^EPfi i United States Environmental Protection Agency

Explanation of Significant Differences National Electric Coil / Cooper Industries

Superfund Site

Site Naive:

CERCLA ID #:

Site Location:

Support Agency:

Lead Agency:

National Electric Coil./ Cooper Industries, LLC Superfund Site

KYD985069954

Old U.S. Highway 119, Dayhoit, Kentucky

Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection

EPA, Region 4

Property Line Dayhoit, Kentucky

I. Introduction This decision document presents an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for the National Electric Coil / Cooper Industries, LLC Superfund Site (Site), located in Dayhoit, Harlan County, Kenmcky.

The ESD is issued in accordance with § 117(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., as amended by the Superfiand Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), § 300.435(c)(2)(i). The Director of the Region 4 Superfiind Division has been delegated the authority to sign this ESD.

This ESD will become part of the Administrative Record file for the National Electric Coil / Cooper Industries, LLC (Cooper) Superftmd Site (NCP 300.825(a)(2)), which has been developed in

accordance with § 113 (k) ofCERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613 (k).

The Administrative Record file is available for review at the Brian W. Whitfield Jr. Public Library, 107 N. Third Street, Harian, KY 40831, and at U.S. EPA Region 4, 11th Floor Library, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

II. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this ESD is to document a final decision to include institutional controls (ICs) in the form of a restrictive covenant as part of the groundwater remedy for the Site and also to remove the catalytic oxidizer from the groundwater pump and treat system.

EPA prepares an ESD when changes to the original selected remedy are significant, but do not fundamentally alter the remedy selected in the Record of Decision (ROD) with respect to scope, performance, or cost.

III. Site History and Contamination

Site History

The facility was originally opened in 1951 by the McGraw-Edison Company (McGraw-Edison) and operated as a rebuilding and remanufacturing facility for coal mining and related industrial equipment including electric motors, rewinding electric coils, manufacturing, general machine shop work, and mining equipment repair. McGraw-Edison owned and operated the facility until 1985 when Cooper purchased McGraw-Edison as a wholly-owned subsidiary. McGraw-Edison continued to operate the facility until August 1987. The Treen Land Company of Brookside, Kentucky purchased the National Electric Coil (NEC) property in August of 1987 and the operations were reopened as the National Electric Service (NES). The facility most recently operated under the National Electric Services Management Group, and was owned by the late Charles Dozier since July 1994. The property's ownership changed on March 12, 2010 and it is currently owned by Jennifer Pennington. Wrecked automobiles are stored on the asphalt parking lot adjacent to the main building. Salvage auto parts are sold at the property. The new property owner also uses some buildings as auto parts storage. The facility currentiy employs less than 5 people. No change in land-use is anticipated in the near fiiture.

From 1951 through 1976, NEC cleaned the equipment in a 1,000-gallon vat of trichloroethene (TCE) prior to servicing. Periodically, the vat was cleaned, and the liquid solvent and oils reportedly were allowed to flow overland and/or through a drainage system to the Cumberland River. Sludge from the solvent tank, as well as debris (coal) ash containing elevated concentrations of heavy metals from a fumace operated onsite were disposed of along the river bank. PCB laden oil was also allowed to drain from transformers and other electrical equipment on Site and / or flow through the drainage piping that led to the river. From 1976 to 1985, equipment was cleaned with methylene chloride. From 1985 to 1987, equipment was steam cleaned with a non-solvent cleaner.

In Febmary 1989, the Kenmcky Department for Environmental Protection (KYDEP), Division of Water, sampled the community well at the adjacent trailer park as well as approximately 80 surrounding private drinking water wells. Analyses of the samples indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) namely trichloroethene (TCE), 1,2 dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), vinyl chloride, tetrachloroethene (PCE), xylene, toluene, and ethylbenzene at concentrations above Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in twelve of the wells. Beginning in March 1989, bottled water and water from temporary above-ground storage tanks were provided to residences impacted by the contaminated groundwater. Approximately 150 residential groundwater users in areas whose wells were contaminated or at risk of fiiture contamination were connected to the municipal water system in August 1989 by the PRPs.

