## PUBLIC MEETING
Inside you will find: Background Information Summary of the Site Investigation Summary of the Feasibility Study
The site's health risks EPA’s proposed cleanup remedy



### August 2002



# EPA SUPERFUND UPDATE

PROPOSED PLAN FACT SHEET



# CLEANUP OF CHATTANOOGA CREEK

TENNESSEE PRODUCTS SUPERFUND SITE CHATTANOOGA, HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE REGION 4



## EPA COMPLETES INVESTIGATION OF CHATTANOOGA CREEK, RECOMMENDS FINAL REMEDY FOR THE SITE

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in partnership with the Tenn essee Department of
Environment and Conservation (TDEC), have completed the Federal Superfund investigation of Chattanooga Creek, also known as the Tennessee Products Superfund
Site. The site is located in the Alton Park and Piney
Woods neighborhood in so u th Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee. This Fact Sheet will briefly describe the results of the Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (including a summary of all the cleanup
alternatives evaluated), and will present the proposed final decision concerning the cleanup of the site.

August 22, 2002 7:00 p.m. Calvin Donaldson Elementary School

EPA will host a public meeting on August 22, 2002 at the Calvin Donaldson Elementary School at 7:00 p.m. The m eeting will provide an opportunity for the community to discuss the investigation, the cleanup
alternatives considered, and the preferred remedy
wi t h EPA and State representatives. The public is encouraged to review and comment on th e cleanup
alternatives considered and on the proposed remedy
presente d in this plan. **E PA**  **is accepting**  **public**

**comments from**  **August 12**  **to September**  **10, 2002.** 

EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its public
part icipation responsibilities under Section 300.430(f)(2) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This

prop osed plan summarizes information that can be
found in greater detail in the RI/FS report and other
documents contained in the Administrative Record file
for the site.Cleanup of Chattanooga Creek

Tennessee Products Superfund Site Proposed Plan Factsheet August 2002

2 

### Site Accomplishments

The initial cleanup of coal-tar in Chattanooga Creek was completed in November 1998 (under EPA’s removal authority). The cleanup which began in June 1997, by the EPA, was the first phase of the cleanup plan for the Chattanooga Creek.

This first phase of the cleanup consisted of the following:
165 cubic yards were removed from a pit of c o al-tar

const i tuents, located just north of Hamill Road near Wilson Road; 250 cubic yards of coal-tar constituents
were removed from a disposal pit located in the creek’s flood plain; two waste mounds of coal-tar constituents
located behind the former plant s ite and next to the
railroad tracks (near

Wilson Road) were removed --

a bout 2,000 cubic yards of material; and, 4,236 linear
feet of Chattanooga Creek were cleaned up. A total of 25,350 cubic yards of waste was excavated from the site.
The wastes were recycled at a municipal electric power plant in Baldwin, Illinois, and at a cement manufacturing plant in South Carolina. These facilities used the coal-tar constituent wastes for fuel in their processes.

Along with the contaminated sediment, all of the
discarded debris found in the creek was removed. Specifically, hundreds of car and truck tires were taken

out. The tires were sent to a Chattanooga facility which
burned the tires for fuel. The materials which could not be recycled were sent to a local landfill. The cost of the first phase of the cleanup was approximately $12 million (actual physical cost of the cleanup).



### Site Background and History

The Tennessee Products Superfund Site is located in the
Alton Park/Piney Woo ds neighborhood in south Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Site consists of two
distinct source areas of contamination: 1. Certain areas i n the flood plain containing uncontrolled coal-tar constituents; and

2. Sedi ments along approximately 2.5 miles of Chattanooga Creek that were contaminated with
coal-tar constituents.

The approximate locations of these areas are shown on Figure 1 (attached).

Contamina t ion in the creek was caused, in part, by
the former coa l carbonization facility (coke plant),
located at 4800 Central Avenue . This facility was operated from approximately 1918 until 1987.
Various companies operated the facility throughout it’s history. The Tennessee Products Corporation operated it the longest, from 1926 to 1964.

In 1994, all of the buildings on the plant property,
except for the foundations and some underground tanks, were removed. However, several areas
contaminated with coal-tar constituents still exist on the plant property.

