q
PB93-964104
United States
Environmental Protection.
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAIROD/R05-921194
March 1992
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Columbus Old Municipal
Landfill, IN
u. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 11/ Hazardous Waste
Technical Information Center.
84 1 Chestnut Street. 9th Floor
Philadelphia. PA 19107
.~
Hazardous Waste Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3 . .
PhUodeiphia" PA 19107
-------
NOTICE
The aPPendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have. been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement. but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document. All supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.
~. . ,."'1.0- . .;'':''- ..."'~') ".
.~ --.
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION' t. REPORTNO. T~ 3. R8cIpI8I'It'8 Acaalan No.
. PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-92/194
4. 11118 and ~ 50 AIpart D8I8
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 03/31/92
Columbus Old Municipal Landfill, IN I.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. AlJlhor(8) I. PWfoIIIIIng Orgllllz8lon AIpI. No.
t. l'IIrfonnlng OrgIInIZaIIon NIm8 and AddIM8 to. PraI8dfTlllklWOItI: UIG No.
11. ContrIICI(C) or GnI1t(G) No.
(C)
(G)
t~ Spon8OI1nO Org8lllz8llan NIm8 and Addr888 t3. Typ8 of R8port & P8IIoci Cower8d
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M St~eet, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 tt.
t5. s............-. NotM
PB93-964104
tl. Abft'8Ct (Uftt: 2OO~)
The 19-acre Old Municipal Landfill site is located near the City of Columbus in
Bartholomew County, Indiana. The site, located in the 100-year floodplain of the East
Fork of the White River, is bounded by farmland, state roads, and an inactive gravel
quarry pond. current land use in the vicinity of the site includes an abandoned
shooting range, concrete mixing operation, and the City of Columbus POTW. From 1938 to
the 1960's, the site was operated as a municipal landfill accumulating an estimated
500,00 cubic yards of fill material. After the landfill reached a maximum of 20 feet,
operations ceased and the landfill was closed by placing two to three feet of dredged
river sediments over the entire area. Deposited materials were mainly municipal and
household wastes, although wastes from industrial sources were reportedly disposed of
at the landfill. Limited dumping by unauthorized parties may also have occurred. No
!ecords of site operations were kept. The waste material was dumped directly on the
ground surface and was exposed to the elements. Open burning of waste material
occurred regularly. Annual spring flooding caused the waste material to become
submerged periodically. EVentually, the landfill began to function as a berm between
. the floodplain and the adjacent farmland. In 1981, cummins Engine Company notified EPA
(See Attached Page)
17. o-nent An81y818 .. De8CrIptOI8
Record of Decision - Columbus Old Municipal Landfi 11, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
contaminated Media: Not Applicable
Key contaminants: Not Applicable
b.~T-
c. COSA 11 ReId/Group
18. Av818J11ty StIt8IIWIIt tl. S8c:I8tty CI888 ('11\18 R8pOIt) %1. No. of P8gH
None 32
20. S8c:I8tty CI888 (nII8 P8g8) zz. PItC8
None
S0272.101
(See ANSI-Z38.18)
- /nefIUCfIons on RevWW
OP11ONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(FonnIIIIY Nn&oS5)
DepIII1nWttof ~
-------
EPA/ROD/ROS-92/194
Columbus Old Municipal Landfill, IN
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (continued)
of waste materials, including solvents, acids, lubricants, cutting fluids, and metals,
that were generated and reportedly disposed of at the landfill. In 1990, the PRPs, under
direct guidance of the state and EPA, conducted an investigation to assess the potential
impacts of the waste material deposited in the landfill on soil, ground water, surface
water, and river sediments in the vicinity of the site. Based upon findings of the
remedial investigation and evaluation of current site risks, EPA concluded that the site
currently poses no immediate or long-term risks to human health and the environment.
This conclusion is based on current site conditions with the assumption that these
conditions will not change.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action (modified), which
includes ground water monitoring and a five-year review of site conditions to evaluate
the protectiveness of the remedy. In the event that the Indiana Department of
Transportation and the City of Columbus proceed with construction of the proposed roadway
across the site, EPA will require the implementation of a contingency remedy. This
limited acton remedy includes the following: installing fencing with appropriate warning
signs; implementing a landfill cover maintenance program; developing a ground water
recovery system implementation plan; installing a minimum of two additional ground water
monitoring wells; implementing a ground water monitoring program; and implementing
institutional controls, including deed restrictions on land and water use. There are no
costs associated with the no action remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
DECLARATION
RECORD OF DECISION
SELECTED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Old city Landfill (OCL)
Columbus, Indiana
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
:.I
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for the Old City Landfill located in Columbus, Indiana. ;The
decision has been developed in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as amended by the superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), and in accordance with the National oil and Hazardous
Substance continqency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the
Administrative Record for this site. The attached index identifies
the items that comprise the Administrative Record, upon which the
selection of the remedial action is based.
The State of Indiana concurs with the selected remedy. The letter
of concurrence is attached to the Record of Decision (ROD) packaqe.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The results of the Remedial Investiqation (RI) show that the Old
City Landfill, in its present condition, is within acceptable
health-based and environmental quality-based quidelines. Based
upon the fact that current conditions at the site do not pose an
unacceptable risk, the selected remedy .for this site is "No Action"
(modified) . In order to ensure continued protection of human
health and the environment, a minimum of two (2) additional
qroundwater monitorinq wells shall be installed at the site and
qroundwater monitorinq shall continue on a periodic basis for a
minimum of five years. At the end of this initial five year
period, U.S.' EPA will conduct a review to evaluate the
protectiveness of the selected remedy.
-------
The Indiana Department of Transportation and the City of Columbus
have announced their desire to construct a roadway across a portion
.of the site, extending state Route 46 into Columbus. Although the
Feasibility study and Technical Supplement to the Feasibility Study
suggest that construction of this roadway should not pose any
unacceptable risks, it is impossible to fully predict future site
conditions. The selected remedy is based upon current site
conditions. Construction of a road on the landfill could change
these conditions. For example', more leachate could be produced
from compression of soils and waste material, further contaminating
the ground water. This possibility was indicated in both the
Feasibility Study and the Technical Supplement. Therefore, if the
Indiana Department of Transportation and the City of Columbus
decide to construct the proposed roadway over any portion of the
landfill, the U.S. EPAwill require implemention of Alternative 2A
at the site. The components of this alternative are:
*
Installation of a fence with appropriate warning signs around
the landfill.
*
Implementation of a landfill cover maintenance program, .
including a provision for periodic leachate seep inspections.
Development of a Groundwater Recovery System Implementation
Plan (including analytical modeling and preliminary design).
*
*
Installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells to
augment the existing well network. A minimum of two (2)
. additional wells are needed downgradient of the landfill
in order to monitor flow towards the quarry.
* Implementation of a groundwater monitoring program, allowing for
sampling at appropriate intervals, with more frequent sampling
events during and after roadway construction.
*
Institutional controls will'be sought to reduce exposure to site
contaminants by legally restricting access to the site. Deed
restrictions on land and water use on the landfill will be
sought from the landfill owner.
These. measures are necessary to ensu~e continued protection to
human health and the environment, both during and after
construction of the proposed roadway.
