United States
. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EP AlRODIR05-90/122
March 1990
07
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
1!
~
Tri-State Plating, IN
u . ~. Environmental Protection Agency
RegIon m Hazardous Waste
Technical rnformation Center
841 Chestnut Street. 9th Floor
Philadelphia. PA 19101
Hazardous Waste CoUection.
information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Phlladelphla# PA 19t07
1>~ 11- 11....1 4 So
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. 2. 3. Recipient' 8 ACC8.aion No. I
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROS-90/122
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 03/30/90
Tri-State Plating, IN
First Remedial. Action Final 6.
-
7. Author(a) 8. Perfonning Organization Repl No.
8. P8rfonnlng Orgalnizlltion MIme and Addre... 10. ProjectITliklWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. SpoMorfng Organization MIme and Addre... 13. Type 0' Report & Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplementary Notea
16. Abetract (Umlt: 200 worde)
The 3,900-square foot Tri-State Plating site is an abandoned metal plating facility in
Columbus, Bartholomew County, Indiana. Land use in the vicinity of the site is
residential and industrial. Metal plating operations at the site began during the
1940s. Tri-State Plating operated the facility from 1981 until 1984, when operations
, were shut down and the site abandoned. Site features include an electroplating building)
and an onsite storage building. In 1983, the State identified soil contaminated with
chromium, lead, and other metals, which was thought to be a result of an onsite waste
spi 11. Tri-State Plating excavated the contaminated soil and placed it in onsite drums.
Subsequently, the State identified additio:1al onsite contaminated soil and elevated
levels of chromium in offsite ground water, and determined that facility wastes had been
discharged directly into the sewer line. In 1984, following additional onsite waste
disposal violations, onsite spills, and the failure of Tri-State Plating to install an
onsite waste treatment system, the State blocked sewers from the site and cut off the
water supply. From 1987 to 1989, in two separate actions, EPA removed 27 drums of
inorganic material from the storage building, excavated contaminated onsite soil,
decontaminated and demolished all onsite structures, filled and revegetat,ed the,
"j . r ''''i' f", '.
, ~A 00« ~(;iVh ,'.' .:~.,." ,
(See Attached Page) (. ~:d'" r:VJ ':'I\"C "''11 ': ~)n 1.;1 , "
.G,,' t,.;'> ~_..
17. Document AlI8lysls L Descriptors v'Jn~' ) OOIH3!; H....' .' !
Record of Decision Tri-State Plating, IN ~ ~.'" "''''l..\ ./')
- itOO\i ~"" .., "'jc; 'I " ,- .
. '" . ;; ~ J", " .. '
First Remedial Action - Final ".."-~~f,-,~J::' \'~-"'" "I';,~~_.'
r ('.. ' : r .~ -. f';t!~. :! J". J,.;"
Contaminated Medium: gw t""; i ~ #', I ( "",-,
Key Contaminants: metals (chromium)
b. ldentiflera/Open-Ended Terr118
c. CooA TI Field/Group
18. Avallsbilty Statement 19. Security Clue (Thie Report) 21. No. 01 Pages
None 28
20. Security Clus (This Page) 22. Price I
Nnn<=>
'v...... FORM 272 (4-77)
(See ANSl-Z39.18)
See In6fruCUon6 on Reve'6e
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department 0' Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-90/122
Tri-State Plating, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
excavated areas, and disposed of the soil and debris in offsite landfills. Subsequent
site investigations revealed that ground water beneath and migrating from the site was
contaminated with metals and required remediation. Previous removal actions successfully
reduced metal concentration in onsite soil to background levels; therefore, onsite soil
does not warrant remedial action. This ROD addresses the contaminated onsite ground
water. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are metals
including chromium.
o
()
The selected remedial action for this site includes pumping contaminated ground water
from the underlying aquifer and discharging the water to a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW); monitoring ground water and surface water; conducting a public education program;
and implementing institutional controls and site access restrictions including fencing.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action ranges from $1,110,000 to
$1,115,000 for 2-10 years, depending on the ground water pumping rate. O&M costs were
not provided for this remedial action.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Pumping of ground water will continue until contaminant
levels meet State and Federal standards including chromium 50 ug/l.
-------
.' . ...~...~--~._.__.... ..._...............-.~.-..__._.~...-
"......... ...."
. .. .' ,. .. ~.~....~.~_..._....... '"-''''~''' '., ,'.'
........,-....-. - --------..._--- -- _.~. -- ---- ---..--... -""",,~, .._.. - "-- -- "'-..., "."."-"'»0-"''''''' "'-'-U""'W".....-.,..~....".: ,',
IH::U\RATICH RR '!BE ~ OF ~CN
SITE NAME AND IDCM'ICN
'lRI~STATE PIATING
CDIDMWS, INDIANA
co
~ OF msIS AND ~
'Ibis decision dt'X:'MIE'nt pJ:eSents the selected ~ial action for the Tri-
state Plating Site, in O:>lumbus, In:tiana, \o1hidl was chosen in accordance with
CERCIA, as amen:3ed by SARA, an:i to the extent practicable, the National Oil
am Hazardoos SUbstanoes Fbllution Contirgency Plan (NCP). '!his decision is
based on the administrative record for this site.
'!he State of Irrliana concurs with the selected remedy.
~ OF 'lHE srm
Grotm:'lwater beneath an:i migratinJ fran the site is contaminated vdth
c:hranium an:i hexavalent chranium. While there are no known private drinJcinJ
water tNe1ls in the vicinity of the site at this time, the p:Jtential exists for
human exposure via future grourrlwater use.
~CN OF 'mE ~ REMEDY
'I
')
'll1is Record of Decision is to address the ex>ntaminate.d grourrlwater
em:matin; fran the Tri-State site. '!he najor carponents of the selected
remedy ioclude:
HxUtorin; grourrlwater quality am contamination
migratirq on a quarterly basis
z.bnitorin} surfaoe-water quality on a quarterly basis
.
RestrictiIq future grourrlwater use until ARARs are achievErl
Corrluct.in1 a p.1blic education program
Re-eva1uatirq site con.1i.tions every five years \n1til
cleanup levels are achieved. .
Insta1latin; two additional extraction wells arrl
extract.in1 grourrlwater
Construct.in1 a discharge piPciine to the Columbus sewer
system am m:>nitorin; the extracted grourrlwater prior
to discharge
Treat~ contaminated grourrlwater at the Columbus rom
-------
vv I J.i- V\." I I\.~ ~" vv
L'III~..I. V'oJ, .....\., ,I......ii....ltj
r n.', II',', Ci! c:.::, l,j j uLJU
; , UL:.-
~ -
Installating a fence aroun::l t:OrtioTlS of the site
S'1'AlUJ'ORY D~rrON
.
f""-.
'!he selected remedy is protective of huIran health am the envi.ronment, -
carplie.s with Federal arC state ~ that are legally app1i~le or
relevant aro. a~ropriate to this remedial action, arC is cost-effective. '!his
ranedy utilizes pe.rtranent solutions ard alt&native treabTent technolo;y, to
the ~ extent practicable, ard satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that erpl~ treabnent that reduceS toxicity, m:bility, or volume as
a principal element.
Because this r~ will result in hazarilous substant;:es rerainin; on-site
alxJVe health-based levels, a reYiew will be C01"dUCt.ed within five years after
~ of remedial action to ensure tnat the remedy continues to
p-~ ;;:~ of h~ ~~ W i:;i
c.:..TE J / Valdas V.
~iona.l
~ion v
\.J
. strator
10
, -"
f'*"\
-------
..- -. . . .h ~. ""'" ""_n_.._...........-...----...-----............U'.'-'--'.----..-...-.-............ """ .....-........- . ,. ,.... .
...,.. - .... - --_h_.. -. .. -....... . ~.. ,.'." ..., "'. '''-'''_'..>04- --.....................
, >
.
-1-
"
REXn
-------
. "h._~_.__.'-
. '-.....,.,..-......
.n._-. '.---.-- --'- .--.-----.------..
~~"I . . '. - .. 'I I ~, ..., ( ( , U .'.lV'
" ' , - ' ' "'~.. . - - 1 u, FOR"'OI.: .II, I ,~"" .B7fJ." . :T."" y
o (~ ~:" FOI elf . ff:7 ,i'~'Ll ,.8.i¥','..ot
~!; t I p. ~ k ' , : I I .Ii (/Co"
~,M '...... ;..: . I I ... .