The 24 acre property was once listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) for Superfund sites, as a part of
the Tennessee Pr oducts Site listing. However, in 1996, t h e Mead Corporation, a Potentially Respons ible Party

(PRP) which owned the facility
fr om 1964 to 1974, challenged EPA’s decision to
include the plant property on the NPL, and was
successful in Fede ral Court of removing the plant
property from the list. The plant property is now being addressed by Mead u n der Tennessee Department of Environment and Conser vation (TDEC) oversight. The remainder of the site, which includes Chattanooga Creek, stayed on the NPL.

Waste water from the facility was routinely discharged
into Chattanooga Cre ek through an old pipe and
th rough a ditch that empties into the creek. EPA
believes the discharges from the facility began at the

start of plant operations and contin ued into the lateCleanup of Chattanooga Creek

Tennessee Products Superfund Site Proposed Plan Factsheet August 2002

3 70's. The discharges were oily wastewater containing particles of coal-tar. Two other sources of contamination

at the site are: a coal-tar processing plant which operated

next to the former coke plant until 1976; and the chemical
manufacturin

g plant, currently owned by Velsicol
Chemical.

Throughout the 1980's and early 1990's EPA and TDEC
studied and monitored the water quality in Chattanooga
Creek. In the summer 1992 EPA concluded a formal study of the contaminated sediments in the Creek. The
results of that study

are outlined in a report titled Chattanooga Creek Sediment Profile S tudy . High
levels of coal-tar contamination were detected in most of
the creek’s sediment.

Based on the results of

the sediment study and other
information known about the site, t he Agency of Toxic
Subs tances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a
Health Advisory for the site. They identified health
hazards ass ociated with direct contact of sediments
contaminated with coal-tar. In response to this finding,
ATSDR conducted health education classes about the
creek at local school

s; a health assessment was perf ormed to identify potential waste exposure to the community; and many information meetings and written updates were provided to the community.

In 1993, EPA placed a fence between the creek and the
Alton Park Middle School to prevent children from playing in the creek.

EPA used the ATSDR Health Advisory to place the site

on the National Priorities List (NPL) in September of 1995. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study began shortly before the formal listing of the site.

In June 1997, EPA began removi n g the contaminated
sediment from the most accessible section of the creek, specifically, be tween Hamill Road and the section of
creek next to the Alton Park Middle School (north of 38 th Street). This cleanup action is described in the previous Site Accomplishments section of this Fact Sheet. Th e cleanup strategy established for the site was to

remove the contamination in the cre ek which presented the highest risk to the community first, then

remove the rest of the contamination through a longerterm cleanup action. As mentioned before, the first phase of the cleanup was accomplished by the 1997-
1998 removal described earlier. The second phase of
the clean up will remove all of the contaminated
sediment remai

ning from those areas of the creek
which are less accessible, and which present a lesser

exposure risk to the community. The second phase of
the cleanup strategy is the subject of this Fact Sheet and proposed plan.



### Remedial **Investigation and**  **Feasibility Study** 

The purpose of a remedial investigation is to determine
the nature and extent of contamination at the site and
determine the threat to public health and the
environment from a release or potential release of
hazardous substances from the site. The remedial investigation included reviewing historical information,
and collect

ing samples from the air, water, soil,
sediment and waste. The remedial investigation focused on the plant site, although a number of samples were collected

from areas surrounding the
creek and the plant site. EPA decided not to collect

many creek sedimen

t samples for this investigation
because EPA conducted a more 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. For this site, EPA
conducted a Feasibility Study fo cused on cleanup
alternatives for the creek sediment only, since this is
the largest waste ar ea requiring remediation. Other
much s maller areas in the flood plain that are
contamin ated with coal-tar and its related chemicals will be addressed along with the creek sediments.Cleanup of Chattanooga Creek

Tennessee Products Superfund Site Proposed Plan Factsheet August 2002

4 The former plant pr operty was not considered in the development of the cleanup strategy because the
property was removed from the NPL listing by the
Federal Courts. Therefore, no remedy will be proposed
for the plant property as part of this remedy selection

process. However, it will be addressed through the State Superfund authority, and the State is currently coordinating a cleanup with the Mead Corporation.



### Site Characteristics and Study
Results

Chattanoog

a Creek is located in the Tennessee River Basin, and occu

pies the northern portion of the Chattanooga Valley between Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge. The creek originates from the slopes
of Lookout Mountain, flows approximately 26 miles
northward into Tennessee and eventuall y into the
Tennessee River. The creek has a watershed of nearly
75 square miles, of

which approximately 22% is in
Tennessee.