STATE CONCURRENCE
The State of Indiana concurs with the selected remedy. The letter
of concurrence is attached to this Record of Decision as Attachment
2.
-------
DECLARATION
The Selected Remedy and contingent Remedy are protective of human
health and the environment and attain Federal and State
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to this site. The statutory preferences for cost-
effectiveness, permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies are not applicable to the "No Action" (modified)
alternative. In order to ensure continued protection of human
health and the environment, a five-year review will apply to ~his
action.
.3 hI !tI.2/
oat,. J
:.1
. .
. .
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
OLD CITY LANDFILL
LOCATED IN COLUMBUS, INDIANA
MARCH, 1992
. .
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
OLD CITY LANDFILL
I.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
~.
The Old City Landfill (eCL) is located approximately 1/4 mile
southwest of the City of Columbus in section 25, Township 9 north,
Range 5 east in Bartholomew County, Indiana (Figure 1). The OCL is
bounded by farmland and State Route 11 to the west, the 3rd street
Bridge to the north, the East Fork of the White River to the east,
and a gravel quarry pond to the south. The area between the eCL
and the East Fork of the Whi te River is a floodplain and it IS
vegetation generally consists of grass/small shrubs and moderate
tree cover. Figure 2 shows the site area in detail.
The portion of the site containing waste material parallels the
river and covers approximately 19 acres. The landfill cover
material is composed of a mixture of brown to black silty sand and
clay which was dredged from the East Fork of the White River. The
landfill cover material is generally 2 to 3 feet in thic~ess
across the site, however 4 to 5. feet of the cover material' is
present near the center of the site. The depth of the landfill
material averages approximately 17 feet over the area of the
landfill, and the total volume of the fill material within the
landfill is estimated to be 500,000 cubic yards. Land surface
elevations range from approximately 625 feet above mean sea level
(msl) at the top of the fill area to 600 feet above msl at the
river. The landfill surface supports a full vegetative cover of
native grasses and weeds that is maintained by the present property
owner.
.
The East Fork of the Whi te River flows southward along the
northwest and east border of the landfill. Surface runoff from the
area encompassing the landfill ~rains into the East Fork of the
White River or the cul~ivated' fields to the west. An inactive
gravel quarry, covering an area of approximately 35 to 40 acres, is
located near the southeast corner of the eCL. This flooded quarry
is hydrologically connected to the river through a relatively
short, narrow open channel.
The eCL site is located in the 100-year flood plain of the East
Fork of the White River. The 100-year flood elevation level at the
site varies from approximately 618 feet near the southern extent of
the landfill to 621 feet near the northern extent of the landfill.
The surface. of the landfill cover varies from an elevation of
approximately 612 feet near the edges of the landfill to
approximately 625 feet along the northeastern crest of the
landfill. Thus, a portion of the surficial soil that overlies the
waste material becomes submerged during a 100-year flood
occurrence.
-1-
-------
SCUJICI: usas f.! MftA8 T~8OftIC .... CCWM8us. IN ~ ,-
o
.
N
-
2000
<4000 .
,
F1GURE-1
SITE LOCATION. MAP
. OLD CITY lANDFtlL
COLUMBUS; INDIANA
1000
SCALE IN Fer
-------
-II
=,
=1
:.01
-: !
...,
~! I
""
-II ~IL
~I :::
;'11 i
~D=!D::1[
~i ~I ~
~ . c:: '<
ij .. ~
In
WATER STReET
c
UCJO UUNICIPAL
. SEWAGE
O TREA11.fENT
FACIUTY
o
ACCESS ROAD
!)
LEGEND
N
sao
LANDFILL COVER AREA
~.
250
1000
SCALE IN FEEt'
3
FIGURE ~
S~CONAGURATIONMAP
OLD CrN LANDFILL
COLUMBUS. INDIANA
-------
The OCL is underlain by a complex heterogeneous deposit of
unconsolidated recent and Pleistocene age materials. The uppermost
natural deposit of unconsolidated material at the site consists of
coarse sand and gravel. Underlying the sand and gravel deposit is
an intermittent 'thin sandy clay and gravel zone (glacial till)
approximately 2 to 3 feet thick. The thin till zone is underlain
by a very coarse sand and gravel deposit which is approximately 15
feet in thickness, and is continuous across the site. At a depth
of approximately 30 to 35 feet below land surface (bls), silts and
clays containing organic material become prominent. Underlying
this silt and clay zone is a firm deposit of silt and clay mixed
with pebbles (glacial till). This till unit extends to the shale
bedrock surface, which is continuous across the site.
Groundwater beneath the site exists within a shallow aquifer which
consists of the unconsolidated' glacial material described above.
The predominant direction of groundwater flow at the site is
generally parallel to the flow of the East Fork of the White River.
The shale unit underlying the unconsolidated deposits acts as an
aquitard, effectively separating the upper unconfined aquifer from
deeper consolidated permeable water bearing zones. The primary
municipal well field for the city of Columbus, is located
approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest of the site. The
population within a three mile radius of the site is estimated
approximately 33,000 people. The distance from the site to the
nearest private water supply is approximately 750 feet west
(upgradient) from the northwest corner of the site.
Current land use in the immediate vicinity of the OCL is variable.
The northwest section of the OCL property is used as a target
practice shooting range. The southeast portion of the property is
currently leased to a concrete mixing operation. However, neither
the shooting range nor the concrete mixing operation are located on
the landfill. The city of Columbus publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) is located directly across the river. Dividing the landfill
at its approximate midpoint are two 12 inch diameter, asbestos
cement, sanitary sewer lines that extend across the river to the
POTW. The two sanitary sewer 'lines are currently in use and
operate as force mains. The lines are owned and maintained by the
Columbus City utilities and are located within or below the waste
material. A currently active, four inch diameter steel gas main,
owned and operated by Indiana Gas, also underlies the landfill near
its nQrthwestern end.
-4-
-------
II.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A.
site History
:"
The OCL operated as a municipal landfill from about 1938 to the mid
to late 1960 I s. Material deposited in the landfill was mainly
municipal and household wastes, al though waste from industrial
sources was also reportedly disposed of in the landfill. No
records of site operations were kept. Public dumping was not
permitted: however, the site was. not secured an~ limited dumping by
unauthorized parties may have occurred. The waste material dumped
at the OCL was placed directly on the ground surface. The ground
surface was not lined prior to the initiation of dumping activities
nor was excavation accomplished to create disposal pits. Open
burning of the waste material occurred regularly. The waste
material was not consistently. contained under daily cover and,
thus, was frequently exposed to the elements.
The disposal area was also subjected to annual spring flooding,
which likely caused the waste material to become periodically
submerged. Eventually, the landfill began to function as a berm
between the floodplain and the farmland located west of .the
landfill. After the waste material reached a maximum height of
approximately 20 feet, operation of the landfill ceased. The
landfill was closed by placing dredged river sediment, primarily
silty sand and clay, over the entire landfill. This material is
generally 2 to 3 feet in thickness across the landfill and
presently supports a full vegetative cover.
B.