-,.. 638 : : ~ I , . ..-
~f;.~5$..: u ,. ~ .... Nor h .1- _.-- - - - h. , I tlP:)
. fFJ :-'.. ~'" "''- I ~ : "( ! '" 1 ;
~~~ ,rl~ 'ITj' ,) 1(\.Jr- \..: " ti, ~~ ,.., "r..: : ~
,'.,. ~_... / I l ~ ~. ~ .. .
). ~t;/.1 :)," .'.1"'0 IJ\ ;.0- l::1j"'" :'....o.'o.. ,',,;.,p ':/! ','
~ ~ ; ..::...-!.- ~ (j hI . ~ J ' - ( rue 0 .'.: /. :.
J .' "- ,....,e .~ - - V ,...J" ~" :.... k!
/.,.. ~r) . """,. ."["
, /J ,... : ",. /)' ...,." -'0.'. ,.J.
- " . r----\. ~ . ,..- .
+ ': V'( Ii/jiu-. - j,. ~ ~ g '\c - '-.. riiii'~- -- ---- ,Iyii . ;f.~
- " '0:/: ~ / .. ~ . -- ..-,... "~
" " f : I' ............. rthtlcle I. ') '~ ' 0 :.
Q \. : . ~ $c:~ u I Sch - . .iI : ,-' .J
O~j .,r- -r~'" . : ;~.: ~ . ~2 a~A'b'~ - : 'j.. ~ ;;j~:1 ~. -qt. t
Of . : -L . :... 'I. CJ ' It ~ P , .
/". . , .. -.: i' : /F.ir.rov.: '
) I ('-.... ..it. ~ .\ I I ;- . i:'.""."..f;' ~---/~~ .I. v .
,''\1 :' !t ~ 8 ~ ~ :~. :',...:".' ""
, ~ ' :.. t" , : '. , . :'~"'''..--"...:~!, it / ~ :J
'- () t = ~ . h ' , VB.': ; .. ..., v ~
~ (Q ( ILl .r.. ~ ~ ~. . IE g ~ l ftJ '.., -''-'. - ," l 1'8 Qr!; .. ,f'. ~. ~ii' I U~ . ~
~. -( II .. .ro NV"'" .~ 'KlI'T-::-A '/--' -£~. ... ... '. r6"!
1. ~'! l ~ ".:.. i I.. 1/. Lr" '"'~ ~~~. ~ .. :'I~'~'
~! ~ '- ~.. i'o!) I~ V I . lina> 1-; (' .>. . ~ ~ - . \\ ~
~ 04.) '~~ . i.. ~. Miii r.. ~ ..."p"n !~:': ...;; -'. .. ...:\,
- ~ f' '": SITE n 1""'0."'" ~ '~'r':':.~;' "'1 -=
-- ,jl.ff, : 1,,'- j' ",.~.
.. ,,: ..' ~ .. - I 10 r- ~ "........I.;i :.:.. .
" I, - -- ' : I=- ~ Oonn'fr = ;', ~ ... .
-- ~ ~, ' ~~r CO U 1M K I r;;ll ;~ ~ :,.)Q ;,r...... ..~ L
' 4.62k.~ . - ' '.. 7~'.' 1/1/1._: . ....~\ ,'r-,
. - ,,~ i ...~C::- - ,t!~:K / - . ~ ,BM .~f~ii;I': ~:;: . 6JIJ
\,(~~~,. ',,..."'" \r=-. l/J~, :{I [1 I ": ..'
:0-', :, I'" ad 'I Jet' .
to" . ". .1 '= . ... .
""-.",~;"~"'~' H 0 ... . '~.. ~ "',:!: . ""'" .r .J.- "'" "
" \\~ . gr ~ ,-.. ",!:' '. ", (
~ ;~.. .- :<3 ~ .: .'
,'.l!i . ~). e~ . j :, ~ '-'4'it. i:
\ ,\' ..., Je" . 8 ~ "I ~ '1'" ,
~ ~I, !11!~, ...~~, ,. . '-1::::1) . -,,, - ;;;'uo. <
. .. p, " j ~['S!i rr Vf T ... It CT I"'''. , -.. ;n :=
"",4'f~~ . t-(' ')A ' ft l! .) .yl 0 I r- /~' " .: . - PJtI
~ , 1 -'N:j I ~ . 't::.. ~ ~ 7= GorJ.nd I ~
~ .....J 81 1-' . ~~~ .' 'i'
.., '~.;)' 'I lt~ ",! ,JJ ~:' ~ r ~ t j I ;' ;-~ ":: I' ~ B~:k . ,;~<......b
~ ~.I ~ 1 '\ !!.'" ..) !o.. .i. ./""0,. . a. ,"
"-, --- J IN 2, ,........,- - I .', I
~ . !. ,",, L, . . 11~. .!o=....8------ ~ :I
- I, 51 ~l/ \~'h' ,
bB,";\ ' l r.r ~ ~ a .. ~/r::::::..) .../' / McDowell ->- ./, ".,~"
"I" , . I J I (Scb.~ , '
. : I ~ 'H 0 ./ .. ..., - ~ wJ 6V ~'; 1 ' A CN
. , A(~~ B~ .:' " Li ~~"', :11L ',... .; L~........~ &t (b) ~n bl B I 11T~Y\':!~ P:;';::.j
AM. '*I~ ....." 11>7 ~ r- ~ ~'" -' - ..'=---- . 1 .
Source: ,
U.S.G.S.-1.5' TOP09raphic Map
Columbus. Indiana Quadrangle.
Dated 1962. Photorevhed 1980.
.Sca1.: 1".2000'.
- -..
B
SITE LOCATION
@
o
2000
SCALE IN FEET
I
4000
FIGURE I
SITE LOCATION MAP
TRI - STATE PLATING SITE
-------
",. ..~.~.~......... ,. """"'~""""~....nn"" '. "'...~....".~~..,.I,~.~).
-3-
not detected. Also d1.1rin:J this period, sanpli.n:1 am analysis of effluent
leaving- -the Tri -state Plati.n:1 facility, corrlucted by O:>lumbus Utilities,
verified that plant wastes 'Were beirq di.scharged to city sewers.
D.Jrin;J the m:nths of Februcu:y, March am April 1984, several meetin3s took
place between ~tives of the City of Columb.1s am Tri-state Platin:J in.
attenpt:s to get ~ plat.irg facility into CClIpl.iarx::e with disd1a1:gestandards.
'lhese IOOetin3s took place in response to 1ll1IIeZ."O.1S iooidences of d1rani.um
wastes bei.n:1 flushed into p.Jblic sewers by Tri -state Plat:irg employeeS dut:in;J
the washinJ of the plat:irg Wildin:J walls am floor. On April 3, 1984, the
City of 0:>1umb.1s requested that Tri -state Plati.n:1 install a waste treat:nent
system to prevent a-.rec:ur:rezre of past di.scnarges into the sewer system. '!he
city also gave Mr. Padgett verbal authorization to"" continue operatin:J in the
interim provided that total chranium levels ttr'OOld oot exceed 15 milligrams per
liter am discharge of solids ~d not exceed 40 lbs. per day.
In May 1984, follCMin:J several disd1a1:ges that ~ the specified
limits, illegal dunpi.n:1 of wastes on the gra.m:l surface at the site, failure
to install a waste treatJIsIt system, am one severe spill that interrupted
the biological treatJIsIt system at the City of O:>lumbus Waste Water Treat:nent
Facility, sewers £ran Tri-state Plati.n:1 'Were blocked am the water ~ly was
cut off. SUbsequently, Mr. Padgett mved his operation to Greenfield,
In:liana,: in July of 1984 am J:"eq)ened urxler the name of Greenfield
Manufacb.Iri.rq EnteJ:prises. '!he Tri-State Plat.irg site has been abaOOoned
since this ~.
~~
Several additional J:'OI.mis of sempli.rq am analysis were corrlucted by
various agen:::ies followi.n;J the closure of Tri-State Platirq. In July 1984
the BCHD obtained a semple fran a 20 to 25 gallon sludge spill abseJ:ved on
the site. In ~..r 1984, the Process ErxJ:ineeri.n:1 G:ralp (PEX;), a private
consultant, collect:a:i am analyzed soil am liquid waste semples on behalf of
the site owners am sutmitta:l results to the In:liana State Board of Health
(ISm) . ISBH collect:a:i water sanples fran the O:>lumbus SUWlemental
wellfield in March 1985.
On September 23, 1986, the current owner, Mr. JaIreS Padgett, was notified
of EPA intentions to oorrluct a Renmia1 Investigation am Feasibility Study.-
An information request was attad1ed to that notice letter. On Marc:h 18, 1987,
Mr.-Padgett su1:Initta:l a reply to USEPA an::i provided a short histo:ry of the
indust:ry an::i a list of four names an::i tel~ ~ o.f. previous owners.
He did not offer to perform any studies or ~ial action at the site arrl
infoDOOd USEPA that he had filed for bankruptcy.
USEPA onsite activities started early in 1987. On Janua:ry 6, 1987, the
USEPA Technical Assistance Team (TAT) corrlucted a site assessrrent aided by
the USEPA Renmia1 Project Manager am officials fran IDEM an::i BCHD. SUrface
soil semples fran the Tri-State Platirq site an::i a backgrourrl semple were
collect:a:i. On Janua:ry 8, 1987, the USEPA On-Scene Coordinator an::l two TAT
members corrlucted a follCM-up inspection of the site, collectin;J saITples from
several of the 27 drums present inside the storage shed on the northwest side
of the main buildin:J. Air nonitori.rq inside the main builclinq arrl the sheds,
-------
- - -....- ....--- -- .... -...." - ----- -'.----------.'.'.".""
-4-
v
utilizin;J an HNu ~ionization detector am a hydrogen cyanide IOC>nitor,
failed to in:licate art:! readin;;s above backgrcurr:l. After the site inspection,
the buildin:Js were locked, but acx::essways to the contaminated yard remained
open. On March 18, 19, ani 20, 1987, TAT c::arrlucted a IOC>:re extensive sanplirg
program to detemine the extent of soil contamination on am off the site.
Forty-nine soil sanples ani four grourrlwater sanples were sul:mi.tted for
cyanide am metals analysis. 'lhese samples iId.u:3ed backgrcurr:l samples' !ran
local resl.deJres. '!he USEPA samples detected metals am cyanide
contamination to a depth of 4 feet on site, Wich was the maxim..Im samplirg
depth. '!he \tJe1l water samples collected did rot detect cyanide
contamination; however, low levels of metals were discovered in Arvm
IOOustries East Well No.2.
.
~
Preliminary ~;;:t' activities began shortly thereafter. on J\.me 5,
1987, a ferx::e was COl1S'b:ucted by USEPA to prevent site aocess. On August 26
am 27, 1987, 20 drums cont.ainin:J inorganic materials were :renrwed am
disposed at a RCRA CCIlt'liant facility. nn:in;J the ttJeek of August 29, 1987,
TAT cbtained subsurface soil sanples to determine the vertical extent of
contamination. Sanples were also collected !ran a resi~ 'oorth of the
site. .Mdi.tional backgrcurr:l soil samples were also collected. A total of 19
soil sanples were collected on am near the site am sul:mi.tted for analyses.
On September 24, 1987, the C6C am TAT supervised renx:wa.l am disposal of
seven remain.i.rg drums am took seven sanples of bJilclirg materials, including
ceiling, brick and floor materials. Sa1Tples were analyzed for inorganic
paraIOOters .
In the Fall of 1987, the USEPA Emergency Response Section eERS) perforne:l a
site bJildin;J decantamination am limited contaminate1 soil renrwal action.
Approximately one foot of top soil was renxwed fra:n the open yard areas at the
site. Several areas of visible contamination were ooted adjacent to the
buildin;J fo..nrlation durin;J the tq> soil renxwal am a trench awroximately
four feet deep was excavated alorq the oorthem am southern foormtions of
the main process bui1din;J to reIICVe the discolorerl materials. All excavated
areas were backfilled am regraded with clean soil. C:>ntaminated subsurface
soils' identified duriIq past TAT sanplirg activities were left on site. '!he
ERS also washed the interior surface of the main process bui1dirg usirg a
caustic-sodium hypochlorite solution. 'Ibis was perfonned in an attenpt to
~e s.urface contamination identified thrcx1gh past TAT sanpliIq efforts.
_. u.s. EPA initiated a two-Ii1ased Remedial Investigation at the Tri-state
site begiI1niIg in 1987 to determine the nature am extent of art:! remain:in:J
contamination followin;J u.s. EPA's initial rem::wal action activities. n.trirg
the first Ii1ase of the stlrly, u.s. EPA collected sanples trcm 10 lOcations on
.~ surfaces of walls, ceilirgs, arrl floors in the on-site bJildirgs to
determine whether the 1987 buildirg decontamination activities had been
sucx::essful. In acktition, 25 surface am su1:surface soil sanples were
collected to detennine the depth of soil contamination at the site. u.s. EPA
also installed four m:>nitoriIg wells at the site am collected eight
grourrlwater sanples for laboratory analysis. 'lhese Fhase I activities,
corrpleted in January 1988, revealed elevated levels of cyanide, d1ramium,
copper, arrl cadmium on bui1~ surfaces arrl/or in subsurface soils am
grourrlwater at the site.
-------
"-"-,'-.....u."-" ..
. .---.------ ...... '." n - - ""h'__- '--~""'.'." - ".'."'h_..._...... '.'......-- .......... .. -......... ..., ,. " ...
-5-
U.s., EPA began B1ase II of the ~i al Investigation in the fall of 1988.
B1ase n activities irwo1ved installin:J eight new 1IDni.torirg wells,
coll~ two roorrls of 19 groon:lwater sanp1es iran an-site m::mitorin:J wells
ard irxlustrial wells at Arvin In1ustries, ard coll~ 46 subsurface soil
sanp~. .
Based on the results of the ~;~1 Investigation, there was 1:i.shin] all structures on the site, an1 transportinJ
the soil, 00ildin:J debris, an1 asbestos fourrl clurin;J the course of the
r1r-o..arnJp to state an1 federallY-regulated 1an1fills. '!he excavated area was
: . :'~ed with clean soil, the site fence was :rem:wed, ani the site was graded
m;j.l :rev~"'getated.
~
I).n:in~~' the ERA, U.S. EPA collected 357 subsurface soil sanples on the site
. to dete.r.mine the 1iJni.ts of excavation. U.S. EPA also collected 21 soil
scmples from the base of the excavated areas to determine the effectiveness
of the rem:Na1. activities. U.s. EPA alsO con:lucted a gram:1water p.mp test
to detemine whether the migration of cx:mtam:inated gram:1water fran the site
could be prevented by the cantinuoos withdrawal of gram:1water arx:l to
calo..tlate the PJl11?iIg rate J"IE>OeSSaJ:y to acx:xxtplish this cbjective.
Grourrlwater sanpliIg was con:lucted to detemine the level of cx:mtam:ination in
the groon:lwater follov.rin:J the groon:lwater IU11P test an:! site cleanup.
Carrt:am:inat.ed gram:1water collected durin:J the p.mp test was discharged to arx:l
treated at the Columbus' rom.
ENFORc:EMENr ACl'IVITIES
'!he USEPA notified Mr. Padgett an:! the other Ibtentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) of the USEPA intent to perform rem:Na1. an1 rerv:rljal actions at
the site. '!he mPs were given an c:pporbmity to proceed with these actions,
b.rt: were unresponsive to these requests. Mr. Padgett is o.Irrently
1iquidatiIq his assets urrler supexvision of a bankroptcy judge at this t~. '
'!he USEPA sent a ootiCe letter to the mPs in FebI'l1a%y 1990 statiIg the
- agency's decision not to invoke the settlenart:. procedures un1er Section 122 of
. SARA due to the p3St lack of interest, aro;or claimed lack of finances, in
reac::hin;J a negotiated settlenart: at the site. .
3. HIGILICHl'S OF a:JMJNITY PARrICIPATICN
In aa::ordance with CERCIA Section 117, the Proposed Plan, which contains
information on all the remedial al tel:natives considered by the U. S. EPA as
well as the proposed reIredy for the site, was made available to the p..1blic
. for cx:mnent on February 1, 1990. Notice of the start of this p..lblic COl11!TeI1t
period was p..1blished in a local newspaper prior to this date announcing the
start of a 3o-day p..lblic cc:mrent period runnirg fratl February 1 to March 1.
A p..lblic meetin;J was held in Columbus, Irrliana on Feb:ruary 15, 1990 to explain
-------
r -I
: ~ :-,- t . ~-,
1----.
I ( ..-~
I ~ - AN~:t.":-,"'
\"---
\
'...-....-...,. .
."..", -_...~..."
RESlOOfTIAL
PROPfRTY
()
R£SlD0411AL
PROPERTY
\)
~}
R£SIDOfTlAL
PROPfRT'i
'7ni S1R(£T
. "-'--'-u~__n""
j-
. .. -_n..... .
. ,_.... ..-.-...---.. .....
LEGEND:
-.50-
---~
MW-2
.
""
:>
~
<
~
Jo:
.- ""--h'_____-_U' -..-......-'".. --....--.---..
£STILI A TED ISOCONCENTRA TION
CONTOURS FOR CHROMIULC AT
lHE WATER TABLE (.AJLY 1989
DATA) . .
SITE PROPERTY UNE
EXISTING LCONITORING ~LL
RESlDOITIAl/COMt.CERClAl.
PROPERTY
\
~
I
o
l
I
""
'{~
~
\
UW-68 UW-6
. .
~
50
SCALE IN FEET
I
100
/ FIGURE 2
ESTIMATED CHROMIUM
CONCENTRATIONS
TRI - STATE PLATING SITE
-------
... . .--'----"-""""-'-.'-_4_00______-......---..-........ "'---'.".'-""".""-"",,,,,
-7-
the alternatives c::cns~ by the U.S. EPA, describe the U.S. EPA's prcposed
J:emeUYas outlined in the Proposed Plan, am to solicit CXl11llalts fran the
pmlic. Public CCIIIIOOI1ts ani J:eSpOnse to the CXl11llalts are contained in the
Responsiveness Slmmary (1q:penlix 2.)
4. ~ OF ~ SITE rganic CH"p:um such as chrani.um,
cadmium, lead, am zioo W'ere still present in subsurface soils in the
northern, western, am sart:hern bol.11mries of the site CI'able 1). '!he ICM
levels foorrl durin:1 the ~ial Investigation in:licated that the previous
rem:wal actions W'ere 511~ssful in eliminatiIg the potential threat to p.1blic
health posed by ront:amipated surface soils. hxx>rciinJ to the U.S. EPA's
Public Health/Envirarmart:a1 As.~~nt, the levels of possible contaminant
eJq)OSUre ~ foorrl to be extremely ICM am do not IX>Se a threat to health.
'!he ICM levels of soil contamination remain:iIg in the saturated zone,
awroximately 20 feet below the groun:l surface, do not represent a
significant threat. In addition, since the source of contamination in the
tmsaturated zone has been reIlX)Ved, the contaminant levels in the Saturated
zone sha1ld diminish with tiJne as the grourxiwater fl~ through the saturated
soil. A summary of the site risks are presented in Table 2.
~
Groun::1water contamination investigations at the Tri-state Plating site
have been focused to characterize the plume of chrani.um am hexavalent
d1ranium contamination discovered during the RI. 'Ihese investigations have
. conclu:ied that 00 adverse health risks are posed by the contaminant plume to
the mmicipal wellfield, or the iroustrial users located d~dient of the .
site. 'Ihere are also 00 krx:Mt private drinkin:j water wells in the vicinity of
the site at this tlloo. However, there are risks present that future .
residential use of grourrlwater in the affected area will result in the
in;estion. of levels of ~um that pose unacceptable health risks. A
. SUImtIa.1:y of these risks are presented in Table 2. . '!he plume as identified
during the RI investigation is shc7wn in Figure 2. .
It should be oot:ed that the ERA grourxiwater p.mp t.est.in;J' am verification
sanpling cx:IIpleted in ~..r 1989 provided data in:licating that the
contaminant plume may have dlanged since its dlaracterization in the Remadial
Investigation/Feasibility StOOy as shc7wn in Figure 2. As of the last sanpling
event, the d1ranitnn concentrations in wells on site have dropped belCM federal
am state water quality starrlards except in the area of Monitoring Well 6
d~dient of the site. 'Ibis may suggest one of three possible scenarios:
-------
. -._----~-~_., ".-----......-..-......
. ..-. .'... ._'..... ..n""""'~h.._...~------_.......
"
-8-
::;\::
TAmE I
'mI --s.m'IE PIATJN;
~ OF ~ ]N 9)TTE:: AND ~ REHAIHnC QH;rIE
".
9)lT E::
o
~
MAXIKJM ~
-------
. .. - .- ..-...----- ---- - .--- _.._..~... _.- -- .. - -- ._------_._----_.-_._----~.~,..__.. ..------_u_-. ~"'.'-- "''''''-''''...._--'''~'--''..-.'''''''-'..'''' ,~,..... h..""
-9-
- 'lhe ERA clearup an1 grourrlwater p.tmp:irg test tenporarily nxxlified
-the levels of cxmtamination an1/or configuration of the plume an1
it will eventually return to its original state as presented in
Figure 2;
.
'lhe entire plune has actually migrated alc:nJ the direction of the
grourrlwater flCM an1 has ncM just read1ed H::nitor:irg Well 6; or
'lhe plume has migrated to H::nitorinJ Well 6 an1 the ERA activities
have cleaned up the majority of the plune located at the site.
.
'lhe scenario that is accurate is a.n-rently \Il'1known arxl once :resolved may
have saxe iltpact an the inplementatian of the prq>Osed altemative Presented
later in this ~1mE'nt. u.s. EPA will choose a ~;~1 action which will
address any risks the contaminant plUlOO poses to future :residential use of
the site. Prior to developirg the design of the ~;~1 action, U.S. EPA
will cx:n1uct a pre-design investigation to deteDnine which of the above
scenarios is ex>rrect. 'lhis pre-design investigation will determine the
location arxl extent of the cxmtamination plune to be addressed by the final
~]a1 action chosen for the site.
5. JE)C.RIpfirns OF 'mE RElffi)IAL ~
~;~l Altemative 1:
No Acti.m
~I
.
No action
Re1redl.al Alternative 1 proposes that no further action be taken at the Tri-
state site. u.s. EPA policy requires consideration of a no action
altemative at all SUperfun1 sites to serve as a basis of c::x:rnparison for
other remedial altematives. UOOer the. no action altemative, it is expected
that grourrlwater contamination \tJOUld decrease naturally aver t.lloo.
~;~l Altemative 2:, Gra.n'rlwater an1 SUrface .Water Mcnitarin;J
.
z.bnitoJ;ID;J grourrlwater quality an1 contaminant migration
M:>nitor:irg surface-water quality
.
Restrict:irg future grourrlwater use
Corx:h1ct.i.n:J a p..1blic education program
Re-eva1uat:irg site corx:litions every five years until cleanup levels
are reached
Urxier this altemative, u. s. EPA would ex>ntinue to IOC>nitor grourrlwater
quality arxl ex>ntaminant migration until federal arxl state water quality
stan::1ards are met. '!he IOC>nitoring program would involve sampli.n3' am
-------
'mmE 2
. . .-..----.-----...-..--.----------.
-10-
StHmRY OF RISFS
mI -6l7aE PJ:AT'IH; SITE
v
Total
tJwP.1omd Lifetime
Excess Cancer Risks
..0
Hazard Index
.
Average
SCenario
Plausible
KaximJm
Average pl ;m~ible
HaxinJm
O.1u.t::uL Ian:i-Use Scenario
Direct Q:ntact with SUrface NC (a)
Soil
Future Ian:i-Use srenarias
Direct axrt:act with
~ Soil NC
~
Irgest.im of Gram:lwater -
Residents cn-site
Pre-mA cxntitia1s (b) NC
Ibst~ cxntitioos NC
Imalatim of SUOOurfaoe
Soil - Qnsb:uct.i.m WaJ:kers 3E-<>7
NC
<1
<1.