In October 1990, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to PRPs McGraw-Edison/Cooper, Treen Land Company, and NES, requiring immediate actions designed to mitigate the release of hazardous substances from the Site. Cooper subsequently contracted with Law Engineering & Environmental Services (Law) to develop and implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) in accordance with the UAO. The RAP was to conduct an interim removal action of soils contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), VOCs, and metals located onsite.

Approximately 5,100 tons of soil were excavated and sent for off-site disposal to CWM in Emelle, Alabama during the Removal Action activities. These activities were conducted to address the immediate threat to human health. The EPA action levels that dictated removal were: (1) 10 mg/kg PCBs; (2) 10 mg/kg total VOCs; (3) 5 mg/l toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) lead; 5 mg/l TCLP chromium; and (4) 100 mg/kg total lead and chromium. All identified site soils (surface and subsurface soils) that exceeded EPA clean-up levels were excavated during the 1991 Removal Action. The excavations were then backfilled with clean soils brought from off-site.

Soil removal activities were conducted in five principal areas: (1) the rear ofthe property along the bank of the Cumberland River where fill material was located; (2) an outfall area, also located along the river at the rear of the property where two drainage pipes leading from the plant discharged; (3) an isolated area along the south fence line and adjacent to the trailer park; (4) an isolated area where equipment and drums were stored; and (5) an area where two drainage lines leading from the plant were located. The Removal Actions were conducted under EPA supervision from October 1990 through October 1991. On March 19, 1992, EPA notified McGraw-Edison / Cooper Industries, of its determination that all activities outlined in the UAO had been completed relating to the soil contamination at the Site. Additionally, as part of the RAP, monitoring wells were installed at the Site to evaluate the magnitude of the groundwater contamination.

The Site Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS) and associated site studies were conducted under the Administrative Order by Consent (AOC) that McGraw-Edison/Cooper entered into with the EPA in May 1992. The RI/FS and related site studies were performed by Cooper under the oversight of EPA and KYDEP. The Site was finalized on the National Priority List (NPL) on October 14, 1992.

Using existing wells, an Interim Response Action was developed and conducted to control migration of the VOC groundwater plume identified beneath the Site while the RI/FS and the Final ROD were being completed. The "Interim" RA was initiated in July 1993 and consisted of an onsite Recovery Well CMW-5-11 located in the deeper bedrock aquifer zone (at an approximate depth of 120 feet), an equalization tank, an air stripping tower, and a 10,000 pound activated carbon unit to treat the air stripper off-gas. The Rl/FS was finalized in January 1995.

The April 1996 Final ROD was implemented at the Site to address contaminated groundwater by continuing use of the groundwater pump and treat system (initiated during the "Interim" response action) to recover groundwater and to separate

VOCs from extracted groundwater by using air stripping. Off-gases from the air stripping unit were addressed using catalytic oxidation.

A second UAO for Remedial Design/Remedial Action to implement the remedy documented in the 1996 ROD was issued to Cooper Industries by EPA in May 1996.

Site Contamination Results from the RI indicated that groundwater in the bedrock zone and downgradient of the Site was impacted by TCE, cis-l,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), trans-1,2-dichloroethene (trans-1,2-DCE), and vinyl chloride. The VOC plume extended from the Site to a distance of approximately 2,000 feet downgradient (southwest) of the Site with the area of highest concentration located near the southem boundary of the Site. The groundwater in the shallow / alluvial groundwater at the Site was impacted by TCE and 1,2-DCE. At the completion of the RI, the most concentrated area of VOCs in the shallow groundwater was located near the center of the Site. Some or all of the contaminants identified are hazardous substances as defined in § 104(14) ofCERCLA, 42, U.S.C. § 9601(14), and 40 C.F.R. § 302.4.

