination in on-Site
aquifers within 60 years: Off-Site aquifers would not be
-remediated. The estimated cost of this alternative te
,$2,858,000/^-'^^-^-::'. ' '_<"-...
ป-.\. ',-./- ป.*;' *i ^*ป *ซ *|>\f *. i.^ ป- , 'ซ Vfป V* ซ ;'' '*? *"*ป.. "- ' ' ";-"" ' '- C ( .
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE aB v* : ^
minute from seven locations bn-Sfte and six locations off-
Sfte. In addition to pumping water to the UV Chemical
Oxidation facility for treatment, the pumping would serve
to contain the contaminated ground-water plume.
This alternative is estimated to remove approximately
100 % of the TCE and 1,2-DCE contamination in on-Site
and off-Site aquifers within-g^years. The estimated cost
of this alternative Is $3360,OOOV-^> I -.
'
Install Seven Ground-Water Extraction Wells
Install an On-Sfte Air Stripping/Bag Filtration/Carbon
.Adsorption Ground-Water Treatment Facility
* Treat Ground Water to Remove TCE and 1,2-DCE7
' " r
* Discharge Treated Ground'Water to City Water
Treatment Plant or Surface Waters Near the Site
This alternative is identical to Alternative 3a with the
exceptionof the treatment method used. Extractedground
water would be pumped to the on-Site air stripping tower
followed by a bag filter followed by a carbon adsorfatfon
unit Quality of treated ground waterwould be the same as
for Alternative 3a, which is removal of approximately
100% of TCE and 1,2-DCE from on-Site aquifers in 60
years. The estimated costforthis alternative is $2,362,000.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 4A
* Install 13 Ground-Water Extraction Wells
* Install an On-Site UV Chemical Oxidation Ground-
Water Treatment Facility
* Treat Ground Water to Remove TCE and 1,2-DCE
Discharge Treated Ground Water to City Water
reatment Plant or Surface Waters Near the Site
Install 13 Ground-Water Extraction Wells
Install an On-Site Air Stripping/Bag Fiitration/Carbon
Adsorption Ground-Water Treatment Facility ;::
Treat Ground Water to Remove TCE and 1,2-DCE
Discharge Treated Ground Water to City Water
Treatment Plant or Surface Waters Near the Site
This alternative is identical to AJtematfve4a with the
exception of thetreatment method used.^Extractedground
waterwould be bumped to the on-Site air stripping tower
followed by a bag filter followed by a carbon adsorbtion
unit. Quality of treated ground waterwould be the same as
for Alternative 4a, which is removal of approximately
100% of TCE and 1,2-DCE In both on- and off-site
aquifers in ggjyears. The estimated cost for this alterna-
tive Is $3,105,000.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 5A
Install 22 Ground-Water Extraction Wells
* Install an On-Site UV Chemical Oxidation Ground-
Water Treatment Facility
* Treat Ground Water to Remove TCE and 1,2-DCE
* Discharge Treated Ground Water to City Water
Treatment Plant or Surface Waters Near the Site
This alternative consists of extraction of the contami-
nated ground water at an estimated rate of 22 gallons per
minute from 13 locations on-Site and nine locations off-
Site. In addition to pumping water to the UV Chemical
Oxidation facility for treatment, the pumping would serve
to contain the contaminated ground-water plume.
This alternative is estimated to remove approximately -
100% of the TCE and 1,2-DCE contamination in on-Site
and off-Site aquifers within 30 years. The estimated cost
of this alternative is $5,216,000.