NC
<1
<1
NC
NC
<1
<1
10
7
2E-<>6
NC
NC
(a)NC = Not calculated. Qv:>m;~l~ of potentia1~ do not exhibit
adverse effects in this category far this expcsIre scenario.
(b) mA refers to the Expedited Respcnse Acti.a1 Wd1 ans.lst:ed of"~ of
CD1tam.inat.ed soils am b.1ild:i:rgs.
-------
. ..-. .--.--..--.... . ..--. .-..... .._-_._--------_._...-..._-----_._--_.~_.-._._...
....__.._-----~----_._-_._._..-.._--_.._---_._.......---'. '.'--..
-11-
analYzirq grourrlwater fran selected ex:i.st.in;J IIDI1itorinJ wells am any new
narltorlnJ wells detennined to be required after the pre-design activities.
In addition, u.s. EPA 'WOUld nnnitor surface-water quality in Haw Creek twice
a year until federal ani state water quality st.armrds are net. SUrface ani
~ter IIDI1itorirg 'WOUld cease three years after grourrlwater
contamination levels meet federal an::i state water quality am hea1th-based
starrlards.
Urx:1er Altemative 2, U.S. EPA also t<.1OOld place :restrIctions on the future
use of ~ter as a drl11kin:J-water SUWly for all pJ:q)ert:ies within
pot.ent:i.ally contaminated areas. Residents near the site to.1OUld be required to
use the mmicipal water SUWly an::i the installatic.n of new wells 'WOUld be .
restr.icted. In addition, U.S'. EPA t<.1OOld con:luct ao p.1blic education program to
ensure public awareness of the potential hazards associated with dr~
~ter !ran contaminated ~.
u.s. EPA 'WCUld con:luct a review of site c:xnlitians every five years to
detenni.ne \rffiether charges in cont:am:i.nation levels or migration of ~ter
off the site warrant a c:han:]e in the activities cx:xxh1cted urrler this
alteJ::native. As part of the review process, u.s. EPA 'WCUld consider CCIII!reI1ts
or carplaints :received fran the p.1blic oonc::emi.rq the site am the ncnitorirq
program.
U. S. EPA estimates that AlteJ::native 2 'WOUld take one year to inplerent arrl
would CX)St awroxilnately $294,000.
~<:
"
'!he follCMing ARARS 'WCUld be carplied with if this alternative is selected; 40
CFR 264 SUbpart F, 40 CFR 141.11, In:tiana Starrlards 327 IAC 2-1-6 arrl 2-1-7,
29 CFR 1910, 40 CFR 261, 40 CFR 264, 40 CFR 29, and 329 IAC 3-20. For a more
detailed description of these ARARS, please refer to ~ 1 of the Record
of Decision.
~i i't 1 Altemative 3: Gr:a.n'rlwater EKt:racticn and Discharge to the
CblU1Ib.1s puIJlicly OWned Treatment Wcu:Xs (roIW)
Monitorirq ~ter quality arrl contamination migration on a
quarterly basis
Monitorirq surface-water quality on a quarterly basis
Restrict:inJ future ~ter use until ARARs are achieved
.
Corrluct:irq a p.1blic education program
Re-eva1uatirq site con:litions every five years until cleanup levels
are adrieved
Installirq two additional extraction wells and extractinq
grourrlwater
Const.ructin:J a discl1arge pipeline to the Col1..n11bus sewer system
-------
u..........~.._....,...
.......... '.h_._.~..-.-.._._._.....' . "-."-----.---.-...-----'.U."".""- ............ - - '..'-"-"-- ~ ".'--'.'"
-12-
.
Treatin:] contaminated groorrlwater at the 0::>1UID1:ns roIW
Installatin:] a fence aram:l a portion of the .site
.
o
Alternative 3 inc100es all the actiVities in Alternative 2 in addition to
extractirq am treatinJ contaminated gromrlwater. UIxier Alternative 3, U.S.
EPA ~d use an exi.st.in:J extracti1g well an:! install two new extraction to.'ells
to pmp contaminated groorrlwater to the 0::>11.I1tbJs sewer system for di.sd1arge to
the 0::>1urrb.1s lUlW. Prior to discharge to the O::>lunbJs roIW, the extracted
groorrlwater will be m:mi.toz:ed for selected parameters to assure CClDpliance
with all federal, state an:3/or local n!qI.lirements. Gram:1water ftan the site
"-'Cllid be treated at. the O::>l\.1Illh.1s rorw ani di.sd1arged to the East Fork of the
White River. .
Gram:1water woo.ld be extracted until o:mtamination levels meet state am
federal staOOards. U.s. EPA "-'Cllid also oanstroct a six-foot high d\ain link
fence aram:i a portion of the site to l:imit IXJblic access dt.n:in; the cleanup.
U.s. EPA anticipates that Altemative 3 "-'Cllid cost between $1,110,000 am
$1,115,00 am take 2-10 years to oc:arplete, depen::lin;J on the rate at tr.'hidl
groorrlwater is pmped !ran the site.
~.
y
'!be follOllin] ARARs walid be carplied with if this Alternative is
selected: 40 CFR 264 Subpart F, 40 CF.R 403, 40 CF.R 141.11, 40 CFR 141.50,
40 CFR 50, 327 IAC 2-1-6 an:i 2-1-7, 29 CF.R 1910, 40 CFR 261, 40 CFR 264,
40 CFR 403, 40 CF.R 29, 329 IAC 3, 329 IAC 3-20, 310 IAC 16, 327 IAC 5 Rules 1-
10 am 11-15, 329 IAC 3-45, am 326 IAC 6-4. For a m:>re detailed description
of these ARARs, please refer to 1q;:perrlix 1 of the Record of Decision.
1?f:"TV"tH ~ 1 Alternative 4: Grourrlwater Ext:ract.i.cn, cn-site TreatJDent, am.
Discharge to Haw Creek
I'b1i.tor~ groorrlwater quality ani contamination migration
Monitor~ surfaoe-water quality
Restricti.n:J future groorrlwater use tmti1 ARARs are achieved
Corrluct.iIg a ~lic education program
Re-eva.luatin:] site can1i.tions every five years tmti1 cleanup levels
are read1ed
Install~ b.u new extraction wells an:i extractirg groorrlwater
Const.ruct.inJ a di.sd1arge pipeline to Haw Creek
.
Treatin:J contaminated groorrlwater in an on-site treatIrent plant arrl
discharg~ treated groorrlwater to Haw Creek
Install~ a fence arourrl portions of the site
-------
........-. -------."---"--__"'_Uh.'-'."-"-"-------. .--_. n ..... ----------..-..------.---.--.-.-.....-....-.-----..------_uo_---.
. I:
-13-
Alternative 4 inc1~ all the cx:mpanents of Alternative 3. '!he prilnat:y
diff~ bebveen the two altematives is that Alternative 3 uses the
Columbus rorw for groon:lwater treatJIsrt: am Altemative 4 uses a t:.ezrporcu:y
on-site treatment plant. umer Altemative 4, groon:lwater would be collected
fran t1n:ee extraction ~ am pmped.to a tenp:>rcu:y on-site treatment plant
usiIq electrochemical tedmiques to c:han3"e hexavalent chrani.um, a hazardous
man-made nateria1 foun:l at the site, :into trivalent chrani.um, a relatively.
hannless naturalnateria1. '!he trivalent dlranium would then be removed frc.m
the water thrc::uJh the use of O:M'M'''"1I1 water treatment chemicals. Treated
granrlwater \o.1OUld then be dischaJ:ged to Haw Creek.
Groorxlwater to.'alid be extracted for treatJIsrt: Ul'}til contamination levels
IOOet state am federal water quality stan1ards. When the cleanup is
cc:xrplete, the an-site treatJIsrt: plant would be ni~ntled am rem:wed.
U.S. EPA estimates that Altemative 4 would cost between $1,552,000 am
$2,593,000 am take 2-10 years to carplete, deperrlj.nJ on the rate at Y1hich
granrlwater is p~ !ran the site. .
'!be follCMin:] ARARs would be CClIplied with if this alternative is
selected: 40 CF.R 264 SUbpart F, 40 CF.R 122, 40 CF.R 141.11, 40 CFR 141.50, 40
CF.R 50, 330 IAC 1-1-6, 327 IAC 5-1-1, 29 CFR 1910, 40 CF.R 261, 40 CFR 262,
40 CFR 263, 40 CF.R 264, 40 CFR 268, 40 CFR 29, 320 IAc-4, 327 IAC 3-1,
329 IAC 3-21-2, 329 IAC 3-20, 329 IAC 3-45, 310 IAC 16 am 325 IAC 6-4. For a
nore detailed description of these ARARs, please refer to Appen:tix 1 of the
. . I
Recom of Decuaon.
~~
6. ~ OF ~ ANADlSIS OF ~
Canparisans of the differences are presented qualitatively, identifying
substantive diff~ between alternatives. 'lhese c::c::mparisons are based on
the relative expected perfonnanoe of each alternative to the evaluation
criteria presented belCM: .
o
OVerall protection of human health am the environment;
CclIpli.an=e with ARARs;
Short-term effectiveness, inc1u:ii.Iq protection of the camm.mi.ty,
-. protection .of . reroodiation workers, envirormental ilrpacts, arrl the
time required for inplementation; . .
Lorq-term effectiveness am pernanenoe, incl\.1din1 the magnitude of
:residual risks, the adequacy of controls, am the ;e1iability of
controls; .. .
Reduction of toxicity, ndJility, or volume;
IIIplenert:ability, inclu:li.rxJ tedmica1 feasibility, administrative
feasibility, arxi availability of seJ:Vices;
Cost, inc1ud:in:J total net present worth, capital costs, operating
cost, an:! the cost for five-year reviews;
State acceptance, am
Camm.mity acceptance
o
o
o
o
o
o
-------
, '''''''''....,
.' .' ...-----.--.--...........--.....- -"-----' .."'''''"" '-"'--"'-" n-.""' . n'.-"- '-'-'-"""'....,.... '......... .... h...... h"'.'_.-.-..-...-...-_u...........--....---...."
-14-
1.
OVerall Protection of Human Health and the Envirornnent
(,
Of all the alternatives, Alte:rnative 1 provides 00 overall protection, while
the other three provide protection to human health and the e.nvi.ronment.
Alte:rnatives 2 provides protection by limitinJ human exposure to contaminants
t:hra.1gh administrative OOlIUols until the aquifer is restored by natural
flush.i.rg and attenuation. 'lhis may rot cx:x:ur within the 3~ear analysis .
period, based on grooOOwater ~']irq analysis, wcn irrlicate that 40 to 45
years may be necessary.
Alte:rnatives 3 and 4 provide protection by expErlit.iIq aquifer restoration
t:hra.1gh active grooOOwater extraction. DJrirq the" extraction period, ran;;ring
fran 2 to 10 years based on the p.m1pllq rate selected, human exposure is also
prevented t:hra.1gh administrative controls.
Alte:rnatives 2, 3 am 4 provide similar levels of protection once the aquifer
has been restored.
'j
2. Campliance with ARARs
All t:eclln:>logies prqnsed for use in Alternatives 2 through 4 can be designed
am iJIplemented to satisfy all action-specific ARARs.
.\\,
In terms of adrlevin:] chemica1-specific ARARs for groundwater, Alternatives 3 .
am 4 will achieve them within the 3D-year analysis period, while .
Altenlatives 1 am 2 may rot. It is estimated that Alternatives 1 am 2 may
eventually achieve d1emical-specific ARARs in groundwater between 40 arrl 45
years fran the current time.
3. Short-'I'erm Effective.'1eSS
Because of the limited activities associated with the i1rplementation of all of
the alternatives, 00 significant iItpact to ¥.'Orkers, the canrnunity, or the
environment are expected as a result of any rerredia1 actions.
T:i1ne to iIIplement the alternative ran:Jes fran 6 nonth.s to 1 year after OOD
signin;J for Alternatives 2 am 3, to 1 year to 1 1/2 years after OOD signin;J
for Alternative 4. .-
4. !Dnq-Tern\ Effectiveness and PeJ:manence
'!he magnitu:ie of residual risks due to groundwater contamination is
negligible at the CX1Ipletion of Alternatives 3 or 4. since the grooOOwater
will be considered "clean" ~ the du:auium concentration in groundwater is
less than 50 ug,Il, the conesporrlence hazard Wex of about 0.3 irrlicates that
there shoold be no adverse health effects at that time.
with Alternatives 1 arrl 2, the average arrl maximum chranium concentrations
groundwater at the ern of the 30-year analysis perio1 shoold be substantially
less than they' currently are. '!he maximum d1ranium concentrations, hCMever,
-------
-_.......
. ----'.--.------..-----n- ..-u.
. ..---.. '..------.--............---___.._n._.'.....
-15-
. ~::
may still exceed the 50 ug,/lMCL at that time, in:iicatiD:J that the hazard
i.rrlex associated with the grcun:lwater <::x::1l1SUl11pon should be greater than 0.3.
'!he exact value at that time cannot be aco.Irately predicted.
I .
Cbntrols to ensure that the aquifer has been restored, consist.iIq largely of
grourrlwater sa1TplirxJ am chemical analyses, are expected to be adequate in
all cases. All alternatives involvinJ treatment will also be nadtored,
tt.'hich will ensure that effluent requirements are beinJ achieved.
InStitutional cOlluuls, i1ciu:3ed in Alternatives 2, 3 am 4, may be
ineffective if they prove to be unenforceable am are disregarded by the
general pc:p.1lace.
d
. .~
5. Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobilitv. or Volume
..
\-;
Alternatives 1 am 2, tt.'hich rely on natural flusl1inJ of attenuation to
restore the aquifer, may result in overall reductions in toxicity am volume,
but mt thrcugh treat:1rent prooesses, am not within any predictable period of
time.
~~
Alternatives 3 am 4, tt.'hich utilize active extraction am treatJnent
pJ:"OCE>SSeS, will reduce ndJility by witMrawin:J the contaminants prior to
offsite transport. 'lhey will also reduce contaminant toxicity am volume
thrcugh the treat:1rent processes enployed after grourrlwater extraction.
'!he grourrlwater extraction system is expected to rem:we between 1300 am 1400
lbs. of chranium fran the aquifer, which represents 70 to 90 percent of the
1600 to 1800 lbs. of chranium estimated to be present.
Rem:MU efficien::ies for the rom are expected to be in the ra.n;Je of 40 to 98
percent, based on an inflow concentration of 50 to 1800 ug,/l of chranium, am
an effluent conoentration of 20 to 30 ug,/l. Rem:MU efficiencies of the
onsite treatJnent plant may rarge iran 0 to 97 percent, based on similar
influent concentrations an1 an effluent concentration of about 50 ug,/l.
6. Inplernentabili ty
Alternative 2 is potentially the easiest to inplaoont, cons:ist:in3" only of
institutional cal~ls am m:>nitorin;J. Alternative 3 is sanewhat nx:>re
. difficult than Alternative 2, but is still relatively si1Dple to i1Dp1ement.
Alternative 4, which includes onsite treatment, is the nost difficult of the
three to itrplaoont due to the treatment plant operational requirements. All
alternatives use readily available am inplaoontable tec:::hnlurnbus. Alternative 4 .
also requires cooperation with the Depa.rtnent of Transportation
am other IDEM divisions responsible for surface waters am slujge disposal.
7. Cost
'!he total present worth of the alternatives vary from $294,000 for
Alternative 2 to $2,593,000 for Alternative 4.
-------
. '."".''''''--'''''''..
. _u.. ---u_.----..-----.,... -----. .
. . - .- .--..--------------
.
-16-
'"
,
.
8. ~te Acceptance
'!he In:liana Department of Environmenta1 Management concurs with the selected '
renaiy .
9. Ccmnunitv Acceptance
Camnents £ran the tYI11ITIInrlty regardirq this alternative, am U.S. EPA's
response to these rY'WTIInPTIts, are provided in ~ 2.
"
7.' ~REMF1X,
Based on an evaluation of all four proposed J:"PI'nI"dial alternatives, u.S.
EPA recx:mnerrls F€medi~l Alternative 3 (Figure 3). U.S. EPA's Proposed Plan
involves: '
.
M:Jnitorirg grourrlwater quality am contaminatio."1 migration on
a quarterly basis
M:Jnitorirg surface-water quality on a quarterly basis
.
RestrictiIg future grourdwater use until ARAR's are adrlevai
COrduct:iIg a pIDlic education program
~~
Re-evaluatirg site corrlitions every five years until cleanup
levels are adrleved
Installirg two additional extraction wells am extractinq
grourrlwater
Constrocti.rr:J a discharge pipeline to the Columbus sewer system
Treatirg contaminated grourrlwater at the Columbus rom
Installirg a fence aram:i portions of the site
.' , Ren¥:d1.al Alternative 3 involves extractin:;J and treatirg contaminated
grourrlwater usirg an exi.stin3' extraction well am installirg two additional
extraction wells to a depth of 60 feet belCM the gra.mi surface. Grot1rrlwater
would be punped £ran these wells, analyzed prior to discharge,
then clisd1arged via a pipeline to the ColUl'lb1s rom. '!he Columbus rom, which
is located at 327 Water street, is operated by Columbus City Utilities.
Treated water walid then be discharged with all other waters fra'n the Columbus '
rom to the East Fork of the White River.
.
Grourrlwater walid continue to be extracted for treat::lrent until
contamination levels meet state ani federal water quality stan:Jaros. It is
estimated, that this process would take between 2 am 10 years, deperrling on
the rate, at whid1 grourrlwater is extracted from the~. D.1e to the
presence of equiprent at the site durirg the cleanup, u.s. EPA would
-------
. ... hh,."" ....- .-.. .-"-_n"..
.. .. h -. h- -., ....-..-....-....-......-.....-........ -_.................__..._-------------...~..._.._..,..... .
-17-
construct a six foot high chain link fence aram:i portions of the site to
limit site access.
Alternative 3 also includes a p:1blic education program, to ensure public
awcu:eness of the potential hazards associated with drink:in;J grourrlwater fran
contaminated wells. . '!he p:1blic education program toJOUld inc1u:3e activities
such as p:1blic meet.iIgs, fact sheets, arrl meet.iIgs with local authorities.
Restrictions tr.1a1ld also be placed an the future use of grourrlwater as a
drinkin;-water SUWly until all cxxrt:am:i.nated grourrlwater has been SI~fully
treated. site oon::litians tr.1a1ld be re-evaluated every five years until cleanup
levels are read1ed, arrl grourrlwater am surface water samplirg ~d be
ocirrlucted <:x>nt.inJaisly until three years after cle.'mUP levels have been
achieved. .
U.S. EPA anticipates that iIrplementi.rg ~ia1 Alternative 3 ~d cost.
J:Jeb.1een $1,110,000 arrl $1,115,000, deperxtirq on the rate at which grourrlwater
is p.mped fran the site. It is estimated that the grourrlwater extraction arrl
treat:rJe1t system cx:W.d begin operatirg at the site within 6 to 12 m::>nths
after the sig:ning of the Record of D=cision. Until this time, m::mitorin:J of
the pltnoo will begin as soon as possible. Rene:tial design ~rk is currently
scheduled to start as soon as the Record of D=cision is approved by the u. s.
EPA arrl IDEM.
\~
'!he results of the p~ign investigation to be performed may have SCtl'e
ircpact on the activities performed at the site urrler this Proposed Plan. In.
particular, deperxtirq an u.s. EPA arrl IDEM's deteJ:mination of the location
am extent of the grourrlwater cxxrt:am:i.nation pltnoo, m:xli.fications in the
rnnnber an:i locations of grourrlwater extraction \¥ells may be neoessa:ry, an:i
the cost ani time required for o:rnpletion for this Proposed Plan may c:han3'e.
'!he final activities cxm:iucted urrler this Proposed Plan will, however,
achieve all the same cleanup goals described above.
8. S'm'lU.ltR{ ~CR>
'!he U. S. EPA believes that the Selected Remedy satisfies the statuto:ry
requirements specified in Section 121 of CERCI.A to protect htnnan health arxl
the envi.rorment; is c:nst effective; attains ARARs; utilizes pennanent
solutions ani alten1ative treatment t:ec.hricjlci3'ies to the maxbm.nn extent
practicable; ani satisfies the preference for treatment as a principal
element.
. Protectim of Human Health am the Envircnment
'!he grourrlwater at the site currently poses an unacx::eptable health risk due .
to elevated levels of d1rc:mium ani hexavalent d1rc:mium. '!he Selected Remedy,
Alternative 3, will protect human health an:i the environment through
extraction ani treatment of the grourrlwater tmti1 this d1ranium levels in the
unextracted grourrlwater are below 50 ppb. Dlrirg reroedial action, m::>nitoring
will cx>ntinue to verify the effectiveness of the extraction system an:i assure
that no further ~dient IrOVerrent of the pll.IIre is oa:::urrin;J which may
threaten other users or adversely affect Haw Creek. Further human exposure
-------
7 !aO!D!D! ~p"
. sO D~D!D
I __DC] D D [7~.~
D i,
01 11
e..... ....111 en.I
.
'i
-4>-
Net to Scale
Legend
Tn-State Plating s~ Site
f.:':::f~~:i:~~;;:;/\;I
I I
.
o
Residences
Exlsti1g Ground-water Monitoring Wells
Extraction Wels
Proposed Fence
Point of DIscharge to Mxic1paJ Sewer
x X )(
lX.XX.XJ
D
D
D
D
D
Ree1c1en1181 Property
!:t
..,.., ','" -.4....
. -:-k.: -W-
I
Not to Scale
f
t
I C<*JrbJe Tool and
,I . Mactt1e Property
I
I
I
~
~ S.wer
Figure 3~: Proposed Plan
-------
-19-
will also be prevented ~ the use of administrative controls, such as
g:t'Ol.1I'rlWater use restrictions.
. Att.ainIett of AIPlicabl.e, or Relevant and AH-u-~.iate ~
All ARAR's will be achieved ~ ~; ;,.1 action as prcposed in
Alternative 3. Based an previous investigations, the attainment of MCL's
~ extraction of the contaminated grourrlwater has been proved to be
technically feasible. In addition, no di.sd1a1:ges to the roIW will exceed or
cause to exceed this facility's pretrea'tlrent stan::laros or contribute to permit
violations of any permit limitation (in partic:uJ.cu:: d1ran1.\.nn, nickel, cyanide
or a:wer). Discharges by the roIW of its treated water will be governed by
its NPDES permit. Disc:haI:ges iran the site will also be reevaluated upon
future roIW permit reissuarres and, shculd it be ~, trea'bnent will be
provided to the site disd1arge water prior to cH ~ to meet any new
requirements.
I
cp;ratinJ criteria for the di.sd1a1:ge to the roIW will be developed to
define con:li.tions durirq \o1hich CXI11bined sewer overfla.r may occur. If a -
potential overfla.r may occur durirq a storm event, di.sd1a1:ge fran the site to
the roIW will cease until notification is received fra:n the roIW that the
overfla.r or potential overflC1.o1 is no lOD3'er a threat.
. 0Jst Effectiveness
.~
~
Alten1ative 3, \o1hi1e m::>re expensive than Alten1ative 2, provides a much
higher degree of protection of human health an1 the environment by rapidly -
ret:uminq the aquifer to its IrOSt beneficial use as a safe drink.i.rq water
supply.
. t]t:; 1; 7.aticn of ~ Soluticns and PreferenJe far Treatment
By eliminatinJ the sa.n:oe of the contamination durin] the ERA and
extractin] the contaminated grourrlwater, pennanent restoration of the aquifer .
will be achieved.
-------
, ~;.._--_. .
, ;
-'.~"'" --..-..-...' --. ................. ......._--~ .-- --... .~~_...~. ~,~'._.
.... ----~-~'---"""""""'--"''''''._.....-..__..,...w----..,,\,
AFIEmIX I
:{'
"
"
APPLICAmE en RELEVANr AND APIroIRrATE ~
',,',
.' ,
'lRI -sTATE PIATIH:;
, ,
if
, ,
'''"
':;';
..
~
-------
'.--.-.-.....--..-----.-. .
. ... .'.....
.""'."--'" ...
-- ....--....-... -.. -. -, ---U--_U_------.,..-.
APPENDIX I
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
TRI-STATE PLATING SITE
- FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
Law, Regulation, Policy, Alternative
or Standard Application 1 Z. ~ ~
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs
~!l
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
40 CFR 264 Subpart F Groundwater should be cleaned x x x
Requirements for up to background or drinking
Groundwater water standards or set at a level
that is protective to public
health or the environment. An
appropriate ground water
monitoring program must also
be developed and implemented.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
40 CFR 122, 125 National Discharges of extracted/treated x
Pollutant Discharge groundwater will be subject to
Elimination System substantive requirements of the
{ {NPDES) NPDES process if discharged to
Haw Creek. NPDES is administered
by the state.
40 CFR 403 Effluent Discharges of extracted/treated x
Guidelines and Standards; groundwater will be subject to
Pretreatment Standards pretreatment requirements if
discharged to the POTW.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
40 CFR 141.11 - Maximum Contaminated groundwater should x x x
Contaminant levels (MCL) be remediated such that MCls
should be attained.
40 CFR 141.50 - Maximum In the absence of other x x x
Contaminant level Goals standards, MCLGs should be the
(MClG.) groundwater cleanup standard
to be attained.
-------
.... . -.. '." """"'-"-' . .,. .... ........ """"--."'---"-"--""-'."-"'-'.'''''.'.''''----'''''.'-------.....................................
. ........" -----.--............--.........-.-...-........----..--
Law, Regul~tion, Policy, Alternative
or Standard ADDlication 1 2. ~ !
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs
J Clean Air Act (CAA)
CAA Section 109 and 40 Fugitive dust from drilling would x x
~ CFR 50 National Ambient have to attain NAAQS for PM10.
Air Quality Standards
State Regulations
Indiana Water Quality Sets water quality x
Standards 327 lAC standards for the protection of
Current Standards various stream use designations.
Discharges to Haw Creek must satisfy
these standards
Industrial Pretreatment If extracted treated groundwater x
Program (NPDES) 327 lAC is to be discharged to Haw Creek,
5-1-1 NPDES discharge requirements are
appli cabl e. Numerical discharge
requirements will have to be set.
IS Indiana Water Quality Standards Sets water quality standards for x x x
4 327 lAC 2-1-6, 2-1-7 underground waters of the site,
as amended and for the protection of various
stream use designations.
Underground standards may set
ARARs for cleanup; surface water
standards applicable to discharge
to Haw Creek.
Local Requirements
Columbus Control If extracted treated groundwater x
Authority Regulations is to be discharged to the local
POTW, pretreatment requirements
will have to be met.
-------
.-.. ........ -.-. ..-., ........ .."......-,
Law, Regul~tion, Policy, Alternative
. . or Standard ADDlication 1 g ~
!
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
29 CFR 1910: Worker safety for construction x x x x
General standards for and operation of remedial action ~
worker protection
29 CFR 1910: Worker safety for construction x x x x
Regulations for workers and operation of remedial action
involved in hazardous waste
operations.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
40 CFR 261: Definition and identification x x x
Definition and identification of waste material as hazardous
of hazardous waste
40 CFR 262: Generator requirements include x
Standards for generators of identification of waste generation
~~ hazardous waste activity, obtaining EPA ID number,
record-keeping, and use of uniform
national manifest
40 CFR 263: The transport of hazardous waste x
Standards for Transport of is subject to requirements
Hazardous Waste including DOT regulations,
manifesting, record-keeping,
and discharge cleanup
40 CFR 264: Establishes regulations for x x x
Standards for Treatment treatment, storage, and disposal
of Hazardous Waste of hazardous wastes. Includes
groundwater monitoring and
groundwater protection standards.
40 CFR 268: Treatment plant sludge subject x
land disposal restrictions to the treatment standards set
forth by this regulation.
-------
,-"""""".-""",,""""-----".'---""""""---'-""""--"""""""-n',..._-...."""-'".'"
. . -_......._._.._......_,._~--_....._-_..--_..... . .........,.'. ... -"--------,,--""."''''''''''''''__''hhh._--..............
Law, Regul~tion, Policy,
or Standard
ADDlication
Alternative
1 f. ~ i
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs
J
Clean Water Act (CWA)
40 CFR 122, 125 National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES)
40 CFR 403 Effluent
Guidelines and Standards;
Pretreatment Standards
Discharges to surface water
(Haw Creek) must satisfy the
appropriate discharge
. requirements. Progr~m administered
by the state. .
Discharges to the POTW must
satisfy pretreatment standards.
x
x
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs Executive Order 12372
40 CFR 29 State and local coordination x x x x
and review of proposed EPA-
assisted projects.
State Regulations
:) Indiana Hazardous Waste Rules cover the regulations x x
I Management Permit Program and for identification of
Related Hazardous Waste hazardous waste and standards
Management Requirements for generators.
329 lAC Article 3
327 lAC Article 3 Construction of onsite x
Wastewater Treatment Facilities; treatment plant.
Issuance of Permits; Construction
and Permit Requirements
329 lAC 3-21-2 Closure and post-closure care x
Closure Performance Standards standards apply to closure of
onsite treatment plant
329 lAC 3-20 Defines requirements for x x x
Existing Hazardous Waste groundwater monitoring program
Facility Standards:
Groundwater Monitoring
329 lAC 3-45 Defines protection standards x x
Final (State) Permitted for groundwater applicable to
Facility Standards; owners and operators of hazardous
Groundwater Protection waste facilities
-------
Law, Regul~tion, Policy,
or Standard
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs
327 lAC Article 5;
Industrial Wastewater
Pretreatment Programs
(NPDES) Rules 1 - 10
327 lAC 5 Rules 11 - 15.
(Pretreatment Standards)
Senate Enrolled Act 7
310 lAC 16
Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board, Rule 326 lAC 6-4
.~
"j
"'.'.-_0_.____-----..--... .
.. ......---..... ......... .... '..
Application
Discharges to Haw Creek must
comply with specific requirements
for concentrations of specific
compounds in discharge.
Discharge to POTW must not cause
pass-through, interference,
violation of specific prohibitions,
or violations of local limitations
of ordinances.
Well construction and
abandonment requirements.
Requires every available
precaution to be taken during
construction to minimize fugitive
dust emissions.
'" -...........----..... """
.. ........ -......--
Alternative
1 Z. ~ !
~
x
x
x x
x x
-------
:~ --_U.~----""'-" ......- ...,..-
,.
i,
::
'.-
J
'.
.~
"'~
\
,
...._-.- --- ...._.__._~.._------.-_.._----_....__..-.. - .'.
. -" -.--------.----- '.-. ___'.h"____-------...--------........-.. "04'.".""- u......-._--~
APJ?mDIX 2
~~
'lRI -smTE PIATIN:;
-------
. '........ "'" .-'~'_n.. """" '.n' .... """""" "-' .
..... ..~. .......... ""- "---------"'--~."--".'-'.'-"._-_..n_.u_. .............-............---.....--.....--....-.
Al'PE2IDIX 2
~~
mr -6TNm P.IATnC
CDIJ:IoDE, 1NDIANA
I. ~ StItiARY orJmVJEi
In acx:x>J:dan:::e with CERCIA Section 117, a ~lic ocmnent periOd was held
fran February 1, 1990 to March 1, 1990 to allow interested parties an
OWOrbmi.ty to cnnm.ont an the U.S. EPA Feasibility Study am Proposed Plan for
the Tri-State Platin:J Site. On Febroai:y 15, 1990 the U.S. EPA also held a
public meetin:J in Columbus, In:liana to present the. Proposed Plan, arrl to
answer questions am acx::ept ccmnents from the ~lic.
'!he U. S. EPA has mt received any canments iran the ~lic c:oncem:irq
Tri-State Platin:J dt.IriIg either the ~lic meetirg or ~ the p.1blic
camnent periOd.
.
"
-------
" '" ,.. ,. ...... .. .. ,..--.. ....-. ..- . .. ....
.,'
.'
~
o
J
~
. .... -_u..., ."" - - '."..- -..- - -"- .._- --... ......------.--...----.......... ... - - ----"'_U"""""'''--'''--'',",O-'----------.-''--'''''''''''''-.-'''''-''.",..__....~-_....--~
APIHIDIX 3
ArHINIS'IRATIVE REXDRD INIEX
jVD+
'IRI -5'm.TE PIATJR;
(
/f1L
iucl~cl
.
------- |