The groundwater at this Site is sampled twice a year usually in June and December. The groundwater is analyzed for six VOCs (1,1-DCE, cis, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, TCE, and vinyl chloride) as well as MNA parameters. The groundwater has been sampled consistently on a semi-annual basis since 1993. As noted in Section 4.1, the 1996 ROD did not include MNA as a component within the selected remedy for this Site. However, MNA parameters are collected in order to determine whether MNA may be occurring at the Site. Additionally, the discharged groundwater is monitored quarterly to demonstrate compliance with the KPDES requirements.

The groundwater treatment system continues to be effective at removing VOCs from the groundwater extracted from the shallow, intermediate, and deep aquifer recovery wells. Since the startup of the RA system in January 1997, approximately 2,900 pounds of VOCs have been removed. The

groundwater remedy is effectively reducing contaminant concentrations within the footprint of the plume. The groundwater treatment system has been in operation for fourteen years. Based on the information provided during the 2003 and 2008 Five Year Review Reports, it is expected that the system will achieve groundwater cleanup levels as specified in the ROD.

IV. Selected Remedy The ROD was signed on April 26, 1996. The selected remedy included groundwater remediation to address contaminated groundwater located in the fracmred bedrock and alluvial (shallow) aquifers beneath the Site. The goal of the selected remedial action was to restore the impacted groundwater to levels below that of applicable MCLs, i.e., drinking water standards. The major components of the groundwater remedy included:

• Recovery of contaminated groundwater from the impacted alluvial and bedrock aquifers beneath and adjacent to the Site

• Treatment of the recovered water with air stripping

• Catalytic oxidation of the VOC-ladcn off gas

• Discharge of the treated water to the Cumberland River under an NPDES permit.

The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for this remedy were to:

• Control risks posed by direct contact with groundwater

• Minimize migration of contaminants in groundwater.

An ESD was also prepared July 26, 1997 to summarize a minor change to the ROD. The ESD described the use of a single interceptor trench to recover the contaminated groundwater from the shallow aquifer instead of small extraction wells. The trench intercepted groundwater as it naturally flows along the top of the bedrock formation. The scope of the interim response action was increased by incorporating the use of a groundwater recovery trench located in the shallow alluvial aquifer and an

additional groundwater recovery well in the intermediate aquifer with that of the system already operating in the deeper zones of the underlying bedrock aquifer. An additional deep aquifer recovery well was also installed. The air stripper off-gases had been treated using activated carbon. However, the carbon filters were not effective in the removal of vinyl chloride. Therefore, the off-gases were treated through a catalytic oxidation system (instead of activated carbon) prior to being discharged into the atmosphere via an extended 60-foot tall air stack to optimize off-gas dispersion.

The ROD specified air emission limits as performance standards for cis-1,2-DCE, TCE and vinyl chloride. The point of compliance for the emission limits as established in the ROD is the 60-foot stack pipe exit point from which emissions are released to the atmosphere. Table 1. below summarizes the emission limits specified in the ROD.

Table 1. Air Emission Performance Standards Compound

cis- 1.2-DCE Trichloroethene Vinyl Chloride

Allowable Emission Rates Ib/hr 98.6 0,45 0,0090

g/sec 12,4 0.06 0,001

ppbv 5.850,000 19.600 837

ug/m" 23.600.000 107.500 2,174

Notes: Ib/hr - pounds per hour g/sec - grams per second ppbv - parts per billion by volume ug/m'' - microgram per cubic meter