Enforcement
In August 1981, the United states Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) received a "Notification of Hazardous Waste site"
pursuant to Section 103 (c) of CERCLA from cummins Engine Company in
Columbus Indiana. Waste materials generated that were reportedly
disposed of at the eCL include: solvents, acids, lubricants,
cutting fluids, and the metals that were extracted by the solvents.
In March, 1985, the eCL was ranked by the U.S. EPA, using the
Hazard- Ranking System (HRS). The results of the HRS scoring
indicated the existence of a risk of actual or potential release of
hazardous substances. Such a release presents a current or
potential ~hreat to public health, welfare or the environment. The
HRS score of 45.31 exceeded U.S. EPAs 28.5 minimum score for
inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). On June 10, 1986,
the OCL was placed on the NPL.
-5-
-------
Special Notice Letters, informing 12 potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) (including the site's owner, operator, and waste
generators) of their potential CERCLA liability for the OCL site,
were sent in July 1986. The U.s. EPA and the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) entered into an Administrative
Order on November 5, 1987 with three PRPs~ cummins Engine Company,
Inc., Arvin Industries, Inc., and the City of Columbus. Pursuant
to this Administrative Order, the PRPs agreed to conduct a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study (RI/YS) at the OCL under
the direct guidance of the U.s. EPA and IDEM. The PRPs hired
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., a private contractor, (G&M) to conduct the
RI/FS.
In May, 1990, the PRPs performing the RI/FS informed U.s. EPA that
the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) and the City of
Columbus wished to construct a roadway across the landfill. The
PRPs requested that the Feasibility study be prepared in a manner
that addressed this possibility. This request was granted, and a
separate document , entitled "Technical Supplement to the
Feasibility Study" evaluated the potential environmental impacts
from construction of a roadway at the site.
C.
Site Investigation
A Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted at the OCL site from
October 1988 through January 1990. The RI pursued the following
objectives: (1) to assess the direction and rate of groundwater
flow in the vicinity of the landfill ~ (2) to characterize the
horizontal and vertical extent of any affected groundwater~ and (3)
to assess the impact of the waste material deposited in the
landfill on soil, groundwater, surface water and river sediments in
the vicinity of the site. Work consisted of the following
activities, installation of groundwater monitoring wells and
piezometers at and around OCL; surficial and subsurface soil
sampling: surface water and sediment sampling from the adjacent
East Fork of the White River: landfill waste sampling: and leachate
seep inspections. The RI Report, with a Risk Assessment (RA)
included, was completed in July 1990. The RI Report, as well as
the RI Work Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan, are part of
the Administrative Record. The Remedi~l Investigation included the
following maj or work components: ..
Surficial. Soil: A total of nineteen surface soil and QA/QC samples
were collected from the existing landfill cover during the RI.
Background samples were collected at four locations away from the
landfill. All of the surficial soil samples were analyzed for the
u.s. EPA Target Compound List (TCL) parameters.
-6-
-------
Subsurface Soil:' A total of nine subsurface samples were collected
for U.S. EPA TCL analysis from six soil borings located adjacent to
and outside the landfill area.
Groundwater: Two rounds of groundwater samples were collected from
the 13 monitoring wells and submitted for chemical analysis. The
monitoring well network consisted of seven existing wells that had
been installed as part of a previous investigation by a PRP in
'1985, as well as six new monitoring wells installed by G&M as part
of the Remedial Investigation. Twenty-three groundwater samples
were submitted for analysis during the initial round of sampling,
and twenty-two samples were taken in the second round with the same
distribution as the first sampling round, with the exception of one
less trip blank.
Measurement of groundwater elevations were taken from the
monitoring wells and piezometers in order to determine groundwater
flow direction.
Surface Water: Three surface water sample!;> were collected from the
East Fork of the White River to evaluate the river water quality
upstream, adjacent to, and downstream of the OCL. Surface water
samples were analyzed for U.S. EPA TCL parameters.
~.I
Sediments: Three river sediment samples were collected to assess
the quality of the river sediments upstream, adjacent to, and
downstream of the OCL. These samples were analyzed for U.S. 'EPA
TCL parameters.
Landfill Waste: A total of eleven landfill waste samples were
collected from soil borings completed in the landfill waste area.
These samples were analyzed for U.S. EPA TCL parameters.
Leachate SeeD InsDections: An inspection of the landfill area for
leachate seeps was conducted during groundwater collection
activities for each round of groundwater sampling. No evidence of
active or inactive seeps were visible~ therefore, no samples were
collected for analysis.
A Feasibility Study Report was submitted in draft form by the PRPs
to the U.S. EPA. Following review and comment by by the U.S. EPA
and IDEM, the report was finalized in May 1991. The Technical
Supplement to the FS was also submitted, summarizing results from
a preload testing program which studied the effect of roadway
weight upon the landfill material. The Technical Supplement
provided geotechnical data, groundwa~er monitoring data, and
evaluated the environmental feasibility of placing a roadway across
the landfill. The Technical Supplement was finalized in November
1991.
-7-
-------
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The FS Report and the Proposed Plan were made available for public
comment from January 23, 1992 through February 21, 1992. A public
.meeting was held during this comment period on January 30, 1992 to
inform local residents of the Superfund process and about the work
conducted under the RI. The U.S. EPA has responded to all
significant comments received during the public comment period
pursuant to Sections 113(k) (2) (B) (i - v) and 117 of CERCLA.
U.S. EPA's responses to these comments is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is attached to this ROD.
An information repository has been established at the Bartholomew
County Public Library, 536 Fifth street, Columbus, Indiana.
Pursuant to Section 113 (k) (1) of CERCLA, which requires that the
Administrative Record be available to the public at or near the
facility at issue, the Administrative Record File is available to
the public at this information repository.
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION
The scope of this response action is to provide a final remedy that
addresses the actual or potential contamination caused by w~ste
disposed at the OCL.
Based upon the findings of the RI, the current site risks
(discussed below), and the Administrative Record, EPA has concluded
that the OCL currently poses no immediate or long-term risks to
human health and the environment. It is important to note,
however, that this conclusion is based on current site conditions
wi th the assumption that these condi tions will not change. In
addition, the selected remedy, "No Action" (modified), includes
groundwater monitoring and a five year review of site conditions.
V.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS AND SITE RISKS
The RIfFS Reports have adequately described the current conditions
of the OCL site. A summary of the conclusions of the RI Report and
the RA is as follows: .
Surficial Soil
Evaluation of the analyses for photoionizable volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) indicates that chloroform and methyl ethyl ketone
were detected on one occasion in separate samples, at
concentrations of 23.0 ug/kg and 10.0 ug/kg, respectively. All
other VOCs analyzed for were below the minimum detection limits
(MDLs) for the analytical method used. All semi-volatile compounds
analyzed for were below MDLs. Estimated values for several semi-
volatile compounds that were identified at concentrations below the
MDLs are presented in Table 2-1. No TCL pesticides or PCBs were
detected.
-8-
-------
Cadmium and mercury were the only inorganics detected above
background soil levels. The inorganic analyses identified two
elements, cadmium and mercury, in all but one of the samples, at
maximum concentrations of 2.6 mg/kg and 0.47 mg/kg, respectively.
Refer to Table 1 for the occurrence of constituents in the
surficial soil samples.
Subsurface Soil
:.t
Evaluation of the VOC analyses indicates that three compounds
(acetone, methylene chloride, and methyl ethyl ketone) were
detected at concentrations above their MDLs in several of the
subsurface soil samples. The maximum detected concentrations of
acetone and methylene choride were 134 ug/kg and 17.6 ug/kg,
respectively~ however, acetone and methylene chloride were also
detected in the field and trip blanks indicating these compounds
are likely laboratory contaminants. In addition, please note that
because they are considered to be likely laboratory contaminants,
acetone and methylene chloride are not listed as part of Table 2.
Methyl ethyl ketone was detected in one subsurface soil sample at
an estimated maximum concentration of 23.8 mg/kg. Evaluation of
the semi-volatile analyses indicate that no concentrations' of
compounds were detected above the MDLs. The only detectable
pesticide/PCB compound was delta-BHC occurring in one subsurface
soil sample at an estimated concentration of 30 ug/kg. The
inorganic analyses indicates maximum concentrations of cadmium (1.6
mg/kg), zinc (340 mg/kg), copper (348 mg/kg), and lead (210 mg/kg)
which exceed the background subsurface sample concentrations.
Refer to Table 2 for the occurrence of consti tuents in the
subsurface soil samples.
Groundwater
The groundwater samples collected from the thirteen on-site
moni toring wells did not exhibi t any VOCs above the MDLs. The
semi~volatile analyses indicated that four compounds were detected
above MDLs during the two groundwater sampling rounds.
Concentrations above the MDLs of 2,4-dimethylphenol (23 ug/l),
napthalene (110 ug/l), and 2-methylnapthalene (6.63 ug/l) were
detected in a single groundwater sample during the first round.
During the second round of groundwater samples bis-(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected above the MDL in one sample at a
concentration of 2.3 mg/l. No TCL pesticides or PCBs were
detected. Seventeen inorganic elements were detected in at least
two groundwater samples including cadmium and lead at maximum
concentrations of 3.2 ug/l and 9.9 ug/l respectively. Groundwater
indicator parameters were also analyzed to assist in characterizing
-9-
-------
Table 1
Occ:,mence of Constituents In SurficIal Soil at the Old City Landfill, Columous. Indiana
Average Det«ceti Frequazey oi BaetgroUDti
COl2SUCUf:Dl R.n~e ;aj CODef:DU'auoa (01 Det«uoD (e j RUl~e
.\1euis
Aluminum 3.&00-7,610 6388 12112 7.410-164500
A.numoay 3.4-9.6 6.12 6/12 6.3-8.
A rsel11c 3.2-6.9 4.39 12/12 5.0-7.0
8~rium 20-120 70.3 12112 73-180
Bez:1;um . 0.1&-0.55 0.34 12/12 0.33-0.82
Ca um 0.13-2.6 0.65 12112 0.37-0.97
C.1ICIIUU 31.500-126.000 53058 12112 4, 1~2.900
Chrormum 7.9-35 13.03 12112 12-32
Cobalt 3.3-6.7 4.89 12112 5.3-11
Cooper 7.1-67 1& 12112 12-29
Iron 9.590-212400 14216 12112 15.200-28.700
Leac 7.4-9 33 12112 2-54
Mameslum 10.700-34.600 1&350 12112 4,050-23.900
Maii2aaese 263-833 468 12112 546-4>310
Merc:urv 0.05-0.47 0.10 12112 0.061 .096
!'hckel . 2.1-43 21.1 12112 13-fj()
POcaSSIlUlI 540-1.300 933 12112 lal00-2.400
Silver 0.57-0.76 0.65 4112 0L.-o.93
Sociium 52-140 83.3 12112 41-110
Vaaaci1um 11-22 16.4 12112 ?t1-37
Zinc 2&-180 74.1 12112 &~IIO
Voi;ztile Or~.lJlcs
Chloroform 0.023 0.023 1/11 BDL
Dichlorobromo-methaae (d] 0.0048 0.0048 1/1 BOL
2-Heu.aoae ~] 0.0058 0.0058 111 BOL
Methvl elhvl eccne (d] 0.01 0.01 111 BDL.
M-xyleue (c) 0.002 0.002 111 8DL.
Semi- Volatile OrgaZJics (d]
Diechvl pbthalate 0.04-0.06 0.05 411~ 0.043-0.063
Di-a~butVlpbchaiat.e 0.04-0.05 0.05 2/1 0.055
Fluoraatiieue 0.03-0.49 0.21 6/1 0.056-0.077
ie 0.03-0.39 0.18 ~] 0.069
eue 0.07-0.11 ' 0.09 211 BOL
Bis -ethVlbexvllphthalate 0.OH.41 0.17 41t 0.2-0.3
Di- -oc:ivlphtha ate 0.07 0.07 111 ~BI:
Benzot b }t1UOraaU1cae 0.02-0.18 O'M 4/1
BenzOta pf.reue 0.09 O. 1/1 BBE
InccnOC: 1i .3~.dlPyreue . 0.08 ' 0.08 111
Beazoc.g. ,1)pery cae 0.09 0.09 1/1 BD
MiseeJJIID«nB
Cymicie (tocal) 0.00061-0.00078 0.00068 3112 0.00091
ConcentnUOIU Teport«l i1J llJil/i,nms per JcjJognm (m6lkg).
BDL = Below DetectiOlJ UzDjJ.
(II) - MizJimum - Maximum COl2Cl:DWtioas.
[b) - ..ot venge is l»sod upol2 those tbr. poiDu repoNd as aboYe Det«tiOlJ Limit.
(c) - 1CIy: where x =- number of SlImp/a with aDalyrical Te$IlJu aboYe .
cktectiOD limit IIDd Y - number of samp/es analyzed.
{dJ - Estimated concentntiOl2: ./1 semi-volatile compound conc=tntioDS are estimat«l values.
-------
Table 2
Occurrence Of Constituents In Subsurface Soil at me Old City Landfill. Columous. Indiana
CODstJtuenr
Met:JJs
Average Deteetea
CODeentntJon (b]
Freque:zey 0;
Det«UOD (el
&CkgroUlld
Ruge {d}
Ru~e {II]
:1
1.300-3,250
2.2-5.3
2.0-5 .2
8.3-180
0.055-0.28
0.091-1.6
41.200-176.000
3.1-49
1.8-3.6
3.4-348
5.780-14.900
1.8-210
1.920-43.500
196-445
0.018-0.24
3.6-36
120-590
0.27-1.9
44-93
4.5-16
9.8-340
0.00059-0.00085
2241
3.8
3.1
47.0
0.12
0.85
97314
12
2.6
55
8388
33
24517
290
0.067
9.7
281
0.92
63.3
8.3
63
0.00069
7n
7n
7n
7n
7n
~~
7n
6n
7n
7n
7n
7n
7n
sn
7n
7n
417
7n
7n
7n
6n
AlulJW1um
AnUmonv
Arsemc .
Banum
Bcryihum
C~cimium
ulclum
Chrozmum
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Leaci
MUDcslum
~aiiRancsc
Mercurv
Nicke! .
Potassium
Silver
Soc1ium
Vanacuum
Zinc
Cyanide (total)
Vo/,tile OrglDics
Mcthyl Echyl KcunIC l c]
S,wNeutnJ
aDd Acid CompollZlds
Acenaphthene
BeD%Ola~and1raccae
G=~S~=t"~e
BeazO(Rth.i)perylcae
Benzol i,fluoracW=e
Chrvscne
,44':Dichlorobetl%ene
r luoranmece
Fluorene
Indeco( 1.2.3-c.d)-pyrene
Nap!1wleae
N -Nitrosocii-N-propria
Phenanthrene
W!Trichloro Ma~~
DibenzofuraD
Die~yl phthalate
2-
-------
Tabla 3
Occurrence of Constituents In Grouno Water at the Old City Lanafill. C~lumcus. !nOlana
ConSCJcueDt
Meuis
Alummum
ArseZ11C
Banum
Bervllium
Caci'rmum
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
wd .
Magnesium
Manranese
Nickel
PotassIum
SeJemum
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
VanaQlum
Zinc
Or~:lmc Compormds
Bis(2-etbvlhexvt)
phwlaie (e)
Acenapittbvlene
2.4-dimeUiylphenol
! ~2-ciich!oroechaDe
Methyl ethyl ketone
2 -meihvlnapthtbale
Napw{eae
Toluene
M isceJ/IIDeous
Chloride
Nitnte
Sulfate
RaD~e (6f
A vera!e DetecteQ
COQcentraCJon (bf
8:Jckground
RaQ~e
J.fCLs (el
0.02fdl-o.16
O. 0004T!!]-o. 0 16
0.071.:0.58
0.00020~d]-o. 0004
0.00075 d]-o.oo32.
86. -165 .
0.0029~d~-o. OO5S
0.001 -0.012
0.0006 a :.0.0099
2 -49
0.00075~:n-o.S9
0.0019rd -0.0063
0.63- 4.6
0.00035(d]-o.0018
2.1-3.5
O. 0027Ldl-o.00 1
0.00 15'{cIJ-o.J 1
0.073-1.32
0.0009
0.10
BDt..
BDt..
109-il2
BDL
BDt..
0.0037-0.0083
27.4-27.9
0.25S-o.944
BDL
1. 7-1.9
BDL
BDt..
8.2-12
BDt..
BDt..
0.0054-0.068
0.05-0.2 (PSI
5.00
O.(XH [PI
0.005
1.0
1.3
0.005
0.05 [51
'1.0
0.05
0.09 (PS]
0.002 . [PJ
5.0 [5]
0.030
0.0026
0.21
0.00023
0.0011
120
0.0031
0.003
0.002
3.3
0.31
0.0028
9
0.0049
19
0.0039
0.076
0.0020-2.3
BBL
B t..
BEL
RDl:
BDt..
BDL
BDt..
-
O.DOS
-
2.0
250 (5)
\fs~ (5]
0.0061
2~-S6
0.051 d]-IO.S
2-=60
24.6-31.8
7.6
43-67
33
2.4
41
Concentr:ltlons reporud in mi/li~nllU per liter (mgIL).
BDL = Be/ow IDSUUlZZt:lJt DetI:CuOll Limit.
. -. Indic:lru consaWt:Dt detI:C= ODiy ODce or MCL Dot cUI"I'etJdy uubJisbed.
1- Minimum-MlIXlmum concezJtnaons. . ..
o = A ven~e uuJizes jO~ of method Dett:t:CtJIJ J.jmit for rbu points reIJ9.rred be/ow qWlDuuUoa JlmzC.
c - Muznium CODUmilJ:UJt Jeve/s for driDJ:izlg Willer (USEPA Apni J99O)
- Vlllue IS one-inJf of iluuumeIJt De~OD Limzr. .
e - A ven~e was aicubtai geometnaiJy due CD aD extI'elZle oudier CODceDrnCoD.
~- Secona:zrv MaxitmllD Conummaar tJ:veI - .
.. Propoud MuilllUIIJ Co12UJft'''.''1 iAveJ
1 .. Proposed S~ry M.1CiIlJUIIJ CoaaIDialu iAvei
-------
~
groundwater conditions at the site. Because no distinct plume of
TCL constituents has been identified as emanating from the landfill
area, groundwater indicator parameters were monitored to assist
with the assessment of groundwater transport from the site. The
groundwater indicator parameters measured included: chloride,
ni trate, and sulfate. Refer to Table 3 for the occurrence of these
constituents in the groundwater samples.
Surface Water
Evaluation of the VOC analyses indicates that methylene chloride
and acetone were detected, al though these compounds were also
. detected in the field and trip blank samples. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate was detected at a maximum concentration of 1.8 uq/l:
however, it was also detected upstream of the landfill at a
concentration of 1.2 uq/l. There were no semi-volatile compounds
detected above the MDLs in the three surface water samples and in
the duplicate and field blank samples. No TCL pesticides or PCBs
were detected.
~t
The inorqanic analyses results identified 10 elements w~th.
concentrations above the MDL. Of these, only lead, which was
detected in only one sample at 1.1 uq/l, has a federal standard for
ambient water quality, which is 3.2 uq/l. Refer to Table 4 for the
occurrence of constituents in the surface water samples. Acetone
and methylene chloride are not listed on Table 4 because they are
likely laboratory contaminants.
River Sediment
There were no concentrations of VOCs or semi-volatiles detected
above the MDLs in the river sediment samples. However, estimated
concentrations (below MDLs) of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (maximum
concentration of 0.68 mq/kq) an{i 2,4, 6-trichlorophenol (0.12 mq/kq)
were detected. In "addition,' no TCL pesticides or PCBs were
detected and the inorganic analytical results indicated that the
detected element concentrations were not excessive relative to the
backqround levels. Refer to Table 5 for the occurrence of
constituents in the river sediment samples.
Landfill Waste Material
The VOC constituents detected in the waste material samples include
benzene, ethylbenzene, metyhlene chloride, toluene, acetone, carbon
disulfide, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, and xylene.
Semi-voiatile constituents (flouranthene 4.9 mq/kq, phenanthrene
6.7 mq/kq, pyrene 3.6 mq/kq, napthalene 8.2 mq/kq, and 2-
methylnapthalene 2.3 mq/kq) were detected above the MOL in three of
-13-
-------
Table 4
Cc:urrence Of Constituents In Surface Water from the East Fork of the
White River. Columcus. lnolana
Coasutueat
Ran~e Ia I
A venge j)e~cte4 Fre.queacy of
CoaeezzU'~uon (bl Detecuoa (el
Sl~-Specltje
BJlek~roUl1d (d]
,\feuis
Aluaunum
Barium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
~agZ1cslum
Manganese
Potassium
Soc:iium
Zinc:
OrgatJies
Bis(2-ethyibcxyl)
pbr.h21a~
0.057-<>.058 0.058 2/2 0.047
0.074-<>.08 I 0.078 2/2 0.074
84.2-86.2 85.2 2/2 85.5
0.0052-0.0056 0.0054 2.'2 0.0039
0.16-<>.17 0.17 ",- 0.13
_.J.