The portion of the creek that is known to contain coal-tar
contaminated sediment is a segment 2.5 miles long, beginning from

approximately Hamill Road and ending at Dobbs Branch (see Figure 1, attached).

Soil, sediment, groundwater and air samples we r e collected from the site

and surrounding targeted areas.
Some of the targeted areas included: the Coke Plant site; Chattanooga Creek tar deposit in the flood plain;
Schwerman Trucking site; Chattanooga Creek sediments and groundwater; Residential areas; the Early Childhood Family Education Center playground; and the Northeast
and Northwest tributary ar eas. Please note that the
Remedial Investigation covered many areas, inc l uding

areas that were cleaned up during the 1998 removal action. The focus of the proposed Phase 2 clean up are areas containing the most contamination.

A summary of the Remedial Investigation results relevant to the areas containing contamination associated with the Tennessee Products Site is presented below:

Air: Air sampl

e s were collected to find out if any contaminants from the site were in the air. A few samples showed the prese nce of the type of
contaminants found in the creek, but the levels did not

prese nt an unacceptable risk. Also, during the first phase of the c leanup, while the contaminated creek
sediments were being removed, EPA monitored the
air continuously and did not detect any unsafe levels of
contaminants in the air.

Grou n dwater: Shallow groundwater samples were collected near the creek to determine if contaminants
from the creek were being released in to the groundwater. Deeper groundwater samples were also
collected in certain areas, but no contaminants were
detected. Results show that a few of the organic
chemicals found in the sediment ar e present in the
shal low groundwater near the creek. The following chemicals were detected at very low concentrations:

Volatile Organics: Chlorobenzene
Semi- Volitile Organics: 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- Dichlorobenzene, Na

p hthalene, Acenaphthalene, Phenanthrene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene
Pesticides: Alpha-BHC, Beta-BHC, Gama-BHC and
Dieldrin Metals: Iron (found to be above background concentrations)

The groundwater contamination found to be
associated with the creek is limited to a narrow band along the creek. During most of the year groundwater
flows into the creek, preventing th e chemicals in the
creek from escaping. Only during high flood events
does water flow from the creek into the groundwater.

Soil: Soil samples were collected from the Northeast Tributary area and the Chattanooga Creek tar deposit located in the flood plain. Results from each area are
as follows:Cleanup of Chattanooga Creek

Tennessee Products Superfund Site Proposed Plan Factsheet August 2002

5 Northeast Tributary Area : soil samples collected from
the banks of the Northeast Tributary contained some Volati le Organic compounds (benzene, toluene,

et hylbenzene and xylenes); high concentrations of

P olynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); and low concentrations of pesticides. The PAH compounds are the type of chemicals associated with

t he creek and plant site. There is no apparent pattern in the distribution of the chemicals in the soil.
It is believed t

hat the soil next to the Northeast Tributary is material that was removed from the tributary channel and dumped along its bank. It has
been documented that the wastewater discharged
from the rear of the former coke plant flowed into
the Northeast Tributary and into Chattanooga Creek.

Chattanooga Creek Tar Deposit : This is an area in
the flood plain of the creek that contained a large
amount of coal-tar constituents in a pit approximately
90 feet square. Prior to Chattanooga Cre ek being straightened under 38 th Street, it meandered along a path next to the pit. EPA collected soil samples from
the area surrounding this pit to determine if chemicals
from the p it were spread out. A total of 18 soil samples were taken from locations which were approximately 200 feet apart. Results show that
PAH contaminati

on is present at varying
concentrations and in no distinguishable pattern. Also
found were some metals that were above background
concentrations in at least one sample. These metals

were: cadmium, chrom

ium, nickel, antimony, zinc, mercury and sodium.

Sediment : EPA conducted a comprehensive sediment study in Cha ttanooga Creek which identified significant PAH (coal-tar constituents) contamination. Most of the
contaminatio n is between Hamill Road and Dobbs Branch (see Figure 1 attached) Summary of Site Risks

As part of the RI/FS, EPA conducted a baseline risk
assessment to determine the current and future effects
of contaminants on human health and the environment.
Risk assessment is a process which makes many assumptions about how people and the envir o nment

are exposed to the site’s contaminants. Sampling
results are used with other information to determine the
risks caused by

the contaminants of concern based on conservative exposure assumptions.

Contaminants of Concern

The main contaminan

ts of concern (COCs) being
addressed by this remedy are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs present in the creek
bed are at concentrations that would pres ent an unacceptable risk should chronic human exposure

oc cur. In the current specific environmental setting,
PAHs at the surface and at depth in certain sediments
present significant risks, according to the human health and ecological risk assessments.

Human Health Risks

The human health risks for this site were e s timated
based on an assumption that people would visit the site currently and in the future, and on an assumption that the site would be developed for commercial use and
future site workers woul d be exposed to
contamination in the creek. The exposure pathways
examined in the Risk Assessment were:

• ingestion of soil

• dermal contact with soil

• ingestion of sediment (in Chattanooga Creek)

• dermal contact with sediment (in Chattanooga Creek)

• ingestion of groundwater

• inhalation of volatile organic comp ounds (VOCs) released from ground water, and

• inhalation of dust.Cleanup of Chattanooga Creek

Tennessee Products Superfund Site Proposed Plan Factsheet August 2002

6 The risks associated with these exposure scenarios are
calculated for cancer causing che micals (carcinogenic risks) and for other chemicals which do not cause cancer,but that have the potential to cause other ill effects (noncarcinogenic risks). The estimated risks for the areas investigated linked to Chattanooga Creek are summarized
below and in Table 1 and Table 2 attached.

G roundwater near the creek : The excess lifetime

cancer risk estimat

ed for ingestion of contaminated groundwat er near the creek is within EPA’s acceptable target range for adul t s and children. Ingestion of groundwater **d oes**  **not** pose an unacceptable risk.

Chattanooga Creek Tar Deposit : The excess lifetime

cancer risk estimated for exposure to contaminated
soil in the area of the ta

r deposit is within EPA’s acceptable risk range. Exposure to soil in this area
**does not**  pos e an unacceptable risk . This risk

assessment was performed on the soil surrounding the tar pit. All of the heavily contaminated material was removed during the 1997 removal action.

Northeast Tributary Area :

The excess lifetime cancer risk estimated for exposure to contaminated soil next

to the Northeast Tr

ibutary is above EPA’s

a cceptable target range. Exposure to contaminated
soil near the Northea st Tributary **d oes**  present an unacceptable risk to adults and children, mainly from direct contact and inadvertent ingestion.

Chattanooga C reek Sediment : The excess lifetime

cancer risk is estimated to be above EPA’s acceptable risk range for adults and children who
visit the creek and who are exposed to contaminated
sediment (between 38 th Street and Dobbs Branch).
Inadvertent ingestion of contaminated sediment and
direct dermal contact **does** present an unacceptable
risk. The creek segment between Hamill Road and
38 th Street was cleaned up during the 1997 removal
action. Ecological Risks

A complete ecological assessment was performed as
part of the RI/FS. EPA conducted flood plain soil,
surface water, sediment, and freshwater cl am tissue sampling at the site. Sediment and soil toxicity tests

were also conducted

using samples of sediment
contaminated with coal-tar constituents collected from
the creek. An earthworm bioaccumulation study was conducted using Site soil samples.

The ecological risk assessment generally con c luded that plants and animals in the flood plain of the creek
have not been adversely impacted. However, the ecological assessment also indicates that aquatic life in Chattanooga Creek are at risk from exposure to contaminated sediment. The sediment toxicity tests
show that P AH contamination in the sediment significantly affects the survival, growth and reproduction of aquatic life in the creek.

Remedial Action Objectives

Based on the remedial inve stigation and the risk

asse ssment, EPA determined that the objectives of the remedy will be to:

• prevent human exposure to contaminated soil along th e Northeast Tributary and contaminated sediment in Chattanooga Creek; and,

• eliminate risks to aquat i c life in Chattanooga Creek from exposure to contaminated sediment.

Scope and Role of the Remedy

As mentioned before, the overall cleanup strategy for
the site was first, to ad dress the contaminated
sediment in Chattanooga Creek that was easily
accessible and posed the highest health risk to people.
This was accomplished through the 1997-98 sediment
removal action. The second phase of the cleanup is to address the remaining

contaminated portion of the creek, and the Northeast Tributary Area.Cleanup of Chattanooga Creek

Tennessee Products Superfund Site Proposed Plan Factsheet August 2002

7 The law requires EPA to use treatment to address the principal threats posed by a site (NCP Section 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(A)). The principal threat is a source

waste ma terial at a site that is considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile, which would present a significant
threat to human health or the en vironment should

exposure occur. The coal-tar/PAH contaminated
sediment at this site does not meet the definition of “principal threat,” and therefore, the requirement to treat the principal threat does not apply.

Coal-tar/PAH contamination from the site and the risks
associated with its exposure will be addressed through the proposed cleanup action presented in this plan.

Summary of Remedial Alternatives

Six remedial action alternatives were consid ered for
evaluation in the Focused Feasibility Study Report. They
are described as follows:

**Alternative 1**  **:** No Action. The law requires that the “no
action” alternative be evaluated generally to establish a
baseline for comparison. Under this alternative EPA
would take no action at the site to prevent exposure to the contaminated sediment and soil.

**Alternat ive**  **2:** Re-routing the Chattanooga Creek and encapsulating (solidifying) the coal-tar constituents and contaminated sediment left behind;

**Alternative 3**  **:** Creating an on-site landfill for the contaminated material;

**Alternative 4**  **:** On-site Thermal Desorption

– heating the material at low temperatures to evaporate the chemicals;

**Alternative 5**  **:** On-site incineration

–burn the
contaminated material at the site to destroy the chemicals;

**Alternative 6**  **:** Off-site disposal and recycling

– removing the contami nated material and sending it to a recycling facility. Evaluation of Alternatives

The six remedial alternatives, including the no-action
alternative were evaluated using nine criteria established by EPA. The nine criteria are defined in
a box on the next page. A summary of the evaluation
follows:

**Overall Protection of Public Health and**
**Environment:** All the remedies meet this criteria, except Alternative 2, which keeps the contaminated material on-site and may potentially pose a future risk if the treatment fails long-term. The no-action
alternative does not meet this criteria.

**Compliance with State and Federal Requirements:**  Alternative 2 and 3 would not comply with State and Federal regulations, unless
the contaminated material is treated first. All theother Alternatives meet this criteria, except the noaction alternative.

**Short-term Effectiveness:** All the alternatives considered (except the no-action alternative) will involve engineering controls to protect workers and residents during construction. It is not expected that any of these remedies will pose short-term health or environmental risks. However, the no-action alternative will continue to pose an unacceptable risk
without treatment.

**Long-term Effectiveness:** Alternatives 4, 5, and 6
meets this standard because the waste is removed or permanently treated. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not provide the same level of protection because of uncertainties with long-term reliability of the remedy.
The no-action alternative does not meet this criteria.Cleanup of Chattanooga Creek

Tennessee Products Superfund Site Proposed Plan Factsheet August 2002

8 **Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity and Volume:** Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 reduce the mobility and toxicity of the waste, but no significant volume
reduction is achieved. Alternative 6 meets this criteria completely by eliminating the waste. The no-action
alternative does not meet this criteria.

**Implementability:** All the alternatives can be reasonably implemented. This criteria is not a
consideration for the no-action alternative. **Cost:** The estimated costs to implement each remedy is as follows:

Alternative 1: $0

Alternative 2: $6,707,900

Alternative 3: $6,321,600 (without pre-treatment)

Alternative 4: $8,662,200 to $12,574,500 (depending on

whether the thermal unit is direct-fired or indirect-fired)

Alternative 5: $12,151,000

Alternative 6: $7,479,400

**State Acceptance:** TDEC has assisted EPA in reviewing all technical reports produced during this investigation and has evaluated the remedial alternatives considered for this site. TDEC agrees with the proposed remedy for the site.

**Community Acceptance:** Community acceptance of the preferred alternative will be evaluated during the public comment period. Comments received from the community will be addressed in the Responsiveness Summary section of the Record of
Decision Document.

Summary of the Preferred Alternative

Based on the results of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, EPA has determined that excavation and off-site disposal and recycling (Alternative 6) is the preferred alternative for the site. The preferred alternative provides the best balance of tradeoffs among the nine evaluation criteria, and meets 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 and was proven to be effective and efficient. Also, this was also the only alternative considered to completely remove the waste material from the site.

The preferred alternative will involve excavating the
coal-tar constituent waste and contaminated
sediment from the location where the Phase 1 Nine Criteria for Evaluating Remedial Alternatives

1. Overall Protection of Public Health and

Environment: Degree to which the remedy eliminates, reduces, or controls health and environmental threats through treatment, engineering methods or institutional

controls.

2. Compliance with State and Federal Requirements: Degree to which each alternative meets environmental regulations determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate.