-------
' REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVE 5B
Svig'-Jj-iVv
ifs^
Install 22 Ground-Water Extraction Welis
Install ah On-Slte Air Stripping/Bag Filtration/Carbon
Adsorption Ground-Water Treatment Facility
Treat Ground Water to Remove TCE and 1,2-DCE
Discharge Treated Ground Water to City Water
Treatment Plant or Surface Waters Near the Site -'
exception of thetreatrnentmethodused. Extracted ground
water would be pumped to the on-Site air stripping tower
followed by a bag filter followed by a carbon adsorbtion
unit Quality of treated ground waterwoukjbethesame as
for AltemativeSa, which is removal of approximately
100% of TCE:and 1,2-DCE In 30 years. The estimated
cost for tote alternative Is $4,035,000.
r^urkJa^ta
monto all remedial alternatives exceptfor Alternatives la
Additiprial Investigations to better determine the : :
northern extent of off-Site ground-water contamina-
'
B) Additional investigatfons to determine potential
: chemical contamination, if any, and biota impacts, if
necessary, to the surface watertnixjtary north of the
Site (Cold Water Creek);
Bi) Institutional controls and monitoring (Alternative Ib);
.viv) An effectiveness monitoring program 'consisting of
testing wells around the Site to insure that:
a) Contamination has been hydraulicalry contained;
b) Concentrations of Site-related contaminants are
being reduced In on-Sltegroundwaterand off-Site
ground water downgradlent (north) of the Site;
and
c) The Cold Water Creek is not receiving contamina-
tion from the aquifer.
Remedial Alternatives 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a all utilize the
same ground-water treatment process, as do Remedial
Alternatives 2b,3b,4b and 5b. The "a'altematives Involve
UV Chemical Oxidation, which uses ultraviolet light in
combination with a strong oxidant, such as hydrogen
peroxide, to transform TCE and 1,2-DCE into carbon
dioxide and water. The "b" alternatives involve treatment
ofextractedgroundwaterby alrsttlpplng, filtration, and
carbon adsorption.
U.S. EPA prefers the ^-alternatives because LA'
Chemical Oxidation will not produce consistently cleat
effluent given the relatively tow incoming flow rates an
fluctuating concentrations.
Alternatives 2 through 5 are similar in that extracttoi
wells will be installed and ground water will be extracts
and treated. The differences In these alternatives lie ii
well placement and number. The various well placemer
arid number scenarios in Alternatives 2 through 5 ar
; differentjstrategies for containing and treating the cor
tairtnated ground^water plume. For more information o
these-strategles, consult the FS Report In the Mallor
Capacitor Co. Superfund Site Information Repository I
the Wayne County Library.
Due to the strong binding nature of PCBs and th
rnarryfractureslnrockinthearea.ft b technically impossfcl
at this time to develop an alternative which will remov
PCBs from the ground water to levels which EPA deem
acceptabIe.,The ground-water extraction systems prc
rjosed wUI rerrwve some of the PCBs in the aquife<
rKwever, iwne of the:alternatives being considered wi
remove PCBs to health-based levels. Several alterm
lives will rempve.TCE and 1.2-DCE to these standard*
U.S. Ef?A since ^PCBs will remain above health-base
levels.- Should innovative technologies for PCB remov<
become available, feasibility at the Site will be assessec
-------
!> ft, rA:fife<ป2"5tiri"^"">iA 'ฃ&&$i(ฃ *?<**5'S''*i* *'l>s\<1^'' -" "*'*' *
^srss?
PROPOSED PLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
,Vf,-,
Based on the FS, U.S.EPA has Identified Alternative 4b as the best course of action for the ground-water
contamination and migration problem at the Maltoiy Capacitor Co. Superfund Site. U.S.EPA's preferred course of action
Includes: . -. . ' ..."
* Install 13 Ground-Water Extraction Wells "
. * Install an On-Site Air Stripping/Bag Filtration/Carbon Adsorption Ground-Water Treatment Facility
line northern extent of off-site ground-water contamination
*; ; Investigations to determine posstole impacts to Cold Water Creek !.;,," "^^'J?.
^^ij'ii'iv.v'i.-'^.^^^K1'-' t&^VV-^&^&^^SS- &%!3:^G$Sfi'-*:-
r-;:.*':,-.An effectiveness monitoring program .
_i**v.' . -. -> .ซ.ปVi-.-- - ***>; r ",,' " '-
iremove
uswasteSltes, While AHerriative3providedf6rdeanup
of the on-Site aquifer, ft did not address cleaning uptiie off-Site aquifer. Alternatives 4 and 5 achieve the same cleanup
concentrations within the same time frame (approximately 100% reduction in TOE and 1,2-DCE in 30 years). Because
Alternatives 4 and 5 give the same end results, Alternative 4 was chosen as the more cost-effective alternative. As
previously, U.S.EPA prefers the t>* part of this alternative, which is air stripping/!irtrattonfcarbon adsorption,
ft achieves more consistent effluent concentrations. ^^ . ...4,..-; i..;>- . ซ,,
THE NEXT STEP
The publiccommerrt period on the FSand Proposed Plan isthe next step In selectingafinalremedial action
for the Maltory Capacitor Co. Superfund Site. The comment period provides an opportunity for local residents
to submit their comments to U.S. EPA on all the remedial alternatives considered for the Site! Based on public
comments or new information, U.S. EPA may modify the recommended remedial alternative or choose
another of the remedial alternatives developed in the FS. The Proposed Plan outlines in detail U.S. EPA's
recommended remedial alternative.
Following the public comment period, U.S. EPA will sign a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site. The
ROD will detail the remedial action chosen for the Site and include U.S. EPA's responses to comments
received during the public comment period. After the ROD is signed, a design plan for implementing the
remedial action will be prepared. Once the design is complete, construction of the remediaraction can begin.
Areviewwill be conducted every five years at this Site since PCBs will remain above health-based levels. This
review will Insure that contaminants In the ground-water plume (including PCBs) are being effectively
contained and that the TCE and 1,2-DCE are being reduced in concentration.
-------
Exhibit!
Criteria for
m
**-*:i
"t*-r *
i.
'$ฃฃ.
8i
*'f.-ป; v
-4 -
-,: :llQ selecting its preferred reme-
dial alternative, U.S. EPA uses the fol-
lowing criteria to evaluate each of the
cleanup alternatives developed in the
Feasibility Study. The first seven crite-
ria are used to evaluate all jthe remedial
' alternatives^ based o%envjronmental
:-f:f,-f:iM&ฃ?-f ฃ>;<'>?''.. j ':-*<.*'' ' '.'-~--'f ;
.protection, cost, and engineering feasi-
bility issues. The final ^
and community acceptance, are used to
further evaluate U.S. EPA's Proposed
Plan after the public comment period is
over and comments from the commu-
nity have been received. Exhibit 5^on
pages 13 and 14 summarizeshowallthe
alternatives were evaluated using the
following criteria:
1) Overall protection of public health and the environment
U.S. EPA assesses the degree to which each alternative eliminates, reduces, or
controls threats to public health and the environment through treatment,
engineering methods (e.g.ฃnwnd-water treatment), or institutional controls
(e.gn deed restrictions on future uses of the property).
"'-'.'
2) Compliance with federal and state regulations.
The alternatives are evaluated for compliance with those environmental
protection regulations determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate
to die site conditions. "
3) Cost .
The benefits' of implementing a particular remedial alternative are weighed
'against the cost of implementation. ... .
4) Implementabfflry.
. _ ,
^
to construct and [operate?) and administrative ease (e.g., the amount of coordi-
nation with oioier government agencies mat is needed) of a remedy, including
the availability of necessary goods and services.
5) Short-term effectiveness.
The.length of time needed to implement each alternative is considered andtLS.
EPA assesses the risks that may be posed to workers and nearby residents
during implementation (e.g., would contaminated dust be produced during soil
excavation?).
6) Long-term effectiveness.
The alternatives are evaluated based on then* ability to maintain reliable
protection of public health and the environment after implementation.
7) Reduction of contaminant tatitify, mobility, and volume.
U.S. EPA evaluates each alternative based on how it reduces (1 ) the harmful
nature of the contaminants, (2) their ability to move through the environment.
and (3) the amount of contamination.
8) State acceptance.