V. Description of Significant Differences and Basis for the ESD Institutional Controls As discussed in the 2008 Second Five Year Review Report, ICs were not included as part of the remedy in the 1996 ROD. The remedy is to restore groundwater levels below MCLs. But until MCLs have been met, restrictive covenants or other enforceable ICs must be implemented in order to prohibit the use of groundwater within the footprint of the plume. As a resuh, an explanation of significant differences is needed to include restrictive covenants or other enforceable ICs as

part of the groundwater remedy for the Site. In addition to restricting the groundwater on the former NEC Site, there are three adjacent parcels where groundwater contamination has migrated and will need to have restrictive covenants or other enforceable ICs. The objective of the ICs is to ensure that future users do not come in contact with contaminated groundwater within the alluvial, intermediate, and bedrock aquifers beneath the Site above the cleanup goals as specified in the ROD until the drinking water aquifer is remmed to its beneficial use.

The PRP is currently working with three 1 property owners to implement covenants to restrict the use of groundwater for drinking water purposes within the footprint of the groundwater plume. The covenant will outline requirements of current and future property owners to ensure that the groundwater is restricted for drinking water purposes (i.e. by preventing installation of private drinking water wells until the aquifer(s) are returned back to beneficial use). Cooper will be responsible for monitoring the ICs as well as costs for implementation and maintenance of the ICs. The soil contamination has been excavated above action levels and restrictive covenants on soil are not necessary.

Evaluation of Catalytic Oxidizer The 2008 Second Five year Review Report included a recommendation to remove the additional treatment of the air stripper effluent by catalytic oxidation. During the development ofthe ROD and the subsequent RD/RA, acmal air emission levels for the groundwater treatment system were well below EPA's risk based standards using activated carbon treatment. In 1998, the system was equipped with a catalytic oxidation unit to treat the off-gases. Following 10 years of treatment and monitoring, the CVOC concentrations in the influent air stream (prior to treatment by the cat-ox unit) have never exceeded the air emission levels established in the ROD. Furthermore, CVOC concentrations in the influent water have dropped by a factor of seven over the past 10 years and by a factor of over 10 over the past 15 years.

Air samples are collected quarterly at the effluent from the air stripper prior to entering the cat-ox influent. During the past 10 years, concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE, TCE and vinyl chloride in the cat-ox influent samples have never exceeded the emission standards outlined in Table 1. Furthermore, total CVOC emissions from the system currently average less than 0.4 pound per day. Average concentrations for 1,2-DCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride in the cat-ox influent air samples over the past five years are summarized below.

Table 2. Average Concentrations for over the Past Five Years

Compound

cis-1.2-DCE Trichloroethene Vinyl Chloride

Average Emission Rates | Ib/hr 0,035 0,0032 0,0023

g/sec 4,4E-03 4,0E-04 2,9E-04

ppbv 1566 105 159

ug/m' 6209 564 406

Although Cooper was issued a permit to constmct the air stripper but not issued an air emission permit by KYDEP for operating the air stripper as part of the remedial action for this Superfiind Site, Kentucky's air toxic regulations (401 KAR 50:035, 401 KAR 63:021, and 401 KAR 63:021) were considered as ARARs in the 1996 ROD.

To demonstrate compliance with these regulations, calculations were performed utilizing the maximum concentrations of target compounds measured during the year from the air stripper exhaust gas. These concentrations and volumes of chemicals were compared to Kenmcky's Threshold Ambient Limits (TALs) and Significant Emission Levels (SELs) without adjustment for height of emissions release, which is up to 60 feet in the air (allowable levels are approximately 490 times greater when adjusted for the stack height).

The maximum air stripper emission concentrations were only 33.8 percent and 25.8 percent of Kenmcky's TALs for cis-1,2-DCE (3,160,000 ug/m-̂ ) and TCE (1,080,000 ug/m^), respectively, and only 11.8 percent and 9.0 percent ofthe SELs

for cis-1,2-DCE (0.2016 Ibs/hr) and TCE (0.06889 Ibs/hr), respectively. No emission levels were specified by Kentucky for vinyl chloride. Even under these extremely conservative computations, the air emission levels exiting the air stripper are substantially below the regulated levels contained in Kentucky's former air toxic regulations and would only emit about 276 pounds per year of total VOCs worst case during system operation.