3. Short-term Effectiveness: Length of construction period and the risks posed to workers and nearby residents during construction.

4. Long-term Effectiveness: Ability of a remedy to maintain protection of health and environment after the remedy is completed.

5. Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity and Volume:
Degree to which the remedy reduces: the ability of contaminants to move through the environment; harmful nature of the contaminants; and, amount of contamination

removed.

6. Implementability: Refers to the technical feasibility and administrative ease of implementing a remedy.

7. Cost: Benefits of a remedy are weighed against its cost.

8. State Acceptance: Consideration of the State’s comments and acceptance of the preferred remedy.

9. Community Acceptance: Consideration of the public’s comments and acceptance of the preferred remedy.Cleanup of Chattanooga Creek

Tennessee Products Superfund Site Proposed Plan Factsheet August 2002

9 Cleanup ended to the confluence of Dobbs Branch. During the Phase 1 Cleanup the following
circumstances were encountered:

• all of the contaminated sediment was removed
because bedrock was near the bottom of the creek bed and all of the sediment was completely contaminated; and, • the coal-tar contamination is easily identified by visual inspection.

These conditions are expected to be encountered in the remaining portion of the creek. Therefore, it is unnecessary to establish cleanup standards for the cleanup in the creek, since all of the contaminated sediment is proposed to be removed.

The law requires that if a remedy is selected that results in contamination remaining at the site above levels that allow for unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure, then EPA shall evaluate the remedy every five years to determine if it continues to protect human health and the environment. If the preferred alternative is selected then the five-year review will not be required.

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (commonly referred to as CERCLA or the "Superfund Law") requires that EPA publish this Proposed Plan (Section 117(a)). Other public involvement activities undertaken at Superfund sites consist of: interviews with local residents and elected officials, development of a community relations plan, fact sheets, information availability sessions, public meetings, public comment periods, newspaper advertisements, site visits, Technical Assistance Grants, and any other activities needed to keep the community informed about the site and involved in the clean-up process.

To promote public involvement at the Tennessee Products site, EPA is conducting a **30-day public comment period from August 12 to September**  **10, 2002.** Public input on the remedial investigation, on all the alternatives considered, and on the preferred alternative is an important contribution to the remedy selection process. During this comment period, the public is invited to
attend a **public meeting on August 22, 2002, at the Calvin Donaldson Elementary School,** 
**located at 927 West 37 th**  **Street, Chattanooga, beginning at 7:00 p.m.**  At the public meeting, EPA will answer questions, present the Remedial Investigation results and discuss the preferred
alternative for the Tennessee Products Site. Because this Proposed Plan Fact Sheet provides only a summary description of the investigation and preferred alternative being considered, the public is encouraged to refer to the Administrative Record located in the information repository for a more detailed explanation.

The public is invited to review all site-related documents housed at the information repository located at the Sallie Crenshaw Bethlehem Center,
200 West 39 th Street, Chattanooga (423-266- 1384). The public is also invited to offer comments to EPA, either verbally at the public meeting, which will be recorded by a court reporter, or in written form during the 30-day comment period. The final remedy selected for the site could be different from the proposed remedy, described in this Proposed Plan Fact Sheet, depending upon new information or statements EPA may receive as a result of public

comments.

Public input is an important piece of the Superfund puzzle! Please mail written comments, postmarked no laterCleanup of Chattanooga Creek

Tennessee Products Superfund Site Proposed Plan Factsheet August 2002

10 

### QUICK COMMENTS Please let us know what you think about the Tennessee Products Super needed so that we can be responsive to the needs of the community. P and mail it to:

Mr. Nestor Young North Site Management Branch

U.S. EPA, Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303



### Name: Phone:
Address:



### Comments: than midnight September 10, 2002 to:

Nestor Young Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 North Site Management Branch 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303

If you have any questions about the site, you may contact Linda Starks, Community Involvement Coordinator, or Nestor Young, Remedial Project Manager, at the address above or phone 1-800-435- 9233. EPA's final cleanup decision will be recorded in a document called a Record of Decision (ROD). Public comments received by EPA will be reviewed. Response to comments will be included in a section of the ROD called the Responsiveness Summary. Once the ROD is signed by EPA's Regional Administrator, it will become part of the Administrative Record. The Administrative Record, located in the information repository, contains all documents used by EPA in making a final determination of the most appropriate action for the
site.

The Administrative Record can be found at:



### Sallie Crenshaw Bethlehem Center
**200 West 39 th**  

### Street **Chattanooga, TN 37409 (423-266-1384)** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

61 Forsyth Street, SW. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Region 4 Nestor Young, NSMB

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300



### Inside: Chattanooga Creek Proposed Clean Up Plan

### Table 1:

**Summary of Cancer and Non-Cancer Risks by Exposure Route Current Use Scenario for Chattanooga Creek Sediments** 

**Location Exposure Route**  **Child Resident Adult Resident**  **Lifetime**
**Resident**

**Cancer**

4 **HI** 5 **Cancer HI**  **Cancer HI** 

Upper Reach 1 Inadvertent

Ingestion
Dermal Contact 4E-07

1E-07 0.02
0.004 3E-07
3E-07 0.005
0.002 7E-07
4E-07 0.01

0.003

**Total Risk** 5E-07 0.03 6E-07 0.01 1E-06 0.01

Middle Reach

2 Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact 3E-04

3E-04 0.3

0.2 3E-04
5E-04 0.1

0.1 6E-04
7E-04 0.1

0.1

**Total Risk** 6E-04 0.5 8E-04 0.2 1E-03 0.2

Lower Reach

3 Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact 1E-06

1E-06 0.01

0.01 1E-06
2E-06 0.01

0.01 3E-06
3E-06 0.02

0.01

**Total Risk** 3E-06 0.03 4E-06 0.02 6E-06 0.03

**Notes:** 1. The Upper Reach is the area from Burnt Mill Bridge to the RR bridge between Hooker and Hamil Roads.

2. The Middle Reach is the area between the RR bridge (between Hooker and Hamil Roads) and Dobbs Branch

. 3. The Lower Reach is the area between Dobbs Branch and the Tennessee River.

4. Cancer: The cancer risk level is a probability of getting cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to a chemical at the particular level of exposure. The numbers mean the following: 1E-04 is one chance in 10,000; 1E-05 is onechance in 100,000; and 1E-06 one chance in a million. EPA determined that estimated cancer risks between 1E04 (0.0001) and 1E-06 (0.000001) is acceptable, and do not necessarily indicate that a cleanup is needed.

3. HI: The Hazard Index (HI) is the sum of the Hazard Quotient for each exposure route. An HI is calculated for non-carcinogens to assess whether health problems, other than cancer, might be associated with a Superfund site. If the number is greater than 1.0 then the chemical may pose some risk to human health.

## Table 2: Summary of Cancer and Non-cancer Risks by Exposure Route **for the Northeast Tributary Area** 1



### Exposure Route Estimated Risk

Current Use Scenario for a Site

Visitor Future Use Scenario for a Site

Visitor (property developed for commercial use) Future Use Scenario for a Site Worker (property developed for commercial use)

Cancer 2 HI 3 Cancer HI Cancer HI

Inadvertent Ingestion of Soil
Dermal Contact with Soil Inhalation of Dust Inadvertent Ingestion of Surface Water Dermal Contact of Surface Water Inadvertent Ingestion of Sediment Dermal Contact with Sediment 1E-04
2E-04 2E-08 2E-06 5E-04 4E-05 7E-05 0.03

0.04 0.000001 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.03 1E-04

2E-04 2E-08 2E-06 5E-04 4E-05 7E-05 0.03

0.04 0.000001 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.03 2E-03

1E-03 6E-07 NA NA NA NA 0.2

0.1 0.00002 NA NA NA NA

**TOTAL RISK 9E-04**  **0.7 9E-04**  **0.7 3E-03**  **0.4**

**Notes:**
1. The Northeast Tributary Area consists of a mound of contaminated soil next to the Northeast Tributary of Chattanooga Creek.
2. Cancer: The cancer risk level is a probability of getting cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to a chemical at the particular level of exposure. The numbers mean the following: 1E-04 is one chance in 10,000; 1E-05 is one chance in 100,000; and 1E-06 one chance in a million. EPA determined that estimated cancer risks between 1E-04 (0.0001) and 1E-06 (0.000001) is acceptable, and do not necessarily indicate that a cleanup is needed.
3 HI: The Hazard Index (HI) is the sum of the Hazard Quotients for each exposure route. An HI is calculated for non-carcinogens to assess whether health problems, other than cancer, might be associated with the site. If the number is greater than 1.0, then the chemical may pose some risk to human
health.