United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-86/043
September 1986
&EPA
Super-fund
Record of Decision
Lake Sandy Jo, IN
-------
TeCHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleae read /futrucflons on the feVtne IHftNt completmt)
1. REPORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R05-86/043
.. TITLE AND SU8TITLE 5. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION Sectember 26, 1986
Lake Sandy Jo, IN S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AuTHOR.SI 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
e. peRFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMe.ANO ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMeNT NO.
". CONTRACT/GRAN T NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COvEREO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Reoort
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Washington, D.C. 2G460 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTAFlY NOTES
1S. A8STRACT .
The Lake Sandy Jo site is located on the southeast side of the City of Gary in Lake
County, Indiana. The. site was a former 40-acre water-filled borrow pit that was ~sed as
a landfill between 1971 and 1980. Various wastes including construction and demolition
debris, garage and ind~strial wastes, and drums are believed to be in the site. The
area surrounding the site is primarily low density residential property. The borrow pit
the site was or'iginally dug to support construction of 1-90/84, which is adjacent to !
on
the site. In 1971 the pit was filled with ground water and was used for a short time as
a recreational lake. Between 1971 and 1975 the pit was filled with various debris.
Complaints were filed by local residents about odors emanating from the site, and in
1976 the owners were ordered to drain the lake and restrict fill to demolition debris '
only. Later in 1976 the site was sold to Glen and Gordon Martin, who continued fill ing
operations without a permit until the site was closed in'1980. The. primary contaminants
of concern are PAHs, phthalates and heavy metals, found mainly in soils.
The. selected remedial action for this site include.s: installation of a soil cover
over the landfill with a drainage blanket to control surface seecs~ extension of water.
mains to affected residents in Gary~ onsite consolidation of contaminated sediments:
ground water and surface water/sediment monitoring~ and deed restrictions on landfi 11
property and institutional controls on aquifer use. Th~ estimated capital cost of the
remedv is $4.747.000 with annual O&M costs of $63,000.
17. I(EY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.IDeNTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS 0:. COSA TI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Lake Sandy Jo, IN
Contaminated Media: so i 1, . gw, sediments
Key contaminants: heavy metals, PAHs,
. phthalates.
\
18. DISTRIBUTION STATeMeNT 1e. SECURITY CI.ASS / Tills RtpofrJ 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 66
20. SECUFlI.TY CLASS (ThiS pagt} 22. PRICE
None
.,. '''III 2220-1 (R... .-71)
18..IEVIOUI IEOITION II a.'OLIETIE
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE Lake Sandy Jo/M&M Landfill
---- Lake County. Indiana
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following documents describiri9the analysis of the cost effectiveness
of the remedial action for the Lake Sandy Jo site, Gary, Indiana have been
reviewed. .
~ Lake Sandy Jo Phase 1 and II Remedial Investigation Report, July 1986;
Lake Sandy Jo Feasibility Study, July 1986;
.
- take Sandy Jo Responsiveness Summary, September 1986; and,
'. .
Q Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection Lake Sandy Jo, Se~tember 1986.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
Installation of a 50il cover over the landfill with a drainage
blanket to control surface seeps.
... Extension of water mains from the Gary-Hobart water distribution
system into the community north of 29th Avenue, south of 25th Avenue
between Morton and Chase streets in Gary.
- Onsit~ consolidation of contaminated sediments.
~ Ground water ~onitoring on a quarterly basis and surface water/sediment
and supplemental ground water monitoring on a semi-annually basis. ~/
... Deed restrictions on landfill property and institutional controls on
aquifer use 1n the affected areas.
..,
DECLARATIONS
r:.
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR
Part 300). it has been determined that taking source control action by
installing a soi1 cover over the landfill, consolidating sediment under the
cover, and placing the surrounding community on a water d~)tribution system
is a cost-effective remedy that provides adequate protect"lon of public
health. welfare, and the environment. The State of Indiana has been consulted
and agrees with the approved remedy. In addition, the action will require
-------
-2-
fu~ther operation and maintenance. activities to ensure the continued effect-
iveness of the remedy. The U.S. EPA will fund 90% of the operation and
maintenance for the first year. It has also been determined that the
action being taken is appropiate when balanced against the availability of
Trust Fund monies for use at other sites. .
. . C-..
&U JG/ I rib.
Date
'.
o
, .
-------
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Lake Sandy Jo/M&M Landfill
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
. The Lake Sandy Jo Landfill site hlocated' on the southeast side of the
City of Gary, Lake County, Ind;an~ (Figure 1-1). The Lake Sandy Jo Landfill
was a former 40-acre water-filled 'borrow pit that was gradually displ aced
by landfill operations between 1971 and 1980. Various wastes including
construction and demolition debris, municipal garage, industrial wastes,
and possible drummed wastes are believed to be in the site.
Land use around the Lake Sandy Jo Landfjll(~ primarily low density resi-
dential, except for the traverse of 1~9~~, which lies along the southern
boundary of the site. The three closeSt residences have backyards that
abut the northern boundary of the landfill. Up until April 1986, there was
no restricted site acceis. .
,/
The Lake Sandy Jo Landfill consists of an approximately 50-acre tract of
land surrounding the former borrow pit. Wastes are partially exposed over
much of the di sposal area" Where wastes. are not exposed, the surface of
the site is a fine sand with substantial vegetation cover, mainly weeds and
shrubs. Thick stands of cattails and several leachate seeps are evident
along the southern edge of the landfill. Near the southeast corner of the
. 'landfill, there is a pond and a wetland which. contain accumulated surface
water discharges. At the south edge of the landfill, the ground water'
1 evel is very close to the surface. Most of the ground water in the shallow'
aquifer passing through the landfill is collected as surface water recharge
by two west/east drainage ditches that parallel 1-80/94 or by a drainage
ditch which"flows from the southwest corner of the landfill southeast
toward the L ittl e Cal umet River. The Littl e Cal umet River 1 ies approximately
one mile south of Lake Sandy Jo at its closest point (Figure 1-2).
SITE HISJORY
The Lake Sandy Jo Landfill was originally a sand and gravel borrow pit dug
to support construction of the adjacent expressway in the 1960.s. The
exact dimensions of the pit are not known, but the maximum depth of the pit
is thought to be 40 feet deep. The borrow pit gradually filled with ground
water and for a short time was used by the surrounding community as a
recreational lake. In 1971, Robert Breski and Robert Nelson of the Gemin
Corporation obtained rights to start filling the lake. Between 1971 and
1975 the lake was half filled and during these years therp were numerous
complaints about odors at the site. Legal proceedings were initiated by
the State of Indiana in 1975 against the owners for"operating without a
permit, mismanagement of the landfill\/ and for "contaminating and polluting
the waters of Lake Sandy Jo." In 1976, the charges were sustained, the
owners fined $20,000 and ordered to pump the lake dry and restrict future.
fill to demolition debris only.
-------
LAKE
""e H' GAH
-..--.-.-
. - - 10
90
KOKOMO
.
MUNCIE
.
.
!!Ic
o'z
,z'c
::ilc
::!~
I
.
.
!-At( E SANOY .10 LANOFlu..
'0
N
o
40
-.,..-'.'.
20
MILES
60
'I'I,OIAi"!A
FIGURE 1
lOCATION MAP
L.AKE SANOY JO L.ANOFII..I..
-------
WEST
~
en 211'
...
en
~
en
~ AVE
~I
...
en 24th AVE
cr:
cr: WEST 25''''
:)
=
AVE
en
~
Co)
=
Q
Z
.... ~
:::: en
~ I- ~
en en en
.c.VE
- --I
n: I
!
~ I
I- -r", .
en
..I
..I
>- C
"" ::
z a:
~ c
~
II I
. .
; . .
'" .
. .. .
.
. ..
en
CI Z
! 0 III ..,
Z. en ... en
Z -' - c
"" - c ::
~ ~ . Co)
TRI-:TATE
':0'
z
o
...
!
2
,
~~.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Lake s.xty Jo
Landfill Bound.ry
J
" .
~... .
II
,
..... .
~~..
1..1 TTL. E
.
_.....~.-
~
en
CALUMET
u.
"'C$tr
",/tit
c
:::
Co)
/flf
"
LAKE SANDY JO LANDFILL
.
@
.
,
2I8e'"
I
INOIANA
FIGURE 2
VICINITY MAP
I...AKE SANOY JO 1=3
ftIQQ" ~
SCALE IN FEn
..- ,
-------
-2-
Instead, Gemin Corporation sold Lake Sandy Jo to Glen and Gordon Martin,
and from 1976 to 1980 Lake Sandy Jo was known as the M&M Landfill. Although
the landfill was never permitted, it was granted an operating variance without
a permit by the state. The operating variance restricted fill materials to
wood, stone, concrete, brick and other similar types of demolition debris.
Industrial wastes, municipal wastes, and garbage were not to be accepted..
Howeyer, throughou~ M&M Landfill's operating period the operating variance
. was revoked and reinstated several ,times for violations including inadequate
site grading, fa1"1ure to cover wastes, open dumping, and failure to meet the
required fill ~nd cover objectives within the allotted time frame. Reports
by the Gary Fire Department indicate a number of fires occurred on the
landfill property that burned both above and below ground. The site has
remained inactive since May 1980. Because of the potential for the site to
contaminate a drinking water aquifer, Lake Sandy Jo was placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) in 1982.
CURRE~~ SITE STATUS
, There are no records on: Lake' Sandy Jo that desc ri be quanti ty, tyPl!S, and
. concentrations of hazardous substances present in the landfill. Data
collected during the Remedial Investigation (RI) conducted from November
1984 to January 1986 are summarized below, and in Table 1.
SURFACE SOILS
There is areawide contamination of the landfill surface with polyaromatic
., hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalate acid esters (phthalates), and metals.
Cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, chromium and zinc were among the metals that
exceeded background levels in surface soils. Concentrations of lead up to
2,788 ppm were considered an acutely toxic threat from direct exposure.
Benzo{a)py~ene, the most significant PAH, was detected in 23 out of 33
samples at concentrations up to 78 parts per million (ppm). Immediate
action was deemed necessary to prevent direct contact with surface soils.
Emergency action was taken in April 1986 to erect a security fence around
the site. Direct contact is temporarily prevented, but exposure and ingestion
of soil~ is possible as long as the contaminated soils remain exposed.
GROUND WATER
Figure 3 demonstrates the direction of ground water flow through the site.
The landfill area, having been a recreational lake, is highly saturated.
The si9nificant source of leachate generation is the aquifer water which
flows through the fill area. Percolation from rain is a minor contributor
to leachate generation. . .
The shallow aquifer has poor drinking water quality .inde~.ndent of the Lake
Sandy Jo Landfill. Upgradient and background samples show detectable levels
of heavy metals, none above primary drinking water standards (MCL's set
by the Safe Drinking Water Act). Iron and manganese, which affect color,
o odor, and/or taste, are above their secondary drinking water standards.
Sulfide also contributes to poor taste and odor.
.. ,
-------
-3-
. Some of the shallow ground water monitoring wells downgradient of the site
contained low levels of benzene, butyl benzyl phthalate, and trace levels
of styrene. Benzene, the key toxic organic constituent, has been detected
in low levels at the facility boundary wells. Most monitoring wells also
contained the following inorganic contaminants in low concentrations:
arsenic, cyanide, lead, chromium, copper, cadmium, and nickel. None of .
these concentrati ons exceed primary dri nk i,ng water standards, or health
o advisories.. '
Twenty-nine residential well sampies were collected during Phase I and
Phase II of the RI. All data were reviewed by Region V's Drinking Water
Section and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
Residential wells located southeast and along the drainage ditch leading
south from the Lake Sandy Jo Landfill have severely degraded ground water
quality due to high levels of iron, manganese, sodium, magne~ium, and
potassium. None of these contaminants have primary drinking water standardso
HoweveT, iron and manganese exceed secondary drinking water standards and
there is an advisory for drinking water containing greater than 20 ppm
sodium for individuals 'on sodium restricted' diets.. Low levels of-heavy
. metals, arsenic, cadmium, cyanide, lead, and copper have also been detected
at levels below primary drinking water standards. These low level inorganic
contaminants in conjunction with high dissolved solids are a direct result
of the landfill leachate and constitute a non-toxic ground-water plume.
'Figure 4 shows the extent of ground water contamination from Lake Sandy Jo.
Organic'contaminants have not been detected in residential wens. However,
',through the inorganic data, the ground-water pathway is clear. Therefore,
the potential exists for exposure to ground-water users of yet undetected
contaminants or increased levels of inorganic contaminants.
".
SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENTS
The observed surface waters are the discharge points for the shallow aquifer
ground watero The surface waters consist of landfill leachate mixed with
large volumes of uncontaminated ground water.. No organics were detected in
these samp1es. Elevated levels of heavy metals were detected in upstream
and downstream samples. Samples from the leachate seep or pond contained
concentrations of barium, chromium, mercury, nickel and cyanide. None of
the concentrations exceeded Freshwater Ambient Water Quality Criteria.
Q
Sediments collected in the drainage ditches southeast and south of the Lake
Sandy Jo Landfill are contaminated with heavy metals and PAH compounds
similar to the surface soil samples from the site. The PAH concentrations
are significantly above the highway background contributions. As with the
surface water samples, elevated levels of heavy metals were found in upstream
and downstream samples.
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The public health risk assessment developed using the RI data shows the
following risks exist under the uno a~tionU alternative at the Lake. Sandy
Jo Landfill under present conditions:
., .
-------
I
t
I
t
I
TFU-STATE
HIGHW A Y
f l
LAKE SANDY JO
\ J LANDFILL
. .
~
IJ)
~
IJ)
<
:
(,.)
'0
N
MARSHY AREA
..
~: .;,.~~;:-..~:.;.o'~' ",",.,""JI!' -:>.;:". .,:< ':~... ~'.
.
.
.. - --.J
.
t.----...-
(
. .
.
\
/
PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCAL.E
SOUTH
MARSHY
LANDFILL AREA ~ HIGHWAY
... -C.' ~..~ ~. -.L - A~T~~AGE
\ ~--~
160GPM \ '/ ./" -
, \ 'JI9!1.GP------ . - ,---.
///...o///~' '-----? --_/ ///.-"///.-"//j
NORn'4
PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE
. BASE OF CALUMET
AQUIFER
LE~END
DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER
...-... FLOW IN DRAINAGE DITCH
~
WATER TABLE
FIGURE 3
SITE GROUNDWATER
F LOW SYSTEM
LAKE SANDY JO FS
~ ~IRECTION OF GROUNDWATE"
~- FLOW' .
-------
J I II II
~3RD ~ AVE
... t;
eft
II II II I L.:...-
~ ~ t; .,.; r
..,. en iii
.,
U C!J Z ",:L
- z
a:: - 0 ...
Q Z ., ... :l
z z ..j C
iii III i ::
:: ., ~ y
D
e-
::
C!J
i:
.
CD
2
o
u
....
3:
AVE
----~,.J-
."".
ZSTH
]
r
1 ;
1 :a
...
.,
...
.
...
en
LAKE SANDY JO
LANDFILL.
A
..." .............. .'~. .
iii
4
..,
...
::
o
C
.- . ..,.H
... ."
-
p,... .
..-
y-..
u
.
'-
AVE
."
]12~ 6 A~
11 If
.
(~
~
o 600'
. I
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
.
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MONITORING
WEu.. OR WELL PAIR IN CALUMET AQUIFER
~
APPROXiMATE LOCATION OF $AMPLED
RESIDENTIAL WELL IN CAL.UMET AQUIFER
---
A..ROXIMATE LOCATION OF DRAINAGE
DITCHES .
IIIIII
AREA OF CALUMET AQUIFERS PRESENTLY
AFFECTED BY CONTAMINANTS FROM
LANDFILL. THE BOUNDARY ENCOMPASSES
WELU FROM WHICH SAMPLES WITH CON.
CENTRATIONS GAEATER THAN BACK.
GROUNO WERE OBTAINED.
FIGtJRE 4
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATIO~
GROUNDWATER
LAKE SANOY JO FS
-------
. Table 1 (page 1 of 4)
SUMMARY OF SURFACE SOI~ SAMPLING RESULTS
LAX!: SANDY JO I.ANt)FIU RIfFS
CON~'!':Tt1!:N':'
NO. OP
POSITIVE ~ETECTIONS/
. NO. OP
VALI~ OBSERVATIONS'
RANG~ OP DETECTIONS
(ug/kg)
VOLATIL~ ORGANICS:
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroetbane 5/33 14 - 19
l,l-~~chloroethene 3/33 ND - 31
tetrachloroethene 5/33 9 - 24
CI
StM!-VOLA'!'IL~ ORGANICS:
b13(2-ethy1hexy1)phtha1ate '26/33 160 180,000
butyl benzyl phthalate 1 8/33 220 - 180,000
~~-n-buty1 phthalate 16/33 200 - 23,000
~1-n-octyl phthalate 7/33 240 - "7,000
diethyl phthalate 3/33 10,000 - 72,000
acenaphthene 6/33 64 - 13,000
f1uoranthene 23/33 260 - 160,000
naphthalene .2/33 36 - 97
'en:o(a)anthracene 23/33 140 - 89,000
"nzo (a )PY1"ene 22/33 1410 - 78,000
4nzo-C-b)fluo1"anthene 25/33 130 - 1"0,000
ben:o(k)rlu~ranthene 19/33 120 - 120.000
ehroysene 20/33 120 - 83,000
acenaphthene 6/33 180 - 1,300
anthracene 12/33 3" - 12,000
benzo(gh1)perylene 1 8/33 2110 - "4,000
fluorene 0. 7/33 118 - 16,000
phenanthrene 22/33 180 - 67,000
~1oen:o(ah)anthracene 9/33 88 - 20,000
1ndeno(1,2,3-cd)perylene 16/33 200 - 37,000
pyrene 23/33 280 - 170,000
Ao-4'Dt'l' 4/3 3 120 .. 1,500
AI-4'D~E 6/33 110 - 4110
PCB-125A1 12/33 210 .. 4,600
- PC8-1260 2/33 6,100 9,700
!l.!A V! METALS
azoaenic
cac1m~WD
copper
chromium
lead
nickel
::'nc
19/28
23/25
34/35
22/25
22/2 "
23/31
31/31
2,700 ..
2,800 ..
7.900 ..
2.600 ..
. 22,000 -
N~ ..
16,000 ..
83,000
74,000'
5,420.000
362.C'-~
3, 67C.,000
1,399,000
20,352,000
eN: - Not ~etecte~
". .
RANGE OF VA:':3£:5
C!:'!C':'!C" :1\
BACK(;ROUND
SAM!»l.£S
(SS0034-035)
N~e
N~
Ne
Ne
Ne
N~
Ne
N~
Ne
~ .. 18
Nt)
N~
ND
lID
ND
ND
N~
Ne
Ne
N~
ND
Ne
Ne
Ne
N~
~
Nt>
NI:)
N~
ND
4,100 - 11,800
3,000 .. 3,300
3,900 .. AI,AlOO
N~
16,000 .. 25,000
-------
Table 1 (page ;! of 4) .
&UHHAR'f .0,. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RE8UI.T'
'C~LUHET ~QUlrEn.
LAIE S~HD' JO I.ANDr II.L ilU Irs
:
CUNSTITUENT
NO. OP'
POSITIVE DETECTIONSI
NO. 0'
'ALID OBSERVATIONS
---
,
11/~6
19/56
5'/56
1156
56/56
6156
U--.
20/56
51/56
10/56
25121
56/56
55/'.»6
1121
12/56
)8/56
1/'"
55/56
21121
1/12
16/56
)1/56
10/W.'
RANRE 0' PET£CTIONS
. (!!SO»
(26J - 911
2 - 26
(a"n 551
20" - 5.1
22,100 - 2862000
10 - 111.-.
(9.6) - 211
6.1 118.5
U1] - 2',800
I - 12
10 - 111
50620 506,000
]8 - l.l01t
Ooi - 0.)5
(IOJ - 12)
20)10 - 15, '100
8
)0,000 - 2200000
. . 09 - 866
.50.'
(51 - lilt
I) - 2,990
2.9 - 52
2.5K - 21.5
5.4
)1\ - 8.IK
2.1
8.J
6.~
J.OK
I. 01\
LJ - 1.0
. IK - 1. II(
1.0.'
41\ - 16.7
<.81\ - 10
6 . 4t: - (,. 1t:
2J
an. aRB :'o..~
'-
AI ""'''t...
Arselilc
II/Drl"..
(:..1",1",.
(:alelu..
C;lIrum I 91..
CuhAI"
COI'IIer
Iron
l.e8d
I.Illll u.
"AA"'!81""
"""R8fU! ae
"ereur,
ill eke 1
'0"888 h..
Silver
Sodlu.
5lrulltl".
Tllanl"lI!
Vall....I"..
1111':
r. '''" I ,It.
It.!nl CIlf!
IJr....dich'OlU..~UIi\II.' .
]-I\utanOflc
0\ 1 or()(J i brmoeU,,-,oc
allon)(>U~
O,loro'Ol,..
2-tlcxaflOllf!
St }'H!I o(!
1\.1 uene
1\.t;, J x}'Ir.r1f'
'1w.!IIOJ
l\el~yl B'hlhcllilte
m-N-h"t).: B'8llBldlate
Ol-N-(ttt.),g i'hUeai"t.e
B !>Opi ItIr one
Gomw "~D':
(,/'.Jf.
1/')"
2/S6
I I Sf.
II Sf.
I/Sf.
I/~(,
I/S6
2.'S6
I/S{.
I/S6
10/S6
. 2/'36
S/S6
8/';6
o / !...
.0 - 10. ..{!;MUU1I,I"IOOJ, UWUI7. li.;u:,~. 01«>2), ."107." 'A-I01S, fJL.J021.
1,.. ,,' "f' .,~ ",.. ...... i ... ~t ..,. 'f"...
. !""!:I.f:S pnOM VF:t.I.., -~~I''':CT~!! 1!.L1~~O'!~!:'
NO. 0'
rOSITIYE ItETF.CTIOH31
NOo 0'
':''''0 OOSEnVATIONS
---------
" ",-
1/11
2/11
11/11
0/11
II/II
0/11
019
2/11
.11/11
2111.
.01. °
II/II
11/11
1/9
./11
5/11
019
1 011 1
10/10
012
0/"
o 918 I
1/11
ClIII
0'11
.., II
0/11
(1.'11
0111
0111
0/11
1/11
0111
1/11
0/11
.011 B
fill B
HID
BifiD
RANOE 0' OF-TECTIONS
(~Bl!t
Pi2 )
2 - 201
.)1 216
220100- 186,000.
. .
6.1 1.'.
}2) - 12, '00
1.8-2.)
10 - 21.6
5.620 ill ,500
95 - 651
0.2
U}
20510 - 8.600
]0.000 - 1'2,000
UU - 591
101 - 9511
1.ft
J.O
1.0.8
-------
Table 1 (page 3 of 4)
. SUMMARY 0' SE~IMENT SAMPLING
t.AK.E SAHElY JO LAHDrIU RIIFS
RAHal OP
v 1t.aES :)r::z~G v 1 t.trU :) !':'!C":!t)
110. OP IX 5ACIGKOCHt) IX !SACXGKOUHO
POU'frtU/ SUIPLU SAKPLU Nar
110. OP RAHO! OP IHPt.1mCCEt) Itn'LUEXC:EO
V~ DET!C'1'IO~ at ':'e HIGHWAY It fB! KIOHVA Y
CON~~" OE'1'ZC'1':ON~ III: /kl III: Ilcl III: Ilcl
votJ. ::!.E3
1,1.1-er1;blor08caane 1/15 . N08-13 "0 Noe feued
1C!:) COMPOUH~
pencachlorGpaeno1 1/15 ND-1600 liD NO
8ASE/NtV!KAL COMPOUNDS
~1.C2..ca'lDeZ11)paCD&1ace 1/8 uo . 33,000 lID NO
41-n-occ11 pacD&1ac. 2/8 330 - 5.500 lID ND
ancarace... 10/15 68 - 2.600 lID HO
P1l'8ne 11/15 150 - 6.200 280 - 130 200
3ensoCCa1)p.r71.... 12115 280 . 2.100 lID - :UO ND
1ftd8noCl.Z.3-ed)PJPeft. 11/15 2&0 - 2,500 lID HI)
D.nsoC~)rl~oraaca.... 13115 150 - 530 150 - 550 130
nl.&oranca.... 9115 210 - 8.100 260 - 530 210
~en&o(lc)tl1.&o~Ch.... 12115 1'0 - 3.000 110 - 550 110
aunapaca,l.... . 1/15 220 - 1.100 lID 110
: a,.,...n. la/15 ' 110 - 5.800 200 . 360 1'0
l:Ien80 C a)p,,..... 12/15 120 - 1.700 lID - 150 120
d1~.n.o(&.h)a..carace... 1/15 330 - 1'.200 lID HO
~.".o(')&8carao.... 2.3/15 110 - 6.800 1'0 - U 0 110
aeenaphcae..8 1/15 220 . 2.100 lID lID
d1eca,l paCD&1ac. 1/15 ND - 130 . lID NO
d1-n-0l.&c11 pacaa1ac. 1/8 330 . 120 lID NO
pae"UClU"en. 11/15 270 - 3.100 lID .. 100 lID
lIen&,l I»I.&C71 pacaa1&c8 5/15 1'0 . 9.800 lID NO
:'1\&01'8118 "15 260 - 3.600 l1li ND
napaca&len. . 1115 56 . 1.200 lID . 800 NO
PU'1'ICI!:)!!
PCI-1251 1115 ND . 2.000 lID "0
I,"-COT 1/15 ND . 1,100 lID NO
I,I'.DDD 1115 lID .. 10 lID ND
Endoaultaa 1/15 lID - 10 lID NO
£:.tME~S
111181n\lll 15115 288.000 - 3.160,000 . 1,910,000
12,300.000 3.850.000
Barta 15/15 12.000 .. 11.000 - 93.000
1.580.000 92.QOO
Ber11.l1a 5/15 '&0 . 6.200 ND . 990 850
C&CSa1wa 9/15 2.300 .. lID ND
18.000
Chrooa1\a8 15/15 8.200 .. 8.600 .. 20 . 00 0
81.000 25.000
Copp.r 15115 11.000 .. 21,000 . 50.000
187.000 59.000
"- ..CI.&,., 1115 80 - 900 HD . 100 "D
~an&&ft.a. 15115 13.000 .. 219,000 . 225.000
2,710.000 872,000
H1cael 15115 5.'00 . 5.'00 - 23.000
82.000 12.000
t.ad 11115 18.000 - 120.000 .. 162.000
526.000 526.000
%1nc 1 5/15 U. 000 - 11 7 . 000 .. 513.000
1.920.000 327,000
AP""1 c ( a) 1/7 11.000 - 11.000 35.000
102.000Cb)
~ND . Hoc decected.
CalOftl1 anallted tor In Pb&8e II.
C~)1~2,OOO -C/lcl or Ir.en1C -aa dececced
non-deCeccaDle tor &~e"l;. ~e nest
1n one '&8P1e, bue 1e. t1e1d r.pl1caee ...
b1&b.ae 1"'8n1c deeected .a8 69,000.
-------
Table 1 (page 4 of 4)
SUMMAR! or SURFACE WATEA SAMPLING RESULTS
LAIIItB 8""OY ..0 I.ANOFU.L 'H/rs
BACKORUUND SAMPLES UP3Tn~A" 0' LANDFILL
ADJAClEft TO IHOOVAY AVAY ,nOM IIIOIIVAI
(3V002 AND 3V008) (SVOIO)
NO. OF NO. 0' NO. 0'
POSITIVE POSITIVE POSITIiVE
Df.TECTIONSI DETECT IONS/ PETF.CTIOHSI
NO., 0' YAIoID RANOE 0' DETECTIONS "0. 0' VALID RANOI; 0' DETECTIONS HO. OP VAI.!D RANOE 0' DETECTIOI
CONSTITUENT OBSERVATIONS (uI/I) OBSERVATIONS (us/l) OBSERVATIONS (uS/I)
AlulIIlnu. J/8 I. no - 6J.200 I/t 6J.200 1/1 21t2
Antillony 1/8 NDI - 69 I/t " t 69 0/1 NO
Araenlc )/8 'U -)18 I/t H8 0/1 HO
Ultrlu. 11/15 (60) - 1.860 1/2 1.860 1/1 (60 ]
BerylllulII 218 ( O. re] - 15 III 15 0/1 NO
CltdllllUIII 218 (II.)] - 51 1/1 51 0/1 NO
C.. I C h.18 15/15 96.~00 - 212.000 212 12).000 - 2}1.000 III II 11.000
ChromlulII 118 (5.5) - 211 III 211 III 15.8 J
Cob.. It 218 (loJ ,.; 122 III 122 : -0/1 NO
Copper J/15 20 - 9110 1/2 9110 .' 011 "0
Iron 1511 5 120 - 3666°00 2/2 110 - 366.000 1/1 2J.OOO
l.cad 118 12 - 9.9 ° III 9.980 1/1 I)
"lisneaI UIII 15/15 30.000 - "51.000 2/2 }II.OOO - 10.800 1/1 )).800
"IIInSlineae I "/15 110 - 12.500 2/2 510 - 12.500 1/1 697
Mercur, )/8 [O.IIJ - 0.12 III 0.12 011 . HO
HI cke I 5/8 (loJ - 116 lit 116 011 NO
1'0 t.llaol UIII 15/15 5.8110 - 111.JOO 2/2 8.000 - 9.080 8/B 5.8110
Sit ver 1/8 NO - 25 III 25 011 NO
SodlulII I 511 5 t9.IIOO - 2}0.000 2/2 19.1100 - 66.000 III J2.600
Tin 1/15 NO - 60 0/2 HP OlD HO
Y"IIIIIdI UIII 1/8 11.5 - 350 III J50 D/B 111.5)
Zinc 10/15 12 - 5.860 1/2 5.860 B 16 1111
C,lInhle 111 OJ 10 - 20 1/2 18 011 NO
Acelone "/1 IOJ - 200 III 10J 0/0 Not Teat.e1D
,Chloromet.hane 1/1 liD - II III II 0/0 Not Tested
NOTE:
( ) Indlc.tea an eatl.Ated .alue below contract required detection 11.lta.
J Hndlc.tea thftt the co.pound wfte detected at le.e1a too low to be qbentlfled.
-ND . Not Detected.
The nu.ber I. the qbantlflcatlon BBmlt.
-------
-4-
o
Sediment:
Because of PAH's, the inhalation and ingestion risks
exceed the 1 x 10-6 cancer risk level (one in a million)
for onsite exposure. The inhalation risks due to PAH's
for offsite exposure are less than 1 x 10-6.
The ingestion risks, because of PAH's, exceed.l x 10-?
o Surface Soil:
. None of the rOes;dential wells sampled contained benzene;
however, benzene was found in some of the monitoring wells
exceeding 1 xi~-6. Therefore, shallow aquifer groundwater
may pose a cancer risk due to the presence of benzene in
the future.
. 0 Groundwater:
ENFORCEMENT (See Attachment 1)
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
.
Applicable genera' res~onse actions and technologies addressing problems at the
Lake Sandy Jo Landfill site ~re identified. Public health and ertvironmenta1
objectives include: .
o
Prevention of inha1ation, absorption or ingestion of surface soils
and sediments.
o Prevention of ingestion of contaminated drinking water from existing
and future releases to the Calumet aquifer.
o Prevention of future releases of sediments to the east-west and
southeast drainage ditches from onsite surface soil erosion.
Remedial technologies were screened according to applicability to site con-
ditions and""the contaminants of concern at the site and the ability of the
technology to adequately protect human health and the environment. The
technologies were assessed on the basis of technical feasibility, including
an assessment of performance, reliability, imp1ementabili1ty, and safety
with respect to site-specific physical and waste characteristics. Both
source control and offsite (management of migration) technologies were
considered. The following technologies are considered applicable to site
conditions and problems:
o Soil/Sediment
Soil Cover
Multimedia Cap
Landfill
Incineration
,. ,
-------
-5-
o Ground Water/Surface Water
Vertical barrier
Treatment (onsite)
- Precipitation
- Air stripping
- Filtration
- Granular activated carbon
- Biological
Tr6atment (off-site)
- POTW
- RCRA facility
Collection
- Extraction wells
Subsurface drains
Alternate Water Supply
- Water distribution.system
- Deeper bedrock wells
Onsite landfilling and incineration were eliminated because of excessive
cost, $460 million and $2 billion- plus dollars respectively. Pipe and
media drains were eliminated because they were significantly more difficult
and costly to install than the extraction wells. Biological treatment was
eliminated because of the low biological oxygen demand (800) values currently
in the groundwater. Bedrock wells were eliminated because of difficulties
in drilling productive wells. .
Remedial action alternatives were developed from the technologies which
survived the screening process .taking into consideration the magnitude and
extent of contamination, the waste characteristics, and t~p. physical con-
ditions of the siteo The technical feasibi)ity of each a~~ernative was
evaluated based upon performance~ reliability, implementability and safety.
The capital ~osts, annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and present
worth costs .were estimated for each of the alternatives. The expected
accuracies for cost estimates are within +50 and -30 percent of the actual
y .
-------
.;.6-
cost. The individual alternatives were then evaluated for compliance with
federal and state environmental laws and regulat~ons,protection of "human
health and effects on institutional parameters. This detailed analysis of
a limited number of alternatives is consistent with Section ~OO.68 (i) of
the NCP.
. DETAILED DESCRIPTioN/EVALUATION" OF ALTERNATIVES
.. .
A comparative evaluation and description of the alternatives is presented
below and summarized in Table 2.
ALTERNATIVE I--NO ACTION
The No Action alternative is required by the NCP to be carried forward.
It provides a basel ine for comparison of other alternatives.
.
ALTERNATIVE 2--ACCESS RESTRICTIONS--WITH SOIL COVER
Alternatives 2 includes deed restrictions, ground water and surface water
monitoring, a soil cover over the 'landfi", and onsite sediment disposal.
All operable unit goals are addressed in this alternative. It is intended
to be representative of a low-cost alternative that offers a ~inimally .
acceptable level of protection to public health and environment from known
existing site hazards. Under this alternative, future remedial actions
. would likely be necessary if monitoring detected future offsite migration
of hazardous levels of contaminants into the environment.
ALTERNATIVE 3--ALTERNATE WATER SUPPLY--WITH SOIL COVER AND
ACCESS RESTRICTIONS .
Alternative 3 adds a municipal water supply for area residents to the
components of Alternative 2. The existing public water system would be
extended to include residences potentially affected by ground water con-
" taminant migration in the future. This provides additional protection
of public health from ingestion, inhalation, or absorption of possible
future ground water contaminants relative to Alternative 2. Ground water
monitoring would be essential to detect offsite contaminant migration. A
drainage blanket would be placed along the southern boundary of the site
beneath the soil cover to control surface seeps and protect the integrity
of the 5011 cover. Treatment of the seeps will not be necessary because
the seeps are not presently contaminated. The drainage blanket would be
approximately 2 feet thick and would consist of clean stone or gravel
similar to a french tile drain. Perforated drainage pipe~ would extend
along the periphery of the blanket and would be sloped to allow drainage to
the east-west and southeast drainage ditches. The drafnage woul d be enveloped
in filter fabric to minimize the movement of soil patches into the stone
and drainage pipes. "" .
... .
-------
-7-
, OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES 4A, 48, SA, 5'8, and 6
Ground water collection i~ a component of Alternatives 4A, 48, SA, 58, and 60
Three ground water treatment technologies survived screening and could be
incorporated into these alternatives. They are: '
o
Onsitetreatment consisting of, precipitation, filtration, and
activa:te,d carbon adsQrption
Offsite treatment at the Gary Publicly Owned Treatment Work
( POTW)
o
Offsite treatment at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) facil ity
ALTERNATIVE 4A--GRADIENT CONTROL/TREATMENT--WITH SOIL COVER
o
Instead of the water supply provision in Alternative 3, this alternative
prevents 'future offs1t~,migration of ground water through ground ~ater
coll ection with extraction well s and ground water treatment (onsite treatment
or treatment at a POTW)0 This alternative addresses the sediment and
ground water operable unit goals of providing adequate protection of the
public health and environment by eliminating offsite migration of ground
water contaminants, and by consolidating contaminanted sediments onsite.
Contaminated soil and ground water beneath the site, however, would remain,
thus requiring enforcement of deed restrictions for an indefinite period
, (the period of natural attenuation of contami nants).. As with previous
alternatives, the s011 cover as well as deed restrictions address the 50il
~perable unit goals.
ALTERNATIVE 4B--GRADIENT CONTROL/TREATMENT--WITH MULTILAYER CAP
Alternative 48 is identical to Alternative 4A with the exception of the
multilayer cap replacing the soil cover. This alternative is intended to
provide a greater level of protection by reducing contaminant migration to
the ground water through reductions in percolation through the surface while
also meeting technical requirements of landfill capping for hazardous site
closure under RCRA. '
ALTERNATIVE SA--GROUND WATER EXCLUSION/TREATMENT--WITH SOIL COVER
AND SLURRY WALL '
Alternative SA increases the reliability of preventing offsite ground water
contaminant migration through use of a slurry wall in conjuncton with
extraction wells. Other than this, the level of protection of the public
health and environment in all operable units intended for this alternative
is similar to Alternative 4A.. Some ground 'water collection within the
sl urry wall,; s necessary and would be treated either onsite, offs; te at the
Gary POTW, or offsite at a RCRA facility. Alternative SA will result; n a
much lower treatment flowrate with resulting 1 ower, operating and capital
cost than Alternative 4A. However, this alternative will incur greater
capital cost as the result of the slu'rry wall.
,. ,
-------
-8-
, ALTERNATIVE 5B--GROUND WATER EXCLUSION/TREATMENT --WITH HUL TILA YER CAP
AND SLURRY WALL
Alternative 5B is identical to Alternative SA with the exception of the
multilayer cap replac'ing the soil cover. T,his alternative provides a
greater level of protection than SA by reducing contaminant migration.ta
the ground water through reduction in surface water infiltration while also
. meet"ing technical 'requirements Of landfill capping for hazardous site
closure under RCRA.
ALTERNATIVE 6--LANDFILL DEWATERING--WITH MULTILAYER CAP
AND SLURRY WALL
Alternative 6 is intended to provide a similar level of protection of public
health and the environment as Alternatives 4 and 5. In this alternative the
landfill is dewatered by perimeter wells. When the landfill' is dewatered, .
the grpund water pumpage from within the slurry wall containment would not
require treatment. During dewatering, ground water would be treated either
in an onsite .treatment system or offsite at the Gary POTW. The dewatering
would result in lower annual operational costs, although in the 10n9 term
the lack of contaminant purging (as occurs in Alternative 4 and 5) from.the
landfill contents will require the system to be in place for a longer
period. Because the wastes are isolated from ground water there is only
very gradual attenuation of contaminants out of the landfill. .
'. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE I--NO ACTION
The no' action alternative is ineffective for preventing further contaminant
. migration, ~oes not mitigate the existing contamination at the .site,.and
does not reduce current or future public health risks. The risk assessment
concludes that there is a potential for exposure of the public to contaminants
at the site at levels that may adversely affect health and welfareG If no
action is taken, ground water will continue to enter the site and be discharged
as contami nat.ed surface wate.r and ground water. Contami nated soi 1 and
sediments will remain as a threat to direct exposure. Remedial action is
ther~fore required to reduce or minimize this exposuree The no action
assembled alternative is not appropriate and is eliminated for further
consideration. .
ALTERNATIVE 2--ACCESS RESTRICTIONS--WITH SOIL COVER
This alternative includes: deed restrictions; soil cover; Qround water,
surface water, and sediment lTIonitoring; and. onsite sedime, .: disposal.
Alternative 2 would eliminate exposure to surface soil and sediments and
prevents the generation of contaminated surface runoff. This alternative
relies on m~nitoring to detect increases in contaminant levels or types is
-------
hd.nlul [...lu.'lon CrltnRo
nf.II"IfAl. ["AI.IIATlIlII
MIIILlC &It:AUli. WF.IIAIIE. .uo
t:1tV III0000000ifJ AL t" ALUATIOII
I:I.T"'H"'I
Alternotlu I
Ifo Action
'o,.ntlo' h~.lth rl.'. ..I.t Gor
11'.11.. ..polur.o to.onalt.
conl..ln.I.' .011. olf.lte
..'I...nt, .n' onolte
.rounduol.', Pot.ntlol 01.0
....u f..r Inc,..oln.
coni ..Inant I."... In
Irounduol.' thot woul' .11'11.
to IUrf.c. w.te,o or r..8'8nIS.1
..II u..r.. Thl. coul' ,..ult
In ,...lIc heoltll on'
.n".r.......t.1 ,a... In .ac... o'
thooo c.lcul.t.' '00.' -
..I.tln, cont..lnont 1...10.
'otentlol ,10'. '.08 Ilfell8&
..,..a.. to o.'I..nt I.
-It I.ot.',
Doe. not r.duce ,ullllc health or
.n"lron-....lal rlo'. 'r08 the
.It., 'ol8..t801 ho.lth rl...
coul' r.avlt f,.. ..poaurQ to
cont..I...t.' onolte 0011 ('AI'a
ond ..tol.) ..,.oure to con-
t..lool.' ol'olt. o.'I..ntl
('AlI'o), .... pot...tlol reRu.I
o' coot..I.....lo In Iho .118 to
the .r...mdv.tor on' .I,r.t Ion 10
polnlo of I.oundwot.r u...
tot~..II.1 ".0 o' ,roundvalor
..01 u. al '~'fIU'C.. fulure
r.I.08.. cflUl. '..oct ".t80..'o,
Table 2 (page 1 of 4»
SIMtAIIY nF Of.TAIUD A"AI.ISISnr A8.ttallATln.!
Alternot I.e ,.
Acc... l.otr8ct80n.-Vlth
Boll eonr
Chen ,roper "opleMntoUon an'
..Int.nanc. IiIcU.SII.Rell.. 10
effoctl.o In p,..entlnl
potontlol ,6... to public health
or the .n.l.onMent If
.. cont..lnent 1...1. .. not
Inc..o.. In the .raundvot.r.
1.llo'lllt, of '.0' ,eotrlctlone
to pro.ent .eaeouro to onolt.
"'ou,foce 00 1 or Iroundv.te,
orer 1....fln8te perl04 of
n.tu,.1 cont..lno..t ".rl'otlon
of .It.m.tl.. ,. not known.
.'ot.ntlol oal.t. for ".ol0p88nt
of lito II, 'ut.r. aenor.tlon.
with r.oultln, .apo.ur.o.
. 'ollonc. on .ur'ace "oter,
o.'I..nt. 8ft' .roundvotor
8onltorlnl to d.tect Incr.ooem
.In cont-Inant lo.elo Of twee:
pote..tlall, ,..oln, rl... to
public health I. not l:ono"8II"0'
rellabl. "c~oe og rolotl.el,
ahort pethvayQ to receptors.
S.'flclent U- to 1.,I_nlt
.8t.,ot8.. ...0.re8. luch 8. ~
olt~rnet. woter lup,a" .., not
lie o'IIU.tlle. one. .dlon II!
lre'II.Ir.'.
Se.I88ftt coneoll'otlon on' 8011
co..r oll-Inoteo ...0.0 'r.. 9018
and ,o"..nt. Doeo not p....ent
r.I.... .... alarotlon of
cont.lnonte throuI" Iroundvet8lf
a84 potentlol ..,.oure 0'
..e.pto..o. 'ot.ntlol
on.lrDn8entol eapo.ur.. not
.It I,ot.'.
Alte....ot he ]
Altern.t. Vot... SuppR,-URth Soil
Co..r on' Aec.oo ..otrlctlono
Clnn p,oper 1.,I_nut Ion ond
."nteDllnce .cll.llln. 10
elfectl.. In pr..entln, .
,..tentlol ..I... to public health
or the en"lrOft8Pnt .f
conlo.lnant 1...1. do not
Incr.ooe In the .roundV.ter.
If IroundVot... conl..lnont t,pe.
or o.el. Incr..o. In futuro.
It!'!! public heolth n..lno
protoct.' '.couoe of the
.11.lnotlon of the ,rnun..ot...
.a,.oure routo.
'~llablllt, of '0.' r.otrletl0fi9
to pre.ent eapoour. 10 onolte
oubou.foce 8011 or I.oundVater
o..r In'.'lnltc por ad of
n.lurol conl.lnlnt '.,rodotlon
or altomotl.. '0 not 'nown.
'otentlol ..Ioto f... '..elopaent 0
of olt.'by futuro ,ener.tlonl!' .
..Ith rel.lnn, ..po..reo.
Surfece woter on' .roundv.ter
....8torlo8 .....ane 8-rcrtent to
'.tect 8ner....o In cont..lnent
1tJ'P't1l 011' 8e..I. potenUaU,
po.ana . ho&or' to th.
envlr.....nto IlncI Oa'8e
Incr.ooeo In cont..ln.te~ 1...00
woul' be n.ce..ery belore
l'!JUetle Dlf. ... h.,... On the
Liliti. eml...t I...... the
re.to'IBlt, of 8ftftllorlnl 10
eonolder.' ,004, "IID..tt.~
.....vr.., such 8. on811e
treat..nt, CeMIIl. be _.,linente'
b.'or. I.,.cte occur.
S.'I..nt con.oll'.tlon an' 8010
eo..r ell.lnot.o .1... fr..
.011 on' o.dl..nt. Alt...notl...
woter .vppl, pr...nto potentlol
.apoo.ro to conte-ln.nU In '
aroundvot.r. rote..tlll
en.lronMntol e.pooure. not
o-ltI.ote',
AHern.I h'e ..
Cr.dlent COnlrnl--Vllh
5011 eo..,
GI..n '''0'''' lapl.Mntotlon.
operotlon on' .olnteno..ce
octl.ltl.o, ar. effertl.. In
,r.....llo, potenll.1 rleko to
public heollh or the
en.1 ron-..nt.
..110blllt, of .... rootrlctlone
an pr...nt o.,ooure to on.lt.
suhourfoco 0011 or froundwo,.r
o..r 8n..II..lto p.r od of
noturol cont..ln.nt ...ro'atlon
0' olternotl.. 10 not known.
'otentlol ..Ioto for '...O.,..nt
01 olto b, future ,.....otl....o
vlth r...ltlnl eopoo.....
aellobillt, of ,ro.l.nt control
.,ete. 10 aoo'. It 10 0 pr...n
1I,.te- ..lth fI..lblllt, to
.dJu.t flOWlote. or ...
8'4ltlonal vello. MOnltorln, Re
cr8tle.1 to p..oper o,erotlon of
.vatee. elthou,h 1.llure 0'
Ir..aent control 1I,0t.- ~I'
18h.l, be 'etect.' before
.0...00Icont rlo.. to .publlc
heeBth or en.I,.....nt occur.
"'11 _8torl.., .... the
. .lnd.'lnlte operetloneo per8.,
~ou'd reeult 80 rlo.. to ptlbl8c
~~9Ith or en.lrDn88nt 'ron Ih.
arounduetelT _1,..ltIOn ,lIth.ayo.
apsuler .elnt.nonce en.
replece..nt 60 .1.0 r.qulr.d to
ene.re oUernothe r.UobIlGt,. .
S.'I~ftt con.oll'otlon ond 0011
co..r.II.lnol.o rl.'o "08
8.11 on' o.'I...nt. Croundv.t.r
.an.,eeent r.duc..o c~t.ct 0'
Iroundvot.r "Ith fill. Conl..-
noto' ,.oundvot.r waul' 'e
c.pturod. ,ro.entln. r.lea.. on'
oU.It. .O,.IU"" of buN" end
en.lr.....ntol r.c.ptoro.
"Ioor ohort-te.. conotructlon
t.,..cu.
-------
,..dlnlnl tveluet Ion «:rltuh
TUIINIc:A1. f.VAI.IIATlIlIf
"'"!.Ie nUI:TI;, WtI.UaF., AIID
f.lfV I IIOMtf.tn At t"AI.IIATlOII
r:I,"'I~/"-l
A It nnet he' .,
Credl.nt Control-Vlth
Hultlle,er C8p
Ghen prnper, h'plellll!ntetlon;
oppretlnn, end .elntenen~e
.rtlvltlee, I. elfectlve In
,..ventln, pptrntfel rle'e 10
pvbllc heelth or the envlron-
..nt. '
"llehlllt, of d... reetrlctlon.
to pre.eot eapoeur. to on.lte
.ub.urloc. .011 or ,roundweter
o.e' Ind.llolte perl'" of '
noturol eont..lnent ".rodetlon
or olternetl.. Ie not 'nown.
Potentlel ..I.t. 'or ....I.,..nt
0' olt. b{ 'utu,. lener.tlon.
with reeu tlna e.po.ure..
'ellebillt, 01 ar.'lent control
e,.t.. I. aoo4. It I. . ,ro.en
.,.t.. with fle.I'lllt, to .d-
Ju.t 'Iowrete. or 0" ."ltlon.1
..II.. Honltorln, 10 crltlcel
to proper operetlon 0' e,et..,
olthOUth fellure 0' ,r"lent
contro e,.te. woul' 11,.1, be
detecte' be for. 'Ianlflcant
,I,'e to public heelth 0' .n-
.h_nt occu" .... opera-
tloo.1 period caul' ,e.ult In
,1." to public h..lth or en-
.Ir_nt,' hOll the ,roundw.te'
.I.retlon p.thwe,e.,
MUltll.,e, cep doe. not e"
.pprecl.bl, to protection 0'
p..bllr "'elf" 0' ",vlrm-nt
,eletlve to eoll co.e, bece..e.
I..chete leneretlon In un.etur-
ote' .one vaul' contrlbut. 0
.Inor ,roportlon o' cont..lneted
Iroundv.ter. 'ell.blllt, of cep
I. ef'erte' II, pot.ntl.1 len'-
fill .ettle..nt.
Se'l..nt ron.oll'otlon .nd cep
.11.loet.. rl... frOll .011 end
e.'I..nt. Croundw.ter ..ne,e-
_nt reduc.. contoct of ,round-
veter vlth 1111. Cont..ln.te'
,ro..nlvete, wou" II. ce,ture',
pr..eotlol '.Ie... on' off.lt.
e"poeure of "'_n en'
envl'~nt.1 ,.ce,.o,..
Hlnnr ehor.-te,. con.truetlon
I.pect e.
Table 2\pdge 2 at 4)
Alterneth.. ~A
Croundw.t.r 'E.cluelon-Vlth
Soli Conr on' Siurr, 118..
Glv..o proper 1.,I...ntotlon,
oper.tloo, on' .elnten.nce
.ctlvltle.. 10 ellectl.e In
p,e.entln, pot.ntlol rle'o to
pullilc ....Ith or the envlron-
, _nt.
-i.llebillt, of dee' reetrlctlon.
to p,e.ent ..po.ure to onelt.
eu"!ur'oco .011 or Iroundwoter
ov.r Inde'lnlt. period 0'
neturol cont..lnent de.re'otloo
or olt.rnetl.. I. not 'nown.
rotentlol ..Iet. for ....lop88ftt
o' .It. .{ '.tur. I.norotlon.
with r.ea tin. ..potUr...
..II.bllla, 0" thl. o't.m.tl..
In ,r...ntllli 011. It. ,round-
..t.r .llr.tlon I. ".oter then
Alt.rll.t ... 'A onl .. becou..
of the ,r.e.nco 0' tho .Iunr
veil. MDnlto,lna Ie not ee
crltlcol lI.c.u., lon,er tro..1
tl... 'or cont..ln.nto to .1-
.rete thrau,h elurr, v.11 pr.-
clud. eu"e. f.llar.. '.aul.r
..Int.n.nco .n' reploce..nt
oc......I. ..et II. .dh....d to I.
or'., to .e.ur. r.II..... opero-
tlon, rollaro 0' an, cClllpOllent
would not 11'0" ,ee.lt 'n
enden..,..nt to pulll'c "'.Ith or
.n.lrOR88ftt lI.c.u.. .."Iclent
tI.. 'or correction. wout. ...
o..llebl. 'ollovlna 'ollar.
..tectlon.
..'I..nt coneolld.tlon end loll
cove, .11.lnot.e rl.,o "08 eoll
end .edl...t. CrOUftdv.t.,
..neI8llll!nt r.duce. coat.ct 0'
Irounlwet., vlth fill. Conte.-
Inete' ,roun4vet.r woul' .. cep-
tured. pre..ntlna rei.... .nd
offeU. '.po.ur. 0' Int8an end
envlr0P88nt.1 ,eceptor..
Minor .hort-t.,. cooetructloo
,.,actl.
AII.,n.' I ve ~.
Groundweter belllelotl-Vith
Hultll.,er Cep end Siurr, Veil
Clven prnper 1.,le..nta.lnn,
operetlon, .n' ,,'nt.nanre
8(t Ivlt."!e, Ie .fled h. In
prevent In. ,"tent Ie' ,Ie'. to
~,'Ilc he.lth 0' the envlron-
..nt.
aell.blllt, of 'eo' re.trlctlon.
to pr...nt ..poeure to on.lt.
.uII.ur"c, eoll or IroUndv.ter
o..r Indeflnlt. period of
neturel conte.lnent ,.".'otlon
0' o.tornetl.. I. not 'nown.
rot.ntl.. ..Iet. 'or ".elopeent
0' .It. II, lutur. .en.r.tlon.
.~th'reeultln, ..potUr... ,
..I...lllt, of thle elt.motlvo
In pre.entln, offelte .round-
vet.' .I,rotlon Ie .re.to, then
Alte,n.tlv.. 'A .nd ., ...c..e.
0' Ih. pr..enc. 0' the .Iu,,,
v.II, MDnltorln, I. not .e
crltlc.1 '~ctU.. Ion,., t,...1 : .
tl... 'or cont..lnenle to .1- .
,r.t. Ihroulh elur" v.11 ,r.-
clud. eudden lallure. le.ul.,
..Int.nenc. .n' ,.plece..nt
.chedule ...et be edhe'e' to In
or'er to .....re rell..I. op.ro-
tlon. rollur. of on, c08pOP8nt
woul' not 11'.1, reeult In
en'en..r..nt 10 pullilc he.lth 0'
enf'r0ft88nt beceue. euf'lclent
tl.. for corr.ctlon. woul' b.
ovelleblo 'ollovlna fallur.
'.tectlon.
...It"e,er eep dor. not odd
.ppr.Clablr 10 p,otectlon 0'
public he. th or envl'OfIIIII!nt
,.Ietl.e to .011 cov.r lIecoue.
I.ech.t. ,.nere'loo In une.tur-
.Ie' lone woul' cont,lbul. .
.Inor p,oportlon 0' cont..lnete'
,roufldv.te,. ..II.IIII.t, of cep
.. o'fect.. .~ potentlol lend-
II1I .ettI8llll!nt.
Se'l..nt con.ol'd.tlon end c.p
.1~lnete. rle' froe eoll .nd
.e~l..nt. Croundveter ..ne,e-
..nt oll.lnete. contect of
,roundvet.r with '111. Conte.-
Inete' ,roundv.t., woul' .. c.p-
tuted. pr...ntlna ,..1.... ond
o"elte ..,o.ur. 01 hu..n end
en.lrOR8ental rece,tore.
"'nor ahort-t... conetructlon
..,.cu.
Alt.rnet he "
tend'lll Pr~ntcrlnA'Wllh
Hultlle,.r Cep And Slurry Vall
Given prnper 1.,1...nt.tlon,
~e.fttlon, end .elnt.nenc.
ertlvltl.e, Ie e"ectlve In
p,..venlln. pot.ntlel ,IA.. tn
public "'elth 0' the envlrnn- ,
IIII!nl.
...lle..I.t, of de.d reetrlctlone
to pre.ent eapotUr. to on.lte
.ubeu,foc. eoll or ,roundweter
o..r Inde'lnlt. period of
netur.1 cont..lnent d.lr.'etlon
or .It.rnotl.. I. not 'nown.
rotent'al ..Iet. for "..I~nt
0' .Ite II, 'uture I.neretlone'
with r..ultln, e.po'"ree.
Alternetl.. 6 hee the ,reat..t
rell.blllt, In pre.entlna o'f-
.It. ,roundv.ter .I,retlon, '
llec...e. thle olternltlve voul'
pr"",c. 0 cleen 'Ieche"e .fter
.d.veurl.. 0' the lend'"I: -
"I,rotlon d. conte.lnlted
I,oundweler could occur onl, I'
, e,.te. c08lponenu 'elled en' the
fellar. vent und.tected for.
lon, tl.. period. Ol.cher,. of
untre.t.d ,roundveter 'urlna
Phoee J (e'ter ...ete,ln,) re-
1ulree cloe. 8ORltorln,. leSU-
- er ..Inten.nee end replece..nt
e~hedul. ....t b. .dhere' to 10
o"e' to e..ure rellebl. opere-
Uon.
S.dl..nt coneolldetlon and Clp
.11.lnet.e rl.. fr08 eoll en'
.edl..nt. C,oundwet.r .ene.e-
..nt ell.lnet.e contect of
"oundw.te, vlth fill. Conte.-
Inat.' ,roun4we.e, would .. cep-
tured, prev.ntln, reli... end
olf.lte ea....ure of hu.en an' '
en.I'OR8Cntel rec.ptore.
Hlnor ehnrt-ten8 conetrllrtlon
I.,.rta.
-------
_!!~~..!r.1 [v.luat'nn r"ltella
IN!:lItlllll,"AI. '.VAi.IIATlnll
(1)ST fVAI.IIATlC1I8
C"rlt.'
Ore,.llnn .nd Helntenanee
""'lIent ""rtlt
Tnial r'e"~nt "",th
(:CISTS lilCl.I'P'1IG CllfIIlilllVAua
TIlUtHt.NT
on.lte T,utllent
c:"rit..1
Or..'.tlnn .nd ",,'nten.nee
rIC'..nt "I" tlo
Tnt.' r,e.P.ni WU,th
rcrrv 1leat-.ent
-r.;pli..--
Ore'.tlon .nd ""Intenance
hellPn' WUrth
Tni.' "'e.~nt Un,th
A'te,n.tlv. I
Ito Ie t Ion
lJntoa nut ....t J.'A' a ,.lKlftdvliter
.,..lnUnn mile, '0.'.. 1IoG'1I
not ad.'r.. 11081 ° tUCLA to
,'ntret h._n he.lth, welfa,e,
8nd the rnvl'~nt.,'
Table 2
(page 3 of 4)
Alte,n.Uve ,
Acc.a. le.trRctlona-W'th
50 II eovn
Dou lICIt cGJIIIII, vlth leu
cloan,e requlr....nta.
Inatltntlonal control. ..,
re.ul,. gonlna and deed chaRie..
H8, .. difficult to achle.e.
.' Doe. not .et ,.....lOdw.I...
protection ,0.1..
$1.'00.000
I 100.000
11."00.000
"'A
fA,A
Alte,natlve JI
Alle,n.te V.ler 5"1'pl,-Vlth 5018
eover and Acceaa lIe.trlctlona
Doe. not cOMpI, vllh"leliA
clo.u,e r.q..lI'_nl...
In.tlcutlon.. cont,ol. ..,
,..ul,. lonlnll end deed chenRe..
"., be difficult to eehBeve.
Doe. not -.eet ,..oundv.tn
protection 10.'.'
HeeU a.etA ,0.1...
" .
S".'OO.OOO
$ 100.000
u.ooo,ooo
fA'A
fA'A
AII.'n.I"'. itA
I:udlrnt (".cooi'wl--Utih
So II tovn
Do.. 0111 c-,', vlth IICIIA
clneu,.. ,~."Ir.lII!nU.
inetltutIPO.' cont,ol. ..,
requl,e lonln, and ".~" ch.nlle..
"" be dlfflcnlt to .chleve.
~lI!t. EPA lI'OQndvat~r protection
pollcr .nd allcu ,ua".
$).200,000
S 700,000
$J. '"'0.000
$".500.000
$"."00.000
$11,'00.000
$)...00.000
$),100,000
$6.600,000
-------
-1~(hnlcll [.llultlon Crlterll
. IllS T IT In iliff AI. f.VAI.tlAT Ifill
fIIsT tV AttlAT 1(111
Cllplhl
Operltlon In' "-Intenlnce
'.uent Vorth
Tntll '.elent UOrth
£OSTS IIICUIDIIIC CIIOtllllJUATU
11If.A1Hf.IIT
Onllte TreltMnt
-cllphlll
Op"'ltlnn IIn' "-Intenlnce
'......nt Worth
Totll Pre lent unrth
rorv 'rutNnt
Cllplt~
Ope'ltlOn In' ",Intenlnc.
Pruent IIorth
Totll '.el.nt UOrth
IICIIA T.ut...nt
-r..,Ji"--
Ope'ltlnn Ind ",Intenlnc.
,.ltIent Worth
Tntal ".Ient Vo,th
GU615/9
f:1.r '" H'''',
A"....att.. ...
Cradl....t r~trol-Vlth
""Itlll,er CIP
~etl t'A IIrovn,vlt.r p.otectlon
pol Ie, I'" Cf.IICLA 10111.
Inltltutlonll cont'oll.'"
'-.ulre lonlo, lna .... chloael.
HI, be 'Ifflcult to Ichle...
'11.000.000
8 800.000
'11.800.000
'fable 2
\r4e 4 of 4)
Alternatl..e "
1.lndfili ","vaterlna-Wlth .
""Itlll,er Cap Ind Slur', VIII
~.tl t'A aroundvat.r p,ot.ctlon
po II c;y Ind f:!IICU 110111.
Inltltutlonll enotrnll r..,
re~ulre lonlnl Ind deed chlnlel.
HI, be 'Ifflcult to Ichl...e.
$1'.700.000
S 700.000
516."0.0.000
111.]00.000 SJ.9OO.ooo 515.700.000 516."00.000
S '.500.000 81.JOO.000 . 1.100.000 S 1.900.000
$16.100.000 ".200.000 ,$16.800.000 . . 518.)00.000
$11.200.000 '7.600.000 '''.600.000 '''.900.000
S '.100.000 I 800.000 I 700.000 S 1.200.000
'''.500.000 '.'00.000 16.)00.000 517.100.000
"'A S 7.700.000 $".700.000 "'A
a27.IOO.OOO S 1.900,000
".500.000 $17.600.000
AlternAtI.. 5A
Groundwlter taclullon-Wlth
Soil CO..er an' 51.rr, .WIII
Poel not ca8opl, vlth lIaA
clolUr. requlr...ntl.
Alternltlve n
Croundwlter taclullon-Wlth
""It III'" Cap Ind Siurr, Will
~etl ErA Iroundvlter protection
pollc, .n. CERa.a 10111.
~.tl ErA ,roundvlt.r .rotectlon
pollc, a'" alla.a pili.
"nltltuUCII'III controh .a,
',equlr. loolnl Ind '.e' chao....
HI, be 'Ifflcult to Ichl.....
loltltullOOl1 control I '1'
requlr. lonln, an' .... chlnl",
HI, be difficult to .chl.....
'7.'00.000
. 600.000
".100.000
'15.500.000
. 700.000
St6',200.000
.
-------
-9-
. not considered reliable because of the' short travel time between the site
and residential wells. The present worth of Alternative 2 is $4,130,000.
Because it does nothing to mitigate the risks associated with ground water,
this alternative was also eliminated.
ALTERNATIVE 3--ALTERNATE WATER SUPPLY--WITH,SOIL COVER AND
ACCESS RESTRICTIONS
Alternative 3 includes the same ~omponents as Alternative 2. In addition,
the Gary Hobart water distribution system would be extended to provide
residents with potentially affected wells in the Lake Sandy Jo area with an
alternate water supply. Therefore, in addition to eliminating exposure to
surface soil and sediments, and to preventing the generation of contaminated
surface runoff, Alternative 3 would eliminate the risks associated with the
. future ingestion of or residential contact with contaminated ground water.
Thus, all public health threats would be addressed. Periodic monitoring
would ~etect off-site contaminant-migration and would trigger remedial
actions as needed. However, with respect to the environment, the upper
aquifer and surface wat~r re~eptors could possibly receive some f~ture
migrating contaminants before any remedial action could be implemented.
Alternative 3 has a present worth of $5,690,000 and it would not require
ground water treatment and its associated additional costs. Alternative 3
addressed all public health concerns and thus will be carried forward.
ALTERNATIVE 4A--GRADIENT CONTROL WITH SOIL COVER, AND
4B GRADIENT CONTROL WITH MUCirLAYER CAP
Alternative 4A and 48 each contain the deed restictions, monitoring, and
sedi~ent disposal components described for Alternative 2. In addition,
both" have a ground water gradient control component consisting of 10 ground
water extraction wells installed around the site perimeter. They differ
only in ca~.type. Alternative 4A has a soil cover while Alternative 48 has
a multilayer (impermeable) cap. Both alternatives would address the exposure
risks to public health and the environment. Because of the gradient control
component, all offsite migration is eliminated and the upper aquifer and
surface water-receptors are protected from future releases. The multilayer
cap in Alternative 48 will reduce the amount of infiltration through the top
of the landfill but it will not reduce the amount of water to be collected
by the extraction wells. Alternative 48 does not offer any additional
environmental protection over Alternative 4A, yet it has substantially
higher costs. Alternative 48 has a present worth of $12,530,000 while 4A
would cost $4,670,000.
The cost for ground water treatment would be added to each alternative
($2,580,000 for POTW treatment or $4,900,000 for onsite treatment). .
Alternative 48 will not be carried forward because it has j higher present
worth but does not offer additional environment protection.
-------
-10-
ALTERNATIVE 5A--GROUND WATER EXCLUSION WITH SOIL COVER AND
SLURRY WALL--AND 5B--GROUND WATER EXCLUSION WITH MULTI-LAYER
CAP AND SLURRY WALL
Alternative 5A and 58 each contain deed res~rictions, monitoring, and
sediment disposal components as described for Alternative 2. In ,addition,
bot~ have a ground. water exclusion compon~nt consisting of a slurry wall
. around the entire site perimeter and two ground water extraction wells
inside of the slurry wall. As wtth Alternative 4, these alternatives
differ only in the cap type, with:a soil cover and a multi-layer cap being
used by Alternative 5A and 58, respectively. The slurry wall minimizes
ground water infiltration and the extraction wells collect the small amount
of water that does infiltrate. 80th alternatives address all of the public
health and environmental exposure risKs. Without ~round water treatment,
the present worth of each is $9,430,000 and $17,520,000 for ~lternat;ves 5A
and 58, respectively. Alternati~e 58 significantly reduces the total'
infilt~at;on because of the impermeable cap. This does not result in any
additional envirc~mentil protection but has a much higher cost. 80th
Alternatives SA and 58 are not carried forward because both are sub-
stantially more costly than Alternative 4A with no additional reduction
in risK to public health or the environment.
ALTERNATIVE 6--LANDFILL DEWATERING WITH MULTI-LAYER CAP AND
~L
-Alternative 6 has the same components as Alternative 5B with the exception
" that the ground water extraction system consists of 60 ejector wells in-
stalled within the slurry wall around the perimeter instead of two collection
wells. This ground water collection system is intended todewater the
landfill in 2 to 3 years. After this point, the collected ground water
should not require treatment. Alternative 6 addresses all identified
exposure risks to public health and the environment. In addition, it
requires a much shorter period of time for 9round water treatment. However,
its cost of $17,780,000 (present worth) excluding ground water treatment is
- substantially higher than ,Alternative 4A, which offers the same. environmental
protectjon. Accordingly, Alternative 6 will not be carried forward.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
The'two alternatives that remain for final comparison are:
o Alternative 3--Alternative Water Supply with Soil Cover
and Access Restrictions. This alternative has deed
restrictions and institutional controls, ground water,
surface water, and sediment monitoring; n"site sediment
disposal; and an alternate water supply or residences
with potentially affected wells. Present worth:
$5,690,000, Annual O&H: $63,~OO/yr;
-------
~ll..
o Alternative 4A....Gradient Control with Soil Cover. This
alternative has deed restrictions, surface water and
groundwater monitoring, onsite sediment disposal, and a
groundwater gradient control system. Without groundwater
treatment9 this alternative has a present worth of $4,670,000
and an annual O&M of S73,000/yr. Groundwater treatment- .
would increase the cost to a present worth of $7,210,000 and
annual O&H to $339~OOO/yre .
Both alternatives offer the same protection for the identified public
. health risks of ingestion and inhalation of contaminated surface soils and
sediments; and possible ingestion of contaminated drinking water. Alternative
4A offers greater protection from the future environmental risks because
it prevents migration of leachate into the upper aquifer and surface water.
However, based on contaminant levels found at the site and background
contaminant levels of the ground wat~r and surface water, Lake Sandy Jo has
only a minor impact on the environment. The major site contaminants, PAH's
and heavy metals, are rel~t1vel~ immobile in water and will be prevented
from recontaminating the sediments by the soil cover. .
Any off-site contaminant migration would be detected by the monitoring
system and addressed through subsequent remedial action if needed under
Alternative 3. Alternative 4A requires ground water collection and treatment
for operational periods in excess of 100 years. Accordingly, it has a sub-
stantially higher annual O&M cost and total present worth. Since Alternative
3 .offers equal protection of public health and adequate protection of the
environment at a significantly lower cost, it is selected as the preferred
alternative..
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL lAWS
The Lake Sandy.Jo Landfill has as its regulatory focus the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)o RCRA has very stringent standards
for closure of a hazardous waste landfill under Subtitle C, and considerably
more flexibility for closure as a Solid Waste facility under Subtitle D. .
The Feasibility Study reviewed a range of alternatives which were less
than, equal to and more compliant with both Subtitle sections of RCRA.
. .
The results of the Remedial In~estigation support that Lake Sandy Jo was
used primarily for construction and demolition debris. This Record of
Decision, therefore, recommends closure of Lake Sandy Jo under Subtitle 0
of RCRA, which covers solid waste management. The closure plans would meet
the technical standards set by the State of Indiana.
." ,
-------
-12-
The proposed clean-up standards under the new CERCLA require that all'sites
with remedial actions leaving contamination in place be re-evaluated every
five years. However, should a release occur at LSJ within this 5-year
period, CERCLA emergency actions would be i.nstituted. The responsibility for
dete!'mining whether a release poses a substantial threat to the environment'
would rest with the State of Indiana. SMould ground water collection and
. treatment become warranted for Lake Sandy Jo, then Alternative 4A will be
re-evaluated. " " . "
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The major components of Alternative 3 are:
o Deed Restrictions/Institutional Controls
o S011 Cover With Drainage-Blanket
~ Ground Water and Surface Water/Sediment Monitoring
o Onsite Sediment Disposal .
o Municipal Water Supp1y
. .
DEED RESTRICTIONS
Deed restrictions would be placed on the landfill property. The restrictions
would attempt to prevent future development of the land to protect against
direct contact with contaminants or further migration of contaminants that
would result from site excavation. Institutional controls would prohibit
'. use of ground water or installation of shallow wells onsite and in the area
provided municipal water and an area north of the landfill (Figure 5). Access
to the landfill site would be controlled by fencing around the site perimeter.
SOIL COVER
0.
A soil cover would be installed over the l~ndfill to prevent direct c6ntact
with surface contaminants and prevent their erosion to the ditches offsite.
The cover would increase evapotranspiration and prevent water ponding onsite.
Prior"t9 placing the cover, the site would be .graded to-fill existing depressions,
eliminate sharp grade changes, and provide for site drainage. A 2-foot soil
cover consisting 9f locally available loam would be placed over the site.
The 1ite would be seeded with grass to prevent erosion and increase evapo-
transpiration. As described on page 4, a drainage blanket would be placed
along the southern boundary of the site beneath the so11 cover to control
surface seeps and protect the integrity of the so11 cover. "
GROUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT MONITORING
Contaminant migration would be assessed through a regular ground water and
surface water/sediment monitoring program. The ground water monitoring
program would consist of quarterly samplings of six existing monitoring
wells (incl~ding one upgradient location) and semiannual sampling of two
.. ,
-------
-
\\
.~
-
LECEND
@
. --- WATERMAIN
: i. ' , i! APPROXIMA'fE AREA OF DEED
. i : i ;' ': RUTFUCTIONS
o
-
SCALE IN FEET
600
J
-.
MONITORIN~ WEu. SAMPLING LOCATION
o
e
MONITORING WEL.L SAMPL.ING LOCATION, NEW
WE!..&. INSTALLED
y .
FIGURE 5
AL. TERNA TIVE 3
WATER SUPPLY - WITH
SOl L COVER AND ACCESS
RESTRICTIONS
LAKE SANDY JO FS
6, . . SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPL.ING
LoOCA TION .
~ . AREAOFSOII.COVER
-------
-13-
. new monitoring wells to be installed east and southeast of the site.
Samples would be analyzed for VOC's, base/neutrals, and inorganics. Water
levels of monitoring wells would be taken at the time of sampling and
gradients would be calculated and compared to existing data. Surface water
and sediment would be sampled at four 10cat10ns (including one background
location) on a semi-annual basis. Samples would be analyzed for base/neutral
orga~ics and iflorg~nics.
ONSITE SEDIMENT DISPOSAL
Sediment with contaminants above the 10-6 cancer risk level would be ex-
cavated, dewatered and disposed of onsite beneath the soil cover. The
total estimated volume of contaminated sediment in the east-west ditch, the
southeast ditch, and the marshy area near the southeast site corner is
2,500 cubic yards. Ditch excavation volumes were estimated b~sed on an
excavation cross section of 1 foot in depth and 3 to 4 feet in width.
Marsh ~reas were assumed to require excavation to 1 foot in depth.
. " "
Prior to excavation, additional sediment samples should be taken ~o fully""
delineate.the area of excavation. Samples will be analyzed for PAH's and
inorganics. Before excavation the areas would be dewatered by rerouting
ditch flows or by pumping, with discharged to uncontaminated ditch reaches.
It is not expected that dewatering liquid will require treatment. If analysis
of samples shows hazardous contaminant levels, treatment using one of the
groundwater treatment systems could be implemented.
""The excavated sediment may requi re dewatering prior to di sposal onsite in
the central area of the landfill. Dewatering with a filter press was assumed
"to be necessary. The sediment woul d be spread onsi te to conform to the
drainage contours required for the soil cover. The excavated marshy area
would be backfilled with locally obtained soil and revegetated.
".
ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY
The Gary-Hobart water distribution system would be extended from the existing
- mains a19ng -West 25th Avenue (north of the site) and along Clark Street
(south and west of the site). Connections to the existing water main on
West 25th Avenue could be at Morton and Jennings Streets. New water mains
would be extended across West 25th Avenue to serve the area north of the
Tri-State Highway between Morton and Chase Street. Another connection to
the Gary-Hobart water system woul d be made at Cl ark Street and 29th Avenue.
New water mains would be extended to serve the area north of 29th Avenue
between Morton Street and Chase Street on the south side of the Tri-State
Hi ghway.
Approximately 22,400 ft of 6-inch and 8-inch-diameter wate mains would be -
required. Approximately 75 residences would be given the opportunity to
connect to the water distribution system. The existing wells would be
disconnecte~ and properly abandoned. Figure 4 shows the area around Lake
Sandy Jo which would require connection to municipal water.
y "
-------
-14-
-Operation and maintenance of the distribution system would be performed
by the Gary-Hobart water system and is reflected in the unit cost for water
usage..
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Each alternative was evaluated for present' worth and O&H costs as shown in
' Q Table" 30 The O&M costs were est~mated on an annual basis over 30 years..
The O&M for the recommended alteroative will require a vigorous ground
water, surface water and sediment monitoring program for an indefinite
period of time. The cost of O&M is estimated to be $63,000 annually for'
the monitoring and associated activities.
Maintenance would be required for the soil cover. Maintenance of the soil
cap would be required because of landfill settling. It is estimated that
every 10 years the site would req~ire regrading, replacement of 30 percent
of the"original soil cover volume, and reseeding of the entire soil cover.
The perforated pipes in.the drainage blanket would be flushed of accumulated
sediment at the time of'regraaing.. . .
STATE ASSURANCE/CONCURRENCE
The State of Indiana concurs with the recommended alternative and will
assume responsibility for long term O&M. The U.S. EPA will enter into a
State Superfund Contract (SSC) to formalize the 10% match before the start
of construction. A Cooperative Agreement (CA) for O&M will be formalized
- before compl eti on of constructtono
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
There have ~een three public meetings during the RI/FS at Lake Sandy Jo.
The first meeting was an RI/FS kick-off with approximately 20 people in
attendance.. The second meeting was held to announce the results of Phase I
and plans for the Phase II RIo This meeting was well attended by 40 people.
Additionally, results of residenti~l well samples were discussed individually
with residents by technical and community relations staff of Region V.
During these visits we learned that the shallow well water quality was
perceived by the residents as being poor. One resident stated the water
has been poor for over 30 years. Most residents did not use the water for
drinking, but used bottled water instead., There was favorable reaction
from the community when the security fence was erected around Lake Sandy Jo
in April 1986. .
The public meeting held August 30, 1986 was to discuss the alternatives for
Lake Sandy Jo and to receive public comments on the recom~~~ded alternative. .
There were over 50 people in attendance. No interest was ~xpressed for
Alternatives 4, 5 and 60 Instead, the main concern Qf the community was
where water mains would be placed, and which homes could be hooked up under
Alternative 3. Most of the community south of lake Sandy Jo has never
contained water mains. People outside of the designated affected area and
buffer zone also wanted to be hooked up because their well water was of
poor quality.
". .
-------
"
SCHEDULE
-15-
(dependent upon reauthorizat~on)
MILESTONES
DATE
- Approve Remedial Action (ROD)
September 1986'
OctQber 1986
. .
- Award lAG for Qesign
- Begin Design
January 1987
June 1987
- Complete Design
- Sign State Superfund Contract
June 1987
- Award lAG for Construction
June 1987
- Begift. Cons~ruction
- End Construction
October. 1987
October 1988
"
... ,
-------
TAB:..E 3 (Page 1 of 11)
cnSi EST!~ArE SUftftARV .
ALi£~~iiVE 2 .
ACCESS RESTR!CTIONS. SOIl tOVEi .'
COST CGftPONE"i
CONSTRUCT! ON
CeSTS
----~----------_o---_.._--------------_o_----------------
f3S.j . ~OO
ANNUAl O~ft .
R:r~ACE!'!EMT
COSTS
LMNCF!Ll S~IL ;OYER ia) '592,000
S~l! c:vt!' $1.040.000
Ct'IDltt~Dn 5259.000
arl@ll1g sno,{)OO
, t. $09,000
..'\ltll':&.l on
To. filII S~4 ,000
LI.~ ~Alr.t,~.nct (b) S1,OOO
ftOIi!T!JRINc !II ~ S1 ! 400 $56.000
AC:::S P!:i~!CTIaN ...
S~;ns .'1,000
Construction Fencl '14,000
SEDI~MT ft~NASt~NT
R,IOYt sedllents 125,000
betH 11 IIrllI Sl8, 000
D,watlring - 164,000
Haul & spread stdiltnts an lAndfill '19,000
6udl! Ind rn.td ~. 12' ,000
THb!l1J $21,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAl '2,050,000
KeAlth . Safety (101) S20~,OOO
Bid tcntlftgency (1511 '338,000
Scop. Contingency (201) 1519,000
--
CONSTRUCTION TOTAl .3,112,000
Perlitting . lll.l (51) '156,000
Services luriDg tonstruct~on '100,000
--r.........
'\'O!AL IftPlEftENTATIDN CDST '3,368,000
.
Engifttfrin9 . Disign '100,000
~_o-
TuTAl CAPITAL COSTS $3,468,000
TOTAl. 0 II II AIID REPLAWOO PRESDIT GTM 1944,000
.---
1\ TOTAL PRESENT WORTH (~I 14,412,000.
(I) 0'" costs .SSUI. repl.cing 301 of the topSDil, regrading, and r.Ylv.tatinv the
IDUn landfill I"Iry 10 yelrs. .
ibl frlsut IICIt'th cost blud 011 I 10% discount r.te DYlr I perloc1 04 30 yurt.
~.
... . .
PRESt"T IiQR;'!o!
O'ftjR:~LiiCEP.E"T
COSTS
f:e.vv~
S~~SaOOU
........as
1944 . o.~~
-------
......~ oJ
(Page 2 of 11).
C~Si :;r:~AT: :~~~~R,
~i. !:r."" n 1/£ ~
AL!E~NATE ~AiE~ ;U??~v. SDI~ COVE?, AC::S: RESir.i:;t~HS
~~ST ~~ftF~!fE!fT
~DNs:r\JCiIOH
~~STS
MNM!.i..L ~&" \
i\E?~AC:~ENT
CDSiS
?F.E5EHi .OR:;';
O~P''''~:?l~~::~£.lii
...~c~. .
.....=
--_.:-_~-------------------------------------------------
S3~C'. ~uO
S1.~40.0QO
.1259,000
IU6.GOO
169,~00
S~4,OOO
'1.000
11.40<; lSe , 000
s~:.~\}O
162.200
$168,900
Sl~,OOO
150 ~ 000
'1,000
$14,000
$15.000
118,000
164,000
$19,000
129, GOO
121,000
&_-
12,790,000
'279,000
$460,000
$706,000
--
$4,2~,000
$212,000
$150,000
14,~97,000
1150,000
0_--_-
$4,747,000
$'144,::00
===-::=--
S5,691,000
~~NOF!L~ SOIL COVER lai
:c11 cover
C~pactl=n
Sralllnq
~eVtceution
Tee O"l1n
. La-n ~l~tntance Ibi
!t!!HITQRIH6 :bt
'~UNICI~AL WAiER SUPPL~
Wattr ~al n5
io!vciranU ~ Vii ves
~t9I~tntial Connections
~r1vatl -ell abanllllftltr.t
Road ~rllSiings
..CC£SS.RESiRICTION
5: 9n5 . .
Construction F~cl
SEDI!'s£!fi ",.,.A6E.9T
~t.ov, std111ntl
hc;!tf i 11 unn
De.atering
Haul. spread sedit.nts an landfill
S, ..d, ilia '"Hd
. TntiD'
~QHSTRUCT10" SUBTOT~L
Health. Sifety (101)
ai~ Conti~9ency 115t)
Sc=~e Cor.tl~9tn~y (201)
:=HSiRutT!OR TOi~
?er.itting , Ltqll 1St)
S.rvices During Construction
iGiML !~PLE.'£HTATIOI CasT
En91r.ltri~9 . Desi9n
7QiHL CAP!TAL caSTS
!~T~L ~ ~ ~ AND R£PLAC£ftt~T PRESENT VORTH
TQiML P~ESENT WORT~ ibt
SS?2,ooO
Soo.OOv
r~:S.200
-------
casr ~OP.POH:ilT
TABLE 3 (Page 3 of 11)
COSi EST!~AiE S~~AF.Y
4L iEftNM fiVE 4A
SRADIENr ~~NTROt., SOIL COVER
:"jHUAI. - 0''' &
~9t.ACEI!E.1j !
COSTS
CONSTRUCiiGH
i:OSTS
?FESEMi iiOF-Tn
a'!!i~E?~EJ!E.,r
C~SiS
_o_--~---------------------------------------------------
~~HDFr~~ SulL COVER iii S~?2 . Coon
Sc:l =cvtr $1,040.000
C::apictian 1~9~OOO
Gf'i~in; . f! ~o~ 000
P.fV~'!lti::n 169. 000
1'01 Gritn ':S4 ~ 000
~i.ft fll:nteniDCt ib) '7,000
PIONi'roRIH6 {b} '::iB,OOO
:.c~:s RESiR!CTIDN
Si 9ft! '1,000
C=nstructian Fencl '14,000
S:I)I~NT !!AHA6£.1!t1fT
"tlavf Std111ftts 125,000
h:H HI. III'SII .t8,000
D..itfflng '64.000
Hlul . spread stdilents an liftd~il] Sl',OOO
Sr Ide lAd rtSHd' $29.000
i tltlflg $21 ,000
EXTRAtiIDIt wEll.S
Will inltillitian Ic) $15,000 SlS.000
lIel! ItUIPS Id) - ",000 f'I ; 000
Eltctn:11 Ib) $40,000 $4,000
H.ider pipln; iftd canntCtionl '112,000
.----
tn.'fSTRUCTIOfI SUBTDTAL . $2.2251000
Htilth . SAfety (101) 122:,000
Sid Contia9tncy (1:1) S36i ,GOO
:c~pe C:ntingtftcy (201) '563,000
II"IZ."
:DHSrRutT!OI TOTAl '3,3i8,OOO
Ptr.itting . L.qll 151) 116',000
Servicts During Construction nso,ooo
iQii\L U!Pt.EfEJIiATtDN COST 13,097,000
:fi;:nttrin9 , UlSi9! 1150,000
iQi"L CAPITAL COSTS 13,847,000
~~T~L 0 . ~ ~ND R~.AC£ft£NT COSTS 1819,000
----...
T~iKL ~RE5EKi ~ORTM ib) 14,Doo,000
J:50,~(lO
160.000
':58. 'wO
.,
12.000
15,000
-'38,000
a:an_-
1819,000
:.1 Q~ costs assu.. reDllcin; ;01 ,f the tODsoil. r!9rlding, Ind rtv';ttlting the
,nt:,. lindH 11 ,vtry 10 ytlrs.
:bi ~r!5ent 80rtft c~st based on . 101 discount rIte aver I ptriod of 30 yeirs.
~:: Pr,sent 8or~h ::st based on I 101 ~iscawnt rite iftd re~ilc!tent .t 20 Vlil intervals.
:~j ~r'sent 80rth CDst ~ased on I 101 dlSCDwnt flte Ind repllc,.ent at 10 Y'lr Intervals.
-------
TABLE 3 (~age 4 of 11)
C~Si ~:i!~AT: ;U~~AP.Y
HLT:~NMi!V: 4i .
OftAilIE~T :OHiRDL. ~U~Tn.;'YE.~ CAj). .
c~s; Ci1~P!]NEHT
!:~NSiRt!C:ZQ!i
~QST5
AHHU~i. ~fr!\ ~
RE?I.;'CE~E"fT
I"nc.c
.....1.
?!!:::!fT ilJP.!~
~~r!i~:?~~~t'!:NT
"'t\:;,,:
I.....
-----------------------------------------------------
~LjI-~YER CA1 (Ii
~Oil :ovlr (e)
Sr.vel ::v,r itl
!lptr"IDlt lintr (Ii
~liY tOvlr tt)
SlS c=lltcti=n systtl"
Srl~:~9. caapaction, ~eVI;etlti=n
rOt Drlln . .
~i.n ~i~ten&nct ibl
Bid Centingincy (151)
Scepe C=ntinglftcy (201)
I~n. 00:)0
$~ZO,OOO r!:~; 000
18:2.000 $8~S . C"JO
It ,050.000 l1,u5u,000
11 ,290.000
'000.000
111950;000
3:4.~OO
11,000
'38,000
11,000
114, GOo)
S25, 000
Sl8,000
$64,000
$1',000
129.000
121 ; 000
115,000 115,000
19,000 ",000
'40,000 14,000
1112,000
--=:-
'6,999,000
$099,000
$1,153,000
S1, 768,000
SlO ,00', 000
I~G,OOO
1250.000
---
'11,:ii9 9 000
mO.GOG
'11 , :89,000
1936,000
=-n...
"112.5:5,000
1:29. ~IVO
r:~.~vv
149 . ~(lO
JOO.uvv
.c~.~()O
~NIT!IR!N6
s~s. 0('0
AC~:S P!SiRICiIDN
Signs
Construction Fence
sa l~"T PlMASEJlDT
~elove sedll1ftts
3ackHll ..rsll .
nhatering' .
~lul ~ spread stdilents aD lAndfill
Sradt lad rtll.d .
j,StiflIJ
~TRACTIQ1I WELLS
jtll installltion ic)
"ei 1 pUIC!S. (a)
Eltctru:ll Ib) .
Hilder piping And c=nnectians
S2.000
15,000.
'38,000
Dlla-=n::a
cnHSiftUtiiDII 3USTDiML
Htiltb ~ Safety (!O%J
"36,000
~~NSTR~~TIaN iOTAL
~trlltting . Legal (5%)
:trvices D~ring Constructicn
°JiAL !~Pl£ftEHTATIDN CDST
:~;ineer:ng . Design
!OTA~ CAPITAL COSTS
~OTAL 0 , PI AND REPlACEftEHT COSTS
iCiAl P~E:EMT .ORTH !hl
~i! O'PI c~sts ISSUle repllcing 30% of the topsoil, re9rldin9, and rtvtqetating the
!ntir, 11nofi11 Ivery 10 years
!bl j)rlslnt worth cost is blste on a 10l discaunt rate over I period :f ~O YIIlS.
(:; :)rl!lnt werth cest based Dna 1')1 d15c~unt rite ind r!DlaClltnt it 20 'ftir Intervals.
~;i ?r!Slnt lorth t~st ~a5ld en a lOX. discount rlt, ind r"lIClltnt It 10 ~tir i~tlrvI15.
:,i. ?rl!ent 16rt~ c:st blstd or. a 101 dlscount rat' Ind r,p1IC!It~t at 30 Yllrs.
-------
. .
TABLE 3 (Page 5 of 11)
COST ESiI~AiE SU"~AP.Y
ALTE?HAH'Ie~A .
SROUHOliAiER EXCLUSIDN, SOIL C!JYE.~, S!.!JRRY _ALi.
caSi ~C~POHENT
CDHSTRUCrIQH
1:05T5
ANNUAL :U! .
~e?l~E.'I~i
C~STS
PRESENT .a.~!H
Q1.'I' P.EP!.Ac:tl!£.ti r
~~STS
80______----------------------------------------------___0
~;NurI~ SOli. ~DVt~ :1) 's~n.ooo
S:li !:t)vlr 'fl,G40.00G
C:lllactlM' 1:::;9,000
:raiulI; . f136.000
Re'llfefUti an '69;000
T:=t ~ruft S~4,OOO
~A.II ~iinteniftt'. Ib) '7,000
~H!TQR!H& (bl s~a.ooo
~C:::S RESiRICiIDN
Signs '1,000
~clIstructi~~ Fence $14,000
SL~iiY WALl.
Illshl latian 12.:581,000
:~ih.tKtil!; . '120,000
Rtgrldl . Revet'tltl 1198,000
De.lttrlng .., '.iter disposal. to PDTV S14,OOO
:IiRAt:T1OJtWE!.1.S
iitll Hishllat:on {f:} I:S,OOO 13,000
8tH pU~i tdl It ,800 S1 i 800
Ehr:tJ'u:al (b) 124,000 ~OO
KeAder piping Ind conn,tt:ons '31 ,000
sa I ftEHT "AHASalENT
ReIDYe sedilents .125,000
bcHi 11 ursJi SlB,OOO
Dt.ltering 104,000
Haul. spreld stdilents an tildE ill 119,000
Sf idl and rflNd 129,000
f.IUtI; 121,000
---
C£!HSTIWCiIDIf SUiiOiAL- f:i,021 ,800
Htl!th ~ S£itty (1011 .502,000
Sid Contingency (151) 182',000
Seepl ContiDgency (201) $1,211,000
COHSTRUC1'IOJI TOTAL '7,624,000
P!flltting , legll (51) UIH, 000
Seni cn During Coastrw:tiDl $~O,OOO
iQiAL !ftPUMKTATlOJl COST .a,~s,ooo
en9inNring , DtSign 1300,000
--
:DiA~ ~PiTAL COSTS $8, 6:iS, 000
TCTAL 0 ~ ~ AND REPALCEftENT COSTS 1778,000
au- -
rOTAl PRESE.~T WORTH Ib) $9,431,000
.:~v 0 ~iij'.
16:,000
':~s.~oo
S400
11.uOO
s2~SOO
=----.
S7i2.200
(II O,~ ::sts assule reD!lcing ZOt of the topsail, regrlding, and reve9.tlting the
tntlre l1ndfill every 10 VIItS.
(bj P~e!lnt warth "st is blsld on I 101 discDunt rlt. over I period ~f 30 YIITS.
::i r~!5ent worth cast tlsed on a 101 ~15COunt rate and reDlateltnt It 20 year lntervals.
~~~ ?~!!ent wort~ :Dst ~Ised'on a 10Z :isc=unt rate an~ replicf.ent at 10 year intervals.
,
,. .
-------
TABLE 3 ' (Page 6 of 11)
:~ST :5T!~A:: :U~~~RY
HUtCHH T !"it :;
S?~U!t~WMit~ £JC~~SIDH, ~U~!tLA,Ei. CAr. SL~?~Y .~L~
:~ST CQP.~ME!lT
CDNS'!'RUCT!QN
COSTS
~NHUAI. a &:!! \
REP~ACB!EHi
cas::
P!'{£S£!i! ~Co?,!:;
O~~j~E~LA~~!'!E!rt!
~~ST5 ~
.-----_...._---------------------------------~--------------
~L!I-LA¥E? ~"P iii
:.DU ~:ve! Ie)
:avli ::ver (e)
!a:trluale 11!1!r \Ii
~!jy ::\'Ir it'
;il ~:l:!ttlcn !y,te..
:f!d~~;, ~:a;ict:on, ~!~t;!titiDn .
i:t ::rl1n
~i.n ~Ilnt!ninc! ib)
s~1J2.000
s:~O. C.~O
se:s.oov
SI,050.000
s::o.~oo
sa56,~uO
St ,0:0.000
S!.~'O,OOO
SbvO, 000
11.950.000
S:54;000
Ii ,000
138,000
!!OHliDR!NS (bi
"ccess R£SiRIt7!ON
Si;ns
~n5truetlon Fencl
:i.;JRRY VALL.
o Instilhtlan
Soi 1 s. ~tsti I\g
Regudl ~ Rev!iehh '.
Mftliterin; I8is..~ter CiSI'DHI ta pan
$1.000
114;000
s2,~1 ,000
U:O,ooO
S199,000 ..
$14 ; 000
s~,OOO $3,000
SI,BOO $1,800
124,000 1300
$31,000
m.ooo
SlB, 000
1175,000
sn.ooo
129,000
121.000
=---
fer, 897 , 000
.,ero, 000
SI,o~,OOO
12,504,000
-- ,. . ..---
S15,024,ooO
S1~!,OOO
1500, 000
SI0,Z7~,~
. 1~,000
---~
S16,625,OOO
$895,000
a==-==....
117,520,000
:XTRACT!~~ VEtL!
V,ll installation £c)
11,11 pUlOS ilS)
Eltt~:'1cil I~)
Hlader pipinq and conllections
S~ !P!ENT I!ANA6t'!EMT
RtlaVI sedillllts
!icih 11 lirsb
SolidifiCitiol
Haul . spr!l~ stdilents on liDdfill
Sradt IIIC feSlld
THtiag
C~NST?UtTtO" SUBiDTAl
iftil t!l ~ Sdety (lOt)
.
Bid Contingency (151)
ScapI Contingency 120t)
CONSTRUCTION TOTAl.
P"llttl!1g . LtgAl (51)
Services During Construction
:~T"L !~~~TATIQN COST
:ngineering ~ DI'iga
!~TAL ~PITAL COSTS
T~TAL 0 ~ " ~NO F.E?l~C~EMT CGSiS
rQT~L PP.£S£MT veRTH Ib)
'ai ~L~ c:sts as SUIt ~"lic1n9 :Ot Qf ~h, toasei!; ~';radin;, and reveqetatinq the
entlre lancf:l~ !very LO vIars.
:~} ?~e!ent -orth ::st .5 ~a!ed on a ;vl ~i!c:unt ~ate oyer a p!r~~d Qf j~ fears.
::: ?~!!er.t .or~~ cost ~iSlC ~r. a :v% =15t:~~t rate and re=!a~e.ent at ~O flar intervals.
::: ?"!!!nt .ort~ :05t ~a5ed Q~ a I~: ~l!::~nt ~ite a~~ ~ecla~elent at:9 v!ar lr.:erva!s.
. '!!: :r!5tr.~ .or~~. ::st ~i!Ic:n . !O: :;st:~M rate and ~!placl!lent at =0 1tar1.
J:~B. O(!':
t:',. :,o)C
s.c;,~~~
SeO '"~O~
Sb.~~O
S:~9,wv
. noo
$1,000
'2.600
==aa-==--=
f89~!uOO
-------
~ 3 (Page 7 of 11)
CuST ESTIftAiE 3UftftARY
AI. iERMATIVE b
bAHDF'IiJ. nriAiERiH6, ~UlT!LAYER tAP, SU!RRV .",u., .
COST ~cp'PQH£MT
CONSTRUCi!ON
COSTS
MHNUAl a~ II
REPL.ACE..'!EN i
cnSTS
pP.ES::!t! lOR::>!
~\fti REP~ACE...aT
CIJSTS
----------- .
--------------=
'T'CI_~'7"lIII.
~Ln..;_~~E.~ CAP II)
~Oj' ::Dvtr it)
Gravel cOYer Ie)
:IDlfleaO!t liner III
Cl.!, :::ver
a 5as ~olltCtion snta
Grading; c:l~acti~, rlv'9itatien
TO€! Drun .
LauD ftlinttnlftCI Ib).
!!OJUTOP.!HS !b)
S:20.000
f~S,OOO
51,1150,000
Sl.290,OOO
. $600.000
$1. ~O;OOO
$~4,OOO
'59:!.OOO
'S20.000
$858,000
$1,050,000
'326.000
'30.000
'49.00e
56i) . ~oo 0
.79000
S~,OOO
'00.000
':58.000
Am:SS P.£!TP.ltiIOI
Signs $1,000
Construction Fencl $14,000
5£»IPIEJrt !I.MA6£!9T
. RHO'Ie sr;ilents $25,000
BAckfill W'lb $111,000
Dt.aterin9 . $64,000
Maul . ~rtld sediunts 01 landUU . $19,000
End. 1116 r"net S29, 000
intin, 821,000
SLURRY WAll.
InstallAtion 12*91,000
Soil s tnti "9 120,000
Reqrlet. . RtY:tttlti 1198,000
n'.ltarin, ..s tllttr dispcsal to POTV S14,000
DTP.ACTIOI 'lEU.!
~,11 installAtion (c) SI26,OOO 1126,000 '19,000
Well ejectors (d) 130,000 '30,000 '18.000
ife 11 PUlPS (f i $6000 11,200 17,100
Heldlr DipinQ ind connections $85: 000
Electrical ib) 150,000 f2, 000 119,000
00
-- ...---
CU!tSiRUCTIOM SUBTOTAL 110,02:$,000 "54,000
H.llth . SAfety 11(1) it, 002, 000
Sid tcntingrncy (151) fl,6S4,OOO
Sca~e ContiDvency (201) S2i~6,OOO .
C:HSiP.!JCiIOII TOiAL ~lS,21S,OOO
ftrllttin9 . LI9I1 (51) $761,~OO
Services During eonstructiaa. $SOG, 000
iOTMl I~P~EMiATtQN CDST $16,476,000
:lIqintefing . Design ~O, 000
z.c~
TOTAL CAPITAL CCSTS $16,826,000
iniAL 0 . ft AND REPlAC~!MT COSTS $954,000
--
r~TAL PRESENT ~QRTH !b) $17,iBO,OOO
'ai o,~ ~~sts iSSut' ~epl.'in9 :01 0+ the toosoll, regradin9, and "vegetating the
f!'!tlf' 1 indfi 11 ''Jer., 10 Vlirs.
!o: ~r!sent .or~h :,st ~5 ~a5td aft a 101 ~iscount rite over. i per~gd Qi ~O 1.ifS.
~c: ;~e!f!'!~ .orth ::st ,asea Oft a 101 G1SCOunt rate and reDlateltnt it 20 yt., intervals.
':i ?~'s.n~ .ort~.cost ~aSfC on i lu% dl!COunt rat. ina re~liC!llnt It :0 11if ifitefvi!s.
:" ?~!!e~t .cr~~ CQ5t ~Ise~.~ i LvI ~lSC:unt rite ana reolic.ltnt .t ;~ V'irs.
f:?r!S!ftt .crt~ ::,st ~aSfd :r: rtpl.CII.nt of ::0 ;pl ~Ulpl'31:" jO ;~I DUIII at 10 'fur :!\tervals.
-------
TABLE 3 (Page 8 of 11)
:aST ~ST1~AiE :U~~~RV
ONS!T: TKEAT~ENT
.:CST :J~~OHEHi
'CQHS;~UCT!~N
COSTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~: 1;= ;!Q.rite: iAl~!rnat:ve 51
----------------------------------------------------
P!:~iQI trla~Jent Dlant ib:
:acx..sn tanKS I~!
:ir~~~ ~~!at~lnt SvSt11 :~i
. 31.11: 01 n;
E!t~~rlC:ll
. !Ic:r irv sll&~ge 1 aaoon
~iscost slueae In F.Ci(~ IIll;:Hll \al
:!'!tI1c:als (aI
:a1":on : Ii
:"300r iii
~ilnt!nanc:! (a:
~Iat ~ elect!'l:a! !ai
Subtotals
AIl:winces and Contingtnc::ts
;atal .
SC;4.~OO
120 ~ ~VO
s~a. ~O
S2:,~OO
S2~ . OOG
10,000
--------
S20~,OOO
'152.000
'3~~;000
===.--...
11,050,000
Present IOrth (a)
! 9pl flo.rate:(Alternative ~B)
---------........
-------
Package trtitlent plint Ib)
9a:t.ash tanks (bJ
:arbon treatlent SVlt11 Ib)
~u:1Qlnq . .
:1 letr;.:11
T!200rary sludae 11000n .
~i!~:st !l~c;e-in ~CRA landfill
~~tI~cals (ai
Circon (I)
~i:or ia!
~al~tenanc:e (a) .
~@at & electrical ia)
51.1Dtotals
Aiiawances and C:ntingtnc~!5
iatal
120,000
$2,000
'9.000
S5,000
. $~, 000
(a)
----
'41.000 .
S~l ;000
']2,000
==u==-
S514,000
?~e!ent .art~ lal
ANNUAL A'" .
~EP~ACE~EN;
...-.
~~:::~
"4, :}OO
S:O.~OO
S~a,OOQ
sa.~QO
s2.:00
se.soo
S44,jQv
So.~O
12,000
120,000
. 12,000
I~OO
1100
1400
144. 000
t500
Sl,wa
P?E::IIT .G.~ 1'H
C~lIi~E?LAC~W;:
COSiS
S 1. . ~~!'~
S ~ . ~'!:>!)
so. ~I)i:i
S.C' .-..-.
: ...;\,I\,'
52:, :1)0
S83 . 0(~~
S415. .:..>(;
S~6. ~u~.
111f.~00
...--------
Sc9!.0.)0
$3,000
s~oo
S4.700
'1.100
S~.30v
S415.0vO
n.iQO
SQ,4iiO
--------
S44"COO
'i) Present worth based on . periad of 30 yr...at a disc:ount 1"ate of lOt.
(~) ?r!sent wor~h based on equiPltnt rtolac:tltnt at ,0 years and a 101 di5C~Jnt rate.
;:) '~r!!ent ~ortn Ol!fd on treating 150 gpl far : 1r5. and 30 g~1 ~or :~ frS. Oi5co~nt r!te 3 101.
i~) ~ll~.inc!s Ind ~ontingencils include health and.sitety, b1d ~ontl~enc:v. !co~e ~ont1n9!ncy.
pr1"llttl~; ind .egal, Itrvl:es aUfIn; :onstr~ct:on. and in91neer~~; ana OtSlgn.
-------
TABLE 3 (Page 9 of 11)
COST ESTI~ATE SU""ARY .
ONSITE TR£ATftE~T
c::~ ::!,!~QN£MT
CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
--------------------------------------------------
1162,000
120,000
"8,000
sao,ooo
120,000
~1,000
150 'I" ~"
S32,000
S11,500
'60,000
'44,000
'10,000
13,500
1;)81,000
S2S6,000
$6411,000
11118----
PreStnt 180rth Ie) 11,873,000
Ii) Present .orth biSIi on i p.riod of 30 yrs.,it i discount rlt. of 101.
(b) Pr!lfftt .arth buect !HI fqlipltnt re,hCHtnt It 20 ytin iIIi I 101 discaunt ratt.
Ie) Present .orth biSIi on tr..tinq 150 gp. for 5 yrs. iftd 30 qp. for 25 yrs. Discount rite II 101.
Id) Allo.tnc!1 and Continglftcies inelvd. heAlth lAd sifety, bid continglftcy, scope contingency,.
p.erlitting ani l.gil, services during construction, lAd enginttring .nd d.lign.
400 ;~I iio8tlte:iAlternitive 4 ~ 48)
--------------------------
Plcilg. treatllftt pilAt il!)
a.,kMaSh tanks III) .
carbon trlitnnt 5ysh. (III
Bull dl fUJ
Electncil
T'~orlry sludge ligoon .
Disoos, sludge In RCRA landfill II)
Co'IHiclh' III
Carben tiJ
LiDor II)
"ilnhnlncf il)
HIlt. electricil Ii)
Subtotals
Alla.incls ind Contingencies Id)
TotAl
. $243,000
$30,000
5120,000
1144,000
$~O,OOO
110',000
------
$OS2,000
"12,000
SI,194,000
-----
$4,926,000
PriSll'lt I80rtli
150 gpl ~30 gp. flowratl:(Altlfftativt 61
-c:u;:.C) .:. .L ...111 ~"---.o~
Package treltl"'t pIlAt Ib)
BiCkliish tanks (bl
carilon treltltflt '1stH Ib)
Building
£1 Idri eal
TSlflorary sludlJl 1 ilJOOII
DilDose sl~dge in RCRA llldfill II)
OIlIic11s W . .
C.rbon ii)
LiDor Ii)
1'!aintenince ii)
Hut . !ltdrlC:i~ i.)
Sl:b t Dtal s
"1Io-.nc15 and ContinglftcitS Id)
TaUl .
,. .
ANNUAl a~ .
REPlACElIEHT
COSTS
1243.000
$30,000
$120,000
$138,000
1-47,000
$138,000
s.$4, 000
$15,000
$8,000
1162,000
120,000
ssa,ooo
30 'PI 01"
$10 000
$3:500
112,000
'44,000
$10,000
12,JOO
F~E5E!fT iI!iiHH
0"11" REPlACt'!EM i
COSTS
s~o,ooo
J.4. }Ov
It 'I , 000
Sl . 301 . 000 .
$439.000
11.301,000
J415.~OO
Sl41. ~OO
S7~.500
-----
S3,~2,OOO
124,000
S~,OOO
$9,000
t50 gpl . 30 ;p.
PrtSlftt liortn
$253,483
186,0:5
$29~.Oel
1414,iS4
S94,2b9
$:~.231
------
f1,206,OOO
-------
~ 3 (Page 10 of 11)
:057 :57;~ATE SU~~AP.~
rOil TRE~I!ENi
:05i ~~"P~!t:ST
::N5TRUCilDH
~OSTS
~NNUAJ. O&r! ~
RE?~~t~E.t;i
~~S~5
?RE::!lT ..0:':'.
~~III~E?'..~C:~E!1T
"'''.''..
, ".'"
~eI..w
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
400 ~p. fiowrate:iAlt!r~ltlve 4 ~ 4B)
----------------------------------------------------
Sewer di!chlrg' pip,
Cann.ct:on to !e..r
. User :!llrc. ill
~onltorln9 fe! (I}
S20 . ~OO
f~,OOO
fZ6~,jOO
rz.oQO
12. 47Q, ~:(t(;
.: 1 . ~)(;,.
------
-----------
S~b~:tall .
Allowanc!s and Conti~gencils (c)
iotil
r2~,ooo.
'.t,.OOO
144,000
==-----:
$Zt~54,OOO
12. ~l". ~(tQ
?rennt I80rth (I)
150 gp. . 30 gpl f!o.rate:!A1ternative 0) .
__0______--------------
S'.,f disc~ar9' pipe
Connecti or. to 5I..r
User chara. 1150 ;pI) II)
User :blr~~ 130 gpl) la)
!'!Dnltori nq fH 1150 qpll I..)
lion 1 torinq fee <30 ;p1) la}
Subtotals
Allalanc's Ind Conting'ncies
-------
TABLE 3 (Page 11 of 11)
CCSi ~SiiRAiE SU~~ARY
RCRA rAC!~IiY :REAi~EHT
C~Si CC:lPQHEHT
CONSTRUCT! ON
~QSTS
ANNUAL O~/I ~
REPLAC£.~EHi
~QSiS
?~:SEHT ~C:RiH
O&lIiRE?!.ACE!'!EHi
CQSi3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:: 9pl tiOwrite: \Alternativt SA I
--o_---------------------------~-
Storage tank ~ !c~ess road
::,uchn9~ dispcs.!! costs iaJ
1110.000
12,S91 ,000
S2~ ~ :::,000
S:.l!:tc~als
~!10.anCIS and Contlngenc:ts !b)
:otai
---._~o
----00_-":'00
Pr tStnt warth! a)
$110,000
183.000
.19:).000
===---
127,446,000
S27.:53.000
, gp. flo.rate:(Alttrnltive 58)
------------------------
Starag. tank' aCttS5 road
trucilng . disposlL costs (ai
Subtotals . .
~110.antt5 and Contingencies (b)
TataL
'110,000
$131,000
n,Z~9!OOO
------
Present warth Ii)
1110,000
$83,000
$19:),000
811:=:-"-
11,4;)2,000
.. II. 239,000
i.1 PrtStnt .arth cost is blstd an i 101 discount rate ovtr I period of 30 y.ars.
(bi AlIo.antls Ind Continglfttitl intludt h.l1th and safety, bid continqency,scope contingency,
ptrlittlng and 11g1L, services during tCftstruttioa, and Ingintlring and design.
-------
/'
, ,
ADDENDUM
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
A public meeting was held on August 20, 1986, at the PAC.
office in Gary, Indiana, to discuss the findings and
."
recommendations of the Feas~bility Study for the Lake :Sandy
. Jo site.
Public comments on the feasibility study report for the Lake
Sandy Jo site were rec~ived by the U05. EPA on August 20,
1986, and through written documents received. by U.So EPA
through September 5, 1986.
These comments fell into the
following major categories:
o
Groundwater quality
o
50il and sediment quality
"0
Extent of the investigations
o
Alternate water supply
o
Residential cost for alternate water supply
o
. Deed restrictions
A-I
-------
o
Drainage ditch remediation
Public comments and u.s. EPA's responses are summarized in
this chapter.
Comments in this chapter are edited and
somet~es paraphrased to combine similar comments under
common topics.
.
Th~ intent has been to present the full
range of topics and details of the overall comment set
without lengthy repetition.
A transcript of the public
meeting and written comments are included in Appendix A and
B, respectively.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Public comments:
1.
What are the main organic. contaminants in the qround-
water?'
2.
What are the risks posed by each?
3.
What are the main inorganic contaminants in the ground-
water?
4.
Which ones pose a risk and what are those risks?
5 .
Will these chemical contaminants dissipate with
distance?
A-2
-------
4.
6 .
What will be their effect on health?
Agency response:
1.
The primary organic contaminant of concern in the
groundwater is benzene.
Data for groundwater analysis
is summarized in Table 1-8 of the FS report for the
Calumet aquifer.
2.
The benzene is present in the monitoring wells at a
concentration po~ing a 2 x 10-5 to 2 ~ 10-6 cancer risk
over a lifetime exposure.
3.
There are no in~rganic contaminants found to have
significant risk in the groundwater.' Some lead,
arsenic, and cy~nide were found in monitoring wells
around the site which do constitute a plume from the
site and could pose a risk if found in suffi~ient
concentrations in the ~roundwater.
A summary of.
"inorganic contaminants can be found in Appendix C, FS
Table 1-8.
No cancer risk levels were generated for inorganic
contaminants at the site as only secondary drinking
water standards were violated (those standards set for
aesthetic quality rather than health reasons).
A-3
-------
5.
6.
.I
In general, all constituents found in the groundwa~er
will decrease in concentration with distance from the
site.
Actions responsible for this phenomenon include
dilution with- other unaffected groundwater, degradation
due to biological activity from soil microbes, and
adsorption onto soil. particles.
A certain amount of
volatilization may also occur in more surficial
groundwater layers.
As previously mentioned, only sec~ndary water quality
standards have been exceeded by the groun~wate~ found
in residential wells around the site.
That is, no
health effects should occur but taste, odor, and color
may appear as problems with use of the water.
Benzene,
found,in monitoring wells adjacent to the site, does
carry a cancer risk if a lifetime exposure were to
occur.
However, there was no benzene found in the
24 residential wells sampled.
SOIL AND SEDIMENT QUALITY
Public comments:
1.
What are the main contaminants of concern?
2.
What are the risks posed?
A-4
y , .
-------
Agency response:
1.
The primary organic contaminant of concern in the
surface soil and sediment at the site is
benzo{a)pyrene.
Inorganics of concern include
chromium, copper and lead.
A mere comprehensive
summary of compounds found in the surface soil and
sediment can be found in Appendix C, FS Tables 1-5,
1-6, and 1~7.
.
2.
Ingestion of sur:ace soils through a trespass setting
could lead to a 2 x 10=2 to 2 x 10-5 cancer risk due to
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (including benzo(a)pyrene) .
Ingestion of ditch sediments could lead to a 1 x 10-4
to 2 x 10-6 cancer risk due to (PAR's). Inhalation of
contaminants bound to dusts .in the surface soils could
lead to a 2 x 10-5 to 2 x 10-6 cancer risk due to
PAH's..
EXTENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS
Public comments:
1 .
Explain the extent of groundwater investigations.
2.
. .
How deep did you drill?
A-5
-------
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
,.
How many aquifers were looked at?
Are the upper and lower aquifers separated?
Explain the extent of 'the s~rface water/sediment
investigations.
What areas were covered and what was the rationale?
Why were the areas just north of the public well and
.
just north of the Little Calumet River (wetlan~ areas)
not. studied?
Where does the surface water leaving the site via the'
southeast ditch g01
Ca~ the groundwater under the wetland area be
contaminated by Lake Sandy Jo?
How were dioxins looked for and what laboratories did
these analyses?
Agency response:
1.
In Phase I of the remedial investigations, 15 shallow
and one deep bedrock monitoring well were' installed and
sampled and 14 residenti.al wells were sampled to
A-6
-------
characterize the groundwater and determine if hazardous
materials were being released.
In Phase II of the
remedial investigation, five additional shallow
monitoring wells and one additional bedrock well
were
installed and 10 residentia~ wells were sampled to
determine the extent of contamination at the site and
determine groundwater flowrate characteristics.
2.
Drilling extended to the bottom of the Cal~et aquifer,
. and ranged from 20 to 30 feet below ground surface.
addition, drilling extended into the top of the
In
underlying- ~edrock a.quifer, approximately 117 feet
below ground surface.
3.
Two aquifers were investigated, the Calumet and deeper
bedrock aquifer.
4.
The upper Calumet aquife:t. and lower bedrock aquifer are
not hydraulically connected.
They are separated by
approximately 100 feet of glacial till.
This till was
. c
tested and found to have a very low conductivity
-8
( 10 eml sec) .
This precludes any significant downward
flow of contaminants.
In addition, pumping tests also
showed that each aquifer was not influenced when the'
other was pumped.
o
This also indicates the two aquifers
ar. not connected.
A-7
-------
5 .
6.
7.
"
J
During Phase I, seven surface water and sediment
samples were co'llectedi and in Phase II, eight surface
water and sediment samples were collected.
The areas covered in surface water and sediment
sampling are shown i~ Appendix C, Figure 1-4.
These
areas were chosen originally because of obvious site
.
drainage patterns and the need to verify the migration
of surface contaminants from onsite.
.
The wetland area north of the public w~ll was not
studied because it lies in a different groundwater flow
basin than the site and, as such, is not influenced by
the site.
Groundwater beneath the wetland or flood
plain area just north of the Little Calumet River was
not studied because groundwater was not moving from the
site to this area.
Rather, groundwater travels from
the site, recharges the intercepting drainage ditches,
and becomes surface water.
Surface water then moves to
the flood plain area. 'The quality of this surface
water was studied.
a.
Drainage from the southeast .ditch travels to a wetland
which drains into the Little Calumet Rivp.r.
9.
No~ the groundwater beneath the wetland cannot be
contaminated by Lake Sandy Jo groundwater.
Surface
A-a
... .
-------
10.
water contaminants from .Lake Sandy Jo could influence
the surface water in the 'wetland.
Dioxins and other chemicals were analyzed by the.
u.s. EPA Contract Laboratory Program as referenced in
.
the Lake Sandy Jo Remedial Investigation Report.
ALTERNATE WATER SUPPLY
1. . What residences will be hooked up to the alternate
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
supply?
What was the rationale for selection?
What water system will the residences -be hooked up to?
Withi~ the area selected for alternative water, will
the availability to a given residence be dependent on
the level of participation of local neighbors?
How much time will eligible residences have to decide
.
- ~
if they want the alternative water supply?
Why can't people just outside of the selected area. to
be given the alter~ate water supply also be included if
they have poor water quality (taste, odor, color)?
A-9
y .
-------
7 .
8 .
Are residences on the west side of Morton Street
included?
One resident who resides just outside the designated
area &tated that when Lake ~andy Jo was filled in, h~r
upper aquifer well dried up.
On that basis, is the
residence eligible for the alternate water supply?
Agency response:
1.
c
.
At this time, exact addresses have not been sel'ected,
however, those residences lying withing .the area shown
in Appendix C, FS Figure 2-3 will be served by the
alternate water supply.
This area lies south of 25th
Avenue, north of 29th Avenue, and between Morton and
Chase Streets.
2.
-The selection was based on location of the current
groundwater plume influenced by the site and the
assumption that potential hazardous releases from ~he
site will follow the same pattern upon release and
migration from the site.
To account for any
uncertainty in identification of the limits of the
plume, a "buffer zone" was added to the) :.mi ts of the
affected area to ensure that any borderline residences
we~e not excluded from service.
The area selected was
A-lO.
-------
also based on where the groundwater from Lake Sandy Jo
travels.
3 o.
Residences will be serviced by the Gary-Hobart Water
Distribution System as this. system currently serves the
area north of 25th Avenue and has existing mains up to
. this street.
4.
The option to be hooked up to the new wate~
. distribution system lies with each eligible resident.
Availability wil! not be affected by the level of
participation of the local neighbors.
5.
Eligible residents will have several months to decide.
whether or not to accept the alternate water supply.
The actual schedule is dictated ~y the reauthorization
date of the Superfund bill, however public announce-
ments will be made at the start of implementation of
the alternative and input will be accepted throughout
the des~gn period.
6.
The primary purpose of the Superfund Bill is to protect
public health and the environment.
Water supplies that
are considered unpalatable due to secondary water
quality standards are not necessarily due action under
the bill.
In the case of Lake Sandy Jo, background
water quality often exceeds these water quality
A-ll.
-------
G
7.
8.
standards and the basis for extending the alternate
water ~upply is the potentia-l for migration of
hazardous contaminants from the landfill, not the
current state of water quality.
Residences west of Morton Street are not included in
the area designated for the alternate water supply.
The presence of a dry well indicates that there can be
no influence to it by Lake Sandy Jo and the purpose of
this remedy is to l~it or prevent exposure to people
and the environment as the situation exists now.
If a
well was rendered dry d\le to previous activities at the
site, it does not warrant attention' based on the goals
of the remedial action.
RESIDENTIAL COSTS FOR ALTERNATE WATER SUPPLY
Public comments:
"
J
1.
G
Within the designated area, how much will it cost to
hook up to an individual residence (connect the home's
internal water supply line to the main in the street,
install a valve, install a meter, and abandon the old
well)?
A-12
-------
o
2.
Just outside the designated area, ~ow much would it
cost a resident to ~et wa~er (run a main'down the
street and connect to the home in the same fashion as
in 11)1
3.
If a resident selecting the alternative water supply is
not connected to the public sewer line but instead has
a septic tank system, the monthly water use fee should
not include any sewer use fees.
Will this be the case?
Agency response~
1.
2.
It will cost approximately $1,500-$2,200 per
connection, in general. The actual cost depends on the.
proximity of the residence to the main, size of line
selected, the materials of construction deemed
nec.essary at the time of design, and the actual costs/
or the value, meter, and fittings needed at each
installation.
~
The cost for Gary-Hobart to hook up a resident outside
the designated area to their water system cannot be
quantified for a specific residence.
The hookup charqe
includes" the cost of running a water main down the
street and then the cost of connecti~q the residence to
the water main.
The Gary-Hobart Water Co. does not
have a final estimate for residential hookups because
A-13
y ,
-------
o
3.
'4
u
v
. the cost for a specific residence depends on its
location, the need to install or replace a water main
for the area, the number of residences that will tap
into the installed water main, the home's proximity to
the water main, and the overall economic base of the
area.
The monthly water use fee paid by the consumer should
not include sewer use unless the home is connected to
the sewer collection system.
If the residence uses a
septic ~ank; no sewer charqes should be accrue9.
DEED RESTRICTIONS
Public Comments:
10
Bow will deed restrictions work?
20
Who (what area) will be restricted?
30
When will deed restrictions begin?
4.
How lonq will deed restrictions be in effect?
5 .
Why is the area north of 25th Avenue included?
A-14
-------
~.
,',
--
Agency Reply:
~
1.
Deed restrictions are designed to limit access to the
hazardous constituents at the site and to limit their
migration from the site. For instance, excavation
onsite will be prohibited to prevent breach of the soil
and vegetative cover~ and installation of a well in the
area of influence of the site to prevent access to
potentially contaminated groundwater and/or prevent the
diversion of groundwater to a previously unaffected
area.
:20
Activities that will be restricted include construction
or excavation onsite, onsite access to the public, and
installation of wells near the groundwater plume.
3.
The schedule for initiation of deed restrictions is
dependent upon the date of ,reauthorization of the
Superfund monies to be used in administering this
, alternative.
4.
Deed restrictions will be considered permanent, that
is, the restrictions will apply indefinitely.
5.
Areas subject to deed restrictions are shown on
Figure 5-3 of the FS Report.
Excavation and/or
construction will be prohibited on the landfill site,
A-1S
y ,
-------
c
proper, and well installation will be prohibited in the
area bounded by 23rd Avenue, 29th Avenue, Morton
Street, and Chase Street.
The area north of
25th Avenue is beinq included because installation of a
" .
well in this area may chanqe qroundwater qradients and
draw contaminants to. the north of the site.
DRAINAGE DITCH RECOMMENDATIONS
Public Comments:
1.
If the recommended alternative is followed, will the
drainaqe ditches still be contaminated in the future?
Aqency Response:
10
Th~ drainaqeways will be dredqed and existinq
contamination remove d.. As for future contamination,
with a veqetated soil cover on the site, rainfall
runoff will no lonqer contain surface soil
.>
u
contamination and the sediments will not be
contaminated.
GLT620/9
A-16
." .
-------
u
Table 1-5
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING
LAKE SANDY JOLANDFILL RI/FS
BACKGROUND
. CONSTITUENT FREQUENCY RANGE OF DETECTION (58021)
Toluene 1/12 . MD- - 3 Not Tested
Chlorofor-m 1/12 ND - 6 Not Te s t e d
Chlor-omethane 1/12 ND - 13 Not Te s ted
l,1,2,2-tetr-achloroethane 1/12 HD - 3 Not Tested
l,1,1-tr1chlor-oethane 1/12 HD - 6 Not Tested
b1s(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1/12 ND - 220 Not Tested
Aluminum 19/19 683,000 3,320,000 1,470,000
Arsenic 1/7 HD. - 6,800 MD
Bar1um 1/7 50,000 371,.000 65,000
Ca.lcium 19/19 130,000 - 45,100,000 130,000
Chromium 8/19 11,000 - 98,100 14,000
.Copper 5/19 5,000 - 31,000 ND
Iron 19/19 390,000 - 21,200,000 1,710,000
Lead 11/19 3,400 - 13,000 MD
Ma.nganese 19/19 13,000 - 395,000 13,000
Zinc 18/19 7,900 ;.. 62,000 15,000
-ND = Not Detected
A-17
,. .
-------
o
Table 1-6
c SUMMARY or SEDIMENT-SAMPLING
~E SAHDY JO ~DrILL RI/FS
RAHOI 0'
. v ALU!! C!':!C"1'!D VALCE.S O!~!C~!C
MO. 0' IN BACltGKOUHD IH BACKGROUHD
POSItIVESI SAMPtZ.S - SAM'tZ.S HO'1'
110. 0' RAHG! 0' INPt.tmCC!D IHPLUEHC!D
VALID OEnC"1'IOHS BY !K! UOWAY BY THE HIGHVAY
COHS!!~H'r DtnC"1'!ONS ua I\C& ua/lcr \&C Ilcl:
VOLAtILES
l,l,l-t~1Cklo~o.than. 1/15 . IID8-13 lID Not Teetecs
ACID COJllPOUNDS
~.ntacftlo~pa8nol 1115 1ID-1600 lID HD
BASE/NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS
b~.(2-etft,1h8s,1)phtD&lat8 118 uo - 33,000 1m HD
~1-n-oct11 pfttD&lac8 2/8 330 - 5.500 lID HD
anCtu'.Clln8 10/15 68 - 2.600 lID HD
Pf~ea8 1'/15 150 - 6.200 280 - &30 200
ben&O(&h1)pe~1eae 1V15 280 - 2.'00 lID - 330 HD
1ndeno(l,Z,3-cd)Pfpen. 11/15 2'0- - 2.500 lID HD
benao(b)f1uoP&ftth8n. 13115 150 - 530 150 - 550 130
t'luoPaDCh.n. 9/15 210 - 8.100 260 - 530 210
ben&o(k)t1uo~&ft~.n. 1V15 1'0 - 3.000 180 -550 110
acenaphcbf1ea. "/15 220 - 1.'00 lID He.
C:hf7..ne 1'/15 180 - 5.800 200 - 360 1'0
ben&o( a)Pfren. 12/15 120 .. 1.100 If II - '50 120
~1b.ftao(a,h)aftCarac.ft. '/15 330 - 1.200 lID liD
beaao(a)anChraeen8 13/15 110 - 6.800 180 - 810 110
acenapftca.n. . 8/15 220 - 2.100 IfD liD
d1.Ch71 pftcba1ace 1/15 lID - 830 liD liD
d1-n-ouc71 pbCD&lac. 1/8 330 - 120 lID IfD
phenanthrene pbCD&1&Ce 11/15 210 - 3.'00 lID - 800 lID
lIenl11 111&1:11 5/15 180 - 9.800 lID lID
t'luoreftll 8/15 260 - 3.600 lID ND
napl1tft&1ene 1115 56 - 1.200 liD - 800 liD
P!3'r:CIDES
PCB-12511 1115 IfD - 2.000 lID liD
Ii . Ii' -oD'r 1/15 ND - 1,100 lID NI)
",,'-01)0 1/15 lID - 80 IQ) liD
Endo.ultan 1/15 liD - 10 liD HD
!LDlEH't'S
Alllll1nuo 15115 288.000 - 3.1160.000 - 11.9'0.000
12.300,000 3,850,000
Bap11111 15/15 12.000 - ' 81.000 - 93.000
1.580,000 92.000
Be~7111.. 5115 6'0 - 6.200 lID - 990 1150
CacSa11.18 9/15 2.300 - lID lID
18,000
Cbro811M1 15115 8.200 - 8.600 - 20,000
81.000 25,000
Coppe~ 15115 11 . 000 - 21,000 - 50.000
() 181, 000 59.000
MePCUI"J' 1/15 80 - 900 liD - 800 HO
tJ I'I&IIlane.. 15115 13,000 - 219,000 - 225,000
2.110,000 812,000
Hickel 15/15 5.500 - 5.500 - 23,000
'2.000 12,000
r..ad 18/15 8.,000 - 120,000 - 162,000
526,000 526.000
Zinc 15115 62.000 - 111,000 - n3,Ooo
1,920.000 321,000
Arsenic (a) 8/1 18,000 - 1&,000 35,000
102.000(tI)
-ND . Not detect.d.
(a)on1~ an.l,sed rap 1n Pba.e II.
(bl102.000 selke of IP8enic ... detect8d 1n ane 8&8P1e. but 1t8 r1e1d ~.p11c.te ...
non~.t.ctab1. rap ars.n1c. The nest n1lfte.t &P.en1c detected ... 69,000.
A-IS
-------
Table )1-7
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER SAM'LING RESULTS
LA~E SANDY JO LANDFILL RIIFS
BACKOROUND SAMPLES UPSTREAM 0' LANO'ILL
ADJACEN'Ir TO IIIIIOIIIIIU A"Ar 'POM HIOII"AY
(S"002 AND SIII008) (S"OIO)
NO. OF NO. 0' NO. 0'
POSITIVE POSITIVE POS IT lYE
DETECTIONSI DETECTIONSI DIETEC'I'IONSI
NO. OF VAI.ID RANOE 0' DETECTIONS NO. 0' VALID RAMOE OF DETECTIONS NO. OF VALID RANOE 0' DETECTIONS
CONSTITUENT ORSERVA'UOHS (u811 ) OBSERVATIONS (ul/1) OBSERVATIONS (u8/1)
. Aillminum ]/8 1,1]0 - 6].200 III 63,200 III 2112
Anllmun, 1/8 NOli - 69 III 69 011 NO
Aracilic ]/8 iD - 378 111 )18 011 NO
lia ... 11m I I II 5 (60] - 1.860 1/2 1.860 III (60)
Ocr,111uID 218 ( o. "] - 15 111 15 011 NO
Cadmium 2/8 (11.])-51 III 51 011 NO
Calcium I 5/1 5 96,000 - 212~000 212 12),000 - 2]1,000 III 1111.000
Chl'oml UID 1/8 [5.5J - 211 111 211 III [5.8)
Coball 218 (10) - 122 III 122 . .011 NO
Colilier 1/15 20 - 9110 1/2 9110 011 NO
Irull 151 I 5 120 - ]66,000 212 110 - ]66,000 In 21.000
:r l.cad 1/8 12 - 9.9 0 111 9,980 111 I]
.-- MagllesluAi 1 5/1 5 ]0.000 - 1151,000 2/2 311.000 - 10.800 1/1 .]].800
\0 Manganese 1'1/15 _0 - 12,500 2/2 510 - 12,500 111 691
Mercul', ]/8 (0.11 J - 0.12 III 0.72 0/1 NO
NI eke 1 5/8 (loJ - 116 III 116 0/1 NO
l'olRasluAi 15/15 5,8"0 - 111.300 2/2 8,000 - 9,080 . III 5.840
SII ver 1/8 NO - 25 III 25 0/1 NO
Sodium I 5/1 5 19,1100 - 210,000 212 19.1100 - 66,000 111 12.600
'f! II 1/15 NO - 60 0/2 NO 0/1 HI)
VI'"8d 111m 118 11.5 - 150 111 150 111 (II. ') J
ZlIw 10/15 12 - 5,860 1/2 5.860 III ..Ia
Cyullide 1115 10 - 20 1/2 18 011 NO
Acetolle 1111 10J - 200 III 10J 0/0 Not Tested
Chlo"omelhane 111 ND - II II I 11 '. ... 0/0 Not Tested
Non: :
( ) Indicates an eatlmated value below contract. requlr~d detection IB.lts.
oJ indicates that the compound wae detected at. levels too low to be quanUfled.
IND .. Not Det.ected, .
~'e number Is the quantiflcat.lon limit,
a
"
-------
CONSTITUENT
~
IV
a
AIW8lnu.
Araenlc
Uarlu..
Cad..lu.
Calelu..
Chro.IU18
Coba I t
Co ppe r
Iron
1.0 _d
1.1 thl u..
. Magneslu.
Mang_neae
Mercury
Nickel
Potaaalu.
511 ve r
Sod I....
Strontlu.
Tilanlu..
Vanadlu.
Zinc
Cyanide
c
.~
o
'l'able 1-8
&UHHARY or - GROUHDWA'I'BR SAMPLING U&UL'I'S
CCALUMB'I' AQUUBR8
LAKB SANDY JO LANDI'ILL RI/1'8
PAOB I 0' 2
SAMPI.ES 'ROM WEI.I.3 NOT A'PECTED BY LAND'ILL.
NO. 0' NO. 0'
POSITIVE DETECTIONSI POSITIVI DETECTIONSI
NO. 0' RANOE 0' DETECTIONS NO. 0' RANOE OF DETECTIONS
VALID OBSERVATIONS (ual)) VALID OBSERVATIONS (uB/I)
11156 (26) - 917 1/11 (52)
19156 2 - 26 2/11 2 - 2.7
518/56 (17) - 557 11/11 H - 276
1/56 2.11 - 5.1 0/11
56/56 22,700 - 286&000 11111 22,700 - 186,000
6/56 10 - III. 0/11
2/l1li (9.6J - 218 0/9
20/56 6.1 - 118.5 2/11 6. I - 1. II
. 51/56 ( 71 J - 211, 800 . II/II 12) - 12,"00
.10/56 I - 12 2/11 1.8 - 2.}
25121 10 - 117 10/10 10 - 21.6
56/56 5,620 - 506.000 II/II 5,620 - 181.500
55/56 18 - 1,7011 11/11 95 - 651
3/27 0.1 - 0.15 1/9 0.2
12156 (10] - 123 1/11 121
38156 2,370 - 75,700 5/11 2.570 - 8.600
1/l1li 8 019
55/56 30,000 - 220,000 1 0/11 10,000 - 1112.000
27/21 ." 109 - 866 10/10 181 597
1/12 50.5 0/2
16/56 (5] - 1111 0/11
11/56 n - 2,990 9111 107 - 9511
10/56 2.9 - 52 1/11 2.9
-------
CONSTITU£N'I'
:r
N
.......
Benzene
Bro.odlchloro.et.hane
2 -Du t.aJeone
Chlorod IbroaOEe thane
Chloroet.h.ne
Chlororor.
2 -lie .anone
St.,rene
Toluene
Total 1,lenea
Fheno I
But.,l Ben&Jl .Pht.halat.e
DI-N-But.,l fht.halat.e
Di -N-Oct.,l Pht.halate
Isophorone
Ou.a-BIIC
Table 1-8
IUllHARY 01' GROUNDWATER SAMPLING USULTI
«CALUHBT AQUlrER)
LAKE IANDY JO LAHDrlLL Rill'S
PAOli 2 0' 2
NO. 0' .
rOSITIVE DETECTIONSI
NO. 0'
VALID OBSERVATIONS
6/56
1/56
2156
1/56
1/56 .
1/56
1/56
1/56
2/56
1/56
1/56
10/56
2156
5/56
1/56
1/56
SAMPLES 'ROM "El.l.5 NOT A'Pt&CTED BI UNDP"'L'
NO. 01'
POSITIVE DETECTIONSI
NO. 0'
VA~ID OBSERVATIONS
RANOE 01' DETECTIONS
(uS/I)
2.51 - 2).5
5.'
)1 - 8.11
2.)
8.)
6.'
).81
II
1.1 - )
II - ). II
7J
U - 16. 7
'.81 - 10)
6.U - 6.71
2J
O.OlSJ
RANOE 0' DETECTIONS
(uS/l)
Dill
0/11
DIll
0111
0/11
DIll
0/11
0/11
0/11
0/11
1/11
0111
DIll
0/11
1/11
1/11
7J
2J
O.OII)J
. - Wella MW021. DWOO]. DWOll. DW022. OV021. oW02'. DU02S. DW021.
( J - indicatea an estt.ated vaBue below contract required detection 1I.lta.
J - Indlcatea an eatl.ated value.
I - Indlcatea that the coapound was detected at a level lower than the ~equlred detection 11.lt.
NO'I'£S; .
d
:;'" b
-------
o
t I
A"E
IL::J
] I 28TH. II
11 29TH 6 AW
11 Ir
23 AD
~
en
~
%
c.!)
ii:
:I
25TH
1 .
.
~ ~
] ... en ..
en
A
.1 z t-
o %:
... eJ
a: w c
o z .
2 c
1 ~
.;.... .
'-I
LEGEND
I I
I l
I I a. a' I. '-
~ ... .-; ~ ...
en III en en
(II
" en
u <:) z
- z
a: 0 1M 1601
Q Z en ~ en -
Z Z ..J C .
'" w %
%: , . :I <.J
!
I-
...
.,
D
CD
2
~I
~VE
,-- -- - .-....... - -- --, - ..... ~
, - 0 ,.#' ... I
-~ .
r
I
.
I
I
I
t..
f
,
,
I
29 COMPOSITE 501 L
SAMPLES FROM
LANOFILL SURFACE
~ .-:~.! . ~
LAUSMIW8i~. -¥ '..' ,.-
U~ ILL.. ,~~--: o~:--:: of It -. - -
".". .-{:i~::tj~;t~.~~
0° ._, -.. ~~~....- 8.o-ow
. ~. -':~o'~:-fo~~;;**:~1~~J
w
...
-
C
.
P\.
A"E
AVE 0
@
0 600
.~
SCA..i IN.PlIT
.
DISCRETE SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION
.
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
- .:~. -:- ",818!
. :-.'..~ ::,
AREA OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED SURFACE
SOIL CONTAMINATION
~ ~;;I~~:TK::;A~~NS~~oe;TEO
FIGURE 1-4
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION:
SOl L AND SEDIMENT
LAKE SANOY JO FS
... ,
A-22
-------
j I I! j j i l :,
Il AVE /~nl :1
~II 11 ~ t;il ;;11 ;;:1
I! II \\ ~II. III i:
; I' \\~ II) I!
l'Ui Mil \I~ II f
I! ,! ill.!"", I ,.
:;; .! x "':JI ~
i'l 'AVE' iU 'U
-(J
II
J'
Z~ RO
II
!
.
!
...i
(/)!
~
i [
i
I
!
.....
~!
-I
~!
~I
I
.
... ,
~:
.,r,
: i
. ~
~d
-il
<:.
.! ~ .
~:
;:-;--
~ ~ !
~. '
: i
2~'j'H
. ! ~
i
I
!
i .
:i
, ,
! ~
Z9TH
i ~//////~1/'//"""A
I ////// ////////,
v/////A ////////,
~///// ////////
j 1////// ////////,
V////.(, //////,/..
~///~ ////////
] ;AIV/// ////////..
1////// ' ////////
1////// ////////.
v///// ////////,
~/ / / / / / / / // I' / / /
1 1////// ////////.
!;;t:///// ¥////////
. I~//// f////////
i~///// ////////
,~/// ////////
J!~/// Y////////~
t~/// ¥////////-
It///// ¥////////
f////// ~////////
f////// ////////
.////// ////////
'////////////////
, / / / / / / A"~.I'~.r.'''~~'
////////~/777/r//
J /////////////////
/////////////////
'-////////////////
" ///.//////////////
I /////~~///////
i
i
J
]
1
J
1 I
/////////////////
'////////////////
///////////~////
'///////////////
'//////////////
, ///////
///
c
'"
@
L.EGENO
.' --- A..,.OXIMATE L.OCATION OF SOUTHEAST
DRAINAGE DITCH
o 800'
. 1
SCAL.E IN PEn
--
~
AREA OF CAL.UMET AQUIFER WHICH MAY
BE AFFECTED BY POTENTIAL. FUTURE
REL.EASes OF CONTAMINANTS FROM THE
LANDFI L.L..
'////////
. / / / // / / /
'////////
'////////
'////////
."""",
DASHED L.INES SHOW AREA PROVIDING
A BUFFER ZONE TO ACCOUNT FOR
UNCERTAINTIES IN INTERPRETATIONS
OF GROUNOWATER FI.OW REGIME
FIGtJRE 2.3
IMPACT OF FUTURE RELEASES
ON GROUNCWA TER
LAKE SANDV JO FS
... ,
A-23
-------
o . .
1 I
. &
Ii
'-
-
...
ce
v
I .
':"~
. c
. ::
" 'U
! ! :
I..' . ;
~.
]
]
<.j 1 I
LEGEND
--- WATER MAIN
@
o
600
/1/1//
, ' '. 1 ! /
. . .. ! / ; I
APPROXIMATe AREA OF OEEO
RESTRICTIONS
..-'
SCAt.lIN FEET
MONfrORING WELL SAMPLING I..OCATION
o
.
MONITORING WE 1..1. SAMPI..ING I..OCATION. NEW
WELL. INSTAI..I.EO
A-24
F'IGURE 5-3
ALTERNATIVE 3
WATER SUPPLY - WITH
SOIL COVER AND ACCESS
RESTRICTIONS
bAKE SANOY JO FS
~
~
~
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPI..ING
L.DCA TION
AREA OF SOIL. COVER
" .
-------
-"
ATTACHMENT 1
ENFORCEMENT (Confidential)
u.s. EPA sent a notification and information request to
. potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for the Lake Sandy Jo site
on DecemberS, 1984.
The list of PRPs included owners, operators,
The absence of records for the site limited
and some generators.
our PRP list to only a few potential generators.
Although most
of the generators contacted responded to the request virtually
no aaditional records carne to light.
u.S. EPA will notify the PRPs of the Remedial Action contem-
plated at the site after issuance of the Record of Decision to
give them an opportunity to conduct the Remedial Action.
It is
. not anticipated that the PRPs will undertake this action.
Based upon insufficient documents and evidence, the chances
of successful negotiations or of a fruitful cost recovery action
appear slim.
A Fund-financed cleanup with limited ability for
cost recovery seems necessary and probable.
~ ,
------- |