Kentucky's total allowable VOC emissions are 10 tons per year, 20,000 pounds per year, or less than 55 pounds per day. By comparison, during the first half of 2007, the maximum VOC emissions from the air stripper discharge would only have been approximately 0.76 lbs per day for the entire six month period.

Air emissions from the groundwater treatment system have been continuously monitored over the past 15 years. During each sampling event, an air sample is collected from the off gases emitted from the air stripper prior to treatment by the catalytic oxidizer (cat-ox influent), which has been in operation since 1998, and prior to that using activated carbon. A second air sample is collected from the air stream after it has been treated (cat-ox effluent). The cat-ox influent samples (collected prior to treatment by the cat-ox unit) have consistently shown 1,2-DCE, TCE and vinyl chloride concentrations well below the EPA health based air emission rate standards set forth in Table 9.2 ofthe ROD (included herein as Table 1) and set forth in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's toxic substances air emission standards (TALs and SELs) in effect at the time ofthe ROD.

It is apparent, based on the analytical data and flow rates from the system, the off-gases from the air stripper do not require treatment in order to comply with the air emission standards set forth in the ROD and established by the KDEP. Therefore, it is recommended that the catalytic oxidizer be shut­down and the off-gases from the air stripper be vented to the atmosphere via the existing 60-foot stack pipe for air dispersion.

Time and Cost Elements of the Changes to Remedy The average ftiel and maintenance costs for the catalytic oxidizer unit mn at approximately S75,000 per year. The changes to the remedy will result in an annual cost savings of $75,000; however, the cost savings from removal of the catalytic oxidizer may be offset by the implementation and maintenance costs of the ICs. The acmal costs of the ICs will be finalized after the restrictive covenants are all signed. In terms of estimating the cost element of adding the ICs as a remedy component, S2,000 for implementation of ICs and $500 per year for maintenance of ICs is given as a preliminary estimate.

The time element is difficult to estimate without knowing how long it will take to finalize the restrictive covenants with the property owners. The time element associated with removal of the catalytic oxidizer is minimal. The catalytic oxidizer will be taken offline as soon as the ESD is finalized.

VI. Support Agency Comments EPA consulted with the Kenmcky Department for Environmental Protection and provided it the oppormnity to comment on this ESD in accordance with NCP § 300.435 (c)(2) and § 300.435 (c)(2)(i) and CERCLA § 121(f). The Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection concurred with this ESD in a letter dated June 14, 2010.

VII. statutory Determinations EPA has determined that these significant changes comply with the statutory requirements ofCERCLA § 121, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, are protective of human health and the environment, comply with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, are cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and altemative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure in groundwater, a pi review will be conducted no less often than five years after the initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment.

VIII. Public Participation The public participation and record requirements set out in NCP §§ 300.435(c)(2) and 300.825(b) have been met by publishing a notice summarizing the ESD in the Harlan Daily Enterprise. The public notice summarized the significant changes to the remedy. Additionally, the public notice announced the 30-day public comment period and public meeting. The public comment period was held from November 5"" through December 4* 2010. A public meeting was also held at the Harlan Center on November 18, 2010. Representatives from KYDEP and the PRP's consultants were present at the meeting. Copies ofthe ESD were also available for viewing at the Bryan W. Whitfield Jr. Public Library.

EPA did not receive any comments during the public meeting. Additionally, EPA did not receive comments by email, fax, or post office mail during the comment period.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Franklin E. Hill Director Superfund Division

Date:

IX. Authorizing Signature I have determined the remedy for the Site, as modified by this ESD, is protective of human health and the environment, and will remain so provided the actions presented in this report are implemented as described above.

This ESD documents the significant changes related to the remedy at the Site. U.S. EPA selected these changes with the concurrence of Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection.