&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/029
September 1991
PB92-963249
National
Priorities
Sites:
INDIANA
1991
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-715A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Indiana
oven Agency
S. Envro-
gion 5, Library 0 «v
77 W
Chicago, IL
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Superfund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Indiana 17
The NPL Report:
Progress to Date 19
The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities 21
Appendix A: Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 95
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 111
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline stories gave Americans a
look at the dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the land. First there
was New York's Love Canal. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation of several hundred people. Then
the leaking barrels at the Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky attracted public attention, as did
the dioxin-tainted land and water in Times
Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human health and the envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly known as Superfund
was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. These might include tire
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral part of the Superfund
program.
Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The EPA has
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when the
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and that it continues to do its job.
Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
report to the public annually on all five-year
reviews conducted that year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about both
environmental progress across the country and
the cleanup accomplishments closer to home.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and their potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
' Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND.
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens If there Is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while their local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, if any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
assess the relative threat from a release or a
potential release of hazardous substances from
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxicity and
amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
the people and sensitive environments poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND.
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site .
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them. Site clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are. Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
"""Stt^Descrlptlon
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts: *,
Environmental Progress
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to
nearby residents and the surrounding environment;
progress towards cleaning up the site and goals of
the cleanup plan are given here.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
CLEANUP APPROACH
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
RESPONSE ACTION STATUS
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean
up the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided
into separate phases, depending on the complexity and required actions at the
site. Two major types of cleanup activities often are described: initial,
immediate, or emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent
threats to the community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial
phases directed at final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy
is presented in this section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of
the cleanup process (initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the
cleanup remedy, engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway, and
completed cleanup) are located in the margin next to each activity descrip-
tion.
SITE FACTS
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
15
-------
THE VOLUME
The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
Contaminated Groundwater resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response Action
Status Section
Initial Actions have been taken or are
underway to eliminate immediate
threats at the site.
Site Studies at the site to determine the
nature and extent of contamination are
planned or underway.
Remedy Selected indicates that site
investigations have been concluded,
and the EPA has selected a final
cleanup remedy for the site or part of
the site.
Remedy Design means that engineers
are preparing specifications and
drawings for the selected cleanup
technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing indicates that the
selected cleanup remedies for the
contaminated site, or part of the site,
currently are underway.
Cleanup Complete shows that all
cleanup goals have been achieved for
the contaminated site or part of the
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPL SITES
The State of
Indiana
Indiana is located in EPA's Region 5, which includes the six midwestern states boarding the
Great Lakes. Situated on the southern edge of Lake Michigan, Indiana covers 36,185 square
miles and consists of a hilly southern region, fertile rolling plains in the central region, and a flat,
heavily glaciated northern region with dunes along Lake Michigan. Indiana experienced a 1%
increase in population between 1980 and 1990 and currently has approximately 5,544,000
residents, ranking 14th in U.S. populations, according to the 1990 Census. Manufacturing is one
of the principal industries with primary and fabricated metals, transportation equipment, electri-
cal and electronic equipment, non-electrical machinery, plastics, chemical products, and foods as
the principal manufactured goods. Other principal industries include wholesale and retail trade,
agriculture, and services.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Indiana?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
33
_2
35
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional Districts 2, 10, 11 1 site
Congressional Districts 4, 5 2 sites
Congressional Districts 7,8 3 sites
Congressional District 9 4 sites
Congressional Districts 1,6 5 sites
Congressional District 3 8 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of Indiana?
# of sites
12
5
5
4
2
7
type of sites
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Storage Facilities
Waste Disposal Facilities
Recyclers
Chemicals & Allied Products
Other (Lumber & wood products, metals &
allied products, electroplating, battery
manufacture, rail yard, various manufacturers)
17
April! 991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
36--
30--
24--
818-
6 --
GW Soil SW Sed Solid & Air
Liquid
Wastes
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and creosotes (organics).
Soil, Solid and Liquid Waste:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics), polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs), creosotes
(organics), and other inorganics.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs), creosotes
(organics), and pesticides.
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics) and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Where Are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process?*
13
Sites
with B|
Studies
Underway
2
Sites
> with
Remedy
Selected
5
Sites
^ with
Remedy
Design
11
Sites
^- with
Cleanup
Ongoing
\
Sites
K- with
Construction
Complete .
2
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 24 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status
of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
indicating die current stage of cleanup.
Progress
To Date
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed
without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
A final arrow in the "Construction
Complete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed, and the EPA has determined that no
additional construction actions are required at
the site. Some sites in this category currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April 1991
-------
ft
ft
ft ftftft
ftft
CD
(0
TJ
£
i
0)
ft ft
ft
jjfifl tiftOftftftfl
ft ftftftftftftftftft
ftftft ftft ftftftftftftftftft
V)
0)
ftft ftft ftft ftft ft ftft
0)
+rf
35
_i
Q.
z
+
(0
a
(0
_«
a
TS
CO
I
3
CO
S
OS
|
3
a
CO
04
S
U
O.
2
g
<
o
SSSSSSSSSSS
A09?30i0$ArtA 60 A (^
.s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s
t-L« tU P-* PU rj^j LL r^ pU UU UU [JU
3SIS
5 5 s 5
8
April 1991
20
-------
ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft
ftftftftftftftftftftft
** n
If
ff
1
a
_i
z
i
o
c
E
a
(75
(0
a.
ft
§
1
1
o
s
HANCOCK
06
U.
OS
CO
r-
ft
t
.S
u.
X
o
z
o
co
^
Q
PRESTOLTTE BATTERY
ID
r-
^
1
'ed
.5
tu
MARION
CU
OS
O
U
J
REILLY TAR & CHEMIC
t-
r-
ft
1
"3
.S
u-
JACKSON
§
H
as
2
OS
0
u
SEYMOUR RECYCLING
0*
r-
ft
t
1
3
.S
u.
MARION
J
^_4
p
5?
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 5
23
April 1991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Indiana, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 5
Office in Chicago, Illinois or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 5 Superfund Community Relations Office (312) 353-2073
EPA Region 5 Superfund Office (312) 886-7456
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
Indiana Superfund Office (317) 243-5015
April! 991
24
-------
AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SERVICE, INC.
INDIANA
EPAID#IND016360265
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lake County
Griffith
Site Description
American Chemical Service (ACS), Inc. recycled chemicals on 21 acres along South Colfax Avenue
in Griffith from 1958 until 1975, when it voluntarily stopped using two disposal areas on site and
covered them. The site contains an estimated 35,000 buried drums and pigment and resin sludges.
The site operated until 1990 as a hazardous waste recycler with interim status under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The site previously contained three different operations:
the American Chemical Service operated on 19 acres; Kapica Drum used 2 acres; and an inactive
portion of the adjacent Griffith Sanitary Landfill. ACS began operation in 1955 as a solvent
recovery firm and later began a chemical manufacturing operation. From 1955 until at least 1975,
ACS disposed of a variety of hazardous wastes produced during company operations in an area
known as the off-site containment area on the property. ACS also disposed of numerous drums and
stillbottoms in portions of the currently operating facility. Some waste was accepted from outside
sources for incineration in an on-site incinerator, and the ash was disposed of on ACS property. In
1972, the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) responded to residents' complaints and inspected the
ACS facility. From 1972 to 1973, ISBH attempted to achieve improved waste handling, spill
prevention measures, and site maintenance. In 1974 and 1975, ISBH also responded to reports that
ACS was discharging chemicals to the sanitary sewer and dumping chemicals on site.
Approximately 10,000 people live within 3 miles of the site, the closest being less than 1/4 mile
away. Located in the immediate vicinity of the site are a few residences, railroad tracks, drainage
ditches, and marshy areas. More than 2,000 private wells are in use in the area of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
panics' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
benzene, toluene, chloroethane, xylene, vinyl chloride, pentachlorophenol (PCP), and
phthalates. The shallow aquifer contains the highest amounts of organic contaminants.
Soils are heavily contaminated with numerous substances including PCBs, heavy metals,
semi- and non-volatiles, coal tar constituents, VOCs, and some pesticides. Evidence
suggests that the heavily contaminated shallow aquifer discharges to the wetlands and
surface water features, posing the potential for adverse effects. Past discharges by ACS
previously had affected a major portion of the site's wetlands. Exposure to contaminants
by accidently ingesting groundwater and surface water, direct contact with groundwater,
surface water, soil, or sediments; or inhaling airborne VOCs could be potential health
threats.
25
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In the early 1980s, American Chemical Service installed a clay wall to
block the perceived flow direction of the groundwater and to control the environmental
degradation due to surface water and leachate runoff. Initial cleanup efforts concentrated
on identifying, staging, and segregating drums from construction debris in the building. Drums were
labeled, sampled, overpacked, and staged in a nearby vacant building. Twenty-four-hour security
was maintained throughout the removal. Construction debris was decontaminated and disposed of.
The remaining building brick was scrubbed with a high pressure wash. All rinsate and
decontamination water was collected and removed for treatment and disposal. Drums were grouped
into three separate waste streams based on pH levels. All three waste streams were accepted at a
facility for treatment and disposal. A total of 277 drums of waste and 23,154 gallons of water were
shipped off site for treatment and disposal.
Entire Site: Approximately 150 potentially responsible parties have formed a group to
conduct a study of site contamination. The investigation involves wetlands delineation;
waste and soil borings; and groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling to
determine the nature and extent of site contamination. The scheduled completion date for the
investigation is in 1992, when the EPA will select the remedies to clean up the site based on its
results.
Environmental Progress
The early removal of drums and contaminated water and the installation of the clay barrier wall have
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials on the American Chemical Service, Inc.
site while an investigation leading to the permanent remedies for the site contamination is taking
place and final remedies are being planned.
April 1991 26 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICE, INC.
-------
BENNETT STONE
QUARRY
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND006418651
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Monroe County
Bloommgton
Site Description
The Bennett Stone Quarry site consists of 2 1/2 acres and is located approximately 1 mile northwest
of Bloomington. This limestone quarry was used as a dump for old electrical parts for approximately
20 years, before it was discovered by the Monroe County Health Department (MCHD) in 1983. The
MCHD subsequently defined an area of several acres that had been used for dumping electrical pans,
including a large number of capacitors contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Labels
found on the capacitors during the MCHD investigation attributed them to the Westinghouse
Corporation. Soils adjacent to the site are stained with oil, and the entire site is devoid of vegetation.
Two ponds that drain into Stout Creek are located on the western end of the site and are coated with
oily sheens. Five other PCB-contaminated sites are located in the Bloomington area, three of which
are listed as separate sites on the NPL: Neal's Landfill, Neal's Dump, and Lemon Lane Landfill.
Anderson Road, an authorized landfill, and Winston-Thomas Treatment Plant, an inactive City-
owned wastewater treatment plant, are the other sites. The majority of the residents living near
Bennett Stone Quarry and the adjoining property depend on private wells for their water supply. The
land along Stout Creek is used for raising dairy and beef cattle. The quarries adjacent to the site are
frequented by local residents and campers for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater, soils, sediments, and surface water were contaminated with PCBs.
Off-site sediments located in Stout Creek also were contaminated with PCBs. Smaller
amounts of PCBs were found in the waters of Stout Creek. Area residents could have
been exposed to contaminants through direct contact with PCB-laden oil in the ponds and
on-site PCB-contaminated soil. Should further migration of site-related contaminants
enter Stout Creek, area residents could be at risk when drinking or touching contaminated
surface water or sediments.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: The EPA undertook an emergency cleanup in 1983 that included:
(1) removal and disposal of capacitors on the surface and contaminated soils; (2) an aerial
photographic survey, geophysical study, and soil sampling; (3) placement of an
impervious cover over the site to prevent runoff of contaminants; and (4) construction of security
fencing around the site. In 1987, contaminated sediments were excavated from Stout Creek.
Entire Site: Activities conducted to address contamination at the site include: (1)
excavation of all refuse plus a 2-foot buffer zone around the known refuse; (2)
incineration of excavated materials in an approved facility; (3) hydro-vacuuming
contaminated sediments from the on-site ponds and Stout Creek and storing them off site until
incineration and disposal can be conducted; and (4) regrading, covering, and revegetating the area of
the site. Groundwater and surface water monitoring will be continued to ensure that water quality
standards are maintained.
Site Facts: In 1985, the Westinghouse Corporation and the EPA signed a Consent Decree, under
which Westinghouse agreed to perform the site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The excavation, removal, or incineration of hazardous materials and contaminated creek sediments,
installation of a security fence, and other cleanup activities have reduced the potential for exposure
to contamination from the Bennett Stone Quarry site. Continuing cleanup actions and groundwater
and surface water monitoring will provide protection to nearby residents and the environment.
April 1991 28 BENNETT STONE QUARRY
-------
CARTER LEE
COMPANY
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND016395899
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Marion County
Indianapolis
Site Description
Carter Lee Lumber Company has been selling lumber products at this 2-acre site since 1873. In
1971, Carter Lee bought land behind its original property from the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago,
and St. Louis Railway Corporation. Liquid wastes from tank trucks and railroad cars reportedly
were dumped onto the ground and into a trench on the property. The EPA sampled the soil in 1985
and found it to be contaminated with heavy metals and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs).