28.9-29.5 29.2 2/2 29.5
0.020-<>.035 0.028 2/2 0.02
1.9-2.0 2.0 2./2 1.8
26.0-29.0 27.5 2/2 -27.0
0.0072-<>.0075 0.0074 212 0.012 '
0.00087-<>,0018
2/2
0.0012
0.0016
CODeencntiODS reponed in mzi/igrams per ii~ (mI,L).
{a} . Minimum-Muimum eoneenrntiOllS.
{b} = A venge is based upoll mose cUu poinu reponed u above detectioa Jiz:njc.
re] = xl..v: where x = number of umpies wlm ~nlitylt;JIi resulu above the detection iilDlt UJd
Y = number of umpJes a1J:liyzt:d.
[dJ - From upsaum sample (I.D. OMSSOl).
- ,
-------
7able
-.
Cc:urrence of Constituents In Sediment from tne East Fork of tne White River.
Columcus. Ir.Clana.
..; ~'erage L)etectca F r:quenc.v ol Sitc-Spcc:ln:
C.;nsuruenc f(3D~C fa 1 ConcenU'llUOD (bl :J~teCUOD rei Back2rOIJZJd tdl
.Yf euJs
A!UlD1num 1.5 00-1. 600 1550 2.'2 1600
ADumony 3.5-4.7 4.1 212 BDL
Arsemc 1.8 1.8 212 1.8
Banum 13-16 14.5 212 13
Beryllium 0.19 0.19 112 Q.19
CaalD1um 0.16 0.16 1/2 0.11
C.ilcium 108.000-128.000 18000 212 64700
Chromium 4.2-5.2 4.7 212 5.8
Cobalt 1.4 1.4 2/2 BDL
Copper 3.7-4.4 4.1 212 2.6
Iron 5.150-6.11 0 5630 212 4400
:"':aci 2.3-10 6.2 Yl 2.6
:1 ~agneslum 36.800-37.500 37150 212 18300
Mal1ganese 216-324 270 212 152
Mercury BDL BDL 0/2 0.042
Nickel 4.2-4.4 4.3 212 4.9
Powsium 210-250 230 2!2 290
Silver 0.81 0.11 1/2 BDL
Sodium 76-130 103 2!2 110
Vaoaciium 7.2-8.8 8 212 5.6
ZiDc 14-16 IS 212 18
B6selNeurnJ aDd
ACId COD7DO&.IDCU
B is(! -ethylhexyl)
phthalate tel 0.11-0.68 0.39 212 BDL.
2.4.6- Trichloro-
pncaol (e] 0.12 O~12 112 BCL.
MisceJhDeDUS
Cyanide (toca!) 0.0001 0.0001 112 BCL.
CQlleezztnaODS reponMJ izlllJiiljgr8l1U per JaIognm (lIJIIk6).
BDL = Below Dt:lIJt:fiOll J..iZIIjt.
(6) - Minimum-Maximum cOIJt:eDt18aoa.
[b) - A venge is bas«J upoll tbO$lJ tbu pciDts reporr«l a$ above DeIlIeaOll LimiL
[e) - 1C1y; wbcre % .. aumbel' olump/a with nuJyricaI ruuJts 6bov" me der=QOIl jjmit utJ y-
number of umpJes arWyzed.
[dJ - From upsaam u"",J" (I.D. GMSDOI).
[e} - Estillla~ COIZr:=tntiOl2($).
-------
Table
6. Occurrence of Constituents In Landfill Samples at the Old City Landfill.
Columbus. Indiana. .
Consatuent
Ran~e (a}
A veragc Det«~
COlJcClJtraaOQ (bJ
FrequcDc.vof
DetectiolJ re}
Meals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide (totai)
1.300-8.390
3.20-23.0
1.90-9.40
19.0-\,580
0.06-0.52
0.14-24.0
48.800-164.000
4.70-3.250
1.20-49.0
5.30-220
5.240-61.000
1.80-7.610
9.620-38.000
320-1.510
0.03-0.36
4.4-95
210-1.500
0.67-29.0
81.0-380
5.7-19.0
14.0-3370
0.00064-0.0018
4788
II
5.01
288.0
0.23-
6.94
102675
431
9.53
86.7
31630
1216
22388
605
0.17
39.2
885
12.52
202
13.14
912
0.0009
8/8
4/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
6/8
8/8
8/8
7/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
7/8
8/8
8/8
4/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
VoJ.tiJe Orgmics
Ethylbeazene
Tolueae
Methyl ethyllteaoae
Methyl-iso-butyl bCODe
M-xyleae
Q+P-xyleaes
0.003-0.02
0.001-0.0014
0.01-0.03 .
0.07 .
0.0061-0.05
0.0069-0.06
0.01
0.0012
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.04
2/8
1/8
2/8
1/8
218
2/8
- S«J lJOla lllUt 1810
P:lge 1 of 2
-------
'"
Table
6. Occurrence of Constituents in Landfill Samples at the Old City Landfill
Columous. Indiana (continued).
A vcragc DCl"~d FrequcDcyof
Consucucnt R3nge fa} ConCClJuauon (b} DetecuolJ Ie}
BllSelNeuuaJ
aDd Acid CompoUDds
Acenapbthene 0.1l-2.52 1.22 .4/8
Anthracene 1.79 1. 79 L/8
Benzo( a )anthracene 0.13-1.75 0.69 3/8
Benzo( &)pyrene 0.58 0.58 L/8
Benzo\b) f1uoranthene 0.14-0.46 0.3 2/8
Benzo(g,b,i)peryLene 0.08-0.92 0.5 2/8
Benzo(~)f1uor.inthene 0.45 0.45 L/8
Chtysene 0.lo-L24 0.65 3/8
Dibenzo(a,h)antbtacene 0.19 0.19 L/8
Di-N-butyl phthalate 7.63 7.63 1/8
~t Fluoranwne 0.19-4.89 2.39 5/8
Fluorene 0.13-2.10 0.86 5!8
lndeno( 1.2.J-c,ci)-pyreae 0.35 0.35 1/8
NaJ)hthalene 0.08-8.15 3.12 5/8
Phenanthrene 0.62-6.7 3.03 5/8
Pyreae 0.22-3.56 1.71 5/8
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.07-2.33 1.19 5/8
DibenzofuraD 0.07-1.62 0.65 5/8
Pesticides and PCBs
Beta-SHC 0.29 0.29 1/8
Delta-SHC 0.02 0.02 1/8
4,4'-DDD (e) 0.05-0.06 0.06 2/8
Heptachlor 0.013 0.013 1/8
Alpha-ch1ordaDe 0.09. 0.09 1/8
Gamma-Cblordalle 0.09 0.09 1/8
Aroclor 1154 (0] 0.14 0.14 1/8
Conecncntiou reporrMi ill aWli8raIDS per Jalo8ram (m8lkgJ.
[aJ:a MiDilZlum - Muimum Coac=cntiou.
[bJ = A voraBO is based upolJ tbose data poizJts report«/ as :.bove DellJctiOtt Li1:Ut.
[cJ - x/Y: wb~ x .. Dumber of samples witb &1Ulytical results above tbe ~oa JilDjr ad
Y - nUlDber of samples uulyzed.
(dJ.. Average of tWO samples (GMSB14-o3 and GMSB14-og) collected from doptbs of
4-6 ad J4-16 feet.
., [oj = EstillUlted CQDecncntiOlJS,
Pa8e 2 of2
-------
the eight waste samples. Pesticides and PCBs detected include:
4,4'-000 (estimated concentration 57 ug/kg), alpha- chlordane
(maximum concentration of 93 ug/kg); and Aroclor 1254 (estimated
concentration of 0.84 mg/kg). The inorganic analyses indicated the
presence of a majority of the TCL elements at moderate
concentrations including: cadmium (24 ug/kg); nickel (95 mg/kg);
.mercury (0.36 mg/kg); and lead (estimated at 21,700 mg/kg). Refer
to Table 6 for the occurrence of constituents in the landfill
samples.
General
*
The landfill is currently fully covered with dredged sediment
from the river consisting primarily of silty sand and clay.
The landfill cover material is generally 2 to 3 feet in
thickness across the landfill, however, 4 to 5 feet of cover
material has been documented in at least two locations.
*
* The landfill currently supports a full vegetative cover, ranging
from grasses to trees. No evidence of stressed vegetation was
observed.
*
The landfill has been subjected to annual flooding, primarily
during the springtime, which most likely has caused the waste
material to become submerged in the flood waters.
No evidence of leachate seeps/cracks have been observed.
*
Summarv of site Risks
The RI Report contains a Risk Assessment (RA) which characterizes
the nature and magnitude of potential risks to human health and the
environment caused by the contaminants identified at the OCL. The
RA, utilizing data obtained from the RI, addressed the following
issues: ". .
*
The potential for exposure to constituents found at the site:
*
The inherent toxicologic hazards associated with the
constituents at the site; and
*
The risks posed by potential exposure to constituents at th~
site.
-17-
-------
<,
A.
Selection of Indicator Chemicals
The following . constituents, judged representative of site
contamination and posing the greatest potential health risk, are
considered constituents of concern:
.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Cadmium
Lead
Polycyclic aromatic
Phthalate esters
Methyl ethyl ketone
cyanide
hydrocarbons (PARs)
B.
Exposure Characterization
~t
The purpose of the exposure characterization is to estimate the
type and magnitude of exposure to constituents of concern that are
present at, or migrating from, a site. There are no identified
exposed populations or wells impacted by contaminants released from
the eCL. The results of the RI concluded that the environmental
media of potential concern at the site (i.e., air, surficial soil,
groundwater and surface water) have not been adversely affected by
contaminants from the the eCL. . As a result, the only current
potential exposure pathway is the ingestion of, and direct contact
with, the landfill soil cover and waste material. Potential future
exposure pathways include: (1) direct contact and incidental
ingestion of surficial soils on-site by hikers or construction
workers; (2) swimming or ingestion of fish caught locally in the
East Fork of the White River or the quarry; and (3) ingestion of
water from a hypothetical potable well installed downgradient of
the site.
C.
Toxicity Assessment summary
Cancer potency factors (CPFS)' have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer
risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day) -', are
multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen in
mg/kg.,.day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level.
The term "upper-bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the
risks calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes
underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Cancer
potency factors. are derived from the resul ts of human
epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which
animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been
applied.
-18.-
-------
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating
the potential 'for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals
exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in
units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels
for humans, including sensitive individuals. Estimated intakes of
chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical
ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the
RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal
studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to
account for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans).
These uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfDs will not
underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to
occur.
The u.s. EPA has also derived cancer classifications for
constituents of concern. These classifications are as follows:
A = Human carcinogen.
Bl = Probable human carcinogen: limited human data available.
B2 = Probable human carcinogen: animal data only.
C = possible human carcinogen.
D = Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
E = Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans.
Table 7 provides RfDs, CPFs, and carcinogenicity classifications
for the constituents of concern at the site.
D.
Risk Characterization
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the
intake level with the cancer potency factor. These risks are
probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation
(e.g., lxlO-6 or lE-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of lX10-6
indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual has a one
in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of site-
related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the
specific expoSUre conditions at a site. An excess lifetime cancer
risk of greater than 10-4 is generally considered unacceptable.
Excess lifetime cancer risks-, in the range of 10-4 to 10-6 are
potentially acceptable.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single
conta~inant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard quotient
(HQ) (or the ratio of the ~stimated, intake derived from the
contaminant concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's
reference dose). By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a
medium or across all media to which a given population may
reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The
-19-
-------
Table 7 Reference Doses (RIDs), Cancer Potency Factors (CPF), and USEPA Cancer
Classirication for ConstituentS Detected at the Old City Landrill.
Columbus. Indiana.
RfD [a] CPF [a] . ,USEPA
Oral lWlauon Oral lWlauol1 Cancer
ConstitUent mglkg/day mglkg/day (mg/kg/day)-l (mglkg/day)-l Classification
Metals
Cadmium S.OOE-i>4 ~ S .OOE-i>4 NA 6.IOE'I'OO Bl
Leaci 1.4E-3 [b) 4.3E-4 (b) NA NA B2
PAHs
BCD%o(a)pyrene 4.0E-3[c] 4.0E-03 1.lSEi-l(d] 6.10Ei'O(d] B2
NapbthalCDe 4.03E-3(e) 4.0E-03 NA NA D
Pbthalates
Bis(2~thylhexyl) 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 B2
phthalace
~i Volatile Orgmic
Metbt~~r S.OE~ S.OE~ NA NA D
Miscel1mcoas
CyWde(as HeN) 2.0£-02 2.0£-02 NA NA D
Notes:
a - Source of RID aDei CPF was IRIS (1990) ualess otherwise noceci. Whea data for inhalation were not available,
" the oral data wen: used (number in parathais). .
b.. From USEPA, 1986d.
c: - No RFD"available for bcDzo(a)pyreu. The RFD for napthalene is used as a surrogate value.
d - Fro~'USEPA. 19868.
e - From ~~A,:,1989c. .
NA ~ Not available. ~ .
. .
-------
HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures' within a single
medium or across media. .
The risks associated with each of the potential pathways using the
contaminants of concern for the OCL are as follows:
Drinking Water
The HI and excess lifetime cancer risk for hypothetical future
exposure to groundwater as a source of drinking water were
calculated. The HI for the individual constituents and the
cumulative total HI for all the constituents (0.97) is below the
regulatory concern level of 1.0. The excess lifetime cancer risk
level for hypothetical future use of groundwater as a source of
drinking water is 9.8 X 10-7 or 9. 8E-07.
Soils
1.
Hiker/Trespasser
The HI and excess lifetime cancer risks for current
hiker/trespasser soil exposure were calculated. The cumulative
total HI for all the constituents (0.014) is well within acceptable
guidelines. The excess lifetime cancer risk for current exposure
to soils by a hiker/trespasser is 9.5 x 10 -7
2.
Construction Worker
Future exposure of a construction worker to the surficial soils
while working on the proposed roadway construction project were
calculated. Hypothetical future risks for a construction worker
exposed to soils are within acceptable guidelines. Estimates of
the cumulative total HI and excess lifetime cancer risk are 0.053
and 8.7 x 10 -8, respectively.
3.
Resident
The HI and excess lifetim~'cancer risk for hypothetical future
soil exposure by an adult and child living on the site were
calculated. For adult residential exposure, the HI for the
individual constituents and the cumulative total HI for all the
constituents (0.49) is below the regulatory concern level of 1.0.
The excess lifetime cancer risk for hypothetical future soil
contact by an adult resident is 3.3 'x: '10 .~. For a child exposed
to surficial soils from ages 6 months to 3-1/2 years (when soil
ingestion is highest), the cumulative total HI for all constituents
-21-
-------
is 0.57. The excess lifetime cancer risk level for hypothetical
future child exposure to soils is 3.4 x 10 -6
Swimming
The HI and excess lifetime cancer risk for people swimming in the
East Fork of the White River adjacent to the site were calculated.
The HI and excess lifetime cancer risk are 0.0012 and 1.2 x 10 09,
respectively.
Fish Ingestion
. The HI and excess lifetime cancer risks for hypothetical future
fish ingestion were calculated. The cumulative total HI for all
the constituents is 0.057. The excess lifetime cancer risk level
is 3.6 X 10-7. .
:~
Environmental Risks
The environmental risks posed by the constituents of concern were
judged to be minimal. All constituents detected in surface water
were below background concentrations, FWQC, or laboratory-tested
LCso resul ts . Consti tuents found in sediments did not vary
significantly from typical background levels and therefore are not
considered to currently pose a hazard to aquatic life.
Concentrations of constituents in surficial soils are within local
background concentrations and are not deemed to contribute excess
risk to the terrestrial ecosystem. .
In each scenario , conservative assumptions were made, based on
current observed conditions at the site. The analytical methods
used in making the risk calculations are described within the Risk
Assessment portion of the Remedial Investigation Report.
E.
uncertainties
The Risk Assessment calculations were based on current observed
conditions at the site. Preliminary data, presented in the
Technical Supplement to the FS, indicate that p~acement of the
proposed roadway will not adversely impact the site. This
determination, however, is not conclusive as the future impact of
roadway construction is impossible to predict. The groundwater
beneath the site is especially vulnerable to increased leachate
generation from the compaction of the waste material. Therefore,
-22-
-------
protective measures are required to monitor site conditions during
and after construction of the roadway. In addition, the integrity
of the current landfill cover must be maintained against disruption
by heavy equipment and road construction activity. Finally I
because construction of the roadway will increase site access,
fencing is necessary to deter unauthorized entry and reduce impact
on the landfill cover.
POTENTIAL ROADWAY PLACEMENT
In the event the Indiana Department of Transportation and the City
of Columbus proceed with construction of the proposed roadway
across the OCL, the U. S. EPA shall require implementation of
Alternative 2A - "Institutional Controls with Roadway Placement"
from the FS. The measures outlined as components of Alternative 2A
are necessary to ensure the continued protection to human health
and the environment if the road is built on the site. The
components of Alternative 2A are as follows:
*
Installation of a fence with appropriate warning signs
the site. The fence shall be a minimum of six feet in
with three strands of barbed wire across the top. The
fence shall be chain link, with a minimum of two swing
Locks shall be provided to secure the site.
Implementation of a landfill cover maintenance program as
outlined in the FS, including provisions for periodic leachate
inspections.
around.
height,
type of
gates.
*
* Development of a Groundwater Recovery system Implementation Plan
(includinq analytical modeling and preliminary design).
*
Installation of additional qroundwater monitorinq wells to
auqment the existinq well network. A minimum of two (2)
additional wells are needed downqradient of the landfill in
order to monitor flow towards the quarry.
* Implementation of a qroundwater monitorinq proqram, allowinq for
samplinq at appropriate intervals, with more frequent samplinq
.events during and after roadway construction.
-23-
-------
<,
*
Institutional controls will be sought to reduce exposure to site
contaminants by legally restricting access to the site. Deed
restrictions on land and water use on the landfill would be
sought from the landfill owner. The U.S. EPA would request the
local municipality to enact a zoning ordinance that would forbid
future use of the site and restrict drilling of groundwater
wells.
In the event that institutional controls are not voluntarily
obtained, the remedial action may be re-evaluated to determine
if additional actions should be implemented to ensure that the
remedy is permanent and effective on a long term basis.
VI.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
~~~
The Selected Remedy has not changed from the recommended remedy
that was presented within the Proposed plan and which was available
for public review and comment from January 23, 1992 through
February 21, 1992.
VII.
SUMMARY
The OCL, in its present condition, falls within acceptable health-
based and environmental quality-based guidelines. Thus, the
selected remedy for this site is "no action" (modified). However,
the Feasibility Study and Technical Supplement indicate that road
construction activities could adversely impact site conditions.
Specifically, the potential exists for enhanced leachate generation
from the landfill, due to compression of waste material and soils
underlying the proposed roadway. Increased leachate generation
could further degrade the ground~ater at the site and potentially
impact the East Fork-of the White River. Therefore, in order to
ensure protection. of human health and the environment in the
future, the U.S. EPA shall require implementation of Alternative
2A, described above, before construction of a roadway is permitted
across the site.
-24-
-------
0: WATER
CC: BECK
RA/RF LTR OW_Y
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
We make Indiana a cleaner, healthier place to live. .
Evan Bayh
Governor
Kathy Prosser
Comm1S!~er.. ~
105 SuuLh Meridian Street.
P.O. 80116015
Indianapolis. Indiana 46206.6015
Telephone J 17 -232-8603
Environment.al Helpline 1.800.451.6027
March 20, 1992
. .
...-.....,. ..................
.-
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
u.s. Environmental Protection
Region V
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
Agency
Re:
Letter of Concurrence for the
Draft Record of Decision for
Old City Landfill .
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
has reviewed the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed
Plan. IDEM is in full concurrence with the selected remedial
alternative of No Action (with modifications) as long as current
site conditions on the Old City Landfill do not change.
The major components of the remedy include:
Continued ground water monitoring for a minimum of five
years.
Installation of a minimum of two additional wells to
augment the current-monitoring network.
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Reports indicate that
there are no contaminants on-site above EPA's health based
levels. The Record of Decision is based on sampling results and
the risk assessment. The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study indicates that the selected alternative adequately
addresses the public health, welfare and environment.
The installation of wells and the ground water monitoring
procedures must comply with State and Federal rules and
regulations.
An Equal Opporwnity ~mployer
Prim.d. on Recycled. Paper
-------
"
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus
Page TwO
IDEM also concurs with EPA's contingent alternative of
Institutional Controls. It will be implemented if the City of
Columbus and INDOT decide to build the proposed State Road 46
over the landfill.
All components of the contingent remedy will be required to
meet the respective Applicable or Relevant & Appropriate
Requir~ents.
The major components of the contingent remedy are:
Install a fence with warning signs.
Landfill cover maintenance program.
Development of a ground water recovery system
implementation plan.
Installation of a minimum of two additional ground
water monitoring wells.
:1
Ground water monitoring program.
Deed restrictions.
Please be assured that IDEM is committed to accomplishing
cleanup of all Indiana sites on the National Priorities List and
intend to fulfill all obligations required by law to achieve that
goal.
Sincerely,
_a,~~~
Kathy Prosser
,Commissioner
cc:
Gary Schafer, u. s . EPA
------- |