U.S EPA requests state comments on the Remedial Investigation and Feasibil-
ity Study Reports, as well as the Proposed Plan, and must take into consider-
ation whether the state concurs with or closes U.S. EPA's preferred remedial
alternative.
9) Community acceptance.
To ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity to provide input, U.S.
EPA holds a public comment period and considers and responds to all
comments received from the community prior to the final selection of a
remedial action.
-------
Technologies Considered in DevelopingJLemedial Alternatives
The Gist step in suc-
cessfully meeting the
objectives fgftltliffhffd
for the Feasibility
Study involved identi-
fying various cleanup
options that would be
appropriate for the .
MaUory Capacitor Co. v*
SiiperfiinoV Site:> U.S. ;r :{
EPA'cbochided that to -iA
-Vmcet
technologies ~J~were
needed to: ';-?;'-
1) extract the ground
water;
2) treat it to reduce
contaminant levels to
acceptable levels; and
3)disposeofitinaway
that protects public
health and the environ-
ment '.' ' ' V>py"
Thefonbwmgdiagram
describes each of'the
/specific,.technologii
' included in die reme-
dial alternatives for me
Mafloty Capacitor Co.
.. ,
^Ground Water Extractfo^
Extraction Wells
Similar to a drinking water-
supply wellbutconstractedso
that large volumes of water can
beuimwrtLfninbelowtfaeground >.
surface. U-S'-RPA'defrrnimfd
fluy gyty^^^i^n iittfc||y'?CQUid
BFovjoe an citcctivc xnelhod of
intercepting . contaminated
ground water before it enters
surface water bodknoniiigintrai
further. . - ' :'... .
> . , -.' . . .v . ,* ,\ฃ .,*,ฃ, ra -^X..^^.s4-,
)
- '
,V- . . .,-.-
Ultraviolet-Enhanced Oxidation
This technology converts hazard-
ous waste to less toxic forms < oft.
pounds, using a chemical reac-l
.*, r * T^ ^.. -*!' x-ป ''- "^^t*^ ป^
Ground Water Treatment
"
. r . -*! x-ป '- " ป
Izon to increase the oxygen ronttiiit '
m the compounds, thereby reduciiig
fan level of many ซ"yปni? conianii-"
MntsmwatCT.particularlyTCEand
^-DCB. This method is an inno-
ve treatment technology,' and
would require pilot testing to .be
canductedatmeSile.Auhonghveiy,
effecnveinaddressingTCEandl^-
DCX contamination, ithasavarying
range of effectiveness on other
compounds such as FCBs.
This technology typically is used.
.^^tj^-Vji., - ฃ *-,' '~*,\<-''-'-1.'
AS ft vOflcnHnnit step'JQ KJOQDO .*
water DTBtmenL'The water to be
treated 'is percolated: through .a
filler that may include:several
fabric bags, and crushed glass
among others. By passing the
water through this material, sus-.
peDdedsolidsarefBterejlouLTnis
method is often used7 following
processes such as carbon adsorp-
oon, to fiber out suspended solids,
flius improving the quality of the
treated water. .
Carbon adsorption .is
VCD, idiaoxD destment vio
cess for removing avariety of
organic compounds. It m-
vohres passing water flnongh
a chamber that is padDcdwidi
carbon' granular -particles.'
carbon, effectively removing
i te Iimii uifi wfltcx*
'Air stripping is a proven technol-
ogy for removing YOCs. Treated
water enters either apacked tower
br^spray 'chamber and flows
downward while airflowsupwatd
from flie bottoiu of die chamber,
stripping VOCs from the water.
The treated water is collected at
the bottom of the tower and
pumped to discharge or subse-
quent processes, while air con-
taining VOCs exits the top of the
tower and either exits to the atmo-
carbon adsorber.
^1) Disposal ^^ .
Treated Ground Water
Disposal
Contaminated ground water
would be treated to ensure that
National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
standards administered by the
State of Tennessee, are met
Once acceptable levels are
reached, feasible technologies
for disposal of the treated water
inchidedischarge into the Green
River or discharge to the public
wastewater treatment plant,
known as a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW).
Hazardous Waste Disposal
As the contaminated ground wa-
ter is treated, used carbon and
bag filters wouMbe removed and
collected for proper disposal.
Two disposal methods are pos-
sible options: landfUling the
waste at an off-site, federally ap-
proved hazardous waste facility.
rtrinfinyrfltiniinffl^iTiiitfTTiilnit
anoff-site federally approved fa-
cOi^y. One other option for dis-
posal of theusedcarbon is regen-
carbon is placed in a high tem-
perature oven. After contami-
nants "bake" off. the carbon may
be reused.
s
i-'
10
-------
ExhibitA _
Air Stripping
A treatment system that removes or "strips" volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from contaminated
ground water by forcing an airstream through the
water and causing the VOCs to evaporate.
Carbon Adsorption
wA process for removing a variety of organic com-
pounds-^ It involves passing the, water through a
V :cbntainiinants attach to 'the carbon particles, eflec-
,. , V . . .._., . " -
': tively removing contaminants from the water.
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
'Compensation, and LiabUity Act ,
ae^tibnfbr^Superiund."
.
. 1^-Dichloroethene (1, 2-DCE),
as an industrial degreaser, among other applica-
tions.' >v,.; _.-'' - :''.'
-\"
-------
Exhibit 4
Proposed Plan
A document that describes all the remedial alter-
natives considered by U.S. EPA, including the
alternative U.S. EPA prefers.
Record of Decision .
A document issued after the Remedial Investiga-
tion and Feasibility Study that describes U.S.
EPA's selective reme^es for cieanup of a site. *
.^:c.i'::";4;i:^;^~|y5C ^^'.^^Sf.^s^.JC^^^i-,^.-
Remedial Alction):^",''" ';v,\'>.'U'^''^": '
Under Superfuhd, cleanup is considered a reme-
dial action when it involves a remedy to address
site containmatibn to protect the public from ex-
jpi(iis^;An^^n^\rmedM action is a remedial
action tnat is^nm consider^ final but is ^OT
with a final remedy. "'*,
Remedial Alternatives '' ?':.; -.. ' .
A combination of technical and administrative
methods developed and evaluated in aFeasibUity,
Remedial Investigation '
Thefirstpartofa two-partstudy called aRemedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS). The RI is
a study in which information is collected and
analyzed to determine the nature and extent! of
contamination at the Superfund site.
Risk Assessment
A site specific study performed by U.S.
EPA to determine the actual or potential dangers
to humanhealm and flieenvironmerit from releases
of hazardous substances at a site under its current
and conceivable future uses.
Sediment
Materials such as sand, soil, mud and decompos-
ing animals and plants mat settle to the bottom of
a ditch, stream, lake, river or pond.
Soil Borings
A hole advanced into the ground by means of a
drilling rig or hand auger to obtain soil samples.
Superfund
The name commonly used in reference to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act, (SARA), in 1986. It is a law
that provides the means for investigation and
cleanup of hazardous waste sites. ^
"
Streams, lakes/ponds, rivers, or any other body of
water above the ground.
Toricity --!!-- ;'..''.'.; "-:.-:'- ' '-.:' .
-The measure of a poisonous substance's ability to
harm living tissues when ingested, inhaled or ab-
sorbed through the skin. Overexposure to some
elements can result in a toxic effect as welL For
exampie, oyerexposure to the sun or alcohol can
result in a toxic effect on the human body.
Trichlorethene (TCE) ; ;
A colorless chlorofonn-smelling heavy liquid; a
chlorinated organic compound whichis thought to
be carcinogenic (cancer-causing) and is toxic by
inhalation. Symptoms of inhalation include
drowsiness. TCE is used as an industrial degreaser,
among other applications.
Ultraviolet-Enhanced Oxidation
A treatment method used to convert hazardous
chemicals into less harmful compounds. This con-
versiontakes place whenachemical reaction causes
oxygen to bind with a hazardous compound, in-
creasing the oxygen content in the compound.
i - *" ' '
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Organic compounds mat are characterized by be-
ing highly mobile in ground water and which are
readily volatilized into the atmosphere.
12
-------
ง.
ง
'*
'
n
*-!
i
i
i
i
ill
III
ill
ill;
sp?
?**v *
3
*-. *- e
^ 2 I
i
i
i
s
J
^i
if
I
IP,
ll!
i1!
i
if
fl
li ii
J1
E D
1*1
li
ir
ii
II
J
ii:
^
11
j
II!
t
lii
A
-------
ฃ
Ii
I
i
II
if
If
!
ll
1
ill
i^s
if
ii
1
m
M
co
iii
I
fl
i ป
il
ll
g|||i
[ill
l!
-1
,
4
ซ? re-'
sfi
lli
i
llj
8~S
Sj'
ii
ii
-------
$"'*:
PUBLIC MEETING
Mallory
Capacitor
Co.
Superfund
:. Site
U^.EPAwiUholdapublicmeeting to discuss the results of the
Remedial Investigation and die treatment alternatives identi-
fied during the Feasibility Study. U.S. EPA representatives
will be presentto respond to questions and comments about the
Remedial Investigation and the Feasibility Study.
Date: June 27,1991
Time: 7 p.m.
Location: Wayne County Courthouse
Waynesboro, TN
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
U.S. EPA relies on public comment to ensure
that the remedial alternatives being evaluated
for each Superfund site are fully understood
and that the concerns of the local community
havebeenconsidereABeginning June 14,1991,
U.S. EPA will initiateapublic comment period
during which comments on the Proposed Plan
and the Rl/FS should be forwarded to:
Patty Fremont
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St. NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
DATES: June 14.1991 through July 15,1991.
$OR MORE INFORMATION
U.S. EPA CONTACTS
Please contact the following U.S. EPA
personnel if you have further questions
and/or comments about the Mallory
Capacitor Co. Superfund Site.
Suzanne Durham
Community Relations
Coordinator
(404)347-7791
Patricia Fremont
Remedial Project Manager
(404) 347-7791
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland St,NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
INFORMATION REPOSITORY
If you are interested in learning more about
the Mallory Capacitor Co. Superfund Site,
please review die documents in the Infor-
mation Repository. Information Reposito-
ries contain laws, work plans, community
relations plans and other documents rel-
evant to me investigation and cleanup of
Superfund sites. This respository also con-
tains the Administrative Record which in-
cludes all information used by the lead
agency to make its decision on the selection
of a response action. Citizens are encour-
aged to consult these documents at the fol-
lowing location:
Wayne County Public Library
US. Highway 64 East
Waynesboro, TN
Hours: MOD, Wed., Thurs. and Frl. 10-6
Tues. 10-8
Sat 10-2
15
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GRANTS
EPA is providing communities with
the opportunity to apply for Techni-
cal AssistanceGrants(TAGs). These
grants,ofupto$50,000(persite),are
designed to enable residents or a
community group to hire a technical
advisor or consultant to assist them in
interpreting and commenting on site
findings and the remedial action.
There is a limit of one TAG per site.
Citizens who are interested in the
TAG program may obtain an appli-
cation package by calling or writing
the EPA Community Relations Co-
ordinator listed on mis page.
-------
:j&?sz'---*3.'r ^^^^^/"^v^-'~^-'-'--'r-'^'-'.-~ \:"7"
-------
1
MALLORY CAPACITOR CO. SUPERFUND SITE
PUBLIC COMMENT SHEET
USE THIS SPACE TO WRITE YOUR COMMENTS
Your input on the Proposed Plan for the Mallory Capacitor Co. Superfund Site is important to U.S.
EPA. Comments provided by the public are valuable in helping U.S. EPA select a final remedy for
the site.
You may use the space below to write your comments, then fold and mail. Additional comments
may be attached to this form or mailed separately to U.S. EPA.
Name
Address.
Qty
Zip
State.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Region 4
345 Courdand Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
------- |