The trench has been filled with clay and the property has been fenced, with access limited to
employees of the lumber company. Approximately 710,000 people obtain drinking water from
municipal wells within 3 miles of the site. These wells are supplied by surface water. The closest
private drinking water well is upgradient from the property and approximately 3,500 feet away. The
property is in the flood plain of the White River, which is located 1,500 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Soil is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and
copper; as well as cyanide and various volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Presently,
there is little threat to human health or the environment. Because the site is fenced, the
only people coming into contact with contaminated soil are employees of the lumber
company. If the cleanup workers were to dig or uncover the contamination in the trench,
they may be exposed to pollutants.
29
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation into the nature and extent of the contamination is planned
for the Carter Lee Lumber site. The investigation will identify cleanup alternatives for the
final site cleanup approach.
Environmental Progress
The Site has been fenced to limit access and the trenches have been filled to reduce the potential for
exposure to contaminated soil at the Carter Lee Lumber site. The EPA assessed conditions at the
site and determined that no immediate actions were required while studies and cleanup activities are
being planned.
April 1991
30
CARTER LEE LUMBER COMPANY
-------
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Bartholomew County
Columbus
Other Names:
City Dump #1
COLUMBUS
MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL #1
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980607626
Site Description
The City of Columbus operated the 12-acre Columbus Old Municipal Landfill #1 site without a
permit from 1938 until 1966. The landfill reportedly accepted municipal and industrial wastes
including solvents, acids, bases, paints, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals.
The landfill is unlined, but the top is covered with a layer of sand and gravel where grass has
grown. Wastes were deposited on the surface of the landfill, and the site forms a low barrier
between the farmlands that surround it and the East Fork of the White River. Testing has
indicated groundwater contamination under the site area. Geologic conditions at the site make it
easy for the groundwater to interact with and contaminate the surface waters in the area. The
closest residence to the site is less than 1/2 mile away. Approximately 33,000 people live within
a 3-mile radius of the site. There are private wells within 1/2 mile of the site, and public wells
for water supply are within 3 miles.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater at the site contains lead and chromium from paint wastes. Other
contamination found on site includes PCBs, acids, bases, and organic solvents; however,
information currently is not available on the extent of contamination of surface water or
soil. Possible health threats to people include drinking or coming in direct contact with
contaminated groundwater or surface water or accidentally ingesting contaminated soil or
sediments. The site is prone to flooding, increasing the chance for contaminants to reach
surface waters in the area.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
31
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties began an investigation in 1987 to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The investigation is
scheduled for completion in late 1991 and will recommend cleanup alternatives.
Site Facts: In 1987, a Consent Order was signed between the EPA, the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management, and three parties potentially responsible for the site contamination.
Under the agreement, the parties agreed to study the site to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the landfill.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Columbus Old Municipal Landfill site while studies are
taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
32
COLUMBUS OLD MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL #1
-------
CONRAIL RAIL Y
(ELKHART)
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND000715490
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Elkhart County
Elkhart
Other Names:
County Road 1
Site Description
The Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart) began operations in 1956 as part of the New York Central Railroad
and continued operations as a subsidiary of the Penn Central Transportation Company until 1976.
From 1962 to 1968, numerous citizen complaints regarding oil discharges from the rail yard to the
nearby St. Joseph River were filed with State and local authorities. In 1976, Conrail took over the
rail yard's functions. From 1976 to 1986, the rail yard experienced spills and releases of oil, diesel
fuel, hydrochloric acid, caustic soda, and various petroleum-related substances. Also, track-cleaning
fluids and engine degreasers were used and disposed of at the site. The site contains several ponds
used to stabilize waste and separate oils and a disposal area, now covered, where rail yard wastes
were discarded. In 1986, the EPA discovered volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the
groundwater near the site. Approximately 41,000 people live in Elkhart and the entire population
obtains its drinking water from groundwater. The Elkhart Water Works serves approximately
41,000 persons living northeast of the site. The remaining population obtains drinking water from
private residential wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Dale: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil at the site contain VOCs. People could be exposed to hazardous
substances from the site by accidentally coming into direct contact with or ingesting
contaminated groundwater or soil.
33
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the entire site and of the source area.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA began a program to sample the groundwater off site in
1986. The EPA sampled 88 residential wells and detected various VOCs. The EPA
provided bottled water to residents whose wells were affected. Also, the EPA installed 76
activated carbon filter units in residences. As part of the immediate action, the EPA also removed
28 drums containing waste paint from the nearby Martin property in 1987.
Entire Site: The EPA started an investigation of the nature and extent of contamination
at the site in 1988. This study is defining the contaminants and recommending various
cleanup alternatives. It is scheduled to be completed in 1991. Upon completion of the
investigation, the EPA will select a remedy to provide a permanent safe drinking water source to
residents and to contain the contaminated groundwater. Additional studies are planned to further
characterize the extent of the groundwater contamination and to identify the source area. These
studies are expected to be completed in 1992.
Source Area: In 1991, the EPA is scheduled to begin an investigation of the source of
the contamination. The study is scheduled for completion in 1993.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions of providing bottled water, installing carbon filter units, and removing drums
have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated drinking water and continue to protect
residents near the Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart) site while cleanup actions are being planned and
investigations are ongoing.
April 1991 34 CONRAIL RAIL YARD (ELKHART)
-------
CONTINENTAL
CORPORATION
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND001213503
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Howard County
Kokomo
Site Description
Since 1914, the Continental Steel Corporation has produced rods and wire products from recycled
steel scraps on this 200-acre site. The site includes the plant, a lagoon, and a quarry. Wastes were
collected in a surface impoundment constructed in 1946 and were processed through a neutralization
system and were discharged to Wildcat Creek. In 1984, 1985, and 1986, the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management identified heavy metals in the impoundment and heavy metals and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the on-site groundwater. Operations at the site ended in
1986, when the facility went bankrupt. Approximately 1,600 people obtain drinking water from
private wells within 3 miles of the site. The nearest well is 7,200 feet from the site. The site is
situated above an aquifer.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface water contain VOCs and heavy metals including chromium,
cadmium, iron, and manganese. Liquids in the quarry pond and lagoon contain VOCs
and heavy metals including copper, zinc, and mercury. Sludges and creek sediments
contain heavy metals including cadmium, chromium, iron, and manganese; VOCs; and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Soils are contaminated with heavy metals, PCBs,
phenols, phthalates, and VOCs. PCBs were found in fish caught in Kokomo and Wildcat
Creeks. People could be exposed to contaminants by coming into direct contact with or
accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, soil, sludge, surface water, liquids, or
sediments. In addition, eating contaminated fish from the creeks could pose a health
hazard.
35
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1990, the EPA began removing drums and visibly contaminated soil
from a quarry area near the plant. Approximately 700 drums, 33 vats, and 55 tanks were
found. All contained unknown materials. The EPA sampled the containers, and the
results are being analyzed. The EPA also investigated the pond within the quarry area and found
approximately 500 empty drums and three storage tanks. Initial cleanup actions are expected to be
completed in late 1991.
Entire Site: In 1990, the State began a study into the nature and extent of contamination
at the site to determine the best methods to address the problems. The State is scheduled
to complete the study in 1994. This complex site will be divided into additional cleanup
phases as studies progress and more is known about the site.
Site Facts: Continental Steel Corporation filed for bankruptcy in 1985 and ceased
operations at the site in 1986.
Environmental Progress
The ongoing removal of drums and contaminated soil is reducing the potential for exposure to
contaminated materials at the Continental Steel Corporation site while studies are taking place and
final cleanup activities are being planned.
April! 991 36 CONTINENTAL STEEL CORPORATION
-------
DOUGLAS ROA
UNIROYAL, INC
LANDFILL
INDIANA
EPAID#IND980607881
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
St. Joseph County
Mishawaka
The 19-acre Douglas Road/Uniroyal, Inc. Landfill site is owned by Uniroyal and was operated
between 1954 and 1979. From 1954 to 1971, solvents, fly ash, paper, wood stock, rubber, and
plastic wrap were disposed of at the unlined landfill. After operations ceased, the landfill was
covered with topsoil and seeded. According to Uniroyal, some 6,000 barrels of waste were
disposed of at the landfill. The South Bend Water Department has seven wells within 3 miles of
the site that serve approximately 120,000 people. Approximately 2,100 people live within a one
mile radius of the site. Judy Creek is located approximately 2,000 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with hydrocarbons. Potential health risks include
touching or accidentally ingesting the contaminated groundwater. The site is secured,
reducing the potential for direct access.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
37
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1989, Uniroyal, Inc. initiated an investigation to determine the type and
extent of contamination at the landfill and to identify alternative cleanup remedies. The
work is being conducted under the monitoring of the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM). Field work is scheduled to begin in 1991, and the site
investigation is scheduled for completion in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1989, the IDEM signed a Consent Order under which Uniroyal is conducting an
investigation to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Douglas Road/Uniroyal, Inc. Landfill while studies are
taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
38
DOUGLAS ROAD/UNIROYAL, INC. LANDFILL
-------
ENVIROCHEM
CORPORATION
INDIANA
EPAID#IND084259951
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Boone County
10 miles northwest of Indianapolis
The 6 1/2-acre Envirochem Corporation site is an inactive facility that processed and reclaimed
solvents from 1977 until 1982, when the State closed the site. Wastes such as resins, paint sludges,
waste oils, and flammable solvents were received in drums and bulk tankers and were stored on site
in drums and storage tanks. On-site accumulation and unauthorized discharge of contaminated
stormwater, poor management of drum inventory, unapproved burning of chlorinated hydrocarbons
and other solvents, and several spills brought the State and the EPA to investigate the site. The State
prohibited further shipment of waste to the site; however, over 20,000 drums and 400,000 gallons of
waste remained on site. Additionally, contaminated underground and aboveground storage tanks
and wastewater in holding ponds were present. Approximately 50 people live within 1 mile of the
site. The city of Indianapolis uses the Eagle Creek Reservoir as its drinking water supply. A
rainstorm caused a waste pond to overflow into an unnamed ditch on site and then to Finley Creek.
In 1985, the State noted that runoff from the site enters the Eagle Creek Reservoir.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals
including barium, lead, and nickel. Sediments contain lead. VOCs, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), phenols, and phthalates are contaminating the soils. Surface water
contains VOCs. People could be exposed to contaminants by coming into direct contact
with or accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, soil, surface water, or
sediments.
39
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983 and 1984, the EPA and a group of parties potentially
responsible for site contamination performed immediate actions that included removing
and treating waste from on-site storage tanks, removing and treating 5,650 cubic yards of
contaminated soils, and fencing the site. Actions also were taken to prevent contaminated water
from overflowing into surface waters off site. Bulk tanks and treating water from cooling ponds
were removed, in addition to 3,085 drums and 167,000 gallons of liquid waste. The EPA also
removed two underground storage tanks, cleaned and disposed of bulk storage tanks and
miscellaneous piping, and placed a clay cap on the surface of the site. The holding pond was drained
and capped, and the water in the pond was sent off site to an approved facility for treatment. Tanks
on site were sampled, and the contents were tested for compatibility. Tanks with compatible
contents were combined and were then dried and cleaned. Sludge from the tanks was put into drums
for off-site removal and treatment. Other underground tanks and pipes were located and recovered.
The tanks containing PCBs were cleaned and rinsed. The transformer was drained and rinsed with
fuel oil. The entire site was then capped and seeded, and drainages were set up to control the water
that runs onto the site when it rains. In 1985, the EPA installed a sump to collect contaminated
groundwater.
Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA completed a study of alternatives for addressing
contamination at the site and selected the following cleanup measures: installing a
permanent cap over the site to prevent contaminants in the soil from moving off site and
installing a system to pump and treat groundwater under the site. In 1991, the EPA amended the
selected remedy to include soil vapor extraction, with a granulated activated carbon system to treat
extracted vapor from contaminated soils rather than groundwater collection and treatment. This new
remedy is expected to significantly reduce the time required to clean up the site. The EPA has
completed all of the field work necessary to design the cap, and final cleanup construction is
expected to begin in 1992.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was negotiated between the EPA, the State of Indiana, and 254
potentially responsible parties, which included the establishment of a fund to finance the removal
work that the EPA began in 1983. The panics also agreed to perform final cleanup work at the site.
Based on a demonstration pilot study, the potentially responsible parties entered into a 1991 Consent
Decree to use vapor extraction technology to clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of tanks, drums, liquid wastes, and contaminated soil, the securing of the site, and the
additional immediate actions described above have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances at the Envirochem Corporation site while final cleanup activities are taking
place.
April 1991 40 ENVIROCHEM CORPORATION
-------
FISHER-CALO
INDIANA
EPA ID#IND074315896
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
LaPorte County
1 1/2 miles northeast of Kingsbury Heights
Other Names:
Fisher-Calo Chemical and Solvents
Site Description
The 250-acre Fisher-Calo site consists of two separate tracts: a 10-acre portion of the site known as
the "One Line Facility" and a 240-acre portion of the site known as the "Two Line Facility." The
site is a former industrial chemical processing and distribution facility. The facility is located in an
area that previously housed the Kingsbury Ordnance Plant, a U.S. military installation used to
manufacture weapons. In the early 1960s, the ordnance plant was closed, and the land was
purchased by a private developer who subdivided the property to form an industrial park. Sodium
hypochlorite was produced and sulfur dioxide, chloride, ammonia, and various solvents were
packaged at the site. For several years, a solvent reclamation facility that recovered paint and metal
cleaning solvents for resale operated at the site. Cyanide, acids, and metal plating wastes were also
accepted from other industries, stored in metal drums, and stockpiled on the site or dumped on the
ground. In 1978, a fire broke out at the site's solvent reclamation facility, destroying several bulk
storage tanks, trucks, and drums of chemical wastes and solvents. Later that year, buried drums
were discovered on the property. In 1979 and 1980, drums containing chemicals and sludges were
removed from the site. Waste materials, mostly stillbottoms, are stored in drums, tanks, and
containers at the site. Some of the drums are reportedly leaking. The site is fenced, but only the
main gate is guarded. Approximately 3,700 people live within 4 miles of the site. The nearest
public water supply well is 1/2 mile from the site, and the closest residence using groundwater as a
water source is 1 1/2 miles from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soils are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). On-site soils also contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and semi-volatiles.
The greatest health risk to people is through drinking contaminated groundwater or
touching contaminated soils.
41
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1989, the parties potentially responsible for site contamination, under
EPA monitoring, fenced the site and staged and removed empty drums. The potentially
responsible parties are sampling and disposing of the drums, tanks, and containers of
hazardous waste and the visibly contaminated soil. These activities are nearly completed.
Entire Site: The EPA conducted an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. The remedy selected in 1990 includes several components. Soil
contaminated with PCBs and semi-volatiles will be treated by excavation and on-site
incineration, with soil flushing or soil vapor extraction planned to treat any VOC-contaminated soils
remaining after excavation. Groundwater extraction wells will be installed from which the
groundwater will be pumped and treated with air stripping; treated groundwater will be reinjected
into the aquifer. Asbestos will be assessed and limited asbestos removal or repair of existing
structures is planned. A new water supply will be installed. Soil gas testing and installation and
upgrading of security fences around the site complete the planned cleanup. Once the design of the
selected technologies is completed, site cleanup will begin.
Site Facts: Fisher-Calo entered into a Consent Agreement with the EPA in 1982, agreeing to
conduct quarterly groundwater monitoring at the site to determine whether contaminants had
dissipated to acceptable levels. In 1988, the EPA issued a Unilateral Order to the potentially
responsible parties requiring them to conduct immediate activities at the site.
Environmental Progress
The fencing, removal of empty drums, and the ongoing disposal of hazardous waste and
contaminated soils have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to contaminants at the Fisher-
Calo site while cleanup technologies are being designed and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 42 FISHER-CALO
-------
FORT WAYN
REDUCTION
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980679542
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Allen County
Fort Wayne
Site Description
The 35-acre Fort Wayne Reduction Dump site is a former municipal landfill and waste disposal
facility. Before 1967, the site was uncultivated farmland often used for the dumping of unknown
waste. Between 1967 and 1976, the facility accepted wastes including residential garbage, sewage,
industrial liquid waste, paper, and wood. Wastes were incinerated, and the residual ash was
disposed of on the site. Volatile liquids were dumped from drums into a pit adjacent to the Maumee
River. The site consists of two areas: the 15-acre eastern portion was used as the general refuse
landfill, and a 5-acre western section was used for the disposal of industrial wastes, building debris,
barrels of unidentified wastes, and residual ash from the incinerator. In 1970, Fort Wayne
Reduction changed its name to National Recycling Corporation (NRC) and built a recycling plant
for processing solid waste. The recycling stopped in 1975, and the building was torn down in 1985.
NRC was acquired by Service Corporation of America (SCA) in 1973. SCA was denied a municipal
refuse permit, and operations ceased in 1976. Waste Management acquired SCA in 1984. Two
residential communities are located approximately 1/2 mile from the dump. The Maumee River
borders the property, and the site is in the 100-year flood plain. Approximately 1,100 people use
private wells as a source of drinking water. Two areas on the site are designated as wetlands.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy
metals. Heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenols, and VOCs are present in the soil. People who come into
direct contact with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater or soil may be at
risk. Contaminants have migrated into the Maumee River through groundwater
discharge. The wetlands on the site are an important habitat for many plants and animals.
If contaminants seep into the wetlands, the wildlife may be harmed.
43
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the site by: (1) closing
the eastern portion of the site to prevent erosion and eliminating potential direct
contact threats; (2) monitoring the groundwater as it flows from the site to the Maumee
River; (3) installing a system to collect groundwater between the site and the Maumee River and
treating the groundwater, if necessary; (4) excavating 4,600 drums and incinerating their
contents; (5) backfilling the excavated areas; (6) closing the western portion of the site to prevent
erosion and eliminate potential direct contact threats; (7) constructing a fence around the site; (8)
imposing deed restrictions on the use of the land; (9) protecting the wetlands during the cleanup
activities; and (10) installing erosion mats and planting vegetation to reduce erosion during
Maumee River floods. Waste Management, under EPA monitoring, designed the technical
specifications for the cleanup. Construction of the remedy for the eastern portion is expected to
be completed in the summer of 1991. The design of the cleanup measures for the western
portion currently is underway, with the cleanup activities planned to commence in 1991.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Fort Wayne Reduction Dump site. Cleanup
actions in the eastern portion of the site currently are underway, while the design of the cleanup
approach for the western site area is being completed.
April 1991 44 FORT WAYNE REDUCTION DUMP
-------
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
St. Joseph County
Osceola
GALEN MYER
DUMP/DRUM
SALVAGE
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980999635
Site Description
From 1960 to 1982, drams from local industries were stored and recycled at the 5-acre Galen Myers
Dump/Drum Salvage site. The tops were removed, the contents were dumped into a pit and
driveway, and the drums were sold as trash containers. In 1984, the EPA found many leaking and
deteriorating drums on the site and removed them in 1985. In 1986, the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) found soil and private wells to be contaminated.
Approximately 17,000 people obtain drinking water from wells located within 3 miles of the site.
The St. Joseph River is located 1 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil are contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The soil also contains phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. Most
area residents use private wells for drinking water. The municipal water supply is drawn
from the same aquifer as the private wells. People who drink contaminated water or
come into dkect contact with the water or soils may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
45
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, the EPA removed 274 drams of waste and contaminated
soils and transported them to a federally approved storage facility. In 1987, the EPA
provided alternate drinking water to 10 residences. This involved installing a combination
air stripping and carbon filtration system at two residences, whole-house clean carbon filters at three
residences, and point of use filters on taps at eight residences.
Entire Site: In 1991, the State will begin a study to determine the extent of the
groundwater and soil contamination at the site. Once the study is completed, final site
cleanup measures will be recommended.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated materials and the provision of an alternate source of drinking water to
affected residences have eliminated the potential of exposure to contaminated drinking water and
will continue to protect residents near the Galen Myers Dump site while studies leading to the
selection of the final cleanup methods are being planned.
April 1991
46
GALEN MYERS DUMP/DRUM SALVAGE
-------
HIMCO DUMP
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980500292
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Elkhart County
Elkhart
Site Description
The 50-acre Himco Dump site, located in the town of Elkhart, operated as a dump from 1960 until
1976. During its operation, general refuse and medical, pharmaceutical, and industrial wastes were
disposed of on the site. As waste was brought into the dump, marshy land was filled in and then
covered with sand. The elevation at the center of the site is built up approximately 15 feet. Along
the perimeter of the site, the elevation is 5 feet higher than the original levels. The disposal practices
make it difficult to determine exact locations where the waste was buried; however, the present
topography of the site suggests that waste may have been deposited over the entire 50 acres.
Vegetation on the site appears to have been affected by the contamination. During a site inspection
in 1984, the EPA observed several leachate streams at various locations, as well as strong sulfate and
methane odors. The EPA also detected several contaminants in monitoring wells downgradient of
the site. In 1974, the State Health Commissioner advised the site operator to drill deep wells to
replace six contaminated shallow residential wells located adjacent to and just south of the site. A
1988 inspection of the site by the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) and the Department of
Environmental Management identified disposal areas that were uncovered and exposed to the
environment. Wells within 3 miles of the site serve at least 20,000 people. The closest residences to
the site are located on the southern perimeter. A 200-home mobile home park is located
downgradient of the site, to the south of the landfill. Several small industries, a residential area, and
land used for agricultural purposes are located in the vicinity of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including selenium and beryllium and
the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) trichloroethylene (TCE) and toluene. The dump
is located over a continuous portion of shallow groundwater that is the sole source of
drinking water for the town of Elkhart. The drinking water supply for the town may be at
risk if site-related contaminants migrate into this shallow groundwater aquifer under the
site. The contamination on the site also could adversely affect the nearby wetlands.
47
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In response to complaints of well contamination, the site operator
installed deep wells to replace nearby contaminated residential drinking water wells.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA began a study into the nature and extent of site
contamination and to identify alternative cleanup methods. The first phase of field work
has been completed and is being evaluated. Additional field work will begin in mid-1991.
The EPA expects to finish this study in 1993. Actual cleanup work is anticipated to begin in 1994.
Site Facts: In 1975, the owner of the site signed a Consent Agreement with the Stream Pollution
Control Board of Indiana that resulted in the closure of the site in 1976. Possible contamination of 6
residential shallow wells, ranging from 22 to 62 feet deep, was reported to the Elkhart County Health
Department, the ISBH, and the EPA in 1974. In response to these complaints, the site operator
drilled new water wells for these six individuals, and when these wells were sampled in 1984, they
were not found to be contaminated.
Environmental Progress
New wells installed by the site operator for the six residences with contaminated wells reduced the
potential for exposure to the contaminated groundwater. After listing the Himco Dump site on the
NPL, the EPA performed preliminary evaluations and determined that the site does not pose an
immediate threat to the surrounding community or the environment while investigations leading to
the selection of a final cleanup remedy for the site are taking place.
April 1991 48 HIMCO DUMP
-------
INTERNATIONAL
MINERALS &
CHEMICAL CORP.
(TERRE HAUTE EAST P
INDIANA
EPA ID#INT190010876
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Vigo County
Terre Haute
Other Names:
IMC (Terre Haute East Plant)
The International Minerals & Chemical Corp. (Terre Haute East Plant) site consists of 6 acres of a
37-acre lot and is located in southeastern Terre Haute, about 2 miles east of the Wabash River. It is
bordered on the east and west by various railroad facilities. From 1946 until 1954, the Commercial
Solvents Corporation (CSC) manufactured and stored benzene hexachloride (BHC), a raw material
used in the production of pesticides, at the facility. Wastes generated from the production of BHC
were collected on the site property in a sump and eventually were disposed of at the Canal Road
Dump, located a few miles south of the property. In 1975, International Minerals and Chemical
Corporation (IMC) purchased the site. Beginning in 1979, IMC collected samples of soils from the
East Plant facility and the Canal Road Dump and analyzed them for the presence of site-related
contaminants. IMC also installed monitoring wells on and around the East Plant property to
determine if contaminants were migrating from the site into the groundwater. The results of these
studies confirmed the presence of BHC in soil samples and in samples collected from two of the
groundwater monitoring wells. The EPA became involved in activities at the site in 1984, when
contamination was detected in some of the monitoring wells. While residential wells were found to
contain varying amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), none of the samples taken
contained BHC. The population of the City of Terre Haute is approximately 61,000. The majority
of the residences within the vicinity of the site are connected to the municipal water supply system;
the others depend on private wells for their drinking water supply. There are approximately 30
nearby residential wells located downgradient of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Deleted Date: 02/11/91
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils were contaminated with VOCs including low levels of BHC. Due
to the nature of this chemical, it is unlikely that it migrated into the local water supply
system. During sampling, three residential wells were found to contain chloroform and
associated derivatives at or above the maximum contaminant level for safe drinking
water. Potential health threats included direct contact with or inhalation of contaminated
soils and accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater.
49
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase directed at
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: IMC excavated approximately 18,500 cubic yards of contaminated
soil, rubble, piping, and other debris. The debris was stockpiled in an on-site mound on the
East Plant property. After the completion of this mound, concentrations of BHC in
groundwater declined relatively quickly. The stockpile was covered with clay, common fill, and
loam, then seeded in 1980 to prevent erosion that could result in exposure to contaminants. This
cover included a surface drainage collection system and venting mechanisms that allow gas to escape
from the soil. In 1981, IMC, under State and EPA supervision, installed additional groundwater
monitoring wells uphill and downhill of the stockpile mound. From 1981 to the present, these wells
have been sampled quarterly for the presence of BHC and other contaminants.
Entire Site: Because of the immediate actions conducted by IMC in 1980, a decision
was reached in 1988 by the EPA that no further cleanup action was necessary at the site.
However, the following maintenance activities are being conducted over a 30-year period:
(1) inspection of the existing cover on a quarterly basis; (2) maintenance of the vegetation cover;
(3) monitoring BHC in the groundwater semi-annually for 5 years and annually for the next 25 years;
(4) annual reporting of monitoring results to the State; (5) restriction of access to the site; and (6)
establishment of a contingency plan that provides appropriate cleanup measures to be taken if there
is a chance that BHC may be released into the environment from the site. The parties potentially
responsible for site contamination are conducting the maintenance activities as specified, under EPA
monitoring. Both the EPA and the State of Indiana have determined that all appropriate responses at
the IMC site have been completed and that no further cleanup actions are necessary. The site was
deleted from the NPL in 1991.
Environmental Progress
The party potentially responsible for the site contamination took immediate action to remove
contaminated materials from the site, which significantly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances and effectively controlled the movement of contaminants into the groundwater.
The EPA determined that the site no longer poses a threat to human health or the environment and
has deleted the International Minerals & Chemical Corp. site from the NPL.
April 1991 50 INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORP.
-------
LAKE SANDY JO
(M & M LANDFILL)
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980500524
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lake County
Gary
The Lake Sandy Jo (M & M Landfill) site covers 40 acres in Gary. The site was a former water-
filled borrow pit that was used as a landfill between 1971 and 1980. Various wastes, including
construction and demolition debris, garage and industrial wastes, and drums, are believed to be
buried on the site. The borrow pit originally was dug to support construction of 1-90/84, which is
adjacent to the site. In 1971, groundwater filled the pit, and it was used for a short time as a
recreational lake. From 1971 until 1975, the pit was filled with various debris. Local residents
became concerned over odors from the site, and, in 1976, the owners were ordered to drain the
lake and to restrict fill to demolition debris only. Later in 1976, the site was sold to Glen and
Gordon Martin, who continued filling operations without a license until the site was closed in
1980. Approximately 5,300 people Uve within 3 miles of the site and draw water from more
than 1,400 wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, sediments, surface water, and soils contain heavy metals such as
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and silver; volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including methylene chloride and chloroform; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and
the pesticide DDT. The soils also are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and heavy metals. People who come in direct
contact with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater, soil, surface water, or
sediments may be at risk.
51
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
directed at cleanup of the soil and sediments and extension of the water line.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1986, the EPA installed a 6-foot chain-link fence to restrict
access to the site. An existing 4-foot fence on the swampy southern side of the site was
deemed a sufficient barrier to complete the enclosure. Several days after the installation,
vandals stole 100 feet of the fence. To discourage future vandalism, the fence was painted with
fluorescent paint, reducing its resale value.
Soil and Sediments: Following the selection of cleanup activities in 1986, the EPA
has: (1) consolidated all contaminated soil and sediments; (2) installed additional
monitoring wells; and (3) covered the site with clean soil and reseeded. These actions
were completed in 1990. A groundwater and surface water monitoring program, deed restrictions on
the use of the land, and institutional controls on the use of the aquifer are expected to be in effect in
1992.
Water Line: Based on the 1986 decision on site cleanup, the EPA is extending a water
line to residences affected by the site. The EPA anticipates completion of extension of the
water main to approximately 80 residents in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The installation of a security fence around the site and a cover over the site has significantly reduced
threats posed by the Lake Sandy Jo (M & M Landfill) site to the surrounding community or the
environment while final cleanup activities are being completed.
April 1991 52 LAKE SANDY JO
(M&M LANDFILL)
-------
LAKELAND DISPOSAl
SERVICE, INC.
INDIANA
EPAID#IND064703200
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Kosciusko County
Claypool
_J
Site Description
Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc. operated a 39-acre sanitary landfill 3 1/2 miles northwest of
Claypool. The landfill was licensed by the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) to accept
municipal and certain industrial wastes from specific facilities. Beginning in 1974, general refuse
and hazardous wastes including cyanide and sludges containing paint, hydroxides of aluminum, and
heavy metals were disposed of at the site. In 1978, the Kosciusko County Circuit Court ordered the
landfill closed as a result of improper operations. The same year, a new owner began subdividing
and selling portions of the landfill to mobile home owners. In 1982, the State conducted a methane
gas survey at the closed landfill and detected high concentrations of the gas beside one of the mobile
homes. The State filed an injunction requesting that the residents move from the landfill property.
In 1983, the Kosciusko County Board of Zoning Appeals ordered the residents to move off the
landfill site. Currently, no one resides at the site. Sloan Adams Ditch runs through the site into
Palestine Lake 2 miles away, which is used for recreational activities. There are approximately
1,100 residents within 2 miles of the site who rely on private wells for their water supply.
Claypool's two municipal wells are within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, barium, and
cadmium and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including methyl isobutyl ketone and
toluene. On-site soils are contaminated with heavy metals. Accidental ingestion of
contaminated water from wells, direct contact with contaminated soil, and the risk of fire
and explosion may pose health threats. The area has several wetlands, which could be
affected by contaminated runoff from the site.
53
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination have begun an
investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify
alternatives for long-term cleanup of the site. The first phase of the investigation is
completed. Current activities under the second phase include installation of more monitoring wells,
wetland delineation, and residential well sampling. The investigation is scheduled for completion in
1993.
Site Facts: In 1989, Dana Corporation, General Motors Corporation, United Technologies
Automotive, Inc., and Warsaw Black Oxide, Inc. signed a Consent Order with the EPA to conduct
an investigation of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Lakeland Disposal site to the NPL, the EPA determined that the site does not
pose an imminent threat to the surrounding community and the environment while the
investigations leading to the selection of a final cleanup remedy for the site are taking place.
April 1991 54 LAKELAND DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC.
-------
LEMON
INDIANA
EPAID#IND980794341
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Monroe County
Bloomington
Site Description
The Lemon Lane Landfill site is located on the western edge of Bloomington. The site encompasses
10 acres, 3 of which are owned by a private citizen. From 1950 to 1964, the landfill, which had no
liner or runoff controls, accepted both municipal and industrial wastes. Allegedly, wastes were
incinerated on site. No records were kept of the types or quantities of wastes received. Of primary
concern were large quantities of exposed and leaking capacitors containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). Starting in 1980, the State of Indiana and the EPA sampled the area several
times. No PCBs were detected in nearby residential wells at the time, nor were any surface
discharges observed. However, the geology of the area suggests that groundwater contamination is
possible. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the party potentially responsible for contamination at
the site, is handling cleanup of Lemon Lane Landfill, as well as three other NPL sites, one
authorized landfill, and an inactive, City-owned wastewater treatment plant in the Bloomington area
(Neal's Landfill, Neal's Dump, Bennett Stone Quarry, the Anderson Road Landfill, and the
Winston-Thomas Treatment Plant). Westinghouse is planning to construct an incinerator that will
comply with all applicable local, State, and Federal laws.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with PCBs. Direct contact with and
accidental ingestion of contaminated soil or groundwater are potential health threats.
Capping the landfill has reduced the opportunity for contaminants to reach the
groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
55
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA constructed a fence around the site to prevent
access to the area. The EPA also removed exposed PCB capacitors, graded and covered
the southern slopes of the site, regraded and contoured the land to prevent ponding or
erosion, and capped the site. In 1988, a low-flow dye trace study of the groundwater system around
the landfill was conducted to determine the hydrologic connection of springs to the site and to better
define the groundwater system. On the basis of this study, the EPA concluded that effects on the
local groundwater wells are minimal.
Entire Site: An alternate water supply was provided to a resident whose wells showed
signs of contamination. One nearby residence was connected to the city water supply in
1988, after the dye trace study determined that its well water supply was contaminated. A
synthetic cap was placed on the landfill in 1988. In 1990, Westinghouse concluded high-flow dye
trace studies of the flow and presence of contaminated groundwater. Westinghouse will conduct the
remaining remedies for the site: (1) excavation of approximately 176,000 cubic yards of soil and
material from the landfill to a pre-Westinghouse depth plus 3 feet of buffer zone; (2) incineration of
excavated materials in an approved facility; and (3) periodic groundwater monitoring. The
excavation and incineration activities are contingent on the approval of the permit applications for
the incinerator and a landfill for ash disposal. The permit applications are expected to be submitted
in 1991.
Environmental Progress
By constructing a fence to restrict site access, removing the PCB capacitors, and grading and
installing a synthetic liner cap over the site to limit movement of contaminants from the property, the
potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Lemon Lane Landfill site has been greatly
reduced while cleanup activities continue.
April! 991 56 LEMON LANE LANDFILL
-------
MAIN STREET
WELL FIELD
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980794358
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Elkhart County
Elkhart
Other Names:
Elkhart Main Street Wellfield
Site Description
The Main Street Well Field site consists of 15 wells on 10 acres of land in Elkhart. This well field is
the largest of three municipal well fields and supplies about 70% of the drinking water for 40,000
residents of Elkhart. In 1981, during an EPA National Groundwater Supply Survey, the well field
was found to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The EPA resampled water
from the well field a month later and discovered elevated concentrations of VOCs in the water used
for consumption and in three production wells. Monitoring wells were installed by the City, and
sampling indicated that two industries on the eastern boundary of the well field were potential
sources of groundwater contamination. In 1982, the City installed two interceptor wells to help
prevent further migration of the contaminant plume. At first the contaminant levels decreased, but
between 1983 and 1985, they gradually increased.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal and State
action.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils contain VOCs including trichloroethylene (TCE). People who
come in direct contact with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater or soil may
be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the groundwater, the aquifer contamination, and the contaminated soil.
57
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1987, the EPA provided drinking water to approximately 300
residents and extended the water main to 6 businesses, a church, and 293 homes. Carbon
filters were installed in 11 homes.
Groundwater: In 1985, the EPA selected a remedy to provide an alternate water
supply by constructing air stripping facilities to remove the contaminated flow from the
Main Street Well Field. Contaminated water is pumped from the aquifer, treated, and
discharged to the existing water treatment plant and distribution system. The EPA completed all
actions involving the installation of the air stripper in 1987.
Aquifer: Based on the results of an investigation of the contaminated aquifer, the EPA
has proposed the following remedies: vacuum extraction of VOCs in the contaminated
soil; removal and disposal of contaminants; installation of new well interceptors to
prevent continued plume migration; continued use of the air stripper and groundwater monitoring, as
well as imposing deed restrictions to limit future uses of the site. The technical design of the
approved remedies is expected to begin in 1992.
Soil: The EPA will conduct an investigation into the type and extent of remaining soil
contamination from the multiple sources contributing to the well field contamination.
Once the investigation is completed, scheduled for 1993, the most appropriate methods
for soil cleanup will be recommended.
Environmental Progress
An alternate water supply has been provided to the communities served by the Main Street Well
Field, thereby eliminating the potential for exposure to contaminated groundwater. Further
investigations are being conducted to determine the sources of soil contamination while the selected
remedies are designed to address contamination of the underlying aquifer.
April! 991 58 MAIN STREET WELL FIELD
-------
MARION (BRAGG)
DUMP
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980794366
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Grant County
Marion
The Marion (Bragg) Dump covers 72 acres along Central Avenue, just outside of Marion. The area
is relatively flat, with the Mississinewa River running along two sides of the site. The landfill,
originally used as a gravel pit, was leased by the Radio Corporation of America and the Bragg
Construction Company for the disposal of various wastes. It was closed and covered in 1975. Later
that year, Waste Reduction Systems constructed a station on the site to transfer solid wastes to an
approved landfill. The transfer station was closed in 1977. The Marion Dump contains
approximately 1,100,000 cubic yards of wastes, some of which are hazardous, including solvents,
plasticizers, lead, and cadmium. An estimated 9,000 people reside in the area around the site.
Residents in the area depend on groundwater from private and municipal wells for their supply of
water. A 15-acre pond, located in the center of the site, is connected to the upper aquifer. The
northern portion of the site is within the 100-year flood plain of the Mississinewa River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
benzene and trichloroethene. The soil is contaminated with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and arsenic. People who come in direct contact with or
accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater or soil may be at risk, although the wells
in the immediate area, which draw on the aquifer, have not been found to contain
contaminants.
59
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA selected the following remedy for the site: (1) regrading
and capping of the site to promote runoff, reduce infiltration, eliminate leachate seepage
and prevent direct contact with surface soils and exposed waste; (2) providing for and
maintaining flood control measures to protect the portions of the site in the flood plain; (3)
constructing and maintaining a fence around the site; (4) replacing private drinking water wells in the
deep aquifer for users within a specified boundary; (5) sealing shallow wells; (6) conducting
supplemental studies to complete investigations of the groundwater and pond; and (7) operation and
maintenance of the site. Some of the potentially responsible parties installed a fence around the site,
drilled new monitoring wells, and began capping the site. Completion is expected in 1991. The
investigation of the groundwater and on-site pond, to determine if further action is needed will
continue for two or three years.
Environmental Progress
By constructing a fence around the site and a cap over the site, the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials from the Marion (Bragg) Dump site has been greatly reduced. Further cleanup
activities currently are underway and groundwater studies are ongoing.
April 1991 60 MARION (BRAGG) DUMP
-------
MIDCO I
INDIANA
EPA ID#IND980615421
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lake County
Gary
Other Names:
Midwest Solvents Recovery
The Midwest Solvent Recovery Company (MIDCO) I site is a 4-acre, abandoned industrial waste
recycling, storage, and disposal facility in Gary. Recycling, storing, and disposing of industrial
wastes began at the site some time before 1973. In 1973, approximately 6,000 to 7,000 drums were
observed on the site. Later, four bulk tanks, each with a capacity of 4,000 to 10,000 gallons, were
found on the site. In 1976, a fire burned approximately 14,000 drums of chemical waste.
Operations resumed in 1977 under new management, but by 1979, the facility was abandoned,
leaving an estimated 14,000 drums stockpiled on site. In 1981, severe flooding caused water in the
area to drain into a neighboring city to the west; contact with the flood water reportedly resulted in
skin burns. Following a fire in 1976, MIDCO I moved to a new location, known as MIDCO II,
which also is on the NPL. Residential neighborhoods are near the site, with one resident living as
close as 900 feet from the site. Twelve drinking water wells have been identified in the Calumet
Aquifer, within approximately a mile from the site, in the downgradient groundwater flow direction.
The Calumet Aquifer is highly susceptible to contamination from surface sources. The area
surrounding the site is mixed light industrial, commercial, residential, and wetlands.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
ZA
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including trichloroethylene
(TCE), methylene chloride, semi-volatile compounds, metals, and cyanide. Sediments
and soils are contaminated with VOCs, semi-volatiles, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), metals, and chlordane, a pesticide. VOCs, chromium, lead, cadmium, and
cyanide were detected in surface waters northeast of the site. Sodium and chloride were
the most concentrated contaminants found in the groundwater and surface water. These
contaminants may have migrated from the nearby salt depot of the Indiana Highway
Department. Contaminants in the soil are leaching into the groundwater. The
contaminated groundwater in turn is migrating off site and eventually may affect
downgradient drinking water wells. People who come in direct contact with or
accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water, sediments, or soil may be
at risk. The contamination also could adversely affect wildlife and plants in or around
the wetlands.
61
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
(Immediate Actions: A security fence was installed around the site in 1981. In 1982, to
address the immediate threats to the public, the EPA removed extensive surface wastes, an
underground tank, drums, and the top 1 foot of contaminated soil. Much of the site was
then covered with a temporary clay cover.
Entire Site: To address the contaminated subsurface soil, sediment, and groundwater,
the EPA selected the following cleanup actions in 1989: (1) treatment of approximately
12,400 cubic yards of contaminated soil and subsurface materials using a combination of
soil vapor extraction and solidification/stabilization, followed by on-site disposal; (2) excavation
and on-site solidification/stabilization of approximately 1,200 cubic yards of contaminated sediment
from surrounding wetlands; (3) installation of a final site cover; (4) installation and operation of a
deep underground injection well for disposal of the contaminated groundwater; (5) installation and
operation of a treatment system to remove hazardous substances from the contaminated
groundwater, followed by deep well injection of the salt-contaminated water; or (6) installation and
operation of a treatment system, followed by reinjection of the salt-contaminated groundwater into
the Calumet Aquifer in a manner that will prevent spreading of the salt plume; (7) groundwater
monitoring; and (8) implementation of deed and access restrictions. The EPA is designing the
technical specifications for the cleanup. Once the design phase is completed, the cleanup activities
will begin.
Site Facts: In June 1985, a group of potentially responsible parties agreed to reimburse the EPA
for past cleanup action costs and to perform the site investigation. This Consent Decree became
effective in August 1985. The parties also have agreed to perform final cleanup activities at the
site. The EPA issued an Administrative Order in 1989, instructing the potentially responsible
parties to conduct the remaining site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The removal of the contaminated materials and soils from the site and the installation of a fence
and a temporary cover have significantly reduced the threat of exposure to hazardous materials
while cleanup actions for the MIDCOI site are being planned.
April! 991 62 MIDCO
-------
MIDCO II
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980679559
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lake County
Gary
Other Names:
Midwest Industrial Waste Disposal Company
The Midwest Industrial Waste Disposal Company (MIDCO) II site is an abandoned, industrial waste
recycling/disposal facility covering 7 acres in Gary. The operators of the MIDCO I facility, another
NPL site, relocated to the MIDCO II location after a fire in 1976. Operations at MIDCO II began in
1976 and included temporary bulk liquid and drum storage of waste and recyclable materials,
neutralization of acids and caustics, and on-site dumping of waste into pits, which allowed wastes to
percolate into the groundwater. One of these pits had an overflow pipe leading into a ditch that
drains into the Grand Calumet River. In 1977, a fire at MIDCO II destroyed equipment, buildings,
and an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 drums. The site was abandoned after the fire. Burned-out drums,
drums containing chemical wastes, 12 aboveground tanks with 10,000-gallon capacity, and one
underground tank were abandoned on the site. Approximately 479,000 people live within 3 miles of
the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Contaminants affecting the groundwater include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such
as benzene, toluene, and trichloroethylene (TCE); other organics including isoporone;
cyanide; and arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals. The groundwater also is highly
contaminated with sodium and potassium chloride. Sediments and soils are contaminated
with similar substances and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Potential health risks exist
for individuals accidentally ingesting or coming into direct contact with the contaminated
soil, sediment, or groundwater. Migration of contaminants through the groundwater may
threaten the off-site aquifer and downstream wetlands.
63
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: From 1984 to 1989, the EPA repaired and extended the site fence;
sampled and removed all of the remaining drums, tanks, and debris from the site's surface;
and excavated the sludge pits and filter pit contents. The resulting PCB-contaminated pile
was removed and disposed of in an off-site hazardous waste landfill in early 1986, and most of the
cyanide-contaminated pile also was removed.
Entire Site: The major components of the remedies selected by the EPA in 1989 are:
on-site treatment of an estimated 35,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and waste
material by solidification/stabilization, with the solidified material remaining on site;
excavation and on-site solidification/stabilization of approximately 500 cubic yards of contaminated
sediments in the ditch adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the site; installation and operation of
a groundwater pump and treat system to intercept and treat contaminated groundwater; installation
and operation of injection wells for disposal of the treated water; installation of a conduit in the ditch
along the site and a final site cover; restriction of site access and imposition of deed restrictions as
appropriate; and related testing and long-term monitoring. The EPA is designing the technical
specifications for the cleanup. Once the design phase is completed, the cleanup activities will begin.
Site Facts: In June 1985, a group of potentially responsible parties agreed to reimburse the EPA
for past cleanup action costs and to perform the site investigation. This Consent Decree became
effective in August 1985. In December 1989, the EPA issued an Administrative Order to the panics
to perform the cleanup actions at the MIDCOI and II sites.
Environmental Progress
By fencing the MIDCO II site and removing drums, tanks, and debris, the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials has been greatly reduced. The technical specifications for the remedies selected
for the permanent site cleanup currently are being prepared by the EPA.
April 1991 64 MIDCO II
-------
NEAL'S DUMP
(SPENCER)
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980794549
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Owen County
Spencer
Site Description
The Neal's Dump site covers approximately 1/2 acre in Spencer. The dump operated from 1967
until 1971, when it was closed. During its operation, the owner accepted electrical capacitors, oil-
stained rags, and sawdust from the Westinghouse facility nearby. The Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, the party potentially responsible for the contamination at the site, is treating Neal's
Dump, as well as three other NPL sites, an inactive city-owned wastewater treatment plant, and an
authorized landfill in the Bloomington area. These sites are: Neal's Landfill, Lemon Lane Landfill,
Bennett Stone Quarry, Winston-Thomas Treatment Plant, and Anderson Road Landfill.
Westinghouse is planning to construct an incinerator that will comply with all applicable local, State,
and Federal laws to begin burning municipal solid waste. After incineration of all of the materials
removed from the sites, Westinghouse and the City of Bloomington will determine whether the
incinerator should continue to operate as a municipal solid waste facility or be dismantled.
Approximately 175 people live within 1 mile of the site, and 954 people live within 3 miles. Forty-
nine wells are located within a mile of the site. Located adjacent to the site are natural springs, a
stream, and a river.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, soils, and air are contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). Potential health risks exist for individuals who accidentally ingest or
come into direct contact with the contaminants or for those who inhale contaminated
particulates in the air on the site.
65
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In the mid-1980s, under the EPA's monitoring, the parties
potentially responsible for the contamination installed a cap and constructed a security
fence and a surface drainage control system. The work was completed in 1990.
Entire Site: The Westinghouse Electric Corporation, under monitoring by the EPA, will
conduct the following cleanup actions: (1) excavate all contaminated materials plus a 2-
foot buffer zone; (2) incinerate excavated materials in an approved facility; and (3)
monitor groundwater. The Westinghouse Electric Company has begun designing the technologies to
be used in the cleanup and is expected to submit permit applications for constructing the incinerator
and for landfilling its waste by-product ash. Construction of a high-temperature incinerator for the
excavated materials is expected to begin in 1993. Upon receipt of the appropriate permits and
completion of the incinerator construction, the Lemon Lane Landfill, Neal's Dump, Neal's Landfill
and Bennett's Dump sites will be excavated in a prescribed order.
Environmental Progress
By constructing a security fence, capping the site, and installing a drainage control system, the
potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Neal's Dump site is being greatly reduced while
final cleanup actions are implemented.
April 1991 66 NEAL'S DUMP (SPENCER)
-------
NEAL'S LANDFILL
(BLOOMINGTON)
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND9806H556
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Monroe County
Bloomington
Site Description
The Neal's Landfill (Bloomington) site covers approximately 18 acres in Bloomington. The site was
used as an industrial and municipal waste landfill from 1950 to 1972. The main fill area measures
about 300 yards. Later, the landfill was used as a pasture for beef cattle. A number of springs
surface near the site and flow to Richland Creek, a tributary of the White River. In 1966 and 1967,
capacitors and arresters containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), as well as PCB-contaminated
capacitor insulation material, rags, and filter clay, were disposed of at the landfill. Capacitors and
other contaminated materials are visible on the surface. PCBs have been found in surface soils in the
northeast portion of the landfill, the springs near the site, and the sediments of Richard Creek. The
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the party potentially responsible for the contamination at the
site, is treating Neal's Landfill (Bloomington) site, as well as three other NPL sites, an inactive City-
owned wastewater treatment plant, and an authorized landfill in the Bloomington area. These areas
are Neal's Dump, Lemon Lane Landfill, Bennett's Dump, Winston-Thomas Treatment Plant, and
Anderson Road Landfill. Approximately 121 people live within a mile of the site, and about 1,085
people live within 3 miles of the site. Conard's Branch and Richland Creek are nearby.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, surface water, sediments, and soils are contaminated with PCBs from
materials dumped at the landfill. Potential health risks exist for individuals who
accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with these contaminants.
67
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under the EPA's monitoring, the parties potentially responsible
for the contamination installed a cap, erosion control fences, a security fence, and drainage
control trenches. Warning signs have been posted along Conard's Branch and Richland
Creek. A sediment collection system also was installed at Conard's Branch. Westinghouse removed
PCB-contaminated sediments from Richland Creek and Conard's Branch in late 1989. A treatment
plant has been constructed by Westinghouse to treat spring water discharge from Neal's Landfill.
Entire Site: In 1988, Westinghouse began a cleanup program including excavating all 4,060 tons
of sediment from Conard's Branch; storing excavated materials in an approved facility
until an approved incinerator and by-product disposal area is developed; operating a
carbon treatment system for spring water discharges; and monitoring the groundwater.
Excavation and incineration of landfill materials will occur when the incinerator and ash landfill
permits are issued. Westinghouse is conducting a dye trace study to investigate groundwater flow
patterns from Neal's Landfill and is waiting for a sufficient rainfall to trigger a "high flow" in the
water table to make this study as comprehensive as possible. Groundwater monitoring occurs on a
quarterly basis for on-site wells.
Environmental Progress
Immediate actions including capping and fencing the landfill and long-term activities including
excavating sediment, treating the spring water, and groundwater monitoring have reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Neal's Landfill (Bloomington) site while final
cleanup actions are being completed.
April 1991 68 NEAL'S LANDFILL (BLOOMINGTON)
-------
NINTH AVENUE
DUMP
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980794432
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lake County
Gary
The Ninth Avenue Dump site is located on 17 acres in an industrialized area within the city limits of
Gary. From 1973 until 1975, the site was used for the disposal of liquid hazardous waste, with some
dumping occurring until 1980. Disposal operations included dumping wood debris into marshy
areas, pouring liquid waste onto the debris, and covering the area with fill material. During a site
inspection conducted in 1975, the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) estimated that 500,000
gallons of liquid industrial waste had been dumped at the site. When operations ceased at the dump,
several thousand drums and some tankers of waste remained on site. The owner began removing
some site debris, but in the fall of 1980, disposal operations at the site were halted when the EPA
filed suit against the site owners and operators under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). In 1981, heavy rains caused severe flooding in the area surrounding the dump, and runoff
from the site flowed into the Hessville neighborhood, flooding streets and basements of homes. In
order to control surface water drainage from the site, Hammond City officials ordered the
construction of a dirt dike. The dike currently remains intact and prevents water from flowing into
Hammond from Gary. The Ninth Avenue Dump site lies approximately 700 feet north of the
MIDCOINPL site and is close to several other potential sources of contaminants. Approximately
33,000 people live within a 2-mile radius of the site, with the nearest residential area located
approximately 800 feet west of the site. The site is adjacent to several ponds and a wetland area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
benzene, toluene, and xylenes; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and heavy
metals including nickel and silver. On-site groundwater contains a hydrocarbon layer
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, VOCs, and PAHs. PAHs,
toluene, cadmium, and lead were detected in off-site surface soil. On-site sediment
samples contained PAHs and PCBs. Accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater,
surface water, soil, or sediments may present health risks. Groundwater monitoring at the
nearest active private drinking well did not detect any site-related contaminants. The
fence installed around the perimeter of the site has been vandalized, and trespassing
occurs frequently, increasing the potential for individuals to come into direct contact with
the contaminants. Migratory birds and other wildlife are abundant in the on- and off-site
wetlands, and contamination could harm them.
69
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach ___
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the oil layer and cleanup of the soil and groundwater.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The site owner removed and disposed of 10,000 drums, tank cars, and
the first foot of contaminated surface soils from the site from 1984 to 1985. The EPA fenced
the site in 1987 to restrict public access.
Oil Layer: In 1988, the EPA selected cleanup actions to contain the oil-contaminated portion
of the site and to extract the oil layer floating on the groundwater. The remedy includes: (1)
construction of a soil-bentonite slurry wall to completely surround the oil layer; (2) installation
of an oil/groundwater extraction and recharge system; (3) installation of an on-site groundwater
treatment system to allow for dewatering of the slurry wall; (4) monitoring of groundwater inside and
outside the slurry wall to ensure its effectiveness; and (5) installation of an on-site oil storage tank. The
oil layer is estimated to be 250,000 to 700,000 gallons, of which 100,000 to 500,000 may be
recoverable. The design of the slurry wall was completed by the potentially responsible parties in 1990.
Preliminary site work is underway for its construction. The design for the oil recovery/groundwater
treatment is underway and is expected to be approved by the EPA in mid-1991. Construction of the
system is scheduled for fall 1991.
Soil and Groundwater: This phase addresses the remaining threats to the site, which
include contaminated soil, sediment, fill material, groundwater, and oil collected and stored in
the on-site storage tanks. In 1989, the EPA selected the following actions for cleanup of the
site: (1) excavation of approximately 36,000 cubic yards of oil-contaminated waste and fill down to the
native sand level; (2) thermal treatment of excavated fill and extracted oil, most likely in a mobile on-
site incinerator; (3) removal of debris and contaminated sediments from on- and off-site surface water
bodies; (4) filling the excavated area with treatment process residuals, trench spoils, pond sediments,
and debris; (5) covering the area contained by the slurry wall with a cap; (6) extraction, treatment, and
reinjection of contaminated groundwater inside the slurry wall to promote soil flushing; (7) discharge of
a small quantity of treated groundwater outside the slurry wall to compensate for infiltration; (8) deed
and access restrictions to prohibit the use of the groundwater under the site and to protect the cap; and
(9) long-term groundwater monitoring. The potentially responsible parties began design of this remedy
in 1989. Actual cleanup is scheduled to begin at the end of 1992.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed by the owner and the EPA in December 1983, requiring the
owner to remove wastes from the site and to determine the type and extent of site contamination. An
order was issued by the EPA to the potentially responsible parties in December 1988, requiring cleanup
of the oil-contaminated portions of the site and cleanup of the soil and groundwater. A second order
was issued in August 1989, requiring the potentially responsible panics to perform additional design
studies and cleanup of the soil and groundwater.
Environmental Progress
By removing the most heavily contaminated materials and fencing in the site to restrict access, the
potential for exposure to hazardous materials on the Ninth Avenue Dump site has been greatly reduced,
while final cleanup actions are being designed and completed.
April 1991 70 NINTH AVENUE DUMP
-------
NORTHSIDE S ANITAR^
LANDFILL, INC
INDIANA
o
EPAID#IND050530872
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Boone County
Zionsville
The Northside Sanitary Landfill (NSL) covers approximately 70 acres of a 170-acre parcel of land.
The site is located in Union Township, about 10 miles northwest of Indianapolis. Over 16 million
gallons of hazardous wastes have been deposited in the landfill. The NSL opened in the 1950s as an
open dump and was licensed by the State in 1971 to accept hazardous wastes. From 1972 to 1973,
numerous operating deficiencies, including the failure to cover refuse, surface burning, underground
fires, leachate, and vermin problems resulted in orders from the Indiana State Board of Health
(ISBH) to cease operations. In 1982, the owner, at the direction of the ISBH, installed a leachate
collection system and three submerged leachate collection tanks on the western side of the site.
After the owner removed 400,000 gallons of leachate from the three tanks and disposed of it by
spraying it on the landfill, the Indiana Division of Land Pollution Control advised the owner that
leachate would have to be solidified prior to disposal. By early 1983, the State Environmental
Management Board issued a notice of violation and ordered the owner to stop accepting hazardous
waste. A small residential community, Northfield, is located to the north of the site. Approximately
50 residences are located within a mile of the site, and 1,750 residences within 3 miles of the site use
wells for drinking water. An unnamed ditch runs along the western edge of the landfill and joins
Finley Creek. Finley Creek flows into Eagle Creek about 1/2 mile downstream from the site. Eagle
Creek flows south for 10 miles before it empties into Eagle Creek Reservoir, which supplies
approximately 6% of the drinking water for the City of Indianapolis.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soils, surface water, and sediments are contaminated with pesticides, acids,
oils, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene and trichloroethylene
(TCE). Potential health risks exist from accidental ingestion of contaminated soils and
sediments. Drinking contaminated groundwater also may pose health risks, as may the
consumption offish from Finley Creek that have bioaccumulated contaminants in their
tissues. Contamination in the creek may harm wildlife in or around the water.
71
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA selected the following remedies to address the
contamination at the site: (1) deed and access restrictions to prevent further development
of the site; (2) installation of a multi-layer cap over the site; (3) re-routing of surface
waters to reduce the potential for contamination migration; (4) leachate collection and treatment; (5)
groundwater collection and treatment; and (6) monitoring to ensure treatment effectiveness. The
EPA has completed most of the field work necessary to design the site cleanup activities. Once the
design activities are completed, final cleanup will begin.
Site Facts: The EPA has reached an agreement with the potentially responsible parties to assume
responsibility for the cleanup action. The Northside Sanitary Landfill Site is located near the
Envirochem Corporation, another site on the NPL.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Northside Sanitary Landfill to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary
investigations and determined that the site does not pose an imminent threat to the surrounding
communities or the environment while final cleanup remedies are being planned.
April1991 72 NORTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL. INC.
-------
POER FARM
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980684583
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Hancock County
3 miles north of Wilkinson, 5 miles southeast of
Knightstown
Other Names:
Norman Poer Farm
Poer Farm is a 5-acre site located on a small hill between two streams and along East County Road
about 3 miles north of Wilkinson. The site is an abandoned tract of land with a house and barn that
have collapsed and have been vandalized. The surrounding area is open farmland that supports
crops of soybeans and corn. The site consists of three separate areas where Norman Poer and
Michael Coleman received and stored about 275 drums of solvents and paint resins from 1973 until
1983. The owners planned to blend these materials into low-quality paint for bridges and barns.
They abandoned the project and left the 55-gallon drums on the site. The EPA inspected the site and
found that the drums were leaking, and vegetation surrounding the area was damaged. The EPA
analyzed the drums and soils underneath them and found volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
heavy metals. Agricultural lands completely surround the Poer Farm site, and the nearest residence
is approximately 650 feet to the north. Approximately 500 people live 3 miles north of the site in
Wilkinson, and approximately 2,300 people live 5 miles away in Knightstown.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 10/21/84
Deleted Date: 02/11/91
Threats and Contaminants
Soils on site contained VOCs including toluene, xylene, and ethyl benzene and heavy
metals such as cadmium, arsenic, and lead. The EPA sampled the entire site and found
no significant levels of contamination that could pose a threat to the environment.
Therefore, people near the site are not at risk from exposure to hazardous chemicals.
73
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase directed at
cleanup of the entire site. .
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1983, the EPA removed all wastes and 6 to 8 inches of soils
from the drum storage areas on site. All solid and liquid wastes from the drums were
properly disposed of at EPA-regulated landfills. The well on site was sampled, and
results showed that the levels of arsenic, cadmium, and lead were at or below the State and Federal
standards for drinking water. The site was fenced, and signs to warn the public of contaminants
were posted.
Entire Site: The EPA completed a study of the nature and extent of contamination at
the site in 1985. The party potentially responsible for contamination at the site completed
a second study in 1988, under the EPA's monitoring. The purpose of the second study
was to determine if the immediate cleanup actions at the site were effective and to ensure that no
significant contamination remained at the site that could threaten the health of people around it.
Based on the results of the second study, the EPA determined that no further action is needed at the
Poer Farm site and deleted the site from the NPL on February 11, 1991.
Site Facts: In 1985, a potentially responsible party signed a Consent Order with the EPA and the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, under which the party agreed to reimburse the
EPA for past response action costs and to carry out the study of the nature and extent of
contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal and disposal of hazardous waste and contaminated soils from the Poer Farm site have
eliminated the threat to human health and the surrounding environment. The EPA, in conjunction
with the State of Indiana, has deleted the Poer Farm site from the NPL.
April 1991 74 POER FARM
-------
PRESTOLITE BA
DIVISION
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND006377048
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Knox County
Northeast of Vincennes
Other Names:
Eltra Corporation - Prestolite Battery Division
The 17 1/2-acre Prestolite Battery Division site is an inactive facility that manufactured lead-acid
batteries. The Autolite Battery Corporation set up the plant in 1945. Several companies owned and
operated the facility until Allied Chemical Company, the latest owner of the site, ceased operations
and closed the plant in 1985. Allied received a permit allowing it to temporarily operate the site, but
decided to close before obtaining a long-term operating permit for the plant. Wastewaters from the
plant's operations were contaminated with lead and sulfuric acid. Prior to 1978, the plant discharged
its wastewaters directly to the Vincennes Sanitary Sewer System. From 1978 until the plant closed
in 1985, the plant treated its wastewaters and then released them to a lagoon on site. The Vincennes
Treatment Works accepted the overflow from the lagoon. The plant also released air contaminated
with lead. Soil on site and in the area has been contaminated with lead, mainly from airborne
particles. Malfunctions of equipment on site and accidental spills also have contributed to the
contamination of soils. During the plant's operations, industrial sewer lines at the site became
plugged with lead, and as a result of leaks and sewer line backups, the soil around some of these
sewers and sumps became contaminated with lead. Soil on the site also was contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The manufacturing building on site remains intact, although all
process equipment has been removed from inside the building. A fence encloses the site. The site is
located within the flood plain of the Wabash River, which is 5,000 feet west of the site. Surface
water from the site drains to Kelso Creek and Snapp Creek; both creeks are 3/4 mile from the site.
The closest residence is 50 feet from the site, and there are approximately 500 people within a mile
of the site. The city of Vincennes maintains seven wells for its supply, located 3 miles from the site.
Private wells also are located in the area around the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 10/04/89
75
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Air, groundwater, soils, and surface water are contaminated with lead. Soils also are
contaminated with PCBs. People who come in direct contact with or accidentally ingest
contaminated groundwater, soil, or surface water may suffer adverse health effects.
People also may be exposed to contaminants by inhaling dust particles.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1989, the party potentially responsible for site contamination
removed more than 6,800 cubic yards of lead-contaminated sediment from the site. Soils
from known areas of PCB contamination also have been excavated and removed from the
site. A concrete-lined wastewater storage lagoon has been emptied and cleaned. The lagoon area is
surrounded by a fence to limit access. Sewer lines that run under the manufacturing building have
been capped. Disturbed soils and fill material remain where wastewater sewer lines and
contaminated soils were excavated.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA started an investigation to define the nature and extent of
pollutants at the site. This study is examining the effectiveness of the immediate cleanup
actions and is defining the threat that remaining contamination at the site poses to the
health of people living and working in the area. The study also is evaluating the various options for
addressing the final cleanup of the site. Field work is expected to begin in mid-1991. The EPA is
scheduled to complete this study in 1993.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated sediments and soils and the installation of a fence around the lagoon
have greatly reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous materials at the Prestolite Battery
Division site while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 76 PRESTOLITE BATTERY DIVISION
-------
REILLY TAR & GHEMIC/
CORP. (INDIANAPOLIS
PLANT)
INDIANA
o
EPAID#IND000807107
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Marion County
Indianapolis
The 120-acre Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation site has been used for the production of specialty
chemicals and related products since the early 1950s. Until 1972, a coal-tar refining and wood-
treatment facility using creosote operated on the site. Located on site are a trench, a landfill, and
several pits used to dispose of wastes. A lime pond received boiler cooling water. The site is
fenced. There are approximately 5,200 residents within 3 miles of the site using groundwater for
drinking water supplies. A residence is located less than 2,000 feet from the site. All residents now
have city water available to them, although private wells still are in use.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and surface water are contaminated with creosotes and ammonia. Soil is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including toluene. The potential
health risks include coming in direct contact with or accidentally ingesting contaminated
groundwater, surface water, or soil.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
77
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: A potentially responsible party, Reilly Industries, Inc., currently is
conducting an investigation, under EPA monitoring, into the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. The investigation is defining the contaminants and will
recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is scheduled to be completed in late
1991.
Site Facts: Reilly Industries, Inc. has entered into a Consent Order with the EPA. The company
agreed to conduct the study into the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to recommend
alternatives for final cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation site while studies
are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April! 991
78
REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORP.
(INDIANAPOLIS PLANT)
-------
SEYMOUR
RECYCLING
CORPORATION
INDIANA
EPAID#IND040313017
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Jackson County
2 miles southwest of Seymour
Site Description
The 14-acre Seymour Recycling Corporation site is made up of two parts: a 12-acre area
surrounded by a berm and fence to confine rainwater and prevent access to the site, and a 2-acre area
located directly to the northeast of the larger area. From 1970 to 1980, the site was operated as a
processing center for waste chemicals. Wastes were accumulated on site in drums, bulk storage
tanks, and tank trucks. By 1980, there were approximately 98 storage tanks and 50,000 drums on
site. The majority of the drums were rusted and punctured, some were missing lids, and a large
number leaked. The leaks caused contaminants to cover a widespread area, toxic vapors to be
released from the site, and on-site fires. The facility closed in 1980. Surface drums and tanks and
their contents were removed in 1981 and 1982. Contaminated soils continue to pollute the aquifers.
The shallow aquifer is highly contaminated with various hazardous chemicals including volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Approximately 100 homes are located within 1 mile of the site. Most
private water supply wells for these residences have been disconnected and replaced with water from
the City of Seymour water supply system. Contaminated runoff from the site entered nearby
drainage ditches that flow into the White River and then to the Ohio River. Releases of
contaminants from the site resulted in fish kills.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains VOCs, chloroform, phenols, and heavy metals including arsenic,
barium, iron, and manganese. Soils are contaminated with high levels of beryllium,
VOCs, and heavy metals. People could be exposed to contaminants by accidentally
coming in direct contact with or ingesting contaminated groundwater or soil. People
who eat contaminated fish may suffer adverse health effects.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on groundwater cleanup and soil cleanup.
79
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: As a result of a fire in 1980, chemical runoff from the site posed a
risk to nearby residents. Approximately 300 people were temporarily relocated and the
parties potentially responsible for site contamination removed several thousand drums from
the site. In 1981, the EPA removed chemicals from tanks at the site and disposed of those wastes
off site. A dike was installed around the site to prevent rainfall from mixing with wastes on the
ground. The site fence was upgraded. The surface water treatment plant located on site was
upgraded in 1982. From 1982 to 1984, potentially responsible parties removed approximately
50,000 drums, 100 storage tanks, and contaminated soil from 75% of the site's surface and partially
covered the site with a temporary soil cap. Homes surrounding the site were connected to the city
water distribution system in 1984 and 1985 due to the threat of groundwater contamination. A total
of 177,500 gallons of flammable liquids were incinerated. Approximately 31,800 cubic yards of
crushed drums, scrap metal, sludge, and contaminated soil and debris, 359 lab packs of sludge, and
296 drums of flammable solids were landfilled. Approximately 104,200 gallons of inert liquids
were injected into a deep well. Warning signs have been posted, and a 24-hour guard will remain at
the site throughout construction activities.
Groundwater: The selected cleanup remedy to address the groundwater plume includes
implementation of a plume stabilization system that will extract, treat, and discharge
contaminated groundwater to the Seymour Wastewater Treatment Plant. The potentially
responsible parties have begun implementing the stabilization system, which is scheduled to be
completed in mid-1991.
Soil: The selected cleanup remedies to address soil contamination include: (1) putting in
place deed and access restrictions and other controls to prevent future development of the
site and adjacent property; (2) breaking down hazardous components of the soil through
bioremediation; (3) installing a soil vapor extraction system; (4) extracting and treating
contaminated groundwater at and beyond the site boundaries; (5) installing a cap; (6) excavating
contaminated sediment and consolidating sediment beneath the cap; and (7) regular monitoring to
determine the effectiveness of these cleanup activities. The potentially responsible parties
completed the soil cap. The vapor extraction system has been constructed and is planned to be
operated for 2 to 5 years. The soil bioremediation has been completed. The groundwater extraction
and pump and treat system is scheduled to be completed by mid-1991, and may have to be operated
for up to 30 years.
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA, the State, and potentially responsible parties entered into a Consent
Decree. The Decree requires the parties to reimburse the Federal government for past cleanup costs
and to perform and pay for future cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The removal of drums, soils, and storage tanks has greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated materials at the Seymour Recycling Corporation site. Ongoing cleanup actions
continue to reduce contamination levels in the soil while final groundwater cleanup activities are
taking place.
April 1991 80 SEYMOUR RECYCLING CORPORATION
-------
SOUTHSIDE
LANDFILL
INDIANA
EPAID#IND980607360
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Marion County
Southwest of Indianapolis
Other Names:
Southside Sanitary
Disposal & Transfer Co., Inc.
The 160-acre Southside Sanitary Landfill is an active solid waste disposal facility that began
landfilling activities in 1971. In 1974, the 34 acres on the northern side of the site were licensed by
the County and the State for disposal of solid wastes. After the first excavated area was filled by
dumping refuse and covered with a layer of dirt, a second area was excavated 150 feet to the south.
After these areas were filled, the land between the two was excavated. In 1975, the site was
expanded to 160 acres. An estimated 4 million cubic yards of waste including coal tar, asbestos, iron
oxide and clarifier sludges, and paint waste have been buried at the landfill. Access to the site is
restricted. Approximately 7,200 people within 3 miles of the site use groundwater for drinking
water supplies. The distance from the site to the nearest residence is 1/2 mile. Approximately 2,000
private wells are located within 3 miles of the site. Nearby Eagle Creek, White River, and Fall River
are used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium,
and nickel. On-site soils are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Potential health threats to people include coming in direct contact with or
accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater or soil.
81
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1988, the operators of the Southside Landfill constructed a leachate
collection system and an underground slurry wall to control the migration of contaminated
groundwater.
Entire Site: The owners/operators of the Southside Landfill, under State monitoring,
currently are conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of contamination at the
site. The investigation is defining the contaminants and will result in recommended
alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is scheduled to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: In 1986, the State and Southside Landfill entered into an agreement, requiring that the
company construct a leachate collection system and an underground slurry wall to control the
migration of groundwater.
Environmental Progress
The construction of a leachate collection system and underground slurry wall has prevented the
migration of contaminated groundwater at the Southside Sanitary Landfill site while studies are
taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 82 SOUTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
TIPPECANOE S
LANDFILL, INC.
INDIANA
EPAID#IND980997639
Site Description
ARY
o
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Tippecanoe County
Lafayette
In 1971, the 70-acre Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill received a permit from the State to accept
municipal wastes. A variety of wastes generated by area residents, businesses, and industries were
disposed of at the site. In 1978, the State did not renew the site's operating permit. A series of
appeals followed, during which the landfill continued to operate. In 1979, ALCOA advised the State
that the aluminum-lime sludge that had been disposed of at the site since 1973 contained significant
levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Disposal of the sludge ceased, but considerable
quantities already had been deposited at the site. In 1983, the Indiana State Board of Health found
that a nearby well was contaminated. The facility discontinued accepting wastes in 1989.
Approximately 81,000 people obtain drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles of
the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Sludge
buried at the site contains PCBs. The contaminated groundwater is a potential health
threat to individuals if it is accidentally directly contacted or swallowed.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
83
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Some of the parties potentially responsible for site contamination agreed to
conduct an investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to
identify alternative actions for the cleanup of the site. The work plan for the investigation
is under review; field work will begin in 1991 and is expected to be completed in 1994.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree signed in 1988 ordered the owner to close the landfill by October
1989 and install a cover over the wastes. The owner filed for bankruptcy in 1989, and the cover was
not fully installed. In March 1990, the EPA, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management, and 10 of the potentially responsible parties signed a Consent Order, requiring the
parties to conduct site investigations.
Environmental Progress
After proposing this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill site while studies are
conducted and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 84 TIPPECANOE SANITARY LANDFILL, INC.
-------
TRI-STATE PLf
INDIANA
EPAID#IND006038764
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Bartholomew County
Columbus
Site Description
For approximately 35 years prior to 1981, the Tri-State Plating site was used by Hull Industries and
Quality Plating Service Company. The site covers an area of approximately 16,000 square feet. In
1981, Tri-State Plating purchased the facility and began an electroplating operation. Contamination
problems first were detected at the site when the Bartholomew County Health Department and the
Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) inspected the site and found that soils contained high
concentrations of cyanide and heavy metals. In 1984, after finding that Tri-State Plating was
discharging contaminated wastewater, the City of Columbus instructed the company to install a
treatment system to control contaminated wastewater discharges to the city's sewers. Later in 1984,
when a treatment system was not installed, the city blocked off sewers leading from the Tri-State
Plating facility and shut off the company's water supply. Tri-State Plating discontinued operations
in 1984. The nearest residence is adjacent to the site boundary. The City of Columbus has
approximately 30,000 people, some of whom are served by a well field located near the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with chromium. The soil was contaminated with heavy
metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and arsenic. The
contaminated groundwater could be hazardous to the health of individuals if it is
accidentally directly contacted or swallowed. Haw Creek and the White River, which are
located nearby, have a potential of being contaminated by the hazardous materials present
at the site.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
85
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1987, the EPA constructed a fence around the entire site and removed
27 barrels of waste to an off-site treatment facility. The EPA also took steps to
decontaminate the electroplating process building and storage shed. In addition, a trench
at the main electroplating process building and contaminated surface soil were excavated and
disposed at an off-site landfill. After the soil was removed, the EPA covered excavated areas with
clean soil. These actions have eliminated the sources of soil contamination. In 1989, the EPA took
the following actions to remove the contaminants from the site: (1) decontaminated the walls and
ceilings of the main process building and demolished the building; (2) transported the building
debris to an off-site landfill; (3) excavated contaminated soil and the contaminated building
foundation and disposed of excavated material at an off-site waste landfill; and (4) filled the
excavated areas with clean soil, graded the surface of the ground, and reseeded the graded area.
Upon completion of these events, the fence was removed.
Entire Site: The EPA completed an investigation in 1990 that determined the nature and
extent of the site contamination and recommended that the contaminated groundwater be
pumped and treated and then discharged to the publicly owned water treatment works.
The pump and treat system design was approved in early 1991. Construction of the treatment
system was started in 1991. During the course of the investigation and while demolishing the main
building, the EPA found asbestos-bearing materials. These materials were removed and transferred
to a licensed disposal facility.
Environmental Progress
Pumping and treating groundwater, excavating contaminated soils and debris, and demolishing
the contaminated building have greatly reduced the potential of exposure to contaminated
materials at the Tri-State Plating site while final cleanup activities are being conducted.
ApriM991 86 TRI-STATE PLATING
-------
WASTE, INC. LA
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980504005
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Laporte County
Michigan City
Site Description
The Waste, Inc. Landfill in Michigan City is composed of 32 acres situated on a former wetland
area. From 1966 to 1982, the landfill accepted approximately 128,000 tons of industrial wastes. The
landfill was unlined, and there were no dikes to control runoff. Originally, the site sloped down to a
creek, but now the landfill rises 50 feet above the surrounding terrain. In 1983, the site was sampled
by the EPA, and heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and other organic compounds were found in the sediment of Trail Creek, which borders the
landfill. Approximately 11,300 people live within a mile of the site, and about 2,100 people depend
on private wells within 3 miles of the site for their drinking water. The site drains into Trail Creek,
which is used for recreational purposes and discharges to Lake Michigan. The Michigan City Water
Works, serving approximately 32,000 people, draws water from intakes in Lake Michigan less than
3 miles downstream from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/10/85
Final Date: 07/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils may be contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), PCBs, PAHs, various phthalates, and heavy metals. Sediments in Trail
Creek contain heavy metals including arsenic, lead, and manganese; PAHs; PCBs;
and other organic compounds. People may be exposed to contaminants by
accidentally ingesting or coming in direct contact with contaminated soil,
leachate, groundwater, surface water, or sediment. Eating fish, waterfowl, or
locally grown vegetables containing accumulated contaminants may pose a health
hazard.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
87
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the contamination at the site are
conducting an investigation, under EPA monitoring, to determine the type and extent of
contamination. Sampling of the Trail Creek sediments and surface water and testing of the
site soils have been completed. Groundwater and leachate sampling information currently is under
review.
Site Facts: Under a Consent Order with the EPA, signed on March 31,1987, nine potentially
responsible parties agreed to undertake the investigation of the site contamination.
Environmental Progress
After listing the Waste, Inc. Landfill on the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary evaluations and
determined that the site does not pose an immediate threat to the surrounding communities or the
environment while the investigations leading to the selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking
place.
April 1991
88
WASTE, INC. LANDFILL
-------
WAYNE WAS1F&0U
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND048989479
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Whitley County
Columbia City
Other Names:
Wayne Reclamation and Recycling (WRR)
Site Description
The Wayne Waste Oil site is located on 35 acres in Columbia City. Wayne Waste Oil, a division of
Wayne Reclamation and Recycling, Inc., deposited about a million gallons of oil waste on this site
from 1975 to 1980. During its period of operation, oil wastes were disposed of on site by dumping
them on surface soils, into unlined pits, and into a trench. The Indiana State Board of Health
investigated the facility in 1980 and found hazardous wastes that were illegally deposited. As a
result, the owner was ordered by the State of Indiana to clean up the site. The site contained opened,
leaking drums, waste areas covered with sands, and disposal ponds. The area surrounding the site is
used for residential, commercial, and agricultural purposes. The population of Columbia City was
estimated to be 5,100 in 1988. All residences are connected to the municipal water supply.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene,
trichloroethylene (TCE), and toluene and heavy metals including arsenic, barium, lead,
and cyanide. Soil contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), VOCs, heavy
metals, phenols, and phthalates. On-site ponds and the adjacent Blue River contain
cyanide, copper, and TCE. Currently, the city wells, which are located at the northern
boundary of the site, are not contaminated. If migration of site-related contaminants
through groundwater occurs, area residents could be exposed to these pollutants when
consuming or using drinking water. On-site trespassers and workers could be exposed to
site-related contaminants when coming into direct contact with the contaminated soils.
The Blue River borders the site on two sides, and since no significant barrier between the
site and the river exists, site-related contaminants in groundwater, surface water, and soils
could migrate into the river.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
89
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1986, the potentially responsible parries, under EPA
monitoring, excavated 7,500 tons of contaminated soil in the oil decanting pit, the tar pit,
and the sludge ravine and disposed of it in a federally approved facility. Over 200 drums
and soil from the buried barrel area were removed and disposed of off site. This area was then
backfilled. In 1988, the parties excavated approximately 5,400 tons of contaminated soil from the
discolored area, the acid pit, the ink sludge area, and the sludge ravine and disposed of the soil in a
federally approved facility. An additional 125 drums were removed, as well as the contents of 23
horizontal tanks. A fence was constructed around the oil decanting pit, the sludge ravine, and the
discolored area. The acid pit and the ink sludge areas were backfilled with off-site fill material.
Four drums were left on site after these operations ceased in 1988 because of the difficulties
involved with moving them. The remaining drums were removed from the site in 1989.
Entire Site: The EPA began an investigation into the nature and extent of site
contamination in 1985 and completed it in 1989. The parties potentially responsible for
site contamination have completed this investigation under EPA supervision. The remedy
selected by the EPA in March 1990 involves cleaning up the site by: (1) constructing, operating, and
maintaining a soil vapor extraction system in the VOC-contaminated soil areas; (2) delineating and
cleaning the lead-contaminated soils by soil washing or immobilization/stabilization technologies;
(3) constructing, operating, and maintaining a groundwater extraction, treatment (air stripping), and
discharge system; (4) delineating the extent of the municipal landfill; (5) constructing and
maintaining a cap over the municipal landfill; (6) covering PAH-contaminated soil or consolidating
the soil under the municipal landfill cap; (7) removing and treating the contents of all above ground
and underground tanks, and delineating the extent of contamination due to spills or leaks associated
with the tanks; (8) removing and disposing of site debris; (9) installing an upgraded security fence
around the site; (10) monitoring the groundwater and the air; and (11) implementing deed
restrictions to ensure protection of the municipal landfill cap. The potentially responsible parties,
under EPA monitoring, will begin designing the technical specifications in late 1991. Once the
design phase is completed, the cleanup activities will begin.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA and the potentially responsible parties entered into an Administrative
Order on Consent, under which the parties removed contaminated soil, drums, and tanks from the
site. The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to five parties potentially responsible for the
site contamination in 1988. The purpose of the Unilateral Order was to force these parties to remove
drums, soils, debris, and tank contents.
Environmental Progress
The removal of the contaminated soils and drums from the site and the construction of security
fences around the areas of greatest contamination have reduced the potential for direct exposure to
hazardous materials at the Wayne Waste Oil site while the specifications for the selected cleanup
remedy are completed and the actual cleanup activities are started.
ApriM991 90 WAYNE WASTE OIL
-------
WEDZEB
ENTERPRISES,
INDIANA
EPA ID# IND980794374
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Boone County
Lebanon
Site Description
The Wedzeb Enterprises site is situated on 3/4 acre and is located in Lebanon, about 30 miles
northwest of Indianapolis. The site was owned by a succession of businesses prior to the late 1970s,
when Wedzeb purchased it. Operating practices at Wedzeb consisted of buying used electrical
equipment for resale and storing it on site in two warehouses. Various types of electrical equipment
including electrical capacitors and transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were
stored on site. A fire that completely destroyed one of the warehouses on the eastern side occurred
at the Wedzeb site in 1981. According to Wedzeb's inventory records, this warehouse had contained
77 tons of electrical capacitors, some of which exploded during the fire. The water used to put out
the fire mixed with contaminants from the capacitors and subsequently dripped onto the ground and
flowed into a sanitary sewer line. PCBs may have been released into the environment as a result of
the fire, and contaminants may have been washed to nearby ground surfaces as the fire was
extinguished. Because of the potential health threat to nearby residents caused by harmful
chemicals, the Indiana State Board of Health and the EPA collected samples in 1981 of on-site soil
and debris, as well as soot, wastewater, and sanitary sewer sediment from areas located near the site.
The results of these sampling activities showed concentrations of PCBs in sediment from the
sanitary sewage treatment plant, as well as traces of dioxins and furans in the sediment and other soil
samples from locations on and near the site. The EPA and the Indiana Environmental Management
Board requested a cleanup plan from Wedzeb in 1982, but the company failed to submit one.
Approximately 11,455 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site, and about 300 homes are
located within 500 feet of the site. There are approximately 300 private wells and two municipal
wells within the vicinity of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contained low levels of dioxins and furans. On-site sediments and
sediments located in the sanitary sewer pipeline system near the site were contaminated
with PCBs, dioxins, and furans. Soils contained low levels of PCBs, dioxins, furans, and
other organic compounds. Low levels of PCBs were found in the interior warehouse
surface samples. The site is now clean, and there is no threat to human health or the
environment.
91
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Wedzeb installed a fence and a windbreak around the site in 1985
to minimize migration of dust off site. The EPA removed 50 boxes containing
contaminated on-site surface soils and debris from the area surrounding the warehouse on
the eastern part of the site in 1987. The contaminated soils and debris were shipped to an EPA-
approved disposal facility. The contaminated soil subsequently was replaced with clean fill. More
than 250 drums of 3-pound capacitors were shipped off site for incineration.
Entire Site: The work plan for long-term cleanup of the sewers and soils was completed
and approved by the EPA, and cleanup work began on the site in 1990. The EPA selected
the following methods to address site contamination: (1) cleaning the sewer lines with
hydraulic jets and vacuum pumping to remove contaminants; (2) inspection of the sewer pipe; (3)
disposal or incineration of contaminated sediments; (4) filtering sewer sediments and discharging
clean water to the publicly owned treatment works; and (5) removal and disposal of the wastes
generated by the investigation into the nature and extent of contamination at the site. Cleanup
activities were completed in late 1990, and the EPA is moving toward final deletion of the site from
the NPL.
Site Facts: The EPA and the State of Indiana made repeated attempts to compel Wedzeb, the party
potentially responsible for site contamination, to clean up the site between 1981 and 1985. Further
enforcement efforts resulted in Wedzeb submitting a cleanup plan for the site in 1985; however,
Wedzeb never initiated cleanup activities due to financial difficulties.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Wedzeb Enterprises site. The EPA is taking steps
to delete the site from the NPL.
April 1991 92 WEDZEB ENTERPRISES, INC.
-------
WHITEFORD SA
AND SERVICE I
NATIONALEAS
INDIANA
EPAID#IND980999791
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
St. Joseph County
South Bend
Other Names:
National Lease
Site Description
The Whiteford Sales and Service Inc./NationaLease site covers approximately 8 acres on Sample
Street in South Bend. The site operated as Whiteford Sales and Services from 1960 to 1980 and as
National Lease from 1980 to 1983. Both companies leased trucks and semitrailers. In 1980,
St. Joseph County purchased the property from Whiteford Trucking; Whiteford then leased the
property and structures from the County until 1983. Upon acquiring the property, the County began
the demolition of all structures and construction of an overpass. During the excavation process,
three dry wells were uncovered. It was later learned that unknown quantities of degreasing solvents
and sludges, resulting from the cleaning of trucks and trailers, had been deposited into these three
unlined dry wells, each approximately 6 feet in diameter and 6 feet deep. Tests conducted by the
St. Joseph County Health Department found on-site soils to be contaminated with organic and
inorganic compounds. The Whiteford site lies in an industrial area; however, residences are located
approximately 1,000 feet due north of the site. There are approximately 10,000 people living within
a 1-mile radius of the site. Approximately 237,000 people draw drinking water from public wells
within 3 miles of the site. In 1980, the Olive Street Well Field, part of the municipal water system
located west of the Whiteford Site, was shut down because of the presence of organic chemicals in
the well water.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater off site was found to contain carbon tetrachloride, a substance used in dry
cleaning operations, other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
trichloroethylene (TCE), and vinyl chloride. Soils and sludges on site were found to be
contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, barium, cadmium, and chromium, and
with VOCs. There is a potential for the migration of contaminated groundwater to the
nearby municipal well field. If people should come in direct contact with or accidentally
ingest the contaminated groundwater, they may be at risk. In addition, people who come
into direct contact with or accidentally ingest contaminated soil may suffer adverse health
effects.
93
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: An initial cleanup of the Whiteford property was implemented, and the
three dry wells, in addition to a limited amount of contaminated soils, were removed and
taken to a State-permitted sanitary landfill.
Entire Site: Under the direction of the EPA, an investigation into the type and extent of
contamination is currently underway. The field work has been completed and a report
detailing the alternatives for cleaning up the site is currently being prepared. The final
selection of the cleanup strategy for the site is expected in 1993.
Environmental Progress
The removal of the contaminated dry wells and some of the contaminated soils from the Whiteford
Sales and Service Inc./NationaLease site has reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials while the investigations leading to the selection of the final cleanup remedies are taking
place.
94 WHITEFORD SALES AND
SERVICE INC./NATIONALEASE
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
95
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
Book
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
97
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
96
-------
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-
gether.
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment
period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
99
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
100
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against panics to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove panicles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed-
from sediment deposited by floods. Rood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
101
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
nation.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-
ture.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
102
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.J: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
103
-------
GLOSSARY.
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous.
104
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds found in motor
oil. They are a common component of creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyis (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant. Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic.
Poly vinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
105
-------
GLOSSARY.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to
their unstable atomic structure. Some are
man-made, and others are naturally occurring
in the environment. Radon, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
106
-------
GLOSSARY
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store
waste.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site. It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it. The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
107
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
108
-------
GLOSSARY
a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels.
Because of their volatile nature, they readily
evaporate into the air, increasing the potential
exposure to humans. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
widespread industrial use, they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
109
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Indiana
111
-------
CO
c
m
"o
_c
»*-
o
0>
^^*
T*
cu
**
CO
0
+
C
«/>
0)
*"
55
a.
Z
a.
£
//»
VI
.22
*ll
o
4-*
Information Reposi
: activities. Some sites may have more than one repository
the site will be on file at these repositories. The quanuty
irogress for each site and may include some or all of the
fact sheets detailing activities at sites, documents relating
other documents pertaining to site activities.
- ~ ^ - >,
e public can obtain additional information related to si
A below. All public access information pertaining tc
lories depends on ihe extent of activity and cleanup
its for public meetings, minutes from public meetings
locations of other public information centers, and an
mil
- -a £ 8 i
8 ££ §3
Z B * g Z
Repositories are established forall NPL sil
location, however, the primary site reposi
and nature of the documentation found ii
following: community relations plans, an
lo the selection of cleanup remedies, pres
Site Repository
Site Name
Ov
f>
to
rr
Z
jq
Griffith Public Library, 940 North Broad Street, Griffi
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICE, INC
Not Established
BENNETT STONE QUARRY
Not Established
CARTER LEE LUMBER COMPANY
0
tO
T
Z
Elkhart Public Library, 300 South 2nd Street, Elkhart,
CONRAIL RAIL YARD (ELKHART)
ion Street, Kokomo, IN 46901
c
Kokomo-Howard County Public Library, 220 West Ui
CONTINENTAL STEEL CORPORATION
;t, Mishawaka.IN 46544
CO
Mishawaka-Penn Public Library, 209 Lincoln Way, E;
j
Ll_
DOUGLAS ROAD/UNIROYAL, INC. LD1
r-
r-
o
to
*J-
Z
_a"
'>
{/)
Hussey Memorial Library, 225 West Hawthorne, Zion
ENVIROCHEM CORPORATION
0
VO
en
o
*T
5
o>"
1
a
_J
La Porte County Public Library, 904 Indiana Avenue,
FISHER-CALO
o
oo
VO
q-
Z
o"
c
>-,
a
U
Allen County Public Library, 900 Webster Street, Fort
FORT WAYNE REDUCTION DUMP
Not Established
fTl
O
GALEN MEYERS DUMP/DRUM SALVA
400 Benham Avenue, Elkhart, IN 46517
o
Koscuisko County Health Department, 100 West Cent
LAKELAND DISPOSAL SERVICE INC.
o\
T
r~
TT
Z
So
§c
1
CO
»
Monroe County Public Library, 303 E. Kirkwood Ave
LEMON LANE LANDFILL
to
W>
to
T
Z
Elkhart Public Library, 300 South 2nd Street, Elkhart,
MAIN STREET WELL FIELD
m
8
to
f
Z
c"
o
'i
^ '
2
Marion Public Library, 600 South Washington Street,
MARION (BRAGG) DUMP
rJ
O
s
tr
Gary Public Library, 220 West 5th Avenue, Gary, IN
MIDCO I
CM
O
s
3-
Gary Public Library, 220 West 5th Avenue, Gary, IN
MIDCOII
ol
^-
5
Z
§
CO
c
£
Monroe County Public Library, 303 E. Kirkwood Ave
NEAL'S DUMP (SPENCER)
Bloomington, IN 47491
»
Monroe County Public Library, 303 E. Kirkwood Ave
NEAL'S LANDFILL (BLOOMINGTON)
cs
1
TT
Gary Public Library, 220 West 5th Avenue, Gary, IN
NINTH AVENUE DUMP
i~
1
rr
Z
_o~
>
tft
Hussey Memorial Library, 225 West Hawthorne, Zion
U
NORTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL, IN
113
-------
-
'5 .5
0>
«-
m
S
S
M
d>
_
£L
.o>
*>z
o
O
Q.
0)
QC
C
go
"J3
re
a
«
cc
«
**
(A
Deleted from the N PL
Cv
m
r~
TI-
2
ennes,
o
g
>
Knox County Public Library, 502 North 7th Street,
I, Indianapolis, IN '
u
a
t/5
.b
03
(J
O*3
(/)
Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library, 40 Ea
T
r~
,
u
00
a
u
Jackson County Public Library, 2nd & Walnut Stre
§
o
rr
2
CA
1
«
§
1
Indianapolis Public Library, 40 East St. Clair Stree
S
r~
rr
2
u"
u
>,
£
4
u
Tippecanoe County Public Library, 627 South Stre
i, Columbus, IN 47:
m
S
O
'3
00
s
v^
00
Bartholomew County Health Department, 440 3rd
o
VC
S
T
2
^H
>,
U
i
2?
IS
o
S
Michigan City Public Library, 100 East 4th Street,
V"l
§
*
5
§
1
u
5
Lebanon Public Library, 104 East Washington Stre
"3-
S
g
u
03
5
3
O
00
E
io
HI
St. Joseph County Public Library, 122 West Wayni
41
E
re
z
0)
114
* U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893-60431
------- |